How does Sneak Attack really work with a Lightfoot Halfling [Archive]

Malifice

2014-08-23, 11:14 AM

He can only do it once per round.

See the rules for Hiding on page 177. Note where it says 'You cant hide from a creature that can see you'

Now see the rules for Unseen attackers and targets on Page 195. Note where it says 'If you are hidden when you make an attack, you give away your location after the attack hits or misses'.

So you can start every battle hidden (behind the Fighter or whomever), but the instant after you pop out and make your attack (which you do with advantage for being hidden)... you are no longer hidden. The jig is up. Everyone in the room that can see you, does. They now know you are there.

And you cant hide again (bonus action or otherwise) because everyone now knows exactly where you are.

If you could find a way to move to another postion unobserved you could attempt to hide again however.

Im weirded out that this question confuses so many people. I blame online MMO's.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 11:22 AM

Malifice

2014-08-23, 11:31 AM

The thing is, Malifice, you can move both before and after your action, as per page 190.

If the character can move to a position where he has concealment, he can attempt to hide again, using his bonus action.

The lightfoot halfling can explicitly attempt to hide even when obscured only by a larger creature.

So the sequence--which seems to work--is:

1. Step out from behind a larger ally while hidden.
2. Shoot, revealing yourself.
3. Step BACK behind your larger ally.
4. Bonus action to hide again.

Somewhat silly, but there it is.

It doesnt wok.

The instant you attack you reveal yourself behind the fighter and the monster knows exactly where you are. From there you cant hide. Stepping back behind the fighter doesnt change that - the monster is watching you step there and knows exactly where youre at.

And you cant take the hide action when a creature knows exactly where you are.

Your interpretation sounds silly because it is. No offence.

If you could pop behind the fighter, and Misty step 30' away to another place of hiding, that would work because you werent observed heading into your hiding spot. You could then take the Hide action as a bonus action when you got to your new unobserved hiding spot, and rinse and repeat.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 11:36 AM

Let's take a look at what the rules actually say.

"You can't hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase,) you give away your position."

Okay. Well and good. You can't hide from a creature that can see you, and making noise gives away your position.

Note that it doesn't say "If the enemy knows where you are, they automatically spot you." In the specific case where you give away your position by making noise, the enemy spots you. In general, though, if the enemy can't see you, you can try to hide.

Whether or not a creature can be seen is determined, in part, by obscurement.

For a lightfoot halfling, specifically, a larger creature provides sufficient obscurement to permit hiding.

Where's the rule that says "You can't attempt this if the enemy has previously spotted you?"

Caelic

2014-08-23, 11:38 AM

It doesnt wok.

The instant you attack you reveal yourself behind the fighter and the monster knows exactly where you are. From there you cant hide. Stepping back behind the fighter doesnt change that - the monster is watching you step there and knows exactly where youre at.

Great. Show us the rule that says "You can't hide, even if you have obscurement, if the enemy knows where you are."

And you cant take the hide action when a creature knows exactly where you are.

Great. Show us the rule that says that.

Your interpretation sounds silly because it is. No offence.

You're arguing based on common sense, not on the rules. No offense. I agree that common sense suggests that this shouldn't work, but unless you're referencing a rule I've completely overlooked, the rules say this works just fine.

If you could pop behind the fighter, and Misty step 30' away to another place of hiding, that would work because you werent observed heading into your hiding spot. You could then take the Hide action as a bonus action when you got to your new unobserved hiding spot, and rinse and repeat.

Again, show us the rule that says you must be unobserved entering your hiding spot.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 12:49 PM

Great. Show us the rule that says "You can't hide, even if you have obscurement, if the enemy knows where you are."

Can you not see how those two qualifiers are the same thing?

Youre conflating 'hiding' as an action type with 'hiding' as a general term as used in its daily normal manner. The rules are not making sense to you because of this confusion.

Great. Show us the rule that says that.

I already have. If I am observing you, you cannot hide.

If you walked into this room in my full view, and then crawled into a cardboard box as I watched you, and then closed the lid on that box, how do I suddenly not know where you are? How are you hidden from me?

Will I be in any way shocked when you pop out from that box?

Its a very different scenario to (say) if I go outside for a smoke and you enter this room unobserved in my absence and crawl into the box unobserved. Then you could hide, and would likely scare the **** out of me when you popped out (gaining advantage on your attack rolls in the process).

However if after scaring me silly you closed the lid on your box again (granting yourself full concealment and thus - apparently - the abilty to magically conceal yourself from me again despite me knowing exactly where you are), the trick isnt going to work a second time.

However If I left, and my roomate came into the room (who didnt see you hide there) you could repeat the same trick on him.

Youre confusing what the word 'observed' and 'hide' mean. Use the normal common sense usage (which is how they are used in the rule you refer to) and not a formulaic method, and youll see it makes a **** load more sense.

HorridElemental

2014-08-23, 12:53 PM

Mike Mearles had a tweet about a halfling hiding behind a creature in combat, they take disadvantage to the hide check or something like that.

I'll see if I can find it but I'm pretty bad with the whole twitter thing, I'm only good at receiving the tweets -_- (i hate most social media).

Theodoxus

2014-08-23, 12:55 PM

The problem then becomes, why grant the Hide ability as a bonus action to the rogue? They certainly don't need to take a bonus action before combat starts, and if the only way they can gain it is after combat ends, there's no point.

So, please tell me, master of the rules, why have it as an ability at all if it's just a trap? That makes less sense than scrambling behind the shield wall and popping out 6 seconds later to shoot the goblin in the tushy.

Mikeavelli

2014-08-23, 12:59 PM

The default position is that you aren't hidden in a circumstance where the other person knows where you are. The rules give the DM the option to determine if an opponent is sufficiently distracted that you could still hide in this circumstance.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 01:00 PM

The problem then becomes, why grant the Hide ability as a bonus action to the rogue? They certainly don't need to take a bonus action before combat starts, and if the only way they can gain it is after combat ends, there's no point.

Because its normally an action. Meaning its nearly impossible to hide and attack in the same turn (barring a 2 level Fighter dip, and even then only once a short rest with Action Surge).

Also useful if youre invisible.

It is possible to run around a corner before doubling back to a different spot unobserved and take the hide action again.

So, please tell me, master of the rules, why have it as an ability at all if it's just a trap? That makes less sense than scrambling behind the shield wall and popping out 6 seconds later to shoot the goblin in the tushy.

A shield wall almost certainly wont work either. Maybe you could double back or something.

Neither will sitting in a box in the middle of the room, popping in and out like a a Jack in the Box, using your bonus action to hide in the box, then opening and closing the lid each time as part of your movement, then popping out to sneak attack. Each round.

As hillarious as the above would look.

Theodoxus

2014-08-23, 01:14 PM

Because its normally an action. Meaning its nearly impossible to hide and attack in the same turn (barring a 2 level Fighter dip, and even then only once a short rest with Action Surge).

Whoa whoa whoa, stop the train. You're claiming it's nearly impossible to hide and attack in the same turn regardless. Bonus action, standard action - you're claiming all along that this can't be done. So answer my question - why HAVE the ability if it can NEVER be used.

It is possible to run around a corner before doubling back to a different spot unobserved and take the hide action again.
So, you can run around the corner, and come back into the same room, and boom, you've vanished? But the orc SAW where you went, he's expecting you to jump out of the same place! You can't suddenly have your cake and eat it too - that doesn't make sense - common or otherwise.

A shield wall almost certainly wont work either. Maybe you could double back or something. What's the difference? Hiding behind a massive shield, losing yourself in the dancing legs or doubling back to where you were? If the orc can make out the little guy running around the feet of his buddies, he'll see the little guy come back into the room. Orcs are super observant. Apparently.

Neither will sitting in a box in the middle of the room, popping in and out like a a Jack in the Box, using your bonus action to hide in the box, then opening and closing the lid each time as part of your movement, then popping out to sneak attack. Each round.

As hillarious as the above would look.

You keep using this example, and none of us are arguing it - you've brought it out and strawmaned it down every chance you get. I on the other hand, do think a 3' halfling, scrambling behind his 6' tall human meatshield can become reliably obscured to the point where the mean old orc loses track of him long enough to get stabbed in the junk. Certainly as easily as doubling back and re-entering the same room that he ran out of - why that makes the orc magically lose track of the halfling, I can't fathom.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 01:21 PM

Whoa whoa whoa, stop the train. You're claiming it's nearly impossible to hide and attack in the same turn regardless. Bonus action, standard action - you're claiming all along that this can't be done. So answer my question - why HAVE the ability if it can NEVER be used.

Thats not what I said at all. I presented two examples of when it could be used.

Its not a useless action. Assuming you can work yout way to a position where you werent observed going into then its very useful in an action economy sense.

So, you can run around the corner, and come back into the same room, and boom, you've vanished?
Generally speaking, nope. You might be able to double back into a place where youre not expected to be (via say Misty Step for a classic example), use your bonus action to hide and then attack with SA.

Its the GMs call.

What's the difference? Hiding behind a massive shield, losing yourself in the dancing legs or doubling back to where you were? If the orc can make out the little guy running around the feet of his buddies, he'll see the little guy come back into the room. Orcs are super observant. Apparently.

Because I saw you go behind the shield. I know exactly where you are. I observed you hiding. So you cant hide.

You keep using this example, and none of us are arguing it - you've brought it out and strawmaned it down every chance you get. I on the other hand, do think a 3' halfling, scrambling behind his 6' tall human meatshield can become reliably obscured to the point where the mean old orc loses track of him long enough to get stabbed in the junk. Certainly as easily as doubling back and re-entering the same room that he ran out of - why that makes the orc magically lose track of the halfling, I can't fathom.

Cool man, interpret it as you want.

When I play a rogue in your campaigns Ill be bringing a box to hide in in every combat.

Split move action to open the box, pop out and shoot with sneak attack, split move action to go back into the box and close the lid, and bonus action to 'hide'. Do this every round screaming 'surprise' each time. Might mount a large crank on the side for extra effect.

Apparently this works in your campaigns. Hillariously.

TripleD

2014-08-23, 01:51 PM

EvilAnagram

2014-08-23, 02:35 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Hide action still a stealth roll. For the halfling, the rule essentially says that larger creatures provide enough cover to allow them to attempt to hide.

The roll you would make if you popped out, sneak attacked, and then hid essentially decides whether or not, in the thick of chaotic battle, you're stealthy enough to hide from them. The stealth roll should account for your movement and the fact that the enemy noticed you before. I would raise the DC, but if you can roll high enough then I'd still allow it.

Sartharina

2014-08-23, 02:45 PM

I'd rule that in the din of combat, it's possible to hide in places you'd normally be able to hide at disadvantage against people not specifically watching you - it's possible to get yourself lost in a fight, and characters aren't fully observant. However, if someone's explicity watching you, you cannot hide from them - but they suffer Disadvantage for any attack or targetted spell they don't cast at you. (Meaning there's no reason for them not to be watching you outside of combat)

Hiding allows you to remain unseen after first being unseen then someone trying to make you not be unseen.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 09:16 PM

What if you start and stop in different positions?

Step 1: Pop our from behind the Fighter
Step 2: Sneak attack
Step 3: Move behind the Cleric
Step 4: Hide

The enemy thinks you're behind the fighter, but in reality you're behind the Cleric. You can argue that, were you to do this enough, they would figure out the pattern if you pulled this off more than once, but you should be able to get off a few volleys this way.

As soon as you do Step 2 you are revealed (see the PHB page 195). The monsters see you. From that point you cant go into hiding again as you are observed.

People are confusing the hide action (which requires you to be concealed from the enemy) with hiding.

Imagine if there is a single monster in a room with a hiding spot in front of it. You cant walk into the room in full view and then pop behind the hiding spot and use the hide action as you were observed in your attempt to hide.

The reason being is obvious; the monster knows exactly where you are. He saw you go in there!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Hide action still a stealth roll. For the halfling, the rule essentially says that larger creatures provide enough cover to allow them to attempt to hide.

Exactly. The rule says nothing about letting you Hide while a creature is observing you. It just lets you do it behind a medium sized creature.

You cant be just walk behind the Fighter (in full view of the monsters) and then attempt to hide. The monsters know exactly where you are.

If you hid behind the Fighter before walking into the room (while you were unobserved) then you could start the encounter hidden.

As soon as you pop out to shoot (surprising the **** out of everyone) youre observed from that point onwards.

Unless you have a way to get into a new position of hiding (such as by running out of the room, and doubling back to a different entrance way) you cant do the same trick again - youre now being observed.

Same deal you cant simply sit behind a low wall, or corner, popping up or around the corner firing and popping back every round and then hiding. After the first effort, the monsters know youre there, and you can no longer hide.

The roll you would make if you popped out, sneak attacked, and then hid essentially decides whether or not, in the thick of chaotic battle, you're stealthy enough to hide from them. The stealth roll should account for your movement and the fact that the enemy noticed you before. I would raise the DC, but if you can roll high enough then I'd still allow it.

In 3.X the ability to allow you to do this was called 'Hide in Plain Sight' and it expressly called out that you have the ability to go into hiding while being directly observed.

Halflings do not have such an ability.

But like I said, you can rule it however you want.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 09:57 PM

Exactly. The rule says nothing about letting you Hide while a creature is observing you. It just lets you do it behind a medium sized creature.

You cant be just walk behind the Fighter (in full view of the monsters) and then attempt to hide. The monsters know exactly where you are.

You're NOT in full view of the monsters. That's the whole point. They may know you're there, but they can't see you anymore.

P1: You can only attempt to hide if you cannot be seen. This is established by the rules on hiding on page 177.
P2: Obscurement can prevent you from being seen. This is also established by the rules on hiding on page 177.
P3: Ordinarily, heavy obscurement is necessary to prevent you from being seen.
C1: If a character can be seen, he does not have sufficient obscurement to try to hide. This necessarily follows from P1 and P2.
C2: Therefore, "sufficient obscurement to try to hide" and "cannot be seen" must necessarily be coexisting conditions; it is impossible by definition to have one without the other. If you can be seen, you do not have sufficient obscurement to try to hide; if you have sufficient obscurement to hide, you cannot be seen.
P4: A lightfoot halfling behind a medium or larger body has sufficient obscurement to try to hide. This is established by the text of the Naturally Stealthy ability on page 28.
C3: A lightfoot halfling behind a medium or larger body cannot be seen. This necessarily follows from C2.

Exactly. The rule says nothing about letting you Hide while a creature is observing you. It just lets you do it behind a medium sized creature.

Still waiting for you to quote ANY rule which says that sufficient obscurement doesn't break observation.

So if I turn invisible, can I not hide, because the opponent observed me turning invisible and knows where I am?

If I turn out the lights, can I not hide, because the opponent observed me before the lights went out and knows where I am?

No. Once I have enough obscurement, I can hide, because the opponent can't see me anymore. The rules say so. That's why an invisible creature can ALWAYS try to hide, even if you know exactly where he is. You knowing where he is doesn't matter; you can't see him.

A medium sized body is enough obscurement for a lightfoot halfling that the opponent can't see me anymore. That's WHY I can hide while concealed behind a medium sized body. That's the ONLY reason I can do so.

Same deal you cant simply sit behind a low wall, or corner, popping up or around the corner firing and popping back every round and then hiding. After the first effort, the monsters know youre there, and you can no longer hide.

You have yet to produce a rule that actually says that.

In 3.X the ability to allow you to do this was called 'Hide in Plain Sight' and it expressly called out that you have the ability to go into hiding while being directly observed.

Halflings do not have such an ability.

So you're now arguing that halflings can't hide because they don't have an ability from two editions ago that doesn't exist in this edition? Your arguments are getting pretty far-fetched here.

I already have. If I am observing you, you cannot hide.

Wrong. If you can see me, I cannot hide. A creature which can't be seen can attempt to hide. No matter how much you dislike it, that's the rule.

But like I said, you can rule it however you want.

...and you've decided to rule that hiding requires that the enemy not know where you are. Great. That's not a totally unreasonable houserule; more power to you.

Just please stop telling us that it's the official rule that appears in the book, because it most certainly isn't.

This has gotten extremely circular. "You can't hide while observed because you can't hide while observed because you can't hide while observed." I don't think anything is going to convince you that you're wrong, and I don't think you're going to differentiate between what the rules say and what you think the rules should mean.

Therefore, I'm going to bow out here. I've laid out my arguments; I've provided relevant rules citations; I have yet to see a single counter-argument that does the same. They mostly seem to be "Obviously you can't do this because it wouldn't work in real life," "The rules don't say that an enemy knowing where you are DOESN'T stop you from hiding," and "It didn't work this way in 3.5, so it doesn't work this way in 5e."

Some might find those compelling arguments; I don't.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 10:06 PM

The default position is that you aren't hidden in a circumstance where the other person knows where you are.

...with exceptions. An invisible opponent can always attempt to hide even if the other person knows where he is--because he can't see the invisible opponent. Knowing where he is doesn't matter.

The rules give the DM the option to determine if an opponent is sufficiently distracted that you could still hide in this circumstance.

...and it's pretty hard to be more distracted than when engaged in hand to hand combat.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:07 PM

You're NOT in full view of the monsters. That's the whole point. They may know you're there, but they can't see you anymore.

Exactly; so the monsters observed you hiding. They watched you as you walked up to your position of cover and tried to hide behind it. Ergo you were observed when hiding. You're always going to duck behind cover to hide; its part of 'hiding'. Any other interpretation makes the 'you cant hide when being observed' qualifier moot.

You're confusing the game mechanic 'hide action' with plain language 'hiding' and its getting you into a mental twist.

Remember, the PHB uses plain language and common sense and not forumalic rules anymore.

MeeposFire

2014-08-23, 10:09 PM

Just because you know where something is does not mean it cannot be hidden from your sight. As for a real world example...

In hockey it is common to place an offensive player in front of the goalie in order to "screen" him which means to use his body to block the line of sight to the puck so the goalie will be unable to get a clear view. The goalie knows who is taking the shot (the goalie can see the puck go back to the defense man on the blue line but cannot see the puck clearly after it gets there because that is when the other player come to screen him). So we have a situation where the goalie knows where the puck is but cannot see it directly anymore because of a large body in front of him and this allows for a potential successful goal due to not being able to see the shot coming due to the screen.

The halfling is the puck+defenseman and the screen is the larger creature that the halfling hides behind. The goalie+goal is the enemy. The halfling gets behind the larger creature (this is the puck being hidden behind the screen). The goalie/enemy knows where the puck/halfling is but can no longer see him directly. The puck is shot/halfling strikes and the goalie is surprised because he can't see it coming so he has to react with no fore knowledge of the attack. It is very effective in hockey.

Knowing something is there does not make it less surprising, in fact horror movies use this principle all the time. You may know the monster is there and it will still surprise you.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 10:11 PM

Exactly; so the monsters observed you hiding. They watched you as you walked up to your position of cover and tried to hide behind it. Ergo you were observed when hiding. You're always going to duck behind cover to hide; its part of 'hiding'. Any other interpretation makes the 'you cant hide when being observed' qualifier moot.

You're confusing the game mechanic 'hide action' with plain language 'hiding' and its getting you into a mental twist.

Remember, the PHB uses plain language and common sense and not forumalic rules anymore.

Nope. You're replacing the word "see" with the word "observe" and then redefining "observe" to mean "has knowledge of the location of."

That ain't the rule, son.

If you can see me, I can't hide.

If you can't see me, I can hide.

Simple as that...but, as you say, rule it as you like.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:13 PM

Just because you know where something is does not mean it cannot be hidden from your sight. As for a real world example....

Being concealed from someones sight is not the same thing as the hide action.

Being hidden via the hide action means they dont know youre there. Its a subjective thing, relative to the observer.

Being 100% obscured from someones sight (if they otherwise know youre there) is not the same thing as the hide action. It simply grants you cover or concealment (it does not make you hidden from the observer).

Youre getting yourself into a mental twist and its producing some absurd results. This alone should perhaps suggest that youre not interpreting this correctly.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 10:17 PM

Being concealed from someones sight is not the same thing as the hide action.

Being hidden via the hide action means they dont know youre there. Its a subjective thing, relative to the observer.

So you're claiming that if they know you're there, you can't hide, even if they can't see you at all, Malifice?

The rules disagree.

An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide.

Boldface added for emphasis.

An invisible creature can always try to hide. Even if the opponent knows it's there. Even if it's just given away its position by making noise. Doesn't matter; it can still attempt to hide. And why can it attempt to hide, even though the enemy knows it's there?

Say it with me: Because it can't be seen.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:17 PM

Nope. You're replacing the word "see" with the word "observe" and then redefining "observe" to mean "has knowledge of the location of."

That ain't the rule, son.

Yes, that is the rule!

Any other interpretation leads to utterly absurd results; the Rogue 'jack in the box' syndrome for example.

Hiding is a subjective thing. You may be hidden from some opponents and not hidden from others.

If you can see me, I can't hide.

Exactly.

If you can't see me, I can hide.

Im observing you going into your hiding spot. Ergo im observing you as you attempt to hide. Your very act of entering the cover in the first place is part of the act of you hiding (plain language).

Any other interpretation leads to utterly absurd results.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 10:19 PM

As I said, this has degenerated to "Yes I'm right! I have to be right! Any other interpretation leads to absurd results!"

In fact, we've reached the point where you're repeating "I'm right because other interpretations are stupid!" multiple times per post.

"I'm right because other interpretations are stupid!" is not a valid argument; therefore, I don't think there's anything left to be said.

You think other interpretations are stupid. Great. Don't use them. Use your interpretation instead.

But an interpretation is precisely what it is--and it's an interpretation which, frankly, isn't as "common sensical" as you seem to think, and which requires you to add nonexistent clauses to the rules.

No biggie. Your game, your rules. Just don't expect others to accept them universally.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:21 PM

So you're claiming that if they know you're there, you can't hide, even if they can't see you at all, Malifice?

The rules disagree.

No they dont.

I've already called out being invisible as an exception to the rules, as you cant be observed when you are... you know... invisible.

Ergo, an invisible rogue could use his bonus action every turn to Hide. He's never observed.

Any other class would have to use an action every other turn to hide.

Youre mixing up the plain language of 'hiding' with 'the hide action' and its leading you into an absurd paradox.

Surely you can see this?

Caelic

2014-08-23, 10:23 PM

...nah. I'm deleting this one. There's no point. When confronted with an opponent whose position is "I'm obviously right, why can't everyone else understand that?" the best thing to do is just disengage.

Dark Tira

2014-08-23, 10:24 PM

Caelic

2014-08-23, 10:26 PM

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:30 PM

Seems like a pretty straightforward case of specific beating general. In this case the halfling ability trumps the normal hiding rules and lets it make a hide attempt any time it's obscured by a larger creature. It's not really different than carrying around a portable patch of darkness.

Yeah; can you show me where that rule (which allows Halflings to hide behind another M sized person) removes the restriction that they cant enter hiding while being observed?

AFAIKS it just removes the restriction that you cant normally hide behind a person. It doesnt remove the restriction that prohibits hiding while under direct observation.

Not even Hide in Plain sight (Ranger 10) lets the Ranger do this. He can hide in full view (as long as he takes a minute to camoflage himself), but he still cant do it while being observed.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:31 PM

Dingdingdingding! We have a winner!

Show me where in the Halfling rules it removes the restriction of hiding whilst under observation.

Hint: It doesnt.

MeeposFire

2014-08-23, 10:33 PM

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:38 PM

Being hidden is not the same as not knowing where something is.

Take for example in Double Dare

http://www.gameshowgarbage.com/Pictures/Inductions/Bad%20Double%20Dare%20Obstacles%20Pic%204.jpg

IN this game show the contestant knows the flag is in a small area (usually it was shaped like a pizza and the flag is buried in the cheese, pepperoni, and other toppings). Now you know the item is in that spot but it is obscured by the pizza. That flag is still very much hidden even though you know it is there you can even watch them put the flag in there and it may not help as you can't see it.

If those contesants watched the host put the flag in a specific hiding spot in the gloop, they would find it instantly. They know exactly where it is. Its not hidden from them (it is concealed though).

See the difference yet?

Hidden means (in this sense) 'your opponent doesnt know where you are' not 'knows exactly where you are but just cant see you'.

If I use an invisibility spell right in front of you will I be hidden even if I don't move? You know I am there but you can't see me. Heck in 3.5 we saw this all the time with blindsense which allowed you to know something was in a spot but you could not see it so you still had miss chance.

If youre invisible you would need to use an action to hide after you attack, as your opponent now knows youre there (where the attack came from).

Seeing as youre not being observed at any point (thanks to invisibility), your rogue could simply walk away to another position, use a bonus action to hide and attack with SA again.

Any other class would need to waste a normal action to hide again.

Dark Tira

2014-08-23, 10:41 PM

Yeah; can you show me where that rule (which allows Halflings to hide behind another M sized person) removes the restriction that they cant enter hiding while being observed?

AFAIKS it just removes the restriction that you cant normally hide behind a person. It doesnt remove the restriction that prohibits hiding while under direct observation.

Not even Hide in Plain sight (Ranger 10) lets the Ranger do this. He can hide in full view (as long as he takes a minute to camoflage himself), but he still cant do it while being observed.

It's pretty much replacing the obscurement requirements for hiding. If a creature can normally hide while totally obscured then a halfling can do it with just being obscured by a larger creature.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:44 PM

It's pretty much replacing the obscurement requirements for hiding. If a creature can normally hide while totally obscured then a halfling can do it with just being obscured by a larger creature.

Exactly.

Nothing in the halfling rule lets him do it while under observation. It just lets him hide behind a Medium creature (something no other race - even Stout halflings and Gnomes can do)

Like I said, its a neat trick to start an engagement, but its only going to work for your opening volley.

After that, the jig is up, and youll need to resort to plan B.

MeeposFire

2014-08-23, 10:47 PM

If those contesants watched the flag get put in a specific hiding spot in the gloop, they would find it instantly. They know exactly where it is. Its not hidden from them (it is concealed though).

If youre invisible you would need to use an action to hide after you attack, as youre opponent now knows youre there (where the attack came from).

Seeing as youre not being observed at any point (thanks to invisibility), your rogue could simply walk away to another position, use a bonus action to hide and attack with SA again.

Any other class would need to waste a normal action to hide again.

Actually there were times when that exactly happened. The flag fell into the red goop and it got lost right in front of them and they would waste in all seriousness 10 seconds or more (which is huge in that game) looking for it. They know it is there but that dastardly flag was able to hid anyway. There were times where the host could not believe how hard it was to find the flag in those situations.

Also of course it takes an action but notice that as being invisible (as in you cannot be seen) you don't have to move and can therefor hide in that same spot because you cannot be seen. Even if the enemy knows you are there (let us say that something would prevent you from moving such as surrounded by lava) if he can't see you you can still hide because you cannot be seen even if he knows you are there. Now since he knows your location that could mean he can still attack you but since you are hidden and unseen then he will not have very much success at it.

Dark Tira

2014-08-23, 10:49 PM

Exactly.

Nothing in the halfling rule lets him do it while under observation. It just lets him hide behind a Medium creature (something no other race - even Stout halflings and Gnomes can do)

Like I said, its a neat trick to start an engagement, but its only going to work for your opening volley.

After that, the jig is up, and youll need to resort to plan B.

Actually since you can't see anything that's heavily obscured then the halfing ability does bypass the observation issue. That's the common sense interpretation though. By RAW the halfling ability lets it use the hide action any time it's obscured by a larger creature no matter the other circumstances simply because that's how the ability is worded.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:51 PM

Also of course it takes an action but notice that as being invisible (as in you cannot be seen) you don't have to move and can therefor hide in that same spot because you cannot be seen. Even if the enemy knows you are there (let us say that something would prevent you from moving such as surrounded by lava) if he can't see you you can still hide because you cannot be seen even if he knows you are there. Now since he knows your location that could mean he can still attack you but since you are hidden and unseen then he will not have very much success at it.

You cant hide when the opponent knows exactly where you are. Because... well.. youre not hidden.

Dont confuse 'your opponent doesnt know where you are' with 'knows exactly where you are but just cant see you'.

Theyre very different things, and you are only 'hidden' in the first case, not in the second.

Hiding implies a state of mind in the observer (the person you are hiding from). Thats why its opposed by a Perception check.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:54 PM

Actually since you can't see anything that's heavily obscured then the halfing ability does bypass the observation issue.

Read page 195 of the PHB.

As soon as the Halfling makes his attack from hiding he is observed and the jig is up. He is no longer hidden.

Moving back into concealment (even total concealment) from the observer wont help. The observer knows where you are (he watches you duck behind the Fighter again).

It'll surprise the **** out of him the first time you do it, but after that its not going to work.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 10:56 PM

...nah. Again, like I said: not worth it. I don't mind arguing RAW now and then, but there's no point to arguing RARBM.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 10:58 PM

By RAW the halfling ability lets it use the hide action any time it's obscured by a larger creature no matter the other circumstances simply because that's how the ability is worded.

Show me where the Halflings ability lets him hide while under observation.

Hint: It doesnt.

It just lets him hide behind a medium person. Something no other race (even other small sized ones) can do.

Dark Tira

2014-08-23, 10:59 PM

Read page 195 of the PHB.

As soon as the Halfling makes his attack from hiding he is observed and the jig is up. He is no longer hidden.

Moving back into concealment (even total concealment) from the observer wont help. The observer knows where you are (he watches you duck behind the Fighter again).

It'll surprise the **** out of him the first time you do it, but after that its not going to work.

If you are under heavy concealment you can't be observed. He can know where you are but if he can't see you you can hide. If you cast darkness you can use it to hide. If you disagree with that then you have bigger issues with the hiding rules than the halfling.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 11:02 PM

...nah. Again, like I said: not worth it. I don't mind arguing RAW now and then, but there's no point to arguing RARBM.

Mate, this has been the rule in every edition since 1st edition. Its been debated ever since, and every time the question has come down on the common sense interpretation of 'you cant hide if the enemy knows exactly where you are'. If they observe you when you duck behind your hiding spot, you cant attempt to hide (but you will have 100 percent cover or concealment from them).

But yeah, run it however you want.

If 'Jack in the Box' Rogues are your thing, more luck to you.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 11:05 PM

If you are under heavy concealment you can't be observed.

Yep. Right until you make an attack. See page 195 of the PHB.

Whether that attack hits or misses, you bcome observed. They see you pop out to make your attack (automatically).

He can know where you are but if he can't see you you can hide.

If he knows where you are, youre not hidden.

You can duck back behind full cover (gaining 100 percent cover from a retaliatory attack), but you cant hide as long as you stay there.

If you cast darkness you can use it to hide.

Not if I watch you enter the darkness or see you cast it on yourself you cant.

I know youre there. You arent hidden.

Dark Tira

2014-08-23, 11:18 PM

Yep. Right until you make an attack. See page 195 of the PHB.

Whether that attack hits or misses, you bcome observed. They see you pop out to make your attack (automatically).

If he knows where you are, youre not hidden.

You can duck back behind full cover (gaining 100 percent cover from a retaliatory attack), but you cant hide as long as you stay there.

Not if I watch you enter the darkness or see you cast it on yourself you cant.

I know youre there. You arent hidden.

Let's break this down since you don't seem to understand the rules.

1. You can't hide if someone can observe you.
2. If no one can see you you can attempt to hide.
3. No one can see you if you are heavily obscured.
4. Darkness provides heavy obscurement.
5. Once you enter the darkness, even if you're seen entering the darkness, you can no longer be seen.
6. Even if someone knows where you are you now cannot be seen and can make a hide check.
7. On a successful hide check they no longer know where you are.

Simple.

Caelic

2014-08-23, 11:26 PM

Best of luck to you tilting at this particular windmill, Tira.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 11:41 PM

Let's break this down since you don't seem to understand the rules.

1. You can't hide if someone can observe you.

You cant hide while being observed. Naturally part of any hide attempt will involve you ducking into cover.

This ducking into cover is part of the plain language definition of 'hiding'.

2. If no one can see you you can attempt to hide.

Not if they know exactly where you are, no.

3. No one can see you if you are heavily obscured.

Yep. But not necessarily hidden. If no one knows where you are (i.e you werent observed going into concealment) you can attempt to hide once youre there.

4. Darkness provides heavy obscurement.

Yep.

5. Once you enter the darkness, even if you're seen entering the darkness, you can no longer be seen.

Doesnt matter. Im watching you go into the darkness to hide. Ergo you cant hide.

Same deal if (instead of casting darkness) you simply threw a box in the middle of the room in front of me, climbed in and closed the lid.

You arent hidden, and cant make a hide check relative to me. I know exactly where you are. I observed you going into hiding.

You will have total concealment while in the box (at least until I open it anyways).

6. Even if someone knows where you are you now cannot be seen and can make a hide check.

Incorrect. You cant hide from someone who knows where you are. Hidden means 'they dont know youre there'. You arent hidden (by logical extension) if I know exactly where you are.

You could throw a box in an empty room, climb in and hide. Or you could throw a box in the middle of an occupied room and attempt to hide from people outside the room who didnt see you pull the trick off. Your Hide check automatically fails against anyone watching you try. And they could quite easily simply warn anyone else that enters the room that youre in the box (meaning you are no longer hidden from them).

7. On a successful hide check they no longer know where you are.

You cant make a hide check when you are observed going into your hiding spot. They know exactly where you are.

Its completely impossible for it to be otherwise.

What; you just vanish from their mind?

You can run into a room in full view, throw a box on the ground, crawl in, close the lid, make a 'hide check' as a bonus action, and suddenly no-one who watched you do this... knows youre there anymore?

Yeah, nah.

Malifice

2014-08-23, 11:44 PM

If there are two possible interpretations, one makes abolute sense and the other one leads to absurd situations (like the box in the room example) then surely (surely) the common sense interpretation is to be followed.

Dark Tira

2014-08-23, 11:52 PM

Best of luck to you tilting at this particular windmill, Tira.

Yeah I tried my best. I didn't expect it to work anyway, since people who can't differentiate between rules and real-life rationales don't tend to be able to grasp that even if the rules create absurdities they are still the rules.

eastmabl

2014-08-24, 12:04 AM

Yeah I tried my best. I didn't expect it to work anyway, since people who can't differentiate between rules and real-life rationales don't tend to be able to grasp that even if the rules create absurdities they are still the rules.

Purple forget that we are talking elf games here. Nobody cries foul that an elf can fart out six hundred fire bolts in an hour, but we have an issue of realism when a three foot hobbit can weave through combat and hide behind his taller comrades.

It's a special ability. Ignore realism for a little bit and let the halfling have his fun. Mearls has tweeted that makes his hide check at a disadvantage. I'm fine with that.

Malifice

2014-08-24, 12:07 AM

Yeah I tried my best. I didn't expect it to work anyway, since people who can't differentiate between rules and real-life rationales don't tend to be able to grasp that even if the rules create absurdities they are still the rules.

Im not ignoring the rules mate. We differ on the interpretaion of hidden and hiding.

Youre just confusing the plain language definition of 'hiding' with the 'hide action'. They are very different things. Youre arguing that notwithstanding being under direct observation, one can simply move into concealment (thus 'breaking' the 'observation') and make a Hide check as an action (or in this case a bonus action).

Im arguing that the phrase 'you cant hide while being observed' means what it means in plain language (i.e. not a discreet 'move into cover' then 'take the hide action' sequence). In other words you ducking back into cover to hide while observed (or moving under observation to a different bit of cover to hide) means you cant make a hide check due to the observation. Such checks automatically fail; the enemy knows exactly where you are.

That is what 'you cant hide under observation' means. If the enemy knows exactly where you are, your hide check automatically fails.

Here is a hypothetical for you. Would you let my Rogue:

Run into a room in full view of a hundred orcs, throw a box on the ground, crawl in, close the lid gaining 100 percent concealment, make a 'hide check' as a bonus action, and have me 'vanish' from those Orcs?

I would grant that foolish Rogue concealment (for a few short seconds anyways, until the Orcs opened the box).

If your answer to the above question is 'yes, that Rogue is hidden (as it must be), would you also allow me to pop out of the box every round, dish out a sneak attack with my action, use the rest of my move to pop back into the box (closing the lid) and then make another hide check (as a bonus action)?

It would take me a while, but using this tactic I could clear out an entire dungeon in complete safety.

Malifice

2014-08-24, 12:11 AM

Caelic

2014-08-24, 12:17 AM

It's a special ability. Ignore realism for a little bit and let the halfling have his fun. Mearls has tweeted that makes his hide check at a disadvantage. I'm fine with that.

Works for me, as well.

Malifice

2014-08-24, 12:23 AM

Works for me, as well.

Yeah id probably allow similar as a GM too in a large combat (simulates the realism of the chaos of battle). As long as the rogue targetted a different foe (or in TOTM, the creature had its back to the rogue when he pulled the trick off).

Same deal I would possibly allow a human Rogue to attempt the same when sniping from behind cover in a large battle.

Although the rules say you are automatically observed by all and sundry as soon as you pull the trigger, I think that stretches realism a bit too far.

Dark Tira

2014-08-24, 12:27 AM

Remember, 'hidden' doesnt mean 'cant see you'. The rules are clear you can be in 100 percent cover (or even freaking invisible) and not be hidden.

Hidden means (in the context of this discussion) 'dont know youre there'.

I was going to leave this topic alone since you'll never understand, but this is a good opportunity to show an important difference. The advantage that hidden gives as opposed to merely invisible is that an enemy doesn't know where you are and that any attack not targeted at your location automatically misses. It's not, as you see to be thinking, that being hidden removes you from combat and the consciousness of enemies. Hiding merely masks your location, not your presence.

One more thing. In your scenario with the box it's pointless to hide unless you have some type of teleportation because there is no mechanical difference between everyone shooting at you where they know you've hidden and being heavily obscured.

Malifice

2014-08-24, 12:34 AM

Hiding merely masks your location, not your presence.

No it doesnt. Hence why you cant do it while being observed.

If the Halfling hides behond the Fighter while not being observed (say before he enters the room) he is 'not there' until he attacks. Monsters cannot target him with attacks etc.

'Hidden' in the context of the rule, does not mean 'cant see you' or '100 percent concealment' or even 'completely invisible to sight' - it literally means 'enemies are not aware of where you are'.

If I know exactly where you are, you are not hidden from me. I dont care If I cant see you, (such as by being inside the box, or even invisible). If I know where you are, thats enough.

Its a subjective thing, and it is relative to the observer. You could be hidden from one guy, and not hidden from another. You cant ever be objectively 'hidden'. It doesnt work that way.

On this topic, steer clear of Quantum physics.

Malifice

2014-08-24, 12:36 AM

One more thing. In your scenario with the box it's pointless to hide unless you have some type of teleportation because there is no mechanical difference between everyone shooting at you where they know you've hidden and being heavily obscured.

The cant shoot me as they dont know im there. If they know im in there I am not hidden.

I may have total concealment. ****, I may even have total cover. But I sure as **** am not hidden.

Theodoxus

2014-08-24, 12:40 AM

Malifice must rake up the dough against carnies playing Three Card shuffle - can't hide the queen while he's watching!

Mr.Moron

2014-08-24, 01:12 AM

Honestly it's a somewhat ambigious bit of wording in an edition that seems to be trying to escape overly rigid RAW. At the end of the day I'm not sure theres a definitive resolution to be found, short of some kind official annoucement. So it really comes down to the tone you want for your game. If you think it makes sense in your setting for someone to be totally caught off guard by attack when they watch someone step behind their buddy, run with it. If it strikes you as a bit silly, don't allow it.

While I can certainly see how it could go the other way I'm personally I'm kind of in the "It seems a bit silly" camp.I also think it would make hafling the overwhelmingly optimal choice for rogue. I'd probably rule against it. Like I said though I think trying to uncover the RAW or even RAI in this case probably isn't going to be fruitful the rules as aren't written with that kind rigious precision. It's just a futile exercise short of a statement from the game devs.

Darkmatter

2014-08-24, 01:39 AM

I'm going to take a stab at this one. RAW is not terribly ambiguous. "You cant hide while being observed" is not a phrase in the PHB I can find. Limitations to hiding are on pg. 177, and it says you can't hide from something that can see you or if you make a lot of noise (shouting is the example given). Total concealment behind a box lets you hide by RAW, and a rogue can do this in combat.

Malifice, I agree that hiding behind a box does not make opponents unaware of your location. In a battle, a good sneaker would wait for the split second when his observer was distracted by a sword in the face to run somewhere else. However, that's not the situation we're examining here. We're more looking at gaining sneak attack, which is totally explainable with good descriptive work. To use your box example:

Round 1) Halfling brings a box to a knife fight. He stabs Orc and jumps behind his box. Orc is no one's fool and knows Halfling going to pop out of the top of that box. Unfortunately, Halfling fails his hide check. This means Halfling hasn't properly taken advantage of Orc's inability to see him. When Halfling jumps straight up, he doesn't get a sneak attack on Orc.

Round 2) Halfling ducks behind his box again. Orc is still no one's fool and knows Halfling is going to pop out of the top of that box - after all, it happened that way last time! This time, however, Halfling succeeds on his hide check. This means he properly takes advantage of the fact that Orc momentarily cannot see him. Halfling pops out from behind the box low and to one side, attacking Orc from an unexpected angle and gaining his sneak attack.

There are plenty more ways to take advantage of this, and Halfling's Stealth skill is the way the game represents his ability to do so. He could lift the box and throw a dagger underneath. He could commando roll away from the box before attacking. He could throw a dagger through a hole in the box. He could kick his foot out from the left side of the box as a distraction before attacking over the top. With all of these options a skilled skulker like our Halfling could keep his opponent guessing, but only so long as he has the ability to get out of view. It's not about the opponent not knowing what space he is in - it's about the opponent being unable to see where an attack will come from before it's too late.

This is just using the ridiculous example of a box in an empty room. In a real fight, with scenery to hide behind, more combatants, and plenty of really pressing distractions, it's entirely plausible that a tiny, vicious, trained killer could find a way to pop out from an unexpected angle every round while weaving around behind his companions.

MadBear

2014-08-24, 02:20 AM

I'm only popping in here to counter something Malice has stated.

If there are two possible interpretations, one makes abolute sense and the other one leads to absurd situations (like the box in the room example) then surely (surely) the common sense interpretation is to be followed.

Yes, the jack-in-the-box example is a way to abuse the rule if it's interpreted the way you disagree with, however, your interpretation doesn't make "absolute" sense. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, your interpretation prevents halflings from hiding behind their bigger friends, which makes perfect sense in the thick of combat.

This alone shows that there is at least 1 situation, where your interpretation also doesn't make sense.

So if we have two possible interpretations, and both lead to absurd situations, I'd say that best you can say is that it's up to the individual.

With that said, I think others have made far better arguments to allow the hide check, that feel better overall. (even if it isn't perfect, which I don't find all that shocking).

Sartharina

2014-08-24, 02:46 AM

Yes, that is the rule! No, it's not. Hiding is used to counter Perception. If you're in Heavy Concealment, you can't be seen (But you can be detected if they make a Perception check to beat your Hide Check).

Any other interpretation leads to utterly absurd results; the Rogue 'jack in the box' syndrome for example.[/quote]That's not a problem, because they can still make Perception checks to check on the Rogue in the Box - and even though they know where he is, they don't know what he's doing, or exactly when he'll pop out and shoot. You have to go over and open the box - and might get surprised by the Rogue. As for why the Rogue can do that? It's because he's a rogue, and can confound people even with seemingly mundane things. You are NOT as prepared for the rogue as you think you are.

Hiding is a subjective thing. You may be hidden from some opponents and not hidden from others.Which requires you to make a Hide check against all of them, while those that can see you pass their Perception checks.

Im observing you going into your hiding spot. Ergo im observing you as you attempt to hide. Your very act of entering the cover in the first place is part of the act of you hiding (plain language).No - Hiding is taking the Hide action and making an Dexterity(Stealth) ability check. You need to be in the cover to make the check, at which point the other person has to beat your Hide check with a Perception check to see you. Also - Observation has absolutely no bearing on someone's ability to hide. All it requires is Sight, which is not the same thing. For example - what if the Rogue's Box has a false bottom, and he escapes through the floor (Without you knowing the box has a false bottom), coming up behind you from somewhere else in the complex?

... I am kinda torn on the definition of Hidden, though, because it's trying to pull double-duty. One is the "I can get the jump on them", and the other, that I think is being contested, is the "They've lost track of me". How do you model a rogue dashing into an alley then jumping into a dumpster to avoid detection? Does he need to double-hide? Can he just 'hide' from pursuit by diving into the alley while in plain sight? I'd argue that in combat, he can try to hide by diving into the alley with people being able to draw LOS to him (but are distracted by combat) at disadvantage

Yes, the jack-in-the-box example is a way to abuse the rule if it's interpreted the way you disagree with, however, your interpretation doesn't make "absolute" sense. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, your interpretation prevents halflings from hiding behind their bigger friends, which makes perfect sense in the thick of combat.It actually doesn't not make sense. Halflings can still hide behind their bigger friends when not seen by the people he wants to hide from - he can just hide as easily behind his friends as a normal person can hide in a dark corner. And Mearl's tweet implies that Combat provides enough distraction to go a moment without being seen to hide.

Mr.Moron

2014-08-24, 03:02 AM

1of3

2014-08-24, 03:21 AM

P1: You can only attempt to hide if you cannot be seen. This is established by the rules on hiding on page 177.
P2: Obscurement can prevent you from being seen. This is also established by the rules on hiding on page 177.
P3: Ordinarily, heavy obscurement is necessary to prevent you from being seen.
C1: If a character can be seen, he does not have sufficient obscurement to try to hide. This necessarily follows from P1 and P2.
C2: Therefore, "sufficient obscurement to try to hide" and "cannot be seen" must necessarily be coexisting conditions; it is impossible by definition to have one without the other. If you can be seen, you do not have sufficient obscurement to try to hide; if you have sufficient obscurement to hide, you cannot be seen.
P4: A lightfoot halfling behind a medium or larger body has sufficient obscurement to try to hide. This is established by the text of the Naturally Stealthy ability on page 28.
C3: A lightfoot halfling behind a medium or larger body cannot be seen. This necessarily follows from C2.

OK. Then your reading is actually more liberal than anyone else's here.

You say, the halfling is unseen behind his buddy. That's all people want. Because it is the status of being unseen that grants advantage on attacks.

Other people here believe that you must first make the Hide action to become unseen. You believe that hiding is used to make people unaware of the halfling's position. Nobody wants that.

MukkTB

2014-08-24, 03:22 AM

This isn't about what we want the rules to be so much as a strict interpretation of RAW. Once we understand RAW we can decide if and how we want to houserule. We can take guesses about what the RAI are.

Theoretically this early in the cycle it may also be a point of contention for edition war. "5E is terribad, it has perma invisible Halflings."

Never argue RAW based on what you want the answer to be. You houserule things to your taste. You establish the true RAW so everyone can be on the same page when they come together and talk about things.

Thrudd

2014-08-24, 03:47 AM

The wording is not super clear, and you have to look in two different chapters to figure it out, but I think both the RAW and RAI are that a character can not re-hide from a creature once it has been spotted by that creature, unless it is invisible or the creature is blinded.

Under hiding, it says "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you".

Unseen attackers: "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when
you make an attack, you give away your location when
the attack hits or misses."

"giving away your location" = "being seen" as far as I'm concerned and I believe as the rules intend, unless of course you are still invisible or the creature is blinded. If you pop out from behind your cover to shoot or attack, the creature sees you and you now cannot hide from it again, unless it becomes blinded or you become invisible.

The invisibility spell ends as soon as you make an attack, also, so you can't spam sneak attacks, it will require another casting of the spell.

The skulker feat lets you remain hidden if you miss with a ranged attack while hiding.

The halfling ability only lets you attempt to hide behind a creature larger than you, which is something not normally allowed (being behind another creature only gives you half cover). It doesn't remove all other conditions on hiding. Note the Wood Elf ability as well: it lets you attempt to hide when lightly obscured by foliage or other natural phenomena (implying that normally a character could not do that). Neither ability says you can ALWAYS attempt to hide in this condition. Normally, hiding requires that the creatures you are hiding from cannot see you at all.

So, approaching an enemy for the first time, such as through a doorway or coming out of a darkened area, if the Halfling remains behind his party members he can make a hide roll, contested by the enemy's passive perception. When combat begins, he can pop out and make a sneak attack with his bow (if his hide was successful). His position is now revealed a.k.a the enemy can see him. Even if he moves back behind his ally after shooting, he isn't hidden from that enemy now, he just has half cover. He might be able to hide from another enemy that did not observe this action, however.

Theodoxus

2014-08-24, 08:33 AM

"You can't hide from a creature that can see you." The corollary would be "You can hide from a creature that can't see you." You can't be seen through obscuring cover. A Lightfoot Halfling is considered obscured when behind an ally. He can't be seen, thus he can attempt to hide.

I would take Mike Mearls tweet about granting disadvantage to the halfling's stealth roll. I would also consider the ally to provide light obscuring, which would grant the opposing Wisdom (perception) check disadvantage also. (Rather than heavy obscuring and no opposed check.)

There's definitely a chance it's not going to work, but at least the mechanics of the whole thing are sound.

Falka

2014-08-24, 09:08 AM

I do not find this rule too hard to understand. You can hide in one spot, Sneak Attack, then use your movement to move into another spot and a bonus action to hide there. Obviously, if you just take the Hide action while standing in the exact same spot where you hid, you aren't actually hiding since the enemies know your position. Then you can't Sneak Attack.

Caelic

2014-08-24, 09:49 AM

I would take Mike Mearls tweet about granting disadvantage to the halfling's stealth roll.

Right. How different people are actually going to handle this in play is a completely different discussion. I agree that disadvantage on the roll is a reasonable way of handling this--and by extension, abilities like Skulker.

I'm reminded here of Mystery Men and the Invisible Boy.

"So you can hide from your foes in dim light."

"Yes."

"...but only if those foes aren't actually present to have their vision obscured."

"Yes."

"...but if there were no foes present, couldn't you just attempt to hide anyway, whether the light was dim or not?"

"Yes."

"So you can hide in dim light...but only in circumstances where you could also hide in non-dim light."

"Yes."

Caelic

2014-08-24, 09:53 AM

The wording is not super clear, and you have to look in two different chapters to figure it out, but I think both the RAW and RAI are that a character can not re-hide from a creature once it has been spotted by that creature, unless it is invisible or the creature is blinded.

...so once the thief is spotted by a guard, he should just surrender? There's no chance for him to run for it and find another hiding place unless he has a position of invisibility or can blind the guard?

Notice again what the clause on invisibility says, Thrudd. WHY can an invisible creature always hide?

I found it incredibly ironic to have someone effectively quoting the fourth law of practical optimization to me earlier in the thread. Yes, if one outcome leads to absurd results, and the other does not, the second is to be preferred. This isn't that situation, though. This is a situation where ANY reading of the rules requires judicious application, or it will lead to absurd results.

The notion that once you spot someone in the middle of a melee, you are able to perfectly track their movement and keep your attention on where they go is, I can say from experience, absurd. If there's a guy with an axe trying to smash in your head, your attention is going to be focused on him. It's VERY easy to lose track of the archer who took a potshot at you; it's entirely possible that you never noticed the potshot at all. And that's a full-sized opponent in a brightly lit field of battle.

Now let's make the opponent two feet tall and agile as hell, trained in stealth and evasion. Let's put the battle in a dark room lit only by flickering torchlight. Let's add in bright flashes of light and other nifty, distracting effects from spellcasting.

Is it still common sense that, once the halfling attacks, the enemy is always going to know where he is unless he can turn invisible?

Yes, "Halfling in the box" is absurd as presented. Strawman arguments generally are. However, "Halfling ducking behind a rock, then popping out at an unexpected angle when the orc comes over to find him" is not.

Sartharina

2014-08-24, 10:49 AM

You believe that hiding is used to make people unaware of the halfling's position. Nobody wants that.Actually - this is exactly what some people want. Otherwise, what check would losing pursuit by diving into a dumpster without being seen be?

You need a moment of not being seen to hide. However - that doesn't mean you have to completely avoid Line of Sight (Which models only potential vision). It's slightly removed from hard+fast tactical combat rules.

As for the above... No, you can't 'hide' in a room without at least Dim Lighting. Hiding says "If someone comes along, they will not be able to see you". A halfling can hide behind an ally, and then go into a room with monsters without being detected. If someone's standing in a well-lit room, nobody's seeing them, but they're not 'hidden' - If someone opens the door, they see the guy plain as day. In dim light, though, he can hide in a corner before anyone sees him there, and when someone DOES come along, they won't see him.

Mike Mearl's tweet implies that combat provides a distraction. Outside of a combat/heavily distracting environment, a Rogue (in general) can spend an Action to create a distraction, then use the bonus action to hide.

Caelic

2014-08-24, 02:28 PM

As for the above... No, you can't 'hide' in a room without at least Dim Lighting.

...or hiding places, Sarthariana, which was my point. You could hide in a brightly-lit warehouse full of crates and boxes, because you could achieve heavy obscurement by hiding behind one of the crates. You could also hide in a completely dark, but empty warehouse, because the darkness would give you heavy obscurement.

MadBear

2014-08-24, 02:36 PM

It actually doesn't not make sense. Halflings can still hide behind their bigger friends when not seen by the people he wants to hide from - he can just hide as easily behind his friends as a normal person can hide in a dark corner. And Mearl's tweet implies that Combat provides enough distraction to go a moment without being seen to hide.

I'm either misinterpreting you (likely), or you're misinterpreting me.

My point in the statement you quoted, was to show that Malifice's isn't fully appreciating that both interpretations of the rules have problems.

Under his ruling, you don't have the Jack-in-the-box problem, but now you have the problem that you can't hide behind you're big buddy in combat, which doesn't make sense.

Under others ruling, you do have the Jack-in-the-box problem, but now you do not have the problem that you of hiding behind you're big buddy in combat.

tl;dr: I agree with you that halflings should be able to hide behind people, because that makes sense.

Sartharina

2014-08-24, 03:43 PM

The "Hide behind your buddy in combat" isn't a problem to lack - if the halfling's actually being heavily watched in a fight, he cannot hide behind his buddies effectively any more than someone can hide in a dumpster by diving into it in full sight of the pursuing guards. Which is why we now have the "Combat allows someone to hide at disadvantage' tossed in from Mike.

Thrudd

2014-08-24, 04:35 PM

...so once the thief is spotted by a guard, he should just surrender? There's no chance for him to run for it and find another hiding place unless he has a position of invisibility or can blind the guard?

Of course, there's a chance he can run somewhere and hide again, if the conditions are right. If the Halfling and his allies are in an obscured area, and/or the enemy disctracted by being engaged in melee with someone else (in which case a rogue can sneak attack without being hidden anyway), he could attempt to hide in a new spot without the enemy seeing him.

If the Halfling and his allies are in the light, the enemy unengaged in melee, and the Halfling reveals his position to make a ranged attack, he isn't going to be able to successfully hide again until the enemy is distracted or some other condition obscures the Halfling, which would allow him to move to a new position undetected.

An ally only obscures a single five foot square. Assuming normal lighting, if there is any space at all between the allies, the Halfling is moving through unobscured space to get to a new ally, and therefore immediately spotted by an alert enemy.

If his allies stood shoulder to shoulder, with no empty space between, they would form a larger obscured area for the Halfling so he could make a sneak shot and hide again in a new spot.

Caelic

2014-08-24, 04:52 PM

Of course, there's a chance he can run somewhere and hide again, if the conditions are right.

...and there's where we agree. This is always going to be based on circumstances; ANY across-the-board ruling leads to absurd results.

If the halfling is simply jumping out from behind a single ally and shooting at an unengaged opponent in an empty, brightly-lit room, then I, too, would rule that he can't make a hide check by simply stepping back into the same space; that's a judgment call I would make as a DM.

If the halfling is doing so in the middle of a chaotic melee in a torchlit room against an enemy who's engaged in melee? I'd absolutely let him make that check.

HorridElemental

2014-08-24, 09:11 PM

I find it awesome that people can argue about this even after the head hancho says a ruling on it. Not only do we have RAW by him and his team but his very own RAI.

Caelic

2014-08-24, 09:25 PM

I find it awesome that people can argue about this even after the head hancho says a ruling on it. Not only do we have RAW by him and his team but his very own RAI.

...but he's WRONG! WRONG, don't you see? How can he NOT understand the very PLAIN meaning of the rules which is so OBVIOUS? :smallwink:

MadBear

2014-08-25, 02:08 AM

...but he's WRONG! WRONG, don't you see? How can he NOT understand the very PLAIN meaning of the rules which is so OBVIOUS? :smallwink:

I wish upvoting were a thing, just for this post.

akaddk

2014-08-25, 03:36 AM

I find it awesome that people can argue about this even after the head hancho says a ruling on it. Not only do we have RAW by him and his team but his very own RAI.

Sigh.

The "head honcho" has, himself, said that he should not be taken as a source of rules knowledge because he was not involved in the design process every step of the way. In fact, he wasn't even a designer at all. So if you're going to take his word as gospel, you don't have the luxury to pick and choose which things he says to pay attention to unless you basically just want to create unnecessary argument for the sake of it.

Two, if you read the tweet, he even says in the tweet that it's his interpretation. It was not, "I've researched this and asked all the designers and we've come back with a concrete answer that shall forever end discussion on the issue," it was him waking up groggy eyed and going, "What the **** have these *******s asked me this time? Oh, eh, whatever... I do this, do it however you want."

Third, if you consider the entirety of the situation, the rules, the RAI, the RAW, the only answer you can come up with that is reasonable and rational is that you can't pop in and out behind a larger creature and get advantage on every sneak attack you do in melee. The only people coming up with an answer opposing that logical conclusion is the people who want to directly benefit from it. Surprise, surprise.

Cambrian

2014-08-25, 04:34 AM

Thinking about it I feel like I'd rule it to play out as:

Any character that can leave sight behind a sufficiently large barrier can hide. If they want to pop out with a surprise (most likely ranged) attack their target can make a perception check prior to the roll but after the character commits to the action. If the target succeeds there is no advantage granted.

For the Lightfoot Halfling this could be extended to friendly characters larger than themselves, though the circumstances should often give advantage on the perception check.

Sharogy

2014-08-25, 06:49 AM

akaddk

2014-08-25, 06:53 AM

So based on the General (-2) consensus of one lowly populated forum in a dark corner of the internet, a wood elf can technically constantly hide during heavy rain? Even in the heat of the melee combat?

Fixed it for reality.

Caelic

2014-08-25, 09:31 AM

Third, if you consider the entirety of the situation, the rules, the RAI, the RAW, the only answer you can come up with that is reasonable and rational is that you can't pop in and out behind a larger creature and get advantage on every sneak attack you do in melee.

Y'know what I like about you, Akaddk? Your highly detailed, well thought out, well supported arguments.

"It's just obvious I'm right."

"Everyone who's smart and reasonable says I'm right."

"**** Mike Mearls. He doesn't know anything about 5e."

Did I miss any?

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm open to alternate arguments. The key here is "arguments"--premises logically supported by evidence.

Thus far, I've seen none of that from the vocal adherents of "RAW says that this is impossible!"

The only people coming up with an answer opposing that logical conclusion is the people who want to directly benefit from it. Surprise, surprise.

...and by "People who want to directly benefit from it," of course, we mean the numerous people who say "This seems to be what the rules say. I think it's sort of silly, I'm probably not going to run it this way in my game. Maybe I'll use the Mearls ruling, but it'll depend on the specific situation and circumstances."

Yeah, those people certainly seem to "want to directly benefit from it," don't they?

As I said before: come back when you have something more than ad hom or ad pop dismissal.

m4th

2014-08-25, 01:13 PM

It may be worth noting that the more liberal interperation of the rule effectively means the hafling is *always* hidden, short of an extreme splitting the party situation. The conditions to meet being hidden are so universal (a party member present), and so low cost (bonus action) they effectively never lose the status, particularly once expertise makes their checks outstrip Passive Perception to the point of making the skill check an academic formality more than a potential point of failure.

I'm wondering: What, if anything does this add to the game? If anything it feels vaguely like Comprehend Langauges or Alter Self or the 3.X verison of Knock. In that once taken effectively removes a part of the game. Regardless of the RAW or fluff behind them, these are the kind of abilties I typically frown on (even if they aren't strictly speaking "Unbalanced" or "Overpowered). I'm not so sure I'd be any more willing to introduce an item - even on appearing in a official source that was simply a passive always-on Greater Invsibility.

*Goes over to his bookshelf*

"They [Hobbits] possed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not with to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical. But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind, and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that heredity and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races."
-J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, page 20.

What does this rule add to the game? It makes my Fantasy (emphasis is important here) tabletop roleplaying game, in which I roleplay a halfling, which are themselves based largely on the Hobbits of Tolkien, feel like Fantasy! I don't need to read poorly worded definitions of "hidden" and "obscured" from across multiple pages of the Player's Handbook in order to know what those words mean. I only have to read up to page 28, where it tells me I may hide when obscured by a creature larger than myself.

And yes, wood elves get to do the same thing when they're in the woods. They're wood elves! It's called Dungeons and Dragons for goodness sakes, not Accurate Descriptions of Hand to Hand Combat and Other Things That Happen. I wouldn't pay 50 dollars for a copy of ADoHtHCaOTTH, and I wouldn't get my friends together to sit around my table, draw up character sheets, tell each other stories, and make each other laugh over a rousing game of ADoHtHCaOTTH either.

I, like Mr.Moron, have a guide for interpreting fuzzy rules and resolving disputes over game terms for my table. "Does it make the game more fun, funnier, sillier, or more enjoyable? Does it make my friends laugh?" If it create a memorable story about the halfling that nobody knew was part of the party because he was always hidden from everyone, or if the someone thinks the goblins should be stunned because the wizard cast Thunderwave into a bottle-necked echo chamber, then I say go for it.

Even if they held a national referendum on the subject, and more people voted for it than voted in the presidential election, and it was made into a Constitutional Amendment reading "Halflings may not hide behind bigger creatures once they have acted in combat unless they fulfil certain requirements, such as running out of the room or causing a distraction, deemed sufficient by a conclave of humorless self-appointed rules lawyers on the internet.", and the police confiscated my mechanical pencils and polyhedral dice, it still wouldn't make it right.

eastmabl

2014-08-25, 03:12 PM

Accurate Descriptions of Hand to Hand Combat and Other Things That Happen, Except For The Spellcasters Who Laugh At Danger and Break All the Rules

Fixed the name of your game.

I'll weigh in yet again - I really don't think that letting a lightfoot halfling weave in and out of combat, making hide checks at disadvantage is going to break your game open. If anything, limiting the tactical options of non-casters puts them further behind the curve when it comes to their contributions in combat.

The player has to have the tactical acumen to be able to employ this tactic, needs the luck of the dice to pull it off, and a DM needs to recognize when an opponent would be hip to a tactic and adjust accordingly - a held action of a grapple might be precisely what stops the halfling.

Dark Tira

2014-08-25, 05:21 PM

Fixed the name of your game.

I'll weigh in yet again - I really don't think that letting a lightfoot halfling weave in and out of combat, making hide checks at disadvantage is going to break your game open. If anything, limiting the tactical options of non-casters puts them further behind the curve when it comes to their contributions in combat.

The player has to have the tactical acumen to be able to employ this tactic, needs the luck of the dice to pull it off, and a DM needs to recognize when an opponent would be hip to a tactic and adjust accordingly - a held action of a grapple might be precisely what stops the halfling.

You forgot to mention that the tactic also limits the movement of whoever the halfling is using as cover. Though it could be quite comedic if the halfling successfully made his hide check against his cover and his cover kept moving because he didn't realize the halfing was using him to hide. <-- Not RAW just funny.

Theodoxus

2014-08-25, 05:29 PM

Thank you M4th, very astute. The other thing I have problems with Malifice's 'hide behind/in a box/coffin' is that the box/coffin isn't trying to bash the orcs face in with a warhammer, unlike mr Paladin whom the halfling is using for obscuring cover.

Though again, none of us sane folk who enjoy the fantasy of halfling hide-fu ever espoused they should do that (box/coffins not typically being good adventuring partners).

So, we have rules all over the place that support it (including the specific beats general rule, the halfling specific rule, the wood elf specific rule, the hiding rule, the stealth rule and the obscuring rules). And a developer who shares the general consensus that halflings can hide in combat, with the concession that doing so gives disad to the Dexterity (stealth) check - an opinion; but a weighty one, and logical.

Mr.Moron

2014-08-25, 06:06 PM

*Goes over to his bookshelf*

"They [Hobbits] possed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not with to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical. But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind, and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that heredity and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races."
-J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, page 20.

What does this rule add to the game? It makes my Fantasy (emphasis is important here) tabletop roleplaying game, in which I roleplay a halfling, which are themselves based largely on the Hobbits of Tolkien, feel like Fantasy! I don't need to read poorly worded definitions of "hidden" and "obscured" from across multiple pages of the Player's Handbook in order to know what those words mean. I only have to read up to page 28, where it tells me I may hide when obscured by a creature larger than myself.

And yes, wood elves get to do the same thing when they're in the woods. They're wood elves! It's called Dungeons and Dragons for goodness sakes, not Accurate Descriptions of Hand to Hand Combat and Other Things That Happen. I wouldn't pay 50 dollars for a copy of ADoHtHCaOTTH, and I wouldn't get my friends together to sit around my table, draw up character sheets, tell each other stories, and make each other laugh over a rousing game of ADoHtHCaOTTH either.

I, like Mr.Moron, have a guide for interpreting fuzzy rules and resolving disputes over game terms for my table. "Does it make the game more fun, funnier, sillier, or more enjoyable? Does it make my friends laugh?" If it create a memorable story about the halfling that nobody knew was part of the party because he was always hidden from everyone, or if the someone thinks the goblins should be stunned because the wizard cast Thunderwave into a bottle-necked echo chamber, then I say go for it.

Even if they held a national referendum on the subject, and more people voted for it than voted in the presidential election, and it was made into a Constitutional Amendment reading "Halflings may not hide behind bigger creatures once they have acted in combat unless they fulfil certain requirements, such as running out of the room or causing a distraction, deemed sufficient by a conclave of humorless self-appointed rules lawyers on the internet.", and the police confiscated my mechanical pencils and polyhedral dice, it still wouldn't make it right.

Certainly I'll agree if your goal is to make the game funnier and sillier, the no-restrictions ally hide certainly fits the bill.

Baddie A: Where are those arrows coming from? We're in an open field, and none of them bows.
Baddie B: I dunno they seem to coming from the half-orcs Crotch sir.
*Hafling takes attack action, and bonus hide action.*
Baddie C: Absurd! He can't shoot arrows out his crotch there must be anoth..BLRARHGH.
*Baddie C dies as the arrow hits*
Baddie B: See I told you it was his crotch. There's nothin there but the half-orc.
Baddie A: I dunno about all that. I can't shoot arrows out my crotch...
*hafling takes attack action, and bonus hide action.*
Baddie C: Ahhhh! My arm. I surrunder, just no more crotch arrows.
Baddie A: I too surrunder, I cannot stand up to your pelvic might.

Like I said it's a matter of tone. It certainly fits the more comedic approach.

Caelic

2014-08-25, 06:08 PM

Certainly I'll agree if your goal is to make the game funnier and sillier, the no-restrictions ally hide certainly fits the bill.

Baddie A: Where are those arrows coming from? We're in an open field, and none of them bows.
Baddie B: I dunno they seem to coming from the half-orcs Crotch sir.
*Hafling takes attack action, and bonus hide action.*
Baddie C: Absurd! He can't shoot arrows out his crotch there must be anoth..BLRARHGH.
*Baddie C dies as the arrow hits*
Baddie B: See I told you it was his crotch. There's nothin there but half orc
Baddie A: I dunno about all that
*hafling takes attack action, and bonus hide action.*
Baddie C: Ahhhh! My arm. I surrunder, just no more crotch arrows.
Baddie A: I too surrunder, I cannot stand up to your pelvic might.

Like I said it's a matter of tone. It certainly fits the more comedic approach.

Half orc crotchbows are, I believe, coming in the Player's Handbook 2.

Mr.Moron

2014-08-25, 06:11 PM

Half orc crotchbows are, I believe, coming in the Player's Handbook 2.

Googled crotchbow, didn't get anything D&D related.

Caelic

2014-08-25, 06:12 PM

Googled crotchbow, didn't get anything D&D related.

Well, of course not. They're keeping it under wraps so that Pathfinder doesn't swoop in and steal it.

The last thing they'd need is "Ultimate Crotchbow" coming out a month before their big release.

eastmabl

2014-08-25, 09:53 PM

Well, of course not. They're keeping it under wraps so that Pathfinder doesn't swoop in and steal it.

The last thing they'd need is "Ultimate Crotchbow" coming out a month before their big release.

It's just a variation of the frog crotch arrow.

cowsay

2014-08-31, 01:39 PM

pwykersotz

2014-08-31, 02:05 PM

Thanks for the vigorous debate. Mike Mearls explores this issue just a little here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls), about 11 minutes in.

Yeah, that fits with what we've seen from the game so far. I'm loving the encouragement of the human element myself.

MadBear

2014-08-31, 02:29 PM

Thanks for the vigorous debate. Mike Mearls explores this issue just a little here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls), about 11 minutes in.

awesome. So basically, the DM can decide what makes sense to them. That's honestly the best answer for the situation.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 03:34 PM

Posted in another thread and copied here:

Read this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358528-I-think-I-finally-get-how-hiding-works&prefixid=dndnext). It may or may not help you to decide where you stand on the 'hidden' issue.

But beyond that, I think the rules on stealth were left intentionally vague. Intentionally being the key word there. 5e places the power back into the hands of the DM (like in 1e or 2e) rather than attempting to set hard and fast rules for every situation (like in 3.x or 4e). This is the one singular thing that I absolutely adore about 5e. DM fiat rules the game, as well it should.
There will almost undoubtedly be a section in the DMG about options for a DM to choose between, or examples for him to base rulings off of.

awesome. So basically, the DM can decide what makes sense to them. That's honestly the best answer for the situation.
Yep. Like I thought. And like I said. The DM has the power once again, and it is GLORIOUS!
And thanks for that link, cowsay. I hadn't seen it, and I love it.

Caelic

2014-08-31, 05:19 PM

awesome. So basically, the DM can decide what makes sense to them. That's honestly the best answer for the situation.

Absolutely. Couldn't be happier about it.

Chacha

2014-09-02, 02:23 PM

Halfling hides behind fighter, pops out, shoots baddie. Baddie looks down for a moment at the arrow protruding from his chest, and the halfling ducks back behind his friend. Baddie assumed halfling is hiding behind the friend, but he can't be sure, and anyhow that friend has a big sword that's pointed right at him. Better worry about that.

VS

Human says a word and thinks like really hard. A giant ball of fire issues forth from nowhere, not hurting the dude standing there thinking hard, and flies across the room, burning baddie to a crisp.

Oh the silliness of debating "common sense" in a game where physics literally mean nothing.

Malifice

2014-09-03, 10:27 AM

Halfling hides behind fighter, pops out, shoots baddie. Baddie looks down for a moment at the arrow protruding from his chest, and according to the PHB page 195 immediately spots the halfling

Fixed that for you.

MadBear

2014-09-03, 10:56 AM

Fixed that for you.

It's almost as if you missed his point.

strangeramongus

2014-09-03, 11:46 AM

Consider a first person shooting video game: If an enemy shoots at me, I know where he is. If he then hides behind a crate, I still know where he is, but I can't see him. I'm being shot at by several of his friends. I have no idea when he's going to pop out and try to shoot me again because I can't see him. He could be reloading or digging a hole to China. I'm distracted by combat. When he pops out again, I'd say he has advantage over me, even though I know he's still there and I am almost certain I know exactly where he is.

Unless we're the only two shooting at each other, I'm paying attention to everything else happening around me. Even if he's the only one there, I still don't know what he's doing over there, as he's hidden from my view. I can attempt to run around to the other side of the barrel so that the barrel is no longer between us. If I do, he's no longer obscured from my vision, so he's not hidden. Until then, he's hidden from my view.

Caelic

2014-09-03, 03:02 PM

I have to say: I'd love to see some of the hardline "You revealed your position, you're observed, you're done hiding for the rest of the fight!" crowd in an SCA melee.

"HEY! You didn't just come up behind me and hit me! That's impossible! I saw you earlier, so I knew where you were! It's impossible for you to hide from me!"

:wink:

WickerNipple

2014-09-03, 03:34 PM

MadBear

2014-09-03, 05:24 PM

Malifice

2014-09-03, 09:44 PM

The most hilarious thing to me about this entire thread is choosing a Jack in the Box as the chosen strawman argument... because the entire purpose of a Jack in the Box is to surprise and startle people even though they know exactly what it does. And it works, consistently.

It's like you've intentionally chosen the exact strawman that undermines your whole argument.

Would be brilliant trolling, if intended.

If youre the kind of person that gets startled by a jack in the box twice in a row within six seconds, then you have bigger issues.

From the Devs:

You cannot hide from a creature that can see you. Aside from that limitation, the DM must rule on when a creature can hide and sneak based on what makes sense in the game world.

http://dmdavid.com/tag/9-more-fifth-edition-dd-rules-questions-answered-by-the-designers/

Reading that with page 195 of the PHB (after you make an attack from hiding, you reveal your position) clearly indicates that after tour first attack from hiding, you cant simply pop back into cover or concealment and hide again.

EvilAnagram

2014-09-03, 09:52 PM

Oh my god. Stop it. Just stop this stupid ****ing argument. I'm sick of seeing it pop up. You clearly want to see it as completely impossible, other people want to see it as you can always hide no matter what. Still other people see it as more nuanced. No one is giving any ground. No one wants to listen to anyone else. Just let this topic die.

MadBear

2014-09-03, 10:13 PM

Malifice

2014-09-03, 10:17 PM

Oh my god. Stop it. Just stop this stupid ****ing argument.

You mad Bro?

Heads up, this is an internt forum for discussion. This particular thread is one about how hiding works in DnD.

You dont want to read a discussion on the rules for hiding in DnD, as a suggestion, dont read it.

You clearly want to see it as completely impossible,

No, I dont at all. Address my argument, not things I am not actually saying.

Love your rage by the way.

Dark Tira

2014-09-03, 10:29 PM

You mad Bro?

Heads up, this is an internt forum for discussion. This particular thread is one about how hiding works in DnD.

You dont want to read a discussion on the rules for hiding in DnD, as a suggestion, dont read it.

No, I dont at all. Address my argument, not things I am not actually saying.

Love your rage by the way.

The thread was pretty much ended when you said that you can't hide even when enemies can't see you because they know you're there. This thread is now just a zombie which has been trying to infect other threads.

Malifice

2014-09-04, 12:57 AM

The thread was pretty much ended when you said that you can't hide even when enemies can't see you because they know you're there. This thread is now just a zombie which has been trying to infect other threads.

If they saw you go there, yeah you cant hide.

Awaiting the ragequit.

Dark Tira

2014-09-04, 01:10 AM

If they saw you go there, yeah you cant hide.

Awaiting the ragequit.

So you're just trolling to piss people off? Sad...

Anyways, I've already explained RAW to you and you didn't understand it. Repeating myself will not get you to understand it. I'd have better luck convincing the Pope that there isn't a God at this point. Not seeing much incentive to keep posting in this thread, except perhaps to remind you that it exists so you can stop bringing up this topic elsewhere.

Malifice

2014-09-04, 01:44 AM

So you're just trolling to piss people off? Sad...

Nah, not trolling. Just winding you up on account of your constant abuse and condescension.

Anyways, I've already explained RAW to you and you didn't understand it.

You see, I've been doing the same thing to you, and from where I'm sitting - you dont understand it.

You havent even tried to understand it in fact. Refer to page 177 and 195 of the PHB and get back to me.

Not seeing much incentive to keep posting in this thread

So you keep saying... every time you post in this thread.

You can stop if you want you know.

Dark Tira

2014-09-04, 02:04 AM

Nah, not trolling. Just winding you up on account of your constant abuse and condescension.

You see, I've been doing the same thing to you, and from where I'm sitting - you dont understand it.

You havent even tried to understand it in fact. Refer to page 177 and 195 of the PHB and get back to me.

So you keep saying... every time you post in this thread.

You can stop if you want you know.

You keep saying to refer to those pages but have you actually read them? If you are unseen you can try to hide barring DM prerogative. I'll try to explain it to you one more time with an example.

1. A monk that all the enemies can see walks into a 5ft. patch of darkness.
2. The enemies can no longer see him but they know he's there.
3. The monk makes a successful hide check.
4. The enemies no longer know where he is but they assume he is still in the 5ft. patch of darkness because they didn't see him leave.
5. The monk shadow steps to another area of darkness 60ft. away.
6. All the enemies attack the 5 ft. patch of darkness because that's where they believe the monk still is.
7. All their attacks are auto-misses because the monk is no longer there.

Edit: This is the source of your problem.

Incorrect. You cant hide from someone who knows where you are. Hidden means 'they dont know youre there'. You arent hidden (by logical extension) if I know exactly where you are.

You've created a tautology where you can only hide if you are hidden. The actual rules are you can hide if you are unseen. You keep conflating the 2 but they are separate mechanics.

Now can you tell me what mechanical advantage being hidden gives over being unseen?

MadBear

2014-09-04, 07:54 AM

please let it rest in peace people. There is no more discussion to be had here

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x46/rebelrhoads/BeatingADeadHorseAni.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/rebelrhoads/media/BeatingADeadHorseAni.gif.html)

Malifice

2014-09-05, 01:51 AM

You keep saying to refer to those pages but have you actually read them? If you are unseen you can try to hide barring DM prerogative. I'll try to explain it to you one more time with an example.

1. A monk that all the enemies can see walks into a 5ft. patch of darkness.
2. The enemies can no longer see him but they know he's there.
3. The monk makes a successful hide check.
4. The enemies no longer know where he is but they assume he is still in the 5ft. patch of darkness because they didn't see him leave.
5. The monk shadow steps to another area of darkness 60ft. away.
6. All the enemies attack the 5 ft. patch of darkness because that's where they believe the monk still is.
7. All their attacks are auto-misses because the monk is no longer there.

Edit: This is the source of your problem.

You've created a tautology where you can only hide if you are hidden. The actual rules are you can hide if you are unseen. You keep conflating the 2 but they are separate mechanics.

Now can you tell me what mechanical advantage being hidden gives over being unseen?

Youre wrong, for reasons I have already explained.

But feel free to run it this way if you want.

Still dont know how someone can hide (or be considered hidden) when the enemies watched him go to his hiding spot, and (taking your example above) know precisely where he is.

Dark Tira

2014-09-05, 03:09 AM

Still dont know how someone can hide (or be considered hidden) when the enemies watched him go to his hiding spot, and (taking your example above) know precisely where he is.

I know, that's why I said you don't understand. Basically, until you realize that the hide action takes something that is not hidden and makes it hidden you will never understand.

My apologies Mrpuppytickler, but I'd rather this thread keeps beating a dead horse rather than someone going to another thread and beating a live horse with the dead horse.

Giant2005

2014-09-05, 04:05 AM

Youre wrong, for reasons I have already explained.

But feel free to run it this way if you want.

Still dont know how someone can hide (or be considered hidden) when the enemies watched him go to his hiding spot, and (taking your example above) know precisely where he is.

That is why we have a hide check in the first place. You fail your check and they saw your position and know exactly where you are. If you succeed in your check, they didn't notice you and have no idea where you are.
Hide isn't an automatic ability.

Malifice

2014-09-05, 05:58 AM

That is why we have a hide check in the first place. You fail your check and they saw your position and know exactly where you are. If you succeed in your check, they didn't notice you and have no idea where you are.
Hide isn't an automatic ability.

Umm... the Monk walked up to the spot in broad daylight. In the example posted above, not only did the enemies see where the Monk went, they still know exactly where he is 'hiding'.

So how is the Monk is 'hidden'?

Giant2005

2014-09-05, 06:12 AM

Umm... the Monk walked up to the spot in broad daylight. In the example posted above, not only did the enemies see where the Monk went, they still know exactly where he is 'hiding'.

So how is the Monk is 'hidden'?

If the Monk fails his role, whoever he was trying to hide from kept an eye on him and was able to track his movements to his hiding place. If he succeeds in his role, via use of misdirection, erratic movements, or finding shady spots/other areas their obscure vision, he was able to lose their line of sight before settling in his hiding place.

EvilAnagram

2014-09-05, 07:26 AM

But my opinion is the only one that matters!

http://cdn1.babyzone.com/images/2013/04/baby-boy-crying-photo-420x420-ts-56570356.jpg

DonEsteban

2014-09-05, 10:43 AM

I don't know why I post this. Probably because I'm both horrified and fascinated by how long this argument has been going on without going anywhere and I don't want it to stop just now... Anyway:

Still dont know how someone can hide (or be considered hidden) when the enemies watched him go to his hiding spot, and (taking your example above) know precisely where he is.

Darkmatter explained this ages ago:

Malifice, I agree that hiding behind a box does not make opponents unaware of your location. In a battle, a good sneaker would wait for the split second when his observer was distracted by a sword in the face to run somewhere else. However, that's not the situation we're examining here. We're more looking at gaining sneak attack, which is totally explainable with good descriptive work. To use your box example:

Round 1) Halfling brings a box to a knife fight. He stabs Orc and jumps behind his box. Orc is no one's fool and knows Halfling going to pop out of the top of that box. Unfortunately, Halfling fails his hide check. This means Halfling hasn't properly taken advantage of Orc's inability to see him. When Halfling jumps straight up, he doesn't get a sneak attack on Orc.

Round 2) Halfling ducks behind his box again. Orc is still no one's fool and knows Halfling is going to pop out of the top of that box - after all, it happened that way last time! This time, however, Halfling succeeds on his hide check. This means he properly takes advantage of the fact that Orc momentarily cannot see him. Halfling pops out from behind the box low and to one side, attacking Orc from an unexpected angle and gaining his sneak attack.

There are plenty more ways to take advantage of this, and Halfling's Stealth skill is the way the game represents his ability to do so. He could lift the box and throw a dagger underneath. He could commando roll away from the box before attacking. He could throw a dagger through a hole in the box. He could kick his foot out from the left side of the box as a distraction before attacking over the top. With all of these options a skilled skulker like our Halfling could keep his opponent guessing, but only so long as he has the ability to get out of view. It's not about the opponent not knowing what space he is in - it's about the opponent being unable to see where an attack will come from before it's too late.

This is just using the ridiculous example of a box in an empty room. In a real fight, with scenery to hide behind, more combatants, and plenty of really pressing distractions, it's entirely plausible that a tiny, vicious, trained killer could find a way to pop out from an unexpected angle every round while weaving around behind his companions.

me out.

Soular

2014-09-05, 01:39 PM

I thought Mearle's take on this was that it was up to the DM.

The way I see it, 4-6 combatants in a sunlit field? No, I probably would disallow even the halfling to hide during combat or behind another PC.

The same melee happening in a dimly lit dungeon, or a great hall with loads of furniture to break LoS? Absolutely!

The point was that making a hard rule for every possible situation is tricky as well as cumbersome, and will never be complete. Rather than chase that rabbit, the designers left it vague and gave the final say to the DM (rulings, not rules - I love that mantra).

The real answer is... "kinda."

In an RPG, all things are possible. However the DM has to determine when, and how likely.

I think we are asking the wrong question There is no doubt that the halfling can hide behind larger folk, it's in the rules. The question is when do you think he can do so? Under what circumstances would you grant him advantage or disadvantage? How about the combatant he is trying to hide from? When would he get a bonus or penalty to his Perception roll?

Sartharina

2014-09-05, 01:46 PM

The issue I have with that is that the second situation brings in irrelevant details. The halfling is just as capable of hiding behind Medium-sized creatures in broad daylight as he is in a cluttered, dimly-lit dungeon.

A better example of a subjective situation where I wouldn't allow a halfling to hide would be a combat where the halfling and a Fighter friend are fighting one creature, and the halfling wants to hide behind the fighter - the Creature has its attention on both the Halfling and its hiding spot. The halfling COULD run off, though, to hide behind the wizard and ranger engaging a different set of monsters, or, in a combat with three monsters and four heroes, after the FIghter and Halfling drop one monster, the halfling moves to hide behind the Cleric rumbling with a second monster.

It's something that really depends on context, and that context can't easily be described without actually being there.

NateDaDank

2019-07-24, 05:00 PM

Malifice... I am absolutely baffled. Reading through this entire conversation was absurd. At this point, all I can do is question your reading comprehension, as throughout the entire argument, you repeated the exact same points that were previously proven to be invalid. Someone even provided you with an example to the real world applications of the Lightfoot halfling "jack-in-a-box strategy" as you call it.

There is a reason why perception and stealth checks are required for these situations. You need to be reminded that each round is like 6 seconds long, not a long time. When someone attacks and attempts to hide within THE SAME TURN, it is all in the span of a short amount of time. Thus, being attacked in of itself does not give you the exact location of the enemy, it just alerts you to their presence. So if they shoot you and immediately cut line of sight within the same action, you would need to rely on perception to attempt to find them.

There is a reason why the official rules allow for this; it is severely limited in how often it will work. Each instance of hiding will require a ever increasing stealth roll requirement vs a perception roll...