D&D 5E (2014) DM Help! My rogue always spams Hide as a bonus action, and i cant target him!

[seebs]

The distinction between -4 on attacks and +4 on saving throws suggests that, in this context, "attacked" specifically means "attacks of the sort which require to-hit rolls".

 

[Uller]

I'm giving XP to this post because I feel it clearly explains the conditions that ought to be met before someone can hide successfully, with excellent clear examples of how the elf's and halfling's exceptions work.

Lots of people are saying the same thing, but not so clearly and succintly. Nice job, Uller.

Thank you.

I said early in the thread that the "halfling in a box/wood-elf behind a fern" examples are pretty useless because they don't happen at the table.

I think [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] and I are actually in agreement on how we would run things at the table. We're just focussed on two different things. To me, hiding ALWAYS involves mitigating factors. Every situation is different. No one (imxp) ever attempts to hide like this while claiming to be in dim light.



But if Krunk had the skulker feat and was far enough from the peasants to be lightly obscured by the dim light, then yeah...he could hide, even if they already saw him (or if he didn't have that feat he could hide if they had not spotted him yet). As soon as they got close enough that he was no longer lightly obscured, he'd be revealed automatically. YMMV.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Thank you.

I said early in the thread that the "halfling in a box/wood-elf behind a fern" examples are pretty useless because they don't happen at the table.

I think @Plaguescarred and I are actually in agreement on how we would run things at the table. We're just focussed on two different things. To me, hiding ALWAYS involves mitigating factors. Every situation is different. No one (imxp) ever attempts to hide like this while claiming to be in dim light.

View attachment 79369

But if Krunk had the skulker feat and was far enough from the peasants to be lightly obscured by the dim light, then yeah...he could hide, even if they already saw him (or if he didn't have that feat he could hide if they had not spotted him yet). As soon as they got close enough that he was no longer lightly obscured, he'd be revealed automatically. YMMV.

Nice Illustration Uller

I agree with you about Krunk. I know there can always be mitigating factors, but rule wise, the "halfling in a box/wood-elf behind a fern" or the skulker feat user in dim light can all hide technically wether there's mitigating factors or not. If they are obscured as their features says, they should normally be able to hide. People that argued against it said they couldn't because they were either still seen when lightly obscured, or because their location was known. I see nothing in the rules that would actually prevent them from trying to hide using their respective feat or features and a Sage Advice even back up the fact that they should be able to.

 

[Uller]

Nice Illustration Uller

My son plays a Paladin with Int as his dump stat. We have a shadow monk in the party so he often ends up with a +10 stealth...that picture comes up a lot in our games.

 

[darkrose50]

[1a] Words in a word-search are visible and hidden.
[1b] If seeing something makes something not hidden, then camouflage would be pointless. I would like to think that this notion is not intended.
[1c] Harry Houdini was killed by a punch to the gut because he could not prepare himself for the punch. I am sure he saw the man, and the attack to punch him.
[1d] It is not only seeing the danger that prepares oneself to react. You also need time to react, and perhaps some training on how to react.
[1e] Someone in a monster mask popping up and going boo has more of a chance to surprise you than someone walking up to you in a monster mask and going boo.

[2a] Observing and seeing would seem to be two different things.
[2b] Observe: transitive verb to see or notice something, especially while watching carefully
[2c] See: transitive and intransitive verb to perceive, or perceive something, with the eyes
[2d] One cannot watch something carefully if one does not know it is there. This is what investigation/perception is for. Investigation/perception helps you notice things that you see.
[2e] Your boss seeing you is not the same thing as your boss observing you, for example.
[2f] Light does not stop working, you just stop noticing the light your eyes see. Noticing the important parts of the light is investigation/perception.
[2g] I would likely play it something like this: immediately after the attack there would be a Stealth versus investigation/perception roll (with the active person's DC being the passive persons result, the hider gets tie breakers), and [ii] the defender would be able to actively look for the attacker on the defenders turn, and then have a Stealth versus investigation/perception roll (with the active person's DC being the passive persons result, the seeker gets tie breakers). I would allow the seeker to either make a spot check, and then attack (normal if successful, and limited if unsuccessful . . . no attack at all and/or an attack at a disadvantage . . . perhaps depending on how much he missed the check by), or I would give the seeker advantage to see the attacker if he readied an action to spot the next attack and not attack. In any event the seeker should go for cover.

[3a] A young man is looking around at the beach. He can see the waves, the sand, the rocks, the sky, the seagulls, the boats, the dogs catching frizz-bees, the kites, the towels, the coolers, the kids, the men, and the women. He is observing the young women at the beach via actively looking at them and noticing them with intention.
[3b] If a crab darted out of hiding and pinched him, then the crab would gain advantage (if the young man failed his investigation/perception check).
[3c] If another young man walked up to him and punched him for looking at his girlfriend, then the attacker could have advantage if the attacker wanted (if the defending young man failed his investigation/perception check).
[3d] If a group of young ladies walked passed him, from behind, and one of them slapped him on the behind, then he would be at a disadvantage to figure out what young lady slapped him.

 

[darkrose50]

The question ought to be . . . should one be able to use a resource (an action) to make a stealth check in order to gain a benefit (advantage on an attack) from being stealthy about the timing of a ranged attack from cover (perhaps 75% or 100%).

I would rule that the intention of using hiding (using stealth) behind a tree, using an action, and then later attacking is not hiding (using stealth) to remain hidden, but using stealth to pick the best moment you can muster to attack (setting up an attack so that your opponent is least ready, or picking the best moment to attack).

[1] Combat begins as an orc, hiding behind a tree, shoots at a human, and gains advantage on the attack.
[2] The human then hides behind a tree.
[3] The orc hides again (trying to find the perfect time to attack).
[4] The human attacks with advantage from hiding, but the orc has +5 AC (three quarters cover).
[5] The orc attacks with advantage from hiding, but the human has +5 AC (three quarters cover).

. . . what we would have here is a mechanical reason to emulate a firefight like we see in those moving picture shows. This could be interesting for a cowboyesq game.

Rogues would be bad-ass in the old west . . . like all the bank robbers of yore.

 

[darkrose50]

Do your cloths hide your naked body? I would think so. Folks still know you are naked under your cloths, but your nakedness is hidden. We all know that you have an anatomy, but it is hidden.

 

[Hriston]

Lightly obscured, while it has mechanics associated with it, is none the less ALSO has natural language meaning. That's why when you are behind light foliage, you are lightly obscured, which prevents the natural meaning of "seen clearly".

Are you saying the intended limitation on hiding is you can't hide from a creature that can see you 100% clearly and that if you are the tiniest bit obscured then the visual requirement for hiding is satisfied? That doesn't seem like a very strong limitation to me. I prefer an interpretation that says you can't hide from a creature that sees you clearly enough to know where you are, and that to hide you must be obscured to the extent that someone can't tell where you are just by looking in your direction. There is no WIS (Perception) check to be able to see a creature that's right in front of you, so there is no effect on hiding if that creature is only lightly obscured.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you saying the intended limitation on hiding is you can't hide from a creature that can see you 100% clearly and that if you are the tiniest bit obscured then the visual requirement for hiding is satisfied?

The requirement for the ATTEMPT is satisfied. Success or failure is up to the DM and race/class features. If the hider is a human with only the tiniest bit of obscurement, the DM is well within his rights not to ask for a roll and say the outcome is not in doubt and the attempt fails. This is right in line with the rulings over rules mantra of 5e. Clearly, elves with their added ability to hide under such conditions even while being observed would warrant a roll, unlike the human.

 

[Plaguescarred]

The question ought to be . . . should one be able to use a resource (an action) to make a stealth check in order to gain a benefit (advantage on an attack) from being stealthy about the timing of a ranged attack.

As a DM i use this rule of thumb; if the location/positioning you need to adopt to make a range attack would not be viable to try to hide because others can see you clearly enought, then you don't remain hidden when poping out this way. Out of combat, popping out this way could let you remain hidden from distracted creatures that are unaware of you though.