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

[Maxperson]

No it's not. It can be read as "nearby watchers".

Let's examine that more closely shall we.

watch
[woch]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin

verb (used without object)
1. to be alertly on the lookout, look attentively, or observe, as to see what comes, is done, or happens: to watch while an experiment is performed.

2.to look or wait attentively and expectantly (usually followed by for):
to watch for a signal; to watch for an opportunity.

3. to be careful or cautious: Watch when you cross the street.

4. to keep awake, especially for a purpose; remain vigilant, as for protection or safekeeping:
to watch with a sick person.

5. to keep vigil, as for devotional purposes.

6. to keep guard: She was assigned to watch at the door.

verb (used with object)
7. to keep under attentive view or observation, as in order to see or learn something; view attentively or with interest: to watch a play; to watch a football game.

8. to contemplate or regard mentally: to watch his progress.

9. to look or wait attentively and expectantly for: to watch one's opportunity.

10. to guard, tend, or oversee, especially for protection or safekeeping: to watch the baby.

Take note that the only two definitions to mention "observe" also mention seeing that thing. That's because observing requires seeing. Someone on watch is a potential observer, not an observer. Someone watching something is an observer since they are looking at it.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Just look at some recent contributors to this thread: @Plaguescarred won't allow a non-skulker, non-elf to remain hidden if the only concealment available is light obscurement

Where did i said that ?

Well, X can be looking right at Y yet not see Y, if Y is hidden from X (eg by the camouflage of the leaves and the rain). So "looking right at you" doesn't necessarily contrast with "watching, but not seeing you".

While ridiculous you're right it can be, in which case anyone can try to hide since they're not seen. When Sage Advice says "Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view." i don't think it means in plain view of prying eyes starring right at you but that doesn't see you otherwise anyone then could try to hide in these circumstances and it thus wouldn't be saying "Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures" since it would be a situation available to most other creatures as well.

The point is that "try to hide" has a perfectly normal usage which is synonymous with "remain hidden".

Not really when you try to hide you are not hidden yet, you make a check to become hidden.

Hide: When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm glad you asked this considering that @Plaguescarred and at least a few other posters really seem to think my interpretation leaves MotW with no discernable benefit. The benefit is that the wood elf can remain undiscovered under a circumstance in which a human would be immediately discovered. For example, a human, a lightfoot halfling, and a wood elf are sneaking through an enclosed courtyard which contains some areas of moderate foliage. They hear a patrol group coming, so the wood elf dives into the moderate foliage. The human follows suit, and the halfling steps behind the human. When the patrol comes within visual range they see the human, but if the elf and halfling roll high enough they are undiscovered. Compare this with what would have happened if it was three humans in the same situation. The elf and halfling have a clear advantage.

Everyone can hide in an area that is lightly or heavily obscured, which includes moderate foliage. Even humans. From the hide section...

"What Can You See?
One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8."

How well you can see. Not automatically succeed in seeing. However, given that is says the explanation is in chapter 8, let's look there as well.

"A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight."

So here a lightly obscured area gives disadvantage on checks that involve sight. Sure sounds like they can see clearly to me! No. No it doesn't. It also doesn't say that humans cannot hide in such conditions.

"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A). The presence or absence o f light in an environment."

No mention of hiding at all here either. So the level of obscurement doesn't affect hiding by any race.

So we're back to the hide rules, which say "you can't hide from a creature that can see you". Well, if a human is hidden, creatures can't see it in lightly obscured conditions unless they succeed at a perception check at disadvantage. Those are the rules, not what you have created above.

What's left are the wood elf rules which allow it to attempt to become hidden in lightly obscured natural conditions. Why would it say that since RAW already allows them to hide there? The answer is because they, unlike humans, can do so while under direct observation as the sage advice and tweet say.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, X can be looking right at Y yet not see Y, if Y is hidden from X (eg by the camouflage of the leaves and the rain). So "looking right at you" doesn't necessarily contrast with "watching, but not seeing you".

No you can't. If you are looking right AT something, you see it. What X can do is be looking right in the direction of Y and not see Y. That's very different than looking AT Y.

The point is that "try to hide" has a perfectly normal usage which is synonymous with "remain hidden".

If I, and everyone else I've spoken with about this were talking about someone trying remaining hidden, we would have used remaining hidden. That's the natural usage there, not "try to hide". Is it a possible usage? Sure. It's not the natural one, though.

 

[pemerton]

Where did i said that ?

Well, here are two of your recent posts in this thread:

A person that is lightly obscured is still seen. It'd need to be more heavily obscured to not be seen.

Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view.

I took the implication of these posts to be that, unless someone is a wood elf or a halfling or a skulker, then that person cannot hide in what is merely light obscurement, because such a person would be seen (= in full view) and hence not able to become or remain hidden.

Not really when you try to hide you are not hidden yet, you make a check to become hidden.

This makes me think back to some exchanges on this thread a week or two ago, where I was wondering about what is actually happening in the fiction on the account that you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] favour. I'm still not sure.

Part of what makes [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s approach attractive to me is that it does make the fiction clear. In particular, it makes it clear that a wood elf who uses Mask of the Wild does not turn invisible or throw up a "cloaking" field.

Relating this to the semantics of "try to hide": I try to hide can have (at least) two meanings. It can mean "I look for a place to hide" or it can mean "I remain silent and motionless and hope not to be noticed". [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is interpreting it in the second sense. And then sees the rules around obscurement etc as setting the parameters for who can or cannot be noticed: if you're only lightly obscured then you will be noticed by anyone who looks unless you're an elf, skulker etc; if you're already under direct observation (ie already seen) then you will be noticed by the person who sees you even if you are an elf who steps behind a rain drop; if there is heavy obscurement, or a wall or other solid obstruction, then anyone can hope not to be noticed.

The DEX check then determines whether the hope is realised - in the fiction, it determines whether or not the hiding person remains sufficiently quiet and still.

Everyone can hide in an area that is lightly or heavily obscured, which includes moderate foliage.

<snip>

In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on s[/I]ight."

So here a lightly obscured area gives disadvantage on checks that involve sight. Sure sounds like they can see clearly to me! No. No it doesn't. It also doesn't say that humans cannot hide in such conditions.

<snip>

if a human is hidden, creatures can't see it in lightly obscured conditions unless they succeed at a perception check at disadvantage. Those are the rules, not what you have created above.

I think this is an odd reading of the rules, beause it seems to imply that light obscurement is the best place to hide because it imposes Disadvantage on the check to be noticed. (Or does the would-be observer make one check to see if s/he hears, but then a second to see if s/he sees?)

But in any event, it's not the only reading. In particular, from the fact that lightly obscured areas penalise Perception checks to see things, it doesn't follow (1) that a Perception check is required, or (2) that, if the check succeeds, the thing is not clearly seen.

There is an element of chicken-and-egg here. If the lightly-obscured non-elven non-skulker does, in fact, satisfy the requirements to be hidden, then s/he is entitled to a DEX check, which then forces a check to notice him/her. But that check can't itself be the trigger for its own eligibility, on pain of circularity. Different posters are breaking this circle at different points.

 

[pemerton]

No you can't. If you are looking right AT something, you see it. What X can do is be looking right in the direction of Y and not see Y. That's very different than looking AT Y.

This is simply not true as a matter of ordinary English usage.

Consider the following:

A: "Where are my keys?"
B: "You're looking right at them!"
A: "Where? I can't see them."
B: "On the table in front of you - in the shadow of the pot-plant!"
A: "Oh, thanks! I hadn't noticed them in the dappled light and shadow."

That is a perfectly comprehensible exchange between native English speakers. In which A is (as B says) looking right at his/her keys and yet has not noticed them.



If I, and everyone else I've spoken with about this were talking about someone trying remaining hidden, we would have used remaining hidden. That's the natural usage there, not "try to hide". Is it a possible usage? Sure. It's not the natural one, though.[/QUOTE]

Let's examine that more closely shall we.

watch
[woch]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin

verb (used without object)
1. to be alertly on the lookout, look attentively, or observe, as to see what comes, is done, or happens: to watch while an experiment is performed.

<snip>

7. to keep under attentive view or observation, as in order to see or learn something; view attentively or with interest: to watch a play; to watch a football game.

<snip>

Take note that the only two definitions to mention "observe" also mention seeing that thing.

Maxperson, I'm a native English speaker with a PhD in a literary discipline who writes professionaly in my field. I don't need a lesson on the meaning of the words "observer", "watcher" and "watch".

And once again you display carelessness in your glossing. The two definitions that mention "observe" don't mention "seeing that thing" (whatever "that thing" is meant to refer to).

The first: to observe, as to see what comes is a verb of attempt, not a verb of success. That is, someone can be watching or observing, as to see what comes, yet fail. Consider the following example of such a usage: "The guerillas sneaked past our observers at the boundary of the village."

The second (or seventh, if you prefer) - to keep under observation or view, so as to see or learn something - likewise doesn't entail success. A person might be watching a football game, or a movie, so as to see something (eg what happens, who wins) and yet fail to do so (eg because s/he blinks, or his/her mind wanders off, or the action becomes too fast for her to follow, etc). A practical example of this is refereeing a sporting match: the referee is watching/observing the game, and yet sometimes may not see the precise details of a move or play, especially if it happens very quickly. This is why some sporting codes permit referees to postpone making a decision until they watch a slow-motion replay of the action of the game. To give a concrete example, a cricket umpire who says "I was watching as closely as I could, but wasn't able to see whether the batsman was out LBW," doesn't utter a contradiction.

In other words - not all watchers succeed in seeing the things they are watching for, nor in seeing every detail of the event that they are watching.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I took the implication of these posts to be that, unless someone is a wood elf or a halfling or a skulker, then that person cannot hide in what is merely light obscurement, because such a person would be seen (= in full view) and hence not able to become or remain hidden.

I said that in reference to trying to hide not remain hidden necessarily. Once hidden the level of obscurement needed to remain hidden is not specifically specified in the rules like 4E did but to me it should be easier to remain hidden in light obscurement when already unseen then to try to hide into it when seen clearly. Which would explain why most creatures can't try to hide when lightly obscured but an elf or Skulker feat users can.

If you couldn't remain hidden when lightly obscured, the elf would never be able to remain hidden in it after he successfully tried to hide in it, nor would a halfling obscured by a larger creature after it successfully tried to hide behind it.

it makes it clear that a wood elf who uses Mask of the Wild does not turn invisible or throw up a "cloaking" field.

A lightly obscured elf hiding in foliage doesn't turn invisible or throw up anything by RAW he just use the obscurement he's in to become unseen and unheard with no equipment necessary. You're free to come up with any fiction you want on how this happens, but this is what happens rule-wise.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this is an odd reading of the rules, beause it seems to imply that light obscurement is the best place to hide because it imposes Disadvantage on the check to be noticed. (Or does the would-be observer make one check to see if s/he hears, but then a second to see if s/he sees?)

No. No it isn't. Heavy obscurement blocks vision entirely. Auto fail is better than disadvantage.

But in any event, it's not the only reading. In particular, from the fact that lightly obscured areas penalise Perception checks to see things, it doesn't follow (1) that a Perception check is required, or (2) that, if the check succeeds, the thing is not clearly seen.

You keep going to things like "not the only reading". That's not relevant. What is relevant is the natural language. Working to read something differently isn't using the words the way they are naturally used. Your number 1 is wrong, because a perception check is absolutely required if someone is hiding. The hiding rules tell you that it's the way to find the hider. The environment rules tell you that the check has disadvantage. Now, as a DM you can overrule the rules, but that's an exception that you are making for your game. As for number 2, natural language requires that to be true. It's literally impossible to clearly see something that is obscured. You might be able to clearly see portions of that thing, but you cannot clearly see a thing that is obscured by any amount.

There is an element of chicken-and-egg here. If the lightly-obscured non-elven non-skulker does, in fact, satisfy the requirements to be hidden, then s/he is entitled to a DEX check, which then forces a check to notice him/her. But that check can't itself be the trigger for its own eligibility, on pain of circularity. Different posters are breaking this circle at different points.

I disagree. Light obscurement is enough to allow an unobserved human to hide, which give the deck check to hide. It ends there. The check itself doesn't come before anything other than perhaps being discovered by the perception check. In all cases, the light obscurement(chicken) comes before the check(egg).

 

[Maxperson]

This is simply not true as a matter of ordinary English usage.

Consider the following:

A: "Where are my keys?"
B: "You're looking right at them!"
A: "Where? I can't see them."
B: "On the table in front of you - in the shadow of the pot-plant!"
A: "Oh, thanks! I hadn't noticed them in the dappled light and shadow."

That is a perfectly comprehensible exchange between native English speakers. In which A is (as B says) looking right at his/her keys and yet has not noticed them.

It's comprehensible, yes, but it is not correct. As a lawyer you are well aware that people are often imprecise or just flat out wrong with the language they choose. Only B is looking right at the keys. A is only looking in the direction of the keys and failing to see them.

A: "You have a sinus headache?"
B: "Yes, and it's killing me."

A: "Look at John run!"
B: "Yes. He's as fast as greased lightning."

Both of those are also comprehensible. However, much like your example, the language used is imprecise and wrong. John isn't running as fast as lightning, which can't in fact be greased, and B is not actually dying from a sinus headache.

Maxperson, I'm a native English speaker with a PhD in a literary discipline who writes professionaly in my field. I don't need a lesson on the meaning of the words "observer", "watcher" and "watch".

And once again you display carelessness in your glossing. The two definitions that mention "observe" don't mention "seeing that thing" (whatever "that thing" is meant to refer to).

The first: to observe, as to see what comes is a verb of attempt, not a verb of success. That is, someone can be watching or observing, as to see what comes, yet fail. Consider the following example of such a usage: "The guerillas sneaked past our observers at the boundary of the village."

The definition of observer is "a person who watches or notices something", not attempts to watch or notice something. The definition of observe is "notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.". You keep trying to change the meaning of those words into just watching in general, which just doesn't work. "Watcher" is only synonymous with observer when the "watcher" actually sees the subject.

In other words - not all watchers succeed in seeing the things they are watching for, nor in seeing every detail of the event that they are watching.

This is true, but only the ones who do succeed are observers.

 

[seebs]

If you are obscured, at all, you can remain hidden. That's why the ranger ability to hide merely by being-camouflaged, without being obscured at all, is a special power. And the general rule is that "you can't hide from a creature that can see you". And that's why "you can hide even when someone can see you" is a special power.

And it's pretty clear that the game consistently uses "hide" to mean "transition into the hidden state".