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

[Hriston]

But what is happening in the fiction if a person is looking at an elf through the snow, and then - at the gaming table - the player of the elf declares "I hide" and rolls a DEX check and gets a result higher than the observers passive Perception?

I think it is possible that the snow swirls around the elf, making him/her vanish from sight. Another possibility is that, at the behest of the elf, the snow briefly flurries into the eyes of the observer, rendering him/her a non-observer. But then I'm puzzled why it is a DEX check.

Even if it's camouflage - eg the elf's skin changes colour (not something I've ever heard suggested, but at least a logical possibility) - that doesn't explain why it would be a DEX check. (I assume that noone thinks that the elf is applying greasepaint to him-/herself, or rapidly changing clothes, and that that is why it's a DEX check.)

I gather that @Hriston thinks that none of these scenarios is a possibility within the fiction...

That's right. I don't read Mask of the Wild as some limited form of invisibility. It gives the wood elf an additional circumstance in which to hide the same way in which all other characters can hide in a heavily obscured area, i.e. subject to the restriction that she can't hide under circumstances in which her location is known (seen clearly, making noise, etc.).

I've been assuming that ((at least in this discussion, which is about whether or not things are hidden or perceived) by "knowing the location" is meant something along the lines of "knowing in virtue of perceiving", not simply "knowing in the sense of believing because told by someone else who is reliable". There's a whole literature on this (it's modern version begins with the famous 1963 paper by Gettier), and on whether we should call the second sort of thing "knowledge" at all (in a 1912 book that predates the modern iteration of the discussion, Bertrand Russell called the second sort of thing "probable opinion").

Yes, I would draw the same distinction as Russell. While I agree with most of what [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] has said in this thread about hiding, I would differ with him or her about the ability of a creature to hide/stay hidden from someone who has been told by someone else where the creature is hiding. I don't believe that having that sort of second-hand information counts as truly knowing the creature's location. It's that the veracity of that information is only probable that makes identifying the creature's location into guesswork, and I would leave it up to the player to decide whether to trust that information or not.

On the other hand, with regard to the situation in which a creature steps behind a pillar or into a box under direct observation such that the observer's sense of object permanence tells the observer that the creature can only be in that exact location, I would regard that as first-hand knowledge of location. The rather improbable possibility that things like teleportation or secret doors are involved need only be taken into consideration if those things are actually present and at work in the situation.

Now, relating this to the current discussion (and I'd be curious to hear @Hriston's views on this - I suspect that, like me and perhaps some others here, Hrisotn is fairly familiar with the AD&D hide in shadows rules): it's one thing to say that an elf who is concealed in a snowstorm is hard for an observer to spot (ie is entitled to make a DEX check to remain hidden although the storm is not heavy enough to conceal ordinary people); it's a different thing to say that an elf who is being observed through a snowstorm can suddenly - by magic, as it were - render him-/herself invisible.

Mask of the Wild doesn't say anything about magic or invisibility. It only presents a situation in which a wood elf can try to hide in which others cannot. Other creatures require a heavily obscured area to hide in. The wood elf can hide (normally) in lightly obscuring natural conditions. Under that interpretation, there is no contradiction between the feature and the hiding rules in general, and no need to invoke magic as an explanation. The title of the feature, however, does offer an explanation for the wood elf's knack for hiding under such conditions. Like a mask, the wood elf is able to "wear" or "put on" elements of the natural world to conceal her position. However, just as a mask is unable to hide the identity of the wearer that is observed donning it (because you already know who she is), "nature itself" cannot hide the location of a wood elf that is first seen unhidden within it.

The name of Naturally Stealthy also offers a clue that there is nothing supernatural about the lightfoot's ability. I don't see any reason why the wood elf's ability should be any different.

I mentioned JRRT's elven cloaks upthread. In the case of these, the wearer doesn't get to choose - the cloak conceals him/her, and then once s/he choose to become visible the jig is up (until the observers look away). I am guessing that this might be how @Hriston envisages the elf's ability working: as soon as it starts snowing the elf becomes hidden (though we may not actually roll the DEX check until later on when we need to know whether or not another can spot him/her). And if the elf subsequently, or nevertheless, comes under observation, then s/he is not hidden to that observer until something happens that makes the observer (even momentarily) lose sight of her. And the mere continuation of snow falling wouldn't be such a "something".

No, this isn't how I envision it working at all. I find the idea absurd that any wood elf that wanders into an area of moderate foliage, for example, or who happens to be caught in a snow storm, suddenly becomes invisible to all onlookers, whether she wills it or not. I almost equally dislike the idea that every wood elf comes fully equipped with a cloak of elven-kind.

No, the way I envision it working is that a wood elf that is lightly obscured by natural elements can be seen clearly by any potential observer, just like any other character. The feature doesn't change this. Also just like any other character, a wood elf can't hide from an observer that sees her clearly. The feature doesn't change that either. What the feature changes is the range of circumstances in which the wood elf can be unseen once hidden. Just as most characters, in my view, would need to be unobserved while getting into position behind a large tree or boulder in order to hide there, a wood elf also needs to be unobserved while donning the "mask of the wild" in order to hide behind it.

 

[pemerton]

Once he tries to be unseen and unheard in the falling snow, a stealth roll happens to see if the elf is successful at fading into the snow.

But why is "fading into the snow" modelled by way of a DEX check, rather than a WIS (or perhaps CHA) check?

 

[pemerton]

I find the idea absurd that any wood elf that wanders into an area of moderate foliage, for example, or who happens to be caught in a snow storm, suddenly becomes invisible to all onlookers, whether she wills it or not. I almost equally dislike the idea that every wood elf comes fully equipped with a cloak of elven-kind.

I agree on the cloak issue.

I'd be comfortable with the "invisible in nature" approach (putting balance issues to one side) - it seems to me fairly close to the original AD&D/Moldvay Basic approach, which I think was inspired by JRRT's descriptions of hobbits and elves in his writings.

the way I envision it working is that a wood elf that is lightly obscured by natural elements can be seen clearly by any potential observer, just like any other character. The feature doesn't change this. Also just like any other character, a wood elf can't hide from an observer that sees her clearly. The feature doesn't change that either. What the feature changes is the range of circumstances in which the wood elf can be unseen once hidden. Just as most characters, in my view, would need to be unobserved while getting into position behind a large tree or boulder in order to hide there, a wood elf also needs to be unobserved while donning the "mask of the wild" in order to hide behind it.

Makes sense.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Maxperson]

But why is "fading into the snow" modelled by way of a DEX check, rather than a WIS (or perhaps CHA) check?

Rules. hiding = stealth dex unless you invoke the optional stat rules. The default will be dex due to that.

 

[pemerton]

Rules. hiding = stealth dex unless you invoke the optional stat rules. The default will be dex due to that.

I don't really feel this answers the question, though.

The rules aren't meant to be merely abstract (5e = natural language and all that). They are meant to correlate in some fashion to what's happening in the fiction.

So, one thing that I think supports [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s approach is that, precisely because attempting to hide is a DEX check, and because a DEX check wouldn't make any sense for an attempt to supernaturally cloak oneself in snow or foliage or whatever, it follows that whatever Mask of the Wild does, it doesn't do that. Rather, it lets one hide as normal (ie must not be under direct observation) but then expands the range of circumstances in which one can (via careful movements, body control, etc - ie stuff that does make sense to model via a DEX check) remain hidden.

 

[Xetheral]

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], I understand that you're interpreting Sage Advice's statement that "a wood elf can try to hide simply by..." as synonymous with "a wood elf can try to remain hidden simply by...". I understand that point of view, even if I don't agree with it. But in regards to lightfoot halflings, Sage Advice says: "[a] lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger" (emphasis added). I don't see any way to apply your argument regarding wood elves to lightfoot halflings: it explictly says the latter can "vanish". Do you permit lightfoot halflings to hide if they are observed while moving behind a larger creature? If not, in what way are they able to vanish as Sage Advice tells us they can? If yes, how do you justify reaching the opposite conclusion as the wood elf when the structure of the Sage Advice paragraph suggests the two races' abilities are similarly exceptional?
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], when a wood elf uses Mask of the Wild while under observation, I interpret it in the fiction similarly to any other sort of hiding: they are avoiding sudden movements, stepping softly, and positioning their body to minimize the liklihood that the observers will be able to continue to sense them. Remember that light obscurement isn't the same as observers having an unobstructed view. Anyone can begin trying to hide in a sufficiently-heavy snowstorm or fog bank. Wood elves don't approach hiding in such conditions any differently, they're simply skilled enough to have a chance of success even in lighter conditions.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6787503]when a wood elf uses Mask of the Wild while under observation, I interpret it in the fiction similarly to any other sort of hiding: they are avoiding sudden movements, stepping softly, and positioning their body to minimize the liklihood that the observers will be able to continue to sense them. Remember that light obscurement isn't the same as observers having an unobstructed view. Anyone can begin trying to hide in a sufficiently-heavy snowstorm or fog bank. Wood elves don't approach hiding in such conditions any differently, they're simply skilled enough to have a chance of success even in lighter conditions.

But an ordinary person in heavier snow can't hide either, can s/he, if actually under observation from the person s/he is hoping to hide from?

Trying to put a few things together:

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly . . . (Basic PDF p 60)

While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they’re not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter. See the rules for hiding in chapter 7. (Basic PDF p 64)

A heavily obscured area - such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage - blocks vision entirely . . . (Basic PDF p 65)

Mask of the Wild. You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena. (Basic PDF p 15)​

The bit on p 64 is very reminiscent of the 4e Stealth rules, which allow remaining hidden provided there is cover or concealment (ie provided the character is not in the open).

The bit on p 60 is somewhat reminiscent of the 4e Steath rules, which require total concealment or superior cover to become hidden. However, it has the adverb clearly.

This might suggest that if a person is in heavy snow or fog, and is being seen - but not being seen clearly, because of the snow/fog - s/he can attempt to become hidden.

However, the obscurement and elf rules don't seem to me to support this, at least as a matter of textual interpretation. The elf rule seem to imply that mask of the wild is a special ability, which means that light obscurement is not enough for an ordinary person to become hidden (otherwise, mask of the wild would be redundant). And the obscurement rules seem to imply that the only alternative to light obscurement is heavy obscurement, which blocks vision altogether.

So on a purely textual basis, I can't see any scope for a situation in which a non-elfin person is in a snowstorm or fog, is able to be seen at all, yet is able to attempt to become hidden.

Sticking to this textual basis for the rules, I am seeing two possibilities.

One, which to me is close to classic D&D and JRRT, is that elves automatically "vanish" in the sort of natural phenomena that mask of the wild refers to. (An oddity is that they might vanish even to one another; though advantage on WIS checks to notice hidden creatures will help with this.)

The other, which is (I think) [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s view, is that elves don't automatically "vanish" in those natural phenomena, but can use them to hide provided they are not being observed. On this view, an elf can step out of his/her front door and into a non-blinding snowstorm and attempt to hide from anyone spying on the house - whereas an ordinary person who steps out of his/her front door into a snowstorm will automatically fail on any attempt to hide unless the snow is falling so thickly as to effectively blind those in it (ie provides heavy obscurement).

 

[Maxperson]

I don't really feel this answers the question, though.

The rules aren't meant to be merely abstract (5e = natural language and all that). They are meant to correlate in some fashion to what's happening in the fiction.

It answers it completely. Natural language or not, no rules system is perfect and you will have corner case scenarios where you have a dex check for something that dex might not apply to. That's why they gave you the optional rule to apply different stats.

So, one thing that I think supports @Hriston's approach is that, precisely because attempting to hide is a DEX check, and because a DEX check wouldn't make any sense for an attempt to supernaturally cloak oneself in snow or foliage or whatever, it follows that whatever Mask of the Wild does, it doesn't do that. Rather, it lets one hide as normal (ie must not be under direct observation) but then expands the range of circumstances in which one can (via careful movements, body control, etc - ie stuff that does make sense to model via a DEX check) remain hidden.

It explicitly says otherwise though. You can attempt to hide while being stared at, not "you can attempt to stay hidden while being stared at.". The sage advice is very clear that you can attempt to hide while being observed.

 

[Harzel]

My sense of this discussion is that Plaguescarred, @Maxperson, @Harzel, @Uller, and probably one or two others I've left out, thing the answer is "Yes, it is permissible per se; and does not automatically fail, and permits the player of the elf to make a DEX check to remain unseen and unheard."

Actually, I hadn't made up my mind, and think that I still haven't.

I don't really feel this answers the question, though.

The rules aren't meant to be merely abstract (5e = natural language and all that). They are meant to correlate in some fashion to what's happening in the fiction.

Well, except when they don't. I mean, it's a bit of a side issue, but I think it is hard to claim or to expect that there aren't quite a few places that there will be dissociation (undesirable as it may be).

So, one thing that I think supports @Hriston's approach is that, precisely because attempting to hide is a DEX check, and because a DEX check wouldn't make any sense for an attempt to supernaturally cloak oneself in snow or foliage or whatever, it follows that whatever Mask of the Wild does, it doesn't do that. Rather, it lets one hide as normal (ie must not be under direct observation) but then expands the range of circumstances in which one can (via careful movements, body control, etc - ie stuff that does make sense to model via a DEX check) remain hidden.

Somehow, I find your and @Hriston's explanations quite intuitively convincing and yet intellectually, I can't quite make sense of it. Let me ask about the following comparison.

1. Wood elf in snow storm, being directly observed. Observer turns away. I assume you will now allow the elf to attempt to hide. If so, let's say the elf rolls well enough to beat the observer's passive Perception, but does not move from her location. The observer now turns back and looks at the location where he last saw the elf (fully expecting her to be there). I assume you will rule, though, that the elf is now hidden.
2. Wood elf in snow storm, being directly observed. Observer does not turn away. My understanding is that you will not allow the elf to attempt to hide (or will rule that the attempt automatically fails). Yet there is nothing to prevent the elf in the fiction from taking exactly the same actions (whatever they were) that the elf did in (1), so I assert that she does so.

At this point Observer #1 and Observer #2 have exactly the same (external) stimuli impinging on their senses. And yet their perceptions are different. Since they have had different experiences, this is by no means impossible, but I wonder if you could just briefly explain the perceptual psychology of what has gone on here.

As an aside, I have another separate, but related, issue. In (1), while the observer is turned away and before the elf has tried to hide, I think it can be reasonably said that the observer "knows the location of" the elf - he believes her to be at a certain place and he is objectively correct. However, if we accept that knowing the location of a creature means that it cannot be hidden from you, then as soon as the elf has succeeded at hiding the observer no longer "knows the location of" the elf, because if he did, then she would not be hidden. This despite the fact that the elf's location has not changed and nothing relevant in the observer's brain has changed. Again, I am not claiming that this is impossible, but it seems that it must involve an interesting definition of "hidden" and/or "knows the location of". I would be interested to see definitions that help this make sense.

 

[Xetheral]

But an ordinary person in heavier snow can't hide either, can s/he, if actually under observation from the person s/he is hoping to hide from?

An ordinary person in heavier snow (i.e. enough to provide heavy obscurement) can't be seen, and is thus eligible to take the hide action under my interpretation of the hiding rules.

I was merely trying to answer your question regarding what is happening in the fiction at my table when a wood elf takes the hide action while being observed. Does my answer make sense to you? (I can't tell from your response.)