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

[Maxperson]

This can't be right.

For instance, if a character uses an action (or a bonus cunning action) to make a DEX check to hide, and then starts beating on his/her shield with his/her sword, s/he doesn't remain silent. Hence s/he doesn't remain hidden (SRD p 80: "you give away your position if you make noise").

It is right. I said in my post here that unless you come out of hiding in some manner, you are hidden with a single roll and there is no need for ongoing "attempts to hide". Beating on your shield is taking an action to stop hiding. No rule supports [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s claim.

As I understand it, this is the point that @Hriston is making - that to remain hidden, you have to maintain the conditions that ensure your position isn't given away (eg you must refrain from deliberately making noise, you must remain from deliberately providing visual cues, etc - the DEX roll tells us whether or not you inadvertantly make noise or provide visual cues).

Not making noise =/= needing to try not to make noise. RAW allows you to remain X silent, where X is your stealth roll to hide. There is no need to try any further not to make noise, because that lack of noise to the extent of your roll is automatic and constant for the duration of the hide. For instance, if my hide check is 15, I am at a 15 for lack of visual and audible clues for the entire time I am hidden. RAW doesn't require me to make any further efforts to remain silent or out of sight. You can assume that there is some sort of constant hide check going on, but that only applies to your personal game, not the rules.

As I understand it, the point of the elf or halfling abilities is not that they can be simultaneously hidden and noticed (which would be an absurd contradiction) but that they can be hidden in conditions where most people would be noticed. When Sage Advice says

The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes​

it seems fairly clear to me: normally you can't hide if you're in full view (invisibility, or some forms of distraction, might generate exceptions to this general proposition), but an elf in a mist or snowfall is not in full view. Rather, nature itself cloaks the elf. As long as the snow continues, the elf will continue to be cloaked, and hence will remain hidden (as long as s/he doesn't deliberately make noise or provide visual cues, and as long as the DEX check is successful and hence s/he doesn't inadvertently make noise or provide visual cues).

The elf IS in full view, at least until he uses nature to cloak himself and go out of view. The sage advice says straight out that the elf can do so while being stared at directly. The elf is hiding while being observed.

I would think it is obvious that, in so far as the elf remains cloaked and hence hidden, s/he is not being observed. People might be looking - even staring - in his/her direction, but if nature is cloaking the elf and the elf is neither deliberately nor inadvertently providing visual cues then s/he is not being observed. Hidden is basically synonymous with concealed from sight!

It does't say staring in the elf's direction. It says the elf can try to hide while someone is staring at the elf. That's the ability to hide while under observation. In any case, even partial view has the elf still being directly observed.

 

[pemerton]

unless you come out of hiding in some manner, you are hidden with a single roll and there is no need for ongoing "attempts to hide".

<snip>

RAW allows you to remain X silent, where X is your stealth roll to hide. There is no need to try any further not to make noise, because that lack of noise to the extent of your roll is automatic and constant for the duration of the hide.

<snip>

You can assume that there is some sort of constant hide check going on, but that only applies to your personal game, not the rules.

You seem to be confusing [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s use of words such as "try" and "attempt" with particular game-mechanical resolution events like rolling a DEX check or spending an action in the turn sequence.

I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has a sound grasp of the 5e action economy, and realises that a single DEX check governs the entirety of a single episode of hiding. But in talking about the need to remain hidden by making sure one does not reveal one's position, I think Hriston is trying to characterise what is taking place in the fiction. (I did likewise by referring to the DEX check determining whether noise is made inadvertently, while action declarations determine whether or not noise is made deliberately.)

And because the rules use natural language that talks about the fiction (eg being observed, or revealing one's position by making noise) I think Hriston is on the right track. If we don't conceive of how events are unfolding in the fiction, how can we apply those elements of the rules?

The elf IS in full view, at least until he uses nature to cloak himself and go out of view. The sage advice says straight out that the elf can do so while being stared at directly. The elf is hiding while being observed.

There seems to be some confusion here arising from the fact that "hiding" is being used to denote an event in the fiction (of becoming hidden), a state in the fiction (of being hidden), and a game-mechanical event that occurs at the table (of making a DEX check).

I don't think anyone here is unsure about the game-mechanical event.

But, in the fiction, I agree with Hriston that there is no point in (fictional) time at which (i) the elf's state is one of being hidden, and yet (ii) the elf's state is one of being observed. There may be a point at which the elf is observed (and hence not hidden). But once the elf becomes hidden, the situation reverses: s/he is no longer being observed.

The actual event (of becoming hidden) is not one which takes any time as far as the fiction of D&D is concerned. But something clearly takes place that renders the elf unable to be seen (and I think the Sage Advice confirms that it is not that the elf changes colour/visual texture so as to camouflage him-/herself). That thing means that it is no longer true that s/he is able to be observed.

Consider, thus, those who are staring at the elf - at one moment they can see him/her, then it starts snowing and s/he disappears. Or, if it is already snowing, then at one moment they can see the elf through the snow, then suddenly their is a swirl of snow ("nature itself cloaks the wood elf") and s/he vanishes.

 

[Harzel]

Attempt to hide = attempt to stay hidden = attempt to keep your location secret. The distinction you make between becoming hidden and staying hidden is of your own creation. Someone trying to keep hidden is trying to hide no matter how long they have been hidden. However, you can't keep your location a secret if the secret has already been given away. In that case, there's no secret to be kept.

You seem to be confusing @Hriston's use of words such as "try" and "attempt" with particular game-mechanical resolution events like rolling a DEX check or spending an action in the turn sequence.

I'm pretty confident that @Hriston has a sound grasp of the 5e action economy, and realises that a single DEX check governs the entirety of a single episode of hiding. But in talking about the need to remain hidden by making sure one does not reveal one's position, I think Hriston is trying to characterise what is taking place in the fiction. (I did likewise by referring to the DEX check determining whether noise is made inadvertently, while action declarations determine whether or not noise is made deliberately.)

And because the rules use natural language that talks about the fiction (eg being observed, or revealing one's position by making noise) I think Hriston is on the right track. If we don't conceive of how events are unfolding in the fiction, how can we apply those elements of the rules?

There seems to be some confusion here arising from the fact that "hiding" is being used to denote an event in the fiction (of becoming hidden), a state in the fiction (of being hidden), and a game-mechanical event that occurs at the table (of making a DEX check).

Thank you for explicating this. As you can see from above, Hriston introduced confusion by either not understanding or refusing to acknowledge the difference between the event and the state.

I don't think anyone here is unsure about the game-mechanical event.

But, in the fiction, I agree with Hriston that there is no point in (fictional) time at which (i) the elf's state is one of being hidden, and yet (ii) the elf's state is one of being observed.

I don't think anyone has disputed this. However, certainly Flamestrike, and apparently Hriston (who seemed to be taking up Flamestrike's banner) were trying to argue that it is impossible to have the event (become hidden) occur if the creature trying to become hidden is being observed. All of this arose from Flamestrike's contention that creature A cannot become hidden from creature B if creature B can correctly guess creature A's location. (Creature B being able to observe creature A being a special case of that.)

There may be a point at which the elf is observed (and hence not hidden). But once the elf becomes hidden, the situation reverses: s/he is no longer being observed.

The actual event (of becoming hidden) is not one which takes any time as far as the fiction of D&D is concerned. But something clearly takes place that renders the elf unable to be seen (and I think the Sage Advice confirms that it is not that the elf changes colour/visual texture so as to camouflage him-/herself). That thing means that it is no longer true that s/he is able to be observed.

Consider, thus, those who are staring at the elf - at one moment they can see him/her, then it starts snowing and s/he disappears. Or, if it is already snowing, then at one moment they can see the elf through the snow, then suddenly their is a swirl of snow ("nature itself cloaks the wood elf") and s/he vanishes.

+1

 

[Plaguescarred]

it seems fairly clear to me: normally you can't hide if you're in full view (invisibility, or some forms of distraction, might generate exceptions to this general proposition), but an elf in a mist or snowfall is not in full view. Rather, nature itself cloaks the elf. As long as the snow continues, the elf will continue to be cloaked, and hence will remain hidden (as long as s/he doesn't deliberately make noise or provide visual cues, and as long as the DEX check is successful and hence s/he doesn't inadvertently make noise or provide visual cues)

A wood elf in mist or snowfall is not any less seen than a human or halfling, it's lightly obscured and while you are, you're visible. If it try to hide and succeed, then it will become hidden, both unseen and unheard, as if nature cloaked him, this as long as it remain so.

I would think it is obvious that, in so far as the elf remains cloaked and hence hidden, s/he is not being observed. People might be looking - even staring - in his/her direction, but if nature is cloaking the elf and the elf is neither deliberately nor inadvertently providing visual cues then s/he is not being observed. Hidden is basically synonymous with concealed from sight!

No hidden and concealed from sight by being unseen or invisible is not synonymous as being hidden is also overcoming other perception methods such as sound (since you're unheard), and not just visual one.

 

[pemerton]

Hriston introduced confusion by either not understanding or refusing to acknowledge the difference between the event and the state.

<snip>

Flamestrike, and apparently Hriston (who seemed to be taking up Flamestrike's banner) were trying to argue that it is impossible to have the event (become hidden) occur if the creature trying to become hidden is being observed. All of this arose from Flamestrike's contention that creature A cannot become hidden from creature B if creature B can correctly guess creature A's location. (Creature B being able to observe creature A being a special case of that.)

I'll admit to not having read the whole thread - just the first page, and then the most recent few pages. I opened the thread yesterday because I saw that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] had posted in it, and Hriston is a reliably interesting poster with whom I often find myself in agreement.

I did read Hriston's post that you quoted. In fact, I think I XPed it. That one can, in language, distinguish an event from a state doesn't necessarily mean that there are distinct metaphysical entities. It may be, for instance, that the "event" is nothing more than the state being one thing up to time t, and then another thing from t onwards.

I am hoping that Hriston responds to my post 390, because that will help address the practical question about who can hide when and under what conditions.

And here's a related question. First, to set it up: I assume that Hriston would agree that if an elf is in view, and then it starts snowing, the elf can become hidden by the falling snow. But what happens if it is already snowing and the elf is visible - can the elf try to become hidden (eg as I said in post 392, in virtue of there being a sudden swirl of snow, such that the elf vanishes)?

This relates to the interpretation of the rules for hiding and for perception. It also connects to bigger design questions like whether or not "let it ride" (ie no retries unless circumstances radically change) applies, and what counts as a radical change of circumstance: if it is snowing but an elf has chosen not to try and hide, and hence has come under observation, can s/he suddenly change his/her mind and make a DEX roll? And how should we understand the sudden swirl of snowing suddenly occurring - it is a magical ability of the elf, and if so why is it DEX (rather than, say, WIS or CHA) that is checked?

To me, these seem to be the interesting questions. I don't think the rules answer them in any clear way - they are (in my view) fairly poorly drafted, and these questions really go to deeper matters of how we understand fictional positioning and the nature of elven magic within the fiction, rather than questions of mechanics and action economy.

 

[pemerton]

No hidden and concealed from sight by being unseen or invisible is not synonymous as being hidden is also overcoming other perception methods such as sound (since you're unheard), and not just visual one.

"Basically synonymous" - I could have written "concealed from notice" instead, but I was following the dictionary definition.

In mechanical terms, being hidden entails being concealed from sight. (Conversely, being concealed from sight enlivens the possibility of being hidden. I think both 4e and 5e somewhat exaggerate the ease of tracking someone by sound alone, for playability reasons.)

A wood elf in mist or snowfall is not any less seen than a human or halfling, it's lightly obscured and while you are, you're visible. If it try to hide and succeed, then it will become hidden, both unseen and unheard, as if nature cloaked him, this as long as it remain so.

Well, this goes right to the question I asked at the end of my post preceding this one.

If it starts snowing, and an elf does not become hidden, can s/he suddenly choose to change that? Is the "cloaking by nature" something that the elf can switch on and off? Or is it something under nature's control?

I am curious to see what [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has to say. If we think about the elven cloaks in Tolkien, say, then their concealing of the bearer seems to be automatic, and not under the wearer's control. If that's how the wood elf ability works, then once an elf has announced his/her presence (eg by making noise, or a deliberate visual cue - like when Aragorn et al stepped out in front of Eomer and his riders) s/he is not hidden and can't become hidden again while being observed.

 

[Plaguescarred]

If it starts snowing, and an elf does not become hidden, can s/he suddenly choose to change that? Is the "cloaking by nature" something that the elf can switch on and off? Or is it something under nature's control?

The elf can at any moment try to hide and thus make a Stealth check when lightly obscured by such natural phenomenon, at which point he will become hidden if successful and not have to try to hide and make such check anymore.

The cloaked by nature reference is not when simply standing lightly obscured in the natural phenomenon, its once he is hidden by it, so it can explain how it is unseen even though it's in light obscurement.

 

[pemerton]

The elf can at any moment try to hide and thus make a Stealth check when lightly obscured by such natural phenomenon, at which point he will become hidden if successful and not have to try to hide and make such check anymore.

The cloaked by nature reference is not when simply standing lightly obscured in the natural phenomenon, its once he is hidden by it, so it can explain how it is unseen even though it's in light obscurement.

As I posted upthread, this does raise the question - why is it a DEX check rather than a WIS or CHA check?

 

[Plaguescarred]

As I posted upthread, this does raise the question - why is it a DEX check rather than a WIS or CHA check?

Because Stealth requires delicateness more than anything i guess

 

[ThePolarBear]

I'll admit to not having read the whole thread - just the first page, and then the most recent few pages. I opened the thread yesterday because I saw that @Hriston had posted in it, and Hriston is a reliably interesting poster with whom I often find myself in agreement.

I did read Hriston's post that you quoted. In fact, I think I XPed it. That one can, in language, distinguish an event from a state doesn't necessarily mean that there are distinct metaphysical entities. It may be, for instance, that the "event" is nothing more than the state being one thing up to time t, and then another thing from t onwards.

I am hoping that Hriston responds to my post 390, because that will help address the practical question about who can hide when and under what conditions.

And here's a related question. First, to set it up: I assume that Hriston would agree that if an elf is in view, and then it starts snowing, the elf can become hidden by the falling snow. But what happens if it is already snowing and the elf is visible - can the elf try to become hidden (eg as I said in post 392, in virtue of there being a sudden swirl of snow, such that the elf vanishes)?

This relates to the interpretation of the rules for hiding and for perception. It also connects to bigger design questions like whether or not "let it ride" (ie no retries unless circumstances radically change) applies, and what counts as a radical change of circumstance: if it is snowing but an elf has chosen not to try and hide, and hence has come under observation, can s/he suddenly change his/her mind and make a DEX roll? And how should we understand the sudden swirl of snowing suddenly occurring - it is a magical ability of the elf, and if so why is it DEX (rather than, say, WIS or CHA) that is checked?

To me, these seem to be the interesting questions. I don't think the rules answer them in any clear way - they are (in my view) fairly poorly drafted, and these questions really go to deeper matters of how we understand fictional positioning and the nature of elven magic within the fiction, rather than questions of mechanics and action economy.

You really should read the rest of the thread, and see where all of this has sparked. Not because i do not think you would be "unqualified to post" here or something, just to have direct knowledge of what has been written and so have a personal idea of how this point was reached.

By the way... why are you too directly associating "known position -> no (longer, probably) hiding"? There's something in the rules that lets you say that this is, in fact, a rule instead of a simple explanation on how to adjudicate knowledge of position after certain events "triggers" the question?

I ask because that assumption is also part of the discussion. I do not make such an assumption when adjudicating "hiding and remaining hidden": I state my decision on the situation (DM can choose if the conditions allow hiding) and the guidelines for "no longer being hidden" and "you must do so for moving".

It's an important part of the "person in a box" and "person behind the pillar" argument.

About the state: It's been clarified that the state of "being hidden", at least in combat, requires taking the hide action (unless the dm explicitly says otherwise - as always DM can do whatever they want with the rules) in the rules. It means putting some sort of "effort" in the "changing" of state - something that i agree on and that is also the basis of the "attempting to hide" also means "attempting to stay hidden" point - if there is no effort to begin with, the whole equation falls apart: you are not attempting anything.

And please... do not go into physics and metaphysics. It's a game and we are discussing about a part of an abstractact system (that in no way claims to be realistic to begin with) that is responsible for giving informations on how to mechanically express certain situations whose adjudication is left in the hands of a person to judge based on a series of guidelines and personal experience/common sense.

How you decide that the ability works has no meaning on how the rules state the ability works. Those are the mechanics given, fluff is the rest. If you want to rationalize: The WE still has to comply to all the other requirements. The only one that was served to them was the "cannot be seen clearly" part. Dex (stealth) is still representative of his ability to not make sounds, leave as little traces as possible and, at least in combat situations, bob and weave in between sudden movements from others and physically react to changes in the environment.

About changing his mind: This is where the "attempt to hide = attempt to stay hidden" equation fails. The two things are not the same. It's not the same thing attempting to walk and managing to keep walking, it' s not the same thing to attempt to write and keep writing until you finish a book. The second requires the first to be successful before it can even be attempted. As written there's nothing that prevents the "changing of state" while in plain sight since the exception is exactly about that: normally one cannot but WE and LH can if the situation is appropriate. You gave XP to a post that clearly states that what you think Hriston thinks is not what Hriston thinks.

"That confirms only that they can hide with observers nearby. Hiding while observed is nonsense. If you are hidden, you are not being observed. The article does not confirm that a creature can hide when its location is known to observers.

Also, your posts would be easier to read if you would paste as plain text. Thank you."

"Hiding while observed is nonsense" It is. From our point of view. But that is not the reality of the game world and hiding while observed is not possible UNLESS you are a WE or a LH in specific situations. It's not like WE or LH become invisible. They simply can make the most of being obscured in those situations no matter if they are in plain view or not, if the conditions are preexisting or not, if they are already hiding or not.

As i said Hriston directly his interpretation makes no sense unless he adds words and meanings when there are none to be added for the phrase to make sense. The fact that the game reality follows rules that are NOT what we are used to should have been apparent from, well... the get go. Trying to apply our rules BEFORE the rules that are explicitly written just because our reality works differently is fine for your game. Trying to change the meaning of some rule and presenting it as fact to others is NOT fine.
Hriston is doing something different from both of those: It's claiming that its interpretation is valid by the rules. And that is simply not true - It is a valid adjudication that can be made because the DM has the final say and can prevent anyone that wears red shorts from hiding if wanted to. But all other rules leave no leeway for such an interpretation unless something is changed to said rules - like adding the "you are not longer hidden" to "your position is known" just because "your position is known" and not because something else caused you to be no longer hidden.
​