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

[pemerton]

Doesn't anyone understand camouflage?

You blend in, you can still be seen, but you are not recognized for what you are.

Could an elf go camo while someone was watching? Not likely.

Could an elf or otherwise camo'd creature be in plain sight but still "hidden, unseen, etc" when someone else entered the area? Sure.

Two points in reply.

First, about the phrase "to be seen": this has multiple usages. It is perfectly acceptable to say "Because she was camouflaged, I couldn't see her!" It is also perfectly acceptable to say, "Because she was camouflaged, I coulnd't see her even though I was looking right at her!" It is also perfectly accepttable to say "The camouflaged person was seen but not noticed". Etc.

Sometimes "seen" is used to mean perceptible or in the field of vision. Sometimes it isused to mean noticed. The stealth rules are ambiguous in this respect, as is the Sage advice, and surely this is deliberate.

Second, about the rules: I think you are agreeing with [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], that an elf can't hide in light obscurement whilst under observation, but if unobserved can hide and then remain hidden (even if in a would-be observer's field of vision) in conditions of only light obscurement.

 

[guachi]

Great. The fireball is still an attack as in, "I am attacking the enemy", but not an "Attack as in "melee attack the D&D definition." I was using the common usage of the word. The point that you seem to be ignoring is that the fireball is happening in combat and hits the invisible elves.

I'm not ignoring it. Fireball not being an attack is the entire reason you can use it to damage a hidden target without actually knowing where the target is and suffering no penalties for doing so (like disadvantage).

 

[pemerton]

Casting fireball and causing saving throws to be made isn't an attack as defined by the game.

An attack requires an attack roll. Fireball doesn't use attack rolls so it's not at attack. Neither is Magic Missile, for example. It doesn't make attack rolls so it's not an attack.

Gygax's AD&D is not written with this degree of technical precision.

For instance, when the Invisibility spell in the original PHB says that "any form of attack" leads to the character becoming visible, I htink everyone has always understood that this would include using a fireball or a cone wand etc.

 

[Hriston]

I love how you try to reduce combat to only melee. Sorry, but you can still hit an invisible opponent with spells IN COMBAT.

No, I think that still counts as attacking them. Are you saying that because this rule is found under "Special Types of Attacks" in the section on Melee, that it only applies to melee attacks? I read it as applying universally to all types of attack. It would be odd, for example, if I was unable to target an invisible (and hidden) creature with a sword, but had no problem aiming a bow and arrow at it.

I don't care how quiet and invisible you are. If you are in the area of my fireball, cast in combat, you're a toasty elf.

I think the idea is that they are not in the area of your fireball. You don't know where they are. Elves have a movement rate of 120 feet per one minute round, which is more than enough to make it virtually impossible to know where to place the center of a 20 foot radius area of effect. A fireball cast at a point where you guess invisible and undetected elves are would be a wasted spell, unless we're talking about very large, densely positioned group of elves covering a large area where you're virtually guaranteed to hit some elves no matter where you point, or some other corner-case.

It was the foundation for the rules. It was not the default.

What distinction are you trying to draw here? Chainmail was the primary rules for combat. That's why the d20-based attack and saving throw matrices are presented as an alternative. The one notable modification D&D makes to Chainmail is that hits don't automatically kill but instead do damage.

They can still be affected in combat.

How do you affect elves who are in an unknown and undetected location? Not even cloudkill covers a wide enough area to trap the elves.

There is also no restriction on vanishing 6 inches in front of an enemy staring you. Twist and spin the wording all you like, you will still never be able to show that restriction to be true.

I haven't tried to show that such a restriction exists. I've merely said that I think it's suggested by the fact that elves can't turn invisible while attacking. Even if they can turn invisible under direct observation, however, they won't be hidden. That's the point. The 5e wood elf, on the other hand, certainly does not have the power to turn invisible without first becoming hidden.

They can be attacked, just not in melee. A fireball attack is effective against invisible enemies for example.

Not if they're hidden. If they're hidden, you don't know where to aim your fireball.

 

[Maxperson]

In which case, what difference is the snow making to the human's chance to hide?

EDIT: Saw this, which offers part of an answer:

But I still don't get what difference the snow is making - the human could just go behind the rock and would be not seen clearly (because not seen at all) and hence could try and hide.

Looking closer, seeing clearly isn't the requirement. The hiding section specifies that "You can't hide from a creature that can see you.", making the elf the only one in the partially obscured areas.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I think that still counts as attacking them. Are you saying that because this rule is found under "Special Types of Attacks" in the section on Melee, that it only applies to melee attacks? I read it as applying universally to all types of attack. It would be odd, for example, if I was unable to target an invisible (and hidden) creature with a sword, but had no problem aiming a bow and arrow at it.

I think the idea is that they are not in the area of your fireball. You don't know where they are. Elves have a movement rate of 120 feet per one minute round, which is more than enough to make it virtually impossible to know where to place the center of a 20 foot radius area of effect. A fireball cast at a point where you guess invisible and undetected elves are would be a wasted spell, unless we're talking about very large, densely positioned group of elves covering a large area where you're virtually guaranteed to hit some elves no matter where you point, or some other corner-case.

There is no such idea in existence. At least not in the rules. An elf can go "invisible" and not move from that spot. A fireball can be cast at or near that spot. The only way for the elf not to suffer that attack is for the fireball to be unable to go near it, or for the elf to be immune to everything from fireball to meteor swarm, because invisible. Both of those things are patently absurd, and since I really don't think you're going to argue that there's a rule that elves must move max speed away just in case a fireball comes, the elves are still subject to spell attack.

What distinction are you trying to draw here? Chainmail was the primary rules for combat. That's why the d20-based attack and saving throw matrices are presented as an alternative. The one notable modification D&D makes to Chainmail is that hits don't automatically kill but instead do damage.

Mini game rules are designed with different goals than RPG rules. Something that makes sense in a miniatures wargame(can't attack an invisible target), no longer makes sense in an RPG and is changed.

How do you affect elves who are in an unknown and undetected location? Not even cloudkill covers a wide enough area to trap the elves.

So you're claiming that a fireball or cloudkill spell cast 5 feet from an invisible elf misses because the elf is fast?

Not if they're hidden. If they're hidden, you don't know where to aim your fireball.

That's why I'm using fireball. With a fireball I don't have to know where the elf is. I can guess and still fry the sucker.

 

[pemerton]

Chainmail was the primary rules for combat. That's why the d20-based attack and saving throw matrices are presented as an alternative. The one notable modification D&D makes to Chainmail is that hits don't automatically kill but instead do damage.

Completely off-topic, I don't know if that modification is actually stated, as opposed to implied, by the rules. I remember the last time I looked through Book 1: Men & Magic looking for it, I couldn't find it.

A quirky result of this modifiction is that some things become harder to kill (because you have to whittle down their hp) while other things get easier to kill (eg in Chainmail, if I remember correclty, a Hero needs 4 simultaneous hits to kill, whereas in D&D a 4th level fighter's hit points can be whittled down).

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Looking closer, seeing clearly isn't the requirement. The hiding section specifies that "You can't hide from a creature that can see you.", making the elf the only one in the partially obscured areas.

Seeing clearly was made a part of the stealth rules via the errata. That's why it's not just a matter of if you can be seen, but seen clearly.

 

[Yunru]

Like with a kobold's (or is it a goblin's?) nimble escape, the design balance assumes if a character has the ability to hide as a bonus action, they will.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I agreed that both are seen clearly in moderate foliage if they are not hidden. I also agreed that the wood elf has the ability to be hidden in moderate foliage and that the human does not. But I would never agree that anyone could be hidden while seen clearly. The two states are mutually exclusive.

The elf doesn't only have the ability to remain hidden in lightly obscured foliage, but to also try to hide in it, even though being lightly obscured doesn't block vision like you agreed, which means that the elf can still be seen until it successfully hide and become unseen.

The wood elf has the ability to be hidden in a situation where creatures could see him if he was not hidden! This doesn't mean that creatures can still see him when he is hidden.

Of course he cannot be seen while hidden (provided that some level of obscurement is maintained), because being hidden means you're now unseen and unheard!

It also doesn't mean that creatures don't see him without his becoming hidden first. The wood elf needs to not be seen clearly before he can become hidden, and Mask of the Wild doesn't confer any ability to not be seen clearly before becoming hidden.

Yes it does since being lightly obscured doesn't block vision. Anyone lightly obscured, elf or not, can be seen when not hidden.

You're right that Mask of the Wild doesn't confer any ability to not be seen clearly before becoming hidden, what it does it still aloow it to try to hide regardless. That is why Sage Advice says;

''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.

Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures''

If below the observers nearby were creature not seeing the human and the elf clearly, both could try to hide! Here observers are people actually seeing them instead otherwise it wouldn't say they're capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures since anyone can try to hide from observers not seeing them.

''Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? 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.''