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

[Plaguescarred]

There is no camouflage. A naked elf can do it, as well as an elf dressed in bright orange. The racial ability makes no distinction for clothing.

I agree and i was not referring to some artificial aid such as camouflage clothing here, but to the exploitation of natural surroundings to conceal your presence as Collins says, by blending into it.


Camouflage, noun
the exploitation of natural surroundings or artificial aids to conceal or disguise the presence of military units, equipment, etc
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/camouflage

 

[Maxperson]

I agree and i was not referring to some artificial aid such as camouflage clothing here, but to the exploitation of natural surroundings to conceal your presence as Collins says, by blending into it.


Camouflage, noun
the exploitation of natural surroundings or artificial aids to conceal or disguise the presence of military units, equipment, etc
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/camouflage

Gotcha.

 

[pemerton]

Does the Sage Advice says no to the question that it can hide while observed? No.

Nor does it use the word "yes".

I suspect it is deliberate that the answer maintains the ambiguity in the published rules.

Does being lightly obscured says it block vision? No

But being hidden makes you unnoticed.

Right, but when he moves there, before he takes an action to hide, he is not unseen yet.

To me, this seems to be taking the action economy a bit literally. If the elf steps out into a snowstorm and his/her play rolls a DEX check that is higher than the opposed Perception scores, I would not narrate that as the elf being visible and then disappearing. I would treat that as the elf being hidden the whole time.

When a human hide in darkness it also blink off the raadar for you

But this is very straightforward in the fiction: the hiding person stops making noise, and hence becomes unheard.

Short of turning invisible, there is no obvious analogue in respect of visual perception to ceasing to make noise. Vision and hearing behave differently as sensory modalities.

It seems like you're expecting the system to be perfect in all situations.

I expect the rules to make sense in their relationship to the fiction. Especially when it comes to signature character abilities being used in straightforward situations. I don't think this is a very high threshold to set, and I've got no reason to doubt that 5e's rules for hiding reach it.

 

[Hriston]

I agree on the cloak issue.

I had forgotten but was just reminded that the explanation for elves being "nearly invisible" in D&D, Vol. 2, is the "gray-green cloaks" they are all assumed to wear. In Chainmail, it's an apparently magical ability to become invisible at will, equivalent to a concealment spell and requiring the use of a detection spell to locate. No explanation is given, however.

I'd be comfortable with the "invisible in nature" approach (putting balance issues to one side) - it seems to me fairly close to the original AD&D/Moldvay Basic approach, which I think was inspired by JRRT's descriptions of hobbits and elves in his writings.

Yes, the MM restricts the ability to "natural surroundings" with adequate vegetation (which going back to Chainmail was a requirement of the hobbit's ability to become invisible), but is somewhat ambiguous as far as whether there is anything magical going on, reminiscent of Tolkien's emphasis on "the ordinary everyday sort" of magic. In the MM, the elf can "blend into the vegetation so as to be invisible (requiring the ability to see invisible objects to locate them) as long as they are not attacking." The "so as to be" suggests to me that the elf isn't really invisible, but the requirement of magic to locate them suggests that this is basically an innate elven equivalent to invisibility. How the elf accomplishes this blending in is left to the imagination, however, as the gray-green cloaks have been left out, and it is not suggested that the elf is invisible by default in natural surroundings. The most natural reading to me for what 's actually happening in the fiction would be that elves "blend" in and become "invisible" by hiding in the vegetation with a combination of superior (and perhaps magical) craft and skill, and that attacking not only makes them visible but prevents future attempts to become invisible for as long as combat continues. This all very strongly suggests to me that the intent for this ability was for it to be used primarily for setting up ambushes.

It's unclear to me whether the AD&D rules allow an elf that has chosen to remain visible while parlaying with someone to then become invisible while under direct observation. The treatment of the ability as the equivalent of the invisibility spell would suggest that the answer is yes, but this passage from p 60 of the DMG would suggest that even an invisibility spell does not disguise location if cast under direct observation:

Becoming invisible takes but a twinkling, but if the party is observed doing so, there is no reason why an opponent cannot attack with the standard penalty (-4) for inability to see the target.​

So while the elf could become as invisible at will under the appropriate circumstances, doing so under direct observation would not result in the elf having its location concealed, at least that's my understanding.

Mask of the Wild is clearly descended from this earlier ability. It allows a wood elf to conceal its position in areas of moderate foliage, as well as other natural areas of lightly obscuring terrain/phenomena. But does it allow the wood elf to become invisible at will when only lightly obscured? Not really. Consider the wood elf in moderate foliage who doesn't try to hide. Why would that elf be invisible?

Which leaves the question, how does the wood elf conceal its position when in moderate foliage if not by virtue of invisibility? How does it "blend" in? According to the feature, it does so by hiding. So I would think the rules for hiding ought to apply.

Makes sense.

Thanks for the reply!

You're welcome. I hope I've explained myself well enough. I'm not sure if even [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] thinks what I've posted makes sense. I'm glad someone does.

 

[Maxperson]

I expect the rules to make sense in their relationship to the fiction. Especially when it comes to signature character abilities being used in straightforward situations. I don't think this is a very high threshold to set, and I've got no reason to doubt that 5e's rules for hiding reach it.

Then you're going to be disappointed a lot. The game allows them to hide. The default rules force hide checks to be stealth dex. Any other stat falls under the optional rules section and is therefore inappropriate to use.

 

[Flamestrike]

You're welcome. I hope I've explained myself well enough. I'm not sure if even @Flamestrike thinks what I've posted makes sense. I'm glad someone does.

Man, I've all but weighed out of the convo.

My position is that there are different intepretations of the rules for hiding (and that the rules are written in a manner that supports different interpretations). In other words we're all having an argument here more or less by design, and its impossible for one side or the other to be correct (more accurately; its impossible for either side to be incorrect).

If a DM prefers a 'break LOS/ mash the Hide button' interpretation of the hiding rules, then he is free to use it. If a DM prefers the more simulationist interpretation of 'you can not become hidden from a creature when a creature knows where you are', he is free to use that one.

My point was really that the OP seems to be using the former. He could instead use the latter interpretation, and not only still conform to the 'RAW' but also make hiding a little less 'mash the Hide button' and instead require more of a set-up to use.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Nor does it use the word "yes".

I suspect it is deliberate that the answer maintains the ambiguity in the published rules.

They go a long way in describing that it can instead of saying yes, and some even go as far as arguing that they didn't meant to say nearby observers ...prying eyes...staring right at them are actually seeing them and that are misleading.

But being hidden makes you unnoticed.

But until you take an action to make a Stealth check to hide, you are not unseen and unheard, you are just lightly obscured, and thus still visible.

To me, this seems to be taking the action economy a bit literally. If the elf steps out into a snowstorm and his/her play rolls a DEX check that is higher than the opposed Perception scores, I would not narrate that as the elf being visible and then disappearing. I would treat that as the elf being hidden the whole time.

Your way of treating it would run contrary to the rules. If the elf steps out into a snow storm, he is not enjoying the benefit of being hidden until it actually take the Hide action and make a Stealth check, which is after he get out, so the elf would be seen before it hide

If the elf did hide behind the building before he come out though, then i agree he could remain hidden when coming out into the snowstorm, but that is not what you were describing.

But this is very straightforward in the fiction: the hiding person stops making noise, and hence becomes unheard.

So is an elf or halfling when it hides what's your point? What goes for a human hiding in darkness goes also for an elf or halfling hiding into or behind their respective concealment.

Short of turning invisible, there is no obvious analogue in respect of visual perception to ceasing to make noise. Vision and hearing behave differently as sensory modalities.

Both a human and an elf or halfling go from hearable to unheard when sucessfully hiding so i don't really see your point about this?

 

[Hriston]

@Hriston, I understand that you're interpreting Sage Advice's statement that "a wood elf can try to hide simply by..." as synonymous with "a wood elf can try to remain hidden simply by...". I understand that point of view, even if I don't agree with it. But in regards to lightfoot halflings, Sage Advice says: "[a] lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger" (emphasis added). I don't see any way to apply your argument regarding wood elves to lightfoot halflings: it explictly says the latter can "vanish". Do you permit lightfoot halflings to hide if they are observed while moving behind a larger creature?

From the observer? No. The observer knows the lightfoot is there and doesn't have to guess the halfling's position. There's literally nowhere else the halfling could be.

If not, in what way are they able to vanish as Sage Advice tells us they can?

In the same way the wood elf is able to hide, while unobserved. Here's an example of what I mean: A halfling is trying to sneak into a castle helped by her friend who is on patrol duty. As her friend approaches the castle gate, he pauses while concealed from the view of the guards at the gate by the obstruction posed by one of the corners of the castle wall, and she vanishes behind him so that when they come to the gate, the guards do not notice her entering with him. If she had run up to join her friend in full view of the castle guards, they would know she was there and wouldn't let her in.

Remember that light obscurement isn't the same as observers having an unobstructed view.

Just to clarify a bit, a lightly obscured area needn't contain any form of obstruction whatsoever. Only a heavily obscured area obstructs vision.

 

[Hriston]

Man, I've all but weighed out of the convo.

My position is that there are different intepretations of the rules for hiding (and that the rules are written in a manner that supports different interpretations). In other words we're all having an argument here more or less by design, and its impossible for one side or the other to be correct (more accurately; its impossible for either side to be incorrect).

If a DM prefers a 'break LOS/ mash the Hide button' interpretation of the hiding rules, then he is free to use it. If a DM prefers the more simulationist interpretation of 'you can not become hidden from a creature when a creature knows where you are', he is free to use that one.

My point was really that the OP seems to be using the former. He could instead use the latter interpretation, and not only still conform to the 'RAW' but also make hiding a little less 'mash the Hide button' and instead require more of a set-up to use.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all this. I think this is the same conclusion we came to the last time we discussed the November 2015 Sage Advice. It maintains the ambiguity found in the rules and reveals that the whole thing is working as intended. Nevertheless, there are several posters here who think there's no way our individual interpretations could possibly be correct while insisting that theirs is.

 

[Plaguescarred]

From the observer? No. The observer knows the lightfoot is there and doesn't have to guess the halfling's position. There's literally nowhere else the halfling could be.

It could have teleported or planshifted anywhere on the contrary! You literally have no proof that the halfling is still there but hidden, all you now know is that the halfling's position is unknown in addition to being unseen and unheard to you. Just as if it had disappeared....

And you still have to guess an hidden creature's space according to the rules - having a big doubt or certainty doesn't dispense you of that. You could choose it's last known location and be right but you must still do, just as for a human hiding in darkness.