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

[Maxperson]

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.

He has also consistently ignored that the rules say that the DM has the option to use other stats for ability checks, so by RAW, he could use WIS or INT for the wood elf hide ability. I'm thinking it was ignored because it neatly defeats his reasoning that RAI doesn't make sense, because hiding while someone is looking at you shouldn't be a DEX check in his opinion.

 

[seebs]

And even if it "shouldn't" be a dex check, we just sorta handwave a lot of stuff for ability checks. The argument seemed to be that it should be wis because it's magic, or something, but it's not really magic, it's just cinematic.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And even if it "shouldn't" be a dex check, we just sorta handwave a lot of stuff for ability checks. The argument seemed to be that it should be wis because it's magic, or something, but it's not really magic, it's just cinematic.

Strangely, I recall [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] being one of those arguing vociferously that you can have INT 5 geniuses, because the stats don't have exact meanings past the mechanical results in the game -- the fiction can be anything you can imagine that works. But here, he cannot allow DEX to be allowed to hide because everyone sees you, totally discounting any explanation like making a quick feint to distract and then slipping perfectly behind (larger creature/natural light obscurement) so when everyone looks back he's gone. Very odd, unless he's changed the way he looks at the game in the meantime.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Doesn't anyone understand camouflage?

You blend in, you can still be seen, but you are not recognized for what you are.

Could an elf go camo while someone was watching? Not likely.

Could an elf or otherwise camo'd creature be in plain sight but still "hidden, unseen, etc" when someone else entered the area? Sure.

Heh heh. This seems as good as any post to jump in.

There are a ton of real-life and fictional examples of things like this. ET hiding in the closet. The original assassins who would come up in plain sight in the middle of the day, Waldo, missing the guy in the gorilla suit while counting basketballs, etc.

I personally have watched a deer run into the woods, and lost sight of them even though there wasn't much obscurement. I eventually figured out where it was, but if it was somebody trying to attack me I'd have been in trouble. In that case it was the obscurement coupled with my eyes tracking where I thought the deer was going.

Illusionists rely on distraction to hide things in plain sight all the time.

As much as I got sucked into threads like this in the past, I'm at the point where I'm very comfortable with the idea that in the game, both as written and intended, the default option is to let them try. If it's difficult, then that's what advantage and disadvantage are for.

I watched a guy who was busy trying to light a cigarette (on a windy day) walk into a post. People get into accidents on a daily basis while paying attention to their cell phone.

I used to be a stickler for being very restrictive until I thought about things (and researched things) and found out how easy it really is to fool our senses, including sight. Heck, football plays are built around that concept too. Even melee combat is often based on making you think an attack is coming from one angle (feint) which takes your attention (perception) of the attack you're really making.

To put it a different way, for the most part we're really only good at focusing on one thing at a time. We can switch back and forth very quickly, it's that split second of focus on the wrong thing that can make all the difference in the world.

Camouflage can help to hide, but isn't always needed. Concealment (obscurement) helps too. None of these abilities require magic - they occur in our world all the time. A good example here is a shell game. Not all that different than "which tree did the elf hide behind?"

Could an elf go camo while somebody was watching? Well, if they are carefully watching the elf, it would probably be very difficult if not impossible. But all you really need to do is break line of sight. If you're watching an elf that intently, then I'd say that all other creatures would have advantage attacking you since you weren't paying attention to them. Turn to parry that sword coming at your head? Suddenly the elf has an opportunity.

That's the part that I feel people always miss in discussions like these. Yes, overall I'd agree that in combat, people are looking all around to watch out for risks and such. But, as they look around they also give opportunities for others to take actions. Then it's a question of the skill of the creature hiding vs the perception of the creature they are hiding from. And (surprise!) the rules cover that situation very well. The DM just needs to determine if there are any mitigating factors that grant advantage or disadvantage.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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).

To me, the difference is that the elf can attempt it, even when under observation. Is it magical? I'd be OK with that for a creature such as an elf.

I have never felt that total cover (concealment) is required for hiding. Way to many examples in real life to require something that restrictive. But I think that an elf is better at disappearing in the natural environment.

I should also point out that as a DM I:
Don't particularly care about "balance" and keeping abilities entirely segregated by race/class, etc., but as I've noted, if you're an elf in a natural environment you'll be better at it (even if the actual rules are a bit clunky, a lot of it has to do with adjudication).

I'm not particularly interested in parsing RAW, or even RAI. What I care about is how we'll use the rules in our game, and consistency within that structure. So players know where I stand and what to expect. Having said that, in a public campaign, adherence to the rules in the published books becomes more important and if that's what I must do, then so be it. The game is written for a broad audience, and what works for that audience isn't always what works for us.

Ultimately the rules exist to help adjudicate and model the world and scenes within that world. And as much as I enjoy getting into the details of rules discussions like these, our table rules are far more dependent on a big picture view than the details.

Big picture view:
If you can reasonably explain how you are attempting to hide, keeping in mind whether the other creatures are actively watching you and only you, or are also paying attention to other things, there is a very high likelihood that you'll be able to attempt to hide.

The circumstances will dictate whether I decide you have advantage/disadvantage, or whether the other creature has advantage/disadvantage, or makes a passive or active check.

In some situations I might declare it impossible.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So, i know that rogues are the best at hiding, moving in slowly, hitting with a nasty Sneak Attack, and then, hiding as a bonus action to avoid getting hit themselves.

It's their thing. I get it.

However, it doesn't seem that any of the monsters presented in the MM or elsewhere really have a good enough Perception skill to find my rogue player.

I am DMing "Out of the Abyss", and at this point, they are levels 11 going on 12, so i expect them to be top notch characters, but this has been going on for a while now....

Most monsters just dont have the Perception to find the rogue when he hides. Worse, some monsters dont even have the Perception skill and must use thier weak Wisdom scores (at best a +3 or +4) to even try.

I've tried things like giving my rogue disadvantage while hiding in watery puddled places...

I've also had the monster go look around for the rogue at the spot where he last was seen, forcing my rogue to re-roll on his hide check...

..but rogues are just too damn good at it! Especially, when sneaking around in the Underdark.

I just dont know what to do at this point.

I want to hit my damn rogue so bad, but he's always hiding! And its like every round because he can do this as a bonus action with Cunning Action (granted at 2nd level!)

Any suggestions?
Anyone else have this problem?

To answer the OP.

My suggestion is simple. Use a considered approach to advantage and disadvantage. In addition, during the course of a combat, an opponent that keeps disappearing will be deemed a significant threat. And they should be. In which case they will also quickly become a more targeted individual. If they are actively being targeted it will be more difficult to hide (their opponents will probably have advantage on their perception checks), and more difficult to stay alive.

I should also mention that in my campaign, Expertise grants you a +2 bonus to that skill, not double your proficiency bonus, with a maximum of +6. That is, it can never be better than that of a 17th level character. It helps reign in some of those rogue abilities (Expertise in Stealth and Perception seem to be favorites...).

 

[Plaguescarred]

To me, the difference is that the elf can attempt it, even when under observation. Is it magical? I'd be OK with that for a creature such as an elf.

No It's not magical according to Sage Advice since the answer to all the questions is no http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-february-2016

Sage Advice: Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Mask of the Wild: You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No It's not magical according to Sage Advice since the answer to all the questions is no http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-february-2016

Sage Advice: Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:

Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Mask of the Wild: You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

I'm really OK with either. I was just saying I'm OK with it being determined to be magical or not. But that's interesting to note that it was clarified as not.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm really OK with either. I was just saying I'm OK with it being determined to be magical or not. But that's interesting to note that it was clarified as not.

It just tells you to ask the questions. The ruling is still up to the DM. For me, should I ever run 5e, I will be ruling it to be a magical ability. I see no other way that any race can hide light obscurement while being stared at.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It just tells you to ask the questions. The ruling is still up to the DM. For me, should I ever run 5e, I will be ruling it to be a magical ability. I see no other way that any race can hide light obscurement while being stared at.

I've given some real life examples, but that's OK. From the Ranger discussions (among others), I know that you lean towards the more restrictive side of things and I'm fine with that. And I've also said that if they were being stared at, it would be with disadvantage anyway. 90% of the time it's going to occur in those moments that somebody looks away.

In my direct personal experiences, along with studies, scientific studies, and such I'm quite comfortable with it being mundane.

On the other hand, elves in my campaign are viewed as having some abilities beyond the capabilities of humans (and they do), whether it's due to magic, a by-product of their long lives, or whatever is really left to speculation by me...on purpose. I'm not really concerned about whether it's magical or not as I am about how the world views elves, etc. From a game/mechanical standpoint, all that matters is that they can do it.

So I guess in my campaign, much of the world sees many of their abilities as magical, as the world-builder (or modifier, since it's the FR), I consider it mundane. They're just better.