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

[Hriston]

Those are two different things. RAW decides whether the visual requirements for the attempt are satisfied. The DM then decides success, failure, or in doubt. Only if in doubt is a roll asked for. Rolls are not dependent and satisfaction of the requirement.

The RAW doesn't say you can hide just so long as you're the tiniest bit obscured. The RAW gives the DM the duty of deciding if circumstances exist that allow the character to hide. If they do exist, the character can then hide. When the character hides, and the DM decides there's some uncertainty about whether he'll be found, the DM can ask the player to roll a Stealth check which is a contest between the character and anyone who tries to find him. If the character wins a contest, he prevents a creature from finding him. It would seem very odd to me for the DM to determine that circumstances are appropriate for hiding but then to declare the hider is automatically found by an observing creature. That seems more like an inappropriate circumstance to me.

This is a house rule. RAW includes auto failure as an outcome of the declared action by the player. If you are removing that option or moving it to another section of the rules, it's a house rule.

No it isn't. It's just hiding. The DM tells the player if hiding is possible. If the player hides after that, the DM shouldn't then decide it isn't possible.

This is flat out wrong. The DM is in fact letting the human try. He's declaring AFTER the attempt that it is a failure.

"When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check." The DEX check is synonymous with the attempt. Denying the check is the same as denying the attempt.

 

[Maxperson]

The RAW doesn't say you can hide just so long as you're the tiniest bit obscured. The RAW gives the DM the duty of deciding if circumstances exist that allow the character to hide. If they do exist, the character can then hide. When the character hides, and the DM decides there's some uncertainty about whether he'll be found, the DM can ask the player to roll a Stealth check which is a contest between the character and anyone who tries to find him. If the character wins a contest, he prevents a creature from finding him. It would seem very odd to me for the DM to determine that circumstances are appropriate for hiding but then to declare the hider is automatically found by an observing creature. That seems more like an inappropriate circumstance to me.

This is true. RAW does say, however, that you can't hide if seen clearly, which means it's possible to hide during any condition where you aren't seen clearly. ANY amount of obscurement qualifies as not being see clearly. Seen clearly and obscured being mutually exclusive when using natural language.

It goes like this. Attempt to hide. Seen clearly = no. Light obscurement = not seen clearly = DM decision about uncertainty.

No it isn't. It's just hiding. The DM tells the player if hiding is possible. If the player hides after that, the DM shouldn't then decide it isn't possible.

Who ever side hiding was possible? Only the ATTEMPT to hide is possible. Success may or may not be possible. It goes like this. Light obscurement = allowed to attempt to hide. Attempt to hide under light obscurement = check for elven cloak, elven ability, skulker ability, or some other ability that would allow the attempt to be successful. If such ability = no, then auto failure at attempt. If such ability = yes, then roll for success or degree of success.

"When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check." The DEX check is synonymous with the attempt. Denying the check is the same as denying the attempt.

By RAW a roll is only called for if the attempt is uncertain. Are you really saying that one cannot try to hide when success is guaranteed? That would really suck. You'd have to wait until you might get caught in order to try and hide, and that's just dumb.

 

[pemerton]

RAW does say, however, that you can't hide if seen clearly, which means it's possible to hide during any condition where you aren't seen clearly.

If you can't hide if seen clearly, it follows that not being seen clearly is a necessary condition of attempting to hide. I'm not sure that also means it's a sufficient condition.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This is true. RAW does say, however, that you can't hide if seen clearly, which means it's possible to hide during any condition where you aren't seen clearly. ANY amount of obscurement qualifies as not being see clearly. Seen clearly and obscured being mutually exclusive when using natural language.

It goes like this. Attempt to hide. Seen clearly = no. Light obscurement = not seen clearly = DM decision about uncertainty.



Who ever side hiding was possible? Only the ATTEMPT to hide is possible. Success may or may not be possible. It goes like this. Light obscurement = allowed to attempt to hide. Attempt to hide under light obscurement = check for elven cloak, elven ability, skulker ability, or some other ability that would allow the attempt to be successful. If such ability = no, then auto failure at attempt. If such ability = yes, then roll for success or degree of success.

By RAW a roll is only called for if the attempt is uncertain. Are you really saying that one cannot try to hide when success is guaranteed? That would really suck. You'd have to wait until you might get caught in order to try and hide, and that's just dumb.

If players are trying to hide in circumstances where hiding isn't possible, the DM has probably failed to properly describe the environment. I hope you're just arguing and not actually running your game like this.

 

[Maxperson]

If players are trying to hide in circumstances where hiding isn't possible, the DM has probably failed to properly describe the environment. I hope you're just arguing and not actually running your game like this.

Agreed. I'm just explaining to [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] the possibilities that exist in lightly obscured conditions. I wouldn't expect any players to have their PCs actually attempt to hide in lightly obscured conditions unless their PC had one of the special ways to succeed.

 

[Hriston]

Agreed. I'm just explaining to [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] the possibilities that exist in lightly obscured conditions. I wouldn't expect any players to have their PCs actually attempt to hide in lightly obscured conditions unless their PC had one of the special ways to succeed.

MotW, NS, HiPS, and Skulker are not special ways to succeed at trying to hide, unless you're counting being allowed to try as success. They are ways in which trying to hide at all may be possible in situations where it would be otherwise impossible.

 

[Satyrn]

MotW, NS, HiPS, and Skulker are not special ways to succeed at trying to hide, unless you're counting being allowed to try as success. They are ways in which trying to hide at all may be possible in situations where it would be otherwise impossible.

The DM descibes an empty, featureless white room. Says monsters are approaching. A player says "I lean against the wall and remain still as a statue hoping to hide from them."

Max's quote reads to me as saying he would tell the player "You do that, but your attempt at hiding fails."

Your quote reads to me as saying you would tell the player "You can't do that. Do something else."

But I'm guessing you'd actually do exactly what Max would: "There's no way that can work, are you sure you want to?"

Y'all just seem to be deep into semantic nitpicking you can't see you agree.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I have to say that the arguments presented in this thread have gotten so esoteric that I honestly have no idea what points people are trying to make anymore.

 

[Hriston]

The DM descibes an empty, featureless white room. Says monsters are approaching. A player says "I lean against the wall and remain still as a statue hoping to hide from them."

Max's quote reads to me as saying he would tell the player "You do that, but your attempt at hiding fails."

Your quote reads to me as saying you would tell the player "You can't do that. Do something else."

But I'm guessing you'd actually do exactly what Max would: "There's no way that can work, are you sure you want to?"

Y'all just seem to be deep into semantic nitpicking you can't see you agree.

What are the lighting conditions in this room, because my understanding of Max's position is that dim lighting would be required to allow the attempt, even if the PC was a level 10 ranger?

I, on the other hand, would allow the use of HiPS even under brightly lit conditions, but other characters wouldn't be able to hide in such circumstances. Rather than say, "You can't do that," however, I would say, "You can do that, but you can tell you won't be hidden as a result."

 

[Hriston]

If you can't hide if seen clearly, it follows that not being seen clearly is a necessary condition of attempting to hide. I'm not sure that also means it's a sufficient condition.

I would say it definitely isn't a sufficient condition. Making loud enough noise, for example, makes hiding impossible even when not seen clearly.