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

[Mistwell]

Mistwell:

Yeah you can fluff it how you want. But in the rule books :

Stealth is a skill you have, and allows you to apply your proficiency to stealth checks. As such STEALTH is a 5e technical term with a well defined meaning, its like Medicine or Deception; other skills.

Hide is an action you can preform if the conditions are right. Again another technical term with well defined meaning.

You preform a hide action, you have a stealth skill. Hiding is an action, Stealth is a skill.

Crawfords podcast on all this is clearly differentiating in the same way the rule books do over these things.

Your own personal usage of the common terms stealth/hide and how you think about that is pretty much irrelevant. Sorry. And all your claims of personal attacks are merely in your mind, this stuff is purely objective rules mechanics talk, irrelevant of how sensitive and paranoid you might be.

Now your personal unease about my use of words and statement specifically about not being 5e, well I have clarified all this, sorry if you take offense, I keep saying I am not intending to offend, you can choose to not believe me if you want. I am interested in the mechanics of the game.

So anyway you have a particular distaste on my comment: "It is NOT down to DM adjudication whether you can hide or not. If you think it is, you not playing 5e [...]"

Again as I've already pointed out, I use the word "adjudication" specifically here for an important reason, It is in teh realm of DM is God, and DM is world builder; but not DM as adjudicator. After the DM has done his God stuff and built the world, there is no adjudication to hiding. The DM knows how he handles hiding and if the barrel is there and big enough to count as a valid place to hide. Maybe he would need to adjudicate if you are in range to move behind the barrel if you are not playing on a grid or whatever, but that is a different issue.

Anyway your personal distaste at the words I use or your personal usage of terms in a different way, these kinds of nitpicks are totally irrelevant anyway.

What matters if you we are not in agreement about the mechanics, and at this point, I cant you see what you are disagreeing with or agreeing with what I say about mechanics, so since I think your personal concerns are your own, and where it looks like I am doing something generally uncouth, I've clarified my position already and stated clearly this is mechanic talk, and appologised generally to anyway who takes offense, all I can do really is show you pity for your personal sensitivity.

I understand people can be sensitive and already applogised and do watch what I say and clarify based on that, your personality is too extreme for me to consider writting everything in a way that would not strike up some internal paranoia within you, its just too much effort for such a minority of people, sorry

So I guess we're at the "Let's clarify this with Crawford himself" stage.

I want to be fair to you. Please specify exactly how you'd like to phrase the question to him, so it fairly represents your position. And if you could keep it to 128 characters I'd appreciate it. I will then directly ask Crawford on Twitter. He's usually answered me directly before and I suspect he will do so again.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Mistwell:

I'm really glad you took my previous comment as intended, just objective mechanic talk. I also appreciate you also wanting to get to the bottom of the issue. Also much appreciation that are you willing to use your connection with Crawford to get clarification as well

I did actually tweet Crawford about the distraction, barb hitting enemy, pc moves out of cover thing, but no answer so far.

Also thanks for allowing us to discuss the question to pose as well for effectiveness of answer.

So... I suppose the best question to ask would solve our main point of disagreement on these issues. However I am not sure what our disagreement is mechanically about all this stuff. I do not think it is important that we think (fluff wise) differently about the mechanics mean in reality of the game. Or even that we think certain mechanics or words or synomins or not, what matters is our disagreement about the core mechanics of "pure" 5e.

What are we actually arguing about here? What is our game mechanics disagreement?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not appropriate. If you've lowered yourself to name calling, it's probably best you concede the thread.

I'm here to engage in constructive debate, in good faith, but it's clear that not everyone is on board with that. I concede that this argument is not productive, and have taken appropriate steps to ensure that meaningful discussion is not further derailed by disruptive parties, and I would encourage others to do the same.

I do apologize for letting this get as out-of-hand as it has, though, and will leave this thread in the hands of those with more patience.

 

[Jester David]

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.

If it's the "standard" disclaimer can you give an example of another place it appears?
If not, then it's not really standard is it? Then it must exist for a reason.

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.

Kinda. That pretty much is the point. But it's more than just setting and location.
The number and position of people hiding is a factor. How alert they are.

The DM is given the latitude to allow people to hide when the rules would otherwise say they can't (out in the open without cover) and deny the ability to hide when the rules would otherwise say they can (behind a barrel, after attacking, in an otherwise empty room).

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.

The hiding rules are pretty much identical to the hiding rules from 4th edition, which nobody complained about.
The differences are twofold:
1) The Action. Hiding was pretty much automatic in 4e.
2) Hard rules. There were clear bulletpoints on when you could hide. I.e. when behind cover.
3) Minis. The game pretty much assumed miniatures, so the player could always tell if cover existed.

The problem with the 4e rule was that it led to the absurd (rogues sniping and then becoming "hidden" by dropping out of sight for six seconds) and didn't permit cool actions (the rogue quietly slipping across the room to table where guards are playing poker, and attempting to pickpocket a key ring). And they don't really work in theatre of the mind...

The game and most DMs want you to do the latter, but the rules of 4e, and Pathfinder and 3e never really let you because the second you ended your turn out of cover all enemies automatically noticed you.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I love how as soon as someone mentions an experience that everyone assumes there must be something off about that experience. It's like clockwork. Kind of funny.

Because presenting a single instance of personal experience is a widely known informal fallacy. Humans are really bad at recalling things accurately, let alone at presenting a balanced view of a field that doesn't just cherry pick the bits of evidence that support their view.
You even admit to forgetting fairly important details of the scenario, and what you do describe is pretty vague, to say the least.

So yeah, your personal, vaguely recollected, cherry picked data doesn't make much of a valid argument.

Also FWIW, there's a big category of overland encounters that can keep up with your rogue just fine - anyone riding a horse. Since your world apparently has nothing but traversable terrain, that should be an awful lot of encounters.

...
So without computing every detail what we have learned is that the advantage rogue stays up with the fighter in terms of DPR even when all the fighters damage features are accounted for.

Right... a DM who just lets you hide at ranges of 100 feet while still having perfect line of sight might have that effect. Haven't your foes heard of taking cover? Your fighter and wizard should have been getting chewed to pieces while you danced around at range uselessly...

The rogue gets expertise in useful skills and can go arcane trickster for nice utility spells and more skills overall. The fighter gets no out of combat advantage. So basically what we are saying is that the advantage rogue is flat out better than the fighter because they do equal damage but the rogue has a lot more out of combat utility.

Well... the fighter is getting some other sort-of-utility benefits like indomitable, more stat increases/feats and more hit points, but it's pretty weak. I'm not arguing the fighter doesn't lose out in non-combat abilities, and it's long been my argument that they need more non combat stuff added to their subclasses.

But this all kind of supports my point: removing the ability to hide and attack in a round doesn't impact typical play much, but DOES alter extreme cases such as yours or the lone rogue instance pretty heavily... in a good way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because presenting a single instance of personal experience is a widely known informal fallacy. Humans are really bad at recalling things accurately, let alone at presenting a balanced view of a field that doesn't just cherry pick the bits of evidence that support their view.
You even admit to forgetting fairly important details of the scenario, and what you do describe is pretty vague, to say the least.

So yeah, your personal, vaguely recollected, cherry picked data doesn't make much of a valid argument.

Also FWIW, there's a big category of overland encounters that can keep up with your rogue just fine - anyone riding a horse. Since your world apparently has nothing but traversable terrain, that should be an awful lot of encounters.

Right... a DM who just lets you hide at ranges of 100 feet while still having perfect line of sight might have that effect. Haven't your foes heard of taking cover? Your fighter and wizard should have been getting chewed to pieces while you danced around at range uselessly...

Well... the fighter is getting some other sort-of-utility benefits like indomitable, more stat increases/feats and more hit points, but it's pretty weak. I'm not arguing the fighter doesn't lose out in non-combat abilities, and it's long been my argument that they need more non combat stuff added to their subclasses.

But this all kind of supports my point: removing the ability to hide and attack in a round doesn't impact typical play much, but DOES alter extreme cases such as yours or the lone rogue instance pretty heavily... in a good way.

All I was doing was pointing out that my numbers weren't just white room theoretical because I had actual game experience with such a character with liberal hiding rules. Whiteroom theorycraft is a different complaint that often gets thrown around here. I don't expect you to put total stock in anecdoctal evidence. Heck, consider it very minor and offer your own contradictory anecdotal evidence if you have any. I'd love to hear it. It's just when the numbers line up with that evidence I do expect it to be not outright dismissed.

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

I think we end up in the same place. It's simply that you view the standard hiding rules in combat as starting off very lenient and allowing the DM to tighten things up at his discretion. I view them the opposite. I view the standard hiding rules as being very tight and I view the rules as explicitly being given the latitude to make hiding easy.

The only difference in our opinions is whether the standard in the rules begins as lenient or difficult for hiding in combat.

Your evidence of course revolves around the rogues ability and the halflings ability and the wood-elfs etc. If I may paraphrase it basically boils down to those abilities being existing and the fact they would be nearly useless in a game with as strict of hiding rules as I propose. I get the logic and reasoning.

My evidence is the hiding rules tell me a monsters demeanor in combat is generally that the monster is alert for signs of danger all around. The rules themselves list the DM allowing you to "come out of hiding" and approach a creature while still remaining "hidden" as an exception to the general norm.

So can we maybe agree that a creature stops being hidden when it comes out of hiding? Can we also agree that the rules never define what it means for a creature "comes out of hiding". Basically from where I am sitting it looks like the DM is free to rule almost whatever he wants to be defined as coming out of hiding as the book gives no real guidance on that.

This actually makes me want to change my position. I don't believe the rules have any default position on hiding in combat because I don't believe the rules specify what it takes to come out of hiding. Maybe we can agree there?

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

I think we end up in the same place. It's simply that you view the standard hiding rules in combat as starting off very lenient and allowing the DM to tighten things up at his discretion. I view them the opposite. I view the standard hiding rules as being very tight and I view the rules as explicitly being given the latitude to make hiding easy.

The only difference in our opinions is whether the standard in the rules begins as lenient or difficult for hiding in combat.

Your evidence of course revolves around the rogues ability and the halflings ability and the wood-elfs etc. If I may paraphrase it basically boils down to those abilities being existing and the fact they would be nearly useless in a game with as strict of hiding rules as I propose. I get the logic and reasoning.

My evidence is the hiding rules tell me a monsters demeanor in combat is generally that the monster is alert for signs of danger all around. The rules themselves list the DM allowing you to "come out of hiding" and approach a creature while still remaining "hidden" as an exception to the general norm.

So can we maybe agree that a creature stops being hidden when it comes out of hiding? Can we also agree that the rules never define what it means for a creature "comes out of hiding". Basically from where I am sitting it looks like the DM is free to rule almost whatever he wants to be defined as coming out of hiding as the book gives no real guidance on that.

This actually makes me want to change my position. I don't believe the rules have any default position on hiding in combat because I don't believe the rules specify what it takes to come out of hiding. Maybe we can agree there?

From the clarification from Crawford; coming out of hiding, means whatever you moved behind to get visual concealment is no longer providing that visual concealment.

 

[FrogReaver]

From the clarification from Crawford; coming out of hiding, means whatever you moved behind to get visual concealment is no longer providing that visual concealment.

Well that's a good starting point but it doesn't hardly answer the question.

1. What if you move out to where 10% of your body shows (only doable in theatre of the mind I guess)?
2. What if you move out to where 90% of your body shows (only doable in theatre of the mind I guess)?

Do either of those cases count as "coming out of hiding"?

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Well that's a good starting point but it doesn't hardly answer the question.

1. What if you move out to where 10% of your body shows (only doable in theatre of the mind I guess)?
2. What if you move out to where 90% of your body shows (only doable in theatre of the mind I guess)?

Do either of those cases count as "coming out of hiding"?

I've idea about those cases, however since he says you do not count as coming out of hiding if you peek out and shoot (no movement used), then I suppose 10% wouldnt count atleast, you are still mostly obscured behind something. I'd probably rule you have to be 100% out to "come out", I would be easily convinced about anything above 50% counting, but 10% seems closer to being actually unnoticed still;

Remember when you hide and roll stealth you might not end up being unseen - if the monsters PP all beats your stealth roll; I suppose that implies a certain percentage of you is actually sticking out from behind the cover and the monsters noticing that.