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

[Ovinomancer]

I don't believe you've met my 20 dex 8 con woodelf rogue. We played in a campaign that was very liberal on stealth rules. Basically I could get advantage anytime I wanted. I could also kite almost any enemies imaginable. I'll give you that the campaign wasn't a dungeon crawl but hardly anything could get next to me and I typically output more damage than my only other 2 allies combined. All that was thanks to the liberal advantage rules. That's the experience aspect.

Here's the math part:
Consider this a GreatWeapon Fighter at level 5 will do 4d6+8 = 22 damage. A rogue will do 5d6 + 4 = 21.5 damage and advantage can easily put me upward to 50% more DPR. And this is just looking at the levels that the fighter "catches up" with extra attack. Also, I find it funny that no one realizes that a rogue dual-wielding actually does less DPR than firing a longbow (woodelf) while having advantage.

Okay, but I'm still not where you think this is something that needs to be fixed. Why can't a rogue do that much damage?

The kiting issue is one I'm sympathetic with, but that has nothing to do with hiding and everything to do with the weird choice to make rogues super duper fast for no good reason. I've toyed with a houserule that you can only benefit from the dash action once per turn with cunning action, which changes rogues from 'fastest guy out there until the monk catches up' to 'guy that can now run AND do something else'. I just like the flavor of the latter more.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And that's why they put the language in there that suggests it's hard to stealth in combat.

Let's pretend for a moment that the designers very consciously wanted to discourage rogues from hiding every round, but they wanted to allow that, in some situations, it might be ok to use it in combat.

If that was their goal, can you suggest phrasing for a rule that would be cleaner design than just saying "it's hard to hide in combat" (which is effectively what they did)?

I suspect not (but am open to being proven wrong). Therefore my conclusion, based on the textual evidence, is that they wanted it to be possible but not frequent/constant.

Um, what rules are that? To hide, the DM determines if hiding is appropriate and an observer must not be able to see you clearly. That's... pretty much it. That doesn't make it hard to hide in combat, it makes it a DM judgement call.

And, all of that aside, if a DM does determine hiding is appropriate and you are not seen clearly (like behind a rock your size), then, according to the rules, you can hide every turn.

 

[FrogReaver]

Um, what rules are that? To hide, the DM determines if hiding is appropriate and an observer must not be able to see you clearly. That's... pretty much it. That doesn't make it hard to hide in combat, it makes it a DM judgement call.

And, all of that aside, if a DM does determine hiding is appropriate and you are not seen clearly (like behind a rock your size), then, according to the rules, you can hide every turn.

When u are seen u aren't hiding? Kinda have to risk bein seen to fire a bow at an enemy

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Very DM dependent. You're not going to get community-wide consensus here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When u are seen u aren't hiding? Kinda have to risk bein seen to fire a bow at an enemy

Clearly seen is the rule. Are you suggesting that you must stand in clear view to fire a bow? If not, it's back to DM rulings and not the rules that makes hiding difficult in combat. The rules don't make it hard to hide at all.

That's my drive, here. Any difficulty in hiding is driven by the DM, not the rules. And that's by design. The rules allow anything from hiding pretty much at will to never hiding in combat, at all, ever, based entirely on the DM's judgement and rulings. The rules are very permissive and place pretty much all restrictions on the DM.

Personally, I fall on the more permissive side. I don't have a problem with the rogue getting advantage or dealing damage -- to me that's their shtick. And I don't really see the need to add a whole bunch of caveats to something that the rogue is incentived to do with cunning action, spoils, and expertise if y'all play different that's awesome!

 

[Hriston]

Yeah you dont need as much to stay hidden, since you can watch what you are hiding from and move appropriately, using your stealth skill.

What are you watching for your opponent to do? Are you waiting for them to be distracted, or is it something else?

Otherwise youd have to retcon an entire PC path to contain an unbroken line of obstacles that would totally conceal you.

There's also the possibility of the PC's path going through heavily obscured areas. I'm not sure how you see a retcon playing into this, though. I'd imagine such circumstances either exist or not according to the shared fiction, which is usually up to the DM to establish and adjudicate.

Or change core rules that enable you to remain in stealth whilst not remaining totally concealed.

Except for the DM's ability to rule that an opponent is distracted, I don't know what rules you mean. Did you have some in mind?

 

[FrogReaver]

Clearly seen is the rule. Are you suggesting that you must stand in clear view to fire a bow? If not, it's back to DM rulings and not the rules that makes hiding difficult in combat. The rules don't make it hard to hide at all.

That's my drive, here. Any difficulty in hiding is driven by the DM, not the rules. And that's by design. The rules allow anything from hiding pretty much at will to never hiding in combat, at all, ever, based entirely on the DM's judgement and rulings. The rules are very permissive and place pretty much all restrictions on the DM.

Personally, I fall on the more permissive side. I don't have a problem with the rogue getting advantage or dealing damage -- to me that's their shtick. And I don't really see the need to add a whole bunch of caveats to something that the rogue is incentived to do with cunning action, spoils, and expertise if y'all play different that's awesome!

Simply that the DM gets decides what is clearly seen. You can be hehind 3/4's cover and still be clearly seen. You can only have a little of you sticking out behind a corner and it can still be described as you being clearly seen. Clearly seen doesn't need to mean what you are presuming it means. As such it's totally the dms call whether you are clearly seen in any given situation.

any easiness to hiding is driven by the DM not the rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Um, what rules are that? To hide, the DM determines if hiding is appropriate and an observer must not be able to see you clearly. That's... pretty much it. That doesn't make it hard to hide in combat, it makes it a DM judgement call.

And, all of that aside, if a DM does determine hiding is appropriate and you are not seen clearly (like behind a rock your size), then, according to the rules, you can hide every turn.

As FrogReaver says, the rule about "being seen". If you are hiding behind a rock, you can't see your target or shoot at him. If you poke your head out from behind the rock to see him (big drumroll) he can see you, too.

Look, I'm very, very lenient about Stealth. I love Stealth. Im my view, Stealth to a Rogue is like Cantrips to a Wizard. Bread & Butter. But the idea that you can keep ducking behind the same rock and surprise* the same opponent multiple times in a row fails the Rule of Cool in a big way. IMNSHO, of course. Pure cheese. I don't believe at all that the designers intended that tactic; if so they would have said something to that effect in some interview or some Tweet. Instead they have completely punted and basically said, "If that's what makes you (or your DM) happy."

*lowercase 's'

 

[Ovinomancer]

Simply that the DM gets decides what is clearly seen. You can be hehind 3/4's cover and still be clearly seen. You can only have a little of you sticking out behind a corner and it can still be described as you being clearly seen. Clearly seen doesn't need to mean what you are presuming it means. As such it's totally the dms call whether you are clearly seen in any given situation.

any easiness to hiding is driven by the DM not the rules.

Which is, if you look, exactly what I said. Difficulty hiding is up to the DM, not the rules. The rules are permissive, but leave final arbitration up to the DM. If you're writing a set of rules to allow a wide range of outcomes based upon DM rulings, that's how you do it: permissive base with final calls up to the DM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As FrogReaver says, the rule about "being seen". If you are hiding behind a rock, you can't see your target or shoot at him. If you poke your head out from behind the rock to see him (big drumroll) he can see you, too.

The rules dont say that, though. They say "clearly seen" and leave the definition of "clearly" up to the DM. So, your claim that "he can see you to" isn't the rule, it's your ruling.

Look, I'm very, very lenient about Stealth. I love Stealth. Im my view, Stealth to a Rogue is like Cantrips to a Wizard. Bread & Butter. But the idea that you can keep ducking behind the same rock and surprise* the same opponent multiple times in a row fails the Rule of Cool in a big way. IMNSHO, of course. Pure cheese. I don't believe at all that the designers intended that tactic; if so they would have said something to that effect in some interview or some Tweet. Instead they have completely punted and basically said, "If that's what makes you (or your DM) happy."

*lowercase 's'

Which is your preference and your prerogative to run it like that. The rules, however, fully support ducking in and out from behind a you-shaped rock every turn, provided the DM rules that way. This is the beauty of the stealth rules: they left it open so that permissive hiding is as RAW as limited hiding.