D&D 5E hide action usability?

[Prism]

The main benefit of hiding during combat is so you are difficult to target since the attacker doesn't know where you are, and even if they do but can't see you they attack with disadvantage. Most of the time you don't need to hide if you are looking to gain advantage on your attack rolls. You need darkness, invisibility or heavy obscurement while still ensuring that you can see your opponent. Hiding itself doesn't generate any of these conditions. You can't hide behind cover as your opponent can still see you unless its full cover and then you can't see your opponent either.

Wood elves and lightfoot halflings have more places to hide during combat. In addition some DMs might allow you to approach or shoot a distracted opponent without maintaining the cover or obscurent assuming you have until that point been hidden from them. I wouldn't assume that works though. At our table a rogue nipping behind a wall one round and then popping out to try and shoot from hidden the next wouldn't work. As soon as they move out to attack they are visible unless the opponent is otherwise distracted (DM call).

So in answer to the OP I would say hiding in combat is generally not worth it unless you want to escape, avoid being attacked (although a solid barrier is usually an easier option there) or you have something specific in mind like sneaking around the other side of the combat to take out an enemy (requires pretty ideal natural conditions or invisibility)

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

WOTC has been screwing this up for years. The whole idea that "combat makes you more alert" is BUNK, plain and simple. Anyone who's in melee had better be focused on whoever's trying to run him through, and that's all -- getting distracted by anything else will get him killed, right quick. If anything, Stealth should have Advantage in combat; am I the only one who's ever heard of the "fog of battle" around here?

 

[PnPgamer]

WOTC has been screwing this up for years. The whole idea that "combat makes you more alert" is BUNK, plain and simple. Anyone who's in melee had better be focused on whoever's trying to run him through, and that's all -- getting distracted by anything else will get him killed, right quick. If anything, Stealth should have Advantage in combat; am I the only one who's ever heard of the "fog of battle" around here?

Very unique perspective, i like it. I've found it pretty wonky that suddenly in battle everyone gets spidersense. Never made a big number about it though.

 

[Coredump]

WOTC has been screwing this up for years. The whole idea that "combat makes you more alert" is BUNK, plain and simple. Anyone who's in melee had better be focused on whoever's trying to run him through, and that's all -- getting distracted by anything else will get him killed, right quick. If anything, Stealth should have Advantage in combat; am I the only one who's ever heard of the "fog of battle" around here?

If you are on the battlefield, and *not* being hyper alert to those you are not fighting, you will quickly get stabbed in the back. "Field Awareness" is *very* important. Otherwise the person in front of you just keeps you busy long enough for his buddy to come up behind you.

Compared to just standing around having a beer, or walking down a street, or talking with a friend..... I would *hope* you are more alert in the middle of battle.

 

[Coredump]

Regarding (1), the sidebar on Hiding ... p.177 PHB ... states that 'if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you'. Hence the reference to the auto spot. I usually allow that Hiding characters that stay in cover (1/2, 3/4 or EFFECTIVE obscuration to the observer's senses) are subject to opposed Stealth<->Perception comparisons.

Sure, and if you just 'come out of hiding' that will be pretty automatic.

But your statement that I was responding to indicated the person was trying to Stealth up to you.... Then I will not always make that an autofail..... sneaking up on someone is a real thing, and so if the rogue is hidden, and wants to Stealth up into melee range that can work.

It will involved a Stealth/Perception contest, and it may involved advantage and/or disadvantage depending on details....but just because you are more alert during combat, doesn't mean you are omniscient... and least not automatically...

 

[Warmaster Horus]

If you are on the battlefield, and *not* being hyper alert to those you are not fighting, you will quickly get stabbed in the back. "Field Awareness" is *very* important. Otherwise the person in front of you just keeps you busy long enough for his buddy to come up behind you.

Compared to just standing around having a beer, or walking down a street, or talking with a friend..... I would *hope* you are more alert in the middle of battle.

How much combat have you actually been in?

The debilitating effects of combat stress have been recognized for centuries. Phenomenon such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, the loss of fine and complex motor control, irrational behavior, and the inability to think clearly have all been observed as byproducts of combat stress. Even though these phenomena have been observed and documented for hundreds of years, very little research has been conducted to understand why combat stress deteriorates performance.
- http://www.killology.com/art_psych_combat.htm

It is very easy to become fixated on a single threat in combat and never see the one that gets you.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Ah.. no. I consider hiding a special case. So does Mike Mearls apparently, because it was his idea to impose disad on a halfling trying to hide behind an ally mid-combat (I dont have the twitter reference handy).

That's nice, and as DM you can do as you wish. However I would posit that a halfling hiding behind a medium sized person in combat vs a person going behind a rock wall to hide are two very different things. The medium sized person is not very big and likely moving due to combat. The rock wall is large, opaque and unmoving.

 

[Bagpuss]

Why would just being in combat be enough of a reason to impose disadvantage on hide checks?

If anything it should give advantage as the observer is probably more worried about the fighter right in front of him is about to do than that rogue off to one side.

Hiding behind a moving object such as an ally or an enemy in combat certainly is worth a disadvantage as you need to predict where your cover is moving to.

 

[Psikerlord#]

That's nice, and as DM you can do as you wish. However I would posit that a halfling hiding behind a medium sized person in combat vs a person going behind a rock wall to hide are two very different things. The medium sized person is not very big and likely moving due to combat. The rock wall is large, opaque and unmoving.

They are indeed two very different things. But if you're popping in and out from the same doorway, I treat it the same as a halfling popping in and out from behind an ally. The enemy knows you're there somewhere, and is keeping an eye on that spot. Other DMs will of course have their own view that better suits their table preferences.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

They are indeed two very different things. But if you're popping in and out from the same doorway, I treat it the same as a halfling popping in and out from behind an ally. The enemy knows you're there somewhere, and is keeping an eye on that spot. Other DMs will of course have their own view that better suits their table preferences.

And that's the important distinction in Mike's tweet. It wasn't that hiding behind the fighter gave disadvantage to the halfling or rogue hiding (or advantage to the observer). The tweet was in response to the specific circumstance of the halfling or rogue repeatedly hiding behind the fighter. You know, fool me once...

Here are the relevant responses from Mike:

Rogue hidden behind tree. Can he shoot an arrow with advantage, or does stepping out negate it? Re-hide behind same tree after? DM's call - suggest atk with advantage, but disad to hide again. IMO if rogue sees target from hiding while hidden, can attack. -M

Could a rogue hidden behind cover run to a target & Sneak Attack; are they hidden until after attacking or after leaving cover? hidden until leave, but Adam might rule creature is distracted -M

Rogue Hides behind tree. Ogre can't see him. Leans out, shoots ogre, returns. Advantage on attack? Sneak attack? Same next turn? I would say advantage on attack, disadvantage on check to hide again. -M

If a rogue attacks an enemy when emerging from a cover source, does he still gain benefit of stealth in the attack? Only if the rogue is still hidden when making the attack. -M
​

There have been some very long threads on this topic, in which it becomes very clear that not everybody will agree. But I think that the rules as written, taken along with the general spirit of the 5th edition rules makes sense.

For example, the statement "if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you" is a a good one for this discussion. As is the discussion about whether you are more or less alert in combat (in which I think it depends on the training of the combatant, the type of combat, and other factors).

nother statement "you can't hide from a creature that can see you" is also frequently read in its most restrictive, as in "if it's possible for them to see you, you can't hide" as opposed to "you can't hide from a creature that actually sees you." The phrase "can see" could mean either.

In one of the threads my initial reaction was that if you tried to repeatedly hide in the same place, or your opponent sees you moving into a hiding place, then you couldn't attempt to hide at all. But Mike's tweet reminded me that it's not about forbidding the action of attempting to hide, but about determining when it becomes much harder or easier than normal.

So depending on the circumstances, the DM has to make a call as to whether you get advantage/disadvantage when attempting to hide, and/or whether the opponents have advantage/disadvantage on their Perception check (passive or active).

The only other thing to remember is that the Hide/Perceive check covers the actions of the given round. So if your rogue succeeds on hiding, then it can gain the benefit of that stealth for the entire round. But the opponent is also entitled to use an action to search. In that case I'd require a second check to see if the rogue can remain hidden. Whether advantage or disadvantage is involved would depend on the circumstances.

Not all DMs will rule the same way, but that's fine. As long as the DM is consistent in applying their method for players and NPCs/Monsters then you're fine. In my campaign if the players don't like the particular interpretation of a rule, I'm happy to discuss it outside of game time with the whole group and change the interpretation for future sessions if we come to a different consensus.

Ilbranteloth