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

[Plaguescarred]

Are you saying I'm not allowed to attack the guy I just saw go into the box, just because he's really, really quiet and still?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

No i didn't say that i even said the opposite. Unless that box is providing total cover, you should be able to attack someone hiding inside though it might provide some level of cover in addition to the heavy obscurement.

 

[fjw70]

Isn't the box scenario a rather pointless argument?

What does the "hide" action get you when you're in the box?

You're already unseen and your location is known since your opponent saw you entering the box. You can become unheard and I suppose otherwise undetectable, but how does that affect how the situation plays out?

1. The creature in the box is not hidden: the opponent walks over, opens the box and attacks the creature.

2. The creature in the box is hidden (unseen and unheard): the opponent walks over, opens the box and attacks the creature because it's easy to guess their location.

If the area that is being hidden in offers only a single location to do so, then hiding your position while being observed is futile.

So what about secret exits from the box, such as a secret trap door or a teleport? You're still looking a mostly useless hiding roll. Why hide and teleport? The effect is almost always the same either way--your opponent no longer detects you.

The only times I can think it would be helpful would be these:

1. You want your opponent to think you are still in the box, drawn them in to attack it while you teleport behind them and attack them instead. Theoretically, the hiding would allow you to teleport and secretly appear behind them.

2. There is a secret exit out of the box but its operation is noisy enough to warrant a stealth check to use it in secret. Perhaps you want your opponent to think you are still in the box or you just want to confuse the situation until they find the secret exit on their own.

Either way, you are expanding the size of the hiding location from a single position (the box) to something larger wherein your true location can be lost, thereby allowing a stealth check to do so. Its the same as if you had entered a far larger zone of concealment to begin with.

The more preactical example that is similar to the box is hiding behind a tree (still a single hiding space) when being followed. If the followers don't want to attack but are just trying go follow you and you go behind a tree and hide then now the followers have to make a decision. They do not know if you are still there or teleported away since they cannot hear or see you. They need to decide if they want to wait you out or take some action to see if you are still behind the tree or not (and risk a confrontation).

 

[Uller]

Are you saying I'm not allowed to attack the guy I just saw go into the box, just because he's really, really quiet and still?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

No. No one has said that. Not once anywhere in this thread. No one has made the claim that because a creature is "hidden" in an obvious place that an attacker can't guess where it is hidden and take a logical action to attack the hiding creature.

If your target is "hidden", you must guess at it's location. If there is no where else it can be, then it's a good bet it's in the box. Move to where you have LOS, if it is there, it is revealed and you can target it directly (no 'search' action necessary). If the box is providing total cover, it doesn't matter if the target is hidden. You can't attack it unless you move to where the box is not in the way (whether or not the target is "hidden" is irrelevant). If the box is flimsy, you can try to attack the "hidden" target through the box but you get disadvantage because you can't see the target (not because it is "hidden"...again, that state is irrelevant). So as they said in the movie 'Signs': "Swing away."

There are two schools here: One that says that the "hidden" state has nothing to do with the observer's ability to deduce the hider's location, only with the observer's ability to detect and track the hider's location directly through the observer's senses (see it, hear it, smell it, feel it). The other camp says that if the observer "knows" the hider's location (but can't hear or see or smell or tremorsense the hider) then the hider is not hidden.

In either case, there is no difference in game mechanics EXCEPT for one (that I can think of): If the hider can attack the observer, he'll get advantage (and potentially SA damage if that feature is available) on his attack if he is "hidden". The former camp says he can and is fine with it. The latter camp says you don't get adv on the attack because the target "knows" you are there and it doesn't sit well with them to give it advantage

Both are reasonably valid. I'm more of the former because this situation will never or vary rarely come up in my game and it is usually PCs that are hiding (and I'm a "Yes but" kind of DM). In the chaos of combat I allow the attack/hide rogue routine to work once or twice and then the monsters go out of their way to counter it. If they can't counter it, then good for the rogue.

 

[Hriston]

But a hider doesn't let you in on a secret unless it actually break Stealth. Until someone hides, its location is revealed to anyone, until the moment it make a Stealth check.

The location of the hider is the secret. If the hider's location has already been given away then a Stealth check will not turn her presence in that location back into a secret. The secret has already been revealed.

When someone successfully make a Stealth check, it is silent and invisible among other things, and one must guess it's location in order to attack it and deducting the latter does not break Stealth, it simply let you successfully attack it.

If you have sufficient information to be sure of being correct about the creature's location then no guessing is involved in your attack. If you do not have to guess, the creature is not hidden.

You need to successfully perceive it in order for Stealth to be broken because Stealth is based on perception, not deduction.

Perception breaks Stealth because it reveals location. If location has already been revealed, circumstances are inappropriate for hiding.

You can use secret or other analogies all day but the Stealth rules don't say a creature cannot hide from people who can deduce its location.

On the contrary, the rules say that noticing signs of a creature's passage will keep it from being hidden.

 

[Hriston]

No i didn't say that i even said the opposite. Unless that box is providing total cover, you should be able to attack someone hiding inside though it might provide some level of cover in addition to the heavy obscurement.

You said the attacker would have to guess the target's location, which is the same as not being able to attack the target directly. If the attacker knows where someone is then she doesn't have to guess, she just attacks.

 

[Plaguescarred]

If you have sufficient information to be sure of being correct about the creature's location then no guessing is involved in your attack. If you do not have to guess, the creature is not hidden.

It's always a guess because the creature's location is hidden, this wether you are correct in your deduction or not. If it was not hidden, you would not have to pick a space in the first place!

Perception breaks Stealth because it reveals location. If location has already been revealed, circumstances are inappropriate for hiding.

No perception break Stealth because it let you perceive it and thus stop being unseen and unheard. Simply guessing one's location correctly doesn't let you target it with spells and effect that target a creature you can see for exemple.

On the contrary, the rules say that noticing signs of a creature's passage will keep it from being hidden.

No the rules says that for an invisible creature, not a hidden one. It's very reason why it must make a Stealth check to conceal it's location.

Hiding: An invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.

You said the attacker would have to guess the target's location, which is the same as not being able to attack the target directly. If the attacker knows where someone is then she doesn't have to guess, she just attacks.

Yes and simply guessing where a hidden creature might be would not let you target it with a spell requiring you to see it for exemple, unless you can actually perceive it.

 

[seebs]

There's no might about it. The DM knows whether it is correct or not.

That turns out not to matter. The game differentiates between "seen" and "not seen" much more than it differentiates based on whether or not you have a belief about something's location, even if that belief is correct.

If you can observe the target, you can attack normally. If you can't, I think you end up with disadvantage. (In 3E, it was miss chance.) Note that this applied even if you had exact information about where the target is. Because while the DM knows, you don't know. You just have a belief.

 

[Hriston]

It's always a guess because the creature's location is hidden, this wether you are correct in your deduction or not. If it was not hidden, you would not have to pick a space in the first place!

No deduction is required to be objectively correct in knowing the location of a creature you have just observed getting into a box from which there is no other exit. You do not have to guess, therefore the creature is not hidden.

No perception break Stealth because it let you perceive it and thus stop being unseen and unheard. Simply guessing one's location correctly doesn't let you target it with spells and effect that target a creature you can see for exemple.

You can know a creature's location without seeing it. That's why invisible creatures need to hide to keep their locations secret. It's irrelevant that certain spells require you to see your target.

No the rules says that for an invisible creature, not a hidden one. It's very reason why it must make a Stealth check to conceal it's location.

Are you saying that a trail of footprints will reveal the location of an invisible creature but not the location of a visible creature? I don't think that makes sense.

Yes and simply guessing where a hidden creature might be would not let you target it with a spell requiring you to see it for exemple, unless you can actually perceive it.

That doesn't matter. There's no guessing involved when you know a creature's location. The requirement that some spells have that you see your target has nothing to do with your ability to make a weapon attack against a creature you know is there.

That turns out not to matter. The game differentiates between "seen" and "not seen" much more than it differentiates based on whether or not you have a belief about something's location, even if that belief is correct.

If you can observe the target, you can attack normally. If you can't, I think you end up with disadvantage. (In 3E, it was miss chance.) Note that this applied even if you had exact information about where the target is. Because while the DM knows, you don't know. You just have a belief.

How is disadvantage against unseen targets evidence for not knowing a creature's location unless you see it? I'm not following the train of logic being used here. The fact that the location of an invisible creature is known unless it hides is enough to refute this.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If you don't actually see a thing, you don't know its location, you just have a belief which might be correct.

Not necessarily - there are other senses. If you can't see it but you can hear it and smell it, then you know its location.

This is a subtlety that I think is sometimes missed. In the game, Hiding involves all the senses. The Stealth skill covers knowing how to step lightly, avoid noisy terrain, mask your scent, stop your gear from rustling, take advantage of concealment and camouflage, etc.

Being unseen does not mean you are hidden; being unseen is the prerequisite for attempting to hide.

 

[seebs]

No deduction is required to be objectively correct in knowing the location of a creature you have just observed getting into a box from which there is no other exit. You do not have to guess, therefore the creature is not hidden.

Strictly speaking, if it hasn't taken the Hide action, it's not hidden, period. Whether or not you know where it is.

But that you think a deduction is trivial doesn't mean it's not a deduction. Object permanence is an assumption about the world, and in a fantasy setting, it's not even all that good an assumption.

How is disadvantage against unseen targets evidence for not knowing a creature's location unless you see it? I'm not following the train of logic being used here. The fact that the location of an invisible creature is known unless it hides is enough to refute this.

Disadvantage against things you can't see, even if you know where they are, is evidence that knowing a thing's location intellectually is not the same as being able to observe it.