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

[Maxperson]

If the elves have stopped attacking and have disengaged from the melee in order to hide, I would generally say that combat has ended. Now while I admit that the ability as conceived in Chainmail allows elves to hide in a combat situation that encompasses multiple melees, in D&D a combat encounter is generally limited to one melee, so that's how I figured other posters have been using the phrase "in combat". Personally, I don't find it very useful to determine whether the elf can use the ability "in combat" or not.

First, combat is still going. This disengage and end combat idea is moving the goalposts and not even correct. The elf can be 6 inches from the enemy and if in natural surroundings, can disappear while being attacked. That means combat is still going on. Second, even if the elf disengages and moves 10 feet away, the attacker can throw, shoot, cast spells at, etc. the elf by guessing a location, so even then combat is still going on. Third, the whole combat vs. non-combat thing is entirely irrelevant to the point. The point is that the elf is vanishing from view while being observed in 1e and 2e, which is entirely consistent with the 5e Sage Advice.

 

[Flamestrike]

First, combat is still going. This disengage and end combat idea is moving the goalposts and not even correct. The elf can be 6 inches from the enemy and if in natural surroundings, can disappear while being attacked. That means combat is still going on. Second, even if the elf disengages and moves 10 feet away, the attacker can throw, shoot, cast spells at, etc. the elf by guessing a location, so even then combat is still going on. Third, the whole combat vs. non-combat thing is entirely irrelevant to the point. The point is that the elf is vanishing from view while being observed in 1e and 2e, which is entirely consistent with the 5e Sage Advice.

We get how you interpret the rules man. We just use a different interpretation.

 

[Maxperson]

We get how you interpret the rules man. We just use a different interpretation.

Yep. You interpret with denial. In 1e and 2e there is NOTHING that says combat can't be going on or that the elf can't use the ability while being observed.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yep. You interpret with denial. In 1e and 2e there is NOTHING that says combat can't be going on or that the elf can't use the ability while being observed.

How are you finding this so hard to understand?

The rules are written intentionally to support different interpretations. You have your intepretation. I have mine.

This is an argument you cant win, so there is no need to be so stubborn about it.

 

[Maxperson]

How are you finding this so hard to understand?

The rules are written intentionally to support different interpretations. You have your intepretation. I have mine.

This is an argument you cant win, so there is no need to be so stubborn about it.

You're now trying to "interpret" 1e and 2e which are written with even less wiggle room than 5e, like you "interpret" 5e. Your interpretation is as absurd as those who "interpret" the world to be flat. At least with 5e, I could kinda, sorta, maybe see your interpretation if I squinted really hard and hopped on one foot. The 1e and 2e rules, though, not a chance.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I haven't read the whole thread, but some of the misunderstandings of "hiding" in 5e particularly with plain language interpretations I have seen elsewhere remind me a whole lot of this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally–Anne_test

 

[Flamestrike]

You're now trying to "interpret" 1e and 2e which are written with even less wiggle room than 5e, like you "interpret" 5e.

Mate, I can interpret what I want how I want. RAW doesnt exist as a thing in and of itself. The only thing that exists is RAI.

Your interpretation is as absurd as those who "interpret" the world to be flat.

LOL. No, yours is. We can play this dance forever if you want.

Not that Im talking about 1E and 2E in any great detail, because frankly I dont care, and am struggling to see the relevance of those rules to the rules in a different game.

Maybe as context?

 

[Flamestrike]

I haven't read the whole thread, but some of the misunderstandings of "hiding" in 5e particularly with plain language interpretations I have seen elsewhere remind me a whole lot of this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally–Anne_test

Nice pick up.

Im somewhat reminded of this as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

 

[Plaguescarred]

Mate, I can interpret what I want how I want. RAW doesnt exist as a thing in and of itself. The only thing that exists is RAI.

You continue to be in denial even Sage Advice tells us RAW exist;

Sage Advice: When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives. RAW...RAI...RAF

Another problem is that you think only RAI exist and yet fail to accept that the Sage Advice is clarying how Mask of the Wild and Naturally Stealthy are intended to work RAI, allowing elves and halflings to hide even while observed!

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Hmm, I just had an idea: How about casting suggestion on the rogue and suggesting him to fight without hiding like a coward?