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

[FrogReaver]

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.

Maybe not, but it is an assumption of the rules. The rules explicitly say those enemies are aware. I get you don't like that and it's fine to ignore the actual rule on it in favor of something more sensible to you. But don't come here acting like your sensibilities are the rules and that anyone who disagrees is doing it wrong.

 

[Hriston]

Hidden means creatures may not be aware of your exact location, not that it's impossible to locate you. Creatures may even know you're there somewhere, they just can't see you, for now...

To me, hidden means you have tried to hide, your DEX (Stealth) check is in effect, and you haven't been found yet.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Maybe not, but it is an assumption of the rules. The rules explicitly say those enemies are aware. I get you don't like that and it's fine to ignore the actual rule on it in favor of something more sensible to you. But don't come here acting like your sensibilities are the rules and that anyone who disagrees is doing it wrong.

I like the rules as written, and didnt mean to imply anything else. What I said was about the tedium of having the rogue run around behind walls in EVERY encounter, when it is often appropriate for them to not have to do that.

The rules state :

"[...] so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it USUALLY sees you. [...]" : emphasis mine.

Before that it says about them being aware and on the look out for danger...

Anyway obviously if you run at an enemy it will see you. Makes perfect sense and hardly needs saying.

But if the enemy is engaging a barbarian or whatever, the DM could rule you maintain your hidden attacker advantage. Again makes perfect sense and hardly needs saying.

Both these things are rightly stated in the rules though, since it is best to spell things out in the rules as clearly as possible.

What I said reflects the rules as written. What you said about the rules explicitly saying those enemies are aware, that seems to be misrepresenting the rules to me.

Anyway I wouldnt know if I liked or disliked the rules until I understood (to my mind) what the rules even were. I believe I have grasped the rules on this, atleast basically, and I do not ignore what the rules say, I like the rules and before I knew if I liked the rules, I spent a lot of time reading forums and fine reading the core rule books so I even knew what the rules were saying.

I believe I am accurately following the rules on this matter, and if I am not, then I would urgently want to educate myself on the matter.

EDIT: So yeah, I really appologise if I come across as a jerk or whatever, but the idea is to be corrected and learn ASAP, if I am doing something wrong.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Not allowing the rogue to hide every round does not deny them their sneak attack, it just denies them advantage. Any enemy fighting with someone within five feet is distracted enough to allow sneak attack damage.

I describe it as different levels of distraction in my game. There's "I'm not actively defending myself from a melee attack and I know you are behind the barrel so I know what's coming" to "I have a barbarian in my face so I'm not paying enough attention to you" up to potentially "I have a barbarian in my face, where did that little guy go".

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Not allowing the rogue to hide every round does not deny them their sneak attack, it just denies them advantage. Any enemy fighting with someone within five feet is distracted enough to allow sneak attack damage.

I describe it as different levels of distraction in my game. There's "I'm not actively defending myself from a melee attack and I know you are behind the barrel so I know what's coming" to "I have a barbarian in my face so I'm not paying enough attention to you" up to potentially "I have a barbarian in my face, where did that little guy go".

five feet ally ? optional flanking rules? Help action?

Anyway yeah, sneak is triggered not by being unseen, but its side effect; advantage. There are many ways to get advantage and if the rogue is not relying on hiding so much because they are getting it from something else, then the rogue doesnt rely on the environment which the DM sets up as much anyway.

I love your way of having effective "distraction levels" in your game. I suppose I just feel sorry for the rogues with DMs who I have witnessed atleast once on youtube, that treat the enemy/rogue/hiding thing as if the rogue is on his own, and the enemies are focused completely on him all the time

Don't get me wrong, if the rogue was on his own, that is exactly how I would handle it. Otherwise I think it is worth having a rant that as DMs we should pay attention to what else is happening when ascertaining the rogues unseen status in those situations.

Also it would be boring for the rogue if they always, with no thought just get that unseen attacker as a kinda default. I think they mostly need to trigger their sneak dmg to function properly, but for an interesting session you have to give a fair bit of leeway and keep players on their toes.

 

[FrogReaver]

five feet ally ? optional flanking rules? Help action?

Anyway yeah, sneak is triggered not by being unseen, but its side effect; advantage. There are many ways to get advantage and if the rogue is not relying on hiding so much because they are getting it from something else, then the rogue doesnt rely on the environment which the DM sets up as much anyway.

I love your way of having effective "distraction levels" in your game. I suppose I just feel sorry for the rogues with DMs who I have witnessed atleast once on youtube, that treat the enemy/rogue/hiding thing as if the rogue is on his own, and the enemies are focused completely on him all the time

Don't get me wrong, if the rogue was on his own, that is exactly how I would handle it. Otherwise I think it is worth having a rant that as DMs we should pay attention to what else is happening when ascertaining the rogues unseen status in those situations.

Also it would be boring for the rogue if they always, with no thought just get that unseen attacker as a kinda default. I think they mostly need to trigger their sneak dmg to function properly, but for an interesting session you have to give a fair bit of leeway and keep players on their toes.

That's a far cry from saying they should get it every turn or nearly every turn. A few times a day maybe would be better and more thematic?

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

That's a far cry from saying they should get it every turn or nearly every turn. A few times a day maybe would be better and more thematic?

I didnt mean to imply that they shouldnt get it most every turn they have (combat), I think they should. Youd have to do the math and see how it works out, it seems to me that most often they want it to be a viable class though.

 

[Oofta]

Anyway yeah, sneak is triggered not by being unseen, but its side effect; advantage. There are many ways to get advantage and if the rogue is not relying on hiding so much because they are getting it from something else, then the rogue doesnt rely on the environment which the DM sets up as much anyway.

Just to be clear: the rogue does not have to have advantage to get sneak attack.

Basic rules page 27:

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another
enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t
incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the
attack roll.​

But as I explained in an earlier post, the way I run it is very situational. If the rogue is moving around, able to attack from different locations every time, not just popping out from the same cover over and over again I will probably allow a stealth check to get advantage on the attack.

In rare cases, or if the rogue has some kind of teleport ability, even a lone rogue might be able to pull it off if they are constantly popping from one side to another, different distances and so on.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.).

What about the most likely situation, where PC1 sees R1 duck behind cover, and then pursues them such that there is no longer cover for R1 to hide behind? Does R1 gain any benefit from hiding, other than making PC1 move in order to pursue?

Or more to the point, what if R1 tries to duck behind cover and then immediately pop out to attack again? Does R1 gain any benefit from "hiding" in such a fashion? Or do your house rules align with the rules in the book?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But if the enemy is engaging a barbarian or whatever, the DM could rule you maintain your hidden attacker advantage. Again makes perfect sense and hardly needs saying.

The DM could rule that way, but the rules tell us that USUALLY (your emphasis) they should not. Being engaged in melee combat with a barbarian is the standard for combat conditions, under which the assumptions of combat apply. If you think that a raging barbarian is so much more distracting than melee combat is already assumed to be by default, that it would grant an advantage to allies trying to attack the target they barbarian has engaged, then that's already codified as a barbarian class feature.