Hiding and Blindness (updated)

[clearstream]

Updated 30th Nov. 2018!
I'm interested in some feedback on these... guidelines, clarifications or homebrew depending how you see it. They come out of two years running OOTA, where vision questions have been common, critical, and sometimes complicated. One helpful thing I've come to realise is that the distinction between being hidden and unseen is one of knowing a creature's location. Regarding the vagueness of "not clearly seen", I follow a belief that Skulker constitutes not simply a recital of the general rule, but a specific that trumps that general. That means that I take "not clearly seen" to be true in the most general sense - in 5th edition, in all circumstances in which you can hide, it will be because you are not clearly seen - with the usual case being narrower than that. That has worked out well in play: providing clarity and feeling balanced.

Hiding and Blindness

Unseen, but not Unheard
Being unseen has offensive and defensive benefits, giving advantage or disadvantage depending on who sees whom. Even when you can’t see a creature, you still know its location from the noise it makes: allowing you to target it with ranged and melee attacks. If you know an attacking creature's location, they will stop being unseen as soon as they create line of sight to attack you, unless they are heavily-obscured or invisible.

Unseen and Unheard: Hiding
Being hidden has a defensive benefit, forcing attackers to choose the square they think you are in when they attack you: automatically missing if incorrect. Successfully hiding results in you being unseen, unheard, and your location not known. You can take the Hide action if you are—

• Free to obfuscate your location, such as when you are not confined or restrained; and
• Heavily-obscured by such things as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage; or
• Concealed by an object that blocks vision entirely such as a creature two sizes larger than you; or
• Unobserved such as when a creature is distracted; or
• Unseen such as through an invisibility spell or a class ability.

You stop being hidden when you are in a creature’s field of vision under circumstances that would prevent you attempting to hide from it, or make sounds that it can hear, attack it or do something else to make your location known to it.

Blinded
Attackers have advantage on their attack rolls against blinded creatures that they can see. Each foot of movement while blinded costs 1 extra foot of speed. To Dash you must make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (DC 12) or fall prone, unless you are in contact with a sighted guide.

 

[GMMichael]

Unseen but not Unheard
For creatures that can make multiple attacks, only the first gains advantage from being unseen unless it fails to give away their position, or the creature moves between attacks to a new unseen position.

Does the Advantage from firing on a blind defender come from the defender being flat-footed, or from not knowing where the attacker is? If it's being flat-footed, sure, lose advantage. If it's not knowing, I'd see all attacks gaining advantage. If you have arrows (or worse, bullets) coming at you from an unseen location, you're not going to stand around, lean in the direction towards which you think they're coming, and wait for a few more to come by so you can get an accurate location on your opponent.

Unseen and Unheard: Hiding

You stop being hidden when you are in a creature’s field of vision under circumstances that would prevent you attempting to hide from it, or you make sounds that it can hear, or you attack it. Creatures whose lives depend on it will mark your position, forestalling further Hide actions until you shift to an unexpected new position or otherwise confound them.

I still don't understand how D&D 5 creates confusion on this topic...but it's a good thing you're addressing it.

Blinded
Attackers have advantage on attacks against blind creatures that they can see. Each foot of movement while blind costs 1 extra foot of speed. If you Dash while blind you must make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (DC 12) or fall prone. Contact with a sighted guide lets you automatically succeed on that check.

This sounds like double jeopardy to me. There should be either an extra movement cost -or- tripping check, but not both. In fact, when you're not dashing, you're still probably focusing on enemies (not the ground), so characters (sorry, seasoned fighters) are probably used to not seeing much of the ground anyway while they maneuver at combat speed.

 

[Hriston]

a) Yes, the drow is an “unseen attacker” and gains advantage.

b) Yes, they can target the creatures, but no, they do not suffer disadvantage unless the creatures themselves have some way of seeing through the fog.

c) Yes, movement in 5E doesn’t depend on sight. A DM can, however, place hazards that are sight-dependent.

 

[clearstream]

Does the Advantage from firing on a blind defender come from the defender being flat-footed, or from not knowing where the attacker is? If it's being flat-footed, sure, lose advantage. If it's not knowing, I'd see all attacks gaining advantage. If you have arrows (or worse, bullets) coming at you from an unseen location, you're not going to stand around, lean in the direction towards which you think they're coming, and wait for a few more to come by so you can get an accurate location on your opponent.

Per RAW, when an attacker is unseen, defender is effectively blind relative to that attacker, so it gets advantage. This should come up more in discussions about stealth etc. The hiding situation is relatively controllable. Simply being unseen due to being in darkness and outside another creatures vision, is far more pernicious. If it's all attacks, then Superior Darkvision and Devil's Sight are helluva good.

I still don't understand how D&D 5 creates confusion on this topic...but it's a good thing you're addressing it.

IKR. My thought is that this might also settle the ducking halfling question: if it is obvious where the halfling will next spring up from, they won't be hidden when they make their attack.

This sounds like double jeopardy to me. There should be either an extra movement cost -or- tripping check, but not both. In fact, when you're not dashing, you're still probably focusing on enemies (not the ground), so characters (sorry, seasoned fighters) are probably used to not seeing much of the ground anyway while they maneuver at combat speed.

I know what you mean about avoiding doubling up. The thing is that both come up and play out in different ways. Potentially distinct situations. Really, vision is hard to handle for miniatures, due to players looking down god-like from above the scene, and the inevitable shared information. For one thing, they tend to know where the walls are. (Or a DM tries to mandate what is known and makes everyone miserable!)

For straight protracted striding while blind, say in a room filled with other fighting creatures, or along narrow twisty tunnels, or in a forest, over possibly broken ground, it seems like something needs to happen right? But how much. If it's penalised too hard, the game becomes unfun (I speak from experience). If a DM calls for random headings, the game becomes arduous and unfun (again, from experience). As a DM I wanted something playable, yet with a decent narrative feel. Slow blind runners down by stacking another +1 foot cost onto the base ground cost.

For all out dashing, as when fleeing because... well, you're blind and maybe your enemies are not... when they go all out - dashing - they might go sprawling. Falling down instead of dashing is frequently punishing enough - a solid cost.

 

[clearstream]

a) Yes, the drow is an “unseen attacker” and gains advantage.

Indeed, but when it is every turn it comes to feel over-rewarded as a strategy. Speaking from experience.

Yes, they can target the creatures, but no, they do not suffer disadvantage unless the creatures themselves have some way of seeing through the fog.

Indeed that is what RAW entails. My question is more about whether there are any mechanical issues to take into account if doing it differently? For me, as a DM, I dislike creatures proceeding in blanketing fog or magical darkness (sans magical seeing) as if they were all in clear daylight. It causes narrative dissonance.

c) Yes, movement in 5E doesn’t depend on sight. A DM can, however, place hazards that are sight-dependent.

Indeed, I am asking not so much what the RAW says, with which I am very much familiar, but rather if there are any obvious issues with doing things they way I propose.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I know what you mean about avoiding doubling up. The thing is that both come up and play out in different ways. Potentially distinct situations. Really, vision is hard to handle for miniatures, due to players looking down god-like from above the scene, and the inevitable shared information. For one thing, they tend to know where the walls are. (Or a DM tries to mandate what is known and makes everyone miserable!)

For straight protracted striding while blind, say in a room filled with other fighting creatures, or along narrow twisty tunnels, or in a forest, over possibly broken ground, it seems like something needs to happen right? But how much. If it's penalised too hard, the game becomes unfun (I speak from experience). If a DM calls for random headings, the game becomes arduous and unfun (again, from experience). As a DM I wanted something playable, yet with a decent narrative feel. Slow blind runners down by stacking another +1 foot cost onto the base ground cost.

For all out dashing, as when fleeing because... well, you're blind and maybe your enemies are not... when they go all out - dashing - they might go sprawling. Falling down instead of dashing is frequently punishing enough - a solid cost.

I think you can safely move while blind if you are taking your time and being careful: 1/2 movement and, probably slower if there is already rough terrain slowing progress

If you want to move your normal movement, then you should probably make an acrobatics roll to prevent tripping or falling or bumping into something. Base the DC on how rough the terrain is: open room is probably easy: DC 5-10, forested; rocky or icy terrain: 11-15; dense forest/underbrush:15-20 - (I'm just spit-balling)

If someone who can see is using their action to help you move, then no check and no penalty to movement (since you are, essentially, taking an action away from the other character).

 

[clearstream]

I think you can safely move while blind if you are taking your time and being careful: 1/2 movement and, probably slower if there is already rough terrain slowing progress

That was my intuition also, hence the +1 extra foot (per foot) movement cost.

If you want to move your normal movement, then you should probably make an acrobatics roll to prevent tripping or falling or bumping into something. Base the DC on how rough the terrain is: open room is probably easy: DC 5-10, forested; rocky or icy terrain: 11-15; dense forest/underbrush:15-20 - (I'm just spit-balling)

That's very close to my thinking. Given the +1 foot move cost, this is exactly captured by the chance to fall when Dashing. Because the Dash distance when blind will equate with normal movement when not blind. I started with higher DCs... it's a check that's likely to be made multiple times in succession so that the effective difficulty is higher than the DC suggests. For instance, if I am making one check at +3 say vs DC 12, clearly I have only a 40% chance to go sprawling. If I'm in a pursuit, possibly Dashing a number of times equal to my Constitution modifier, I might wind up with a much higher chance across all those rolls to go sprawling.

If someone who can see is using their action to help you move, then no check and no penalty to movement (since you are, essentially, taking an action away from the other character).

I didn't think of using their action. The mechanical issue would be... how do they keep up with you, as you are Dashing and they (usually) cannot be?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

That's very close to my thinking. Given the +1 foot move cost, this is exactly captured by the chance to fall when Dashing. Because the Dash distance when blind will equate with normal movement when not blind. I started with higher DCs... it's a check that's likely to be made multiple times in succession so that the effective difficulty is higher than the DC suggests. For instance, if I am making one check at +3 say vs DC 12, clearly I have only a 40% chance to go sprawling. If I'm in a pursuit, possibly Dashing a number of times equal to my Constitution modifier, I might wind up with a much higher chance across all those rolls to go sprawling.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing. I'm suggesting that, if they want to move without the +1 move cost, they have to make checks.

So, if they use their move and then dash action while moving carefully, they only move 30feet
If they want to move the full 60 feet, they have to make an acrobatics check. I'd make them make a check every move-equivalent action. Once when they do their regular move and once when they dash.

I didn't think of using their action. The mechanical issue would be... how do they keep up with you, as you are Dashing and they (usually) cannot be?

I just mean that, if I'm playing a character that can see in the dark, and I'm helping a blind person move and that person does a move+a dash, it means my character also has to do a move+a dash. So, I lose the opportunity to do some kind of combat action.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing. I'm suggesting that, if they want to move without the +1 move cost, they have to make checks.

So, if they use their move and then dash action while moving carefully, they only move 30feet
If they want to move the full 60 feet, they have to make an acrobatics check. I'd make them make a check every move-equivalent action. Once when they do their regular move and once when they dash.

That's worth thinking about because it gives the player a potentially interesting decision to make.

 

[Oofta]

Basically what I was going to say.

a) Yes, the drow is an “unseen attacker” and gains advantage.

b) Yes, they can target the creatures, but no, they do not suffer disadvantage unless the creatures themselves have some way of seeing through the fog.

Technically, both the PC and the creature being attacked are blinded so the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out.

c) Yes, movement in 5E doesn’t depend on sight. A DM can, however, place hazards that are sight-dependent.

Hazards should definitely include children's toys left out even though you told them a hundred times to put them away or that d4 that you lost last game and could never find. And cats that will wake up the entire house when you step on them because they insist on sleeping in the middle of the walkway instead of their bed that your wife convinced you to buy that they never use.