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

[ThePolarBear]

Why do I need to sense them once they're in there? I know they're in there because I sensed them getting in.

No. You REMEMBER them going in there. You have no idea what they look like now since you do not see them. If you are not able to hear them you also have no idea what sounds they are emitting. If the box does not shake, you have no idea if they are moving. Your perception is now limited, expecially in the sight department. The department that matters for hiding.

My senses have informed my knowledge.

Not really how it works, but for argument's sake let's say "yes".

And its my knowledge that matters.

No. It's your ability to continuosly SENSE them that matters. Knowledge is something that you have to update. It's not static. Your senses are not able to keep the informations coming, your knowledge remains at the point that was when you "lost contact". You have outdated knowledge. You have a MEMORY.
This is why losing contact with something you can't see is a big deal... Like astronauts on a space station. See below for examples.

Remember, whether you're hidden relative to me depends on my state of mind.

HAHAHAHAHAHA No. No matter how much you think i'm a cake, i'm not going to become a cake just because you are thinking about it. Whether i'm hidden from you or not depends on your ability to perceive me, your PERCEPTION. It's not like people were worried about what was happening on the Apollo 13 right? The last time there was a contact everything was fine! So, since what i last perceived was "all ok" that means that it's all ok still now! Oh, wait. That is not how it went, RIGHT?

If I know where you are (and am objectively correct in that knowledge) then you are not hidden from me.

First off: Even if you were objetively correct about my position hiding does not require an unknown location. It requires lack of perception.
Second off: You are not objectively correct since your knowledge is just from your point of view. The fact itself that that knowledge is yours is a problem. The fact that that knowledge was built with just your perception is a problem. Unless your perception is absolute - and i'm willing to bet that it's not - than your knowledge will always be lacking and thus not objectively correct in all the situations.

Since you also will lack informations of what happens AFTER the character leaves your perspective your "objective" knowledge now it's not objective anymore.
Your so much valued knowlegde becomes obsolete so fast that's not even funny. It's an option amongst many others, way less probable ones. And that option has been formed only on the knowledge that you had of the subject - which might or might not be factual. As long as you cannot refresh that knowledge you have nothing but an OPINION.
That's always assuming you actually had OBJECTIVE knowledge in the first place.

Heck; I could rely on someone elses senses (they percieve you, and then they tell me where you are) to render you no longer hidden.

No, you can rely on someone else's information to judge that an information is credible. In combat there's an abstraction in place "your companions will tell you the truth". If this is no longer true, your point comes crashing.

If my knowledge of where you are doesnt match the objective reality (i.e. if you used a secret door to escape once inside the box) then you can be (and likely are) hidden from me.

Then your objective knowledge is not objective. And thus the whole exposition becomes meaningless. The premise (your knowledge is objective) is false. Your knowledge is subjective. It's YOURS. And that is due to your PERCEPTION of the world. Your knowledge is challenged by facts.

Think about investigations: You can collect all the testimonies that you want, you'll still require proof to support the case.

Dont take this the wrong way, but go back and read the thread. Its been covered several times, and im sick of repeating myself mate.

So we are. You are NOT MAKING SENSE HERE.

In short, if you have some kind of magical or secret way of moving from your box to another location (i.e you have a way of going into hiding while not being observed) then you can hide from me.

If you dont have such a method, you cant.

In short: It does not matter what i have at my disposal. The observer has no objective knowledge of me or anything. His perceptions via sight comes to an halt the moment he cannot see me anymore. That is enough for hiding, since hiding does not require my position to be unknown - just the ability to mask other sources of information when sight is no longer a concern. Then i can make my position unknown, if i have such a possibility.

If you dont have such a method, you cant (make your position unknown), but you can still hide, since your requirement of "i know about you" is false, both from a factual point of view (you CANT see me) and logical (your knowledge is limited by your perception and that is not absolute)

The observer watched them crawl in the box and close the lid. As long as that remains the objective reality (the person hiding from you is in the box) the person in the box cannot be hidden from you.

As long as that person is unaware of the fact that his constructed reality (the one being percieved) is objective (not that that reality actually CAN exists, mind you) i can hide anytime, as long as sight is not a concern. Such as in a box. And even if he knew my exact position HIDING DOES NOT REQUIRE YOUR POSITION TO BE UNKNOWN, SO THE POINT IS MOOT.

And the example is MOOT TOO, SINCE YOU DO NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE PERCEPTION to begin with to create your OBJECTIVE PERCEIVED REALITY to begin with.

Should he slink off elsewhere via a concealed secret door while inside the box (go into hiding while not under observation), then he can hide normally.

To be able to "slink off" in a concealed manner he needs to be unheard first - he need to be able to "hide" first! Else he WILL BE HEARD.
You DO NOT MAKE SENSE. Much less are persuasive.

Just because you might not find them persuasive because of your interpretation, doesnt mean others wont.

You should really try to make sense first and get facts straight before trying to make a point, before someone can even consider your option to be worth considering. You might be given the benefit of doubt but you must try to make the best use of that benefit since it's your vision that you want to be the one accepted. It's not others bowing to your interpretation.

You have to provide proof, examples, satisfactory citations and logics to make your point across. If it requires interpretation you have to try to provide points that make their interpretation less appealing in some way - be it simplicity, realism or whatever - that have backing of proof in the matter you are trying to change the opinions of your peers in.

You have to make examples that show that your interpretation is the only possible one - or at least in which their interpretation falls short if applied.

You are not doing this. You were just repeating "but it's not so because if i apply my interpretation that it all works out" or "because in reality it does not work this way because i say so"

Now you are trying and not stopping even when your interpretation needs to bend reality to make sense.

OK, then come over to my house and we can empirically test the theory out. To see if you can hide from me under observation, lets use the following experiment:

I'll put 5 boxes in a room and you can hide in one of them. I'll then try to find you by repeatedly poking a broom stick through a box of my choosing.

The first 100 times I'll watch you crawl into the box you choose, and give you a minute (under observation) to be as quiet as you want inside that box. Lets see how often you get hit with the stick.

It'll be every single time by the way.

We can then repeat the experiment, only this time without me watching you get one of the five boxes. I'll be outside the room, blindfolded.

In this case, barring me [using the Search action to listen for you inside one of those boxes, and beating your stealth check result to stay quiet] it'll average out to you getting poked only 20 percent of the time.

And yet you still miss the fact that you have to FIND him, even if you have a 100% accuracy. Strange isn't it? That is because until you have proof that your answer is correct, your answer is just a possibility. THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE THE EXPERIMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And even then this experiment proves that you know where he is. It does NOTHING to prove that you know what he is doing in there. AND THAT IS THE POINT OF HIDING. Having an unknown position relies on the fact that what you are doing is unknown, not the other way around.

You cant become hidden in cover.

Yes, yes i can. And so can you, and your interpretation allows to. What you want to say is - because your whole point is that - you can't hide if you are being observed. The existance of cover allows to, in fact, meet one of the two requirements YOU TOO set to be able to hide: Not being seen clearly. Cover inherently has the possibility to provide that capability. Your second requirement is that the one hiding cannot be seen while going into hiding. Cover still manages to cover this aspect , even for your interpretation, given enough cover. So for YOU you can hide using cover. Be at least coherent please.

0
The decision is taken away from you thanks to me observing you going into cover. If I wasnt watching you go into cover, then you could hide. If I was watching you, then relative to me, you cant become hidden.

Point is: You are not observing me. But apparently a wall is not enough for you to not see me, Clark. Or somehow knowledge of what i'm doing behind such wall is directly imprinted on your brain.

I mean; you can still try (be quiet, still your breathing, stand really still) to hide, but you automatically fail to become hidden from me due to me observation of you ducking behind the pillar/ getting in the box.

I mean, i can still HIDE, since it simply means unseen and unheard. And i will automatically be spotted the moment you come to check if i'm really in the place you think i am.

Heck; you can try to jump to the moon as well if you want but you also fail (DC = infinity).

No, DC is not infinity. It's just so high that i have no real mean to beat it, thus i have no right to roll. Or that the DM just stated that it's impossible, and therefore no matter how much i try i will not be able to do so. It simply does not make sense for the DC to be infinity. Either is set, and something is possible, or something it's impossible and meaningless to have a dc assigned.
I could go on to show that your example here is another reason why hiding is allowed behind a pillar, but that's something i think it's best left for another time.

Something edited out

And that's a good thing that you did.

@kalil More than ambiguous, open ended and sparse and a bit confusing. If you try to read them AS IS, and take them at face value, applying just what is it said and adjudicating all the situation following the guidelines it's extraordinary the amount of verosimilitude you can reach. A clean up would help a lot even just in form of having a single place where all the rules for hiding and being unseen are stored instead of being scattered in at least 4 chapters.
BTW you are 100% correct: Adjudication here is key. Being challenged on what you judge is also something that all dms are prepared to.

 

[seebs]

Consider: I go into a box, then I use an item which teleports me as a bonus action. You know I'm in the box because you saw me get into the box.

The key about not being observed is, you have no way of knowing whether someone's still there or not.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The existance of cover in in fact one of the two requirements YOU TOO set to be able to hide: Not being seen clearly. Cover provides just that.

To be a little picky, the requirement for hiding is concealment, not cover. Total cover usually also provides concealment, but not always.

 

[seebs]

Thought experiment:

You don't have blind-fighting or anything similar. You're standing twenty feet from someone. You cast Zone of Truth, and you can tell that someone did not make the save, and they tell you exactly where that person is. You shoot at them with a crossbow. Do you take penalties for being unable to see them?

If so, "knowing where someone is" and "seeing them" are pretty clearly distinct.

 

[ThePolarBear]

To be a little picky, the requirement for hiding is concealment, not cover. Total cover usually also provides concealment, but not always.

Rereading it again the phrase has typos and does not make sense as is. Gotta put into a language that is more akin to english

Yeah, the requirement for hiding can be called "concealment". What i was going to do was use "PHB wording as written" more than anything else - You can't be seen clearly. Ended up mixing two thoughts together while writing.

 

[Eltab]

Do the enemies know the PCs' capabilities? Has anybody ever escaped to report "They have a sneaky Rogue" with them?
If so, plan your own ambush.
- _Necklace of Fireballs_ so you can drop a big flashy AoE into dark corners.
- Your own sneaker who does not show up until after the Rogue does (let the PCs try to figure out why all the enemies are yelling "Rumplestiltskin" and ducking for cover.)
- Lit torches all around the outside rim of the cavern, to prevent shadowy places. No place to duck into and Hide.
- Somebody who uses bat sonar (or a spell / potion to get the same effect) among the hit squad.
- Tremorsense to detect him by his footfalls, or always-on Telepathy to detect him by his thoughts, or something like 3e Scent hunting animals ("bloodhounds").
- Or maybe an obvious location that just cries out "Hide Here" and has a trap placed on it - pitfall to keep him in one place and out of the action.
- A magic item that gives the Rogue an aura so you can see him and follow him around. Throw a bucket of paint on him and track him by the drips and footprints.
- Magical gear that acts like IRL heat-vision goggles.
- Train your crew to cooperate and protect each other.
- Toss a poison gas cloud creator into the corner where he is Hiding from you (assuming you can see where he went). Make him want to run back out where you CAN see him.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so if I duplicate anything above, just change that line to "+1 what he already said".

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Rereading it again the phrase has typos and does not make sense as is. Gotta put into a language that is more akin to english

Ugh, you're not wrong. I also missed out an example.

Take 2:

Hiding requires obscurement, not cover. Usually, you require heavy obscurement but there are some features that allow hiding attempts when lightly obscured. For example, wood elf.

Total cover usually obscures you, but not always. For example, if you are in the middle of a gelatinous cube then you have total cover but you aren't obscured.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Ugh, you're not wrong. I also missed out an example.

Take 2:

Hiding requires obscurement, not cover. Usually, you require heavy obscurement but there are some features that allow hiding attempts when lightly obscured. For example, wood elf.

Total cover usually obscures you, but not always. For example, if you are in the middle of a gelatinous cube then you have total cover but you aren't obscured.

Lol no what i meant was MY phrase was not really well put.

Hiding requirements are just 2: Dm's adjudication and not being clearly seen. Obscurement (Heavy only one might imply due t othe skulker feat, but here's not really the place) is one way to not be clearly seen, the other is a physical impedment to sight, be it a condition on the onlooker (eg being blind) or a solid wall between observer and observed.

What you say it's true. You'll notice that i emphasize the fact that cover has the possibility to provide the requirements for hiding. That's why i had to recheck what i wrote since, as i wrote (but again, in a language thatìs not really english if you misunderstood), i messed up.

The point i was making is that "cover does not" is wrong, because cover can. It's not automatic, but the possibility is there. A wall of force is another example of transparent cover.

 

[Hriston]

Considering that the whole purpose of hiding is that someone doesn't know your location, I think this is exactly right, and why you can't be hidden when observed climbing into the box. You may be unseen (which has its own benefits), but you aren't hidden.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Thank you! Hiding is keeping your location secret. Once a secret has been given away, it can't be made secret again.

Regardless of how certain you are that a hidden creature is in a specific space, until you actually perceive it (beat his Stealth check, or it attacking or making nosie etc) it won't be reavealed to you by your sense, it will only be deductions of your own and not actual perception of him.

If you already know its location, then by attacking it cannot give away it's location. If it doesn't give away its location when it attacks, then it wasn't hidden.

 

[Uller]

Consider: I go into a box, then I use an item which teleports me as a bonus action. You know I'm in the box because you saw me get into the box.

The key about not being observed is, you have no way of knowing whether someone's still there or not.

or consider...there is a possible way to sneak out of the box (trap door or obscured path). You move into the box, then DON'T hide but take the way out. The observer knows you left the box because you didn't spend an action hiding (they hear the secret door or you fail to remain obscured). You take the hide action and successfully beat their passive perception, then they THINK they know you are still in the box.

These threads are so useless. When does this happen at the table? Is there ever a perfectly lit room with exactly one hiding place and a perfectly perceptive, undistracted observer? In combat, all observers are potentially distracted. It's the DM's call in any particular situation and different DMs will make different calls. I tend to be more lenient on the hider because combat is chaotic and frightening and only a trained observer (i.e. a high perception bonus) will be good at keeping track of that pesky halfling that disappeared behind a box while the big armored man with the two-handed sword attempts to cut the observer's legs off and the she-elf (wait..is it a she-elf?...it's always so hard to tell) makes pretty lights dance around the observer's head.

Out of combat, it takes a disciplined mind to keep look out in the alley while the rest of the gang loots the warehouse. There was a cat playing with some string and then it noticed a mouse. Oh...and then the memory of that pretty girl I saw early in the day popped in my head. Why is my stomach growling? I just ate! Oh! I have to take a...

Characters with high stealth are good at taking advantage of the many little things that might distract an observer both in and out of combat. DMs, you can't possibly track every possible distraction, nor can you expect your player to know about them our how to take advantage of them any more than you can expect your wizard player to know how to cast a magic missile spell or your fighter player to know how to swing a sword.

The perception bonus covers how well a character filters out distractions and remains observant. All you as a DM have to do is decide is what is the "normal" level of distraction/alertness and whether this situation makes the observer more or less distracted or alert. More distracted, he gets disadvantage. More alert, he gets advantage. Various factors can affect both.

The stealth bonus is not just how quiet and nimble a character is but also how well he or she takes advantage of those distractions. The DM has to decide does the situation present more or less of an opportunity to be stealthy. More shadows, fog, smoke, noise, foliage, blocking terrain or objects etc make it easier. Better light and more open space and less noise make it harder. Apply advantage, disadvantage as applicable. In some cases it is fine to say it is simply not possible but in the main, IMO, the DM should allow characters to try.

So...at my table: Halfling and ogre are in a well lit room with a box. The halfing hurls a sling stone at the ogre then moves into the box and "hides". Me as a DM says...okay. The ogre is alert to the halfling and there really is nothing distracting him. So advantage to him. The room is well lit and not really conducive to hiding. So disadvantage to the halfling. Lets say for argument's sake the halfling's stealth check beats the ogre's passive perception (+5 because of adv). Okay. The ogre is not real bright but he's at least as smart as a young human child. He has object permanence. He has no reason to think the halfling is anywhere but in the box...so he moves up to the box and looks in...see's the halflng and smashes him. If, for some reason the ogre can't get to the box or get LOS on the halfling, so what? The halfling is hidden. But the ogre got distracted somehow. He had an itch, he had to pick his nose. He saw a mouse. He heard a noise...whatever. The halfling pops up and gets adv on his next attack. Is this really the end of all things good and holy?

If the ogre can reach the halfling's hiding place he SHOULD have used dash to move to a place the ogre could not attack OR used dodge to give it disadvantage on the attack because he'll get crushed. If I (as the DM) can, I'd have the ogre grab the halfling so "can't do dat li'l trick agin!"

In this case, the player would learn that I don't say "No...you can't do something obviously dumb." Instead I let the player do it and suffer the consequences for it. Add in a party of characters, more furniture, torches, shadows, flashes from spells, noise, etc and adv/disadv get applied differently. But the ogre is still not dumb enough to not make a logical guess as to where the halfling went. If he is hitting the ogre with SA damage for 1d4+5+3d6 (5th level rogue) while the fighter is only hitting for 1d12+5 and is well armored, the ogre is likely to move to where he can see the halfling and smash him if it can. The cool thing about a rogue character is the player has three (at least!) choices for his bonus action and different situations make those choices vary in usefulness. Dash can be used to get out of reach. Dodge can be used to give multiple attackers disadvantage. Hide can be used to avoid being directly targeted and gain adv on attacks but it's not that hard to uncover a hidden character that is close by simply by moving to where you have line of sight.