D&D 5E "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"

[Mistwell]

Listen to the pod cast. You only roll stealth after you choose the hide action, what you roll there you keep whatever you do - as long as you are not totally exposed/etc. The feats/race features you talk about are about when you are able to hide in the first place. After you have hidden (if you are able to in the first place), you roll the stealth and you maintain that until you choose not be "hidden/stealthy" or are exposed in someway.

It is worth listening to the podcast anyway if you are unsure about the situation. Eitherway you are free as a DM to rule whatever you want as usual.

I listened to the podcast when it came out and commented on it at the time. He begins by emphasizing about as emphatically as he can that it's a DM call based on the circumstances and there is not a hard and fast rule like you just outlined (which is what I've been saying - "unless there are special circumstances"). Next, he's mostly talking about out of combat uses and the passive perception checks to counter your active hide check, which isn't applicable to what we're talking about in this topic. Next he says you keep your hide check UNTIL YOU ARE DISCOVERED. And what is one way you are discovered? Something sees or hears you! He even says, "you've run out of hiding" leads to discovery. To remain hidden, "make sure people can't see you clearly" is one condition. But people can see you clearly if you have a person between you and them under the normal rules, unless you have the skulker feat or are a lightfoot halfling.

To prove it, ask yourself this. If you have an ally in front of you, and foes in front of the ally, would you even bother to ask your DM if you can clearly see the foe? Of course not - you CAN see your foe, even with an ally between you and the foe. The foe might gain the benefit of some cover, but cover isn't an issue of you being able to clearly see the target, it's more a factor of reducing your chances of being able to hit the target with a ranged shot (because there is less of the foe to hit).

He then specifies fog can allow you to remain hidden, but that's the type of obscured terrain which is the normal rule for hiding (unless it's patchy fog). He then specifies heavy foliage, up in the tree tops, or on top of a building, all of which are well in the normal stealth rules. He then says without a special ability, the rogue reveals themselves if they try to stealthily move from behind a barrel to another obstruction 10 feet away, because they come out of hiding as soon as the leave the barrel.

He never once says or implies a person between you and a foe is a circumstance which allows you to stay hidden (unless again the DM makes a judgement call otherwise).

If you can talk your DM into it at the time, go for it. But I don't think the more hard-and-fast aspects of the hide rules support your claim about a person being between you and the foe being sufficient to maintain your hiding. I think that's in the lightfoot halfling or Skulker feat realm. I think this kind of hiding will fall well into the DM judgement call based on the circumstances aspects of the stealth rules. They'll ask if the foe can hear you regardless of vision, and how big the person is between you and the foe, and how distracted the foe is, and whether the foe knew you hid in that area to begin with, and whether the foe has a good sense of smell, and the lighting and shadows, and all the other factors that go into it. I don't think a PC can automatically assume they will have the opportunity to "remain" hidden when they are dodging behind an ally like that, unless they're a lightfoot halfling or they have the Skulker feat.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Right, so a DM can nerf rogues and play a game that isnt quite D&D 5e. Since in 5e you can hide every turn if you want, and if you have a feature that allows that as a bonus action it is actually pretty solid tactic for its effects.

The DM isn't nerfing anyone. The DM is giving them every advantage they are supposed to have, under the rules. The DM simply isn't buffing rogues by letting them ignore the meaningful restrictions which the designers had intentionally placed on one of their abilities.

The balancing mechanic for hiding is that the DM won't let you do something nonsensical, like hiding behind the only pillar in the room and then popping back out again in order to gain advantage. If you ignore the DM's role in governing this, then you aren't quite playing D&D 5E anymore.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hiding to avoid damage all the time is stupid. It just results in damage being focused on other characters. Since the rogue is one of the most durable characters (uncanny dodge, evasion, battlefield mobility), he's better off wasting enemy actions than simply being a non-target.

Hiding to attack is also stupid, because he could simply dual wield: most of the time his allies will allow him the use of sneak attack.

The only time that hiding during combat is strictly advantageous is if the rogue is alone. And the only thing that makes it drastically advantageous is the broken readying rules (which IMO need modification)

Given all of that:
removing the ability to hide during a round where you attack simplifies the game and prevents a tactic that is usually counterproductive to the PCs.

Mind you, personally I subscribe to a model where any character that is out of sight is being stealthy with no action invested. A stealth action is only necessary to remain stealthy when one would otherwise be automatically detected.

 

[Mistwell]

Since the HIDE action is just another choice of the things you can spend an action on, you can do it as much as you want in combat (or out). Check out chapter 8 of the PHB.

Do you really imagine, after three years (or more at this point) of discussing the hide rules in 5e, that I hadn't read the stealth rules in chapter 8 of the PHB?

Constantly hiding is a valid tactic and it is something the rogue excels at and can make most use of, due to his class features.

I disagree. You asserting it again doesn't make it more true or false. I am very clear on where you are coming from. I disagree with you. I've given my reasons for why I disagree.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

The DM isn't nerfing anyone. The DM is giving them every advantage they are supposed to have, under the rules. The DM simply isn't buffing rogues by letting them ignore the meaningful restrictions which the designers had intentionally placed on one of their abilities.

The balancing mechanic for hiding is that the DM won't let you do something nonsensical, like hiding behind the only pillar in the room and then popping back out again in order to gain advantage. If you ignore the DM's role in governing this, then you aren't quite playing D&D 5E anymore.

They can hide behind the only pillar in the room and as long as they don't move or can stealth away via something that gently obscures them they remain hidden. Even staying at that pillar and just peeking and shooting and rehiding behind it, is apparently all confirmed to be RAI, which to me is directly implied by RAW anyway.

So if the DM didnt allow that, that would be opposing the 5e ruleset. Check the links I posted here a few comments back, to confirm what I was saying earlier about this is actually the case if you want.

I'm not sure where you think you are reading these restrictions, they arent in teh rule books - but yeah many DMs houserule many things and as DMs they are free to play any game they want.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, so a DM can nerf rogues and play a game that isnt quite D&D 5e. Since in 5e you can hide every turn if you want, and if you have a feature that allows that as a bonus action it is actually pretty solid tactic for its effects.

Not at all. The game also explicitly puts the decision on when and where hiding can occur in the hands of the DM. Hard to be playing against the rules when you're exercising the judgement allowed to you in them.

I had issue with Misty saying the game was built with the assumption rogues only occasionally hid in combat, which is contraindicated by the RAW, not with the idea that a DM has the authority in the rules to make hiding impractical. I can disagree with a DM that makes out hard to hide, but that's a difference of opinion, not a rules issue.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Do you really imagine, after three years (or more at this point) of discussing the hide rules in 5e, that I hadn't read the stealth rules in chapter 8 of the PHB?



I disagree. You asserting it again doesn't make it more true or false. I am very clear on where you are coming from. I disagree with you. I've given my reasons for why I disagree.

That is fine, and you can play any game you want as a DM, but in D&D 5e it is how I've explained and given official sources to confirm. Your reasons are understandable, but they are just your personal house overrulling of the 5e rules, arent they?

You can do what you want, but you shouldnt try to claim it is 5e if it directly contradicts the official 5e sources.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Not at all. The game also explicitly puts the decision on when and where hiding can occur in the hands of the DM. Hard to be playing against the rules when you're exercising the judgement allowed to you in them.

I had issue with Misty saying the game was built with the assumption rogues only occasionally hid in combat, which is contraindicated by the RAW, not with the idea that a DM has the authority in the rules to make hiding impractical. I can disagree with a DM that makes out hard to hide, but that's a difference of opinion, not a rules issue.

This is completely true, in 5e DMs explicitly are given free range over how they adjust things. In this instance, the DM could say - well there isnt anything to hide behind here, so you cant do the hide action. But if there is something to hide behind and the DM just says you cannot hide there because of his ideas about how obvious it is you are hiding there, well that contradicts 5e. DMs can contradict 5e and are even encouraged to do this if it is suitable for a particular scenario the DM wants to create, but the game sort of departs from 5e then.

How many contradictory to 5e rules does a DM need before they arent playing 5e anymore. Id say about one, but obviously its a grey area.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They can hide behind the only pillar in the room and as long as they don't move or can stealth away via something that gently obscures them they remain hidden. Even staying at that pillar and just peeking and shooting and rehiding behind it, is apparently all confirmed to be RAI, which to me is directly implied by RAW anyway.

So if the DM didnt allow that, that would be opposing the 5e ruleset.

Which part of "The DM will adjudicate when circumstances are appropriate to hide" or "creatures usually pay attention to threats from all directions while in combat" (paraphrasing) are you having trouble with? Is it the part where you're subject to oversight from the DM, to prevent your ridiculous hiding-in-one-spot cheese? This isn't 4E, 3E, or even Pathfinder. The DM's major job in 5E is to stop you from abusing the narrative by doing the sort of ridiculous thing that you keep insisting is your Mearls-given right as a player.

The sense of player-entitlement that you are demonstrating here is one of the main things that drives away DMs. This isn't a competition. The DM isn't out to get you; they're just doing their job, which is adjudicating what makes sense. As long as everyone is playing in good faith, and not trying to pull ridiculous shenanigans by claiming that they're RAW (or RAI), everything will work out just fine.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

I listened to the podcast when it came out and commented on it at the time. He begins by emphasizing about as emphatically as he can that it's a DM call based on the circumstances and there is not a hard and fast rule like you just outlined (which is what I've been saying - "unless there are special circumstances"). Next, he's mostly talking about out of combat uses and the passive perception checks to counter your active hide check, which isn't applicable to what we're talking about in this topic. Next he says you keep your hide check UNTIL YOU ARE DISCOVERED. And what is one way you are discovered? Something sees or hears you! He even says, "you've run out of hiding" leads to discovery. To remain hidden, "make sure people can't see you clearly" is one condition. But people can see you clearly if you have a person between you and them under the normal rules, unless you have the skulker feat or are a lightfoot halfling.

To prove it, ask yourself this. If you have an ally in front of you, and foes in front of the ally, would you even bother to ask your DM if you can clearly see the foe? Of course not - you CAN see your foe, even with an ally between you and the foe. The foe might gain the benefit of some cover, but cover isn't an issue of you being able to clearly see the target, it's more a factor of reducing your chances of being able to hit the target with a ranged shot (because there is less of the foe to hit).

He then specifies fog can allow you to remain hidden, but that's the type of obscured terrain which is the normal rule for hiding (unless it's patchy fog). He then specifies heavy foliage, up in the tree tops, or on top of a building, all of which are well in the normal stealth rules. He then says without a special ability, the rogue reveals themselves if they try to stealthily move from behind a barrel to another obstruction 10 feet away, because they come out of hiding as soon as the leave the barrel.

He never once says or implies a person between you and a foe is a circumstance which allows you to stay hidden (unless again the DM makes a judgement call otherwise).

If you can talk your DM into it at the time, go for it. But I don't think the more hard-and-fast aspects of the hide rules support your claim about a person being between you and the foe being sufficient to maintain your hiding. I think that's in the lightfoot halfling or Skulker feat realm. I think this kind of hiding will fall well into the DM judgement call based on the circumstances aspects of the stealth rules. They'll ask if the foe can hear you regardless of vision, and how big the person is between you and the foe, and how distracted the foe is, and whether the foe knew you hid in that area to begin with, and whether the foe has a good sense of smell, and the lighting and shadows, and all the other factors that go into it. I don't think a PC can automatically assume they will have the opportunity to "remain" hidden when they are dodging behind an ally like that, unless they're a lightfoot halfling or they have the Skulker feat.

Ah yeah sorry about that, the bit where I said - a pc between you and the creature - I just made that up, that is no where mentioned. I made that up since its an edge case and well 50/50? ask the DM. So you are completely correct, and I'm sorry if it came across as if I was claiming that was somehow some official ruling, it definitely isnt. The DM would judge that and frankly I agree you that a player should probably not attempt such reckless behaviour, although I would probably allow it unless it was silly. Which it kinda already borders on the silly. The point I was trying to make with that is that when you do a hide check that is stricter and you need to conceal yourself to do that, but after that you don't need such heavy concealment to remain hidden as you stealth about ducking and dodging, etc... It was basically in reference to the barb attacking the creature the rogue hid from anyway, so you got a bit of concealment and the barb is distracting the creature by hitting its head with their axe or whatever...

But yeah sorry about the confusion there, I completely agree with your take on that. (even if as a DM, I would probably lean to more lenient rullings, with the edge cases).