Do you find bothersome that Hiding requires an action?

[T.G. Oskar]

This has come enough in my pretty much official D&D 5e campaign to matter.

One of my players, being that we were testing the classes we favor (I was planning to allow a Paladin NPC to cover for a 3-man party, but we managed to play with a 4-person party last session; incidentally, the first time I DM to a girl), is playing a Bard. I consider that the Bard is really powerful in this edition, moreso than before (to the point I consider it overpowered), what with 9th level spells, pretty nice cantrips, access to healing (actually, being the only healer in the party until the new Paladin came in) and being able to fight with a weapon without problem. He's also a Kender (on Eberron, mind you), using the playtest rules until we get the revision from Unearthed Arcana, but the Fighter player and I completely trust him to play the Kender correctly; in fact, he...singlehandedly prevented the Barbarian player from potentially murdering the Warlock that the girl player with a single well-placed Deception check (long story short: he shouted "Witch!" on Flamekeep's lightning rail station, near the heart of Vatican City Thrane).

Unfortunately, my Bard player is constantly having issues with his character, owing to our 3.x games. In 3.5, his character had issues with doing damage and constantly bickers of not doing anything other than "singing and hiding", even though he's invaluable outside of combat with 40+ Diplomacy and Perform bonuses (probably because the Fighter player, ALSO playing a Fighter, optimizes for damage and completely outclasses his ranged damage, despite having certain bonuses such as Energy Aura weapon property, 1 dice of Sneak Attack and homebrewed Dex to damage as well as the Inspire Courage bonus which is quite high thanks to Song of the Heart + Inspirational Boost). Despite that happening, the Bard player pretty much internalized that strategy, making him difficult to find due to insane Hide/Move Silently checks.

Come 5th, and he made a Bard that's pretty similar, straight from 1st level. Before starting, we negotiated the variant rules from the DMG, and ended up with the Epic Heroism resting rules even though I didn't want that so much, because he argued that "Bards were nerfed a lot because they had to spend 8 hours resting to get their abilities, as they get nothing from a short rest" (compare to "short rests are too long and I only recover 1 Hit Die, so I'm gonna get killed fast, while the Fighter can recover almost completely with one!"; that's what made me reconsider the resting rules in the first place). Ended up being a bit detrimental to the Warlock player, since her power is relevant to how short rests function, and with a 1-hr. long rest, she'll never have as many spells available as the Bard will, even if the Bard only recovers half his spellcasting potential. Also, he misses Inspire Courage, and...not sure if he forgets or refuses to use the Inspiration dice, even if they're only bonus actions to use and don't consume his action to cast. But, that's mostly to set up the discussion.

On to the topic: the singlemost hated change the Bard player constantly bickers me about is how the Hide action now requires an Action to use. Nevermind that he has Inspiration and Healing Word, or that he can simply move, fire and hide (as the Warlock player actually did), he loathes that change, finding it "illogical" (and quite frankly, it's being repeated to the point of infuriation). The other players suggest dipping into Rogue (for Cunning Action, of course, not to mention all the other goodies like Sneak Attack, Thieves' Cant and more Expertise), but he's against it. In his words, it makes no sense to force a character that relies on Hiding to spend its action to do so, while at the same time being unable to attack (i.e. being unable to Snipe), particularly a Bard who relies on Hiding (debatable, unless it's a Final Fantasy Bard who actually has Hide as a command, but that's another game entirely, and he never played FF so his tactic is purely from D&D). This is in contrast to Dragon Age, where he uses the SAME tactic, but seems to tolerate it, even if he can't move, hide and attack at the same time.

So, I think this leads to a good discussion: have you felt that Hiding as an action for everyone other than a Rogue (or a character that multiclasses into one) is a bad move from the developers' part? Barring all the problems from Stealth, do you feel that the requirement of an action to Hide is unfair for certain classes other than Rogue (specifically, the Bard, which is the only other class with Expertise at the moment, or perhaps the Warlock)? I personally don't mind, but then again, I've never relied as heavily on Stealth as him. Likewise, everyone on the table is adjusting to the new changes (half the table comes from 3.5, the other half from 4e, and there's an implicit scuffle between the two sides, but we all agree that 5e, with all the virtues and defects, is a good edition), but he doesn't seem to be adjusting as well. I believe it's only fair to discuss that, just in case there's an incoming survey dealing with Skills.

[Giant2005]

As the question seems to be "Should a Rogue be better at hiding than the other classes?" the answer is of course a yes. That same answer would apply if the question was "Is the Bard in my party a complete and utter douche that no-one should ever have the misfortune of playing with?".

[MrStabby]

I think that hide is balanced pretty well. An action to do it is not unreasonable for the advantages it gives you and the relatively lax restrictions on where you can hide.

I also feel that Rogue (and possibly ranger) are the real hiding experts and not giving them first pick of abilities to hide as less than an action diminishes their classes.

I think it is also worth mentioning that (and I ought to check the book to confirm) getting concielment is different and is purely passive and doesn't need an action. If all you want is to be hit less with ranged weapons it will cover you.

[HoarsHalberd]

Essentially your bard is a bit of a ****. He wants to be good at -everything- and gets annoyed when the jack of all trades gets outshone. He has already twisted the rules to his unbearable favour, and needs to be told that this game isn't going to be him and henchman.

[Callin]

Honestly it sounds like the problem is the player and not the game.

[JAL_1138]

As the question seems to be "Should a Rogue be better at hiding than the other classes?" the answer is of course a yes. That same answer would apply if the question was "Is the Bard in my party a complete and utter douche that no-one should ever have the misfortune of playing with?".

+1 to this. :smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

Yes the rogue should be better at hiding. This is DND. The rogues almost always been the best. Heck - in the first few editions he was the only one who could 'hide in shadows' and 'move silently'.

So what if it takes an action to become hidden - that's just representative of the extra time it takes to not only move to a new position, but to do so stealthily.

There are no penalties for moving at full speed and 'hiding' in this edition. Consider the use of an action to counter that extra speed.

Heck. A 2nd level rogue can: hide then move then dash, and in every following round (as long as he maintains concealment or cover) move, dash and dash again while staying hidden.

Makes total sense.

[Gwendol]

Yes, it's not entirely clear why it requires an action to hide. Hide used to be part of movement (in 3.5), but is now a separate action. Furthermore, the conditions for hiding are not that clear (you can't hide if someone can see you, but if you are unseen, why hide?). Hiding is bothersome.

[HoarsHalberd]

Yes, it's not entirely clear why it requires an action to hide. Hide used to be part of movement (in 3.5), but is now a separate action. Furthermore, the conditions for hiding are not that clear (you can't hide if someone can see you, but if you are unseen, why hide?). Hiding is bothersome.

Hide is an action because there is no penalty for moving whilst hiding and to represent a dash into cover before hiding.

People can't hide whilst able to be seen because hiding isn't invisibility. If they can see you whilst you try and hide they'll see what you're doing. You have to move first to break line of sight and then try and hide.

As for why hide, if you hear someone coming and want to remain hidden. Do you stand in the middle of the room or look for the best hiding spot and duck behind it?

[Daishain]

you can't hide if someone can see you, but if you are unseen, why hide?So that when the time comes, you can move and/or attack someone without being spotted. The hide action initiates a period of careful movement, and takes an action for most because it requires, among other things, that careful attention be paid to what others are paying attention to.

[Joe the Rat]

Does his combat style relies on the enemy not knowing where he is? He should take some Rogue to actually get something useful out of it. Mr. "Buff-and-Hide" probably isn't getting a ton of mileage out of that advantage to attack rolls, if he isn't attacking. As for making it take an action... You're ducking behind cover, and then trying to move stealthily so your opponent loses track of where you actually are. Sounds like it should take a bit of effort. If it's something he should do easily, he ought to be trained in doing it easily... so 2 levels of rogue.


Now, if what he's doing is more about the enemy not being able to see him, making him hard to hit, then he really ought to just be using the cover/concealment he needs to Hide... as cover/concealment, making him harder to hit. No action required. Pop up, do his thing, duck.

[Mara]

Hide makes sense as an action. It takes effort to be sneaky. Rogues do this with little effort because they are masters of stealth.

[Gwendol]

Yeah, not convinced. Wood elves can attempt to hide when lightly obscured (by natural phenomena), others can't. This is a ridiculous ruling, and goes back to the premise of hiding. You can only hide if you aren't being seen. If no-one sees you, why hide? Wood elves can attempt to hide even if they are seen provided the environment grants them light obscuration. Let me point out that heavy foliage (heavy obscuration) imposes the blinded condition on a creature inside it. So, yes you can hide, but on the other hand no-one sees anything, including yourself.
The current rules makes hiding nearly useless except for a narrow subset of races/classes.

[Gwendol]

So that when the time comes, you can move and/or attack someone without being spotted. The hide action initiates a period of careful movement, and takes an action for most because it requires, among other things, that careful attention be paid to what others are paying attention to.

No you can't. At least not generally.

From the PHB p. 177:

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger
all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach
a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain
circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay
hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing
you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

[Daishain]

No you can't. At least not generally.

From the PHB p. 177:
There's a pretty big difference between moving between trees on the edge of combat and/or firing a bow, and just walking up to someone.

Attacking with ranged weapons while hiding is explicitly allowed, even if doing so does mean you are no longer hidden after the first strike. And if you read your own quote, even attacking with melee weapons while hiding is quite possible, it just can't be done openly, at least not without a disguise check. It isn't even particularly difficult to arrange, an adventuring party typically has access to numerous methods of distracting someone else, even mid combat.

[Mara]

A lot of your guy's is problem is how you are interpreting the hide rules.

You must be unseen to hide. That doesn't mean an enemy does not know your location. For example, the wood elf can hide in a special circumstance in full view of everyone. A light-foot halfling rogue can hide behind the fighter right after sneak attacking someone, if they pass the stealth check they could sneak attack again the next round. All the enemies know which "square" the halfling is in, but the halfling still can take special effort to hide.

[Shining Wrath]

Wood elves can do ambushes better than anyone else. Move out from cover, fire, move into cover. When the enemy starts to move into the woods to engage you, simply hide and let them go by, then shoot them from behind. This is such iconic canon that I think changing it would cause Tolkien to spin in his grave with sufficient rapidity as to disrupt the earth's angular momentum and doom us all. Trifle not with wood elves and their ambushes.

So to the original question, for someone not adept at hiding they have to think about where to hide and it takes them time to position themselves behind the drapes or under the bed or whatever. The adept does these things with less thought and effort. Hence for the barbarian or wizard it's an action, for the rogue it's a bonus action. It makes perfect sense to me that some people are better at this by virtue of training and experience than others.

As to why you'd use Hide as an action, D&D does not consist of an unending series of combats. Party camping in woods hears giant tramping towards them? Rogue scouting ahead in dungeon comes back and tells party hobgoblin patrol is just around the corner?

Bandits are hiding in the bushes to ambush the party and DM wants to make opposed checks between party's Perception and bandit's Hide? This, again, is iconic fantasy.

[Gwendol]

Wood elves can do ambushes better than anyone else. Move out from cover, fire, move into cover. When the enemy starts to move into the woods to engage you, simply hide and let them go by, then shoot them from behind. This is such iconic canon that I think changing it would cause Tolkien to spin in his grave with sufficient rapidity as to disrupt the earth's angular momentum and doom us all. Trifle not with wood elves and their ambushes.


But shouldn't that be reflected in their skill at hiding, rather than the ruling we have today that unless you are a wood elf you can't attempt to hide in medium foliage (unless no-one is there to see you)? My point is that the rules for hiding are unnecessarily restrictive.
You could rule that hiding is done at disadvantage under conditions today described as prohibitive, and that having the right race will cancel that disadvantage.

[Mara]

But shouldn't that be reflected in their skill at hiding, rather than the ruling we have today that unless you are a wood elf you can't attempt to hide in medium foliage (unless no-one is there to see you)? My point is that the rules for hiding are unnecessarily restrictive.
You could rule that hiding is done at disadvantage under conditions today described as prohibitive, and that having the right race will cancel that disadvantage.

Anyone can stealth through medium foliage. Only wood elves can hide there while being directly stared at. And by hide, I mean the hide action, not just the act of being stealthy. A wood elf can go from completely seen, heard, and notice, to hidden with an action and medium foliage.
Anyone could hide that way in a bush that gives total cover, only a wood elf could do that in any bush, no matter how sparse.

[Gwendol]

Well yes, those are the rules, and I have laid out my case against them. Care to address that rather than re-iterating the rules again (I do have the PHB right in front of me, so I can figure out the current rules)?

[MrStabby]

I think some of these things are rightly racial abilities as that makes them less generic. It actually feels special that someone picks a race or class to do these things rather than just picking bard as a class and dumping expertise into stealth.

Personally my grip is that the Ranger's hide in plain sight requires so much preparation and kicks in at such a high level. In terms of iconic fantasy tropes the Stealthy Woodsman blending into the trees is right up there with Orcs and Wizards.

[mephnick]

Well yes, those are the rules, and I have laid out my case against them. Care to address that rather than re-iterating the rules again

This, I guess.



D&D does not consist of an unending series of combats.

I'm not sure what you want, man.

[HoarsHalberd]

But shouldn't that be reflected in their skill at hiding, rather than the ruling we have today that unless you are a wood elf you can't attempt to hide in medium foliage (unless no-one is there to see you)? My point is that the rules for hiding are unnecessarily restrictive.
You could rule that hiding is done at disadvantage under conditions today described as prohibitive, and that having the right race will cancel that disadvantage.

Because you can be seen through it. You cannot hide from someone who knows roughly where you are whilst being semi visible unless they're practically blind. You have to break line of sight before you can hide.

[T.G. Oskar]

As the question seems to be "Should a Rogue be better at hiding than the other classes?" the answer is of course a yes. That same answer would apply if the question was "Is the Bard in my party a complete and utter douche that no-one should ever have the misfortune of playing with?".

Whoa, there! The Bard player was the one that saved the Warlock's hide when the Barbarian decided to do the accusation. Not only that - some of his antics are pretty funny. He does roleplaying really well, and on those rare moments, he doesn't grief. However...


Essentially your bard is a bit of a ****. He wants to be good at -everything- and gets annoyed when the jack of all trades gets outshone. He has already twisted the rules to his unbearable favour, and needs to be told that this game isn't going to be him and henchman.

This is what the Fighter player (a fellow DM and GitP seldom-poster) and I think. He coincidentally grieves whenever things are stacked against him. If he never gets hit in the fight, no problem; get hit just once, and he starts protesting. Those are the moments where he can become irksome, but on the other hand, it all gets balanced by his funny roleplaying. Considering, for example, that he's wielding a crossbow, has a pretty decent cantrip (Vicious Mockery), and protests because Fighter and Barbarian (both suitably optimized for damage with Great Weapon Fighting/eventual Great Weapon Master feat and Reckless Attacker/Savage Attacker feat respectively) do more damage. However, THOSE are their specializations. Likewise - up until recently, the ace in terms of damage in Dragon Age, but he can't handle much beating. He rarely gets hit, but when his pet does, he protests...unlike me, who's the party tank, and routinely gets the bulk of stunt-based damage and often below half my HP. However, "[my] job is to tank", and his pet, who isn't built to be a tank as my character, but he thinks he does because they're really tough in the videogame.

So yeah - it's more "jack of all trades that gets annoyed when outshone" and less "complete and utter douche". The reason it irks me is because I know the strengths and weaknesses of jacks of all trades: always able to contribute, never in the same degree as a specialist, and with enough care not to spread too thin in order to lose competence.


Does his combat style relies on the enemy not knowing where he is? He should take some Rogue to actually get something useful out of it. Mr. "Buff-and-Hide" probably isn't getting a ton of mileage out of that advantage to attack rolls, if he isn't attacking. As for making it take an action... You're ducking behind cover, and then trying to move stealthily so your opponent loses track of where you actually are. Sounds like it should take a bit of effort. If it's something he should do easily, he ought to be trained in doing it easily... so 2 levels of rogue.


Now, if what he's doing is more about the enemy not being able to see him, making him hard to hit, then he really ought to just be using the cover/concealment he needs to Hide... as cover/concealment, making him harder to hit. No action required. Pop up, do his thing, duck.

More the first than the second. He loathes being considered a target, so he always finds the excuse to Hide - ergo, when the Hide rules are against him, he protests, because it ruins his style.

Also plays to the "hyper-competent jack of all trades" thing: he chose Thunderwave as a spell, which works in close range (a 15-ft. cube, or in 4e terms, "close blast 3"), and he always attempts to find a way to use it, rather than use it as he should (a desperation move). The damage isn't as great as a single hit of his crossbow, nor has the same range, but he insists on going to the frontlines to cast the spell, knowing that whoever survives it will stand up and bash him just because. However, no other caster has an AoE spell, so he made the choice because it's an AoE spell, something the party lacks. We tell him "wait until level 6, you get Magical Secrets, then you can get whichever spells you want", but that doesn't quell him. That, and the choice of rules is kinda unfair to the Warlock, who might pick up the slack in terms of AoE damage as she gains levels (and keeps playing, of course).

[Shining Wrath]

But shouldn't that be reflected in their skill at hiding, rather than the ruling we have today that unless you are a wood elf you can't attempt to hide in medium foliage (unless no-one is there to see you)? My point is that the rules for hiding are unnecessarily restrictive.
You could rule that hiding is done at disadvantage under conditions today described as prohibitive, and that having the right race will cancel that disadvantage.

So you want a different mechanism for saying Rogues and Wood Elves are better hiders than the one WotC supplied? This is why the Twenty Seven Gods of Rules hath decreed that there be home brew and house rules. May you prosper.

WotC is trying to keep 5e simple. You should supply a mechanism meeting your goals which is no more complex than the existing one.

[Gwendol]

I know that, I just happen to find the rules for hiding restrictive and not taking advantage of the elegant advantage/disadvantage mechanics and instead leaves us with arguments about light/dense obscuration, being completely out of sight, etc.
In essence all of the ambiguity of hiding in 3.5.

[Mara]

I know that, I just happen to find the rules for hiding restrictive and not taking advantage of the elegant advantage/disadvantage mechanics and instead leaves us with arguments about light/dense obscuration, being completely out of sight, etc.
In essence all of the ambiguity of hiding in 3.5.

I don't see how out-of-sight is ambiguous. I've seen some threads where people "feel" that when someone is out-of-sight it shouldn't count because they "feel" monsters would know where the hider was. Nothing in that previous sentence makes any rules sense what-so-ever, so I am curious at what is ambiguous about out-of-sight to you?

[Gwendol]

My point is that if I'm out of sight, why spend an action on hiding? After all, I'm not seen by anyone.

Let me quote a relevant section of the 3.5 Hide skill description:
You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.

In 3.5 concealment is analogous to light obscuration, while total concealment is more or less the same as heavy obscuration. In 5e, for some reason, they have decided to demand total concealment as prerequisite for hiding, which is illogical.

[Xetheral]

My point is that if I'm out of sight, why spend an action on hiding? After all, I'm not seen by anyone.

Let me quote a relevant section of the 3.5 Hide skill description:

In 3.5 concealment is analogous to light obscuration, while total concealment is more or less the same as heavy obscuration. In 5e, for some reason, they have decided to demand total concealment as prerequisite for hiding, which is illogical.

Based on the sidebar on PHB 177, it seems the designers counter-intuitively intended skill at hiding to mostly represent ability to stay quiet.

[Gwendol]

Right. You are already out of sight, so anything that may reveal your position (like knocking over a vase) will give away the position... doh!

[Strill]

"Bards were nerfed a lot because they had to spend 8 hours resting to get their abilities, as they get nothing from a short rest" (compare to "short rests are too long and I only recover 1 Hit Die, so I'm gonna get killed fast, while the Fighter can recover almost completely with one!"He's completely wrong. Bards recover Bardic Inspiration on a short rest at level 5, and also allow all characters to heal for free during short rests.


not sure if he forgets or refuses to use the Inspiration dice, even if they're only bonus actions to use and don't consume his action to cast. But, that's mostly to set up the discussion.Then that's his problem. Inspiration dice are a very, very, very major benefit in 5e. Numerical bonuses are in very short supply, and being able to give a character + 1d8 to a saving throw AFTER they see what their D20 roll is, is absolutely huge. These are a seriously major part of the Bard class, and if he's missing them, then his problems are his own.


On to the topic: the singlemost hated change the Bard player constantly bickers me about is how the Hide action now requires an Action to use. Nevermind that he has Inspiration and Healing Word, or that he can simply move, fire and hide (as the Warlock player actually did), he loathes that change, finding it "illogical" (and quite frankly, it's being repeated to the point of infuriation). The other players suggest dipping into Rogue (for Cunning Action, of course, not to mention all the other goodies like Sneak Attack, Thieves' Cant and more Expertise), but he's against it. In his words, it makes no sense to force a character that relies on Hiding to spend its action to do so, while at the same time being unable to attack (i.e. being unable to Snipe), particularly a Bard who relies on Hiding (debatable, unless it's a Final Fantasy Bard who actually has Hide as a command, but that's another game entirely, and he never played FF so his tactic is purely from D&D). This is in contrast to Dragon Age, where he uses the SAME tactic, but seems to tolerate it, even if he can't move, hide and attack at the same time.

So, I think this leads to a good discussion: have you felt that Hiding as an action for everyone other than a Rogue (or a character that multiclasses into one) is a bad move from the developers' part? Barring all the problems from Stealth, do you feel that the requirement of an action to Hide is unfair for certain classes other than Rogue (specifically, the Bard, which is the only other class with Expertise at the moment, or perhaps the Warlock)? I personally don't mind, but then again, I've never relied as heavily on Stealth as him. Likewise, everyone on the table is adjusting to the new changes (half the table comes from 3.5, the other half from 4e, and there's an implicit scuffle between the two sides, but we all agree that 5e, with all the virtues and defects, is a good edition), but he doesn't seem to be adjusting as well. I believe it's only fair to discuss that, just in case there's an incoming survey dealing with Skills.No. Nothing about the Bard "relies" on hiding. It only gives you advantage on a single attack, which isn't even important since Bards have weak attacks, even if they're College of Valor Bards.

[Strill]

Yes, it's not entirely clear why it requires an action to hide. Hide used to be part of movement (in 3.5), but is now a separate action. Furthermore, the conditions for hiding are not that clear (you can't hide if someone can see you, but if you are unseen, why hide?). Hiding is bothersome.

Because by default, if you are not hidden, enemies can hear or otherwise sense evidence of your presence, and from that know your position. Hiding masks your location.


Right. You are already out of sight, so anything that may reveal your position (like knocking over a vase) will give away the position... doh!

Noisy footsteps, puddles, disturbing the dust in the air, breathing in the cold, brushing past a tree or shrub, squeaky floorboards. There's lots of ways to give away your position even if you're completely obscured.

[Vogonjeltz]

On to the topic: the singlemost hated change the Bard player constantly bickers me about is how the Hide action now requires an Action to use.

His problem is that he wants to be a Rogue and he picked Bard.


So, I think this leads to a good discussion: have you felt that Hiding as an action for everyone other than a Rogue (or a character that multiclasses into one) is a bad move from the developers' part? Barring all the problems from Stealth, do you feel that the requirement of an action to Hide is unfair for certain classes other than Rogue (specifically, the Bard, which is the only other class with Expertise at the moment, or perhaps the Warlock)? I personally don't mind, but then again, I've never relied as heavily on Stealth as him. Likewise, everyone on the table is adjusting to the new changes (half the table comes from 3.5, the other half from 4e, and there's an implicit scuffle between the two sides, but we all agree that 5e, with all the virtues and defects, is a good edition), but he doesn't seem to be adjusting as well. I believe it's only fair to discuss that, just in case there's an incoming survey dealing with Skills.

No, it makes sense that it requires an action, it's a major activity. Dodging and Dashing require actions too.


Yeah, not convinced. Wood elves can attempt to hide when lightly obscured (by natural phenomena), others can't. This is a ridiculous ruling, and goes back to the premise of hiding. You can only hide if you aren't being seen. If no-one sees you, why hide? Wood elves can attempt to hide even if they are seen provided the environment grants them light obscuration. Let me point out that heavy foliage (heavy obscuration) imposes the blinded condition on a creature inside it. So, yes you can hide, but on the other hand no-one sees anything, including yourself.
The current rules makes hiding nearly useless except for a narrow subset of races/classes.

You hide so that the next time you should be seen, you won't be.

Example: I'm chasing you through the woods. You run past a tree that obscures my vision, and then hide in a bush. I run past the tree and don't immediately see you, preventing my attacking you that round (absent a successful perception check, of course).

Doing this takes more effort than simply standing behind an object so large you can't possibly be seen, although imo that's certainly an alternative (however you would also be prevented from seeing them, which would be less useful to the hider).

[Gwendol]

Of course you need cover to hide behind, alternatively some level of concealment. However, in 5e, as I noted above, the rules imply they have made the requirements even stricter than they were in 3.5, which makes no sense at all. Why need total concealment (=heavy obscuration) to attempt to hide? No-one can see you anyway (and in many cases you wont be seeing anything either). Why is that a skill? If I can't be seen, how does my skill in hiding affect the outcome? Because if I'm skilled I refrain from shouting warnings to allies or knock over vases?

With passive perception easily reaching ridiculous levels, hiding will be near impossible. The skilled character should be allowed to attempt to hide under adverse conditions (less than heavy obscuration/total cover for example). And of course you should be able to hide from a creature that can see you, that is often the point of hiding. Creating a diversion or similar to distract them should give an opportunity for an attempt to hide.

As written however the rules are extremly prohibitive.

[Gwendol]

Example: I'm chasing you through the woods. You run past a tree that obscures my vision, and then hide in a bush. I run past the tree and don't immediately see you, preventing my attacking you that round (absent a successful perception check, of course).

Doing this takes more effort than simply standing behind an object so large you can't possibly be seen, although imo that's certainly an alternative (however you would also be prevented from seeing them, which would be less useful to the hider).

Actually, in the example listed above, you are not hidden unless the bush provides heavy obscuration.

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.

And below:

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger
all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach
a creature, it usually sees you.

One can then wonder what coming out of hiding means, but given the lack of clarifying examples I'd say it's when the conditions for hiding are no longer fulfilled: i.e. you can be seen.

[Strill]

With passive perception easily reaching ridiculous levels, hiding will be near impossible. The skilled character should be allowed to attempt to hide under adverse conditions (less than heavy obscuration/total cover for example). And of course you should be able to hide from a creature that can see you, that is often the point of hiding. Creating a diversion or similar to distract them should give an opportunity for an attempt to hide.

That's how it works now. Someone sees you, so you run behind cover so they can't see you, then use the Hide action so they don't know where you are anymore.

[Person_Man]

My experience has been that the usefulness of Cunning Action is highly DM dependent. Some DMs rule that you can't hide at all if any enemy is aware of your general location (enemies have object permanence, so playing "peek-a-boo" with them doesn't give you Advantage), others basically just treat it like Bonus Action Invisibility with the minor requirement that you find appropriate cover first, and there's a lot of grey area in between.

So I would prefer for Hide to be an Action for every class with no workarounds, and for Cunning Action to include Fast Hands (Bonus Action Sleight of Hand, thieves' tools, and Use an Object) to compensate.

Though I'm also hoping that in 6E they abolish the Bonus/Minor/Swift Action, and to have everything codified as a Move, Action, Reaction, Concentration, or Free ability. The Bonus Action has is basically just a second Action with a lot of fiddly requirements attached to it that slows down the game. I prefer a smaller number of highly consequential, interesting, fun actions.

[Gwendol]

That's how it works now. Someone sees you, so you run behind cover so they can't see you, then use the Hide action so they don't know where you are anymore.

That's nice and all, but not really supported. You can't hide if they can see you.

[Giant2005]

That's nice and all, but not really supported. You can't hide if they can see you.

Hence running behind cover?

[Gwendol]

That's not enough. You need to reach a place where the enemy can't see you. Cover or light obscuration isn't enough. Furthermore, once they get behind the cover, they can see you, and you can't hide.

[Strill]

That's not enough. You need to reach a place where the enemy can't see you. Cover or light obscuration isn't enough. So what's the problem? There's plenty of places you can go where your enemy can't see you. Just duck behind a barrel or something.


Furthermore, once they get behind the cover, they can see you, and you can't hide.

Except that they don't know where you are, because you're hidden, so they have no way of knowing where to look.

[Gwendol]

Well, why does it take an action, and the use of a skill? If I can move into that spot and acheive the same result?

[Strill]

Well, why does it take an action, and the use of a skill? If I can move into that spot and acheive the same result?

I already explained this, but I'll explain it again.

Being behind an obstacle and not hidden means that people can't see you, but they still know where you are, or at least that there's something at your location.

Being hidden as well means that they don't know where you are.

[Gwendol]

Nah, if they know where you are then they know, doesn't matter if you are hidden or not, since they can't actually see you anyway. You may roll stealth to make sure you don't give away your position through audible clues for example, but they can't see you no matter your hide skill.

Had they stayed with the 3.5 conditions for hiding, it would make more sense. The character skilled in stealth will be able to more reliably use light obscuration or cover (any degree) to hide, instead of limiting this to lightfoot halflings and wood elves.

[Strill]

Nah, if they know where you are then they know, doesn't matter if you are hidden or not, since they can't actually see you anyway. You may roll stealth to make sure you don't give away your position through audible clues for example, but they can't see you no matter your hide skill.

Had they stayed with the 3.5 conditions for hiding, it would make more sense. The character skilled in stealth will be able to more reliably use light obscuration or cover (any degree) to hide, instead of limiting this to lightfoot halflings and wood elves.

If you want to live in your own little world and say stealth doesn't do what the rules say it does, then be my guest, but don't go around criticizing the stealth rules because your homebrew screws them up.

[Gwendol]

If you want to live in your own little world and say stealth doesn't do what the rules say it does, then be my guest, but don't go around criticizing the stealth rules because your homebrew screws them up.

That kind of attitude is uncalled for.

Not sure what you're trying to argue for or against here, but if you think my arguments are wrong please find and show me the relevant quotes.

[broodax]

Do you (collective internet "you") suppose that the designers intended there to be a difference between "Hide" and "Remain Hidden"?

That seems the most reasonable interpretation to me. You can't hide if I can see you at all, because, hello, seeing. But, if you run around a corner, when I round that corner I may not be able to find you. Perhaps I once again have line of sight to you, but you have camouflaged yourself, covered yourself in a sheet that you can see through from inside, but looks like a lumpy mattress, clung to the ceiling, etc. so that I do not know where you are.

Alternatively (or additionally) the "can't see you" in "you can't hide from a creature that can see you" is not really defined anywhere. If you are hidden already, perhaps they can't see you, even though there are light... waves? particles? bouncing off of you and hitting their eyes.

[Yagyujubei]

That kind of attitude is uncalled for.

Not sure what you're trying to argue for or against here, but if you think my arguments are wrong please find and show me the relevant quotes.

{scrubbed}

on topic: I think hide should take an action(or cunning action) and that hide rules work alright for combat. my DM makes it incredibly difficult to get away with peekaboo tactics but more basic uses of hide have done my group well.

[Gwendol]

{scrubbed}

on topic: I think hide should take an action(or cunning action) and that hide rules work alright for combat. my DM makes it incredibly difficult to get away with peekaboo tactics but more basic uses of hide have done my group well.

Please don't try and have me say something I have never said in this thread or others.

I have pointed to the rules for hiding in 3.5 and shown how they have been changed in the new edition, to the detriment on the hider, and pointed out that under the current rules hiding as an action, and skill, seems somewhat onerous, since the rules call for being completely out of sight anyway. Under 3.5 rules a hide check when behind total cover/concealment is not necessary, but in 5e this is a necessity. Or at least that is what the rules seem to imply.
Furthermore, one can wonder what kind of skill it takes to hide, when no one can see you?

Broodax, you are right to the point. I'd like to think that it is the intention of the rules, but the way they are written it's a hard case to make.

[Xetheral]

Except that they don't know where you are, because you're hidden, so they have no way of knowing where to look.

Sure they do. They know where they lost sight of you--hiding doesn't make them forget. Hiding simply means they can't detect you with any of their senses, so they can't be sure you're *still* there.

If you've moved since taking an action to hide, then yes, when they move so they can see around your cover they may not be able to find you. But if you haven't managed to move far enough away, once they round the corner (or walk around the tree, etc.) you no longer meet the requirements for hiding and are automatically seen.

[Yagyujubei]

lol, flagged me for moderation eh? I'm sorry I hurt your feelings buddy no offense intended.


The biggest issue I've found is how to manage an enemies "attention" and where it is focused. it's unlikely that even the most battle hardened person or creature can keep track of 100% of a battle, so provided that someone is posing enough of a threat to draw a targets "attention", another party member should be able to take a hide action without really being in full cover just by virtue of them being out of LoS.

like if a fighter is swinging a battleaxe at this ogre, and a thief slinks into their blindspot and behind a rock, then they should be able to hide even when its only partial cover in my opinion. I sometimes wish there was an enmity mechanic in DnD like in most MMO's that would facilitate manipulating an enemies focus during encounters.

[Wolfsraine]

As the question seems to be "Should a Rogue be better at hiding than the other classes?" the answer is of course a yes. That same answer would apply if the question was "Is the Bard in my party a complete and utter douche that no-one should ever have the misfortune of playing with?".

This. Your bard seems like a complete jackass that wants to be good at everything.

About hiding though. It is great in this addition. I play a woodelf ranger with 2 levels of rogue. I'm basically a sniper. Almost every round I can use a bonus action to hide and make attacks with advantage, combined with sharp shooter I usually lay waste to most enemies. I don't see any issue at all with hiding and stealth in this addition. Works great.

Seems like that Gwendol guy is just trying to get a rise out of people anyway with most of his comments. Don't feed him!

[Gwendol]

lol, flagged me for moderation eh? I'm sorry I hurt your feelings buddy no offense intended.


The biggest issue I've found is how to manage an enemies "attention" and where it is focused. it's unlikely that even the most battle hardened person or creature can keep track of 100% of a battle, so provided that someone is posing enough of a threat to draw a targets "attention", another party member should be able to take a hide action without really being in full cover just by virtue of them being out of LoS.

like if a fighter is swinging a battleaxe at this ogre, and a thief slinks into their blindspot and behind a rock, then they should be able to hide even when its only partial cover in my opinion. I sometimes wish there was an enmity mechanic in DnD like in most MMO's that would facilitate manipulating an enemies focus during encounters.

No worries, my feelings don't hurt easily.
It looks like your opinion, as exemplified above, closely mirrors mine. Doesn't look like the designers share it thiugh.

[Xetheral]

This. Your bard seems like a complete jackass that wants to be good at everything.

About hiding though. It is great in this addition. I play a woodelf ranger with 2 levels of rogue. I'm basically a sniper. Almost every round I can use a bonus action to hide and make attacks with advantage, combined with sharp shooter I usually lay waste to most enemies. I don't see any issue at all with hiding and stealth in this addition. Works great.

Seems like that Gwendol guy is just trying to get a rise out of people anyway with most of his comments. Don't feed him!

Wood Elves' Mask of Wild ability means 5e's hiding mechanics work more similarly to previous editions than any for any other race. Because they don't require Heavy Obscurement/Total Cover/Invisibility to remain hidden, the Stealth skill lets them remain unnoticed even in situations where enemies might see them. For everyone else (except Lightfoot Halflings and/or Skulker feat) the only time they can hide is when they can't be seen *anyway*, meaning the Hide application of the Stealth skill counter-intuitively only helps them remain unheard.

[Vogonjeltz]

Actually, in the example listed above, you are not hidden unless the bush provides heavy obscuration.


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.

I don't see it actually say hiding requires dense foliage (although a bush probably counts). All that is required to attempt to hide is that you're not seen.

Page 182: Noticing Threats indicates enemies may simply not notice someone, and the dexterity (stealth) check on 177 indicates the check would be required to sneak up on someone. Therefore, to sneak up on an enemy from a hidden location would be a dexterity (stealth) check.

[Xetheral]

I don't see it actually say hiding requires dense foliage (although a bush probably counts). All that is required to attempt to hide is that you're not seen.

The only ways I know of in the rules to be unseen are to have Heavy Obscurement (i.e. foliage dense enough to make everyone in it count as having the "blinded" condition, see PHB 183), Total Cover (i.e. be entirely out of line-of-sight, see PHB 196), or be Invisible (or effectively so, e.g. a blind target).


Page 182: Noticing Threats indicates enemies may simply not notice someone, and the dexterity (stealth) check on 177 indicates the check would be required to sneak up on someone. Therefore, to sneak up on an enemy from a hidden location would be a dexterity (stealth) check.

The "Noticing Threats" section explicitly applies when trying to "...determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat" (emphasis added). It doesn't suggest that it's normally possible to fail to notice someone who isn't hiding, so this section doesn't support the claim that it's normally possible to hide in anything less than Heavy Obscurement/Total Cover/Invisibility.

Also, page 177 includes the important mention that one can only stay hidden while sneaking up on a creature if the DM determines that the creature is distracted.

[Shining Wrath]

My point is that if I'm out of sight, why spend an action on hiding? After all, I'm not seen by anyone.


You are in the forest at Level 1.

You hear the depraved evil Fire Giant tramping toward you.

Do you hide?

[Gwendol]

No, I stay out of sight, and try to be silent while doing so. How do I know I'm out of sight? I'll abide by the "see you, see me principle". :smallwink:

[Strill]

No, I stay out of sight, and try to be silent while doing so.That is the definition of the hide action.

[Gwendol]

Not necessarily. In this scenario staying out of sight will likely mean moving as fast as possible out of the way under the cover of the forest canopy. I wouldn't call that hiding, and the better use of the action would be to dash.

[Shining Wrath]

No, I stay out of sight, and try to be silent while doing so. How do I know I'm out of sight? I'll abide by the "see you, see me principle". :smallwink:

What, pray tell, is "stay out of sight"? I'm not aware of a Skill "stay out of sight".

If you endeavor to the least degree to avoid being seen, you are using the Hide skill. That is what it means to hide.


hide1
hīd/
verb
verb: hide; 3rd person present: hides; past tense: hid; gerund or present participle: hiding; past participle: hidden

1.
put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others.
"he hid the money in the house"

Stay out of sight is precisely equivalent in game mechanics to "use the Hide skill".

[Gwendol]

Stay out of sight can mean that there is cover between me and the giant. Total cover even, which means that however hard the giant tries he will never see me (unless: x-ray vision). In this scenario that would be the ideal state.
Also it happens to be quite doable as a leafy canopy can be argued to provide heavy obscuration.

[Sindeloke]

I think there's a RAW vs RAI issue happening here. I'm pretty sure stealth is not meant to be stupid and useless. There's no question in my mind that the "get hidden" vs "stay hidden" dichotomy that Broodax pointed out is what they were going for. IE,

a) You're standing in plain view of an enemy, who's watching you.
b) You see some dense bushes nearby - not opaque, but enough to provide partial obscurity if you get behind them.
c) You throw a smoke bomb, causing temporary blindness in your enemy.
d) While he's blind, you dive quietly behind the bushes and use your action to "hide" as per the rules.
e) The smoke clears, and the enemy now could theoretically see you through the bushes... but he doesn't, because you successfully hid.

But Gwendol is right that that's not quite what the RAW actually says; the rules in the book are vague and awkward enough that it appears e) doesn't work and the enemy immediately sees you, since you don't have complete cover or obscurement anymore.

Screw that noise, though, 5e is the "RAI not RAW" edition, right? Just use stealth in a way that makes sense, don't worry about the exact specific wording of the book. Easy.

[T.G. Oskar]

He's completely wrong. Bards recover Bardic Inspiration on a short rest at level 5, and also allow all characters to heal for free during short rests.

Not like we didn't tell him, but he doesn't care. No spells means nothing for him to do, particularly since there's no healing cantrip (Spare the Dying doesn't heal, only stabilizes). Then again - his metric for "unfairness" is that "all classes recover something except spellcasters", something I had to quickly rebuke (depending on how much of a spellcaster you consider the Paladin, but the only thing they recover on a short rest is their Channel Divinity, and they don't get as many uses of it as the Cleric eventually does). That also makes Song of Rest irrelevant, since there's no way to wring a short rest.


Then that's his problem. Inspiration dice are a very, very, very major benefit in 5e. Numerical bonuses are in very short supply, and being able to give a character + 1d8 to a saving throw AFTER they see what their D20 roll is, is absolutely huge. These are a seriously major part of the Bard class, and if he's missing them, then his problems are his own.

Well, it's more of a case of "they took the ICONIC thing a Bard does, which is its song!" He gave a few uses of Inspiration last session, and saved one for Cutting Words in case he needed to use it (he didn't, to be honest). However, part of his metric for playing a Bard is their song, and 5e Bards pretty much have NO song - that is, an ability that grants all allies a fixed bonus to attack rolls and saves, as per earlier editions before 4th.


No. Nothing about the Bard "relies" on hiding. It only gives you advantage on a single attack, which isn't even important since Bards have weak attacks, even if they're College of Valor Bards.

Depends. His use of Hiding is "you can't hit me", which is a crucial component of his playstyle: none of his characters has ever been built with withstanding damage in mind, and thus he considers any one hit a threat to his existence. Case in point: every character of the first 3 editions, plus 5th, has low hit points, and this is a given. Trying to argue that in those editions, a Bard and a Fighter have a relatively equal chance of dying in one blow (the Fighter potentially withstanding a blow better than a Bard, but not by many points) won't help - all that matters is that the Bard doesn't have the same defenses a Fighter has to withstand that blow, and thus, it is IMPERATIVE for him to avoid being hit. Thus, he pursues any option to prevent being hit, and hence he spends a lot of time maxing stealth skills. This is the same for his 3.5 Bard, for his d20 Modern Fast Hero/Gunslinger, and for his Dragon Age Rogue: once they get one good hit, it's cause of alarm for him. Not that he goads the enemy into fighting (that usually goes to the Fighter player), but sometimes, it pays to keep players on the edge. I think the only moment he has played something close to a tank is his pure Druid, and most of the time it's attempting to hit his Bear companion.


His problem is that he wants to be a Rogue and he picked Bard.

Perhaps, but not exactly. If he was playing a Rogue, he'd be bored because he's only doing damage, even if he can hide. Maybe catch his attention once he got into Arcane Trickster. However, his playstyle is more attuned to the Bard, mostly because of training (degrees in singing and composition, after all).

He did attempt a Rogue before this campaign (just using the playtest rules), but there were some...issues. Same problem with lack of survivability.

However, it's time to actually speak about the topic at hand:


No, it makes sense that it requires an action, it's a major activity. Dodging and Dashing require actions too.

I can presume this is the consensus of the forum? I personally don't mind about Hiding being an action, much like Dash, Disengage and Dodge (all three were pretty much actions of their own). I won't speak much about the issues of Hiding in the first place, since the extent of "being seen" can end up on DM call, particularly on the concept of distractions; "creating a diversion to Hide" was an application of Bluff, after all, and it worked on the idea of causing the potential onlookers to avoid looking at the individual, thus allowing Hide. So far, the ruling precludes the use of Deception as a way to provide a way to distract onlookers (no actual ruling), but Deception is not written that clear-cut so as to avoid it (or maybe even allowing an Intelligence check towards the same lines; ability checks are VERY open-ended, after all).

[Vogonjeltz]

The "Noticing Threats" section explicitly applies when trying to "...determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat" (emphasis added). It doesn't suggest that it's normally possible to fail to notice someone who isn't hiding, so this section doesn't support the claim that it's normally possible to hide in anything less than Heavy Obscurement/Total Cover/Invisibility.

Also, page 177 includes the important mention that one can only stay hidden while sneaking up on a creature if the DM determines that the creature is distracted.

All correct, however what I'm saying is that there's a distinction made in the rules given between attempting to hide and remaining hidden.

So although not being seen is a requirement of attempting to hide, once you are hidden you are de facto not seen and it becomes instead an inssue of remaining hidden.

I'm also saying that putting in the effort to be hidden (and thus NOT automatically seen) = an action. Simply standing behind a tree or whatever will obscure you, but you also will be immediately found if someone simply walks around the tree/bush, whatever, because you're not actually using a skill to hide.

It seems to me that it's far easier to figure out where someone is if you actually see them trying to hide vis they pick a location that's not easy to see and you didn't realize they were even there in the first place. That distinction (attempting to hide vs. already hidden) is supported by the text box on 177.

[Strill]

However, part of his metric for playing a Bard is their song, and 5e Bards pretty much have NO song - that is, an ability that grants all allies a fixed bonus to attack rolls and saves, as per earlier editions before 4th.Then tell him to learn Bless with one of his Magical Secrets.




Depends. His use of Hiding is "you can't hit me", which is a crucial component of his playstyle: none of his characters has ever been built with withstanding damage in mind, and thus he considers any one hit a threat to his existence. Case in point: every character of the first 3 editions, plus 5th, has low hit points, and this is a given. Trying to argue that in those editions, a Bard and a Fighter have a relatively equal chance of dying in one blow (the Fighter potentially withstanding a blow better than a Bard, but not by many points) won't help - all that matters is that the Bard doesn't have the same defenses a Fighter has to withstand that blow, and thus, it is IMPERATIVE for him to avoid being hit. Thus, he pursues any option to prevent being hit, and hence he spends a lot of time maxing stealth skills. This is the same for his 3.5 Bard, for his d20 Modern Fast Hero/Gunslinger, and for his Dragon Age Rogue: once they get one good hit, it's cause of alarm for him. Not that he goads the enemy into fighting (that usually goes to the Fighter player), but sometimes, it pays to keep players on the edge. I think the only moment he has played something close to a tank is his pure Druid, and most of the time it's attempting to hit his Bear companion.Wait, he wants to hide and sing at the same time? How does he propose he does that? Just tell him to stand behind 3/4 cover for a +5 AC.



I can presume this is the consensus of the forum? I personally don't mind about Hiding being an action, much like Dash, Disengage and Dodge (all three were pretty much actions of their own). I won't speak much about the issues of Hiding in the first place, since the extent of "being seen" can end up on DM call, particularly on the concept of distractions; "creating a diversion to Hide" was an application of Bluff, after all, and it worked on the idea of causing the potential onlookers to avoid looking at the individual, thus allowing Hide. So far, the ruling precludes the use of Deception as a way to provide a way to distract onlookers (no actual ruling), but Deception is not written that clear-cut so as to avoid it (or maybe even allowing an Intelligence check towards the same lines; ability checks are VERY open-ended, after all).

You can avoid being seen just by being in cover. You use the Hide action to mask your presence entirely.

[Xetheral]

I think there's a RAW vs RAI issue happening here. I'm pretty sure stealth is not meant to be stupid and useless. There's no question in my mind that the "get hidden" vs "stay hidden" dichotomy that Broodax pointed out is what they were going for...

But Gwendol is right that that's not quite what the RAW actually says; the rules in the book are vague and awkward enough that it appears e) doesn't work and the enemy immediately sees you, since you don't have complete cover or obscurement anymore.

Screw that noise, though, 5e is the "RAI not RAW" edition, right? Just use stealth in a way that makes sense, don't worry about the exact specific wording of the book. Easy.

In previous editions there absolutely was a difference between hiding and staying hidden. Unfortunately I see nothing in this edition even suggesting that distinction remains or was intended to remain. If it *is* RAI the designers did a very poor job communicating that fact. For my own table I plan to add the distinction back in when I overhaul the hiding rules, but when I do I'll give my players a full write-up.

The problem with "just use stealth in a way that makes sense" is that (evidently) few people agree on what makes sense in the first place. "Sneakiness" is often a character-defining trait, so it's very important that players and DMs are on the same page regarding how hiding is going to be handled mechanically at a particular table. Otherwise you run into problems where a character was built with the idea that hiding in certain circumstances "makes sense", but later the player discovers the DM has a totally different conception on when and how one can hide.


All correct, however what I'm saying is that there's a distinction made in the rules given between attempting to hide and remaining hidden.

So although not being seen is a requirement of attempting to hide, once you are hidden you are de facto not seen and it becomes instead an inssue of remaining hidden.

I'm also saying that putting in the effort to be hidden (and thus NOT automatically seen) = an action. Simply standing behind a tree or whatever will obscure you, but you also will be immediately found if someone simply walks around the tree/bush, whatever, because you're not actually using a skill to hide.

It seems to me that it's far easier to figure out where someone is if you actually see them trying to hide vis they pick a location that's not easy to see and you didn't realize they were even there in the first place. That distinction (attempting to hide vs. already hidden) is supported by the text box on 177.

Could you specify what part of the sidebar on page 177 you think supports the distinction? I've read it and reread it trying to find some hint that the distinction is RAI, but have had no luck.

[Gwendol]

My suggestion is to use the rules for hiding given in 3.5, and more specifically to give lightfoot halflings and wood elves HiPS (under their respective environmental conditions).
For 5e the rules would then be: you can't hide from someone looking at you, even casually. You need cover or some degree of obscuration to hide. You can always hide behind total cover/heavy obscuration, but if you are being watched the enemy still knows where you went.
It is possible to distract an enemy to hide. Make a Charisma (deception or persuasion) check vs the enemy Wisdom (insight) check, if you succeed you have diverted the attention of the enemy enough to hide.

Not sure we need anything more than that?

[Psikerlord]

Personally I prefer "realistic" hiding as opposed to "gamist" hiding. This generally means no hiding in combat, once the enemy knows you're general location. Ambushes - sure. But once the fight begins, hiding is usually either impossible or at disad.

[Sindeloke]

The problem with "just use stealth in a way that makes sense" is that (evidently) few people agree on what makes sense in the first place. "Sneakiness" is often a character-defining trait, so it's very important that players and DMs are on the same page regarding how hiding is going to be handled mechanically at a particular table. Otherwise you run into problems where a character was built with the idea that hiding in certain circumstances "makes sense", but later the player discovers the DM has a totally different conception on when and how one can hide.

Well, sure, but that's a universal problem with 5e generally. :smallannoyed: I'm definitely not saying it's great game design. But I feel like, if you've decided to play 5e, you've already committed to dealing with that in all kinds of places, so making sure everyone's on the same page with Stealth (or Crossbow Expert, or sneak attack with monks, or GWF and smite damage, or or or...) is just a normal part of the package.

[Vogonjeltz]

Could you specify what part of the sidebar on page 177 you think supports the distinction? I've read it and reread it trying to find some hint that the distinction is RAI, but have had no luck.

First sentence operative timing bolded for emphasis:

When you try to hide

So that entire paragraph is saying that it applies to the attempt.

Later in the section, operative timing bolded for emphasis:
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.

So the implication is that after hiding has been achieved it does not see you automatically and there-in lies the method by which hiding functions rationally:

You can't expect to hide when someone is looking at you, but once hidden someone can look at your location and still not see you.

[Xetheral]

First sentence operative timing bolded for emphasis:


So that entire paragraph is saying that it applies to the attempt.

Later in the section, operative timing bolded for emphasis:

So the implication is that after hiding has been achieved it does not see you automatically and there-in lies the method by which hiding functions rationally:

You can't expect to hide when someone is looking at you, but once hidden someone can look at your location and still not see you.

On your first point I agree that the inclusion of the phrase "When you try to hide..." means that there isn't explicit textual support for the notion that if you lose Full Cover/Heavy Obscurement/Invisibility you're automatically seen. On the other hand, the rules don't in any way suggest that the requirements are different when you're trying to stay hidden rather than when you first try to hide. Yes, the requirements are written in a way that do not necessarily apply to remaining hidden, but then there isn't anything saying what the requirements for staying hidden actually are.

For the second point, I disagree that it's relevant. The phrase "if you come out of hiding" appears to me to be included because it's possible to approach an enemy while staying hidden so long as you still have Full Cover/Heavy Obscurement/Invisibility during your approach.

[broodax]

I would argue that if you are hidden, then you cannot be seen. This seems on its face to be obvious.

Therefore any restrictions based on whether you can be seen are not relevant.

[rollingForInit]

OP: Your bard-player is powergaming to the extent it's hurting your group. That's what it sounds like when you describe things.

Talk to him, tell him he needs to consider the other players as well, that the game isn't meant to entertain him alone. If he cannot accept that, you might have to make the tough call and tell him if that doesn't suite him, he's free to leave the game.