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

[pemerton]

As soon as you stop telling others how they should interpret something, designed intentionally to *be* interpreted, you will be much better off, IMO.

Maybe there's some confusion here? [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is not telling anyone else how to interpret anything. He is explaining his interpretation and approach. [MENTION=6794638]MA[/MENTION]pxerson, [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] and others are insisting that he is wrong - that the words don't bear the reading he is putting on them.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe there's some confusion here? [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is not telling anyone else how to interpret anything. He is explaining his interpretation and approach. [MENTION=6794638]MA[/MENTION]pxerson, [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] and others are insisting that he is wrong - that the words don't bear the reading he is putting on them.

He's not wrong that it's a possible interpretation. It's just not the one people would normally come to when using natural language, which is why you guys supporting it are in the minority here. RAI is the way we are reading it.

 

[pemerton]

While I agree with you that the semantics are out of control (on both sides), I think it's a far stretch to say that ' to observe' doesn't actually mean something is observed. That kinda makes the word useless; I mean, if I say I observed something what that mean was that I may or may not have actually seen the something, just that I was looking out for it, then it renders the meaning of the word completely moot.

Observe has a transitive use = "I observed X" which entails "I saw X" which entails "X exists"; and has an intransitive use eg "While everyone else took part, I just observed". Which in that example, means "looked on". And looking doesn't entail that anything was seen.

This is why, for probably the course of several hundred posts by now, I've been saying the issue is not semantic. It's pratcical - how does a given table undertand the fiction, the nature of those racial abilities and how they fit with the fiction, relevant mechanical considerations, etc.

As far as words are concerned, my view on the Sage Advice is that, if what Crawford meant to communicate is "You can become unseen even if under direct observation" - ie a "yes" answer to the question asked - he could hardly have done it in a more oblique way. My own view is that the ambiguity is deliberate, not incompetent, because the 5e hiding rules are meant to leave open a wide range of table variations.

 

[Maxperson]

Observe has a transitive use = "I observed X" which entails "I saw X" which entails "X exists"; and has an intransitive use eg "While everyone else took part, I just observed". Which in that example, means "looked on". And looking doesn't entail that anything was seen.

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/observe

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/observe

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/observe

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/observed

Notice how the intransitive involves actually seeing something in every example and definition.

 

[pemerton]

Trying to pretend that your view is what the game designers actually intended

You seem to have misunderstood. I don't think the designers intended my preferred reading. I think they intended ambiguity, to support different readings at different tables.

 

[pemerton]

if a new observer, say Chick's companion Christy, enters the room such that Bob is between her and Tom, and Tom has indeed attempted to be still and quiet, would you compare Tom's ability check to Christy's passive perception and, if successful, allow Tom to be hidden from Christy?

Yes. If Chick tells Christy where to look, I'm not sure what the canonical approach is. I think advantage on the WIS check is probably one way to go (even if Chick is telling Christy where the car keys are on the table, Christy might still have trouble discerning them).

What effects would this have on an encounter that did not feature a halfling attempting to hide behind a larger creature? IE, what would be the benefit for attempting such a distraction in other situations?

If there's nowhere to actually hide, then no. A friend is a hiding place for a halfling, but not for anyone else. A rain drop is a hiding place for an elf, but not for anyone else.

The only issue I have with your view is that it's not any different from normal. This is the general rule.

There seem to be differences of opinion on this, but I am taking it that a person, or rain, or modest foliage, is not enough for an ordinary person to hide behind. (In mechancial terms - I am taking it that light obscurement is generally not enough.)

 

[Maxperson]

There seem to be differences of opinion on this, but I am taking it that a person, or rain, or modest foliage, is not enough for an ordinary person to hide behind. (In mechancial terms - I am taking it that light obscurement is generally not enough.)

This

"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you..."

And this

"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."

Say that you can hide in light obscurement as a general rule. If you couldn't, what you could see in light obscurement would have no relevance in the general hide section.

 

[pemerton]

If they can only hide when no one can see them, like anyone else, that's not a situation unavailable to other creatures.

If B is lurking behind A, and C turns the corner, can C see B?

I take it that the general answer is Yes. Hence, in general, B cannot hide.

If B is a halfling, though, then B gets a DEX check. (Whether the check is made when B firsts starts lurking, or when C turns the corner, strikes me as mostly an issue of table handling, though in an action economy context a given table might want to establish some sort of standard practice to avoid unfairness/disputes.)

Mutatis mutandis if B is an elf and A is rain.

Hiding in B's circumstances is not something that anyone can do.

Conversely: if you think that anyone is entitled to a DEX check remain unnoticed behind a friend; or that anyone is entitled to a DEX check to remain unnoticed in rain, then you will not want to run things as I just described. (You might take this different view if you just carry over 4e's hiding rules to 5e, because in 4e light obscurement is enough to remain unnoticed; but [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has persuaded me that 5e differs from 4e in this respect.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Observe has a transitive use = "I observed X" which entails "I saw X" which entails "X exists"; and has an intransitive use eg "While everyone else took part, I just observed". Which in that example, means "looked on". And looking doesn't entail that anything was seen.

No, that's your attempt to gloss, choosing words carefully to support your argument. Observed in that sentence still means "saw" with the object being "what everyone took part in doing." You're on exceedingly weak ground when your entire argument hinges on the exact synonym you advance. Switch the gloss to one of the actual definitions of observe and your point evaporates.

This is why, for probably the course of several hundred posts by now, I've been saying the issue is not semantic. It's pratcical - how does a given table undertand the fiction, the nature of those racial abilities and how they fit with the fiction, relevant mechanical considerations, etc.

That's an impressive bait and switch. Your justification of the rule is entirely based on a semantic argument, but your trying to exchange that for an argument based on the fiction at the table. That's great, if fiction is actually your argument, but you can just say that and chose to ignore Crawford's comment. But, instead you're trying to justify your reading as a clear reading of Crawford's tweet. But it's not clear and you've had to do a semantic 2-step to try to justify it.

What I don't get is why you feel the need for the semantics? Just say, "yeah, I don't play that way" and move on (although, again, according to earlier statements by you in this thread you did play that way until Hriston convinced you).

As far as words are concerned, my view on the Sage Advice is that, if what Crawford meant to communicate is "You can become unseen even if under direct observation" - ie a "yes" answer to the question asked - he could hardly have done it in a more oblique way. My own view is that the ambiguity is deliberate, not incompetent, because the 5e hiding rules are meant to leave open a wide range of table variations.

Really? There's no way that it could have been more ambiguous? Meals didn't think so. Most of the people in this thread feel that Crawford was perfectly clear. It takes special effort to twist what Crawford said into something ambiguous, and a special effort is exactly what I'd say you've done. Hriston seems to be of the mind that direct observation trumps the tweet and isn't bothering with the semantics games on the meaning of observe and other words. You could do worse than his example.

 

[Caliban]

You seem to have misunderstood. I don't think the designers intended my preferred reading. I think they intended ambiguity, to support different readings at different tables.

Except they didn't, because they've clarified it via tweet and Sage Advice.