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

[Rodney Mulraney]

The hiding mechanic has me feeling uneasy when I watch some games on youtube and how some DMs rule it. Since classes like the rogue use this as part of their fighting style, if a DM is "too strict" with hiding, then the DM has effectively nerfed that class.

If I am playing 5e rules, I want to play them and not tinker with them, thinking I know better than the books. Any DM that "tinkers" without complete and overt player pre game acceptance is essentially doing something I feel is wrong. Players read the PHB and have certain expectations when they design their characters, and DMs that overrule that mid game seem to be nerfing a players character for no good reason. Unless a DM provides a mathematical proof for their "tinkering" I dont trust it anyway - and no one does that. It is mostly their own biased experiences that are hardly proper grounds for such rulings.

The roleplaying aspect is silly as well, I think. I just watched a video of DMs describing how they nerf multiclassing, and the reason they give is that "it doesnt seem to fit". Roleplaying is optional for players, some players love it others not so much, penalising players that prefer to describe what their characters do, instead of roleplaying it, is just penalising a players character because you do not like they way the player plays the game, and its wrong, I think.

When you penalise a player for not roleplaying, or being able to come up with a theme or backstory that fits, you just penalise them for the way they play the game, or you penalise their character because the player happens to lack imagination.

When you penalise a player because you cannot think of a way to "make it all fit", you are penalising a player for your own lack of imagination.

Believe me, there is always some kind of theme, backstory or fluff that can make anything fit, just because you happen to not be able to think of that fluff in the moment does not mean it is impossible. Impossibility is the stronger claim and needs the proof, the claim that there is some theme or fluff that would make it fit is the default.

So WRT to hiding, the RAI seems pretty clear that as long the characters body is not perceivable, then the character can hide. Anything else is the DM thinking his own game that is based on D&D is better than D&D.

Since when you hide you are not hidden; you instead roll stealth and the characters skill profs and dice decide if they are actually hidden or not. I think it is best to always let them hide, unless it really is impossible - brightly lit bare marble room, not that big, nothing to hide behind. The only person that will want to try to continually hide is the rogue (they are glass cannons, atleast, without the cannon bit they are just glass) and you shouldnt take that away from them, since without that they become severely nerfed.

EDIT: its worth noting though, that being hidden is one thing, and being an unseen attacker with its advantage benefit is another. Team positional play can help there though, so mostly the rogue with a team who is playing to each others strengths should allow the rogue to get sneak attack most of the time, as long as they can hide alot.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The hiding mechanic has me feeling uneasy when I watch some games on youtube and how some DMs rule it. Since classes like the rogue use this as part of their fighting style, if a DM is "too strict" with hiding, then the DM has effectively nerfed that class.

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially in regards to DMs implementing changes or house rules without fully analyzing their consequences. That being said, we don't actually know that it's intended for rogues to hide in combat every round in order to grant themselves advantage for their sneak attack. The clear RAI for hiding is that the DM will figure it out, in whatever manner makes sense to them. Whether or not they let you repeatedly hide behind the same pillar and then pop out again - which is a ludicrous way of playing, by the way - the rogue still has plenty of other tools in their arsenal to allow them to get sneak attack every round.

So WRT to hiding, the RAI seems pretty clear that as long the characters body is not perceivable, then the character can hide. Anything else is the DM thinking his own game that is based on D&D is better than D&D.

Yeah, no. The RAI is that the DM will figure it out, to prevent the types of ridiculous situations that would occur if your suggestion was implemented. Anything else is the DM thinking that their own interpretation of the rules trumps common sense.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Saelorn the ridiculous situation is covered in the PHB, the char could and should be able to attempt hide, but since the enemies are not stupid they would not get unseen attackers in that situation.

Also it seems to me as the OP said - the DM decides only because they know where the broken walls and barrels and trees are.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Saelorn the ridiculous situation is covered in the PHB, the char could and should be able to attempt hide, but since the enemies are not stupid they would not get unseen attackers in that situation.

Maybe you can "hide" behind the only pillar in the room, but if you come out from behind it or if an enemy moves to where they can see you, then you are immediately revealed with no check involved. If you want to call that being hidden, then go right ahead, but it certainly doesn't benefit the rogue in any obvious way.

Remember, you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around. The only way that you would get any benefit whatsoever from being hidden in this fashion is if the DM rules that the creature is so distracted that you can leave your cover without being seen.

 

[merwins]

Maybe you can "hide" behind the only pillar in the room, but if you come out from behind it or if an enemy moves to where they can see you, then you are immediately revealed with no check involved.

This is exactly why hide in my game is adjudicated in the manner I've chosen. It applies consistently for PCs and NPCs. No double standards.

PC1 is fighting R1 (a rogue).
R1 ducks behind isolated total cover and attempts to hide.

Cue stealth and perception rolls.

Option A: Assume perception < stealth. R1 is effectively hidden = not visible and quiet = position concealed.
Option B: Assume perception > stealth. R1 is NOT hidden = not visible but not quiet = position given away.

In both cases, the end result is the same. PC1 cannot target R1. The critical data is total cover, not whether R1 is hiding.

However, PC1 chooses to ready an action to attack the creature coming out from behind the cover. This is a perfectly legitimate action in both cases. PC1 saw R1 duck behind the cover. It's reasonable to anticipate re-emergence unless and until some other option becomes apparent (teleport, invisibility, plane shift, etc.).

But you normally wouldn't sustain that anticipation for long. Especially in a combat situation. That's why I have the 1-round delay. In the case of option A, after a full round, doubt sets in. R1 cannot be detected by sight or sound. PC1 is no longer confident that R1 is behind the cover. PC1 COULD sustain their action arbitrarily, but if they have something better to do, they'd likely shift tactics.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Hmm, so here is how I see it :-

1. DM: "what do you do?"
2. PC: "I move behind this pillar and use my action to HIDE"

A) [The PC has specified an action (maybe bonus action if rogue), the DM at this point needs to tell the player PC, if that thing he thinks he can hide behind is suitable, if the location is not suitable for hiding, the DM says - sorry nothing suitable to hide behind there, choose to do something else: goto 1]
[Lets assume the DM says ok]

[At this point the PC has used his Action to HIDE]

3. DM: "Ok, roll a stealth check"
4. PC: "I got an 18"

[At this point the DM knows if the PC is actually hidden, but the player doesnt know if he has a foot sticking out (or however you want to think of it)]

[The DM might then have his monsters do something else or watch out (SEARCH - active perception check) or ready an attack for the PC that just hid away]
[The DM controls the monsters so he can effect the situation by changing the behaviour of the monsters] Hence:

5. DM: "The monsters do X"
6. DM: "what do you do?"

7. PC: "I move back out from behind this pillar and throw a dagger at that monster"

B) [Now the DM at this point needs to tell the player PC if he rolls his attack with advantage (triggering sneak attack for rogues) or not, which should depend on the general situation for the monsters, their intelligence and what they choose to do previously]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as we can see the entire run of events here is quite trivial and should be no confusion about the parts. The OP "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"; this is asking about point A), which is trivial to answer - whenever they have something that going behind it will conceal their body. All the DM need ask himself is if such a barrel/tree/whatever is there and is big enough, simple enough.

Where the confusion arises is because people are conflating the unseen attackers advantage (B) which is a little more complex for the DM to ascertain, with the act of hiding on the part of the PC (A).

A and B are completely different things and need separating. Hiding is trivial, being an unseen attacker requires the DM to consider the monsters situation and behaviour and intelligence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:

So the thing I was initially trying to point out, here was what I see as a fault with DMs regarding this stuff. Different classes are based more or less (mostly less) on having things in teh enirovment. The battlemaster could do with some props, otherwise his maneauvers are not as effective as they should be.
However the rogue is really requiring to get advantage more often than not for triggering his sneak dmg.
If as a DM you do not provide the rogue with this opportunity, you have nerfed his class, and you should take away spell slots from wizards and extra attacks from fighters as well, why pick on the rogue?

Also the "ridiculous" situation of the rogue hiding behind the only barrel in the room - nothing else to hide behind, popping out to get advantage - not ridiculous and actually I think it is fine. I've played enough counter strike to know it is rare to spot the sniper at the back popping up and taking pot shots, whilst people in the foreground, not popping in and out of cover are spraying away.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's say your player declares, "From behind my rock I'm watching his shadow, and when I see his head turn to look over his shoulder I'm going to dive and roll behind that other rock." Are you going to rule that's not even possible, are you going to allow a Stealth roll with high DC and/or Disadvantage, or is it a normal Stealth roll?

I'd ask him who said he could see the guys shadow

Assuming id told him he could see the shadow and told him he could tell the guys head was turned from his shadow (not the easiest thing to do IMO) then I'd allow him to get advantage from hiding on that attack.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hmm, so here is how I see it :-

1. DM: "what do you do?"
2. PC: "I move behind this pillar and use my action to HIDE"

A) [The PC has specified an action (maybe bonus action if rogue), the DM at this point needs to tell the player PC, if that thing he thinks he can hide behind is suitable, if the location is not suitable for hiding, the DM says - sorry nothing suitable to hide behind there, choose to do something else: goto 1]
[Lets assume the DM says ok]

[At this point the PC has used his Action to HIDE]

3. DM: "Ok, roll a stealth check"
4. PC: "I got an 18"

[At this point the DM knows if the PC is actually hidden, but the player doesnt know if he has a foot sticking out (or however you want to think of it)]

[The DM might then have his monsters do something else or watch out (SEARCH - active perception check) or ready an attack for the PC that just hid away]
[The DM controls the monsters so he can effect the situation by changing the behaviour of the monsters] Hence:

5. DM: "The monsters do X"
6. DM: "what do you do?"

7. PC: "I move back out from behind this pillar and throw a dagger at that monster"

B) [Now the DM at this point needs to tell the player PC if he rolls his attack with advantage (triggering sneak attack for rogues) or not, which should depend on the general situation for the monsters, their intelligence and what they choose to do previously]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as we can see the entire run of events here is quite trivial and should be no confusion about the parts. The OP "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"; this is asking about point A), which is trivial to answer - whenever they have something that going behind it will conceal their body. All the DM need ask himself is if such a barrel/tree/whatever is there and is big enough, simple enough.

Where the confusion arises is because people are conflating the unseen attackers advantage (B) which is a little more complex for the DM to ascertain, with the act of hiding on the part of the PC (A).

A and B are completely different things and need separating. Hiding is trivial, being an unseen attacker requires the DM to consider the monsters situation and behaviour and intelligence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:

So the thing I was initially trying to point out, here was what I see as a fault with DMs regarding this stuff. Different classes are based more or less (mostly less) on having things in teh enirovment. The battlemaster could do with some props, otherwise his maneauvers are not as effective as they should be.
However the rogue is really requiring to get advantage more often than not for triggering his sneak dmg.
If as a DM you do not provide the rogue with this opportunity, you have nerfed his class, and you should take away spell slots from wizards and extra attacks from fighters as well, why pick on the rogue?

Also the "ridiculous" situation of the rogue hiding behind the only barrel in the room - nothing else to hide behind, popping out to get advantage - not ridiculous and actually I think it is fine. I've played enough counter strike to know it is rare to spot the sniper at the back popping up and taking pot shots, whilst people in the foreground, not popping in and out of cover are spraying away.

Did you really just compare d&d to counter strike?

did you really just compare a sniper whose location is unknown to a rogue where the enemy knows his location?

 

[Hriston]

So long as there's more than one thing to hide behind, distraction can work just fine. If the rogue uses their action to cry "Now, Redgar!!" and dive behind cover when the enemy spins around, then they might be hidden. The enemy has no idea where they went. They know they're present, but they don't know where they are.

Thanks for this interesting example. For clarity and to understand the mechanics involved in play, allow me to recapitulate. The rogue is face to face with the enemy when she creates a distraction. Perhaps the DM gates this behind a CHA (Deception) check, the successful outcome of which is that the enemy momentarily faces away. In any case, the moment the enemy turns away, the rogue "takes the Hide action" in the blind-spot created by the enemy's distraction. A DEX (Stealth) check is called for. Success means the enemy loses track of the rogue's location, and failure that the enemy still knows where the rogue is and will continue to track her as she moves. Then, the rogue sneaks behind a nearby source of total cover in the hope that her check was successful. Is that just about how it would play out at your table? I admit this approach seems well suited to producing the type of narrative you desire.

At my table, facing is seldom, if ever, a concern. The six-second combat round is the shortest unit of time I usually consider, which is generally enough time for a creature to maintain awareness of all 360 degrees of its surroundings. It's certainly enough time for the enemy to quickly glance over her shoulder and then turn her attention back to the rogue, so there's a difference in granularity in how we track time. I wouldn't freeze-frame the enemy facing the other way while allowing the rogue to take her full action and movement.

More on-topic, however, is that even with the enemy's back turned, I would consider the rogue's position to be "in the open". It isn't a place where she could hide and stay hidden once the enemy, or some other observer, turned to face her, so I would require her to move behind the nearby cover first and then hide. Of course, this would mean the enemy could track her movement to the hiding place, and we're back to the question of whether the hiding place is of sufficient size to create uncertainty about the rogue's position.

In the same way if invisible, you can take an action to hide in plain sight.

If the rogue became invisible in front of her enemy, she could hide right there and then because she would be heavily obscured by that condition. Without being obscured in any way, it's questionable whether she could hide in the momentary blind-spot created when her enemy glances over her shoulder.

As for the guards, it depends on the situation. I can imagine guards watching a gate (to a castle or a wall) could be snuck up on if you went far enough to the side and slipped up towards them in their periphery, despite being in plain sight for everyone else.

Of course, hiding and being hidden is only from the point of view of a particular creature (which incidentally, I believe, is why it couldn't be a condition). In this case, the castle wall is serving as an obstruction to the guards' vision and satisfies the requirement for an appropriate circumstance. Once hidden behind the obstruction, the DM could rule that hidden creatures could approach due to the guards' distraction.

In other situations, the DM does have some onus of describing the encounter area - especially in theatre of the mid play - and confirming if terrain mentioned is large enough to act as cover or obscuring terrain, as well as which way any opponents might be facing or focusing their attention.
The player can't just assume there's something to hide behind and declare "I hide". They need to inquire and discover if the pillar holding up the ceiling is a big ten-foot-wide column that they can duck behind or a thin one-foot beam that won't significantly obscure a terrier.

I agree completely. I believe it's part of the DM's job to not only decide whether appropriate circumstances are present, but to describe them as such as well. As I said, facing rarely comes up in my games, but if it was a consideration it would be noted. I also do my best to always let the players know if terrain or weather conditions are conducive to hiding during overland travel, so they can decide if they want to move at a slow pace or risk moving faster.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Did you really just compare d&d to counter strike?

did you really just compare a sniper whose location is unknown to a rogue where the enemy knows his location?

Well the idea is that fighters/barbs are swinging axes and stuff in the faces of enemies, the rogue hides... The assumption everyone seems to be making is that the enemies are aware of the rogues actions whilst getting smackered by the barbs/etc... I do not think that is a valid assumption, other things need to be considered; the enemies situation, intelligence, passive perception, etc..etc...

If the rogue only has one tree to hide behind, I think the DM is at fault - otherwise the rogue can hide behind a wall and slink up and down it popping up for shots. Eitherway the rogue needs to have that opportunity for sneak dmg - its the basis of his class.

Since the rogues party is likely engaging, the assumption the enemies are aware of the rogues actions/hide location is too strong anyway, and it really hardly matters, get the rogue to run up a down behind a wall in every single encounter if you want, but there is no need.