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

[Plaguescarred]

I think this is an odd reading of the rules, beause it seems to imply that light obscurement is the best place to hide because it imposes Disadvantage on the check to be noticed.

Not it's not you're misunderstanding how it works. Being hidden means you're unseen and unheard, thus obviously noticing a hidden creature is not just a Wisdom (Perception) check that rely on sight because otherwise it would be impossible to notice someone hidden in darkness as it would automatically fails. You generally always have a chance to notice a hidden creature instead, either passively or actively.


Lightly Obscured: A creature have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.
Heavily Obscured: A creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.

 

[Hriston]

If you wouldn't let them hide when someone's staring at them, you are directly contradicting the unambiguous statement we got, that they can vanish, which is to say, cease to be seen, while having been seen until they did so, while someone is staring at them.

The statement we got wasn't unambiguous. The word vanish doesn't imply that the vanisher is seen up until the moment he or she vanishes. A creature who turns invisible, for example, vanishes whether anyone is around to see it or not. The same can be said of one who hides.

And you're allowed to make that rule, but it's not what Crawford said.

It's what he said to me when I read it.

And I simply don't think there's anywhere near enough ambiguity in the language to justify your position.

And you're entitled to your opinion. I and others have a differing opinion.

And you're quite right that generally hiding is about "remaining unobserved". Generally. But that is the exact contrast that we are given for the halfling and wood elf abilities. Normally you cannot try to hide while being observed. But halflings and wood elves can, under specific circumstances, hide while being observed. That's their special power.

What you appear to have done is globally nerfed stealth, by not allowing people to remain hidden while partially obscured even if they made a good hide check, and then selectively reversed the nerf. That's... interesting, I guess? But it's not what Crawford described.

"... if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." If you need to be heavily obscured to become hidden, and then you move into an area where you're only lightly obscured, I'd say you came out of hiding.

 

[Maxperson]

"... if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." If you need to be heavily obscured to become hidden, and then you move into an area where you're only lightly obscured, I'd say you came out of hiding.

That's just it, though. There is no rule that says you come out of hiding under lightly obscured areas OR that you need to be heavily obscured to become hidden. The rules allow you to hide in, and remain hidden in both circumstances. Feel add that rule to your game, though.

 

[Plaguescarred]

The statement we got wasn't unambiguous. The word vanish doesn't imply that the vanisher is seen up until the moment he or she vanishes. A creature who turns invisible, for example, vanishes whether anyone is around to see it or not. The same can be said of one who hides.

That's because you take it out of context to debate it.

''Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature''

The whole sentence follow the words IN PLAIN VIEW and add the conjonction THOUGH relating to it, which means despite the fact or altough, basically meaning that despite the fact that you normally can't hide in plain view, a halfling can try to vanish behind a creature. This is natural english language 101 and i would assume native speakers would understand that.


Though, conj
Despite the fact that; although

Oxford https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/though

 

[seebs]

The statement we got wasn't unambiguous. The word vanish doesn't imply that the vanisher is seen up until the moment he or she vanishes. A creature who turns invisible, for example, vanishes whether anyone is around to see it or not. The same can be said of one who hides.

It does, however, always mean moving from visible to invisible. So the halfling is not "staying hidden", they are transitioning to hidden.

It's what he said to me when I read it.

No, it's an interpretation of what he said. What he said is just the words.

And you are welcome to get confirmation for your reading any time you want. I have already drawn the inference that you don't actually think your reading is what he meant, because I'm pretty sure that if you did you'd have sought clarification by now. I may be mistaken, but according to your use of language, it's what you said when I read your posts, so.

 

[Hriston]

That's because you take it out of context to debate it.

''Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature''

The whole sentence follow the words IN PLAIN VIEW and add the conjonction THOUGH relating to it, which means despite the fact or altough, basically meaning that despite the fact that you normally can't hide in plain view, a halfling can try to vanish behind a creature. This is natural english language 101 and i would assume native speakers would understand that.

Now it appears that having failed to prove that my reading is incorrect, you've resorted to trying to insult my intelligence or my familiarity with English. What you've failed to understand is that my reading is entirely consistent with the full context of those two sentences, the article as a whole, and the ruleset to which it refers. Assuming you are familiar with the English language, I'm sure you're aware that all you've done above is to restate the ambiguous language of the original article, which still doesn't contradict my reading of it. It may be helpful if you could provide a clear statement of what the above passage means to you and how you think it contradicts my interpretation.

To that end, below, I gloss the passage as clearly as I can, so you can understand how I feel it supports my interpretation. For the record, I understand how the text supports your interpretation, so don't take this as an indication that I think it doesn't. My point is that the language of the Sage Advice article is ambiguous, as are the rules themselves.

Normally [if you are not a lightfoot halfling, etc.], you can't hide from [not be noticed by] someone if you're in full view [in a location where you could be seen clearly enough to spoil hiding, i.e. in the open]. A lightfoot halfling, though [to qualify, rather than oppose unconditionally, what's been said so far], can try to vanish [not be noticed] behind a creature that is at least one size larger,...

 

[Hriston]

It does, however, always mean moving from visible to invisible. So the halfling is not "staying hidden", they are transitioning to hidden.

Yes, but not while observed directly (the way I read it).

No, it's an interpretation of what he said. What he said is just the words.

Without interpretation, words have no meaning. They're just noise after all.

And you are welcome to get confirmation for your reading any time you want. I have already drawn the inference that you don't actually think your reading is what he meant, because I'm pretty sure that if you did you'd have sought clarification by now. I may be mistaken, but according to your use of language, it's what you said when I read your posts, so.

You're being disingenuous. I assume that what Crawford meant was the ambiguous statement he made, and I'm very comfortable with that. Why would I ask him to nullify the ambiguity which he seems to have so carefully constructed? I doubt he would be very cooperative. But if you think he meant one thing or the other, I encourage you to come up with some wording that would pin him down in that respect.

 

[Xetheral]

A lightfoot halfling, though [to qualify, rather than oppose unconditionally, what's been said so far], can try to vanish [not be noticed] behind a creature that is at least one size larger,...

I'm having a real hard time with the last one. Can you provide another context or example where "try to vanish" can plausibly mean "try to remain unnoticed"?

To vanish means "to disappear suddenly and completely". There doesn't seem to be anything sudden about staying out of sight. Most of your interpretation seems vaguely plausible to me (if something of a stretch), but your interpretation of "vanish" seems to be utterly at odds with the normal usage of the term to refer to a change of state.

 

[Plaguescarred]

For the record, I understand how the text supports your interpretation, so don't take this as an indication that I think it doesn't. My point is that the language of the Sage Advice article is ambiguous, as are the rules themselves.

May be you don't understand the sentences or the article if you think it's that ambiguous?

Normally [if you are not a lightfoot halfling, etc.], you can't hide from [not be noticed by] someone if you're in full view [in a location where you could be seen clearly enough to spoil hiding, i.e. in the open]. A lightfoot halfling, though [to qualify, rather than oppose unconditionally, what's been said so far], can try to vanish [not be noticed] behind a creature that is at least one size larger,...

The conjonction though serving as a qualification doesn't sync with it's meaning ''despite the fact''

And if in addition to not be in plain view you need to be behind a creature to try to vanish with Naturally Stealthy like you interpret this qualification, then being behind a creature is really useless since everyone can try to hide when not in plain view, it would only be good to remain hidden. Taken that the halfling's ability doesn't let him remain hidden behind a creature but try to hide as well, that's where your interpretation falls apart.

 

[Hriston]

I'm having a real hard time with the last one. Can you provide another context or example where "try to vanish" can plausibly mean "try to remain unnoticed"?

A better gloss would have been "become unnoticeable". I was in a hurry due to having inadvertently posted before my post was ready. I agree that what I wrote there was a little awkward. An example of that usage would be, "They slip into the crowd and vanish."

To vanish means "to disappear suddenly and completely". There doesn't seem to be anything sudden about staying out of sight. Most of your interpretation seems vaguely plausible to me (if something of a stretch), but your interpretation of "vanish" seems to be utterly at odds with the normal usage of the term to refer to a change of state.

Vanishing doesn't have to be sudden. For example, many endangered species have been in the process of vanishing for years. It's basically synonymous with disappear, and I'm not denying that it's a change of state. Whereas before the halfling steps behind a larger creature and becomes hidden she appears plainly to any observer, afterwards she does not appear to observers. She has vanished.