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

[pemerton]

Let's say the room is only 20' x 20', and the human is standing in the center of the room. I would have to roll a 2 for the audible distance of the human's quiet noises to only be 10 feet. Otherwise, the walls obstruct vision for the purpose of hiding, and the human is not in full view and can try to hide from passers by.

Just for clarity - if the roll was 2, then passers by couldn't hear the human regardless of how well they make any WIS checks (because noise wouldn't travel to them). Is that right?

So from the point of view of remaining unnoticed, it is better for the person in the room that you roll a 2.

 

[Ovinomancer]

1) No.
2) n/a
3) Chick sees Tom clearly.
4) I would tell Tom's player that Tom can tell he won't be hidden under these circumstances.

Thank you.

To follow up, I'd like to suss out the implications of this. Would you say that it impossible to remain hiding in light obscurement? By this I mean that you were hidden before (say in the closed room, just now filled with a lightly obscuring effect) but the situation changes (an observer that didn't detect you before enters the room).

Same question, but now for less than total cover.

To put my cart after my horse, I ask because if your answer is yes, it is impossible to remain hiding, then I can see that as consistent (if rather harsh to hiders) because then the Lightfoot and wild elf abilities do something. If your answer is no, you can remain hiding, then I'd ask what the purpose of the racial abilities is, as it seems they just duplicate what anyone can do (well, wild elf, at least, Lightfoot might be a stretch far for most DMs).

 

[pemerton]

Your justification of the rule is entirely based on a semantic argument

No.

I've explained upthread, multiple times, what it was that persuaded me. I'll do it again.

A DEX check is about remaining still and silent, so as not to give away your position.

But if B steps behind A, B's position is already given away to anyone who sees B. So it makes no sense that B could try and not give away his/her position. Whereas if B is behind A being still and quiet when C turns up, the situatin is different.

For elves, if you treat Mask of the Wild as, in effect, switching on the cloaking device, then to me that is too weird and I'm not sure why a DEX check would model it. But if the basic assumption is that elves in rain etc are camouflaged, then - if they're being still and quiet - you mightn't notice them; but if you're already looking at an elf (say, talking to him/her under a verandah) and then s/he steps into the rain, you don't need to check to notice him/her because you can just follow him/her with your eyes.

That's why distractions make a difference. Because they lead the distracted person to look away.

 

[pemerton]

To the thread: I think I'm out.

I've explained my view pretty clearly multiple times. I don't really care whether or not anyone else would like to run their game that way.

But I get a bit irritated about being told that I'm disingenuous, or lying, or insincere, or don't know how to read sentences of English. Especially given how candid I have been about my reasoning and reading in every post.

 

[SkidAce]

I was going to make an observation, but turns out I didn't actually see it...

I "saw" what you did there...

 

[Hriston]

Just for clarity - if the roll was 2, then passers by couldn't hear the human regardless of how well they make any WIS checks (because noise wouldn't travel to them). Is that right?

Yes, that's right.

So from the point of view of remaining unnoticed, it is better for the person in the room that you roll a 2.

Yes, because the person remains unnoticed by passers-by without hiding. If I rolled from 3 to 12, he would need to try to hide to remain unnoticed by anyone walking past the doorway, and success is not guaranteed.

 

[Plaguescarred]

But if B steps behind A, B's position is already given away to anyone who sees B. So it makes no sense that B could try and not give away his/her position. Whereas if B is behind A being still and quiet when C turns up, the situatin is different.

The rules don't say that you can't try to hide if someone know your location and a Dev even said it was possible on twitter. In fact, you always know the location of someone until it hides so following that logic no one would ever be able to hide in combat!

For elves, if you treat Mask of the Wild as, in effect, switching on the cloaking device, then to me that is too weird and I'm not sure why a DEX check would model it.

You are not sure why? Because the rules say so!

Dexterity Checks: Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance....The Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Dexterity checks

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.

C can see B and if then B cannot hide, it means Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild are unusable since they cannot hide, that is try to hide, or remain hidden. Nobody is gonna believe that but instead take that these features do what they say and let them try to hide while obscured by a creature or natural phenomenon.

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.)

It'd be a houserule if the DEX check is not made at the moment the Hide action is taken. The rules are clear as to when the check is made.

Hide: When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding

 

[Ovinomancer]

No.

I've explained upthread, multiple times, what it was that persuaded me. I'll do it again.

A DEX check is about remaining still and silent, so as not to give away your position.

But if B steps behind A, B's position is already given away to anyone who sees B. So it makes no sense that B could try and not give away his/her position. Whereas if B is behind A being still and quiet when C turns up, the situatin is different.

For elves, if you treat Mask of the Wild as, in effect, switching on the cloaking device, then to me that is too weird and I'm not sure why a DEX check would model it. But if the basic assumption is that elves in rain etc are camouflaged, then - if they're being still and quiet - you mightn't notice them; but if you're already looking at an elf (say, talking to him/her under a verandah) and then s/he steps into the rain, you don't need to check to notice him/her because you can just follow him/her with your eyes.

That's why distractions make a difference. Because they lead the distracted person to look away.

See, THAT'S a solid argument. I disagree with you, but I can see your chain of thinking and understand how tgat might work. You should have stayed there rather than the increasingly incoherent semantic arguments trying to get Crawford's tweet to match that. If that's the way you want to run, it doesn't matter what Crawford (or the rules) say. You do you.

 

[seebs]

But I get a bit irritated about being told that I'm disingenuous, or lying, or insincere, or don't know how to read sentences of English. Especially given how candid I have been about my reasoning and reading in every post.

You've been very clear about your reasoning, but you've simply failed to respond to substantive criticisms. You've never addressed the observation that many of your "glosses" replace words with completely different words, and you've never addressed the higher-level criticisms about the relationship between the words. In short, I don't dispute that the readings you propose are conceptually possible individually, but they are at best very big stretches, and they don't combine coherently. And your response to complaints about your glosses replacing a phrase with something that has a completely different meaning has been to handwave and not acknowledge that at all.

It's been really frustrating, because it doesn't really come across as though you're even processing anything anyone says; you sort of respond to part of the material, but any time there's something you haven't got a good response for, you just sort of emit a ton of unrelated words on previously-argued points and ignore the substantive challenge that you don't have a response to.

I can't tell whether it's intentional or not, but it's certainly maddening from the perspective of someone who works really hard to come up with a clear statement of a thing, to have it ignored in favor of you reiterating that obviously in some contexts "vanish" doesn't imply direct observation, while ignoring the fact that it was in this case offered as part of a contrary statement to "normally you can't hide while directly observed".

 

[seebs]

No.

I've explained upthread, multiple times, what it was that persuaded me. I'll do it again.

A DEX check is about remaining still and silent, so as not to give away your position.

But if B steps behind A, B's position is already given away to anyone who sees B. So it makes no sense that B could try and not give away his/her position.

No, a dex check is not about "remaining still and silent". A dex check is about doing something which allows you to either conceal your position or refrain from revealing it. It might be remaining still, but you can make hide checks when moving in some cases.

The problem here is that you invented a shiny new rule that is not part of the game. READ THE ACTUAL RULES.

Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

"An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet." => you can hide WHILE MOVING, but "signs of your passage" (such as footprints) could be noticed.

Note that "give away your position" may not entirely invalidate hiding. Consider: You turn invisible. You shout. You have now "given away your position". Can you try to hide, without moving? You can! An invisible creature can always try to hide. The mere fact that everyone knows where you were before you hid doesn't mean that they can tell you haven't moved.

In a game full of rulings-not-rules, you've latched onto the phrase "give away your position" and built a giant edifice of dreams and speculation on it, without considering that it might not be intended as an absolute definition of an essential and inevitable component of stealth, which must be used to redefine every other term or statement made.