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

[pemerton]

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!

This is just reiterating the subject-matter of contention. It doesn't take the discussion forward, however.

Everyone agrees that a hidden elf can't be seen.

Everyone agrees that an elf who can be seen isn't hidden.

Everyone, as far as I can tell, even agrees that an elf who is currently not subject to observation (eg behind a tree trunk) can step out into light obscurement and have a chance to remain hidden. (I wonder whether a human can do this too, because - per p 64 of the Basic PDF - s/he has not yet come into the open - but I seem to be a lone voice on this, and I do worry how this is mean to fit with the elf ability.)

What is up for grabs is this - can an elf, who currently is seen, become unseen simply in virtue of light obscurement? Can s/he, as it were, press the "cloaking" button and make the snow (or foliage, or rain, or whatever) render him/her unable to be seen?

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] answers "no". I incline to the same answer, because - apart from anything else - I don't see why pressing the "cloaking" button in this way would be a DEX check. Others answer "yes". I'm still a bit unclear what they think is happening in the fiction - does the elf turn (quasi-)invisible? or turn sideways and disappear behind the snowflakes?

I think these differences of interpretation are all fairly clear, and I don't think reiterating the rules text on its own, or stating truisms, is going to eliminate them.

Anyone lightly obscured, elf or not, can be seen when not hidden.

<snip>

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.

But [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s reading of the Sage - while different from yours - is pretty clear. So I don't think you're going to change Hriston's mind just by reiterating what the Sage said.

Hriston agrees that anyone can hide who is not observed. But Hriston thinks that an elf who hides can then step out into light obscurement and remain hidden (which entails remaining unseen) while a human who did the same thing would immediately be noticed by any nearby observer, because (in general) light obscurement doesn't stop someone being noticed.

This is the benefit that Hriston thinks is conferred by the Mask of the Wild ability.

 

[guachi]

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.

You're on a 5e forum in a 5e thread discussing 5e rules and you bring up something written 35+ years ago about 1e?

LOL.

You can't seriously expect me to entertain this as any kind of serious attempt at discussion.

This is like the "Argument Sketch" from Monty Python. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Well, there's this from p. 18:

Dice for Accumulative Hits (Hit Dice): This indicates the number of dice which are rolled in order to determine how many hit points a character can take. Pluses are merely the number of pips to add to the total of all dice rolled not to each die. Thus a Super Hero gets 8 dice + 2; they are rolled and score 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6/totals 26 + 2 = 28, 28 being the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death. Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise affect a character is left to the discretion of the referee.
​

Hit Dice are also given for monsters in Vol 2, which, taken together with this statement at the bottom of p. 19 of Vol 1: "All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points damage unless otherwise noted." seems to strongly imply that damage should be rolled for all hits, whether combat is normal or fantastic, and whether Chainmail or the alternative system are used. On the other hand, I could see using Chainmail unaltered without too much trouble.

A quirky result of this modification 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 correctly, a Hero needs 4 simultaneous hits to kill, whereas in D&D a 4th level fighter's hit points can be whittled down).

That's only when meleed by regular troops, though. On the Fantasy Combat Table a Hero fighting with another Hero is killed on a 2d6 roll of 8 or above. Turning those kills into d6 of damage makes it much more likely that the Hero will survive, which seems to be the intent behind the change.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] answers "no". I incline to the same answer, because - apart from anything else - I don't see why pressing the "cloaking" button in this way would be a DEX check. Others answer "yes". I'm still a bit unclear what they think is happening in the fiction - does the elf turn (quasi-)invisible? or turn sideways and disappear behind the snowflakes?

This has been answered for you, but you don't seem to like that 5e follows the rules. The rules require all stealth hide checks to be dex checks. They even provide the optional stat rule for people like you who come across oddball checks like this and want it to make more sense for your game. That's why it's a dex check to hide while being observed, as the sage advice says they can do.

 

[Maxperson]

You're on a 5e forum in a 5e thread discussing 5e rules and you bring up something written 35+ years ago about 1e?

LOL.

You can't seriously expect me to entertain this as any kind of serious attempt at discussion.

This is like the "Argument Sketch" from Monty Python. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The discussion going on involves Chainmail, 1e, 2e and 5e. You can refuse to participate in anything not dealing with 5e, but you cannot do so and still take part in this discussion. It just makes you a disruption here.

 

[pemerton]

You're on a 5e forum in a 5e thread discussing 5e rules and you bring up something written 35+ years ago about 1e?

LOL.

You can't seriously expect me to entertain this as any kind of serious attempt at discussion.

This is like the "Argument Sketch" from Monty Python. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Huh? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] and I were discussing the capacity, in Chainmail and 1st ed AD&D, of elves to become invisible - because this is the precursor, in the game, of Mask of the Wild. That was the context in which Maxperson denied that a Fireball spell counts as an attack. And you stepped into that discussion.

And more generally: the thread is at nearly 600 posts. You shouldn't be that shocked if some of the aspects of the discussion have strayed from what you would regard as central to the issue!

 

[pemerton]

this statement at the bottom of p. 19 of Vol 1: "All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points damage unless otherwise noted."

I think this is the bit that I couldn't find when I was looking for it a couple of months ago!

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

What happens if a wood elf hides in light foliage, and a Halfling then hides behind the Elf?

 

[pemerton]

What happens if a wood elf hides in light foliage, and a Halfling then hides behind the Elf?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the elf becomes transparent!

 

[Plaguescarred]

What is up for grabs is this - can an elf, who currently is seen, become unseen simply in virtue of light obscurement? Can s/he, as it were, press the "cloaking" button and make the snow (or foliage, or rain, or whatever) render him/her unable to be seen?

Yes it can since an elf and a Skulker feat user can try to hide while lightly obscured, which can still be seen since it doesn't block vision! An Halfling too is still visible while behind an ally when it try to hide!

That is why Sage Advice says "Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures" ...Because if it needed to not be seen in order to try to hide, like everyone else can already, then it wouldn't be a situation unavailable to most other creatures!

I don't see why pressing the "cloaking" button in this way would be a DEX check. Others answer "yes". I'm still a bit unclear what they think is happening in the fiction - does the elf turn (quasi-)invisible? or turn sideways and disappear behind the snowflakes?

It's up to DM to make up the fiction for things happening in the world, these are just mechanics, and Stealth is a Dexterity check.

But Hriston thinks that an elf who hides can then step out into light obscurement and remain hidden (which entails remaining unseen) while a human who did the same thing would immediately be noticed by any nearby observer, because (in general) light obscurement doesn't stop someone being noticed.

While D&D 4E had clear rules on the level of concealment needed to remain hidden, 5E doesn't. But it should be obvious that the obscurement needed to try to hide should be enought to also remain hidden. So if you can try to hide while lightly obscured, you should be able to remain hidden while lightly obscured as well.

4E Stealth: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden. You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.