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

[Mistwell]

Mistwell:

Yeah I did, when linking to the podcast mention that about hiding/stealth and DM power; I then spoke about how after Crawford says that he outlines all the RAI mechanics of how stealth / hiding works.

Stealth and Hiding are part of 5e and different things. You HIDE behind something, and roll stealth check, or you can just roll stealth check - out of combat. Being in stealth is that you are moving / positioning in such a way that you leave a small perceptual footprint. Preforming a HIDE action is something you do when you are concealed to enable you to be in stealth.

This is complete nonsense. There is no difference between hiding and stealthing. It's the same thing. The DM decides if you can hide. Those are his actual words. There is no rules support or support for you claim in the podcast that these are separate things in this version of the game. They are not. If you think there is, let's see some quotes from that podcast that differentiates between the two concepts. Jeremy Crawford uses both words interchangeably constantly. If you try to hide in thick fog, make a stealth check. If you try to hide behind a pillar, make a stealth check. If you try to sneak past the guards, make a stealth check. If you do any of these things in or out of combat it does not matter. It's all governed by the stealth rules - there is no separate set of rules for hiding that isn't stealth. It's all stealth. And the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding (stealth).

And before we go much further, I am fine copying and pasting your post to Crawford in twitter and asking him directly if you are right or wrong. I am only tempted to do that because you had the chutzpah to tell someone if they disagree with your view of this they're not playing 5e D&D. So you might want to be sure you're right before we go down that rapidly approaching point of no return

 

[Guest 6801328]

I always interpreted the difference between Hiding and Stealth is that Hiding is explicitly an Action, and Stealth is just the skill you use whenever you need to determine if you remain hidden. After that when you might be detected you roll Stealth. So (in combat) if you avoid detection and don't do anything to expose yourself, you don't have to use the Hide action again to remain stealthed.

For example, if you start off the combat already hidden, and you want to try to sneak up behind an opponent (and your DM rules that you may try it because the opponent is fighting somebody facing the other way) you don't have to use your action to Hide, but you do still roll Stealth.

Likewise, if you declare that you are taking the Hide action you may not be required to make a Stealth roll because your success or failure of the attempt won't (yet) affect anything. You make the Stealth roll when, for example, you try to attack, or if the DM wants an NPC to target you.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

This is complete nonsense. There is no difference between hiding and stealthing. It's the same thing. The DM decides if you can hide. Those are his actual words. There is no rules support or support for you claim in the podcast that these are separate things in this version of the game. They are not. If you think there is, let's see some quotes from that podcast that differentiates between the two concepts. Jeremy Crawford uses both words interchangeably constantly. If you try to hide in thick fog, make a stealth check. If you try to hide behind a pillar, make a stealth check. If you try to sneak past the guards, make a stealth check. If you do any of these things in or out of combat it does not matter. It's all governed by the stealth rules - there is no separate set of rules for hiding that isn't stealth. It's all stealth.

And before we go much further, I am fine copying and pasting your post to Crawford in twitter and asking him directly if you are right or wrong. I am only tempted to do that because you had the chutzpah to tell someone if they disagree with your view of this they're not playing 5e D&D. So you might want to be sure you're right before we go down that rapidly approaching point of no return

If you read your own words here it is clear that hide and stealth are different things. You stealth past guards, you hide in a bush... You dont stealth in a bush or hide past guards... Hiding is an action you do which allows you to roll a stealth check, the action is "hiding" behind, or in something. Stealth is a way of moving or being that leaves a minimal perceptual footprint.#

Alot of the confusion over stealth and hiding and is because thinking they are synomins. They are not. You always do a stealth check when you preform a hide action, but you do not always preform the hide action when you do a stealth check. Stealth past guards does not require you to hide first in something that totally visually conceals you.

I only said it was not 5e if it directly contradicts something in 5e, and obviously what is or isnt 5e is largely philosophical, I said gray area anyway.

If you make it so weapons have durability that decreases whenever you use them and need repairing/upkeep, is that 5e ? Well it doesnt really directly contradict anything, it is not in the core rules, and it would change the game somewhat. If it is still 5e well that is down to your own opinion, but how many changes or contradictory rules/mechanics to 5e do you need before its no longer 5e... about one I think... anyway I said all this in teh comment you are referring to.

Since 5e draws particular attention to DM Godly power; you could easily claim you are playing 5e when you are playing Starfinder; That is pretty extreme but between that and core 5e is largely a gray area... as a new DM I don't really care about that, I just want to know what core 5e is properly.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

I always interpreted the difference between Hiding and Stealth is that Hiding is explicitly an Action, and Stealth is just the skill you use whenever you need to determine if you remain hidden. After that when you might be detected you roll Stealth. So (in combat) if you avoid detection and don't do anything to expose yourself, you don't have to use the Hide action again to remain stealthed.

For example, if you start off the combat already hidden, and you want to try to sneak up behind an opponent (and your DM rules that you may try it because the opponent is fighting somebody facing the other way) you don't have to use your action to Hide, but you do still roll Stealth.

Likewise, if you declare that you are taking the Hide action you may not be required to make a Stealth roll because your success or failure of the attempt won't (yet) affect anything. You make the Stealth roll when, for example, you try to attack, or if the DM wants an NPC to target you.

That is pretty much spot on, although according to the official clarifications RAI; you always roll your stealth check when you hide; and never roll it again later, unless you hide again or choose to stealth or whatever; your initial roll to stealth when you took the hide action, or choose to stealth, sticks with you, until its broken in someway.

The rule mechanics are abstract, fluff it how you want. But I appreciate your concern and have the same one; that is the player knows what they roll. So they plan to hide stealth and surprise attack some guards or something. Really they should just do that, but since they know what they roll they can metagame and just like choose not to creep on the guards before they hide/stealth again and get a better roll.

I have used various house rullings to try to overcome that issue; but at teh end of the day, now I just try to stamp out bad metagaming like that by pointing it out and disallowing bad metagaming things like that.

 

[Mistwell]

If you read your own words here it is clear that hide and stealth are different things. You stealth past guards

No, you sneak past guards. Sneaking is covered by the Dexterity (Stealth) ability check rules.

you hide in a bush...

Which is governed by the Dexterity (Stealth) ability check rules.

You dont stealth in a bush or hide past guards... Hiding is an action you do which allows you to roll a stealth check, the action is "hiding" behind, or in something. Stealth is a way of moving or being that leaves a minimal perceptual footprint.#

They are both the same check and action. You make a Dexterity (Stealth) check for either one. If you are in combat you spend an action to make an ability check like that, and if you are out of combat you don't, but they're not actually different checks. Stealth is not just a way of moving, and hiding is not purely visual in nature, it's all the same ability check using the identical rules, all covered by the Dexterity (Stealth) ability check rules.

Alot of the confusion over stealth and hiding and is because thinking they are synomins.

No the confusion is in thinking they're not. They are in fact synonymous. Jeremy Crawford demonstrates that constantly in the podcast you linked to. I asked you to show me where he says different, and you have not done so.

They are not. You always do a stealth check when you preform a hide action, but you do not always preform the hide action when you do a stealth check.

You always do a Dexterity (Stealth) ability check. Period. For all of it. The only rule about whether or not it requires an action is the basic rule for all ability checks - if you are in or out of combat (IE if it makes a difference to call it an action or not). In addition, once hidden you don't have to spend an action to remain hidden until you are detected, but that's not a difference between "stealth" and "hiding" it's all still the identical rule about the identical thing. There is no separation between "hide" and "stealth". They are indeed synonymous in this game.

Stealth past guards does not require you to hide first in something that totally visually conceals you.

"Stealth" is not a verb. One does not "stealth" past something. The word you are looking for here is sneak. You sneak past a guard, and to do that you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

I only said it was not 5e if it directly contradicts something in 5e, and obviously what is or isnt 5e is largely philosophical, I said gray area anyway.

You really didn't. You said in a direct quote, "It is NOT down to DM adjudication whether you can hide or not. If you think it is, you not playing 5e. Sorry but you are just completely wrong about that. The RAW says you CAN DO the HIDE action; as long as you have something to hide behind. This is RAI as well, as you can easily confirm."

That was you attempting to belittle and intimidate someone, by claiming they were not playing D&D if they disagreed with you. And it's not the first time you've tried to do that in this very thread - earlier you suggested I must not have read the rules we were talking about if I disagreed with you, and also that I hadn't listened to the podcast if I disagreed with you. These are much more in the realm of personal attacks than discussions of the rules. Which is why I suggested, if you're going to go down that road, I am happy to directly quote some of your post to Jeremy Crawford and get the definitive answer in black and white that you crossed the line between stating facts about the rules to stating your questionable opinion about them. Shall we ask Crawford directly if there is a difference between "Stealth" and "Hide" in 5e? Because I am betting he will have no idea what you're talking about and will again refer to the Dexterity (Stealth) ability check rules for all of it.

Since 5e draws particular attention to DM Godly power; you could easily claim you are playing 5e when you are playing Starfinder; That is pretty extreme but between that and core 5e is largely a gray area... as a new DM I don't really care about that, I just want to know what core 5e is properly.

Well, that's a different question and one you should have perhaps started with. The "proper" answer for 5e is it's very different from 3e and Pathfinder and 4e with respect to the philosophy of "Rules" vs "Rulings". For those other editions, the response of "Rules As Written" meant a lot more than it does with 5e. 5e very specifically and intentionally cares a lot less about things like "Rules as Written" and a lot more about "DMs making Rulings". So if you are asking what is "proper" 5e DMing? It's to not worry so much about the corner cases and intricacies of the rules text as if it were a religious text, and to make educated rulings based on your experience with the game and the rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Likewise I'm a bit flabbergasted that you are mis-interpreting my argument so bizarrely.* As I've said now twice I think it's different when the target is distracted in another direction, and my only issue is with using the tactic repeatedly. In other words, once you know there's somebody shooting arrows at you from behind that rock, and you are generally facing in the direction of that rock, you're going to notice him popping out. Yes, even in an FPS. Especially since it's going to take him some amount of time to re-acquire you visually and aim his weapon.

To be clear, you started with people normally notice everything around them and then segued into a distraction might be sufficient to have someone not normally notice you slipping away. I was still on the first part and hadn't yet arrived at the second, mostly because the second was predicated on the assumption of general awareness by normal people.

People are rarely aware of their surroundings in any great detail, and this extended to even high stress combat environments where it takes constant effort to keep 'on a swivel'. That's well represented by passive perception. So, that said, it really doesn't require a distinct distraction to slip away and hide from someone. If they're focused on you, sure, hard. If they aren't, someone skilled as taking advantage of lapses of attention wouldn't even require the distraction to slip away. Pickpockets, for instance, are quite skilled at blending into their surroundings and avoiding notice.

So, no, I disagree a distraction is required. Sufficient, yes, but not necessary.

As for repeated pulling the same trick, that falls into the DM's discretion about 'appropriate conditions for hiding.' I apply disadvantage for using the same hiding place twice in a row, because I find it less appropriate a hiding place.

As I keep saying, I think we largely agree, except on the "designer's intent" bit, which ultimately is just an interesting philosophical discussion anyway. Or should be. Except that it feels...as usual...that you're more interested in proving other people wrong at all costs than in having a discussion.

How so? Pointing out that when you design a system that will accommodate both a permissive case and a strict case based on adjudication you have to design to the permissive case. If you design a system that doesn't support the most permissive case as a default, well, then, it doesn't support the most permissive case and you've failed your design goals. You can design a system that allows the permissive case and then add adjudication so that people can limit the use as they wish. This is exactly how the hiding rules in 5e work. The design explicitly supports the permissive case, and then explicitly allows for adjudication to limit that permissive case. Pointing this out isn't trying to win the argument at all costs, it's pointing out an excellent design in the 5e rules that achieves the design intent of you having stealth work one way in your game and I can have it a different way but we're both playing by the rules. I'm not winning anything, here.

Case in point:

Discussion would require that you actually provide input, though. Saying 'I'm calling it cheesy but can't explain why' isn't discussion, it's dismissive. Snarking back was a bit peevish, yes, but come on, you brought up something being cheesy and then ducked out on it. And I'm the one avoiding actual discussion?

Yeah, um, I just said it's a matter of opinion and perspective. So, no, you should not take my word for anything, you should definitely hold your own opinions. Although I do wish you'd recognize them as such.

That's a bit of assumption, there, that I don't recognize my views as my opinions. That's not a problem I have. I generally assume that most people here recognize my posts are my opinions, just as I do for them. If it help you out, though, you're free to imagine 'in Ovinomancer's opinion' at the end of all of my posts.

Are the shortbow rogues hiding in the same place every time, with the opponents only facing toward that hiding place? Then, yeah, cheesy. Get out those shortswords (better yet daggers...but rapiers are also cheesy) and go stab something, for chrissake.

That's a nice shift of the goalposts, from twin x-bows to hiding in the same place over an over. I agree your construction is pretty silly and unreasonable. There is, though, a wealth of other situations that involve ranged rogues that don't involve hiding over and over in the same place very time while all the bad guys watch. You know, maybe next time you hold up a strawman, you might consider beforehand that my response is likely to point out all of the other, non-strawman situations that also exist.

* EDIT: Actually, that was a lie. I'm not flabbergasted. I recognize that it's far easier to attack my position by first brazenly misinterpreting it. Otherwise we'd be left with just a friendly discussion.

The point where Elfcrusher exemplifies the behavior he's accusing me of. Ironic.

 

[Oofta]

I look at it like this: the Hide action is your character making an effort to become hidden (unseen and unheard) from one or more creatures. Because of the way action economy works for most classes it means that the effort takes enough time that you cannot attack or take any other action on your turn.

You don't need to use actions outside of combat of course, so you can always attempt to become hidden without taking a Hide action if not in combat.

When you attempt to become hidden you make a stealth check which is opposed (normally) by your opponents passive perception. An enemy can also actively look for you (normally requiring an action if in combat) with an active perception check.

If you win the skill contest, the creature you won it against cannot see nor hear you; you are hidden from them. They may or may not know your approximate location. You may not be hidden from other creatures who can clearly see you or succeeded on the contest.

If, for any reason, anything changes the conditions that allowed you to be hidden in the first place the DM determines if you remain hidden (unseen and unheard) or may call for additional checks.

I think people sometimes get too caught up in terminology, 5E is written in a natural language with an effort to avoid keyword phrases and "gamerize".

 

[merwins]

You always do a Dexterity (Stealth) ability check. Period. For all of it. The only rule about whether or not it requires an action is the basic rule for all ability checks - if you are in or out of combat (IE if it makes a difference to call it an action or not). In addition, once hidden you don't have to spend an action to remain hidden until you are detected, but that's not a difference between "stealth" and "hiding" it's all still the identical rule about the identical thing. There is no separation between "hide" and "stealth". They are indeed synonymous in this game.

To be just a tad pedantic, hiding is a subset of stealth. That's why the mechanics are identical.
"Make a Stealth roll," applies to any action that requires stealth.

Sneaking.
Picking pockets.
Hiding.
Card sharping. (arguably might be Deception, depending on your cheaty mechanism)
Concealing or camouflaging items

"Stealth" is not a verb. One does not "stealth" past something. The word you are looking for here is sneak. You sneak past a guard, and to do that you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Thank you. I'm not alone!

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Mistwell:

Yeah you can fluff it how you want. But in the rule books :

Stealth is a skill you have, and allows you to apply your proficiency to stealth checks. As such STEALTH is a 5e technical term with a well defined meaning, its like Medicine or Deception; other skills.

Hide is an action you can preform if the conditions are right. Again another technical term with well defined meaning.

You preform a hide action, you have a stealth skill. Hiding is an action, Stealth is a skill.

Crawfords podcast on all this is clearly differentiating in the same way the rule books do over these things.

Your own personal usage of the common terms stealth/hide and how you think about that is pretty much irrelevant. Sorry. And all your claims of personal attacks are merely in your mind, this stuff is purely objective rules mechanics talk, irrelevant of how sensitive and paranoid you might be.

Now your personal unease about my use of words and statement specifically about not being 5e, well I have clarified all this, sorry if you take offense, I keep saying I am not intending to offend, you can choose to not believe me if you want. I am interested in the mechanics of the game.

So anyway you have a particular distaste on my comment: "It is NOT down to DM adjudication whether you can hide or not. If you think it is, you not playing 5e [...]"

Again as I've already pointed out, I use the word "adjudication" specifically here for an important reason, It is in teh realm of DM is God, and DM is world builder; but not DM as adjudicator. After the DM has done his God stuff and built the world, there is no adjudication to hiding. The DM knows how he handles hiding and if the barrel is there and big enough to count as a valid place to hide. Maybe he would need to adjudicate if you are in range to move behind the barrel if you are not playing on a grid or whatever, but that is a different issue.

Anyway your personal distaste at the words I use or your personal usage of terms in a different way, these kinds of nitpicks are totally irrelevant anyway.

What matters if you we are not in agreement about the mechanics, and at this point, I cant you see what you are disagreeing with or agreeing with what I say about mechanics, so since I think your personal concerns are your own, and where it looks like I am doing something generally uncouth, I've clarified my position already and stated clearly this is mechanic talk, and appologised generally to anyway who takes offense, all I can do really is show you pity for your personal sensitivity.

I understand people can be sensitive and already applogised and do watch what I say and clarify based on that, your personality is too extreme for me to consider writting everything in a way that would not strike up some internal paranoia within you, its just too much effort for such a minority of people, sorry

 

[Morrus]

This is where you cross the line from being misinformed to simply being a troll. There is no chance that a rational human, having read the rules and being capable of expressing themselves in sentences with marginally passable grammar, could possibly support your statement.

Not appropriate. If you've lowered yourself to name calling, it's probably best you concede the thread.