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

[Rodney Mulraney]

What are you watching for your opponent to do? Are you waiting for them to be distracted, or is it something else?



There's also the possibility of the PC's path going through heavily obscured areas. I'm not sure how you see a retcon playing into this, though. I'd imagine such circumstances either exist or not according to the shared fiction, which is usually up to the DM to establish and adjudicate.



Except for the DM's ability to rule that an opponent is distracted, I don't know what rules you mean. Did you have some in mind?

Hiding and stealth are totally different things. To hide you need to get concealed visibly, to stealth you do not. In combat creatures are "alert", otherwise they might not be. You can stealth past creatures that are not "alert" without maintaining concealment, you just need to beat their PP; ie leave a small enough "percievable" footprint.

Perception is NOT vision; it is the totality of a creatures perceptual apparatus. Hiding has a visual requirement - you need concealment, stealth is about perception - you need to leave a low perceptual footprint.

Even being invisible does not make you hidden; but you can always try to hide if you are invisible; since you always meet the requirement of being visibly concealed...

Anyway it is worth listening to the podcast I linked earlier if these mechanics of the game are still unsure in your mind.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is NOT down to DM adjudication whether you can hide or not. If you think it is, you not playing 5e. Sorry but you are just completely wrong about that. The RAW says you CAN DO the HIDE action; as long as you have something to hide behind. This is RAI as well, as you can easily confirm.

It is similarly NOT down to DM adjudication whether you can attack or not. Both things are core rules. If you have a weapon equipped and there is an enemy in reach, you CAN do the ATTACK action.

Neither of these things are DM adjudication issues, they are core rules of 5e.

When you do the attack action, you roll to hit, add mods and DM compares to AC, tells you if you are successful and get to roll damage... its all core rules clearly spelt out.

When you do the hide action, you move behind something that conceals you, roll stealth, and DM compares to PP, and later will tell you if got the unseen attacker, etc... again all core rules clearly spelt out.

The DM does build the world though, so the PCs ask and are told by the DM about what is in the world. The DM decides if there is a creature there for you to attempt to attack. The DM decides if there is a barrel there for you to attempt to hide behind. Later the DM might have his NPCs destroy the barrel, or have his creatures move out of range/run away...

However if the DM changes the core hit/attack mechanics on the fly or the core hide mechanics on the fly : he needs some appropriate reason for this one off, or he is just not playing according to actual 5e rules.

With hiding/keeping stealth, the DM might have to adjudicate, if the previously hid PC, when he runs out of his hid place keeps his stealth or not, depending on if there is anything there to perceive the PC and the perceivers basic level of distraction/etc...

You all seem to have accepted a misreading of the hiding rule; it is not difficult to hide in combat, it is difficult (maybe/DM decides) to keep your stealth if you MOVE out of your hiding place in combat. Just sticking out your head and bow to get sight on something to shoot from your hide place DOES NOT break your stealth, however if you take a shot you do break your stealth, but you always get the unseen attacker advantage. Again RAW and easy to confirm also RAI...

Nope, sorry, the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding -- that's also the rules. So, you cannot hide if the DM says that the circumstances are no appropriate. You can hide if the DM says they are appropriate. This is how the rules are written.

That said, the rules clearly allow for a very permissive adjudication of circumstances being appropriate for hiding. There's a big difference between the scope of the rules (broad, permissive, DM adjudicated) and the application of those rules (broad or narrow). The rules are written with a very, very broad scope (intentionally and by design). This is to ensure that the rules support a game that allows permissive hiding. However, part of the broad scope of the rules is that the DM has broad power to limit that scope in application, meaning that the rules also support a game that severely limits hiding. It's a nice design, actually, and works well to support multiple styles. Always baffles me why people complain that the stealth rules aren't well crafted....

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Nope, sorry, the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding -- that's also the rules. So, you cannot hide if the DM says that the circumstances are no appropriate. You can hide if the DM says they are appropriate. This is how the rules are written.

That said, the rules clearly allow for a very permissive adjudication of circumstances being appropriate for hiding. There's a big difference between the scope of the rules (broad, permissive, DM adjudicated) and the application of those rules (broad or narrow). The rules are written with a very, very broad scope (intentionally and by design). This is to ensure that the rules support a game that allows permissive hiding. However, part of the broad scope of the rules is that the DM has broad power to limit that scope in application, meaning that the rules also support a game that severely limits hiding. It's a nice design, actually, and works well to support multiple styles. Always baffles me why people complain that the stealth rules aren't well crafted....

Right, so that first line in teh hiding box :

"The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

What does this line intend to convey? Here are the options;

1. It's merely a standard DM is God disclaimer ; these are prolifically dotted about the rule books, we all love it, and it makes 5e what it is. Essentially we can ignore this, it's a given in 5e.

2. It's a note about the DM as world builder, who knows the sizes of barrels, location of hidden spotters, etc... ; Drawing attention to the environmental nature of the conditions for hiding. Essentially this is a note that hiding is dependant on the environmental conditions, obstructions etc, which the DM generates.

3. It is a statement about the hiding rules; The rules are not sufficient and the DM basically just decides their own rules for hiding on the fly depending on what he thinks feels right.

So I think we can rule out 1. due to the wording; its not an "as usual teh DM" type of line, it seems more consistent with 2 or 3. Also it is inside the hiding box, not a note before it.
Since it says "circumstances are appropriate", it seems to me to home in on 2. Also 3, can be discounted due to the rules for hiding actually being clear and sufficient. Again the podcast with Crawford on hiding/stealth, implies 2, but again nothing explicit, and as usual the DM is God disclaimers always are prime in rules clarifications by the official D&D people.

EDIT: in the hiding box, it says you can always try to hide if you are invisible. Does this override the DMs decision on appropriate circumstances, I think it kind of does; with no other complicating factors, this means that invisible things always have appropriate for hiding circumstances; implying again 2.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But that's not generally true. Play a few rounds of a PvP FPS and you'll be quickly disabused of this notion.

Seriously? You are using the experience of peering through a relatively tiny viewport on a screen with finite resolution, controlling your p.o.v. with thumb controllers, as your model for how real life works? Not quite sure where to go from here.

But if your larger point is "you can't be looking everywhere at once" I agree. Which is why I offered the example of a foe who is being distracted from the opposite direction. Sure, if the person is frequently looking in other directions you can pull it off more easily.

Alright, I'll bite, why is it cheesy for a rogue to hide and get hidden attacker benefits most turns?

"Cheesy" is a subjective, not objective term, so it's kinda hard to "explain". Kind of like humor.

Or maybe a better analogue would be "What do you mean my comb-over doesn't look natural?" It's one of those things where if you have to ask, you're never going to get it.

Also bear in mind that I think archer rogues are just cheesy in the first place, and really this conversation is only pursuant to archer rogues. PEW PEW I HAZ DUAL HAND XBOWS!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It is NOT down to DM adjudication whether you can hide or not.

This is where you cross the line from being misinformed to simply being a troll. There is no chance that a rational human, having read the rules and being capable of expressing themselves in sentences with marginally passable grammar, could possibly support your statement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, so that first line in teh hiding box :

"The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

What does this line intend to convey? Here are the options;

1. It's merely a standard DM is God disclaimer ; these are prolifically dotted about the rule books, we all love it, and it makes 5e what it is. Essentially we can ignore this, it's a given in 5e.

2. It's a note about the DM as world builder, who knows the sizes of barrels, location of hidden spotters, etc... ; Drawing attention to the environmental nature of the conditions for hiding. Essentially this is a note that hiding is dependant on the environmental conditions, obstructions etc, which the DM generates.

3. It is a statement about the hiding rules; The rules are not sufficient and the DM basically just decides their own rules for hiding on the fly depending on what he thinks feels right.

So I think we can rule out 1. due to the wording; its not an "as usual teh DM" type of line, it seems more consistent with 2 or 3. Also it is inside the hiding box, not a note before it.
Since it says "circumstances are appropriate", it seems to me to home in on 2. Also 3, can be discounted due to the rules for hiding actually being clear and sufficient. Again the podcast with Crawford on hiding/stealth, implies 2, but again nothing explicit, and as usual the DM is God disclaimers always are prime in rules clarifications by the official D&D people.

We take it on its face -- the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. I'm pretty confident this wasn't a hidden riddle that the prize for deciphering is a hard and fast set of clean rules for hiding.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Seriously? You are using the experience of peering through a relatively tiny viewport on a screen with finite resolution, controlling your p.o.v. with thumb controllers, as your model for how real life works? Not quite sure where to go from here.

But if your larger point is "you can't be looking everywhere at once" I agree. Which is why I offered the example of a foe who is being distracted from the opposite direction. Sure, if the person is frequently looking in other directions you can pull it off more easily.

The FOV (field of view) in an FPS is artifically widened and roughly corresponds to a normal person's FOV with peripheral vision. You actually have better situational awareness due to FOV in an FPS than with normal eyesight. The biggest difference is the loss of the natural attraction to motion, which is hampered by the 2-D representation.

But, yeah, claiming that you usually are aware of everything around you is bogus. Tunnel vision is an often sighted issue with high stress environments, so much that soldiers are given training to avoid the traps of tunnel vision in combat because it tends to have lethal consequences.

If you're looking often in multiple directions, your ability to notice detail is significantly weakened.

I'm a bit flabbergasted you're actually trying to argue that 360 degree high awareness is something that is common, or even possible, in real life.

Nice cut of the entire middle, and meaty, rules part of my response to you, btw. Should I take that as agreement, or tabling?

"Cheesy" is a subjective, not objective term, so it's kinda hard to "explain". Kind of like humor.

Or maybe a better analogue would be "What do you mean my comb-over doesn't look natural?" It's one of those things where if you have to ask, you're never going to get it.

Also bear in mind that I think archer rogues are just cheesy in the first place, and really this conversation is only pursuant to archer rogues. PEW PEW I HAZ DUAL HAND XBOWS!

You can't explain why you think something is cheesy, so I just need to take your word that it is, and that this is why rogues shouldn't hide in combat? Strong.

And there are a bunch of archer rogues archetypes that aren't dual wielding x-bows. I've had three archer rogues in my campaign, and zero dual x-bow wielders. The potential existence of dual x-bow wielding rogues does not make a rogue with a shortbow cheesy by association. Let's not tar with the broadest brushes.

 

[merwins]

This is where you cross the line from being misinformed to simply being a troll. There is no chance that a rational human, having read the rules and being capable of expressing themselves in sentences with marginally passable grammar, could possibly support your statement.

I get where he's coming from, though.

Where the rules provide guidance, he's trying to implement that guidance with the rigidity presented.

The problem arises when you have different styles of play, optimized characters, monster balancing and players pushing the limits of RAW. It's way too much to go into here, where we're just talking about hiding.

But when you have those issues with a specific group of players, GM adjudication trumps everything.
I don't want to just play 5E. I want to play 5E that works for my group.

And so I have to interpret hiding in a way that doesn't leave the rogue effectively immune to attack and one-shotting all my presumably properly CR-ed and by-the-book monsters. Yeah, I nerfed him -- a little. But I made it so no one else feels like their character sucks.

Most importantly, the NPCs follow all the same rules. Internal consistency is key.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

This is where you cross the line from being misinformed to simply being a troll. There is no chance that a rational human, having read the rules and being capable of expressing themselves in sentences with marginally passable grammar, could possibly support your statement.

What? I specifically said "adjudication", and you just cherry pick out that sentence? My entire comment makes it clear what I'm referring to.

DM is Boss: can flout rules, change rules, do anything they want.

DM is World builder: Oops before you attack, you trigger this trap door - your PP didnt catch it, and you never preformed any kind of SEARCH, no attack for you, you are on another level of the dungeon and take X fall dmg...

DM is Adjudicating: The rules and flow of specified events etc, are consistent with multiple possible outcomes here, they decide what makes most sense at this point, they can roll for it, if they want, or base their adjudication on some kind of rationale.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm a bit flabbergasted you're actually trying to argue that 360 degree high awareness is something that is common, or even possible, in real life.

Likewise I'm a bit flabbergasted that you are mis-interpreting my argument so bizarrely.* As I've said now twice I think it's different when the target is distracted in another direction, and my only issue is with using the tactic repeatedly. In other words, once you know there's somebody shooting arrows at you from behind that rock, and you are generally facing in the direction of that rock, you're going to notice him popping out. Yes, even in an FPS. Especially since it's going to take him some amount of time to re-acquire you visually and aim his weapon.

Nice cut of the entire middle, and meaty, rules part of my response to you, btw. Should I take that as agreement, or tabling?

As I keep saying, I think we largely agree, except on the "designer's intent" bit, which ultimately is just an interesting philosophical discussion anyway. Or should be. Except that it feels...as usual...that you're more interested in proving other people wrong at all costs than in having a discussion.

Case in point:

You can't explain why you think something is cheesy, so I just need to take your word that it is, and that this is why rogues shouldn't hide in combat? Strong.

Yeah, um, I just said it's a matter of opinion and perspective. So, no, you should not take my word for anything, you should definitely hold your own opinions. Although I do wish you'd recognize them as such.

And there are a bunch of archer rogues archetypes that aren't dual wielding x-bows. I've had three archer rogues in my campaign, and zero dual x-bow wielders. The potential existence of dual x-bow wielding rogues does not make a rogue with a shortbow cheesy by association. Let's not tar with the broadest brushes.

Are the shortbow rogues hiding in the same place every time, with the opponents only facing toward that hiding place? Then, yeah, cheesy. Get out those shortswords (better yet daggers...but rapiers are also cheesy) and go stab something, for chrissake.

* EDIT: Actually, that was a lie. I'm not flabbergasted. I recognize that it's far easier to attack my position by first brazenly misinterpreting it. Otherwise we'd be left with just a friendly discussion.