are halflingd and wood elves the only ones who can hide in combat? [Archive]

Malifice

2015-04-24, 08:49 AM

The rules for hiding say you cant hide if the enemy can see you, but both of the races mentioned have a "you can hide if partially obscured by" rules which allows you to hide.

Neither race can hide while under direct observation. Nothing in either the Halfling or Wood Elfs racal ability superscedes the rule on hiding when being observed.

Wood Elves can hide when only partially obscured by natural surroundings (in fog, havy snow or rain). So a Wood Elf can (in a deserted field while raining) by take the Hide action to hide behind the falling rain, or take the Hide action in behind a sparce bush in the woods. They blend into the natural environment. Its almost supernatural.

They wont be noticed if someone walks past them and fails a perception check. If they attack from hiding and ambush someone who failed the initial perception check, they cant take the Hide action again (unless they have the Skulker feat and missed). They are now observed and the jig is up. Nothing in the Wood Elf trait overrides the prohibition on hiding while observed; it just lets you Hide in light concealment instad of heavy concealment. It doesnt let you enter hiding while you are being watched.

Halflings can do something similar by taking the Hide action behind a Medium sized creature (moving with that creature as the creature moves). Nothing in the Halfling racial trait overrides the prohibition on Hiding while being observed; it just lets you Hide behind other creatures. It doesnt let you enter hiding while being watched.

Thats the RAI. If your DM lets you re-take the Hide action despite being watched in the middle of combat, then good luck to you (and every class will take 2 levels of Rogue for cunning action and an 'always on' source of advantage in combat, and the Skulker feat is absolutely useless).

i'm just curious... if those abilities are believed to not be intended to let you use the hide action when people can sort of see you, what exactly do people think they do?

the entire point of them is that, unlike everyone else, they *can* hide when lightly obscured. so yes, that halfling rogue *can* step behind someone, hide, and come out from a place you weren't expecting and sneak attack you.

'Hide in light obscurement' is not the same as 'hide while being observed'.

I.e. A Wood Elf can hide in the rain, as long as no-one is watching him make the attempt.

Camman1984

2015-04-24, 09:30 AM

Flashy

2015-04-24, 09:43 AM

Yes, the others all require total obscurement. So you could still hide in combat, it would just be mildly harder to come by.

Frankly the whole thing is one giant confusing grey area anyway.

SharkForce

2015-04-24, 09:44 AM

if no one is watching, hiding is automatic because there's nobody to see you. anyone can hide when nobody's looking.

the halfling and wood elf have an ability that lets them hide while lightly obscured by certain things, as opposed to the ability that everyone has to hide when heavily obscured by anything.

and no, not everyone would be picking up two levels of rogue for cunning action to hide. it uses up your bonus action and only gives you advantage on a single attack; if combat effectiveness is what they're looking for, they'll keep using their bonus action to get an extra attack that duplicates all the benefits of advantage, plus deals extra damage beyond what advantage would give.

polearm mastery, great weapon mastery, martial arts/flurry of blows, two-weapon fighting, etc all provide better offensive uses for your bonus action than hiding, because it gives you the extra die roll, stacks with other sources of advantage, and if both rolls hit you get to deal bonus damage. other DPR classes have equally good options (casting hunter's mark or hex, quickening a spell, etc).

Malifice

2015-04-24, 09:44 AM

I think though, if no-one is watching, ie. No-one has line of sight, then you arent "partially obscured" you are technically completely concealed. "partially obscured" in my eyes implies you are also partially in sight.

Hah. No mate, youre reading that into it.

It would also make hiding as a bonus action kind of obsolete as you would have to move completely out of sight, hide (why do you need to hide if you are out of sight anyway?), then sit and do nothing because you have no line of sight.

Because 'not being seen' and being 'hidden' are different things.

Put a dice in a shoe box. Close the lid. You can no longer see the dice, but they are not hidden from you. You know exactly where they are.

I can definately see the arguement for no hiding while being directly observed as the racial rules dont over rule it specifically. But it makes the racial rules and cunning action (hide) kind of pointless.

No it does not. It only makes it 'pointless' if you are being observed at the start of your turn. It also works brilliantly with the Skulker feat, invisibility and a few other combos.

Anyway, what i am asking is not the RAW versus RAI arguement. If we go under the assumption that you can use the bonus action to hide while partially obscured during combat (as that is what my group has decided) are these the only races that have the option?

If thats your interpretation, then yes.

Always play a halfling fighter in your group. You have permanent advantage on all melee attacks for the cost of a bonus action.

if no one is watching, hiding is automatic because there's nobody to see you. anyone can hide when nobody's looking.

Where is this rule located? Hint: Its not.

Not being able to be seen, and being 'hidden' are not the same thing.

Look at the Invisible condition. Even when you are invisible (no-one can see you) you still need to take the Hide action to be hidden.

Just because no-one can see you, doesnt mean you are hidden.

Youre reading 'hidden' to mean 'cant be seen' when you should be reading hidden to mean 'no-one knows where you are'.

Ardantis

2015-04-24, 09:47 AM

Outside of the tiefling or drow casting darkness, I'd say yes.

Xetheral

2015-04-24, 09:52 AM

The hiding rules are one of the most hotly-contested parts of 5e. No one can agree on when you can hide, on when you can stay hidden, or even on what "hidden" means in the first place. It's a giant mess.

Camman1984

2015-04-24, 09:53 AM

You know what, i might just play an eladrin and screw combat hiding, i am not interested in advantage anyway (was originally trying to dump sneak attack altogether), just being able to disappear if needed, or being able to steal something while everyone else is distracted fighting.

Misty stepping away once per short rest just seems so much fun.

Thanks for the replies though. am i able to lock my own thread to prevent an arguement thread.

SharkForce

2015-04-24, 10:00 AM

Always play a halfling fighter in your group. You have permanent advantage on all melee attacks for the cost of a bonus action.

or, alternately, you have advantage on one melee attack, because after that you're not hiding (remaining hiding after a missed ranged attack is a special ability granted by a feat, so no, it isn't given out for free after hitting with a melee attack while standing right next to the person you're hitting).

if you make the stealth check and forfeit the vastly superior extra attack you could've gotten from that bonus action, that is.

now, i suppose that one attack *could* be all your attacks (particularly since you're not getting any attacks from your bonus action), but only if by "halfling fighter" you mean "not enough levels of fighter to get extra attack"

ChubbyRain

2015-04-24, 10:05 AM

People who have a problem with halflings hiding in combat seems to come down to the age old argument.... Since it isn't magical it can't do anything awesome. A few people in real life games even said as much.

The halfling has a specific rule that over rides a general rule. Nuff said. Just like how many races have a specific type that overrides a specific rule.

A dwarf doesn't get slowed down from weight on her person even though the general rule is XYZ.

5e is full of horrible writing and incomplete thoughts on subjects. Should the ability of the halfling been spelled out better? Sure. But it works fine as is unless you look at it with "non-magic is crap" glasses.

Gwendol

2015-04-24, 10:17 AM

The hiding rules in 5e are not really in a working state. See this thread for a later discussion on the matter: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?406749-Do-you-find-bothersome-that-Hiding-requires-an-action

Malifice, the rules for the Wood Elf Mask of the Wild, or the Halfling Naturally Stealthy ability says those can attempt to hide even when only lightly obscured. That's it. You are reading more into it than the rules say.

Heavy obscuration breaks line of sight, to the point of making hiding pointless (no-one can see you anyway). You can move stealthily to further confuse your position, but as long as you are heavily obscured you will not be seen no matter how well or bad you hide (you may give away your position through other means though).

So yes, the lightfoot halfling and wood elves are given HiPS, as is any character with the Skulker feat. However, the rules need a revision to work. My suggestion is to look at the rules for hiding in 3.5 and go from there.

Xetheral

2015-04-24, 10:29 AM

List of definitions of "hidden" I've seen advocated:

Character unseen Character unnoticed Enemies actually unaware of character's presence Enemies actually unaware of character's location Enemies unable to detect character's location (but thanks to Object Permanence might know where to look anyway)

Malifice

2015-04-24, 10:49 AM

Malifice, the rules for the Wood Elf Mask of the Wild, or the Halfling Naturally Stealthy ability says those can attempt to hide even when only lightly obscured. That's it. You are reading more into it than the rules say.

I know they say that. They do not say you can hide while being watched. They just change the things you can hide behind when no-one is watching.

'Hiding' is not just 'being unable to be seen'. Hiding is 'unaware of your presence'.

PHB:

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence. 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.

Even shouting from behing total cover (and even after taking the Hide action) reveals your position. Your presence is no longer concealed, you are no longer 'hidden' (however you still have total cover).

Total cover, invisibility and so forth are not the same as being hidden.

Try re-reading the rules, just this time interpret 'hidden' as 'unaware of your presence' instead of 'not being seen'. The rules will make a ton more sense to you.

Heavy obscuration breaks line of sight, to the point of making hiding pointless (no-one can see you anyway). You can move stealthily to further confuse your position, but as long as you are heavily obscured you will not be seen no matter how well or bad you hide (you may give away your position through other means though).

Wrong. Youre assuming (falsely) that hidden means 'cant be seen'. Hidden means 'not aware of your presence'.

They are very different things.

See invisibility. When you are invisible you literally cant be seen. So why then do the rules require you to take the Hide action when invisible?

See invisibility in the PHB:

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

The above clearly states you are not automatically 'hidden' even when invisible. You still need to take an action (or bonus action with cunning action) to Hide. Thats RAW and RAI.

See the invisible condition:

Invisible
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured.

When you are invisible you 'count as heavily obscured for the purpose of hiding'. This means (when invisible) you can always attempt to use the Hide action. If you dont take the Hide action after becoming invisible - you are not hidden (you're giving away your presence by making noise, breathing heavily or what have you).

People who have a problem with halflings hiding in combat seems to come down to the age old argument.... Since it isn't magical it can't do anything awesome. A few people in real life games even said as much.

Rubbish. Its the clear intent of the rules. People only get confused because they assume 'hidden' means 'cant be seen'.

Thats not what 'hidden' means. It means (in the game context) 'not aware of your presence'.

The halfling has a specific rule that over rides a general rule. Nuff said. Just like how many races have a specific type that overrides a specific rule.

That specific rule does not anywhere say the Halfling can hide from someone who is aware of his presence, or Hide when being observed by that person.

The specific rule for Halflings only lets the Halfling hide behind another Medium creature. Something a member of a different race, cant do.

You always harp on about RAW Eslin. Thats RAW (and RAI).

SharkForce

2015-04-24, 10:54 AM

or, alternately, your position is given away doesn't mean "you're not hiding anymore", because it doesn't say that.

you can be hiding and still give your position away. you yell something from behind a tree? well, everyone knows your general area. they don't necessarily know exactly where you are, without a good stealth check, but your position has been given away. of course, that doesn't mean that your position can't change, and it doesn't mean they now see you through the tree.

if you have enough cover to remain hidden, you have enough cover to hide. your hiding place may or may not be known, but you are still hiding.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 11:00 AM

or, alternately, your position is given away doesn't mean "you're not hiding anymore", because it doesn't say that.

If I sneak into your house and hide in your closet while you are at the shops, when you come come home, I am hidden from you.

If I yell from the closet 'Hey Sharky' I am no longer hidden from you (although until you open the closet, you still cant see me).

Do you get it yet?

Re-read the hiding rules in the PHB with the interpretation of 'hiding' as 'unaware of your presence'. They will make perfect sense.

coredump

2015-04-24, 11:13 AM

People who have a problem with halflings hiding in combat seems to come down to the age old argument.... Since it isn't magical it can't do anything awesome.

I love when people pretend to present the 'other side', somehow they keep getting it wrong.... shocking I know.....

Easy_Lee

2015-04-24, 11:16 AM

The hide rules are often debated. Some things on which I hope we can all agree:

Being hidden means you're unseen, but not that your presence is unknown
If a foe does not see your attack coming, you have advantage when attacking
If a foe knows where you are hiding, popping out of that spot for an attack is unlikely to produce an unseen attack.

Use it logically and hiding should be fine. Running through a doorway, shutting it, and bonus action hiding in the room you just entered should be a valid way to try to escape combat or create advantage when you pop out of hiding on a foe who fails to find you. Hiding behind the fighter and repeatedly trying to stab from between his legs is unlikely to accomplish anything.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 11:21 AM

Being hidden means you're unseen, but not that your presence is unknown

No, thats exactly what it means. Hidden means 'your presence is not known'.

PHB:

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

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.

Look at the second paragraph. Even if you're completely unseen and you make a noise you give away your postion (you are no longer hidden).

SharkForce

2015-04-24, 11:32 AM

If I sneak into your house and hide in your closet while you are at the shops, when you come come home, I am hidden from you.

If I yell from the closet 'Hey Sharky' I am no longer hidden from you (although until you open the closet, you still cant see me).

Do you get it yet?

Re-read the hiding rules in the PHB with the interpretation of 'hiding' as 'unaware of your presence'. They will make perfect sense.

that would give you a rough location, but may very well be limited to you only knowing if i'm upstairs, downstairs, or a direction on the same floor. i might even figure out a room from that, but no, i don't know your location. you are still hidden. i might walk into the room and you could still easily strike at me without me knowing to defend myself, provided your movement isn't too noisy.

now imagine someone the size of a young child running around in a grand melee, ducking and dodging through them, half the time disappearing from view. you try and track them through the whole mess, and as they go past someone you turn to be ready when they come out the other side, except that they've deceived your eyes and came back around, got behind you, and struck from a side you were not prepared to defend adequately. next time, they do it again and you think you see them moving back to the side they came in on, and you turn to face that... oops, looks like they tricked you again, pop out where you weren't expecting, and got in another one.

now imagine there's a fog bank that's rolled in. it's not thick as pea soup or anything, but it's making it hard to see things clearly. the lights are almost dancing in the swirling of the fog as things move around, and the sounds around you are somewhat muffled. was that swirl of fog over there a person? or wait, maybe that was just a breeze that blew up for a second, or a bird or a bat. or maybe it's just your eyes playing tricks on you. suddenly an arrow stabs into your back, and as you cry out in pain and spin around, you just catch a glimpse of a humanoid shape disappearing back into the enshrouding mist and blending in with the rest of the indistinct shapes around you. who knows where it went to now.

if you have enough to hide behind, you can hide. someone might know your location at the time you hid. that doesn't mean they know exactly where you are, or that they can track you perfectly with absolutely no chance for you to fool their senses. in fact, that is essentially *exactly* what the entire concept of magic shows in the real world are based on; everyone is looking directly at the performer, and yet the performer is hiding things from them, even though they are watching, and only by looking very carefully will the audience have even a chance of noticing what is actually going on. stealth is just the same thing, but with your full body.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 11:41 AM

that would give you a rough location, but may very well be limited to you only knowing if i'm upstairs, downstairs, or a direction on the same floor. i might even figure out a room from that, but no, i don't know your location. you are still hidden. i might walk into the room and you could still easily strike at me without me knowing to defend myself, provided your movement isn't too noisy.

Lets assume I hide under your bed, and call out to you from under the bed (while you lie on it). You can clearly hear the noise coming from under your bed.

You still cant see me, but I am no longer hidden.

Hidden is not simply 'block line of sight' or 'cant be seen'. If that was the case the rules would say 'you are always hidden when you cant be seen' and that would be the end of it.

They dont say that at all. They clearly refer to 'hiding' being blown when your presence is discovered (not when you are physically seen), giving away your position (and losing being 'hidden') when you make noise even when in total cover, and not being 'hidden' even when you are invisible.

The rules (when read as a whole - see Skulker, the Invisible condition, the hiding sidebar and so forth) clearly infer that 'hidden' means 'unaware of your presence' not simply being unseen.

Seriously. Please re-read the rules. When you encounter the term 'hidden' read them as 'unaware of you' instead of 'cant see you'.

Easy_Lee

2015-04-24, 11:47 AM

No, thats exactly what it means. Hidden means 'your presence is not known'.

PHB:

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

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.

Look at the second paragraph. Even if you're completely unseen and you make a noise you give away your postion (you are no longer hidden).

I don't think a few poached paragraphs from the PHB change the basic definition of the word hidden. We have a few basic ways we could handle the hide action in 5e, but only a few makes sense. Having the ability to misinterpret parts of the text, to create a situation that does not make sense, does not mean that we should do so.

Xetheral

2015-04-24, 11:50 AM

The rules... clearly infer...

The only thing I'm sure about regarding the hiding rules is that they are not clear. This debate, and the previous few dozen, appear to be strongly indicative of a lack of consensus.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 11:54 AM

I don't think a few poached paragraphs from the PHB change the basic definition of the word hidden. We have a few basic ways we could handle the hide action in 5e, but only a few makes sense. Having the ability to misinterpret parts of the text, to create a situation that does not make sense, does not mean that we should do so.

Cant you see that the entire PHB makes a distinction between being 'unable to be seen' (total cover, invisibilty) and being 'hidden'?

Clearly 'hidden' and 'hide' means what it means if I break into your house and hide in your closet without your knowledge (i.e. you are unaware of my presence in your house) and does not simply mean 'out of sight'

Otherwise the rules would say 'you are automatically hidden from a creature when you have total cover relative to that creature' and the invisible condition would automatically make you hidden (it doesnt do anything of the sort; it still requires you to take the Hide action. Being invisible only enables the hide attempt).

Im not being a douche here man. Read the rules again, in totality, using the interpretation of 'hidden' as 'unaware of your presence'. See if the rules dont make 100 percent sense.

People get confused by the rules because they interpret 'hidden' to mean 'cant be seen' when clearly thats not what 'hidden' means in the PHB.

squiggit

2015-04-24, 12:01 PM

Clearly 'hidden' and 'hide' means what it means if I break into your house and hide in your closet without your knowledge (i.e. you are unaware of my presence in your house) and does not simply mean 'out of sight'

If someone says "Hey. Malifice is in the closet" are you no longer hidden?

If someone sees you running into the closet, can you still hide from them while you're in there? What if they only see you running into the bedroom?

SharkForce

2015-04-24, 12:07 PM

i might know that the voice came from under the bed. if i look under the bed and don't see you, because you're hiding behind something in there (a storage bin, perhaps), how do i know you didn't throw your voice, or i heard it wrong, or that you didn't just move elsewhere before i checked, or that you were never there in the first place and that it was just something else making the sound (IRL some sort of electronic device, in D&D an illusion).

i don't know any of those things. you could still be under there, and if i don't see you initially, you could still surprise me.

you have given away your position, or at least, your position at one specific point in time. you have not become unhidden, and you certainly have not rendered it impossible for you to hide by doing so.

you may not have the required skills to pull that sort of thing off. but then, i'm guessing you (like most of the people in the world) are not proficient in stealth.

truthfully, most of the difficulty comes from the fact that you have chosen for your example a location which severely limits your mobility and has few places you could move to and only one plausible location you could be hiding in. pick a scenario where there are plenty of places you could be hiding and you have plenty of mobility and are skilled at stealth, and you've probably got a pretty good chance of giving away your position and then immediately hiding afterwards.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 12:09 PM

If someone says "Hey. Malifice is in the closet" are you no longer hidden?

Nope. Someone (who I am not hidden from) has just revealed both my presence and position.

Its no different to me coughing while I am in there.

If someone sees you running into the closet, can you still hide from them while you're in there?

No. Simply breaking LOS isnt enough. They know exactly where you are, so youre not hidden from them. Your presence and location are known.

You do get total cover (possibly concealment if the closet door is flimsy) from attacks though.

What if they only see you running into the bedroom?

Multiple hiding places in the bedroom might allow you to take the Hide action in this case. Same deal with running into a warehouse and hiding behind one of hundreds of crates.

In the latter case you may even be able to re-eeter hiding again (assuming you can move from crate to crate, or make your position sufficiently decoherent to re try a hide attempt).

Your presence and position need to be known with sufficient precision for you to be revealed. Simply knowing someone is hiding in a house doesnt give your position away. It needs to be something a little more precise than that.

squiggit

2015-04-24, 12:19 PM

What's "sufficient precision" though? I can't find that phrase anywhere in the rules for hiding.

All the PHB says on the subject is "You can't hide from a creature that can see you" and that making noise can give away your position. Which seems to disagree with your assertion about the closet door.

You've shown that being hidden means the enemy is unaware of your presence, but not that you can't hide from someone who's aware of your presence but can't see you.

Further, regarding invisibility the Hiding sidebar simply says "An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide." which again implies that the requirement is sight based.

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 12:20 PM

Malifice, which side of the debate are you on? Are you saying that it is possible to hide mid-combat or that it isn't?
Your words imply the former but your tone implies the latter.

Easy_Lee

2015-04-24, 12:22 PM

Like most hide threads, I think that this one can be resolved via a healthy dose of RP and what one's DM thinks is reasonable.

Alerad

2015-04-24, 12:24 PM

Hiding in combat doesn't give you any great advantage, which you don't already get from not being seen, except enemies don't know for sure where you are (they might suspect though).

Personally I don't see the problem with Halfling hiding behind a bigger creature in combat. If you break the line of sight, you already get the bonuses of advantage on your attack rolls, disadvantage on their rolls, cannot be targeted by spells which require the caster to see you - without having to be hidden.

If there is one lone warrior and you hide behind him/her, congratulations - the enemy can move several feet on their turn and actually see you. In which case you wouldn't be hiding very well, but still if they don't move they won't see you. But if there are several creatures next to each other, you can hide and move behind them while staying hidden. The enemy now doesn't know exactly where you are which gives you better chances of avoiding AOE spells if they hit the wrong area.

So I'd allow characters to hide in combat. Halflings and Wood Elves simply get more opportunities to do so.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 12:45 PM

What's "sufficient precision" though? I can't find that phrase anywhere in the rules for hiding.

Sufficient precision is inferred from the 'make your presence known'.

For a ridiculous example, if I know that you are in the same city as me, I know your position ('in the city'), but not with sufficient precision to stop you from hiding from me in that city. It follows (from basic common sense) your location must be known with sufficient precision (objectively speaking) for you to no longer be hidden. I hear you cough from my closet? Precise enough. Someone who saw you hide in the closet tells me youre in there? Precisie enough. Someone saw you run into a warehouse the size of a football field and containing a mazelike number of crates and dark places? Not sufficiently precise.

Its up to the DM to determine the above. Thats why we have one.

Further, regarding invisibility the Hiding sidebar simply says "An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide." which again implies that the requirement is sight based.

If thats the case, why arent you automatically hidden when invisible and behind total cover? Why does an invisible creature need to use the Hide action and make a hide check?

And what happens if another creature beats your hide check (while invisible) with a perception check? They know exactly where you are. They can walk over and attack you (with disadvantage due to you being invisible).

Further, if being hidden just means 'not being seen' why does the rules for hiding specifically refer to you not being hidden anymore when you 'trip over a vase or cough or otherwise reveal your pressence' even when you remain completely out of sight?

Clearly being 'hidden' involves something more than just 'not being seen'. It clearly means 'not being aware of your presence with sufficient precision'.

The DM to determine what is sufficiently precise.

Malifice, which side of the debate are you on? Are you saying that it is possible to hide mid-combat or that it isn't?

Generally it's not possible to take the Hide action from a person that is aware of your presence.

The Halfling can hide behind the Fighter before triggering the encounter (while out of sight before opening the door to the room containing the monsters) and (assuming none of the monsters passive perception beats his Stealth check) then remains hidden untill he makes his first attack (with advantage).

He then cant (generally) Hide again in that encounter while the monsters are aware of him (unless he misses with the attack and has the Skulker feat).

It may be possible in some circumstances (he could try again before reinforcements come into the room mid battle - he would be hidden relative to them, but not relative to the monsters that were already aware of him, or to use another example he might be able to double back around and strike from an unexpected hiding spot, or again in a massive swirling melee where it would be unreasonable to assume that all combatants are aware of everything that happens).

The latter are DM calls, but the general rule is 'You cant hide in combat when you are being observed' and generally speaking, in most combats everyone is observing all possible threats, and wary of attacks from all directions.

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 12:51 PM

Generally it's not possible to take the Hide action from a person that is aware of your presence.

The Halfling can hide behind the Fighter before triggering the encounter (while out of sight before opening the door to the room containing the monsters) and (assuming none of the monsters passive perception beats his Stealth check) then remains hidden untill he makes his first attack (with advantage).

He then cant (generally) Hide again in that encounter while the monsters are aware of him (unless he misses with the attack and has the Skulker feat).

It may be possible in some circumstances (he could try again before reinforcements come into the room mid battle - he would be hidden relative to them, but not relative to the monsters that were already aware of him, or to use another example he might be able to double back around and strike from an unexpected hiding spot, or again in a massive swirling melee where it would be unreasonable to assume that all combatants are aware of everything that happens).

The latter are DM calls, but the general rule is 'You cant hide in combat when you are being observed' and generally speaking, in most combats everyone is observing all possible threats, and wary of attacks from all directions.

But isn't the point you are making that the difference between your target not seeing you and being unaware of you is the hide action?
Being obscured from sight doesn't render the opponent unaware of your position but being obscured from sight and successfully taking the hide action does render the opponent unaware of your position.

squiggit

2015-04-24, 12:52 PM

It follows (from basic common sense)
Yeah, it does, but what each DM considers reasonable or common sense varies. That's why rules exist in the first place and why we're trying to figure out what a good interpretation is.

Lots of other stuff, but it all boils down to this:

Further, if being hidden just means 'not being seen'
It doesn't. We've already agree it doesn't. Being hidden also explicitly refers to sound as you just mentioned and on invisibility it mentions signs of your passing as well.

Not being seen does, however, let you make a hide check and if you succeed on that hide check you're... hidden.

It clearly means 'not being aware of your presence with sufficient precision'.
This has already been established.

Generally it's not possible to take the Hide action from a person that is aware of your presence.
This is what's up for debate. The rules simply say you can't hide from someone who can see you. So you can't be seen, you make the hide check, and the enemy isn't aware of your presence. Or you're invisible, you fail the hide check, and the enemy is.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 01:00 PM

The rules simply say you can't hide from someone who can see you. So you can't be seen, you make the hide check, and the enemy isn't aware of your presence. Or you're invisible, you fail the hide check, and the enemy is.

Huh? Jump behind a crate in an otherwise empty room in full view of the enemy, make a Stealth check to hide and your presence is suddenly wiped from your enemies mind?

Object permanence bro.

But isn't the point you are making that the difference between your target not seeing you and being unaware of you is the hide action?

No, im saying your enemy being unaware of where you are is inferred in you being 'hidden'.

If they know where you are with sufficient precison, you arent hidden from them (although they may not be able to see you).

Being obscured from sight doesn't render the opponent unaware of your position but being obscured from sight and successfully taking the hide action does render the opponent unaware of your position.

No, it doesnt. You cant cover yourself with a blanket, take the hide action, and then claim 'now the enemy is unaware of my position'.

If your position is known with sufficient precision, you are not hidden. If they can hear where you are, if someone points out where you are, if they see you leap into the spot you (objectively) are hding in and so forth.

Taking the Hide action doesnt wipe where you are from your opponents mind if he knows where you are (and is correct in that knowledge).

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 01:05 PM

No, im saying your enemy being unaware of where you are is inferred in you being 'hidden'.

If they know where you are with sufficient precison, you arent hidden from them (although they may not be able to see you).

No, it doesnt. You cant cover yourself with a blanket, take the hide action, and then claim 'now the enemy is unaware of my position'.

If your position is known with sufficient precision, you are not hidden. If they can hear where you are, if someone points out where you are, if they see you leap into the spot you (objectively) are hding in and so forth.

Taking the Hide action doesnt wipe where you are from your opponents mind if he knows where you are (and is correct in that knowledge).

But isn't that what the opposed check (Hide vs Perception) is for? That roll is used to determine whether during the chaos of battle, the enemy was able to track your movements well enough to know where you are with sufficient precision. The roll is specifically there to determine the "sufficient" aspect.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 01:18 PM

But isn't that what the opposed check (Hide vs Perception) is for? That roll is used to determine whether during the chaos of battle, the enemy was able to track your movements well enough to know where you are with sufficient precision. The roll is specifically there to determine the "sufficient" aspect.

Nope. Its assumed you are being watched, and that all combatants in a combat are aware of each other.

The hide check (Stealth check actually) is used to still your breath, move silently, camoflage yourself and so forth. To make an effort not to 'knock over vases or cough', or stand on any twigs.

Hidden means 'unseen AND unheard' check the PHB:

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

You cant even make an attempt to hide when you are being observed (which is the default for combatants whom are generally aware of all threats). This doesnt mean 'simply jump behind total cover and bam, you can now make the check' as your presence is still known. They watched you go into the hiding spot, so you arent hidden from them.

You could arguably duck behind total cover, use Misty step to teleport somewhere else and attempt to hide in that cover or similar.

It does boil down to a judgement call on the DM, but generally you cant hide (or be hidden) if your position is somehow known to the enemy (and they are correct in that knowledge).

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 01:51 PM

It does boil down to a judgement call on the DM, but generally you cant hide (or be hidden) if your position is somehow known to the enemy (and they are correct in that knowledge).

Everything boils down to a judgement call from the DM. A DM can arbitrarily decide that you are being watched and can't hide in much the same way he can decide the outcome of any action regardless of potential rolls. He might even make those judgements with perfect clarity and precision, and flawlessly decide what should happen as per each relevant character's strengths and weaknesses. But the DM's judgement can never emulate the random and the random is what turns a collaborative narrative into a game. The die rolls already take the character's strengths and weaknesses into account (By use of opposed checks) and can even vary by circumstance (Via the advantage/disadvantage system) but adding the extra variable of the dice roll accounts for the random that makes the game worth playing. The DM should always let the dice make the judgement rather than arbitrarily deciding the outcome sans the random factor unless the task is too simple or too impossible to warrant the inclusion of the random. Hiding in combat is neither impossible nor simple, so the reins should be loosened.

coredump

2015-04-24, 01:53 PM

But isn't the point you are making that the difference between your target not seeing you and being unaware of you is the hide action?
Being obscured from sight doesn't render the opponent unaware of your position but being obscured from sight and successfully taking the hide action does render the opponent unaware of your position.

I *THINK* what he is saying is that taking the Hide action when someone knows where you are..... doesn't do any good.

If there is only one crate in the room, and you duck behind it, it doesn't matter how well you roll. I know you are behind that one crate. I don't become 'unaware of your presence'. I may not be able to find any 'signs' of your presence (no foot sticking out, no steam from breath, no noise, etc) but I still know where you are.

Now, if there were a number of crates.... or if you could duck behind one crate and crawl/sneak to a different crate.... that's a different situation.

Part of the problem is we have not only ideological differences, but just plain semantics.
I think Malifice and I would play it the same, except I would say you can "hide" behind that single crate in the room. My semantics would be you are technically 'hidden'... but it doesn't really do you any good since they know just where you are.
To Malifice it is important that the term Hidden isn't used. Semantics.....

I even think Malifice and Easy_Lee were pretty much in agreement as far as *results* were concerned.... just disagreeing on terminology.

coredump

2015-04-24, 01:58 PM

. The DM should always let the dice make the judgement rather than arbitrarily deciding the outcome sans the random factor unless the task is too simple or too impossible to warrant the inclusion of the random. Hiding in combat is neither impossible nor simple, so the reins should be loosened.

It is the roll of the DM to do exactly that.... to adjudicate player actions. Rolls are only if the outcome is uncertain.

And sometimes hiding in combat *is* impossible....

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 02:01 PM

I *THINK* what he is saying is that taking the Hide action when someone knows where you are..... doesn't do any good.

If there is only one crate in the room, and you duck behind it, it doesn't matter how well you roll. I know you are behind that one crate. I don't become 'unaware of your presence'. I may not be able to find any 'signs' of your presence (no foot sticking out, no steam from breath, no noise, etc) but I still know where you are.

Now, if there were a number of crates.... or if you could duck behind one crate and crawl/sneak to a different crate.... that's a different situation.

Part of the problem is we have not only ideological differences, but just plain semantics.
I think Malifice and I would play it the same, except I would say you can "hide" behind that single crate in the room. My semantics would be you are technically 'hidden'... but it doesn't really do you any good since they know just where you are.
To Malifice it is important that the term Hidden isn't used. Semantics.....

I even think Malifice and Easy_Lee were pretty much in agreement as far as *results* were concerned.... just disagreeing on terminology.

That clarifies things somewhat and I agree it does boil down to semantics. I think specifically, those semantics lay in the difference between hidden and having advantage.
I agree that in either case, the person quite clearly knows that the "hidden" person is behind that crate, so technically he is never unaware of that person's location.
However I might rule it differently to you. I would have the person behind the crate roll his hide check as usual and if he is successful, the person that is fully aware of his presence has lowered his guard enough or shifted his attention enough for the "hidden" character's strike to catch him off guard and to be made with advantage. From a narrative perspective, he is never really hidden as per the usual definition of the word but it is enough for him to gain the benefits mechanically.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 02:06 PM

I would have the person behind the crate roll his hide check as usual and if he is successful, the person that is fully aware of his presence has lowered his guard enough or shifted his attention enough for the "hidden" character's strike to catch him off guard and to be made with advantage.

What exactly is this person he saw jump behind a crate doing to make him lower his guard like this?

Once he ducks behind the crate, what exactly does his hide check represent? A mystical obfuscation power akin to Vampires from WOD?

Alerad

2015-04-24, 02:06 PM

You could arguably duck behind total cover, use Misty step to teleport somewhere else and attempt to hide in that cover or similar.

It does boil down to a judgement call on the DM, but generally you cant hide (or be hidden) if your position is somehow known to the enemy (and they are correct in that knowledge).

I'm actually DMing tomorrow and one of my players is Wood Elf Rogue 3, so this thread is quite interesting for me. :smallsmile:

It depends how you define hiding. I see it as blocking any Perception checks - enemies can't see, hear or smell you. It doesn't magically wipe out their memories that you jumped behind the crate, but they have no way of knowing for certain if you're still there. True, if they expect you to be there and you still are, maybe no bonus for your attack.

By the way, I'm pretty sure many magicians cover themselves with a blanket and then take a Hide action in front of hundreds of people.

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 02:10 PM

What exactly is this person he saw jump behind a crate doing to make him lower his guard like this?

Once he ducks behind the crate, what exactly does his hide check represent? A mystical obfuscation power akin to Vampires from WOD?

It depends entirely on the scenario. If there are other things going on, any one of them could prove ample distraction. If it is an empty room with nothing but the two parties and this mysterious crate, the aggressor could have a moment of confusion as to why someone would expect such an obvious hiding place to be of any assistance whatsoever. Those moments where the aggressor's focus has faltered are moments that the hider can capitalize on.
The hide check represents the character's ability to know the most opportune moment to vacate his position and strike.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 02:14 PM

It depends how you define hiding. I see it as blocking any Perception checks

Hiding doesnt block perception checks at all; it acually forces them in response

It doesn't magically wipe out their memories that you jumped behind the crate, but they have no way of knowing for certain if you're still there. True, if they expect you to be there and you still are, maybe no bonus for your attack.

If their subjective state of mind matches the objective reality, then they know where you are. They can walk around the crate and look straight at you. If they saw you jump behind the crate, no Hide check you can make can erase this information from their heads!

By the way, I'm pretty sure many magicians cover themselves with a blanket and then take a Hide action in front of hundreds of people.

Actually they dissapear behind a trap door to a different spot then they Hide. Thats what makes the trick impressive; we assume we know the position of the mage, but we dont.

Like I said, I would allow a Hide check if a character or NPC doubled back around to make his positon imprecise enough, or if he Misty stepped away or took advantage of a secret trap door himself.

Being 'hidden' infers a state of mind of the observer; their subjective knowledge (objectively assessed, in this case by the DM) of the location of the thing that is hidden from them.

It depends entirely on the scenario. If there are other things going on, any one of them could prove ample distraction. If it is an empty room with nothing but the two parties and this mysterious crate, the aggressor could have a moment of confusion as to why someone would expect such an obvious hiding place to be of any assistance whatsoever. Those moments where the aggressor's focus has faltered are moments that the hider can capitalize on.
The hide check represents the character's ability to know the most opportune moment to vacate his position and strike.

Personally, if I was fighting a Rogue and a DM moved it to behind a crate in full view of me, then it ducked down and used its bonus action to hide, before popping around to sneak attack me with advantage because it somehow became 'hidden', I would be pretty annoyed.

It also invalidates the Skulker feat, as the Rogue could just rinse and repeat each round, hit or miss.

Person_Man

2015-04-24, 02:21 PM

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 02:21 PM

Being 'hidden' infers a state of mind of the observer; their subjective knowledge (objectively assessed, in this case by the DM) of the location of the thing that is hidden from them.

That is the whole point. In the Halfing behind the crate scenario, the observer may know exactly where that Halfling is but he has no knowledge of what is happening behind that crate. His state of mind can go two ways (Well more than two ways probably but we can keep things simple):
1. The hide check is successful and has convinced the observer to believe that the Halfling has given up trying to face a superior foe and his fight of flight instincts have sent him fleeing to the only bit of cover in the room. That observer has been lulled into a false sense of security and doesn't expect the incoming sneak attack.
2. The hide check was a failure and the observer knows quite well the fight isn't over and is prepared for the Halfling's retaliation.

Personally, if I was fighting a Rogue and a DM moved it to behind a crate in full view of me, then it ducked down and used its bonus action to hide, before popping around to sneak attack me with advantage because it somehow became 'hidden', I would be pretty annoyed.

It also invalidates the Skulker feat, as the Rogue could just rinse and repeat each round, hit or miss.

I wouldn't be annoyed. That person hiding is giving up actions to re-hide each round. The opportunity cost is sufficient and fair. As for the Skulker feat it isn't invalidated at all - the Skulker feat still removes the need to spend an action hiding on a miss exactly as it was intended to.

GWJ_DanyBoy

2015-04-24, 02:26 PM

That sounds a lot more like some kind of social deception check than a check to mask your location.

SharkForce

2015-04-24, 02:27 PM

It depends entirely on the scenario. If there are other things going on, any one of them could prove ample distraction. If it is an empty room with nothing but the two parties and this mysterious crate, the aggressor could have a moment of confusion as to why someone would expect such an obvious hiding place to be of any assistance whatsoever. Those moments where the aggressor's focus has faltered are moments that the hider can capitalize on.
The hide check represents the character's ability to know the most opportune moment to vacate his position and strike.

in such a case, however, it would certainly make sense to apply disadvantage on the hide check.

also, on a side note, magic is a thing... you *think* they went behind the crate... but maybe that was an illusionary duplicate. you *think* they're still behind the crate... but when you go check, assuming we're talking about a large enough crate that you can't see all sides at once, you don't know if they moved to another side or if they teleported away or turned invisible or climbed on top of the crate. heck, if you can't see over the crate, it's even possible that they slipped all the way around and got behind you. maybe they can even just walk through the crate; it might not be a real object, or they might be able to walk through physical objects.

simply put, we know that for lightfoot halflings and wood elves (or at least PC versions of them), certain amounts of cover that would normally not be enough to hide behind do in fact provide sufficient cover to hide behind. they can hide in situations where other people wouldn't be. where someone else would need total cover, they just need something to misdirect their enemy's attention a little bit.

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 02:28 PM

Is anyone a DM that allows their players (or does anyone have a DM that allows them to) hide even when an enemy would reasonably be aware of their location? (For example, a halfling who play's peek-a-boo behind an ally, a Wood Elf who walks behind a bush, etc).

Its not a completely unreasonable RAW argument. And if you run D&D games like a video or board game, I could totally see it. (That's not meant as a criticism, by the way. For many years I ran 1E/2E games as if they were randomly generated dungeons, and didn't grow to care about roleplaying or campaign worlds until I was much older). It just doesn't seem like a very 5E thing to do, and it makes Stealth waaay more powerful.

My DM runs like that.
We tend to gloss over a lot of things like lighting effects that bog the game down too much so we just let the Rogue declare he is trying to hide and so he makes his roll. In any practical situation there is cover around or there should be sufficient shadows or something around for him to make use of, so we just gloss over the details so it doesn't slow down play too much.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 02:29 PM

That is the whole point. In the Halfing behind the crate scenario, the observer may know exactly where that Halfling is but he has no knowledge of what is happening behind that crate. His state of mind can go two ways (Well more than two ways probably but we can keep things simple):
1. The hide check is successful and has convinced the observer to believe that the Halfling has given up trying to face a superior foe and his fight of flight instincts have sent him fleeing to the only bit of cover in the room. That observer has been lulled into a false sense of security and doesn't expect the incoming sneak attack.
2. The hide check was a failure and the observer knows quite well the fight isn't over and is prepared for the Halfling's retaliation.

Steath checks are now mind control powers? All Stealth does is make it less likely to not step on twigs or knock over vases at the wrong time, to use cover and concealment to hide yourself without anything sticking out; to move with grace and precision. Thats why they run off Dexterity. Think Han Solo on Endor sneaking up to the Scout trooper, or the classic stifling of a cough while hiding in a closet in horror movies, or not having your shadow poke behind a wall.

I would be mighty pissed off if the DM told me my opponent who I saw duck behind a crate can somehow now hide from me.

By the same logic, you can hide behind the crate, make a hide check and the creature (which now assumes youre not there anymore for some reason) goes back to its daily life before you triggered the encounter.

Its weird and I dont like it personally, but play it however feels right to you.

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 02:33 PM

Steath checks are now mind control powers? All Stealth does is make it less likely to not step on twigs or knock over vases at the wrong time, to use cover and concealment to hide yourself without anything sticking out; to move with grace and precision. Thats why they run off Dexterity. Think Han Solo on Endor sneaking up to the Scout trooper, or the classic stifling of a cough while hiding in a closet in horror movies, or not having your shadow poke behind a wall.

I would be mighty pissed off if the DM told me my opponent who I saw duck behind a crate can somehow now hide from me.

By the same logic, you can hide behind the crate, make a hide check and the creature (which now assumes youre not there anymore for some reason) goes back to its daily life before you triggered the encounter.

Its weird and I dont like it personally, but play it however feels right to you.

It isn't mind control.
It is exactly what you said: " make it less likely to not step on twigs or knock over vases at the wrong time, to use cover and concealment to hide yourself without anything sticking out" or in this case; conceal your true actions. Because you have succeeded in your hide check, the observer has no idea that you are preparing an attack while seemingly cowering behind that crate.

Alerad

2015-04-24, 02:34 PM

Hiding doesnt block perception checks at all; it acually forces them in response

My bad. It blocks/beats your senses is what I meant. Of course you can make checks to get better perception score.

I agree hiding behind a crate to pop out and sneak attack isn't going to work. You don't get advantage from being hidden. You get advantage from being unseen, so popping your head out makes you seen. (PHB 194-195)

You can however hide and cast a spell. Being successfully hidden means the enemy can't hear your quiet spell casting.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 02:39 PM

I agree hiding behind a crate to pop out and sneak attack isn't going to work. You don't get advantage from being hidden. You get advantage from being unseen, so popping your head out makes you seen. (PHB 194-195)

Actually you do get advantage when attacking from hiding. You might want to read that section again.

Furthermore, if you have the Skulker feat, and you miss with your attack from hiding, you dont reveal your position (and remain hidden).

Otherwsie your attack (once resolved) blows your position and you arent hidden anymore.

You can however hide and cast a spell. Being successfully hidden means the enemy can't hear your quiet spell casting.

It does nothing of the sort. If you start chanting on a spell while hidden (or if you cough, knock over a vase or whatever) you blow your position and are no longer hidden.

Alerad

2015-04-24, 03:00 PM

Actually you do get advantage when attacking from hiding. You might want to read that section again.

Furthermore, if you have the Skulker feat, and you miss with your attack from hiding, you dont reveal your position (and remain hidden).

Otherwsie your attack (once resolved) blows your position and you arent hidden anymore.

Yes. All of this is correct.

That said, being unseen is a requirement for being hidden. If they can see you making the attack you are not hidden anymore, Skulker or no Skulker feat.

Tiber

2015-04-24, 03:44 PM

Okay, I guess I'll step into the debate, though I don't expect much.

I don't really care about the semantics behind the word "Hidden." To me it's a catch all term for the idea that others aren't completely sure of what you're doing. In the lone crate scenario, it's not that the enemy isn't pretty sure of where you are (though there's the shenanigans SharkForce mentioned like going invisible), it's that he/she can't prepare for what you're doing. He/she might be expecting you to fire a crossbow bolt, but when exactly are you going to pop up? Will you stand straight up, or lean to the right/left and fire?

Does that make complete sense? Of course not, but it's a game, and no one expects it to completely model reality. I find it equally unrealistic that enemies have awareness of all directions while engaged with an enemy in the middle of a chaotic battle, but the alternative would slow the game down. The whole thing about having to Hide while invisible is simply because invisibility is already really powerful.

So yeah, it's up to the DM. I just think there has to be a bit of a suspension of disbelief because it's a game. Go with whatever makes for a more interesting game.

squiggit

2015-04-24, 04:09 PM

Easy_Lee

2015-04-24, 04:13 PM

It indicates that he's hiding. That should be pretty self evident.

Seems more like cover to me. If his position is known, he's not exactly hiding. If he goes behind a crate, disappeares, and is no longer there where the foe expects him to be, that's more like hiding.

Vogonjeltz

2015-04-24, 04:14 PM

The rules for hiding say you cant hide if the enemy can see you, but both of the races mentioned have a "you can hide if partially obscured by" rules which allows you to hide.

Does this mean if you want to make use of the rogue cunning action to hide, you must play one of these two races?

I am planning a rogue and it wants to be able to hide but i do feel kind of stuck with these races, wood elf is too 'woodsy' for my flavour and the halfling rogue is too cliched, to the point one of my players once commented "why dont locksmiths just put keyholes an extra couple of feet off the ground, then rogues just wouldnt be able to reach them"

It's worth noting that the rules distinguish between when you can hide and what it takes to remain hidden after hiding.

Hiding can be done at any time, however it won't be useful vs a creature that can see you when you make the attempt, although it would still be effective vs everyone else. (PHB 177 in the text box)

Seeing someone who is already hidden is a passive perception vs the stealth check OR active perception vs the stealth check for someone actively searching. (PHB 177 in the text box)

You don't have to have any level of obscured sight to hide, you just can't be actively observed at that moment. Someone still might not notice you, even if you are in a normally lit envornment. (Previous sections mentioned and PHB 178, description of how perception works indicates players might not see someone lurking in shadows which are on page 183 described as dim light, which in turn is described a lightly obscured.)

Attempting to hide vs Remaining Hidden.

The crux of your question is that Wood Elves and Halflings get extra situations in which they can attempt to hide. Where a Human could not attempt to hide in heavy rain when someone is present, a wood elf could.

However, a human can easily remain hidden in heavy rain so long as they hid with no one observing them. Observation only impacts the attempt.

So to answer the thread title, no anyone can hide in combat. The wood elf and halfling just have an easier time doing it.

coredump

2015-04-24, 04:15 PM

That is the whole point. In the Halfing behind the crate scenario, the observer may know exactly where that Halfling is but he has no knowledge of what is happening behind that crate. His state of mind can go two ways (Well more than two ways probably but we can keep things simple):
1. The hide check is successful and has convinced the observer to believe that the Halfling has given up trying to face a superior foe and his fight of flight instincts have sent him fleeing to the only bit of cover in the room. That observer has been lulled into a false sense of security and doesn't expect the incoming sneak attack.
2. The hide check was a failure and the observer knows quite well the fight isn't over and is prepared for the Halfling's retaliation.
.

I would rule differently, but I can understand the logic you are using. We would rule differently... no biggie. My ruling would be closer to Malifice's.... but I am not upset that you have a different opinion. The important part (IMO) is that we can see both are rulings....not THE defined method.

How would you handle a second (or third) attempt at Hiding in the same spot. Would you allow it? Not allow it? Allow with disadvantage? ...??

coredump

2015-04-24, 04:20 PM

I agree hiding behind a crate to pop out and sneak attack isn't going to work. You don't get advantage from being hidden. You get advantage from being unseen, so popping your head out makes you seen. (PHB 194-195)
.

Actually you do get advantage when attacking from hiding. You might want to read that section again. Hmmm.... I think *you* may want to reread what he wrote.

His point, which I think is valid, is if you are 'Hidden" behind a crate, but someone knows you are there and is paying attention, as soon as you 'pop up' to take a shot, you are no longer unseen (thus no longer Hidden), and will *not* get advantage.

This is partly why I don't care about the semantics as much. Sure, you can be 'hidden' behind that obvious crate.... there just isn't much benefit from it.

I understand that you may feel strongly... but you are being very aggressive with your posts.

coredump

2015-04-24, 04:25 PM

I don't really care about the semantics behind the word "Hidden." To me it's a catch all term for the idea that others aren't completely sure of what you're doing. In the lone crate scenario, it's not that the enemy isn't pretty sure of where you are (though there's the shenanigans SharkForce mentioned like going invisible), it's that he/she can't prepare for what you're doing. He/she might be expecting you to fire a crossbow bolt, but when exactly are you going to pop up? Will you stand straight up, or lean to the right/left and fire?I kinda think the opposite is true.

Picture two rogues targetting you. One (A) is standing in the open, 20' away. The other (B) is hiding behind a crate, 20' away.

So (A) can see you and aim at you the entire time. All he needs to do is pull a trigger when he sees an opening. How much warning does that give?
While (B) doesn't know where you are, must first 'pop up', get the target, then pull the trigger.
It sure seems like (B) is telegraphing his attack a *lot* more than (A) needs to. Sure (B) could shoot from the left or the right side, but (A) could easily lean left or right also.... doesn't do much

Giant2005

2015-04-24, 04:37 PM

How would you handle a second (or third) attempt at Hiding in the same spot. Would you allow it? Not allow it? Allow with disadvantage? ...??

It depends on the situation. In a big, chaotic battle I could see a second shot from the same location being semi-okay. If that Rogue with his sneak attack was inflicting significantly more damage than anyone else and didn't kill his target, I'd give him disadvantage on the hide check. If someone else was doing the majority of the damage then that person would capture the observer's attention enough that the check would be made regularly. The third shot would move everything one more scale to disadvantage as in if the Rogue was doing the most damage, hiding from that position would now be impossible and if he was still firing without penalty, then he would now have disadvantage.
In the featureless room with nothing but a crate scenario, a second attempt would always be a failure - after the first shot (successful or not) it would be pretty obvious that the Halfling still intends to put up enough of a fight to be a threat.

Battlebooze

2015-04-24, 06:56 PM

Gah this thread makes my head hurt. If I ever make a rogue, I'm going Barbarian 2 for reckless attack. That way I don't have to worry about it.

Xetheral

2015-04-24, 07:11 PM

Gah this thread makes my head hurt.

Yeah... I'm sort of confused as to why Wizards has a recurring problem writing coherent hiding rules. Hiding 3.5 was fine. In SAGA edition hiding was basically non-functional and no two tables played the same. 4e worked, with some oddities. 5e is the worst yet, with no one being able to agree what hiding means, let alone on how to become hidden or stay hidden or attack while hidden.

Malifice

2015-04-24, 09:54 PM

It's worth noting that the rules distinguish between when you can hide and what it takes to remain hidden after hiding.

Hiding can be done at any time, however it won't be useful vs a creature that can see you when you make the attempt, although it would still be effective vs everyone else. (PHB 177 in the text box)

Seeing someone who is already hidden is a passive perception vs the stealth check OR active perception vs the stealth check for someone actively searching. (PHB 177 in the text box)

You don't have to have any level of obscured sight to hide, you just can't be actively observed at that moment. Someone still might not notice you, even if you are in a normally lit envornment. (Previous sections mentioned and PHB 178, description of how perception works indicates players might not see someone lurking in shadows which are on page 183 described as dim light, which in turn is described a lightly obscured.)

Attempting to hide vs Remaining Hidden.

The crux of your question is that Wood Elves and Halflings get extra situations in which they can attempt to hide. Where a Human could not attempt to hide in heavy rain when someone is present, a wood elf could.

However, a human can easily remain hidden in heavy rain so long as they hid with no one observing them. Observation only impacts the attempt.

So to answer the thread title, no anyone can hide in combat. The wood elf and halfling just have an easier time doing it.

None of this is true by RAW or RAI.

But if this is how you want it to work in your campaign then go for it.

Gwendol

2015-04-25, 01:15 AM

Nope. Vogon got it right.

Malifice

2015-04-25, 03:28 AM

.Hiding can be done at any time

No it can't. You can't rehide after hitting someone with an attack from hiding, and you can only do it if you miss if you have the Skulker feat. See: attacking from hiding and the Skulker feat.

You also can't hide from a creature while it observes you.

You don't have to have any level of obscured sight to hide, you just can't be actively observed at that moment.

Incorrect. The rules clearly state you need concealment or cover to hide behind. Wood elves can do it behind light obscurement. Halfling a can do it behind medium creatures. Everyone else needs cover or total concealment to do it.

See: invisibility. It grants you total concealment to hide in.

, a human can easily remain hidden in heavy rain so long as they hid with no one observing them.

Find the rule that allows this. Please provide me a reference?

How are they hidden if I walk around the corner and look right at them through the rain? Wood elves can do this (specific race trait let's then do it in natural surroundings).

Why have a trait that lets them hide in light obscurement - if they can do it anyway! All the trait does is stop them from hiding in light obscurement in unnatural surroundings!

Nope. Vogon got it right.

See above.

Quintessence

2015-04-25, 03:35 AM

In my eyes a Halfling can jump behind someone to hide in combat because at that point they have some form of obscurement and meet the requirements. Even if the creature was observing them they still don't know where the Halfling is going to pop out from and shoot his arrow for example. Thus granting the advantage in a somewhat logical way. So hiding in combat seems 100% possible.

coredump

2015-04-25, 08:30 AM

No it can't. You can't rehide after hitting someone with an attack from hiding, and you can only do it if you miss if you have the Skulker feat. See: attacking from hiding and the Skulker feat.

You also can't hide from a creature while it observes you. You are factually wrong. Skulker has nothing to do with 'rehiding' after an attack, it deals with missing and *still* being hidden.
You can rehide after an attack, many DMs will rule it is harder or impossible depending on how many hiding places are available and other environmental issues.

Incorrect. The rules clearly state you need concealment or cover to hide behind. Wood elves can do it behind light obscurement. Halfling a can do it behind medium creatures. Everyone else needs cover or total concealment to do it. No, the rules say no such thing. Otherwise, please quote the rule you are referring to. You can't hide if someone can see you.... there are others ways to meet that condition without concealment.

See: invisibility. It grants you total concealment to hide in. Logic flaw. Invisibility and concealment is one way that people "can't see" you.... it is not the only way.

Find the rule that allows this. Please provide me a reference? The rule that allows you to take an action, so you take the Hide action. Now, please provide the rule that says you can't remain hidden while obscured?

How are they hidden if I walk around the corner and look right at them through the rain? Wood elves can do this (specific race trait let's then do it in natural surroundings). Same way people hide in shadows, or behind a bush, or in a tree..... thats why some people are better at hiding than others.
Are you saying its just as easy to see someone in a heavy rain as a sunny day?

It funny, I think his view on Hiding is pretty close to yours. But you are so bent on being aggressive and attacking based on minutia you seem to miss that fact.

Gwendol

2015-04-25, 09:11 AM

Malifice, you are mixing language and rules between 3e and 5e. It's confusing.
In 5e you can't hide while you can be seen (general rule). Heavy obscurement breaks line of sight meaning that's a condition in which you can hide. Gaining cover through other means may also allow you to hide.
Wood elves and lightfoot halflings can try to hide even when only lightly obscured (specific rule) under certain conditions, as do those with the skulker feat.
Hiding is an action.

Them be the rules.

coredump

2015-04-25, 10:20 AM

In 5e you can't hide while you can be seen (general rule).

I don't quite agree... I think the actual rule has a small, but important, difference.

Saying that you "can be" seen just means that it is possible.
Saying that you can't hide if someone "can see" you, means that they actually do see you.

Its like the Wheres Waldo cartoons... of course Waldo "can be" seen... he is drawn right on the page.
But that doesn't mean you "can see" waldo each time.

A *potential* line of sight isn't enough, they have to actually see you.

Malifice

2015-04-25, 11:07 AM

It funny, I think his view on Hiding is pretty close to yours. But you are so bent on being aggressive and attacking based on minutia you seem to miss that fact.

Sorry if I sound agressive. Like I said, its your game and play it however you want. I'm repeating myself now, and its clear youre set in your views and your interpretation of the RAI and RAW, and so am I, so I'll bow out.

Enjoy your game.

Vogonjeltz

2015-04-29, 07:22 AM

No it can't. You can't rehide after hitting someone with an attack from hiding, and you can only do it if you miss if you have the Skulker feat. See: attacking from hiding and the Skulker feat.

You also can't hide from a creature while it observes you.

I distinguished between the absolute objective and subjective senses of hiding. You can hide from other creatures while still not being hidden from one that observes you take the hide action.

And, provided you're in the right conditions, you can rehide even after your location has become known. Skulker does three things, two of which are pertinent: 1) It emulates the Wood Elf and Halfling abilities, allowing a character to hide from a creature while lightly obscured (whereas being in visual range would normally require heavily obscured) and 2) It stops your location from being revealed by a miss, ergo you remain hidden.

Skulker is not required to re-hide after a miss, and if the attack were made from a heavily obscured area it's entirely possible to miss and then re-hide. Although it's very likely an enemy would search the last area you shot from, so further stealth checks to quietly move locations would be advisable.

Incorrect. The rules clearly state you need concealment or cover to hide behind. Wood elves can do it behind light obscurement. Halfling a can do it behind medium creatures. Everyone else needs cover or total concealment to do it.

See: invisibility. It grants you total concealment to hide in.

No, the rule states that "You can't hide from a creature that can see you". A heavily obscured creature can always hide, but what it's not saying is that a creature needs must be heavily obscured to hide.

Find the rule that allows this. Please provide me a reference?

How are they hidden if I walk around the corner and look right at them through the rain? Wood elves can do this (specific race trait let's then do it in natural surroundings).

Why have a trait that lets them hide in light obscurement - if they can do it anyway! All the trait does is stop them from hiding in light obscurement in unnatural surroundings!

Regarding remaining hidden, the PHB Page 177 text box on Hiding: "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence." and "Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching." (passive goes on to detail the method used for generating the passive check). All on page 177 of the PHB.

Regarding being hidden in the rain, they are hidden by concealing evidence of their presence, that's as specific as the use of the stealth skill gets.

You're still conflating the act of hiding with remaining hidden. Those are two distinct and separate things. Here's how this would function: A Wood Elf can, in front of somsone, step into a blizzard and hide from that person. A Human can not. A Human with the Skulker feat can. All three can do the same thing absent any observation at all and remain hidden in general until such time as someone beats their stealth check with either a passive perception score or an active perception check.

Malifice

2015-04-29, 08:16 AM

And, provided you're in the right conditions, you can rehide even after your location has become known. Skulker does three things, two of which are pertinent: 1) It emulates the Wood Elf and Halfling abilities, allowing a character to hide from a creature while lightly obscured (whereas being in visual range would normally require heavily obscured)

I read it as only allowing hiding in light concealment when no-one is observing the attempt (same with Wood elves).

Yore inferring they can hide in light concealment (when observed). Nothing in the text of that ability overrides the prohibition on hiding while being observed. It just changes what you can hide in.

Skulker is not required to re-hide after a miss,

It is required. The rules for attacking from hiding state: If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

if the attack were made from a heavily obscured area it's entirely possible to miss and then re-hide.

Not without the Skulker feat it's not possible. See above. The game assumption is that once a creature makes an attack from hiding, hit or miss, it reveals its location. Even if its invisible.

No, the rule states that "You can't hide from a creature that can see you". A heavily obscured creature can always hide, but what it's not saying is that a creature needs must be heavily obscured to hide.

This is one of the most commonly misinterpreted passages in the PHB. The above is not a game rule term -what it is saying is the plain common sense english meaning of the above sentence.

As in: You cant play Hide and Seek when the 'seeker' is watching you go into your hiding spot. Climbing into the closet in full view then closing the door (blocking the 'seekers' LOS) doesnt make you 'hidden' from that person.

LOS is always going to be broken by someone hiding. Being hidden requires being unseen (and unheard) - both are preconditions to being hidden in fact. Reading 'You cant hide from a creature that can see you' as meaning 'an observed creature can always hide, by simply using its movement on its turn to move behind cover, and then use its action to hide' is disengenous, gamist and against common sense.

A Wood Elf can, in front of somsone, step into a blizzard and hide from that person.A Human with the Skulker feat can.

No they cannot. You cant hide from someone that is watching you.

They COULD do it in a blizzard if no-one was watching them make the attempt. They would then remain hidden (barring passive or active perception revealing their presence) from anyone who then wandered past in visual or hearing range.

Example: A Human and a Wood Elf are chatting in the rain. The wood elf cannot make a hide attempt against the Human as the human is directly observing him. The wood elf is alerted by his familiar that a dwarf is approaching from a distance away. The Wood elf can now attempt to hide in the rain (hide relative to the approaching dwarf that is outside of observation distance, but not hide from the human observing him). The human will need to get some cover or total concealment to hide behind (or have the Skulker feat) or he is going to be noticed. As the Dwarf approaches, he will notice the human automatically (unless the human found somewhere to hide), but need to beat the Elfs steath check with his perception score or fail to notice the Elf.

Lets assume the human has a large tree to hide behind, but flubs his Steath check. The Elf hides in the rain (its all he needs) and rolls well. The dwarf approaches, and his passive perception beats the humans steath result. The Dwarf notices the Human trying to hide behind the tree, but fails to notice the Elf standing in the open in the rain with Bow drawn and arrow nocked, looking straight at him.

The human (at all times) is aware of both the Elf (as he was observing him the whole time) and the Dwarf. The Dwarf is only aware of the Human. He has no idea the Elf is there (the Elf is hidden). The Elf is aware of both.

If the Elf spoke, he would be automatically revealed to the Dwarf (in addition to likely scaring the crap out the Dwarf) and would no longer be hidden (hidden means unseen and unheard).

Once the Elf reveals himself, he cannot attempt to hide again while the Dwarf and the Human remain observing him.

Example 2: A Wood elf is spying on a dwarf family through a window of a house while the Elf stands outside in the daytime in pouring rain. The inhabitants fail to notice the wood elf (passive perception). The Dwarf father walks outside the door, and the Elf doesnt have enough time to find cover. Before the door opens, the Elf makes a steath check to hide in the pouring rain, 5 feet away from the front door and directly in front of it. The Dwarf opens the door and looks around (making an active perception check). If the Dwarf fails the check, the Elf (standing 5 feet away) is not noticed. The Elf could swing his sword at the Dwarf (with advantage no less) likely scaring the **** out of the little bearded fellow in the process.

Even more creepy, if the Elf missed with the attack and had the Skulker feat, he could continue to swing his sword at the Dwarf from 5 feet away untill the Dwarf finally made his perception check to notice what was happening.

A human with Skulker could do the exact same thing.

If the Dwarf decided to walk to his neighbors house, the Elf could follow him in the rain (as he only needs light concealment to hide behind) from 5' away with the dwarf totally oblivious to his presence.

If the Elf had a Human buddy watching the whole thing from a house across the road, at no stage could the elf hide from that human. The human could keep tabs on the Elf as light concealment doesnt break LOS -It just allows the elf to hide in light concealment when not being observed. The human could watch the whole thing unfold. That said, if the Human quickly wend downstairs for a toilet break, and the Elf choose to hide at that time (while the Human wasnt watching the whole thing) the Elf would be as hidden from the Human as he is from the Dwarf (depending on perception checks of course).

That might sound weird to you, but its no different to me and my buddy sitting in my lounge room. My buddy decides to hide in the closet across from me (while I watch him). He isnt hidden from me. Then a few seconds later my girlfriend enters the room. I am not hidden from her, but my friend is (untill he reveals himself).

Hidden means more than just 'not being seen'.

Example 3: A human, a dwarf, a wood elf and a halfling are chatting in a snowy forest and decide to play a game of hide and seek. The Dwarf tells the others to hide, then closes his eyes and counts to 20. While the Dwarf isnt observing, the human runs away and finds a tree to hide behind (and makes a hide check). The elf simply smiles and hides in the falling snow. The halfling (who was watching the Elf) decides to be even more sneaky; he hides behind the Wood elf! (being a medium creature, he can tail in on the Elfs ability to hide in light concealment by hding behind the Elf while the elf hides in that concealment).

When the Dwarf opens his eyes, he makes a perception check opposed by the hide checks of the other three.

We getting there yet? If the dwarf kept his eyes open, he would have noticed the whole thing, and no one would be hidden from him. He would have been observing them attempting to hide. Cover, and concealment (light or otherwise) is irrelevant in this case.

SharkForce

2015-04-29, 10:00 AM

you're fixating on hiding locations where it is impossible to move around as your example, and assuming that you must be heavily obscured to maintain stealth, which is just silly. in the rain example, the elf could hide (become unseen) for a moment in the rain and then simply move and you would have no idea where they are any more. you knew where they started hiding. but if you didn't make the perception check to see them when they hid, too bad.

you're also assuming that your location being known is the same thing as not hiding. you can give away your position and still be hidden. after all, an invisible person can ALWAYS hide. not "can hide as long as they first move somewhere else" (precisely how you imagine they're going to move somewhere else and not be noticed when they can't hide until they're not noticed is beyond me).

now, your location may be obvious. then again, it may not (magic is a thing in D&D, after all). but you can still use stealth, whether you're hiding behind something obvious or not. the ease with which someone can remove your obscured status may change with your choice of hiding location (if it's really obvious where you are, i would probably say that light rain does not provide light obscurement when you're only a foot away, for example). but you can still hide.

Malifice

2015-04-29, 10:51 AM

you're fixating on hiding locations where it is impossible to move around as your example, and assuming that you must be heavily obscured to maintain stealth, which is just silly.

No, the PHB mentions that if you can move from a place to hiding to another place of hiding (without a creature observing you) you can hide again.

Personally if I was DMing and a creature started the encounter hidden, he could move to another place of hiding as long as it was reasonable - i.e. the DM rules no-one was looking, they were distracted or whatever. (Similar situation to approaching a creature from hiding; assuming they are distracted or looking the other way).

After all they've already missed you (passive stealth didnt pick you up). If it was possible they might notice you (but werent actively looking) I would allow you to move from hiding location to hding location (in the open) by either requiring another stealth check to make it, or granting a +5 (passive perception at advantage) to the creature that missed you originally and comparing that to your Stealth check.

in the rain example, the elf could hide (become unseen) for a moment in the rain and then simply move and you would have no idea where they are any more.

Firstly, hiding does not make you unseen. It does not render you invisible. If the elf is being observed, he cannot hide.

Secondly, a hidden Elf can move and stay hidden in light concealment. Light concealment for the Elf is no different from heavy concealment (pitch blackness and similar) for a Dwarf.

you knew where they started hiding. but if you didn't make the perception check to see them when they hid, too bad.

If they knew where you started hiding, youre not hidden.

See where youre getting confused yet?

you're also assuming that your location being known is the same thing as not hiding. you can give away your position and still be hidden.

No, you cant. The PHB clearly states this. If you attack from hiding (barring Skulker) you give away your postion. You are no longer hidden. The target (at least) knows exactly where you are.

after all, an invisible person can ALWAYS hide.

Yes, they can. Note this is not 'an invisible person is always hidden'. The reason an invisible person can always hide is that they cant ever be observed when attempting to hide. The specific (the invisible condition saying 'you can always attempt to hide') overrules the general prohibition.

Example of invisible creature in combat:

Wizard cast greater invisiblity. Then (the following round, as he is treated to be in heavy concealment now) he takes the Hide action rolling a 15 (total) on his Stealth check. He walks down the corridoor and enters a room filled with 6 Orcs.

The Orcs have a passive perception of 10. They fail to notice the Wizard (and have no reason - yet - to actively search for him).

The Wizard attacks an Orc with his longsword (he's looking for some sport to work on his melee skills). He misses the Orc, but luckily our Wizard has the Skulker feat. The Orcs are still oblivious to his presence.

Then; he swings at the Orc again, this time hitting. After resolving his damage, the Orc is still up. Instantly, his position is revealed. (see the rules for attacking from hiding). The Orcs move to surround him, attacking (with disadvanatage due to invisiblity).

On our Wizards next turn, he attempts to hide again (as an Action as he does not have cunning action). He can make this attempt as he can always attempt to hide (thanks to invibility) and also as he has total concealment (also thanks to invisibility). Lets assume he rolls a 15 (again).

Now, its the Orcs turn again. The first Orc doesnt know where the Wizard is now. He uses his action to make a Perception check searching for the Wizard (this time an active perception check). He rolls a 14 narrowly failing. The Wizard is still hidden - the Orc can literally not attack the Wizard as he does not know where the Wizard is. This process repeats untill an Orc makes the DC15 notcing the wizard, calling out to his friends exactly where the Wizard is. The Wizard is now - no longer hidden. He can be attacks (albeit at disadvantage thanks to invsibility) by any remaining Orcs till the Wizards next turn (when he can attempt to Hide again, or perhaps just blow the Orcs to death with a Firebal).

Notice how an invisible Rogue can simply use his bonus action every turn to be essentially un-attackable thanks to cunning action? Notice how coupling that with Expertise (stealth) makes for a pretty impressive combo?

now, your location may be obvious.

If it Is obvious where you are, (and I am objectively correct in my state of mind) you are not hidden from me.

I may not be able to see you, but I know where you are (and I am correct).

Remember; being invisible is not being hidden. 'Not being seen' and 'being hidden' are different things. One implies nothing more than one of my senses (sight) cannot detect you. Youre no more 'hidden' by being in a position where I can no longer see you (but can hear you, or otherwise know yo are there by watching you go there), than you are 'hidden' when I am deaf and cant hear you but am looking straight at you.

'Hidden' means more than that. It means 'unaware of your location, and unable to percieve your exact presence'. If I know were you are (I saw you go there for example) you cannot hide from me, regardless of whether you make the skill check behind total cover when you get there or not.

Apply common sense to it man. Thats all I'm asking.

SharkForce

2015-04-29, 11:41 AM

an invisible creature can hide, whether you know their position or not. an invisible rogue can stab someone right in the face and immediately hide, in spite of everyone knowing exactly where the rogue was when the rogue made the stealth check. if the rogue fails the stealth check miserably and is surrounded by a bunch of enemies and penned in, that rogue can still hide on their next turn. in the same way, a wood elf rogue can use the benefit of light obscurement as provided by rain or fog or similar things, because for a wood elf rogue, rain or fog that lightly obscures is enough to hide behind. there is nothing that says that someone's knowledge of your position prevents you from hiding. not when you're invisible. not when you're a wood elf in light fog. not when you're hiding behind a rock that is the only obvious hiding place in an area.

they might know your position (at the time you gave it away), but that doesn't mean they can see you or prevent you from hiding.

Giant2005

2015-04-29, 11:46 AM

'Hidden' means more than that. It means 'unaware of your location, and unable to percieve your exact presence'. If I know were you are (I saw you go there for example) you cannot hide from me, regardless of whether you make the skill check behind total cover when you get there or not.

The bolded part is where you stray from both the truth and what is reasonable.
If you watch someone run into a closet, their hide check is the deciding factor of whether or not you notice them when you open that closet door when looking for them. You know where they are, you know they are in the closet but that is of no help at all if you fail your perception and didn't look up before the "hider" jumped down from above the doorway and attacked you. The hide check is what determines whether or not you put yourself into that one place within that known location that the observer didn't look.

Vogonjeltz

2015-04-29, 04:12 PM

I read it as only allowing hiding in light concealment when no-one is observing the attempt (same with Wood elves).

Yore inferring they can hide in light concealment (when observed). Nothing in the text of that ability overrides the prohibition on hiding while being observed. It just changes what you can hide in.

It doesn't say "when no-one is observing the attempt", indeed nothing says you can't hide regardless of the level of obscurement (no concealment in 5th, that's a 3.5e notion).

I'm reading the ability as written: "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by..." Note it reflects only the attempt, not maintaining a hidden state. They can absolutely hide in lightly obscured areas that are natural, that isn't even up for debate.

It is required. The rules for attacking from hiding state: If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

And skulker stops you from having to hide again, it doesn't allow you to hide again, you simply aren't revealed. Nothing written there suggests the attacker can't hide again.

Not without the Skulker feat it's not possible. See above. The game assumption is that once a creature makes an attack from hiding, hit or miss, it reveals its location. Even if its invisible.

Wrong, skulker only stops the location from being revealed. Even a character whose location has been revealed can then rehide.

This is one of the most commonly misinterpreted passages in the PHB. The above is not a game rule term -what it is saying is the plain common sense english meaning of the above sentence.

As in: You cant play Hide and Seek when the 'seeker' is watching you go into your hiding spot. Climbing into the closet in full view then closing the door (blocking the 'seekers' LOS) doesnt make you 'hidden' from that person.

LOS is always going to be broken by someone hiding. Being hidden requires being unseen (and unheard) - both are preconditions to being hidden in fact. Reading 'You cant hide from a creature that can see you' as meaning 'an observed creature can always hide, by simply using its movement on its turn to move behind cover, and then use its action to hide' is disengenous, gamist and against common sense.

No it's not. If the character moves out of sight, say by going into another room, and then hides, they are hidden, that's common sense, not gamist. It's literally how the game hide and seek works.

No they cannot. You cant hide from someone that is watching you.

Yes, they absolutely can, it's written in the ability description. The second half is correct, but does not relate to the former, the Lightfoot Halfling's Naturally Stealthy trait makes this abundantly clear: "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you."

Hiding where others could be seen. Wood Elves can make the hide attempt in rain where non-Wood Elves could otherwise be seen. Anyone can remain hidden.

Fwiffo86

2015-04-29, 05:24 PM

No it's not. If the character moves out of sight, say by going into another room, and then hides, they are hidden, that's common sense, not gamist. It's literally how the game hide and seek works.

This example does not support your position. It supports the opposite position.

You have demonstrated how a person who is being actively viewed, breaks line of sight, becomes unable to be viewed, and then hides.

Proving that a person who is actively being seen/viewed cannot hide. They can however, assume total cover, and then consequently hide. The middle step is the important distinction.

Vogonjeltz

2015-04-29, 09:09 PM

This example does not support your position. It supports the opposite position.

You have demonstrated how a person who is being actively viewed, breaks line of sight, becomes unable to be viewed, and then hides.

Proving that a person who is actively being seen/viewed cannot hide. They can however, assume total cover, and then consequently hide. The middle step is the important distinction.

In the same fashion, the hiding character does so in front of someone. They are now hidden from everyone else.

A halfling would be able to step behind an Orc and hide from it's friends, then stealth behind another Orc and hide from the first one, effectively hiding from them all. Just like in Lord of the Rings.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 02:02 AM

an invisible creature can hide, whether you know their position or not. an invisible rogue can stab someone right in the face and immediately hide, in spite of everyone knowing exactly where the rogue was when the rogue made the stealth check.

I agree. But the reason they can do it (and no-one else can) is detailed in the invisible condition where it reads: 'an invisible creature can always attempt to hide'.

The specific of the condition overrules the general prohibition on hiding when your position is revealed.

if the rogue fails the stealth check miserably and is surrounded by a bunch of enemies and penned in, that rogue can still hide on their next turn. in the same way, a wood elf rogue can use the benefit of light obscurement as provided by rain or fog or similar things, because for a wood elf rogue, rain or fog that lightly obscures is enough to hide behind.

Not true. All the Wood elf ability does is allow the Wood elf to hide in light obscurement. The racial trait does not allow the Wood elf to circumvent the rule that prohibits the Wood elf from hiding while being observed. It simply changes what the Wood elf can hide behind.

Where you are getting confused is you are misinterpreting 'you cant hide from someone that can see you' to mean that a creature being watched can simply break LOS relative to another creature then make a hide attempt.

That sentence does not mean 'you can make a hide attempt (stealth check) from a creature any time you are in full cover or concealment relative to that creature'. It means the ordinary common sense meaning of the phrase where what creatures do is not broken up by 'move then action'. The sentence means what it means i - it means 'if another creature observes you going into your hiding spot (attempting to hide), you can not be hidden from them'

there is nothing that says that someone's knowledge of your position prevents you from hiding.

Yes, there is. Being hidden means: 'I don't know your position'. It doesn't mean: 'I cant see you'.

If I know your position, I know where you are. You are not hidden from me. Get it yet?

If you watch someone run into a closet, their hide check

I stopped reading there. If I watch someone run into a closet, they cant make a hide check (relative to me). I know where they are. They are not hidden from me.

That situation does not change simply because the 'hider' closed the closet door first (breaking my LOS/ observation). Again, you are reading 'you cant hide from a creature that can see you' as meaning 'you cant make a hide (stealth check) from someone that can see you unless you first break LOS' instead of reading it in plain English meaning of 'If a creature watches you go into your hiding spot you cant hide from them'

You know where they are

If I know where they are, they are not hidden from me.

Hidden literally means 'I don't know where it is' it does not mean 'I cant see it'.

I'm reading the ability as written: "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by..." Note it reflects only the attempt, not maintaining a hidden state.

Yep; and when the Elf is lightly obscured, A creature standing in from of them can still see them. The ability lets the Elf make the attempt when lightly obscured. If at the time the Elf makes the attempt to hide they are being observed, they can not attempt to hide.

Nothing in the Elf ability overrides the general prohibition on hiding while being observed.

Just like a Human cannot jump inside a box in full view of Harry the Orc and then attempt to make a hide check relative to Harry (and regardless of whether the human closed the lid or not), an Elf cannot step behind light obscurement and try to make a hide check while being observed.

The human could climb inside a box in an empty room while not being observed, close the lid and make a hide check. Then when Harry the Orc wandered in - as long as the humans stealth check beats Harrys perception check - Harry walks past the box oblivious to the humans presence.

An Elf can do exactly the same thing. He can hide in the middle of a football stadium in the pouring rain... as long as no one is watching him make the attempt.

And skulker stops you from having to hide again, it doesn't allow you to hide again, you simply aren't revealed. Nothing written there suggests the attacker can't hide again.

So the only advantage of skulker (to you) is it allows you to keep your original hide check result?

Wow.

Even a character whose location has been revealed can then rehide.

I 100 percent disagree. If I know where you are, you are not hidden from me.

No it's not. If the character moves out of sight, say by going into another room, and then hides, they are hidden, that's common sense, not gamist. It's literally how the game hide and seek works.

It only works if the seeker lacks knowledge of where the hider is.

Play hide and seek with a mate at home. Watch them crawl under the bed, or into a closet and try to 'hide' there. They can close the closet door and try to be as quiet as they want, but it doesn't matter. While you cant see them under the bed or in the closet, you know exactly where they are - so they are not hidden from you. You will simply open the door or peer under the bed and find them.

Same deal in the game. If a creature watches a Human duck behind a tree, the Human cannot then attempt to hide broken LOS or not. The creature watched the Human go into hiding and knows exactly where the Human is. It might be a different story if the creature was distracted for a few rounds (allowing the Human to move to a position where the creature no longer knows where the Human is).

Giant2005

2015-04-30, 02:10 AM

I stopped reading there.

And I stopped reading here.
You opinion means nothing if you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and ignore any thoughts or evidence that don't support your perspective. you sir, have lost all credibility.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 02:41 AM

And I stopped reading here.
You opinion means nothing if you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and ignore any thoughts or evidence that don't support your perspective. you sir, have lost all credibility.

Mate, I was being flippant. Chill out.

I've given my reasons. Play it how you want.

Gwendol

2015-04-30, 03:24 AM

Firstly, hiding does not make you unseen. It does not render you invisible. If the elf is being observed, he cannot hide.

Apply common sense to it man. Thats all I'm asking.

Please practice what you preach. I think hiding and stealth is all about being unseen and unnoticed. For a Wood Elf or Lightfoot Halfling, being in the right conditions is like turning invisible; (mechanically) in that they can hide in plain sight.
You keep conflating 3.5 and 5e rules and terms for hiding. It's an easy enough mistake to make, but it has been pointed out enough times now for you to stop.

On invisibility (PHB p 291):

Invisible
• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the
aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of
hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s
location can be detected by any noise it makes
or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage,
and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.

So no, an invisible attacker is still impossible to see without the aid of magic or special sense. In your example, the wizard reveals his position when attacking, but is not prevented to move after striking to confound the orcs. Since it's impossible to see him they don't know where he is and thus can't target him for attacks. They can try and attack a square (with disadvantage), or actively search for traces and the like, but all that comes at a cost.
Notice that the wizard does not have to spend an action to hide if invisible, he can just keep moving since the orcs are unable to see him. They may be able to track his movements by sound, but 6 orcs harrassed by an invisible attacker will likely make enough noise themselves to drown out any robe shuffling the wizard makes.

Gwendol

2015-04-30, 03:51 AM

Not true. All the Wood elf ability does is allow the Wood elf to hide in light obscurement. The racial trait does not allow the Wood elf to circumvent the rule that prohibits the Wood elf from hiding while being observed. It simply changes what the Wood elf can hide behind.

Where you are getting confused is you are misinterpreting 'you cant hide from someone that can see you' to mean that a creature being watched can simply break LOS relative to another creature then make a hide attempt.

That sentence does not mean 'you can make a hide attempt (stealth check) from a creature any time you are in full cover or concealment relative to that creature'. It means the ordinary common sense meaning of the phrase where what creatures do is not broken up by 'move then action'. The sentence means what it means i - it means 'if another creature observes you going into your hiding spot (attempting to hide), you can not be hidden from them'

Where do you find these rules? They're not in the PHB. Breaking LOS absolutely means you can hide.

Here's the rules and examples for applying DEX (Stealth) checks:

Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you
attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past
guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on
someone without being seen or heard.

Furthermore, they detail the rules for hiding in the sidebar. In essence it boils down to:

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until
you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is
contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature
that actively searches for signs of your presence.
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.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you is the only restriction. Breaking LOS totally fullfills the requirement, and in the game this can be done in an area of heavy obscurement, turn invisible, or get behind cover. Now, if you hide behind an open door it does not take much intelligence to figure out where you went, and so the enemy can attempt to pin you behind the door, run you through, or swing the door shut to reveal you again. But it doesn't stop you from hiding.
Those that can hide under light obscuration can essentially vanish from sight where others are still fully visible. It still costs them an action though, and if conditions change they may not be able to stay hidden.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 03:53 AM

Please practice what you preach. I think hiding and stealth is all about being unseen and unnoticed.

Now you're starting to get there.

For a Wood Elf or Lightfoot Halfling, being in the right conditions is like turning invisible; (mechanically) in that they can hide in plain sight.

That is not what the ability says it does. It only changes the things they can hide behind, it does not allow them to do it while being observed.

Your reading of the ability is wrong. In effect you are giving them invisibility at will (in the right conditions) as a racial trait.

So no, an invisible attacker is still impossible to see without the aid of magic or special sense.

I agree they are impossible to see. But if they are not using Stealth to hide while invisible (which they can always do), their position is known (they can be heard). They are not hidden. You can walk right up to them and attack them, or shoot them with your bow or whatever.

You still attack them at disadvantage. If they make a hide check (which they can always attempt thanks to invisibility), you no longer know where they are. Until they break hiding (such as by making an attack, or making a sound) they (generally speaking) can not be attacked because they are hidden from you. You no longer know where they are.

In your example, the wizard reveals his position when attacking, but is not prevented to move after striking to confound the orcs.

Yep, and the Orcs hear him walking (or smell him or whatever). They can follow his position with sufficient accuracy that they can attack him over and over and over again (until the Wizard makes another successful hide check, at which point the Orcs cannot attack him because then - and only then- the Orcs dont know where he is)

Since it's impossible to see him they don't know where he is and thus can't target him for attacks.

Nope. That's what hiding does. Hidden means unseen AND unheard remember.

If the Wizard cast invisibility on his turn in full view of the Orcs, even if the Wizard then used his movement to walk away from the Orcs after casting the spell, he could still be attacked by the Orcs before the Wizards next turn (barring a few corner cases if the Wizard was also able to hide as a bonus action on his turn via a Rogue dip, or had action surge and was able to Cast+Hide in the same turn).

The Orcs attack at disadvantage of course thanks to invisibility.

The wizard needs two actions. Cast a spell + Hide.

They can try and attack a square (with disadvantage), or actively search for traces and the like, but all that comes at a cost.

They dont have to search for him (active perception check) unless the Wizard is hidden. Invisibility does not make you 'automatically' hidden. It simply enables you to (always) be able to make a hide check via the Hide action.

Until the wizard takes the Hide action, his position is known and he can be attacked.

Notice that the wizard does not have to spend an action to hide if invisible,

Yes, he does. Invisibility only enables the Hide attempt (and allows one to always make such an attempt, regardless anything else). It provides total concealment AND allows you hide when your position is known (The condition clearly states: when you are invisible you can always attempt to hide'). It does not say: 'when you are invisible you are always hidden' or even 'when you are invisible you can attempt to hide without using an action'.

Invisibility is just an enabler of hiding. And a potent one at that, A Rouge with a cloak of invisibility could use his action to attack and then his bonus action from cunning action to hide (while invisible) in order to be virtually unable to be attacked in return. If he had the Skulker feat, he would even remain hidden after making an attack and missing, and not have to use his bonus action to re-enter hiding.

You are (again) confusing 'cant be seen' with being hidden. They are not the same thing.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you is the only restriction. Breaking LOS totally fullfills the requirement,

No it does not. The phrase you quoted does not mean: You can take the Hide action when you cant be seen at the start of your action.

The sentence means what it means in normal everyday usage: When you are being observed you can not attempt to hide.

As in: If you and I are playing hide and seek, and I watch you go into your hiding spot, you are not hidden from me while you are in that spot. It doesnt matter if you cover yourself with a blanket first, you are not in any way shape or form, hidden. I may not be able to see you, but I know exactly where you are.

You're reading that sentence totally wrong. 'Hide' in that context means 'go into hiding' not 'take the Hide action'

Gwendol

2015-04-30, 04:03 AM

Malifice

2015-04-30, 04:10 AM

You read my sentence in a way not intended by me, sorry for being unclear. What I meant to say was that the wizard, instead of spending an action to hide, can use his actions for other things, since he still can't be seen. Sure, the orcs may be able to hear him move (if actively listening), but that doesn't help much. They are spending their actions to search for the wizard.

They don't have to do anything of the sort (unless the Wizard has used the Hide action).

It works like this:

Round 1:

Wizards turn: Uses his action to cast invisibility. Walks 30' away.

Orcs turn: The Orc walks 30 feet up to where the Wizard is and attacks (at disadvantage). The wizard is still not hidden.

Round 2:

Wizards turn: Uses action to Hide. Rolls a 15. Walks 15' away (half movement to maintain stealth).

Orcs turn: Searches for Wizard. Rolls perception. Gets a 12 and fails. The Orc now has no idea where the Wizard is and thus cannot attack him. Moves to put his back against the wall.

Round 3:

Wizards turn: The Wizard is now hidden and can remain so (keeping his roll of 15) if he chooses. He decides to instead pull out his Xbow and shoot the Orc. He misses, but as this Wizard has the Skulker feat, he does not give away his position (as he missed) and thus remains hidden.

Orcs turn: He uses his action to search for the Wizard again Gets a 14. Still not good. He does however notice a crossbow bolt sticking in the wall that wasn't there a few seconds ago. Decides discretion is the better part of valor, and moves 30' out of the room.

And so on.

Gwendol

2015-04-30, 04:10 AM

No it does not. The phrase you quoted does not mean: You can take the Hide action when you cant be seen at the start of your action.

The sentence means what it means in normal everyday usage: When you are being observed you can not attempt to hide.

As in: If you and I are playing hide and seek, and I watch you go into your hiding spot, you are not hidden from me while you are in that spot. It doesnt matter if you cover yourself with a blanket first, you are not in any way shape or form, hidden. I may not be able to see you, but I know exactly where you are.

You're reading that sentence totally wrong. 'Hide' in that context means 'go into hiding' not 'take the Hide action'

It totally means take the hide action since it says so on page 192.

I also note that the quoted sentence does not say what you are implying. It says that if you can't be seen by the creature you want to hide from you can hide. Others may still be able to see you, but you will be hidden from the target creature.

Gwendol

2015-04-30, 04:13 AM

They don't have to do anything of the sort (unless the Wizard has used the Hide action).

It works like this:

Round 1:

Wizards turn: Uses action to cast invisibility. Walks 30' away.

Orcs turn: Walks 30 feet to Wizard and attacks (at disadvantage).

Round 2:

Wizards turn: Uses action to Hide. Rolls a 15. Walks 15' away (half movement to maintain stealth).

Orcs turn: Searches for Wizard. Rolls perception. Gets a 12. Fails. Has no idea where the Wizard is and cannot attack him.

Round 3:

Wizard is now hidden and can remain so (keeping his roll of 15) if he chooses. He decides to instead pull out his Xbow and shoot the Orc. He misses, but as this Wizard has the Skulker feat, he does not give away his position and remains hidden.

Orcs turn: He uses his action to search for the Wizard again Gets a 14. Still not good. Does notice a crossbow bolt sticking in the wall that wasnt there a minute ago. Decides discretion is the better part of valor, and moves 30' out of the room.

And so on.

Right, because being impossible to see without magic or special senses means absolutely nothing. LOL!

Malifice

2015-04-30, 04:22 AM

It totally means take the hide action since it says so on page 192.

No, it does not. It uses 'hide' in the everyday use of the word 'hide' not in the 'game action: Hide' meaning.

As in if you and I were sitting down, having a chat and I said to you 'hide in this room'. And you said back to me 'I cant hide while you're watching me'.

Right, because being impossible to see without magic or special senses means absolutely nothing. LOL!

Cant be seen is not = to being hidden. They are totally different things! The PHB is crystal clear on this.

You are not hidden if you 'knock over a vase or cough' (from the PHB). Hidden is taken to mean being both unseen AND unheard (also from the PHB). Being invisible (alone) does NOT make you 'hidden' (PHB again). etc etc

You only become hidden when you take the Hide action. Being invisible only enables the hide attempt in the first place. The game assumes that you are making enough noise (if you have not taken the Hide action) so that your position can still be reasonably adduced by those creatures around you.

You still get disadvantage on attacks made against you, and get to make your attacks at advantage thanks to being invisible though. And you get to take the Hide action whenever you damn well want to. Its a neat spell. Rogues love it for many reasons (bonus action to Hide after each attack to render themselves un-attackable in return is very strong).

But being invisible does not make you hidden be default. You can still be attacked until you take the Hide action (and even afterwards assuming a high enough perception check or a crappy enough Stealth check to hide)

Gwendol

2015-04-30, 06:58 AM

Now you seem to be making stuff up.

On page 192: (actions in combat, under Hide)

When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity
(Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules
in chapter 7 for hiding.

The rules for hiding are found in the hiding sidebar.

Being hidden in combat has a meaning, it means you benefit from the rules of Unseen attackers. When you are invisible you are unseen for all except those with magical means or special senses. That does not include standard orcs. Being hidden relates only to sight (as given by the requirement of obscuration) although the stealth check covers that and moving stealthily, just as perception covers sight and sound. You can't necessarily hide from something with blindsight, and for an animal with acute olefactory senses your skill at hiding, or indeed magic invisibility will do little to mask your presence. If you make noise when hidden, the game rules say you give away your position, but you may still be out of sight.

It is possible for characters and monsters to be stealthy without using the hide action. The game gives numerous examples. A gelatinous cube is transparent (not invisible) and it still requires a DC 15 perception check to be spotted in plain sight. Without having to hide.
Rangers (of sufficiently high level) can hide in plain sight without having any cover or degree of obscuration.

Also, regarding the orc example you provided, I have to assume they were all rangers of level 18 or higher since they seem to have acquired the necessary ability Feral Senses to track the invisible, but not hidden wizard.

At 18th level, you gain preternatural senses that help
you fight creatures you can’t see. When you attack a
creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t
impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it.
You are also aware of the location of any invisible
creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the
creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t
blinded or deafened.

If you succesfully hide (= beat an enemy perception check in a skills contest) you are unseen and unnoticed. Unless in combat, you can then use your stealth skill to "slink past
guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard."
In combat the rules say awareness is much higher, and so coming out of hiding (whatever conditions are employed) means it will usually see you. If distracted you can sneak up on someone even in combat, and an invisible creature can always gain advantage on the attack (because it can't be seen).

Let me be very clear here: a distracted creature is still able to see you. There is nothing obstructing sight in that example, yet a distraction provides the means for a creature to stay hidden (in plain sight) in order to get a jump on an enemy even in combat. Out of combat, this is modelled by the stealth vs perception roll (active or passive).

Malifice

2015-04-30, 07:55 AM

Being hidden in combat has a meaning, it means you benefit from the rules of Unseen attackers.

That is not the meaning of being hidden in combat, thats the main benefit of it, but I otherwise agree.

It is possible for characters and monsters to be stealthy without using the hide action. The game gives numerous examples. A gelatinous cube is transparent (not invisible) and it still requires a DC 15 perception check to be spotted in plain sight. Without having to hide.
Rangers (of sufficiently high level) can hide in plain sight without having any cover or degree of obscuration.

I agree. However both these abilities are exceptions to the general rules. If anything they prove my point; not work against it!

Invisibility does not make you 'hidden'. You still have to make a Steath check via the Hide action or it is assumed that nearby creatures know where you are (you are not hidden from them).

Also, regarding the orc example you provided, I have to assume they were all rangers of level 18 or higher since they seem to have acquired the necessary ability Feral Senses to track the invisible, but not hidden wizard.

I take the Feral Senses ability to provide the ability to a Ranger to autmatically detect the location (and thus automatically defeat any attempts to Hide) of any non hidden invisible creature within 30' of the Ranger. Effectively the Rangers class feature overrides the general rule about invisible creatures being always able to Hide.

I interpret the prohibition on using Feral senses to automaticaly detect a hidden invisible creature to mean a Ranger still needs to make a Perception check to find an invisible creature that is already hidden (just like everyone else has to). Once the Ranger 'locks on' though, its no more hiding attempts for that invisible creature (unless they can move more than 30' away from the Ranger).

If you succesfully hide (= beat an enemy perception check in a skills contest) you are unseen and unnoticed.

And unheard. 'Hidden' also includes being unheard.

Let me be very clear here: a distracted creature is still able to see you. There is nothing obstructing sight in that example, yet a distraction provides the means for a creature to stay hidden (in plain sight) in order to get a jump on an enemy even in combat. Out of combat, this is modelled by the stealth vs perception roll (active or passive).

I agree. A hidden creature could (subject to the DM) move from total cover up behind an opponent (say a distracted or lazy guard) and remain hidden before launching a surprise attack. If he had the Skulker feat and missed, he would remain hidden after the attack and could keep swinging at the distracted guards back while the poor fool looks the other way. Likewise a hidden creature could (again DM dependent) move from one hiding spot to another across open ground and remain 'hidden' (assuming the creature he is hidden from is looking the other way). Same deal as how you can Hide outside of a house, and remain 'hidden' despite sneakily peering in through the window at the occupants inside preparing dinner.

I'm not saying its impossible to Hide in combat. Im just saying the general rule is that creatures are aware of whats going on around them, and if they see you go into your hiding spot (which they are generally assumed to do) then you are not hidden from that creature. OTOH, its perfectly reasonable for the DM to allow a Rogue (or whoever) who is hiding and scouting to wait for an opponent to turn away from him and look the other way before leaping out, moving 15' and knifing that opponent in the back (with all the benefits of hiding), or to allow a Rogue to re-hide in combat in any situation where he rules the opponent is sufficiently distracted and not looking at the Rogue to enable such an attempt.

The advantage of being a Halfling or a Wood elf is that both races can hide in a wider variety of things. Other races (that dont have the Skulker feat) need to find either cover or total obscurement (and be able to make it into that cover or concealment without being noticed) to make another Hide attempt.

I'm just saying that re-hiding in combat requires exceptions to the general rule, and in most combats while you can start the encounter hidden (indeed halflings can start almost every encounter hidden as they have a mobile source of cover in the party Fighter to hide behind prior to opening any dungeon doors!), generally you cant then attempt to re-hide in that same combat unless the DM rules your opponent is no longer observing you at the start of any turn when you want to make such an attempt.

Xetheral

2015-04-30, 10:30 AM

Hawkstar

2015-04-30, 10:41 AM

Your reading of the ability is wrong. In effect you are giving them invisibility at will (in the right conditions) as a racial trait. Stealth is like invisibility, but more powerful, and only applies in the right conditions. Everyone has "invisibility at will (in the right conditions)" as a system trait. Elves and halflings simply have a few more conditions that are considered "right".

Malifice

2015-04-30, 10:45 AM

Malifice, your interpretation of the hiding rules is well-thought out and largely self-consistent. However, the hiding rules are vague, and there is nothing in them that makes your interpretation of what hiding means any more correct than those who are debating you.

In 5e, hiding might work (or have been intended to work) the way you describe. But it also might not. Sadly, the rules don't say one way or another.

For sure man. Everyone is going to interpet every rule differently. Thats why I loathe 'RAW' arguments generally. No rule exists sans interpretation by a human; the text does not exist as an objective thing in and of itself (without getting to postmodern here).

I'm only giving my interpretation of the rule based on my reading of the RAW and RAI and applying my own common sense.

Its up to each group how they want to play it. If the 'jack in the box' halfling rogue or wood elf appeals to your play style, then by all means go for it.

I personally view the rules as making a clear distinction between simply 'not being seen' on one hand, and being 'hidden' on the other. The latter implies (to me at least) much more than simply not being seen. It implies a lack of sufficient specificity of knowledge of where a creature or object 'is'.

The way I see it, if you and I are in a room with a single box, you can't crawl into the box in full view of me, close the lid and be considered 'hidden' from me (although you do have total obscurement now, and depending on the material of the box, maybe even total cover). I know exactly where you are; I saw you enter hiding. A game of hide and seek would be over very quickly in this case!

However if another creature then walks into the room, you are hidden from that creature (but still not from me) assuming your Hide check beats its passive perception score. If the creature uses the Search action it gets another chance to find you (by beating your Hide check result). If the creature opens the box and looks in there, you are automatically found by the creature (no check required).

Thats how I play it anyways. Like I said though, each to their own.

Giant2005

2015-04-30, 10:52 AM

Malifice

2015-04-30, 11:02 AM

If the observer watched someone crawl into the box and consequently "knows" where they are and that "hider" teleports elsewhere (Behind the observer will do for the example), does the "hider" need to make a hide check at all?

That would actually enable the Hide check. The 'hider' is now not observed, and the observer has no idea where he is (or to be more precise, he erroneously thinks he is still in the box).

When the observer opens the box, he will realise this error, and likely start looking around and making Search actions (perception checks) to locate the dude he saw pop in there. If the 'hider' is still in the open (for example he just teleported to a blind spot behind the creature he is now hiding from) then the simple act of turning his head and looking in the hidden creatures location automatically reveals the creature (cant hide when you are being observed). As it would if a guard suddenly turned his head while you snuck up behind him.

Schroedingers Halfling and all that.

I would also allow a creature who can break observation, and then move to a different spot (double back around for example) to attempt a Hide check.

The only requirements for mine for someone to 'Hide' is that their position is not known with sufficient precision by the person they seek to hide from. Obviously observing them gives you sufficient precision. The observer and potential hider being relative to each other.

People get way too 'gamist' with Te hiding rules. If you just apply a bit of common sense on it, it all works out fine.

Giant2005

2015-04-30, 11:09 AM

I would also allow a creature who can break observation, and then move to a different spot (double back around for example) to attempt a Hide check.

The only requirements for mine for someone to 'Hide' is that their position is not known with sufficient precision by the person they seek to hide from. These things are relative to each other.

Aren't those two mutually exclusive concepts?
If you can't hide while someone knows where you are, then you couldn't possibly double back around anywhere due to being unable to hide and conceal your noises. They would always know where you are as if they had some kind of radar.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 11:20 AM

Aren't those two mutually exclusive concepts?
If you can't hide while someone knows where you are, then you couldn't possibly double back around anywhere due to being unable to hide and conceal your noises. They would always know where you are as if they had some kind of radar.

Thats too literal an interpretaion of it. By that logic if I know a creature is in the same city as me, it can't hide from me.

You're missing the fact the observer needs to have sufficient precision with his knowledge of where you are. Once that's broken (DM call) then you can attempt to hide again.

A creature could simply guess your position correctly, be alerted to where you are by an ally or similar to locate you.

It's exactly the same thing with hidden objects. Say a key is hidden under a cup on a desk. You state your player is searching the desk. I grant a perception check v a DC. If you state your player is specifically looking under the cup, you find the key automatically. If someone who knows where the key is tells you where it is, you no longer need a check to find it either.

Same deal with hiding creatures. A PC spots a hidden creature he can point it out to the other PCs. They now know it's there, and it's no longer hidden (although they still might not be able to see it) Only one PC needs to find a secret door and then they all can see it (once he points it out to them). And so forth.

Just apply common sense as to when a thing can be hidden (not just unseen) from someone else.

Giant2005

2015-04-30, 11:22 AM

DM call

That is pretty much why we will never agree on this - I prefer to let the dice make that call. Different playstyles I guess.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 11:26 AM

That is pretty much why we will never agree on this - I prefer to let the dice make that call. Different playstyles I guess.

For sure. 5th editions rubbery skill system must bug you immensely!

Xetheral

2015-04-30, 11:35 AM

For sure. 5th editions rubbery skill system must bug you immensely!

It certainly bugs me. Sure, for my home games I can houserule and work around it. But the built-in confusion makes pickup games or AL games a lot harder by requiring more pre-game communication with the DM. You can't just make a skill-based character from the book and expect to have any idea how it will function at the table.

Heck, it means that when building characters for fun, and not for any particular game, building stealth-based characters isn't enjoyable, because they have all these unanswered (and without a DM, unanswerable) questions hanging over them.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 11:57 AM

It certainly bugs me. Sure, for my home games I can houserule and work around it. But the built-in confusion makes pickup games or AL games a lot harder by requiring more pre-game communication with the DM. You can't just make a skill-based character from the book and expect to have any idea how it will function at the table.

Heck, it means that when building characters for fun, and not for any particular game, building stealth-based characters isn't enjoyable, because they have all these unanswered (and without a DM, unanswerable) questions hanging over them.

I can understand that gripe, but as they say, a good DM is worth his weight in gold!

On that topic, you could very well have a DM that views skill DC's as subjective values instead of objective ones. For example he could rule that while breaking an iron bar with a strength check is impossible for a low level PC, it's totally within the realms of what a high level PC could accomplish (more like 4e's system).

Personally I use objevtive values, but can certainly see some merit in the other way of doing it.

coredump

2015-04-30, 01:52 PM

Malifice, I understand your ruling of no hide check being possible if the observer "knows" where you are but is the opposite also true under your rulings? If the observer watched someone crawl into the box and consequently "knows" where they are and that "hider" teleports elsewhere (Behind the observer will do for the example), does the "hider" need to make a hide check at all? By your ruling, he should automatically be hidden by the Observer knowing where he is and being wrong.
Certainty should work both ways.

I think part of the issue is purely semantics.

Lets say you can crawl in the box and Hide. So what? What does that give you?

Unlike Malifice, I have no problem with someone Hiding behind a crate, even if I know they are behind the crate. But we get to the same conclusion.... it doesn't do them any good.

So Malifice and I can argue about whether the rogue is Hidden or not hidden, but that is just a term.... its like arguing if the glass should be called "half full" or "half empty".

My suggestion, instead of folks getting caught up debating whether you can hide behind a crate when someone knows you are behind the crate..... see if you can agree on what that means in the game.

Fwiffo86

2015-04-30, 01:56 PM

My suggestion, instead of folks getting caught up debating whether you can hide behind a crate when someone knows you are behind the crate..... see if you can agree on what that means in the game.

Means you have total cover = whatever bonus that equates to.... AFB

coredump

2015-04-30, 02:02 PM

SharkForce

2015-04-30, 02:26 PM

Not necessarily.

My rogue popped up from a ditch and shot the lizardman. The rogue then ducked down, and used Stealth to move down the ditch and come up by a fallen tree. I had, in essence, used the terrain and my stealth to 'double back' so the lizardman not only could not see nor hear nor smell me....but had no reasonable guess as to where I was.

Similarly, a rogue stands up behind a 4' stone wall and takes a shot, then ducks back down. The rogue could now move up to 30' in either direction and Stealth/Hide. That alone may be enough 'lack of precision' to allow the rogue to be hidden *without* moving...

Luckily, the game is designed to have a DM around to adjudicate these situations.

except that according to malifice they know where you are, and can simply track you by sound until you make a hide check, but you can't make a hide check until they can no longer track you by sound.

thus, it is self-contradictory. you can literally be invisible and the only reason he'll let you hide is because invisibility always allows it, supposedly as a special exception.

so, based on his ruling, you duck back down behind the wall, and while it is absolutely enough cover for you to hide behind, and you could absolutely plausibly move around to another location in it - exactly like a halfling hiding behind a person (particularly in a combat scenario with multiple people) could do, or a wood elf in lightly obscuring fog could do - but since they know your location, you can't hide. and since you can't hide, they can continue to track you.

of course, then he comes in and backpedals and insists that his ruling doesn't mean that, and yet, that is absolute contradiction to how he insists it works.

i say you either do or do not have enough cover to hide. if you choose a bad hiding place, then it will be very easy for your opponent to remove your cover, but you can still hide. he insists that it is impossible to hide unless they are completely unaware of you, and in the wall example, they may not be able to see you, but they are definitely aware of your presence.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 02:49 PM

of course, then he comes in and backpedals and insists that his ruling doesn't mean that, and yet, that is absolute contradiction to how he insists it works.

I didnt backpedal at all. I have been consistent with 'its a DM's call'. There isnt a precise 'in game' way of adjudicating when exactly a creature knows your position with sufficient accuracy.

As a general rule, I have no problem with allowing a creature in a trench as you described possibly attempting to move to a different part of the trench (using a Dexterity stealth check and moving at half speed to move silently) to reach a different place of hiding, then slowly crawling up to launch another ranged attack from hiding.

Youre being way too gamist here, and trying to break everything down into a 'rules trumps reality situation'. I get that you prefer your games that way, but the rules for hiding are designed to be vauge and left to the DM's interpretation. The Devs have said as much. Personally, I prefer a common sense interpretation of 'hiding' and 'hidden'; you clearly prefer to roll a dice and compare numbers according to a defined hiding flowchart of rules and regulations. I get that. If that works for you, then go for it.

Im a little reminded of the drowning rules of 3.x and how they caused your Hit points to become zero when you failed a Fort save. I get the feeling that you would allow a Creature on -8 HP to suck in a lungful of water from a 'healer', voluntarily fail its save (which it is allowed to do) and then have its HP reset to zero... because 'rules'.

Thats not how I personally roll. Hidden means what it means when I discuss it with my mates at the pub, and not some abstract game term that one gets to be by following a bunch of RAW that makes no sense.

If crawling into a box, closing the lid (in full view of the enemy) popping out of the box and then attacking with advantage because you are now 'hidden' feels better to you, then play it that way. I play it differently.

coredump

2015-04-30, 03:15 PM

except that according to malifice they know where you are, and can simply track you by sound until you make a hide check, but you can't make a hide check until they can no longer track you by sound.

thus, it is self-contradictory. you can literally be invisible and the only reason he'll let you hide is because invisibility always allows it, supposedly as a special exception.

There is, I think, more to it than that.

1) I have not seen Malifice assert that you will always 'just know' where someone is. (not saying he didn't)
2) The rules do say it is possible to track someone by sound, but does not say it is automatic
3) Thus in certain situations (ie quiet night, leaves in the ditch, etc) it makes sense that the can (or may) track you as you move down the ditch.
4) You could also Stealth down the ditch to hide the sounds of your movement

so, based on his ruling, you duck back down behind the wall, and while it is absolutely enough cover for you to hide behind, and you could absolutely plausibly move around to another location in it - exactly like a halfling hiding behind a person (particularly in a combat scenario with multiple people) could do, or a wood elf in lightly obscuring fog could do - but since they know your location, you can't hide. and since you can't hide, they can continue to track you. I believe that you are equating "can't hide" with "can be easily tracked".... I don't think they equate, and I don't think he is saying they equate.

i say you either do or do not have enough cover to hide. if you choose a bad hiding place, then it will be very easy for your opponent to remove your cover, but you can still hide. .Lets take it a step further. There is one crate, and the rogue ducks behind it and 'Hides'.
What does that mean to you? Does he get to attack with Surprise? Does he get Advantage? Sneak Attack?

coredump

2015-04-30, 03:24 PM

As a general rule, I have no problem with allowing a creature in a trench as you described possibly attempting to move to a different part of the trench (using a Dexterity stealth check and moving at half speed to move silently) to reach a different place of hiding, then slowly crawling up to launch another ranged attack from hiding.
1) What if they don't use Stealth? Do you play they are automatically tracked? Or does it depend on other variables?
2) Do you always make Stealth be at 1/2 movement rate?

ad_hoc

2015-04-30, 03:58 PM

Where Malifice loses me is the consequences of hiding or not hiding.

I am behind the simple language and common sense ruling about whether you can hide.

I have objection to things like not being allowed to attack a square you think an invisible creature is in because it successfully made a hide check.

Vogonjeltz

2015-04-30, 04:09 PM

I agree. But the reason they can do it (and no-one else can) is detailed in the invisible condition where it reads: 'an invisible creature can always attempt to hide'.

Point of order. This is exactly the same phrasing used for the Wood Elf and Halfling racial abilities and the Skulker feat: "attempt to hide". They can attempt to hide in specific conditions where others might be seen.

Your contention that someone who is lightly obscured can be seen is unfounded. They might be seen, but there are in fact rules on perception checks vs creatures that are lightly obscured. Not surprisingly, it's harder to see them.

Yep; and when the Elf is lightly obscured, A creature standing in from of them can still see them. The ability lets the Elf make the attempt when lightly obscured. If at the time the Elf makes the attempt to hide they are being observed, they can not attempt to hide.

Nothing in the Elf ability overrides the general prohibition on hiding while being observed.

Just like a Human cannot jump inside a box in full view of Harry the Orc and then attempt to make a hide check relative to Harry (and regardless of whether the human closed the lid or not), an Elf cannot step behind light obscurement and try to make a hide check while being observed.

The human could climb inside a box in an empty room while not being observed, close the lid and make a hide check. Then when Harry the Orc wandered in - as long as the humans stealth check beats Harrys perception check - Harry walks past the box oblivious to the humans presence.

An Elf can do exactly the same thing. He can hide in the middle of a football stadium in the pouring rain... as long as no one is watching him make the attempt.

As shown above, these are not the case. The Skulker feat means that a Human could hide in both Light or Heavy obscurement. However, against a Dwarf (darkvision) they would only be able to hide in Heavy Obscurement, whereas a Human without the Skulker feat could not (though they could remain hidden if the Dwarf just showed up).

Being lightly obscured interferes with seeing, which is exactly why a Wood Elf and Halfling or Skulker can hide while lightly obscured.

So the only advantage of skulker (to you) is it allows you to keep your original hide check result?

Wow.

No, and I didn't write that, please don't try to insert words that I didn't use. The other relevant advantage of Skulker is you can attempt to hide while lightly obscured, which is superior to the certain types of lightly obscured that the Wood Elf and Halfling get.

I 100 percent disagree. If I know where you are, you are not hidden from me.

Again, I did not write that. I wrote that the character can then rehide. That means make a hiding attempt. And being hidden is not a prerequisite to hide. If that were the case nobody could hide, ever, under any circumstances.

It only works if the seeker lacks knowledge of where the hider is.

No, that's not a requirement to hide. The one and only requirement for attempting to hide is that the seeker can not see the hider. That's it. General knowledge of the hiding location actually isn't enough.

Play hide and seek with a mate at home. Watch them crawl under the bed, or into a closet and try to 'hide' there. They can close the closet door and try to be as quiet as they want, but it doesn't matter. While you cant see them under the bed or in the closet, you know exactly where they are - so they are not hidden from you. You will simply open the door or peer under the bed and find them.

Unless of course they climbed up the walls of the closet, or are behind some clothes, or it's too dark to see under the bed with normal vision. All that's really needed is a few seconds of not being seen (i.e. passively noticed) and that enables a sneak attack.

In a game of tag I hid under a hedge simply by lying prone and motionless. After a minute or so my friend rounded the house and, thinking it would also be a good hiding place, also crawled under the hedge. Despite being inches from me, he never noticed until I tapped him on the shoulder to tag him it.

Same deal in the game. If a creature watches a Human duck behind a tree, the Human cannot then attempt to hide broken LOS or not. The creature watched the Human go into hiding and knows exactly where the Human is. It might be a different story if the creature was distracted for a few rounds (allowing the Human to move to a position where the creature no longer knows where the Human is).

The sole game requirement to hide from a creature is that it can not see the hider. Everything else is something you're adding in.

Wizards turn: Uses his action to cast invisibility. Walks 30' away.

Orcs turn: The Orc walks 30 feet up to where the Wizard is and attacks (at disadvantage). The wizard is still not hidden.

No no no. Pages 194-195 "Unseen Attackers and Targets". If the Wizard moved, the Orcs don't know his new location, period. They can make an attack where they 'think' the Wizard is, but if he isn't in that location, they automatically miss. You're skipping a step entirely, and it's leading to errors down the line.

Aren't those two mutually exclusive concepts?
If you can't hide while someone knows where you are, then you couldn't possibly double back around anywhere due to being unable to hide and conceal your noises. They would always know where you are as if they had some kind of radar.

Dexterity (Stealth) check to sneak around, it's untethered to the Hide action.

It's exactly the same thing with hidden objects. Say a key is hidden under a cup on a desk.

That's a rather simplistic example, and all it really says is that it is certainly setup dependent on if something is evident or not. If we go by the example given in the book and the key is hidden under a pile of clothes in a drawer, they might open the drawer and rifle through the clothes, but it would require a perception check to determine if they found the key that way. A character might instead say they want to carefully sort through the clothes looking for any other objects, but that would require more time.

Finding a hidden object is entirely unlike trying to find a character who is actively hiding.

but since they know your location, you can't hide. and since you can't hide, they can continue to track you.

That's the fatal flaw in the argument he made, it's utterly dependent on his own homebrew rule. By the rules as written having some idea of the location has zilch to do with being hidden or not.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 04:14 PM

1) What if they don't use Stealth? Do you play they are automatically tracked? Or does it depend on other variables?

It always depends on other variables. Distance, environment, depth of the trench, the surface of the trench, other noises etc etc. I might allow automatic tracking, a perception check to track (at disadvantage, normally or advantage) or forbid one entirely. It depends on the circumstances.

2) Do you always make Stealth be at 1/2 movement rate?

Nope (although moving slowly helps). I note the 9th level Thief ability to gain advantage on Stealth checks when moving at half speed, and I dont want to step on its toes though. Perhaps my 'move at half speed' was a carry over from 3rd edition. I would certainly impose disadvantage for attempting to move silently while running/ dashing though.

As an example a player of mine recently wanted to sneak (invisibly) through a room packed with monsters. He took his boots off before making the attempt, and dropped all his heavy gear off too. I allowed the Stealth check to hide (he is invisible after all) to be made with advantage (as he was deliberately moving slowly, was walking barefoot, and had minimal heavy equipment).

It depends on the circumstances. I might also allow a perception check to be made at advantage to try and track hy sound a creature that is moving very fast through a muddy (puddle filled) trench.

I have objection to things like not being allowed to attack a square you think an invisible creature is in because it successfully made a hide check.

You most certainly can attack a random square. Nothing stopping you from blindly swinging your sword around you. As long as there is no 'meta' knowledge on behalf of the player (i.e. the DM has removed the miniature from the board and the player has no knoweldge of where the creature is, or rolls to randomly swing using a d8 to determine what square he attacks) I have no problem with it.

Defeating the invisible creatures Stealth result just tells you what square it is in (you still cant see it, even though it is no longer hidden from you). You can then attack it with more precision (albeit with disadvantage on the attack roll).

Point of order. This is exactly the same phrasing used for the Wood Elf and Halfling racial abilities and the Skulker feat: "attempt to hide". They can attempt to hide in specific conditions where others might be seen.

The abilities do not allow hiding while being observed. They dont even infer the ability to do so. They simply change what one of those races can hide behind.

The invisible condition OTOH clearly states 'when you are invsivle you can always attempt to hide'. The racial abilities make no similar provision for 'always'. They just allow you to hide behind stuff (light obscurement and people) where others cannot.

Your contention that someone who is lightly obscured can be seen is unfounded. They might be seen, but there are in fact rules on perception checks vs creatures that are lightly obscured. Not surprisingly, it's harder to see them.

It is harder to see them. But you can still see them. And thats why they cant hide.

As shown above, these are not the case. The Skulker feat means that a Human could hide in both Light or Heavy obscurement.

I agree thats what the skulker feat leats you do; literally one can hide in shadows with it. Just as long as you arent being watched before (or as you) make the Hide attempt. Youre being watched the whole time; ergo no hiding.

You could hide (in shadows) with Skulker in an empty room, and then retain your stealth check result as you move though down the corridoor remaining in the shadows. A creature with darkvision would reveal you instantly though without the need for a perception check.

Being lightly obscured interferes with seeing, which is exactly why a Wood Elf and Halfling or Skulker can hide while lightly obscured.

Im not saying they cant hide when lightly obscured. They just cant do it when theyre being watched in the attempt.

Again, I did not write that. I wrote that the character can then rehide. That means make a hiding attempt. And being hidden is not a prerequisite to hide. If that were the case nobody could hide, ever, under any circumstances.

Being hidden is not a prerequiste to taking the Hide action. Being able to get behind total cover or total obscurement without being observed, is (generally barring Skulker, halflings and elves and the such).

Youre conflating being hidden and not being able to be seen. They are different things.

No, that's not a requirement to hide. The one and only requirement for attempting to hide is that the seeker can not see the hider. That's it. General knowledge of the hiding location actually isn't enough.

Your knowledge of where the hider is isnt general. Its totally specific. If I saw you climb into a box and close the lid, I know you are in that box. If the reality of my knowledge matches the objective reality (i.e. you are in the box I saw you go into) you are not hidden from me, nor can you make an attempt to Hide from me.

You can make the hide attempt of course (stilling your breath and being quiet). And that result would be compared to anyone trying to find you. But the dude who saw you climb in there doesnt need a perception check to find you. He knows exactly where you are. He just needs to walk over to the box and open the damn lid!

In a game of tag I hid under a hedge simply by lying prone and motionless. After a minute or so my friend rounded the house and, thinking it would also be a good hiding place, also crawled under the hedge. Despite being inches from me, he never noticed until I tapped him on the shoulder to tag him it.

I'm assuming you were in what the game refers to as total obscurement then. That being the case, you and your friend both gained the blinded condition when you entered the hedge, meaning you couldnt see each other. You on the other hand heard him climb into the hedge. In other words YOU OBSERVED HIM CLIMBING INTO HIS HIDING SPOT AND MAKING HIS HIDE CHECK (in this case, you heard him climb into his hiding place rather than watched him). Accordingly his Hide check was not relevant to you; he wasnt hidden from you (although he probably was to other people that didnt see or hear him climb in there).

At no stage was he 'hidden' from you. At every stage you were hidden from him (he obviously failed his perception check to hear you breathing a metre away). The instant you touched him, you revealed yourself. You were no longer hidden to him. He didnt need to make a perception check to notice you anymore because you were no longer 'hidden'.

As he now also knows where you are, you cant suddenly re-hide in the same spot, and this is despite him not being able to see you in the heavy bush. He knows where yo are, and will hear you if you move anywhere else.

If you can somehow move somewhere else without making sound (something next to impossible in the hedge), and he no longer knows where you were, you could attempt another hide check relative to him again.

Get it yet?

No no no. Pages 194-195 "Unseen Attackers and Targets". If the Wizard moved, the Orcs don't know his new location, period.

Where are you getting that information from? The invisible conditon simply allows the creature to always hide; it does nothing to make you atomatically hidden. The assumption is that your space can still be targetted unless you take the Hide action (at which point it becomes guess work for the poor Orcs).

Just like you can be attacked (for one round at least, at disadvantage) if you run into total darkness. They hear you in there. The following round you could move again, make a Hide check (as you werent observed making the attempt thanks to the darkness, and your position is not known with sufficient precision) and you couldnt be attacked again (barring a fluky guess of what square you are now in, followed by a succesful attack roll at disadvantage).

Finding a hidden object is entirely unlike trying to find a character who is actively hiding.

How so? How (in your mind) is me searching a house looking for a hidden person different from me seatching the house looking for hidden baseball bat? If I know where either are before starting my search, then I am guaranteed to find them (unless the person moves of course, in which case I no longer know where it is)

Xetheral

2015-04-30, 05:14 PM

For sure man. Everyone is going to interpet every rule differently. Thats why I loathe 'RAW' arguments generally. No rule exists sans interpretation by a human; the text does not exist as an objective thing in and of itself (without getting to postmodern here).

I'm only giving my interpretation of the rule based on my reading of the RAW and RAI and applying my own common sense.

I’m glad we agree, but it sounds a lot like you’re insisting that your own interpretation is correct. Consider, for example, your statement:

The abilities do not allow hiding while being observed. They dont even infer the ability to do so. They simply change what one of those races can hide behind.

Rather that stating your interpretation, this sounds like a declarative statement about what the rules say, and yet you agreed with me above that these rules are ambiguous to the point that they don’t have a correct interpretation.

Similarly, you’ve said this quite a lot:

Get it yet?

If there is no objectively correct interpretation then there is nothing to “get”.

Youre being way too gamist here, and trying to break everything down into a 'rules trumps reality situation'. I get that you prefer your games that way, but the rules for hiding are designed to be vauge and left to the DM's interpretation. The Devs have said as much. Personally, I prefer a common sense interpretation of 'hiding' and 'hidden'; you clearly prefer to roll a dice and compare numbers according to a defined hiding flowchart of rules and regulations. I get that. If that works for you, then go for it.

(Emphasis added). Unfortunately, there are multiple common sense interpretations of what it means to hide. It is possible for someone to be using “common sense” and still disagree with you.

Im a little reminded of the drowning rules of 3.x and how they caused your Hit points to become zero when you failed a Fort save. I get the feeling that you would allow a Creature on -8 HP to suck in a lungful of water from a 'healer', voluntarily fail its save (which it is allowed to do) and then have its HP reset to zero... because 'rules'.

There is quite a large gap between disagreeing with you on how the hiding rules should be interpreted and actively allowing one of the most extreme rules loopholes in D&D history.

Where are you getting that information from? The invisible conditon simply allows the creature to always hide; it does nothing to make you atomatically hidden. The assumption is that your space can still be targetted unless you take the Hide action (at which point it becomes guess work for the poor Orcs).

This is another point where the rules are unclear, and posters here have multiple reasonable interpretations. In 3.5, being invisible was frequently sufficient to deny enemies knowledge of your location, even if you didn’t try to hide or move silently. In 4e, everyone was aware of an invisible opponent’s location unless that opponent was also hiding. Sadly, because the language in 5e is so vague, we don’t know whether the rules are closer to 3.5, closer to 4, or something else entirely.[/QUOTE]

Gwendol

2015-04-30, 05:15 PM

Your example with the orcs and the invisible wizard makes it painfully obvious the meaning of invisibility is not the same for you and me. Hiding is not a skill, stealth is. Hiding is an action. Being invisible means you can't be seen making the action to hide superfluous. A stealth check to slip past the orcs unnoticed is enough.
That's how skills work.

Telok

2015-04-30, 05:26 PM

I was playing with my cat today and something occurred to me.

I put a cardboard box with some holes in the sides over the cat. I can no longer see the cat but I know where it is. I wiggle strings on either side of the box. The cat will pounce one or the other, I don't know which one. I try to pull the string away before the cat can get it.

Is my cat hidden? Can my cat ever be hidden in the box? Does my cat get advantage on the roll to get the string because I don't know which of the two strings will be attacked? If I leave and return I still know the cat is in the box because it is not turned over, is or can the cat be hidden? If I put my hand near the box does the cat have advantage because I don't know when or if my hand will be attacked? If a friend comes into the room and I tell them "there is a cat in that box" can the cat ever surprise them?

Malifice

2015-04-30, 05:52 PM

Rather that stating your interpretation, this sounds like a declarative statement about what the rules say, and yet you agreed with me above that these rules are ambiguous to the point that they don’t have a correct interpretation.

Actually I go one step further and state an objectively correct interpretation doesnt and cant exist. No text exists without subjective interpretation. Postmodernism and all that.

There can be consensus however.

Your example with the orcs and the invisible wizard makes it painfully obvious the meaning of invisibility is not the same for you and me. Hiding is not a skill, stealth is. Hiding is an action. Being invisible means you can't be seen making the action to hide superfluous. A stealth check to slip past the orcs unnoticed is enough.
That's how skills work.

Thats not the RAW man. Being invsible does not make the Hide action superflous. Remember being hidden is not just 'not being seen' The rules are clear on that. Being invisible simply enables the Hide action at all times.

Read the section in the PHB:

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. An invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.

This passage tells us:

Hiding is ruined by making noise (express wording). It is therefore more than just 'not being seen' (inference)
If you give away your postion, you are no longer hidden (inference).
An invisible creature is not automatically hidden, but it can always try to hide (express wording)
An invisible creature still gives away signs of its passage that might be noticed even though it is invisible (express wording) ergo if it hasnt taken the Hide action, it can still be targeted (inference)
An invisible creature has to stay quiet (express wording) if it is not using the Hide action and then moving while in total obscurement - which invisiblity 'counts as' for the purpose of hiding - it can be targetted (inference)

An invisible creatre is not automatically hidden. The last sentence even goes as far to say that unless the invisible creatre takes the Hide action (which it can always attempt to do, by virtue of being invisible) it gives away enough 'signs of its passage' and makes enough noise so that it is not considered 'hidden'. Only once it takes the Hide action it is now hidden

How does a creature 'not make noise' and 'conceal signs of its passage' in DnD? Via the Hide action and the steath skill, which our invisible creature can always attempt to perform (in the same round as becoming invisible if he is a Rogue or Fighter 2 via cunning action/ action surge, or a high level Ranger - or if someone else used its action to make him invisible, thus leaving his action to immediately take the Hide action).

You get one round (generally) to nail a creature that goes invisible (at disadvantage). After that they get to make a Hide action and - barring a crap Stealth check result that doesnt hit passive perception - are untargetable (barring a very lucky guess). Creatures now need to waste actions taking the Search action to find their location.

If the invisible creature attacks (or makes noise via verbal spell components or what not) it reveals its postion and can be targetted (with disadvantage) until it takes the Hide action again (making cunning action devastating with invisible creatures).

Xetheral

2015-04-30, 06:11 PM

Actually I go one step further and state an objectively correct interpretation doesnt and cant exist.

Thats not the RAW man. Being invsible does not make the Hide action superflous. Remember being hidden is not just 'not being seen' The rules are clear on that.

These statements appear to be incompatible.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 07:20 PM

These statements appear to be incompatible.

Consider the first to be a caveat on the second.

I did go on and explain the way I interpreted the text, replete with distinguishing between inferences and express text.

Feel free to disregard my interpretation though. Im not saying I am objectively correct. Im actually saying no-one can be. Im just putting forward my subjective interpretation of the text as I interpret the RAW like anyone else.

Hawkstar

2015-04-30, 09:10 PM

1) What if they don't use Stealth? Do you play they are automatically tracked?Yes, because they're making too much noise. In 5e, Actions and movement are decoupled - if you make a Hide check on your turn, it doesn't matter where you move after it.

Or does it depend on other variables?Always, and they are too numerous to make an exhaustive list, hence the vagueness in the stealth rules.

2) Do you always make Stealth be at 1/2 movement rate?This is baked into the stealth rules - by requiring a Hide action, you forego any other action, including Dash (Which lets you move your actual speed).

coredump

2015-04-30, 09:31 PM

Yes, because they're making too much noise. In 5e, Actions and movement are decoupled - if you make a Hide check on your turn, it doesn't matter where you move after it.

Always, and they are too numerous to make an exhaustive list, hence the vagueness in the stealth rules. It was an either/or question, and you said yes to both...
Either you can 'automatically' track them ..or.. your ability to track them will depend on other variables.

This is baked into the stealth rules - by requiring a Hide action, you forego any other action, including Dash (Which lets you move your actual speed).First, you don't have to Hide to Stealth. Second, you can Hide and still move your speed. Third, a rogue can hide, and move his speed, and Dash.
The question is if you require or assume a speed penalty when trying to Stealth.

Malifice

2015-04-30, 10:25 PM

First, you don't have to Hide to Stealth. Second, you can Hide and still move your speed. Third, a rogue can hide, and move his speed, and Dash.
The question is if you require or assume a speed penalty when trying to Stealth.

If youre not hiding (and you're not a Rogue 2, Monk 2 or a Fighter 2) you move 30' and can then use your action to dash 30' (effectively in any round you arent doing anything, you move 60'. Monks, Rogues and Fighters move faster (via bonus actions to dash, action surge allowing 2 dash actions etc).

Your options for movement in a round include: Hide + Move = move 30' (stealthily). Move + Dash = move 60'.

A Rogue 2 or Fighter 2 can also Hide + Dash + Move (move 60' stealthily). A Rogue 2 /Fighter 2 with the mobility feat can combine action surge with cunning action to Hide+Move+Dash+Dash (or move 105' stealthily) or Dash + Dash + Dash + Move (move 140')

Reduced movement for being stealthy is baked into the rules for actions and movement.

On your turn, your action can be used to Dash (move again). You usually have to forgo Dashing to Hide first 'slowing you down' to just using your Movement.

Gwendol

2015-05-01, 12:33 AM

Malifice

2015-05-01, 12:50 AM

Malifice, the rules are vague and, in fact, somewhat contradictory. What is the mechanical advantage of being invisible: attack with advantage, and counterattacks are made at disadvantage. That's it.
The rest is left to the DM.

No matter what, you still can't be seen when invisible, which means a contested stealth check covers any and all other ways of detection against creatures with humanlike senses.
Yes, you can hide at all times when invisible, but that's a consequence of not being seen, not a necessary requirement for avoiding detection (for most cases).

You keep adding the requirement that existed in 3.5: that you can't hide if someone is watching you, even casually. This is no longer the case. Only cover/obscuration remains (you can't hide if you can be seen).
This is the main cause of our differing views.

Invisiblitly allows 3 things; not 2.

It grants you advantage on Attack rolls and grants opponents disadvantage on Attack rolls against you, AND it allows you to always attempt to Hide.

I even quoted the passage that proves this.

And the requirement for hiding generally is that you can't hide when you can be seen. Full stop.

How are you interpreting that to mean 'you can't hide when you can be seen more than casually'?

Look mate. I'm only applying my own interpretation. Clearly you have your own that you prefer. I think you're wrong and not even considering the possibility this could be the case. I think you also probably think the same about my claims.

Ultimately neither of is are right, and both of us are. Play it how you want man.

Gwendol

2015-05-01, 01:50 AM

But? I'm thoroughly confused. You can hide when invisible because you can't be seen. It's not a special rule, but a consequence of the general rule.

Then you go on to cite the sole requirement for hiding and...? "Can be seen" and "is being watched" are not the same. You have been arguing that both conditions have to be fulfilled to allow hiding, while the rules only require the former.

You have stated this on several occasions, and that you are now back to a single requirement is... Strange to say the least.

Malifice

2015-05-01, 03:40 AM

And yet the one definition of hidden in the PHB is 'unseen and unheard'.

Gwendol

2015-05-01, 04:27 AM

And that relates to your various arguments how?

SharkForce

2015-05-01, 08:26 AM

a wood elf in rain has enough cover to become unseen, though. that's the thing. for them, running off into the rain far enough to be lightly obscured is the same as a human running behind some tall bushes and being heavily obscured. you might know their initial location within the obscured area, but you don't know where they went after that. you've got their starting point, but just like the human can move behind the bushes and hide, the wood elf can move into the rain and hide. now, if that elf doesn't move afterwards and you go to that square, the light obscurement is gonna be gone (light rain isn't going to obscure anything from 2 feet away) and the elf will no longer be hiding from you as long as the elf is standing there. but there is no reason the elf should be unable to use the adequate cover available (for the elf) to hide.

as for the box example, if the person you're hiding from is focusing their attention on that one spot, i'd give advantage to perceive things there and disadvantage to perception checks elsewhere (but wouldn't require an action) to represent the narrow focus. i would further add that they can just move to a location where the hiding person is no longer obscured, and that person will no longer be hidden.

but i would rule that it absolutely is possible for a person to hide behind (or inside) that box. when they pop out, if the observer does not make their perception check (likely at advantage) to beat the hider's stealth check, then yes the hider will get advantage on one attack, because they used their knowledge of how to deceive your senses and recognize when you're distracted to catch you when you weren't expecting it. just like a person skilled in sleight of hand can move an object around their body without you noticing, the person skilled in stealth is likewise skilled at moving their body without you noticing, and will use many of the same tricks. i could require that the person describe every trick as a requirement, but then, that would be silly because it would require that the player of a character with a +15 to their stealth score be the equivalent in real life, and i don't require that for anything else; i've never demanded that someone demonstrate proper sumo-wrestling technique to shove an enemy. i've never demanded that someone describe their research processes that would give them knowledge about an aspect of history. i've never required someone to prove that you can wield a sword and shield together effectively using the shield as an offensive tool before allowing them to apply the benefits of shield expert.

because that would defeat the purpose of playing a role-playing game. the whole point is that the character is not you, and has different limitations. if they are playing someone who is literally as agile as a human(oid) being can get who has devoted many weeks or months of training at stealth, they get to play that character without having to have a perfect understanding of all the techniques involved.

Vogonjeltz

2015-05-01, 04:20 PM

The abilities do not allow hiding while being observed. They dont even infer the ability to do so. They simply change what one of those races can hide behind.

The invisible condition OTOH clearly states 'when you are invsivle you can always attempt to hide'. The racial abilities make no similar provision for 'always'. They just allow you to hide behind stuff (light obscurement and people) where others cannot.

The abilities provide exceptions, allowing those characters to effectively not be seen in those circumstances.

I agree thats what the skulker feat leats you do; literally one can hide in shadows with it. Just as long as you arent being watched before (or as you) make the Hide attempt. Youre being watched the whole time; ergo no hiding.

You could hide (in shadows) with Skulker in an empty room, and then retain your stealth check result as you move though down the corridoor remaining in the shadows. A creature with darkvision would reveal you instantly though without the need for a perception check.

No, the skulker feat lets them try to hide from someone observing them. That's literally what it says: "You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding." If there was no one present to observe them then there would be no creature to hide from.

A creature with darkvision would still have to beat the stealth check, they'd just do it without suffering disadvantage in dim light and only have disadvantage in darkness.

Im not saying they cant hide when lightly obscured. They just cant do it when theyre being watched in the attempt.

The specific racial abilities say otherwise.

Being hidden is not a prerequiste to taking the Hide action. Being able to get behind total cover or total obscurement without being observed, is (generally barring Skulker, halflings and elves and the such).

Youre conflating being hidden and not being able to be seen. They are different things.

It doesn't matter if someone saw you enter cover or not. If they can't see you, you can hide. There's exactly 1 prerequisite to using hide and that is not being seen. That you were seen previously doesn't prohibit future actions.

Your knowledge of where the hider is isnt general. Its totally specific. If I saw you climb into a box and close the lid, I know you are in that box. If the reality of my knowledge matches the objective reality (i.e. you are in the box I saw you go into) you are not hidden from me, nor can you make an attempt to Hide from me.

You can make the hide attempt of course (stilling your breath and being quiet). And that result would be compared to anyone trying to find you. But the dude who saw you climb in there doesnt need a perception check to find you. He knows exactly where you are. He just needs to walk over to the box and open the damn lid!

No, you may think it's specific, but for all you actually know the person hiding there has slipped away. That's the point, you can't see them, you don't have perfect knowledge, they can hide, period. Yes, the person could go over and open the lid, and if they were mid-walk and the person in the box pops out and attacks them, that person would have advantage on the attack.

Exactly as if: Someone enters a room, and then hides behind the door, the other person opens the door, they are not going to see the other person immediately, thus they are hidden. Noticing the person in the room at that point is a matter of a perception check.

I'm assuming you were in what the game refers to as total obscurement then. That being the case, you and your friend both gained the blinded condition when you entered the hedge, meaning you couldnt see each other. You on the other hand heard him climb into the hedge. In other words YOU OBSERVED HIM CLIMBING INTO HIS HIDING SPOT AND MAKING HIS HIDE CHECK (in this case, you heard him climb into his hiding place rather than watched him). Accordingly his Hide check was not relevant to you; he wasnt hidden from you (although he probably was to other people that didnt see or hear him climb in there).

At no stage was he 'hidden' from you. At every stage you were hidden from him (he obviously failed his perception check to hear you breathing a metre away). The instant you touched him, you revealed yourself. You were no longer hidden to him. He didnt need to make a perception check to notice you anymore because you were no longer 'hidden'.

As he now also knows where you are, you cant suddenly re-hide in the same spot, and this is despite him not being able to see you in the heavy bush. He knows where yo are, and will hear you if you move anywhere else.

If you can somehow move somewhere else without making sound (something next to impossible in the hedge), and he no longer knows where you were, you could attempt another hide check relative to him again.

Get it yet?

You assume incorrectly, it was dusk, I was in plain view under a hedge, not even behind it. There was no obscurement at all. He didn't climb into the hedge, he literally lay down next to me, hence I was observing him with no obscurement (not that it would matter if he was lightly obscured, he doesn't have the skulker feat nor is he a Wood Elf).

He could see me after I tapped his shoulder because we were literally right next to each other. Sometimes people just don't notice that someone else is there. The flaw in his hiding was the place he chose to hide was already occupied.

Skulker's second bonus only applies to ranged attacks. If I were behind a wall and threw a rock even if my position (from that-a-way) is revealed, I can still rehide because from behind the wall I can't be seen, the only requirement to hide.

Where are you getting that information from? The invisible conditon simply allows the creature to always hide; it does nothing to make you atomatically hidden. The assumption is that your space can still be targetted unless you take the Hide action (at which point it becomes guess work for the poor Orcs).

Just like you can be attacked (for one round at least, at disadvantage) if you run into total darkness. They hear you in there. The following round you could move again, make a Hide check (as you werent observed making the attempt thanks to the darkness, and your position is not known with sufficient precision) and you couldnt be attacked again (barring a fluky guess of what square you are now in, followed by a succesful attack roll at disadvantage).

I'm getting it from the book on pages 194-195 in the section Unseen Attackers and Targets. It lays it all out in a very readable format. The spell invisibility doesn't contain the sum total of rules on being hidden or making attacks while hidden, etc...

How so? How (in your mind) is me searching a house looking for a hidden person different from me seatching the house looking for hidden baseball bat? If I know where either are before starting my search, then I am guaranteed to find them (unless the person moves of course, in which case I no longer know where it is)

One is actively hiding, the other is passively hidden. Your finding a person is entirely contingent on beating their hide score. It doesn't matter that you have a generic idea of their location, the rules typically assume that any search is general in nature.

You keep adding the requirement that existed in 3.5: that you can't hide if someone is watching you, even casually. This is no longer the case. Only cover/obscuration remains (you can't hide if you can be seen).
This is the main cause of our differing views.

Good point, it's a common mistake to employ past edition rules when discussing 5th.

And yet the one definition of hidden in the PHB is 'unseen and unheard'.

Being hidden, not the definition of hiding, the act. Once you take the act to hide, you're definitionally working to be unseen and unheard.

adamjbw

2019-08-13, 06:51 PM

Hmmm... This whole discussion is kind of pointless - we all agree that the rules are not crystal clear here - bearing in mind that this is a game, the objective of which is to procure enjoyment - the question is really about whether allowing rogues to hide in combat makes the game better or worse?

So, are rogues sufficiently powerful that giving them this ability to get more sneak attacks off in combat would make them overpowered? How powerful is this ability really, when compared to what would be required? Is the extra colour it gives to the rogue sufficient to warrant allowing it but finding ways to weaken it even if it is overpowered? Is it pretty powerful indeed but no more than other classes' features?

I am DMing my first 5E campaign soon, with a party that includes a wood-elf rogue.

It strikes me that, just as darkvision allows certain races to see as in dim light (lightly obscured) even in darkness (heavily obscured), mask of the wild allows wood elves to be considered as concealed when lightly obscured as if they were heavily obscured specifically for the purposes of hiding and only if they are lightly obscured by natural phenomena - so yeah - it's a racial feat - high elves get to cast a cantrip, i don't think allowing them to hide suddenly like ninjas in certain specific conditions (almost exclusively outdoors I think) sounds horribly unbalanced or overpowered.

In fact I've kind of answered my own question - when you look at the kinds of things class and racial feats give, and bearing in mind that the rogue gains advantage anyway (and therefore sneak bonus) if a friend is within 5 feet of their target, I don't think allowing them to gain that advantage from a class feat is over-powered.

I'll play it that way and see - but in a world where people can make fireballs, I think there's way too much "common sense" argumentation about hiding etc. - if it's not overpowered, it should be played that way - it doesn't have to "make sense" for crying out loud! And if you really need it to make sense, just tell it in such a way that it does make sense - imagination has no limits in d&d, that's kind of the point - go crazy, have fun!