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

[Flamestrike]

For the record, I'm primarily simulationist and I understand it just fine. @Hriston and @Flamestrike are trying to twist that statement to fit their narrative of how hiding works. Hriston is trying to argue that you don't directly observe something you are staring directly at, and Flamestrike is trying to divorce the second sentence from the first when they are clearly tied together by how they are written. Both are failing badly.

Yet from where I sit, I see two different (and equally valid) interpretations.

I dont call your interpretation as 'failing badly'. In fact, I support you in having your interpretation. If it works for you then go for it.

My advice (there are multiple interpretations) says nothing about some kind of 'objective RAW'. In fact I deny 'objective RAW sans subjective interpretation' exists.

You're right and I'm right. This is further enshrined in the rules for hiding which expressly state 'Your DM determines when you can and cannot hide'.

So quit with the snark brother. I gots better things to do than argue rubbish on an internet forum.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I try and treat hiding for PCs like my players would like me to treat hiding for the monsters thy face. If they can duck behind a wall and be "hidden" then so can the monsters they fight. If they want to be able to make hit-and-run tactics and gain bonuses for being "hidden" mid-fight then so can their foes.

Not being able to target the goblins attacking from the underbrush isn't fun for players. Why would it be fun for th DM not to be able to target the rogue?

Maybe it wouldn't be fun for your players, my players on the other hand enjoy anything that makes a fight with goblins seem like a fight with goblins rather than small weak orcs.

 

[Uller]

So quit with the snark brother. I gots better things to do than argue rubbish on an internet forum.

You do? Like what? That sounds crazy! What if someone on the internet is WRONG?!?!?! How can you do something trivial like earn a living or get an education knowing that ignorance exists somewhere?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

So quit with the snark brother. I gots better things to do than argue rubbish on an internet forum.

35 pages of this thread suggests that you don't.

 

[Uller]

Maybe it wouldn't be fun for your players, my players on the other hand enjoy anything that makes a fight with goblins seem like a fight with goblins rather than small weak orcs.

And this actually gets to the meat of why I'm a "yes, but..." DM when it comes to this sort of thing. I want my players to use their kewl abilities. I also want my monsters to use theirs. So I tend to give the character taking the action the benefit of the doubt. If a goblin can run into the bushes out of sight and hide and that makes the fight more interesting then I prefer it. If my players complain that "I was watching the goblin and he hid?" I say...yep...they're that d**m sneaky!

We have a shadow monk in our party that could climb into the box, take the hide action and then use her bonus action to shadow step out of the box to someplace she can see from the box (maybe the ceiling is dimly lit and the wizard cast Spider Climb on her). Someone watching her would think she is still in the box. And that's freakin' awesome! If her player chooses to just stay in the box and the observer has no reason to think she left it, then it will be a problem for her.

 

[seebs]

Try to hide =/= already hidden. It means that you are not hidden and TRY TO HIDE. You are trying to force that statement to fit your pre-conceived ideas on hiding, when it clearly doesn't.

If someone is not observed he can NEVER try to hide, as hiding will ALWAYS be successful. Staying hidden vs. perception is another matter entirely, but when unobserved the roll is not to try to hide, it is to see how well you successfully hid. You can only ever TRY to hide while being observed.

No, this isn't right.

If you are not currently observed, and you don't Hide, someone who comes into the room observes you. If you aren't currently observed, and you Hide, they have to make a perception check or something similar.

"Can try to hide" means you get to roll hide and may become "hidden", because "hidden" isn't the same as "concealed".

 

[Jester David]

Maybe it wouldn't be fun for your players, my players on the other hand enjoy anything that makes a fight with goblins seem like a fight with goblins rather than small weak orcs.

Goblins were just a quick example.
The point is if any creature can be one functionally invisible behind minor cover, opposed by passive Perception - that applies to monsters controlled by the DM as well.

If my players would call a tactic cheesy BS after a sniper ducks behind a pillar, Hides, and attacks with advantage then I'm not going to let them do it either.

 

[Dausuul]

Goblins were just a quick example.
The point is if any creature can be one functionally invisible behind minor cover, opposed by passive Perception - that applies to monsters controlled by the DM as well.

If my players would call a tactic cheesy BS after a sniper ducks behind a pillar, Hides, and attacks with advantage then I'm not going to let them do it either.

For most monsters, that tactic is strictly worse than just attacking every round. Each Hide action costs you a round's worth of attacks. Unless you have Sneak Attack, one attack with advantage is always worse than two attacks without: Either way, you get two attack rolls, but with two attacks you have the potential for two hits, while one attack with advantage can only ever hit once. Not only that, but you have to wait until the second round to deal any damage.

It's a potent strategy for the rogue because of a) Sneak Attack and b) Cunning Action. For monsters that have neither of those things, it's a loser.

Furthermore, as I mentioned a looooooong way back, the DM has a fair bit of leeway to judge when the pillar-hider is and is not noticed. To shoot, you have to lean out from behind the pillar, making yourself visible. It is then the DM's judgement whether you can be seen "clearly" and whether the monsters are observant enough to notice you in that moment. If a monster is watching the pillar closely, the DM can quite fairly argue that you lose your hidden status the instant you lean out to shoot, and thus do not get advantage on that foe.

(On the other hand, if the rogue was an Arcane Trickster and created the illusion of a pillar, the rogue could then shoot through the pillar without emerging at all, and would thus have advantage. The monster can stare at that pillar all day, but it still won't know when the rogue is attacking and where he's aiming.)

 

[Inglorin]

If my players would call a tactic cheesy BS after a sniper ducks behind a pillar, Hides, and attacks with advantage then I'm not going to let them do it either.

If the Goblin ducks behind total cover, hiding doesn't benefit him any more than beeing unseen already does. The Goblin doesn't have to hide to get the advantage on his next bow attack. Merely being unseen gives him this advantage.

Why he SHOULD hide? Well, there are many possibilities. He may want to sneak away to another part of the battlefield. Doing so while being (and hopefully remaining so) hidden helps him in this regard as his position isn't known then.

That's the thing with the stupid Rogue in a box or Elf in the yucca palm tree. Hiding doesn't benefit these characters here. So the argument if it should be allowed or if it does make sense is pretty pointless. Being unseen is (in these circumstances) as valueable as being hidden. The location is pretty accurately guessable by anyone observing the situation, so no benefit here. Being hidden just adds a "can not be targeted directly" to the mix here.

 

[Maxperson]

Yet from where I sit, I see two different (and equally valid) interpretations.

Not quite. There are two interpretations, sure, but they are not equally valid. You see, when a sentence is constructed so that it clearly and objectively refers to the prior sentence, the interpretation that it pertains to the prior sentence is correct and the one that ignores reality and says that they are not connected is wrong.

My advice (there are multiple interpretations) says nothing about some kind of 'objective RAW'. In fact I deny 'objective RAW sans subjective interpretation' exists.

It's an objective statement pertaining to the prior sentence. Those two sentences say objectively that the wood elf can try to hide while being stared at directly. It's not some vague interpretive statement as you are trying to make it out to be.