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

[Maxperson]

Chill bro, I was just making an observation.

So was I

 

[pemerton]

There is no incoherence in the ability allowing them to hide while being observed

Who has said that it's incoherent?

Not me. Not [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], as best I recall.

But I think it has issues - in particular, as I posted upthread, it doesn't make sense to me that an elf cloaking him-/herself in rain would make a DEX check rather than (say) a CHA or WIS check.

Whereas [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s model - the elf steps behind the rain when no one is looking, and then remains still and silent behind it when potential observers come round the corner - does make sense to me. Because the DEX check represents staying still and silent, not quasi-magically cloaking onself in rain.

 

[Maxperson]

Who has said that it's incoherent?

Not me. Not [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], as best I recall.

It's sort of implied when you say you like his because it's coherent. If both are coherent, then there should be other reasons to prefer his.

But I think it has issues - in particular, as I posted upthread, it doesn't make sense to me that an elf cloaking him-/herself in rain would make a DEX check rather than (say) a CHA or WIS check.

And as was posted in reply, that's because DEX is the default for hide checks. The game provides optional rules to you to switch it from DEX to CHA or WIS if it makes more sense to do so.

Whereas [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s model - the elf steps behind the rain when no one is looking, and then remains still and silent behind it when potential observers come round the corner - does make sense to me. Because the DEX check represents staying still and silent, not quasi-magically cloaking onself in rain.

If it's a DEX check to remain still in the rain, any human, dwarf or orc can do that as well. There's nothing non-magical about a wood elf that would allow it and ONLY it to hide in the rain. That's the thing about non-magical abilities. Pretty much anyone or anything can learn to do them. For a wood elf to be the only race able "remain hidden" in the rain, it would still need to be a quasi-magical or outright magical ability.

 

[pemerton]

that's because DEX is the default for hide checks.

If I'm finding there to be a mismatch between the suggested ficiton and the mechanics of the game, reiterating what the mechanics are doesn't help cure my sense of mismatch.

This is why I prefer [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s version - it makes everything hang to gether better. I find it more coherent than the alternative. (Which doesn't imply that the alternative is incoherent. Coherence is a matter of degree.)

If it's a DEX check to remain still in the rain, any human, dwarf or orc can do that as well.

They can stay still, but the rain won't hide them, because they don't have Mask of the Wild. So (to borrow a turn of phrase from Jeremy Crawford) in their case it won't be as if nature itself cloaks them from prying eyes. In other words, no matter how still and silent they are, they are able to be seen with no WIS check required.

I think one point in respect of which I differ from [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is that, as I envisage it, an elf in the rain is always obscured from sight until s/he moves or calls out, and thus makes herself noticable. That is, I don't envisage Mask of the Wild as an on/off "cloaking device". I envisage it as a natural state of affairs for elves - if they are not moving, and not making noise, then you won't notice them in the rain, snow, mist or underbrush. It's their fey nature.

 

[Maxperson]

If I'm finding there to be a mismatch between the suggested ficiton and the mechanics of the game, reiterating what the mechanics are doesn't help cure my sense of mismatch.

The mechanics for a hide check are, DEX is used unless the DM opts to use something else like CHA and WIS. How does that generate a mismatch between the fiction and mechanics?

This is why I prefer [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s version - it makes everything hang to gether better. I find it more coherent than the alternative. (Which doesn't imply that the alternative is incoherent. Coherence is a matter of degree.)

Sure, but it doesn't make it RAI.

They can stay still, but the rain won't hide them, because they don't have Mask of the Wild. So (to borrow a turn of phrase from Jeremy Crawford) in their case it won't be as if nature itself cloaks them from prying eyes. In other words, no matter how still and silent they are, they are able to be seen with no WIS check required.

Nature itself isn't go to cloak squat because a DEX check. Nature isn't going to care how still the elf is. Nature itself cloaking someone is a magical or quasi-magical ability, which according to you should require a CHA or WIS check.

I think one point in respect of which I differ from [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is that, as I envisage it, an elf in the rain is always obscured from sight until s/he moves or calls out, and thus makes herself noticable. That is, I don't envisage Mask of the Wild as an on/off "cloaking device". I envisage it as a natural state of affairs for elves - if they are not moving, and not making noise, then you won't notice them in the rain, snow, mist or underbrush. It's their fey nature.

You are still creating a "natural state of affairs" that is supernatural in ability. Nothing non-magical is going to allow an elf to remain hidden in the rain with a DEX check, that doesn't also apply to every other race.

 

[seebs]

No one is puzzled about what "though" means - and you're the one who seemed to think it important that the use was conjunctive rather than adverbial!

As I've said several times, this dispute is not linguistic. It's about how the relevant states of affairs - which in this case are circumstances within the shared fiction which correlate to various mechanical circumstances also - should be identified and understood.

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s reading, which he has made me sympathetic to, is that the halfling can vanish behind a creature - which others can't - in the same way that secret agents vanish into crowds. It leaves it open whether or not a halfling can do this while under direct observation.

No, it doesn't leave that open at all, that's the entire !@#*!#ing point of the word "though". Everyone can "vanish" while not directly observed. Lightfoot halflings can vanish while directly observed if they can move behind a larger creature. Absolutely clear that we are talking about transitioning from unhidden to hidden, and doing so while directly observed. The word "though" gives us the fact that "halfling can try to hide" is being done while directly observed.

And you guys keep rotating through these things. There's the "it might not mean becoming hidden" dodge, but "try to hide" and "vanish" are pretty clear. There's the "it might mean while not directly observed" dodge, but (1) the word "though" nails that down plenty, and (2) anyone can hide while not directly observed, meaning there's no power there. And we keep bouncing back and forth between these, and both of them are utterly dispelled. But...

Every time we get to the stage where normally you would either concede the point or actually advance a defense, you jump to the other point. If you really get cornered on whether or not we are necessarily talking about becoming hidden, suddenly you say "yes, but maybe he means becoming hidden while not directly observed", and then you want to argue whether this is while-observed. And when you get cornered on the very clear evidence that Crawford absolutely meant "while directly observed", suddenly you jump to "well, maybe it's while directly observed, but just means remaining hidden".

But you can't actually defend either of them; you just misdirect and reset the topic by switching points. But you've produced cold concessions (as in "just didn't even respond at all") to both of them many times, because neither of them is remotely defensible. We are absolutely clearly given that the halfling is transitioning to a hidden state from an unhidden state, while directly observed. It's impossible for the sentence to not be about direct observation, because we've got the contrast with "normally under these circumstances you couldn't hide, but despite that a halfling can hide under these circumstances", and because if it weren't direct observation, there would be no way for it to be a special power to become hidden.

And that's completely dead, which is why Hriston had to jump to the "maybe it just means remain hidden" thing. But the remain hidden thing is also dead after much discussion of terms like "try to hide" and "vanish", both of which absolutely denote a transition from unhidden to hidden.

But every time you give up on one of them, you jump to the other, and because you're topic-switching, that's sort of a free reset. But it's still really annoying and comes across as disingenuous-at-best.

Tell you what: You actually get a confirmation from Crawford that this was intended to be in any way ambiguous on this topic, and I'll give $50 to a charity of your choice.

My claim:

Crawford's statements were intended to unambiguously indicate that the halfling and elf powers allowed a character who was directly observed to attempt to hide (as in "transition from unhidden to hidden"), and that the attempt should have by default the normal chance of success, not be an autofail, even though the character is being directly observed at the time that they take the action.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I think one point in respect of which I differ from @Hriston is that, as I envisage it, an elf in the rain is always obscured from sight until s/he moves or calls out, and thus makes herself noticable.

Everyone in lightly obscured rain or foliage remains lightly obscured from sight wether they moves in it, yells or anything, be it human, elf or dragon. Its a vision obstruction.

That is, I don't envisage Mask of the Wild as an on/off "cloaking device". I envisage it as a natural state of affairs for elves - if they are not moving, and not making noise, then you won't notice them in the rain, snow, mist or underbrush. It's their fey nature.

Mask of the Wild is an ability that require an action to take effect. An elf is only lightly obscured in such terrain - like anyone else - until it takes the Hide action to hide it in. Other people can't try to hide while lightly obscured because you can't hide when seen clearly seen. It's a special ability they have.

But I think it has issues - in particular, as I posted upthread, it doesn't make sense to me that an elf cloaking him-/herself in rain would make a DEX check rather than (say) a CHA or WIS check.

Hiding is a Dexterity (Stealth) check by default and Mask of the Wild doesn't say it use a different ability check but you can always change it if you have issues with it.

Whereas @Hriston's model - the elf steps behind the rain when no one is looking, and then remains still and silent behind it when potential observers come round the corner - does make sense to me. Because the DEX check represents staying still and silent, not quasi-magically cloaking onself in rain.

Mask of the Wild or Naturally Stealthy are not magical abilities. We understand that they makes sense to you that they could remain hidden that way, but the ability says they can try to hide that way and not just remain hidden. You try to hide when you take the Hide action and make a Stealth check.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Replies to Hriston's posts

[sblock]

Now it appears that having failed to prove that my reading is incorrect

The fact that you refute proof does not mean it was not proven.

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.

Except that for that to be true you have to change the sentences, the article and the ruleset. Then your reading is consistent, because it's no longer a reading, it's a modification. Which , yet again, IT'S FINE, it's just not an interpretation, AND THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING.

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 does not until you refuse to understand that TRY TO applies to both "remain out of sight" (withhold) and "go where i'm not seen - disappear" (withdraw) And both meanings are to be included and must be considered and not discarded because no matter how much you want to try to means ALL OF THAT, not just PART 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.

As other have said vanish implies a change. Nevertheless, so does hide.

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

becomes

"Normally, you can't escape from or remain out of sight if you are in full view. A lightfoot halflling, though, can try to disappear from sight behind a creature."

To that end, below, I gloss the passage as clearly as I can, so you can understand how I feel it supports my interpretation

DON'T. You should read a phrase not to support a statement, but for what and how is written.

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.

Then if you think that it works, and it works for everything else: why your reading should be better, if it's more limited and requires to change the words on what it's written for it to work?
[/sblock]

Replies to Flamestrike's posts

[sblock]

To answer the OP's question, the rules for hiding are left open to DM interpretation.

You can say this about all rules really, but the hiding rules are left even more so.

Sigh. No, those are open for DM ADJUDICATION. There's no difference in interpretation "open"ness that the rest of the rules. There's no more "attention, from here to here it's going to be really up to you to guess what we meant" in the hiding rules than everywhere else.

I know there are some people who claim there is 'the one true way' to adjudicate hiding, but I disagree.The rules are intentionally written to support different interpretations.

So do i. This does not make any "interpretation" automatically logical, fun, realistic or, in the case we are discussing, interpretation at all.

If you want to play how you play, do it and have fun. I do not find your approach any realistic, fun or a valid interpretation to begin with.
You want to read "you can't hide with red pants"? Go ahead.

My own interpretation is a more simualtionist one.

Your RULING or HOUSERULE, not interpretation - and that's why:

You read that to hide you need to "go into hiding", and hiding is actually a part of a greater attempt that spans all of your actions (be them lower or upper cased), both taken before or after the actual mechanical attempt: You can't hide behind a pillar since you are seen while going behind a pillar, no matter when you make the attempt to hide, given that to hide you need to not be clearly seen and that getting to not be clearly seen is part of the hiding.

Problem is that the rules do not have such a distinction. And it's clear: You can't hide if you are clearly seen, not if you "were". Once you reach the pillar, you are no longer seen. Thus you can hide.

But: You say that your location is known... Except that for hiding whether your location is known or not does not matter at all, and neither is true that your location is actually known: It's only known UNTIL YOU HIDE and if the creaure(s) can actually perceive your location in some way, otherwise is only assumed - guessed. The fact that i'm behind a tree with no way to get away does not matter to the person hiding: It's still there, not making sounds and not being seen and true location unknown. It might be digging very silently for all the creature(s) he is hiding from know. Or climbing. Or simply have slipped under their radar, somehow.
If this wasn't true it would lead to the situation where you can't EVER hide once you get out of sight UNTIL YOU ALSO GET OUT OF HEARING RANGE, since with just hearing you can pinpoint the location of a creature. And again, that your location is unknown is not a requirement.

Thus you need to change 2 requirements to hide in order for your rulings to be "interpretations". Nothing wrong inherently... it's just not an intepretation.

Its just the OP has been using the 'mash the hide button' interpretation in his games, and its creating unwanted results (see the OP). Perhaps changing interpretations to the above one could work for him.

It's just that the OP hasn't used the its power to determine weather a player can hide or not... DM's ADJUDICATION.

'You cant hide from a creature that can see you clearly enough' to me says just this.

And then end up applying a "you can't go into hiding from a creature that could see you clearly enough" rule instead, somehow.

I dont interpret 'hide' in that sentence to mean 'the Hide action'. I interpret that sentence to mean what it means in the real world using plain english language, not as some kind of parsed gamist rules jargon.

Neither do i, but apparently using the full spectrum of what hide means is only reserved to specific reading: "going out of sight" and " remaining out of sight" get selectively applied at necessity for argument sake, instead of applying them ALWAYS and see if even one applies. And this is somehow "gamist rules jargon". Right.

You cant say that the rules dont support my interpretation. How I interpret that passage is entirely up to me.

I CAN and DO say that the rules do not support your interpretation. I go ahead and went ahead in saying that your interpretation is illogical, irrealistic and that i find it unfun. I also went ahead to say that you are completely free to row your boat as you wish in the first post i made where i disagreed with you. I also say that yours is not an interpretation because it does something that an interpretation must not do: Change the meaning.

You can say that you favor a different interpretation (and thats fine, more luck to you.)

I can. But i'm not going to... it's no interpretation for me.

But do you agree that they're written intentionally vague (and intentionally in a way to support multiple interpretations)?

Respectively No, and YES.

Yes they do. The say you cant hide from a creature that can see you clearly enough.

Not that could see, or does know your location. So why are you applying those requirements to hide?

If I saw you go into your hiding spot behind your tree, I clearly saw you go into hiding.

But that's not what the rule says: You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly. If you see me moving before hiding it's not important. You can't see me while HIDING. Going is not part of the rule.

Ergo

Ergo there's no ergo. It stops before the attempt, even before the action, or you go all the way, action tracking or not.

I mean; you can 'take the Hide action' behind your tree if you want. Your DC is infinity.

There's no DC. I do not hide against a DC, i roll and the value is compared to passive perception. DC is not contemplated.

You fail

Prehaps passive perception was enough, prehaps not.. but this does not changes that:

and on my turn I walk over behind the tree I saw you duck behind and clobber you with my greataxe.

... since you are not stupid and if you happen to not see a creature get out from behind a tree and do not hear anything strange coming from there you assume that the thing you were looking at it's still there. You know, your loved OBJECT PERMANENCE. Weather the creature it's still there or not it's another issue.

You can winge and sook about it all you want, but that interpretation is open to me from the RAW. Aint nothing you can do about it either.

Yes, you can... you can try and read the things you are writing objectively, and see that are not consistent one row with the following one. Then reread the RAW applying both meanings of hide, try to see how it would work with each applied in each situation and choose what you prefer: Using it as is or changing something to fit your liking, even if the result is again what you are using now. You'll realize you NEED to constrict specific meanings to words and add rules to what it's there, or at least always prevent some possible use of hiding each time they present.

You'll realize that what you are doing is not interpreting the text but changing it to your liking, which is COMPLETELY FINE. It's just not what an intepretation is.

[/sblock]

Replies to pemerton's posts:

[sblock]

Which of these are you saying is true?

Both, those two phrases are not in opposition, nor do contradict one another. One assumes there's no one looking, the other assumes at least one person looking. If you are not seen at all, anyone can hide anywhere. If you are seen, that specific situation is restricted to halflings

If you agree that as a general rule, you can't hide behind a creature, but that a halfling is different, then you have identified the view that Hriston and I hold.

Which was clear and is still based on depriving words of meaning.

Hriston and I think it makes a difference whether or not a potential observer saw the halfling step behind his/her friend. You don't. That's it. I don't think it's that hard to understand.

It isn't. It's clear. I do not agree and up to this we are all fine. What you are missing is the "INTERPRETATION" part, or the part where you say that your ruling is this way because that's how it's written that the problem comes from.

They create, or trade upon, distractions.

Exactly like Halflings. Or WE. Or prehaps they disappear. Or become chameleons, but only for people who aren't observant enough. And guess what? It does not matter, since that's up to the specific DM, and that does not change how the rule is written.

EDIT:
Nonsense.

A human can stand in the rain, but when her friends come round the corner they will see her, no matter how still and quite she is being. On the other hand, an elf can stand in the rain, and when her friends come round the corner if she is standing still and quietly she has a chance to surprise them.

No, unless the elf and the human are trying to hide. If they are paying attention to what they do they both are spotted. And even then, it's up to the DM to actually rule if the human or the elf are clearly seen or not, not you nor me. The elf player has the advantage (not capital A) to an ability to show the DM to say "see? I can!", while the human cannot. But if the DM rules that both are hidden, then both are hidden.

That mightn't be how you think of the abilities working, but it's completely coherent from a mechanical point of view, and the action in the fiction is completely understandable. (It's the coherence of this fiction compared to the alternative that has persuaded me to @Hriston's view.)

Problem is what that coherency comes from, and what mechanical PoV. It's not from a RAW PoV since the meaning of all the instances of hide and vanish have to be changed for that reading to work and it's not working mechanically, since you have a single roll until you are discovered but in your reading you should roll each time someone tries to spot you. That is a contradiction and something you do not account for. Even the fact that you have to take something into account because it does not work should show you that's not how it works, if there's an interpretation that mechanically and with respect to word meaning fits.
RAI you have to destroy english to prove that a specific instance of a rule that overrides another actually fits your castle.

Again, you can say that you play that way, that it's better to play your way, that's more fun or realistic. This is opinable and up to preference, really. What you should not do is saying that your rules are an interpretation of what it's written: It's not. You are simply causing confusion.
[/sblock]

 

[pemerton]

My claim:

Crawford's statements were intended to unambiguously indicate that the halfling and elf powers allowed a character who was directly observed to attempt to hide (as in "transition from unhidden to hidden")

My claim: if that's what he intended, unambiguously, then he is a very poor writer. Because that is exactly what was asked, and at ever point where he could have said "yes", or could have unabmiguously restated the question in declarative rather than interrogative mood, he didn't. Instead he used allusion ("eyes directly staring", "prying eyes", "nearby observers", "vanish behind").

Personally, I think he is capable of writing for precsion and certainty if he wants to.

The word "though" gives us the fact that "halfling can try to hide" is being done while directly observed.

No amount of yelling and swearing changes the range of meanings open.

Normall, you can't hide while in plain view. So if A is standing behind B, being as still and quiet as s/he can, when C turns the corenr C can neverthless see A without any chance of failure. (Mechaniccally, that is, C's player does not need to make a WIS check.)

If A is a halfling, however, then A can vanish behind B. But A is not assured of success in this attempt to vanish. So when C turns the corner, C's player makes a WIS check. If it beats the DEX check made by A's player, C noticed the halfling A. If not, then A did indeed vanish and C doesn't notice A.

You'll note that the above is almost a literal restatement of the Sage Advice. (I used the word "however" rather than "though" for purely stylistic reasons - but they are synonyms for present purposes.) That is how I envisage things working. I can make sense of it in the fiction. The mechanical resolution is clear. The benefit conferred by the halfling racial trait is unambiguous.

What I have left open is: what counts as "turning the corner"? This is up to GM adjudication, by reference to the idea of "being seen clearly" and "being distracted, at least out of combat". My own inclination is to be fairly liberal about these if C is not expecting to bump into A (eg C is talking to B, the halfing A is coming down a street which has a bit of a crowd, or otherwise is not completely open, and wants to get close to B and C while staying hidden from C), but less so if C has an eye out for A (eg C is talking to B saying "Where is your tricksy halfling friend A?" - in that case I would be disinclined to allow A to just walk down the street and hide behind B - but if A or B could arrange a distraction, so that C doesn't literally see A sneak up behind B, then it would be as if C had turned the corner, and A's character could make the DEX check to hide).

I don't thnk any of the above is very unclear.

 

[seebs]

See, I don't think those are "allusions", I think those are emphasis. I don't think his writing is poor at all. I've seen exactly two people conclude that it meant anything other than what I thought was completely obvious, and both of them are here.

And I'm long since over being interested in reading the same tired retreads and pseudo-justifications. I'm gonna go with the obvious inference from the lack of apparent requests for clarification as to intent.