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

[Rodney Mulraney]

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.

You are adding that the enemies are engaging some other foe, that is not in the rules or assumed there as far as I can tell. The hider and the creature(s) are all that are specified in that text.

Why do think that is implied?

EDIT : Maybe you mistook something ? I was quoting part of the hiding text box in the PHB.

EDIT2: Are you joking around or something? Your statements are pretty confusing, where do you get this from: "Being engaged in melee combat with a barbarian is the standard for combat conditions, under which the assumptions of combat apply"

hmm ?

EDIT3: ah I think I see what you mean, but yeah its not setup liek that, the chapter on combat that describes taking the hide action in combat, refers back to the previous chapter 7, "Using ability scores", where the "hiding" "blue text box" is, that describes that. The forth paragraph in that text box starts with, "In combat, [...]", refering back to the combat chapter where you can take the "hide" action. So you are a single rogue, in a "initiative order 'combat'" sequence, you hide, they are maintaining awareness. A further complication (distracting) is having an additional ally (barb) be fighting the creatures the rogue just hid from. This seems to be the natural and honest reading of this, to me.

If we follow grices maxims, adding the barb to the default text in the hiding textbox is a breaking of the rules of communication.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Ah, interesting. The way I (often) play is to allow players to invent/narrate those sorts of details, and I often forget that it's not the way many (most?) people seem to do it.

In my view, I don't want to have to invent and track every environmental detail, so if the player wants to do something I let them describe the circumstances that make it possible. So in this case a reasonable person might ask, "If your mad ninja-skillz allow to time your movements to stay out of the peripheral vision of a subject, how are you going to do that if you are hiding behind a rock and therefore can't see what those movements are?" If the player respond, "Because I watch their shadow" or "I listen for their footsteps and breathing" or "I throw a pebble and when I hear it land I wait as long as it takes for a person to turn around..." or whatever, I'm going to be biased toward allowing it, and only disallow it if some pre-determined environmental variable contradicts it. E.g., "Well, it's pitch dark and there's a waterfall roaring behind you, so none of those are really going to work..."

On the larger topic of the thread, I'm not a fan of Attack-Hide-Attack-Hide-Attack-Hide not because it contradicts some intersection of rules and reality, but because it's cheesy. Outside of that, if a rogue spins a good story about how he's going to trick or evade his enemies, I'll allow stealth. And, as I explained above, I'll allow him (her) to contribute to the fiction in order to do so.

 

[merwins]

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?

I was pondering this same scenario yesterday and thanking my lucky stars that it hasn't come up yet.

This isn't an easy adjudication. I'm going to be relying mostly on the following passage from PHB 177:

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until
you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is
contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature
that actively searches for signs of your presence.
.
.
.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger
all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach
a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain
circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay
hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing
you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.​

Sentence 2 gives me handwaving leeway as a GM. Sigh.

Let's start with "5E is a turn-based game." This creates several complications, and adjudication is necessary to resolve dynamic events.
When you change the state of something on your turn, it usually stays that way unless you or someone else does something to change it again.

If Perception < Stealth, R1 (rogue) is hidden (position concealed). R1 is concealed if circumstances permit until the player says otherwise, or takes an action that ends being hidden. I'm pretty generous here. I assume that the fantasy rogue is clever enough to take advantage of their surroundings in ways that I, as a puny human, cannot.

If R1 is hidden, and they want to stay hidden as they move from point A to point B, it's possible as long as they move at a "slow pace". Whatever it takes. Creating distractions, waiting for the perceiver to blink or flinch. R1 can do it.

There's NO RULE in place that says if the perceiver moves, R1 can potentially lose the benefits of hiding.
If Perception < Stealth and the perceiver moves around the cover to "expose" R1, R1 REMAINS HIDDEN. Whatever it takes. If they have to move dynamically on their turn to climb straight up, or move around the cover, or blend into the cover. Whatever.

In the other circumstance of pop out and shoot, then duck back, I'm pretty sure I don't adhere to the default rules.
I think about it like this:
R1 can't hide when it is seen.
If R1 starts out hidden, and pops out, it's still hidden.
When R1 attacks, it ceases to be hidden. It's now a potential target.
Before R1 ducks out of sight again, it's seen. No Hide attempt allowed.
After it ducks behind cover, it's unseen, but not hidden. You can make a Hide attempt, but there will be no practical effect for a full round. The practical effect is your cover.

The reason I do this is because Move (to cover)>Hide(bonus)>Attack, while under continuous observation (barring cover) is a legitimate RAW tactic that makes no sense to me.


Thank goodness I don't have to deal with this scenario:

Illusionary Large boulder.
R1 uses it for cover and hides.
Perception < Stealth for everyone. R1 is hidden.
Boulder is dispelled.

I'd be forced to adjudicate that there's NOWHERE TO GO. No exit means no possibility of hiding.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Elfcrusher, I fully appreciate the "cheesyness" of "Attack-Hide-Attack-Hide-Attack-Hide" from rogues - pesky rogues... but nerfing their class over it seems a bit harsh.

Also I get some people only want a roleplay rich game, and I think they are cool. Everyone is the master of their own games. I still feel sorry for rogues though - other classes don't have to score high on roleplaying to use the core mechanics of their classes, or be forced to multiclass because they lack imagination of story telling.

All these issues are effectively solved if as DMs we are upfront about how we are going to handle different classes in the pre-game session, so players can accept the challenge or choose a less stressful class before the actual game starts.

 

[Mistwell]

How come every time I see someone argue the "Mother May I?" objection, that person has no issues with the "Magic Item Wish List" concept?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There's NO RULE in place that says if the perceiver moves, R1 can potentially lose the benefits of hiding.

I think you're missing the part where the rules state "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly"; if you're hiding behind a pillar, and the enemy moves in such a way that you no longer have cover from the pillar, then the enemy can see you clearly and thus hiding is impossible.

 

[FrogReaver]

You are adding that the enemies are engaging some other foe, that is not in the rules or assumed there as far as I can tell. The hider and the creature(s) are all that are specified in that text.

Why do think that is implied?

EDIT : Maybe you mistook something ? I was quoting part of the hiding text box in the PHB.

EDIT2: Are you joking around or something? Your statements are pretty confusing, where do you get this from: "Being engaged in melee combat with a barbarian is the standard for combat conditions, under which the assumptions of combat apply"

hmm ?

EDIT3: ah I think I see what you mean, but yeah its not setup liek that, the chapter on combat that describes taking the hide action in combat, refers back to the previous chapter 7, "Using ability scores", where the "hiding" "blue text box" is, that describes that. The forth paragraph in that text box starts with, "In combat, [...]", refering back to the combat chapter where you can take the "hide" action. So you are a single rogue, in a "initiative order 'combat'" sequence, you hide, they are maintaining awareness. A further complication (distracting) is having an additional ally (barb) be fighting the creatures the rogue just hid from. This seems to be the natural and honest reading of this, to me.

If we follow grices maxims, adding the barb to the default text in the hiding textbox is a breaking of the rules of communication.

I'm in utter disbelief that you think references to combat in d&d refer to a single PC vs one or more enemies. It's the exact opposite. If combat typically refers to anything it refers to the group of PCs fighting one or more enemies.

 

[Mistwell]

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,

I disagree with this premise. Hide does not appear, in my opinion, to be intended as a primary part of the rogue fighting style. I think it is intended as part of their fighting style out of combat, just prior to combat beginning, for the assassin. But during combat? I really don't think the intent was for rogues to be hiding, attacking, re-hiding, and then attacking again the next round on a regular basis. I think its become that, but I also don't think it was ever intended as a major tactic for the rogue. I don't even think hiding after attacking was supposed to be a common thing for any PC or NPC, ever, with the possible exception of the halfling and their "hiding behind a medium sized humanoid" ability, and also maybe someone with the skulker feat.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

I disagree with this premise. Hide does not appear, in my opinion, to be intended as a primary part of the rogue fighting style. I think it is intended as part of their fighting style out of combat, just prior to combat beginning, for the assassin. But during combat? I really don't think the intent was for rogues to be hiding, attacking, re-hiding, and then attacking again the next round on a regular basis. I think its become that, but I also don't think it was ever intended as a major tactic for the rogue. I don't even think hiding after attacking was supposed to be a common thing for any PC or NPC, ever, with the possible exception of the halfling and their "hiding behind a medium sized humanoid" ability, and also maybe someone with the skulker feat.

But Hide is an Action option for people in Combat - under chapter 8 of the PHB - Combat. Also it is an easy way to get advantage for rogues, who also can quite early on do it as a bonus action.

 

[merwins]

I think you're missing the part where the rules state "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly"; if you're hiding behind a pillar, and the enemy moves in such a way that you no longer have cover from the pillar, then the enemy can see you clearly and thus hiding is impossible.

Timing. In this case, R1 isn't trying to hide. R1 already took the hide action when they had cover. Perception < stealth before the perceiver tried to break R1's cover.

This is also why I pointed out the complications of trying to adjudicate dynamic events in a turn-based system. Any self-respecting rogue isn't going to hunker down in one spot that's clearly compromised in three directions when they can clearly tell someone is trying to uncover that position. But the rules don't really have a good way to model that, other than, "You made your hide roll and the opponent has no idea where you are." Once you have that status, I rule that you can maintain that status, regardless of whose turn it is, if circumstances permit.