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

[Rodney Mulraney]

A barb swinging an axe at enemy is definitely "distracting". The question is whether that alone is enough of a distraction for him to lose track of the rogue. In general I say not because of the level of awareness the book suggests that enemies in combat generally have. Being engaged with an enemy in melee combat is a common enough occurrence that I can't believe the rules meant for that to be an exception

Isnt that circular though, since you only think they have that level of "combat awareness" because you think the hiding box that lays this stuff out is saying the creatures you hid from are engaged in melee or whatever. But that is the issue we are discussing.

The text from PHB, page 177:

"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 DM might allow yhou to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen"

The creature you have hidden from is not specified as being in melee or anything, it only says its in "combat", which is merely when we are going in initiative order with the expectation of engaging in attacks.

You are intrepreting that "combat" mentioned in the above quote to be actually doing/recieving attacks, whereas I am assuming they just mean that "combat sequence; more stringent initiative ordered turns"

In combat there are 8 basic actions you can take, Attack is one of them, the other seven are not so distracting, and you dont even have to take an action in your combat turn anyway.

Combat does not imply attacking, you can use an object, cast a utility spell, SEARCH, do nothing..e.tc... And that is just what you (or in this case, the creature) does, some other PC might not interact with the creature, let alone attack it.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Anyway after all this, I did some searches; sure I read, and listened to all this before, but:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834885800626008064

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

Long story short - the DM is always right, so we are both right. Officially they seem to be leaning towards my interpretation of RAW/RAI though. Even specifically mentioning the hide behind the single pillar and popping up to attack and ducking back down, which they (Crawford) agree with me about.

Our specific current argument; just make sure you are not completely out in the open when you move, and you keep your stealth, hence just a pc between you and the creature you hid from is enough to maintain your stealth and advantage. Even if you are completely in the open, if the creature is distracted - watching TV, (or dealing with a barbs blows I suppose), you keep your stealth.

Crawford stresses as they always do; DM is always right, but as soon as he goes into the details, he seems to be completely agreeing with me.

EDIT: It is specified that if you MOVE OUT from where you were hiding and no longer have anything to conceal you, you ARE seen, and lose the adv for your attack. However the specifics/details and the tweet show this is for creatures essentially just waiting for you to come out, otherwise they generally going to be distracted enough for you to maintain your "stealth roll" on approach; which ultimately decides if you were even hidden in the first place anyway.

 

[Mistwell]

Our specific current argument; just make sure you are not completely out in the open when you move, and you keep your stealth, hence just a pc between you and the creature you hid from is enough to maintain your stealth and advantage.

Not unless you are a halfling or have the skulker feat.

If a PC between you and a foe were sufficient to hide, the halfling ability would be meaningless. "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you," is a statement with meaning. One part of the meaning is, "If you're NOT a lightfoot halfling, then you CANNOT attempt to hide when obscured only by a creature". Similarly, the Skulker feat text which says, "You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding," also means the corollary of, "You CANNOT try to hide when you are ONLY lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding without this feat." You cannot gain the benefit of the lightfoot halfling ability and/or the skulker feat by trying to expand the definition of hiding by interpretation. Those things are, very clearly, not within the normal domain of the hide rules without that ability or feat.

I've also never heard or seen, ever, any of the 5e game creators claim a person being between you and your foe is sufficient to hide, without the halfling ability or the feat.

There is no "maintain hide" check that I know of. You only make a hide check at the time something is trying to perceive you. If you are in the line of sight of the foe, they see you without even making a check. That is, baring special circumstances where the DM makes a judgement call regarding distractions and such. But this idea that you can normally move out from hiding and still "maintain" a hide check isn't really one that I see in these rules. You either make your hide check or you do not, and it's at the time when the foe makes their perception check, and you need to be unseen by your foe at the time you make your check, and not be coming out of your hiding place, again baring those special circumstances. There is no "not completely out in the open" language in any of these rules that I know of. If you're seen, you're spotted. If the foe can see you, you're spotted baring special circumstances.

What it sounds like to me is you're trying to use concepts from 3e and 4e hiding in 5e. I don't think it works well with 5e though. There isn't really much of a way to move out from behind total cover or obscuring areas and still hide, baring those special circumstances where the DM makes a ruling.

 

[Ovinomancer]

None of which refutes, in any way, what I said. It's almost like you're repeating what others have said, while using more words than them, and which has already had a response

You mean refutes the bald assertion that often hiding in combat wasn't a design intent? I think pointing out that hiding in combat is explicitly called out in the rules and that no less than three class features of a rogue support combat hiding and then the fact that hiding grants advantage on attacks which works nicely with the rogue main combat ability does rather go a long way to refuting your statement. On the other hand, you do have conviction you're right, so I suppose that balances out?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not really IMO. If it was a valid-"nearly every turn" rogue tactic it wouldn't heavily favor being a ranged rogue while leaving the melee rogue out.

Wait, you mean that the edition that strongly favors ranged over melee might, in this case, favor ranged over melee? Huh.

 

[Mistwell]

You mean refutes the bald assertion that often hiding in combat wasn't a design intent?

Yes. Emphasis on "often".

I think pointing out that hiding in combat is explicitly called out in the rules and that no less than three class features of a rogue support combat hiding and then the fact that hiding grants advantage on attacks which works nicely with the rogue main combat ability does rather go a long way to refuting your statement

I do not. It's something you can sometimes do. It's not something you can do as often as you're claiming. Nothing you've offered speaks to how frequent this tactic is available to the PC. Which is my only point here. You're talking about everything concerning the topic other than the very thing I was speaking about, and acting like if you talk about a lot of things that somehow the quantity of things you mention will allow one to overlook the fact none of it is actually addressing the point being made.

Nobody is disputing you can sometimes hide in combat, or that a rogue can gain benefits from it. The only thing I am disputing is that it's intended as a very frequent tactic, for every combat or (as someone else suggested) every single round of every combat. Can you address that topic or would you prefer to again repeat what others had already said, and gotten responses to, before you had even chimed in?

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Not unless you are a halfling or have the skulker feat.

If a PC between you and a foe were sufficient to hide, the halfling ability would be meaningless. "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you," is a statement with meaning. One part of the meaning is, "If you're NOT a lightfoot halfling, then you CANNOT attempt to hide when obscured only by a creature". Similarly, the Skulker feat text which says, "You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding," also means the corollary of, "You CANNOT try to hide when you are ONLY lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding without this feat." You cannot gain the benefit of the lightfoot halfling ability and/or the skulker feat by trying to expand the definition of hiding by interpretation. Those things are, very clearly, not within the normal domain of the hide rules without that ability or feat.

I've also never heard or seen, ever, any of the 5e game creators claim a person being between you and your foe is sufficient to hide, without the halfling ability or the feat.

There is no "maintain hide" check that I know of. You only make a hide check at the time something is trying to perceive you. If you are in the line of sight of the foe, they see you without even making a check. That is, baring special circumstances where the DM makes a judgement call regarding distractions and such. But this idea that you can normally move out from hiding and still "maintain" a hide check isn't really one that I see in these rules. You either make your hide check or you do not, and it's at the time when the foe makes their perception check, and you need to be unseen by your foe at the time you make your check, and not be coming out of your hiding place, again baring those special circumstances. There is no "not completely out in the open" language in any of these rules that I know of. If you're seen, you're spotted. If the foe can see you, you're spotted baring special circumstances.

What it sounds like to me is you're trying to use concepts from 3e and 4e hiding in 5e. I don't think it works well with 5e though. There isn't really much of a way to move out from behind total cover or obscuring areas and still hide, baring those special circumstances where the DM makes a ruling.

Listen to the pod cast. You only roll stealth after you choose the hide action, what you roll there you keep whatever you do - as long as you are not totally exposed/etc. The feats/race features you talk about are about when you are able to hide in the first place. After you have hidden (if you are able to in the first place), you roll the stealth and you maintain that until you choose not be "hidden/stealthy" or are exposed in someway.

It is worth listening to the podcast anyway if you are unsure about the situation. Eitherway you are free as a DM to rule whatever you want as usual.

I cant speak for previous rules, but in 5e you never roll stealth when someone "attempts to perceive you". Their passive perception either just automatically allows them to percieve you, or if they take the SEARCH action they can attempt to score better than their passive perception, to notice "things" - including any stealth/hidden PCs...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes. Emphasis on "often".



I do not. It's something you can sometimes do. It's not something you can do as often as you're claiming. Nothing you've offered speaks to how frequent this tactic is available to the PC. Which is my only point here. You're talking about everything concerning the topic other than the very thing I was speaking about, and acting like if you talk about a lot of things that somehow the quantity of things you mention will allow one to overlook the fact none of it is actually addressing the point being made.

Nobody is disputing you can sometimes hide in combat, or that a rogue can gain benefits from it. The only thing I am disputing is that it's intended as a very frequent tactic, for every combat or (as someone else suggested) every single round of every combat. Can you address that topic or would you prefer to again repeat what others had already said, and gotten responses to, before you had even chimed in?

I did. According to the rules the rogue can not only try to hide every turn, but can do so as a bonus action and possibly with a high ability check bonus (assuming proficiency and expertise in stealth). So, as a matter of RAW, the rogue has this option.

Now, that, to me, says that the design intent is to allow a rogue to hide every turn because the rule not only explicitly allows this but actually incentivizes it for rogues.

The only limitation on this is the DM. How the DM decides stealth works and when you can use it to hide. But, this is orthogonal too the point because as long as the DM allows hiding, the rogue can do it every round as a bonus action. in other words, limitations on how often rogues can hide in combat is a function of DM rulings, not the rules which do allow hiding all the time.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Yes. Emphasis on "often".



I do not. It's something you can sometimes do. It's not something you can do as often as you're claiming. Nothing you've offered speaks to how frequent this tactic is available to the PC. Which is my only point here. You're talking about everything concerning the topic other than the very thing I was speaking about, and acting like if you talk about a lot of things that somehow the quantity of things you mention will allow one to overlook the fact none of it is actually addressing the point being made.

Nobody is disputing you can sometimes hide in combat, or that a rogue can gain benefits from it. The only thing I am disputing is that it's intended as a very frequent tactic, for every combat or (as someone else suggested) every single round of every combat. Can you address that topic or would you prefer to again repeat what others had already said, and gotten responses to, before you had even chimed in?

Since the HIDE action is just another choice of the things you can spend an action on, you can do it as much as you want in combat (or out). Check out chapter 8 of the PHB. Constantly hiding is a valid tactic and it is something the rogue excels at and can make most use of, due to his class features.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

I did. According to the rules the rogue can not only try to hide every turn, but can do so as a bonus action and possibly with a high ability check bonus (assuming proficiency and expertise in stealth). So, as a matter of RAW, the rogue has this option.

Now, that, to me, says that the design intent is to allow a rogue to hide every turn because the rule not only explicitly allows this but actually incentivizes it for rogues.

The only limitation on this is the DM. How the DM decides stealth works and when you can use it to hide. But, this is orthogonal too the point because as long as the DM allows hiding, the rogue can do it every round as a bonus action. in other words, limitations on how often rogues can hide in combat is a function of DM rulings, not the rules which do allow hiding all the time.

Right, so a DM can nerf rogues and play a game that isnt quite D&D 5e. Since in 5e you can hide every turn if you want, and if you have a feature that allows that as a bonus action it is actually pretty solid tactic for its effects.