D&D 5E DM Help! My rogue always spams Hide as a bonus action, and i cant target him!

[Flamestrike]

Inside the box you cannot see me. If I'm not moving, you cannot see the box move with my motions. If I breathe quietly enough and avoid making any other noise, you cannot hear me. I highly doubt you can smell or taste me. If you cannot notice me with any of your senses, then by definition you cannot sense me.

I did sense you as you were hiding. It was my observation of you (my sensing of you) going into the box that prohibits you from attempting [the hide action] once you're in there.

[I watched you go into the box] = [I watched you go into hiding]. And you cant hide from a creature that is watching you. Nothing you can do inside that box removes from me the memory of watching (sensing) you hiding from me.

Remember, in the real world there is no artifical parsing between [enter box] then [hide]. The entering of the box is part of the act of hiding.

Empirical testing will bear this out every single time.

The reason 'sensing' is important here by the way, is that it informs your knowledge of where the creature is. In this case, 'In the box'.

Example:

Take (for example) me hiding a ring in my kitchen. I place the ring in the second drawer, and close the drawer quietly. A friend (A) closely watches me do so. Another friend (B) is outside the room, with earphones and a blindfold on, behind a closed door.

At no stage is the ring hidden from either myself or A. In game terms we dont need to take the Search action to find it. Our knowledge of where it is (obtained via our senses, watching the ring get placed in its hiding spot) is objectively correct, and as good as us looking at the ring, smelling the ring, or touching the ring inside that drawer.

Now when I invite B into the room, the ring is hidden from him. It got placed in its hiding spot, while he was not observing it being hidden.

I now ask B to find the hidden ring.

In order to find the ring (in game terms) B must either a) take the search action (representing him rifling through the kitchen looking for the ring) vs a DM assigned DC, or b) make a lucky guess.

In addition to these two methods of locating the ring, either A or myself (getting tired of watching B hunt for the hidden ring) could also tell him where the ring is. Such information almost certainly instantly makes the ring no longer hidden relative to B; he no longer needs to take the Search action to find the ring, and no longer needs to make a lucky guess to find it.

B is now on a level footing (relative to the location of the ring) with both myself and A.

Even though the ring is no longer hidden relative to B, bear in mind B still hasnt seen or otherwise sensed the ring. Its just that A and I have now shared our objective knowledge of the rings location and presence (which we obtained via our senses) with B.

Get it yet?

 

[Xetheral]

I did sense you as you were hiding. It was my observation of you (my sensing of you) going into the box that prohibits you from attempting [the hide action] once you're in there.

[I watched you go into the box] = [I watched you go into hiding]. And you cant hide from a creature that is watching you. Nothing you can do inside that box removes from me the memory of watching (sensing) you hiding from me.

The fact that you could sense me before I entered the box does not in any way change the fact that so long as I am sufficiently quiet and still inside the closed box, you can't sense me now. Under what I interpret to be the plain-English definition of "hidden", I am now hidden from you because you can't sense me now.

Remember, in the real world there is no artifical parsing between [enter box] then [hide]. The entering of the box is part of the act of hiding.

Entering the box is not necessarily part of the act of hiding. If I am entering the box to try to hide from you, sure, then it's part of the act of hiding. But if I enter the box with no intention to hide, that does not prevent me from deciding to try to conceal myself once I'm already inside. Either way, it doesn't matter... once the box is closed you can't see me, so at that point going to the effort remain sufficiently still and silent is enough to stop you from sensing me. Regardless of my original intention, I am now hidden from you.

Empirical testing will bear this out every single time.

Since we're defining "hidden" differently, Empirical testing is impossible. By definition there can exist no empirical method to decide which of two competing definitions is superior.

Take (for example) me hiding a ring in my kitchen. I place the ring in the second drawer, and close the drawer quietly. A friend (A) closely watches me do so. Another friend (B) is outside the room, with earphones and a blindfold on, behind a closed door.

At no stage is the ring hidden from either myself or A. In game terms we dont need to take the Search action to find it. Our knowledge of where it is (obtained via our senses, watching the ring get placed in its hiding spot) is objectively correct, and as good as us looking at the ring, smelling the ring, or touching the ring inside that drawer.

Now when I invite B into the room, the ring is hidden from him. It got placed in its hiding spot, while he was not observing it being hidden.

I now ask B to find the hidden ring.

In order to find the ring (in game terms) B must either a) take the search action (representing him rifling through the kitchen looking for the ring) vs a DM assigned DC, or b) make a lucky guess.

In addition to these two methods of locating the ring, either A or myself (getting tired of watching B hunt for the hidden ring) could also tell him where the ring is. Such information almost certainly instantly makes the ring no longer hidden relative to B; he no longer needs to take the Search action to find the ring, and no longer needs to make a lucky guess to find it.

B is now on a level footing (relative to the location of the ring) with both myself and A.

Even though the ring is no longer hidden relative to B, bear in mind B still hasnt seen or otherwise sensed the ring. Its just that A and I have now shared our objective knowledge of the rings location and presence (which we obtained via our senses) with B.

Get it yet?

Under what I consider to be the plain-English definition of hiding, once you have concealed the ring such that it cannot be sensed by you, A, or B, it is hidden from all of you. You and A happen to have knowledge of where the ring is, but until you use that knowledge to regain the ability to sense it, the ring is still hidden from you.

----------

I'm not trying to convince you to adopt my plain-English definition of hidden. It's fine that we disagree. But do you understand that so long as other posters such as myself are using a different plain-English definition than you are, none of your arguments can possibly be persuasive?

 

[Flamestrike]

The fact that you could sense me before I entered the box does not in any way change the fact that so long as I am sufficiently quiet and still inside the closed box, you can't sense me now.

Which is irrelevant. I saw (sensed) you hide in the box.

So you're not hidden from me.

If I watch you open a box, crawl in and close the lid [and then be very quiet] I am watching you hide.

You getting in the box is part of you hiding. No box = no hiding. Observer = no hiding.

Under what I interpret to be the plain-English definition of "hidden", I am now hidden from you because you can't sense me now.

I dont have to sense you now, for you to be not hidden from me. You being hidden (or not hidden) relative to me is a question of the truth of my state of mind as informed by my senses.

Heck, I dont have to observe you going into hiding at all. Someone else can watch you go into hiding and convey that information to me. As long as that information is correct, you are not hidden relative to me.

Entering the box is not necessarily part of the act of hiding.

Oh but it is. Try and hide from me in an empty room with no box. You need the box to hide in. You also need me to not be watching you go into it.

Under what I consider to be the plain-English definition of hiding, once you have concealed the ring such that it cannot be sensed by you, A, or B, it is hidden from all of you.

Nah man. Remember hidden and 'unseen' are different things. The game makes a clear distinction between being unseen (invisible, total cover, heavy obscurement) and being hidden. Simply not sensing something doesnt make it hidden under any rule in the game I can see, clearly implying that the game treats 'hidden' as something more than 'not seen' or 'not sensed'.

It infers a state of mind in the observer. If you know where something or someone is, they are not hidden from you. This is why you cant hide while being observed. The observation informs the observer of the knowledge of where you are.

If that isnt the case, and the ring is hidden from me (according to you, the DM) despite me putting it into the drawer and knowing where it is, whats my Perception DC to find it via the Search action?

By the way, note haw if my buddies invisible Imp familiar moved the ring from its hiding spot without my knowlege (usually gained via observation, although he could tell me) then the ring will be hidden from me.

You and A happen to have knowledge of where the ring is, but until you use that knowledge to regain the ability to sense it, the ring is still hidden from you.

Thats only true if the ring is subject to quantum entanglement dependent on my state of mind, or exists only as a form of Schroedingers cat. Unlike electrons, the ring does not exist in a state of uncertainty, its location dependent on my ability to observe it or not.

It either is where I left it, and where my friend observed me put it, or it isnt.

If it is where I left it, I know where it is, and it is not hidden from me. If some external force has moved it without me knowing (sensing) the move, then it is hidden from me. My subjective knowledge (obtained through me observing the rings location) differs from the objective reality of the spatial location of the ring.

Enter the DM. He is able to determine the objective truth of the universe. So he (and he alone) can determine when you can hide from someone, and when you are hidden from a person (when their subjective knowledge of your location and presence does not accord with the objective reality of the same).

I'm not trying to convince you to adopt my plain-English definition of hidden.

Thats good because in the context of the word as used in the PHB, I disagree with it.

It's fine that we disagree. But do you understand that so long as other posters such as myself are using a different plain-English definition than you are, none of your arguments can possibly be persuasive?

Of course I understand this.

Considering that my entire argument stems from the basis that ['there are different interpretations of 'hide' and 'hidden'] I would be a hypocrite at best to now argue that multiple interpretations do not exist.

As to whether I prefer your interpretation over mine, see above. I clearly dont. I let my own empiricism, the words as the appear in context and common sense inform me as to what the correct interpretation is.

Of course, I tend towards a level of postmodernism so a refutation of the existence of a 'universal truth and a text that exists in and of itself' is kind of expected.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I will probably regret jumping into this, but it is kind of getting absurd.

In what meaningful way can you really, honestly, be considered to be hiding if I can just walk up to the box I just watched you climb into, shove my sword into it, and watch your blood pool?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Plaguescarred]

The 'rule' is also written in a manner that supports a normal, common sense, plain english simulationist interpretation.

Even in plain english you'd say of someone you saw going into a box that he went hide in there loll

Let's just say your interpretation of the Stealth rules doesn't match most people.

 

[fjw70]

I will probably regret jumping into this, but it is kind of getting absurd.

In what meaningful way can you really, honestly, be considered to be hiding if I can just walk up to the box I just watched you climb into, shove my sword into it, and watch your blood pool?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Granted this use of hide is very situational but let's look at an example. Suppose you are following someone to see where they go and you don't want to confront him. You see him go into a box and he successfully hides. If he hadn't hidden himself then you could tell he was still in the box (you hear him or see the box move) but since he is hidden you cannot tell if he is still in the box. Did he teleport away or go through a trap door in the floor? You cannot tell without taking some action and risking a confrontation. This works for hiding behind a tree or some similar cover.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I will probably regret jumping into this, but it is kind of getting absurd.

In what meaningful way can you really, honestly, be considered to be hiding if I can just walk up to the box I just watched you climb into, shove my sword into it, and watch your blood pool?

Being hidden doesn't make you immune to attack, someone can still correctly guess the space you occupy and thus attack you even though you're invisible and silent. Successfully doing so doesn't make you not hidden anymore, but it circumvent one of the main defensive advantage of being hidden that's for sure.

 

[Xetheral]

It's fine that we disagree. But do you understand that so long as other posters such as myself are using a different plain-English definition than you are, none of your arguments can possibly be persuasive?

Of course I understand this.

Good. So then why do you keep trying to explain your arguments to me when you acknowledge that they cannot be persuasive?

I let my own empiricism, the words as the appear in context and common sense inform me as to what the correct interpretation is.

Other than the empiricism part--which does not and cannot apply--I'm doing the same, and I'm reaching a very different conclusion than you are. Our disagreement on the matter is sufficient to demonstrate that "context and common sense" are insufficient to determine a "correct interpretation".

 

[Springheel]

And how are you doing that (prevented me from sensing you) inside your box I saw you climb into? I sense you are in the box just fine, as I saw you go in it and close the lid.

And why do you have to wait until the lid is closed to do it?

You can't sense someone in a box unless they're making noise, whether you saw them go in there or not (unless the lid's still open, in which case you can still see them).

And from the point of view of the observer outside the box, how do I KNOW you're still in there, if you aren't making any noise? How do I know there isn't a trapdoor, or you didn't use magic to teleport away, or turn into a spider and crawl out through the back? I might assume those things didn't happen, but until I look in the box (using my action to search) I don't really know for sure.

Suppose the seeker saw the hider get into the box, but he thinks the box is a magical teleportation device? The seeker now believes he has no idea where the hider is. Can the hider take the hide action now, even if it's a normal box?

No, the person in the box is not hidden from the observer. The observer knows where they are (and is objectively correct in that knowledge) regardless of what the person does after climining into the box. The presence and location of the person in the box is known and (objectively) correct.

Again, how does the observer KNOW they are there?

 

[Corwin]

What if I were actually hiding behind the tree and I cast an illusion of me crawling into that cardboard box you are intently looking at? Do you still "know (objectively)" I'm in the box?