Stealth Rules?

[KittenEV]

Hi, so I have this rogue player and I know that rogues are built to attack then hide, but she NEVER gets hit because of how high her stealth rolls are. Am I doing this wrong as a DM?

The monsters I throw at them don't really have enough passive perception to see her and she is usually up a tree/building/etc. My question is, how am I supposed to hit a rogue if the monster can't see the rogue?

[Vaz]

When she hits or misses with an attack, she becomes visible and has to take a Bonus Action to hide again.

Intelligent Ranged Monsters can Ready An Action with a Ranged Attack to target rogue when they are visible. Also Blindsight, Bright lights, and moving around in places where they struggle to hide.

[Millstone85]

Ranged monsters of even basic intelligence may also send projectiles in her general direction. At first, they would quite haphazardly guess her location, but probably get a clearer and clearer idea of it as the combat goes, until they are simply attacking her at disadvantage.

[MrMcBobb]

Also, the way I think the stealth mechanics work is you have to fulfill certain criteria to be able to "hide". You must be fully obscured from the view of the thing you are hiding from (Wood Elves and Halflings get racial abilities to assist with hiding) but you can't just take the hide action as a bonus action because you're a rogue.

And yes, as mentioned before, if an enemy is aware that a PC is near, even if that PC is hidden, the enemy can prepare appropriately for the PC's return. Too many people seem to adopt an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude to hiding where so long as the PC is hidden then the NPCs do nothing to reveal them. Almost as though the NPCs are enemies from an old PS1 stealth game, where as long as you're behind something they can't remember that you were ever there.

[90sMusic]

Just keep in mind you can't hide in plain sight. You need at least "something" to hide behind.

If she is hiding behind a wall, and an intelligent creature sees her keep shooting from behind this wall and then ducking back every few seconds and it wants to kill her, it'll just go run over to this wall and go behind it. If it is on the same side of the wall as her, she can't very well use the wall to hide from it, she would be in plain sight when it went back there.

Magic users are typically intelligent and most AOE spells ignore cover. If they have even a faint idea of where someone is hiding, a fireball anywhere nearby will definitely hit them.

Also you can use creatures to flush them out. Similar to hunting dogs that flush out birds so the hunter can shoot them, war/hunting dogs can be trained specifically to go after people who are trying to hide and try to flush them out from their hiding spot so their masters can see them and attack them. Even if she doesn't flee from her spot, she'll have a couple of wolves/dogs biting her face.

Archers could ready actions to fire when she appears, making her hit and run tactics much less effective.

Just ask yourself why you want to injure this player. It doesn't really hurt anything if she manages to avoid most of the damage coming at the party. Do you just need another body to take hits so your other players don't get killed from being focused down too much? Or do you feel that you have to inflict damage on all members of a party to have a successful combat? Rogues, and eventually people who can fly, tend to be immune to certain types of combat and that is ok. They aren't really meant to be front line fighters who take all the hits. Honestly, if the rogue is avoiding all the damage and no one else is, then it probably means your spell casters just aren't being as careful or as smart in their strategies and tactics. They should be trying to get behind things to avoid retaliation as well because they are squishy. If half the party is trying to hide behind things, it'll give your monsters even more reason to go running after them and get up in those buildings they're hiding in, etc.

Ultimately, you just need some ranged capable enemies to solve that little problem.

[JackPhoenix]

The rogue needs to be out of sight first to hide... so either total cover or heavy obscuration (barring racial abilities), and she's revealed if she's plainly visible.

She's revealed when she attacks, and needs to hide again.

Monsters can use Search action to roll Perception check, but that's suboptimal in this case: they won't do anything for a turn, and she'll just hide again.

Depending on the circumstances, there are lot of things the enemy can do: they can take cover to force her to move out of her hiding spot, if there's any available. She sounds like ranged rogue, so (if not engaged in melee), they can drop prone to give her disadvantage on her ranged attacks... even if the advantage from hiding negates the disadvantage, she won't be able to use sneak attack unless there's some of her allies nearby (and if there is, being prone is already bad idea). They can use various means to block her line of sight... Obscuring Mist or Darkness works with spellcasters.

And just because she's hidden doesn't mean that the enemy totally forgot her presence: even if they don't know where she is NOW, they remember where the arrow came from, and can move to investigate. If she's lurking just behind corner, peeking out and shooting again and again... well, she's not hidden anymore if the enemy stands right next to her. For the same reason, saturation bombing Fireballing the area she's been seen in also works. AoE's don't care if you're visible or not.

[Gryndle]

also the stealther needs some sort of cover or concealment in order to hide. This can be from objects in a room large enough to hide behind, natural terrain such as trees, or magic such as invisibility.

[Contrast]

Hi, so I have this rogue player and I know that rogues are built to attack then hide, but she NEVER gets hit because of how high her stealth rolls are. Am I doing this wrong as a DM?

The monsters I throw at them don't really have enough passive perception to see her and she is usually up a tree/building/etc. My question is, how am I supposed to hit a rogue if the monster can't see the rogue?

Its worth remembering that rogues need sneak attack to stay competetive - this doesn't necessary mean they need to hide. A dex rogue is just as capable of getting their sneak attack from stabbing with daggers or shooting them while an ally stands next to someone as they are from hiding and shooting. So don't be afraid to throw in combats where hiding isn't really viable or say no if you think hiding simply wouldn't work. Their range of targets will likely be reduced but they can still get their sneak attack in.

Also consider if you're correctly handling some of these situations - climbing up a tree is either going to provide good/reasonable vision and poor cover or good cover and no vision. I can see dozens of trees from my window and I doubt any of them would make a decent vantage point from which to fire a bow, let alone be trying to clamber around, changing position every turn in an effort to rehide.

As others have said AOE doesn't care if you're hidden (though admittedly a lot of AoE are dex saves which rogues are very good at). Also, being hidden from one person doesn't mean you're hidden from everyone (i.e. if you hide behind a wall, you still won't be hidden from people on your side of the wall as they can just see you) - an attack from multiple sides makes it much hard for the rogue to be hidden from all enemies.

Also if she had a tendency to hang around on her own that makes her the ideal target for enemy rogues/getting jumped and means the rest of the party can't immediately come to her aid. Even if its difficult to pin her down it'll be much harder for her to get sneak attacks in that situation seeing as she's on her own and the person/people/things are focused on her so will likely know exactly where she's trying to hide.

That all said, is it really a problem? I play as a rogue in one of my games and I purposefully chose to play as a melee rogue to help the party spread the damage around so the melee combatants don't get mullered. Maybe point that out to her next time everyone else in the party is limping around while she's on full hit points *shrugs*

[KittenEV]

So, say she shot an arrow and then hid again in the same spot, (didn't move at all). A creature with a basic intelligence would then know where the arrow came from, but not see her. So, if the creature wanted to attack her, would it be disadvantage or would they be able to even target her? As in a targeted attack, not AOE.

[Malifice]

Hi, so I have this rogue player and I know that rogues are built to attack then hide, but she NEVER gets hit because of how high her stealth rolls are. Am I doing this wrong as a DM?

Yes.


The monsters I throw at them don't really have enough passive perception to see her and she is usually up a tree/building/etc. My question is, how am I supposed to hit a rogue if the monster can't see the rogue?

The stealth skill doesnt make you impossible to see.

If the Rogue shoots from behind a tree, the Rogue reveals his position as soon as the attack is resolved (hit ot miss). Bam presto - the monsters *know* where the Rogue is.

The Rogue can then possibly 'Hide' again (usually using cunning action). Thats up to you as the DM and it depends on a number of variables (in your disctretion as DM). If the monsters know where the Rogue is (they're watching him) then you are within your rights to not allow the Rogue to make a Stealth check at all (or he can try, but he fails automatically).

If its happening in a swirling battle, with the Rogue flitting from hiding spot to hiding spot, then I doubt the monsters are watching him all that closely and he can probably attempt to hide again (over and over). If its one monster who was just shot in the chest by a lone Rogue who ducked behind the one pillar in the otherwise empty room, then no Stealth check or Hide action is possible.

The Stealth skill doesnt strip object permanence from nearby creatures remember - its just your skill at being quiet and hiding.

One can't become 'hidden' simply by leaping into a box (in full view of an enemy watching you) and then closing the lid and 'taking the Hide action'.

Remember the Rules for Hiding are: The DM determines when you can attempt to Hide. Youre the DM. Determine when your Rogue can (or can not) Hide.

Just use common sense.

[Malifice]

Also, the way I think the stealth mechanics work is you have to fulfill certain criteria to be able to "hide". You must be fully obscured from the view of the thing you are hiding from (Wood Elves and Halflings get racial abilities to assist with hiding) but you can't just take the hide action as a bonus action because you're a rogue.

No, you dont.

Check the errata.

[Coretex]

So, say she shot an arrow and then hid again in the same spot, (didn't move at all). A creature with a basic intelligence would then know where the arrow came from, but not see her. So, if the creature wanted to attack her, would it be disadvantage or would they be able to even target her? As in a targeted attack, not AOE.

If the rogue is behind a tree or around a corner of any sort... then she cannot be targeted by anything that is not an aoe... or some sort of penetrating weapon.

The rogue sticking their head out of cover to shoot allows them a sneak attack.
The rogue ducking around the corner again and going out of sight is hiding again.

YES, the enemies paying attention will now know she is in that direction/behind that tree but if they are otherwise engaged there are few things that would cause them to seek her out. A tactical leader could direct troops to chase down a rogue he spots skulking in a building. A sword proof beastie would probably ignore the fighter to hunt down the sharp arrow shooter. A scout who hadn't yet been spotted would search and destroy the hidden archer.

Outside of things like that enemies WOULDN'T naturally ignore the sword wielding psycho in their face to go chase a rogue and spread the damage. As others have said, that is OK! even in terms of pure mathematical cost to the party damage received only matters as a total number.

If you want to challenge the party (always nice), threaten the rogue with smarter enemies or unknown numbers. See if she still pokes her head out to shoot while some of the enemies are not engaged, then have them chase her. Warn her of the bandit scouting capabilities and have them sneak up behind the battle to ambush her.

If she plays well, let her enjoy the fruits of her play. Just like you don't raise the to hit modifier of enemies so they can always hit the Paladin who has invested heavily in his AC, don't have enemies focus on seeing the rogue just so she takes some shots too. A battle is a heated crazy place and anyone engaged would be hard pressed to keep track of a stealthy archer on the fringe of vision while a knight swings a sword at their face.


The Stealth skill doesnt strip object permanence from nearby creatures remember - its just your skill at being quiet and hiding.
This is definitely true, however...


If its one monster who was just shot in the chest by a lone Rogue who ducked behind the one pillar in the otherwise empty room, then no Stealth check or Hide action is possible.

One can't become 'hidden' simply by leaping into a box (in full view of an enemy watching you) and then closing the lid and 'taking the Hide action'.
This I disagree with. Even a successful hide roll opposed by perception doesn't make the enemies forget your existence or even lose track of your position. (as I quoted you above) It just means they cannot see you and thus adequately prepare for your actions (because they cannot see them in time).

If you duck behind a pillar and hide as a bonus action you are taking something like 2 seconds to ensure no parts of you are stuck out from the sides and that you stop scuffing the floor. No amount of distraction or light can change whether or not you are hidden from an enemy on the other side of the pillar in that moment. Therefore I would let them hide there. It is a terrible hiding spot and if they remain there the enemy will most likely be around to bash their heads in a moment, but the enemy doesn't KNOW what they are doing or even if they are there anymore and thus they are hidden.

[Decstarr]

You should fix it asap, else your Rogue player will become too comfortable always hiding and never being harmed and the longer she plays this way, the more she will rely on it. Which will lead to a brutal awakening if she "loses" this aspect all of a sudden.

I've struggled with similar things in the past. It seems that many players confuse hiding and high stealth rolls with being invisible. I once had a Rogue sneak over an entirely empty beach with a group of pirates approaching. He rolled 20 something so felt perfectly save. That's the day he FINALLY - even though I had pointed it out a dozen times already - that without things to get cover at, all your stealth roll means is that you are moving silently. The pirates just look at him and were actually amused :P

To your predicament, most has been said already. If I was you, I'd gradually introduce the Rogue to the idea that she indeed can and will be hit. Do it step by step as to not give her the feeling of being targeted by the evil DM. You might even talk to her in advance and tell her that you haven't had quite the grab on how stealth in combat works and that she'll face some changes.

Use an encounter that only provides one reasonable source of cover and intelligent enemies.
Use an encounter which doesn't provide any cover whatsoever - might I suggest an empty beach?
Use an enemy assassin, who specifically does the exact same thing to get the group to realize that there is ways against it.

[Contrast]

So, say she shot an arrow and then hid again in the same spot, (didn't move at all). A creature with a basic intelligence would then know where the arrow came from, but not see her. So, if the creature wanted to attack her, would it be disadvantage or would they be able to even target her? As in a targeted attack, not AOE.

For me this depends on the situation. If they're hiding behind something visually impermeable with limited space but that could still concievably be attacked through I'd allow an attack at disadvantage.

Obviously hiding behind something like a wall would preclude this (maybe exceptional circumstances if you're an earth elemental or something?).



One can't become 'hidden' simply by leaping into a box (in full view of an enemy watching you) and then closing the lid and 'taking the Hide action'.

To use Malifices example, your rogue is playing jack-in-the-box and popping in and out of a box. I would rule that they could hide but anyone will obviously walk over and take the top off the box and stab you (possibly with advantage if the box is small I'd likely count it as prone). Or they could attempt to plunge a sword straight into the box, making an attack at disadvantage (and probably destorying the box in the process).

Alternate hypothetical - rogue is dodging out from behind a curtain/tapestry/wall hanging. Sure, I'll let you hide but the enemy will be able to walk over and stab or shoot through the curtain (attack at disadvantage) or yank it aside and auto-detect you.

I'm sure the players would want it ruled this way if you were using stealthy enemies against them :smalltongue:

[Malifice]

A successful hide roll opposed by perception.. means [your enemies] cannot see you

No, it doesnt mean that at all.

Thats the invisible condition. Its covered elsewhere.


If you duck behind a pillar and hide as a bonus action you are taking something like 2 seconds to ensure no parts of you are stuck out from the sides and that you stop scuffing the floor. No amount of distraction or light can change whether or not you are hidden from an enemy on the other side of the pillar in that moment. Therefore I would let them hide there. It is a terrible hiding spot and if they remain there the enemy will most likely be around to bash their heads in a moment, but the enemy doesn't KNOW what they are doing or even if they are there anymore and thus they are hidden.

The enemy does know where you are. It watched you go there, and is following you there to bash your skull in. In addition it is objectively correct in the truth of that knowledge (as determined by the DM).

[Malifice]

To use Malifices example, your rogue is playing jack-in-the-box and popping in and out of a box. I would rule that they could hide

I wouldnt because thats (frankly) a stupid mental image.

At no point is the fool jumping up and down in that box 'hidden' from me.

If you think otherwise, then thats just weird and we have different understandings of what 'hidden' mean.

[Vaz]

Hidden from view is exactly that. What are you otherwise suggesting?

[ThePolarBear]

[...] object permanence [...] leaping into a box [...]


[...] The enemy does know where you are. [...]


[...] what 'hidden' mean.

I already had suspicions, now i'm very positive i "know" you.
And we still disagree to this point. Object permanence does not mean someone is unable to hide. It simply means that the onlookers still have an idea of where you might be - right or wrong as they might be - and they still know you exist.
Location = unknown is still not a required step to hide.
Hidden still only means unseen and unheard.
A DM is still free to rule however wanted.

[Cazero]

Hidden from view is exactly that. What are you otherwise suggesting?
That's there is enough misdirection and potential attack angles that I don't just have to keep my eyes on the damn box.

[Vaz]

In English?

[mephnick]

Pop up attacking is RAW and RAI according to Crawford. So, yes, you can just duck behind the one pillar in the room, hide, and be granted the advantage to attack rolls unless your target takes the Search action to find you or gains line of sight by moving around the cover. All that is required to hide is obscurement or cover. It has nothing to do with object permanence. The rogue class is designed to get their sneak attack from hiding easily, even if that offends your sense of realism. Let's not go over this in a huge thread again.

[Millstone85]

So, say she shot an arrow and then hid again in the same spot, (didn't move at all). A creature with a basic intelligence would then know where the arrow came from, but not see her. So, if the creature wanted to attack her, would it be disadvantage or would they be able to even target her? As in a targeted attack, not AOE.Three key words: "cover", "unseen", "hidden".

First, you have to determine "cover" (PHB p196). This isn't about visibility but about a physical obstacle. If her whole body is behind a tree, a rock or something else that would stop an arrow, she has "total cover" and thus can not be the target of an attack. If some of her isn't behind that obstacle, she might either have "three-quarters cover" or "half cover", only gaining a bonus of +5 or +2 to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Then you have to determine whether or not she is "unseen" (PHB p194). If she is behind some kind of transparent unbreakable wall, she can have "total cover" and still be very much visible to all. And if she has "three-quarters cover" or "half cover", the portion of her body that stands out means she can be seen. Conversely, you could rule that dense foliage wouldn't block an arrow but would block sight, so here she wouldn't have any "cover" but she would be "unseen". How exactly this relates to the notion of "obscurement" (PHB p183) is more than a bit iffy, so let's ignore that. What matters is that if she is "unseen" by an enemy, it attacks her at disadvantage and she attacks it at advantage. And yes, that means she is still "unseen" if the enemy knows where she is.

Finally, we get to the point of her becoming "hidden" (PHB p177 & p195). It means "both unseen and unheard". First, she must be unseen and make a Dexterity (Stealth) check contested by either the enemy's Wisdom (Perception) check or passive Wisdom (Perception) score. On a success, she becomes unheard as well. It also means that an enemy doesn't know her precise location. Like, on a grid, her hiding place could be made of eight squares or hexes, and though the enemy could know she is in one, it would have to guess which one. Roll a d8 before the enemy shoots an arrow. If she has invisibility cast on her, she can similarly try to move silently so the enemy loses track of her location, using the same hiding mechanics.

These are my RAR, for rules-as-read. Now, you be the judge.

[ThePolarBear]

Pop up attacking is RAW and RAI according to Crawford. So, yes, you can just duck behind the one pillar in the room, hide, and be granted the advantage to attack rolls unless your target takes the Search action to find you or gains line of sight by moving around the cover. All that is required to hide is obscurement or cover. It has nothing to do with object permanence. The rogue class is designed to get their sneak attack from hiding easily, even if that offends your sense of realism. Let's not go over this in a huge thread again.

Pay attention: Pop up attacking is only allowed if the creature attacking is not required to "go out in the open" to attack - if they can shoot from hiding. relevant chains of tweets. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/25/if-a-rogue-is-in-complete-cover-can-they-ba-hide/)

In short: It's up to the DM. However the rules clearly state that you cannot attack if a creature has total cover from you. If you have total cover from them, they ALSO have total cover from you. "Popping out" is a narrative expression for "i just look, point and shoot without getting too much out, then i retreat".
On "grid" rules this forces the character to move. They can't shoot through total cover.
In the ToTM, it's quite up to the DM, but i've since started to consider things like corners as 3/4 cover and not total cover. This is because things like arrow slits are considered to be 3/4 cover and arguably expose way less body than someone "popping out". If the wall is long enough, this doesn't change anything... just a couple more steps to take. However things like trees and such are never total cover for me, too, and this makes things quite simple to run.

Obviously, 3/4 cover still might mean 3/4 cover to the outgoing shoot, too.

[Contrast]

I wouldnt because thats (frankly) a stupid mental image.

At no point is the fool jumping up and down in that box 'hidden' from me.

If you think otherwise, then thats just weird and we have different understandings of what 'hidden' mean.

Let us imagine a magician with a box with a false bottom on a table. He climbs in the box and attempts a stealth check. He fails said stealth check and I hear him scuffling about below the stage. I lean down, pull up the drape on the table and voila, there he is. If he had passed his stealth check I would presume he was still in the box - after all I saw him climb into it. So I walk over to the box, open it up and am surprised to find an empty box.

Now lets consider our jack-in-the-box rogue (which is honestly no different than crouching behind a wall mechanically). The rogue ducks down and attempts a stealth check. If they fail their stealth check I catch a glimpse of them peeking over the top of the box, looking in my direction so when they jump up to loose an arrow I'm ready and can twist my body to minimise the impact*. If they pass their stealth check, he ducks down. Is he gonna arm for my head, my body, my... and the next thing I notice there's an arrow sticking out of my arm. I may be walking towards him but he simply bursts into view too fast for me to react and minimise the impact of the blow.

Hidden doesn't mean someone doesn't know where you are. A rogue says to the fighter 'I'm going to walk into the next room and hide in the closet'. He walks into the room and hides in the closet. The fighter walks into the room. If the rogue stealth beats the fighters perception the fighter has no evidence to confirm if the rogue was telling the truth or not. Of course if the fighter wanted to find the rogue, high stealth roll or no, he could simply walk over to the closet and open the door.

* To me this is the part that sounds most silly. A rogue can hit me 10s of times harder with a dagger or arrow because I was momentarily distracted by his friend standing next to me? But thats nothing to do with hiding and everything to do with sneak attack so I just accept it as an abstraction of the system.

[mephnick]

Pay attention: Pop up attacking is only allowed if the creature attacking is not required to "go out in the open" to attack - if they can shoot from hiding. relevant chains of tweets. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/25/if-a-rogue-is-in-complete-cover-can-they-ba-hide/)


You don't reveal yourself until the attack hits or misses, not during the action. Saying "oh your arm was visible for a second" is ridiculously petty. It's a game first and the rogue is balanced around getting sneak attack most of the time be it from hiding or allies. DMs not allowing this are making houserules to nerf one specific class with no justification.

[Gryndle]

If a character makes a good stealth check, that might affect what the opposition SEES and HEARS. It in no way affects what that opposition KNOWS.

The single pillar in the empty room thing: the first time the stealthy rogue tries it, the target likely has no clue what is about to hit him. But after that, the rogue hiding behind that pillar might have cover from the monster's attacks. But the monster still knows where the rogue is and is very likely to run up and return some violence upon the rogue.

In the same example, only this time the rogue has allies that are also engaging the monster; the monster is likely to focus on the threats closest to it and will be aware that it is getting shot at, but as long as the rogue continues to hide after it fires, then the monster may have no clue where the shot it coming from.

Same example, only now the monster has allies as well; the monster is engaged, not all of its allies have engaged in melee with the rogue's allies. The rogue pops out and fires at the monster, then attempts to rehide. The monster itself may be too preoccupied to respond or care. Its allies on the other hand, now have a chance to notice (passive perception vs. rogue's stealth) or even actively look (perception roll vs. rogue's stealth). If the monster's allies are successful in detecting the rogue, then you are back at the beginning: rogue has cover, but they know where she is and as long as she is behind that same pillar, no future stealth rolls are going to erase that knowledge from the enemies' minds.

Stealth doesn't make one invisible. Stealth does not make a monster any more or less stupid than it already was. Stealth is a wonderful tactic, but it has its limits.

[ThePolarBear]

You don't reveal yourself until the attack hits or misses, not during the action. Saying "oh your arm was visible for a second" is ridiculously petty. It's a game first and the rogue is balanced around getting sneak attack most of the time be it from hiding or allies. DMs not allowing this are making houserules to nerf one specific class with no justification.

Not what i'm saying...

I'm saying that if you use the grid, you can't attack from total cover. You have to move from total cover first. If this causes you to be in the open, you are no longer hidden. "Popping out" is something that's all on your DM, and imho it kind of defeats the point of 3/4 cover and total cover being total for both opponents if allowed.

If you are using the TotM, you are already abstracting. Again, is up to the DM to take the shots. Rounds are representative of 6 seconds of action and it's not unfair to receive an attack in that perios if the cover is no longer "total". That is what 3/4 cover is there for: you can still attack, but you can be attacked back. It's still a totally valid place where to hide and prevents most of the problematic aspects of "my rogue wants to pop out". 3/4 cover is meant to be used that way.

If your player still wants more,he can move away or in other places. If they end up in the open, they are no longer hidden. Or they can still find places where they are abscured and not in cover, where they can still hide but have no problems with physical obstructions.

What i'm saying is "Remember that 3/4 cover exists and you can hide and attack from it". "Allowing use of total cover and when the player wants ignore the fact that that cover is total" however is as disruptive as not allowing the rogue to hide.
What i'm saying is RAW and RAI is "hiding is in the hands of the DM", "total cover is total from both sides", "if you are hidden and move out in the open where people can see you you are no longer hidden unless DM" and "To gain the boni from bein unseen, you have to be unseen".
What i'm not saying is "do not allow your rogue to hide ever" or "do not allow the rogue to sneak attack".

[Vaz]

Not what i'm saying...

I'm saying that if you use the grid, you can't attack from total cover. You have to move from total cover first. If this causes you to be in the open, you are no longer hidden. "Popping out" is something that's all on your DM, and imho it kind of defeats the point of 3/4 cover and total cover being total for both opponents if allowed.
Move, Attack, reveal on a hit/miss, move back into cover. Use Action Surge, Haste or Cunning Action to Hide. Job done.

What's your complaint?

[mephnick]

Ok I see where you're coming from, Polar. That's a good point. I'll think about it

[Contrast]

Snip

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Situation A: Rogue on one knee behind low wall. Has 3/4 cover. Attacks.

Situation B: Rogue is prone behind low wall. Has total cover. Uses half movement to stand up. Attacks. Uses half movement to go prone again.

To clarify, you would disallow the rogue in situation B either from making a hide check or sneak attacking (despite being fully obscured) while you would allow the rogue in situation A to hide/sneak attack?

[ThePolarBear]

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Situation A: Rogue on one knee behind low wall. Has 3/4 cover. Attacks.

Situation B: Rogue is prone behind low wall. Has total cover. Uses half movement to stand up. Attacks. Uses half movement to go prone again.

To clarify, you would disallow the rogue in situation B either from making a hide check or sneak attacking (despite being fully obscured) while you would allow the rogue in situation A to hide/sneak attack?


No, the wall is still 3/4 cover. The wall doesn't change. How do you use the wall has no impact on the amount of cover it provides. And i would say that it's half cover, not even 3/4, prone or not.

Edit: Sorry, missed this.


Move, Attack, reveal on a hit/miss, move back into cover. Use Action Surge, Haste or Cunning Action to Hide. Job done.

What's your complaint?

Has the creature moved in a place where it is little edit: possible to remain hidden? If yes, nothing. If no, you are not unseen, then not hidden, then no advantage for that on the attack. The rest is till absolutely possible.
To make an attack while hidden, you have to be hidden. If you are in the open, you reveal yourself. "In the open" in this case means in a place where you can be clearly seen. Which is, with others, one of the ways to no longer be hidden. If you are invisible, you cannot be seen. Then even if you are in the middle of a road with a lot of people coming and going, as long as you are still trying to be quiet (and nobody notices) you are still hidden.

[Contrast]

No, the wall is still 3/4 cover. The wall doesn't change. How do you use the wall has no impact on the amount of cover it provides. And i would say that it's half cover, not even 3/4, prone or not.

So the logic is by spending part of the turn outside cover you effectively reduce the cover provided by being in total cover?

That logic seems like its going to lead to some very strange rulings.

The fighter starts his turn outside a building, sees a wizard and runs inside to take cover. But because he spent part of his turn outside the building he only gets 3/4 cover meaning the wizard can still technically see him so he casts fireball, which promptly streaks round a corner inside of the building and explodes despite no nominal direct line of sight and not being able to target the other PC standing next to the fighter.

Or does the fighter get yanked backwards out of cover after his turn is over? Or do you have to immediately stop when entering total cover to give people a chance to take any final pot shots before you move on?

[ThePolarBear]

So the logic is by spending part of the turn outside cover you effectively reduce the cover provided by being in total cover?

That logic seems like its going to lead to some very strange rulings.

The fighter starts his turn outside a building, sees a wizard and runs inside to take cover. But because he spent part of his turn outside the building he only get 3/4 cover meaning the wizard can still technically see him so he casts fireball, which promptly streaks round a corner inside of the building and explodes despite no nominal direct line of sight and not being able to target the other PC standing next to the fighter.

Or does the fighter get yanked backwards out of cover after his turn is over? Or do you have to immediately stop when entering total cover to give people a chance to take any final pot shots before you move on?

No. Nothing like that. The wall above would be half cover for everyone for me, just because how i imagined that wall to be resonates to me as "half cover". In the example the wall was first stated to give 3/4 cover. If that wall provides 3/4 cover, it always provides 3/4 cover (assuming same creature and same attack...).
Going prone already has its effects: Disadvantage from ranged attacks. Getting up still costs half movement. It has a cost / benefit. Hitting the floor makes you even harder to hit, but not "impossible" to.

If the fighter stops at the corner of the wall, to be able to see what happens outside while still keeping the wall between him and the Wizard, that's 3/4 cover. If he moves further on along the wall, assuming it's a "full" wall, and loses the ability to see what is happening outside, then it's full cover. If that wall is a force wall, it would still be able to see, so taking an extra step is a better idea overall, unless the extra space moved can, in some way, prevent a plan. But that's a choice on the fighter. Edit: Imho.

[Vaz]

Has the creature moved in a place where it is little edit: possible to remain hidden? If yes, nothing. If no, you are not unseen, then not hidden, then no advantage for that on the attack. The rest is till absolutely possible.

Little?


To make an attack while hidden, you have to be hidden. If you are in the open, you reveal yourself. "In the open" in this case means in a place where you can be clearly seen. Which is, with others, one of the ways to no longer be hidden. If you are invisible, you cannot be seen. Then even if you are in the middle of a road with a lot of people coming and going, as long as you are still trying to be quiet (and nobody notices) you are still hidden.
You are hidden. You've made a Hide Check to be hidden, opposed by a Perception Check, which is an action.


However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.


The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The ques*tion is whether it can see you clearly.

[Contrast]

No. Nothing like that. The wall above would be half cover for everyone for me, just because how i imagined that wall to be resonates to me as "half cover". In the example the wall was first stated to give 3/4 cover. If that wall provides 3/4 cover, it always provides 3/4 cover (assuming same creature and same attack...).
Going prone already has its effects: Disadvantage from ranged attacks. Getting up still costs half movement. It has a cost / benefit. Hitting the floor makes you even harder to hit, but not "impossible" to.

So someone who wants to crawl behind the wall and never stands up only gets 3/4 cover despite never once sticking any part of their body into a visible area?


If the fighter stops at the corner of the wall, to be able to see what happens outside while still keeping the wall between him and the Wizard, that's 3/4 cover. If he moves further on along the wall, assuming it's a "full" wall, and loses the ability to see what is happening outside, then it's full cover. If that wall is a force wall, it would still be able to see, so taking an extra step is a better idea overall, unless the extra space moved can, in some way, prevent a plan. But that's a choice on the fighter. Edit: Imho.

Scenario A: Fighter sees wizard. Runs 3ft inside the door and stops.
Scenario B: Fighter sees wizard. Runs inside the door, continues running his full distance and action surges to dash out of the back of the house.

In both cases all the wizard sees is the fighter run into the door and out of sight. How does he know if the fighter is still targetable or not?

Also, whats to stop a rogue moving 20ft down the corridor into the house, hiding, and then on his next turn use 20ft of movement to move back to the door? I don't think you've solved the problem you've just made it even more silly by insisting that the rogue do a lot of running back and forth.

Edit - Earlier in this thread I mentioned I played a melee rogue to lessen the burden on the melee combatants in our party. Avoiding getting into arguments like this with my DM about how stealth worked was a nice side benefit :smallwink:

[ThePolarBear]

Little?

"Little edit". Just selected the wrong part to Italic-ize



You are hidden. You've made a Hide Check to be hidden, opposed by a Perception Check, which is an action.

You are hidden until you are either discovered or you stop hiding. Action or not doesn't change anything. I said multiple times that DM have the word in hiding. The rule you quoted is in strict contrast to


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

And what has been written by JC, not me, in the tweets i linked before.

This simply means that a player must not take things for granted, since a "no" is a very possible and valid answer, and the general assumption should be that being clearly visible means to no longer be hidden. On that a DM might rule that there are circumstances that allow you to remain hidden. But that's an exception, not the norm.


So someone who wants to crawl behind the wall and never stands up only gets 3/4 cover despite never once sticking any part of their body into a visible area?

If the cover gives 3/4 cover, yes. The cover has to cover from the attack, not from sight. If an arrow coming from an angle can still hit the creature, that's not total cover. The fighter peeking to see what was going on means that there's the opportunity to be hit. It's not total cover. If that wall is 3/4 cover, you have +5 at AC and Dex saves. If you hit the ground, the attack is made at disadvantage. Same as if you are unseen. And thousands of other possibilities, but that's a problem with the simple ADV/DISADV system. Simplicity over granularity.

As said, Imho.



Scenario A: Fighter sees wizard. Runs 3ft inside the door and stops.
Scenario B: Fighter sees wizard. Runs inside the door, continues running his full distance and action surges to dash out of the back of the house.

In both cases all the wizard sees is the fighter run into the door and out of sight. How does he know if the fighter is still targetable or not?

By asking the DM if the wizard can still hear the fighter. Targeting is made on sight or hearing. If said attack will reach the target is another matter due to the impossibility of the wizard to see and hear if there are obstacles in the way. This is assuming everything in the house and "on the other side" is heavily obscured.
If the fighter is unseen and unheard the fighter is hidden, even without trying to hide, with all the appropriate rules to be applied. Even if the fighter is unseen because he can't be seen and unheard because he can't be heard for whatever reason.


Also, whats to stop a rogue moving 20ft down the corridor into the house, hiding, and then on his next turn use 20ft of movement to move back to the door? I don't think you've solved the problem you've just made it even more silly by insisting that the rogue do a lot of running back and forth.

Edit - Earlier in this thread I mentioned I played a melee rogue to lessen the burden on the melee combatants in our party. Avoiding getting into arguments like this with my DM about how stealth worked was a nice side benefit :smallwink:

The question is still the same: at the door, can the rogue be clearly seen or not? If yes then the moment the rogue steps out is no longer hiding unless the DM says otherwise. If not, he is still hiding. And can attack with advantage and sneak attack or whatever. But, IF the rogue would be in the open at the door, and in full cover behind the corner, then you'll have a rogue asking "can i peek and shoot?". Making it 3/4 cover makes the question moot. "Yes, you can peek, that's why it's 3/4 cover - from this position you can still be hidden and take a shot. But you are not 100% safe, too."

I'm not trying to deny a rogue of the Hide Action and Sneak Attack. I'm just saying how i find the rules work and how i adjusted selection of cover to solve the "pop out" issue. Instead of allowing a rogue to play a repetitive and, for someone, problematic style, change a bit the encounter structure and cover placement to pressure a little bit more the rogue out of the "invincibility" mindset via complications in attack execution, without preventing class feature use. It ended up, for me, with a more active rogue that actually took advantage of OTHER rules for applying sneak attacks, even if generally was ranged focused, since the trade-offs at times were situationally not woth it. It goes hand on hand on what others advised OP with: monsters are not there to be sneak attacked: Ready, spells and simply moving to intercept and to keep vision spread out are all valuable actions to take.

This is expecially true for places like forests, where there might be lots of trees that "oh you can't be seen... yeah total cover" then turns into "pop out" land.

It was a side on something said on the thread, trying to also provide advice and informations to the OP, even if not directly addressing the problem, because more information, if pertinent, is always good and can allow a person to make better decisions - in this case, finding something that works for the group.

[Matrix_Walker]

Skimming this thread...

You can Hide in a box.. If the line of sight is broken, you can hide, giving attackers who cannot see you but know generally where you are disadvantage on their attack rolls.

The notion that an object provides the same cover if you are standing astride it or squatting behind it is ridiculous... Seriously, you must be trolling us if you stand by this nonsense.

[Contrast]

By asking the DM if the wizard can still hear the fighter. Targeting is made on sight or hearing. If said attack will reach the target is another matter due to the impossibility of the wizard to see and hear if there are obstacles in the way. This is assuming everything in the house and "on the other side" is heavily obscured.
If the fighter is unseen and unheard the fighter is hidden, even without trying to hide, with all the appropriate rules to be applied. Even if the fighter is unseen because he can't be seen and unheard because he can't be heard for whatever reason.

This is wrong. You can't hide if you can be seen or heard. You aren't automatically hidden - the stealth check you take as part of the hide action is explicitly the check the PC makes to check they've made sure they are keeping themselves unseen and unheard. Now in some situation DMs will likely handwave the need to make a stealth check (you're invisible in a zone of silence and no-one is looking for you? yeah sure ok. You're 4 miles away inside a house with no windows? Yeah you probably count as hidden) but thats a DM making a call on a case by case basis not the generic expectation.



The question is still the same: at the door, can the rogue be clearly seen or not? If yes then the moment the rogue steps out is no longer hiding unless the DM says otherwise. If not, he is still hiding. And can attack with advantage and sneak attack or whatever. But, IF the rogue would be in the open at the door, and in full cover behind the corner, then you'll have a rogue asking "can i peek and shoot?". Making it 3/4 cover makes the question moot. "Yes, you can peek, that's why it's 3/4 cover - from this position you can still be hidden and take a shot. But you are not 100% safe, too."


...so he moves up to the edge (in the 3/4 cover position) takes his attack (in 3/4 cover position) and then he uses his remaining move to move back in the house putting him well beyond sight (in full cover) before rehiding and making the experience completely equivilent to the jack in the box rogue with the exception that you're insisting the rogue run around a bit more? As far as I can see you haven't stopped the pop out sniping you've just made it more inconvenient and even more silly by insisting the rogue sprint away and then back again every turn.

Edit -



If the cover gives 3/4 cover, yes. The cover has to cover from the attack, not from sight. If an arrow coming from an angle can still hit the creature, that's not total cover. The fighter peeking to see what was going on means that there's the opportunity to be hit. It's not total cover. If that wall is 3/4 cover, you have +5 at AC and Dex saves. If you hit the ground, the attack is made at disadvantage. Same as if you are unseen. And thousands of other possibilities, but that's a problem with the simple ADV/DISADV system. Simplicity over granularity.

As a player, if you described a 3ft high wall running between two buildings and an archer standing 50ft away looking in this general direction and I said I would belly crawl my way along, I would be very annoyed if you proceeded to have the archer start shooting me with the justification that he could see me (despite not being able to actually, you know, see me) because he could theoretically angle an arrow over the wall. Hell with sharpshooter he could hit me with no penalty from 600ft.

[Vaz]

It doesn't see you if the DM rules it to be distracted. And yes. It's an action to make a perception check

[ThePolarBear]

The notion that an object provides the same cover if you are standing astride it or squatting behind it is ridiculous... Seriously, you must be trolling us if you stand by this nonsense.

As long as the amout of coverage that you have from the cover is roughly the same, it is not ridiculus. But yeah, i can see what you mean.

Again, for how i envisioned the wall it was half cover. You as a DM envision it differently, it's different. It's fine. If you as a player think you might be getting screwed, go ahead and tell me. When i state that some piece of cover gives "x" cover, i mean "at best". There's no need to tell me "i squat", " i stick into the pose that the statue is in". You are trying to stay low, you are trying to maximize cover. When a player tells me if there's a piece of cover to hide in that's what i get, "i want to be protected". That's an assumption i'm already making. Going prone leaves you less vulnerable because you are prone, and due to "cons" i do not assume the "pro"'s either - but i expect you, as a player, to understand if i tell you "no" to requests.

If a player wants to rise an exception, concerns... free to do so. That wall, if the reasoning is sound, it's now 3/4 cover. And it STAYS 3/4 cover. No need to tell me you are again on one foot and tossing carved bones praying for protection (well, do so anyway, it's colorful). But i was already expecting to put the character in the best position, ideally. Not perfect, so i might get it wrong.

Point is: The image of the world is a shared one but where narration falls on the DM. If that piece of cover is 3/4, it might not be 3/4 all the way, but it will behave as 3/4. If it is half, it's half, even if not really half. That's all you need to know, mechanically, as long as the information is filtered on a clear base: I'm not here to screw anyone. It is a shared simplification that works for my group.

You want to play it differently? Do it. I do not "think" i'm 100% RAW, here. I'm just stating how i make it work for ME - which you might have missed since you said you were skimming over the thread or i might not have been conveying it clearly enough.

Also, every game is different, even for the same master, if there is some change that someone want to try in the group or if the group members change. If a player wants something, and the group does not find it disruptive for the flow, too slow, or simply not fun... yeah, why not? The point is having fun, after all.

[Contrast]

Snip

We're cool, I get you're just trying to make the game work the way you want it to and are offering advice on that basis. I'm not a stickler for RAW when I think it doesn't make sense.

I just think your way makes less sense in this particular case (Running up to the edge of a building, snapping off a shot, running away and then doing that every 6 seconds is 'stealthier' than staying near the edge of the wall and occasionally poking your head round the corner? There's no such thing as walls, only types of trellis of varying degrees of solidity?)

Edit - That said, I agree with you that cover is under utilised. Most trees don't provide full cover - a thick tree trunk is explicitly called out as providing 3/4 cover. Your typical forest probably won't allow full cover and if it does it probably isn't going to be easy for the rogue to pop in and out of it (jumping in and out of a thick bush every 6 seconds is even less stealthy than anything else we have discussed :smalltongue:).

[ThePolarBear]

Going to spoiler since it will be a long post. I'm not really in the mood to start ANOTHER thread on hiding. There's a podcast by JC in which the argument is Stealth. It's an interesting piece. I'm not really going to derail this thread more than what it has already been from the original question. I'll try to be as clear and as referential as possible. Also too much time dedicated to this today :D



This is wrong. You can't hide if you can be seen or heard.

Assuming that we agree that "DM has the final word" and "DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding":
The rule for hiding is "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly" and "if you make noise you give away your position". To hide, you only need to not be seen clearly, DMs opinion. The sound part comes AFTER. You declare you want to try to hide and roll. The result of the check is how good you are at your attempt: How good are you at trying to be unseen and unheard. If you fail the roll when compared against other creatures passive perception score, it means that you are not good enough to not be heard and/or not be seen by them. There's no requirement to be silent to try to hide, however you do have to willingly/unwillingly make sounds strong enough to be heard, since you can't possibly be completely silent anyway.

page 177 phb, Phb errata - "Hiding" section


You aren't automatically hidden - the stealth check you take as part of the hide action is explicitly the check the PC makes to check they've made sure they are keeping themselves unseen and unheard.

Yes. IF THEY ARE TRYING TO. However, the fighter is not trying. The DM, if so inclined, might decide to say that in that situation the fighter is outside hearing range of the Wizard. The Wizard might be deaf, there might be too much sound in the background, distance might be too big... many things.
There is no roll needed: the fighter is not trying. However, the fighter is still unseen (you gave the condition in the situation, or at least with "out of sight" that's what i understood) and unheard. To be hidden means to be unseen and unheard (PHB 194,195 - Unseen attackers and targets), not unseeable and unheardable (even if that still causes one to be unseen and unheard, so it makes them hidden :D) or "having taken the Hide action". In this situation, the fighter is still hidden, but he's not hiding or trying to. Seems strange, but the difference is that, the moment that one of the conditions to be hidden ceases to exist (the fighter can be seen, the fighter can be heard (as in it's possible to, there is a chance that) the fighter does not get to roll anything or compare anything - the fighter is not TRYING, the assumption that is made in combat is that creatures are generally aware of dangers (phb, page 177 - "Hiding" section and again in a different context at PHB page 189, "Surprise" section).

To make my point clearer, an invisible creature inside silence can try as much as wanted to shout, dance, whatever. It's presence and general location might be discovered, however it is still, de facto, hidden - even if doing its best not to, effectively trying to not be hidden. :D


Now in some situation DMs will likely handwave the need to make a stealth check (you're invisible in a zone of silence and no-one is looking for you? yeah sure ok. You're 4 miles away inside a house with no windows? Yeah you probably count as hidden) but thats a DM making a call on a case by case basis not the generic expectation.

Which is exactly what i wrote. If the fighter can still be heard, then he can be targeted. If not, since it is not possible to see him, it's hidden and its location must be guessed. The wizard will know where the fighter went, more or less, until the fighter went outside of hearing range. That's obviously a DM decision in the first place.


...so he moves up to the edge (in the 3/4 cover position) takes his attack (in 3/4 cover position) and then he uses his remaining move to move back in the house putting him well beyond sight (in full cover) before rehiding and making the experience completely equivilent to the jack in the box rogue with the exception that you're insisting the rogue run around a bit more? As far as I can see you haven't stopped the pop out sniping you've just made it more inconvenient and even more silly by insisting the rogue sprint away and then back again every turn.

Yes. However that very same pop out sniping just costed 10 ft of movement, gave the wizard 3/4 cover, and that for me is completely acceptable. The thing that more than everything else fixes the problem is that, in play, there's no white rooming. There are situations where, instead of firing, it would have been best to go out and not take the penality for cover since a sneak attack is still availlable in other ways, or there might be better places to hide. I have nothing against hiding in combat, nothing against sneak attack. I hate players asking for "can i attack from full cover" and "well i'll hide again against this full cover after the aforementioned attack".


As a player, if you described a 3ft high wall running between two buildings and an archer standing 50ft away looking in this general direction and I said I would belly crawl my way along, I would be very annoyed if you proceeded to have the archer start shooting me with the justification that he could see me (despite not being able to actually, you know, see me) because he could theoretically angle an arrow over the wall. Hell with sharpshooter he could hit me with no penalty from 600ft.

Did i say that he can see you? No. There's no need to see someone to target them as long as you can hear them. (page 194,195, Unseen attackers and targets). Are you already in combat? Are you hidden? Are you hiding? Is the Elf expecting you? What is happening? Why can't the elf shoot an high shot? why can't he move and straight shot? Why can't the shot pass between 2 missing bricks? Why does the HP loss be from a wound? The attack comes in a section that's half crumbled/ the attack strikes a brick that falls on your head/ the high shot lands near you and grazes you, prehaps.

If you are prone, the shot would still have disadvantage, even with sharpshooter.

OR, the elf takes another action.

If as a DM i said that there's a contiguous, perfectly straight, absolutely perfect and complete 3ft tall wall... you would have, AT THE VERY LEAST, 3/4 cover. That is enough to make the elf think twice before attacking, and that's because i would be assuming you would duck anyway between shots. I would think sixteen times before "total cover"-ing it... it's just not enough for total cover.

---Notice, i wrote up until here before reading your subsequent reply, since the previous post was not directly addressed towards you... just had the presence of spirit of refreshing before posting :D---

That's an example that clearly is not good for "half cover" for me. Low wall for me is something knee high or so and was imagining something more ruined.
And it's not even about the solidity, or how are you going to tell what happened. To play, i do not use a strict distance system, too. It's not really 1 ft of difference, it's about what the player wants - being able to know what is happening clearly or going for deep protection. I expect my players to choose the actions of their PCs based on informations the characters have, not what the player knows. So a rogue that is constantly going in and out of deep cover is losing informations about sight-related things that might happen. There are lots of small things that make for different decisions to be taken.


It doesn't see you if the DM rules it to be distracted. And yes. It's an action to make a perception check

And what did i say before? The DM might chose otherwise, but the general rule is that if you go out of hiding, for the sources i've quoted before, you are no longer hiding. If you are no longer hiding, you are no longer hidden since that is one of the conditions stated again in the rules (phb 177 - Hiding). And since creatures are generally alert in combat (same page) they notice you (same page). The roll is only for ACTIVELY look to look for a hiding creature (PHB 177- hiding and phb 192 - Search). You are no longer hiding, no longer hidden, and no longer needing a check to spot or hear. You renounced to your status. There's no perception check involved anymore until you try to hide again.

The assumption is that, if you can be heard, you are heard/If you can be seen, you are seen. Unless something says otherwise - the DM, for example, or the player stating that its character will try to hide and rolling more than passive perception of the creature that it's trying to hide from.

[Malifice]

Let us imagine a magician with a box with a false bottom on a table.

IF tthe box was some kind of trick box with a secret door and the rogue was using that secret panel to escape and slink off, then off course I would allow the stealth check to hide.

IF he is just jumping up and down like an idiot in the same box then I would NOT allow the stealth check to hide.

See the difference? 'The DM determines when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding.' Thats RAW.

Acting like a living Jack in the box = No hiding. Ducking behind cover and slinking away = hiding allowed.

See the difference? See the RAW?

If the creature knows where you are (as determined by the DM) and is correct in that knowledge (again determined by the DM), you are not hidden from that creature (although you may have total cover from it or be 'unseen').

[Contrast]

Snip

I agree, RAW puts all the power in the DMs hand. A DM could rule I'm not hidden from a target 12 miles away in an underground cave and RAW would support them. I don't think they should rule that way but they could. What I'm arguing is that hiding is only tangentially related with being surprised by someones location. Its about not being able to currently see or hear them (which as a result will sometimes mean you are surprised by their location).

So in my example of the rogue telling the fighter he will hide in the closet in the next room - when the fighter walks into the room he wants to figure out if the rogue was telling the truth without opening the closet, would you say an opposed stealth vs perception check was appropriate? Admittedly I wouldn't argue about getting advantage on the perception check seeing as he knows exactly what he's looking for. If the rogue beats the fighters perception with his stealth score he is unseen and unheard. What is this if not hiding? This fighter thinks he knows where you are but he has no evidence until such time as he walks over and opens the closet door. Schrödinger's rogue :smallbiggrin:

Its worth noting that the advantage to attack doesn't technically come from being hidden - it comes from attacking a creature that can't see you. In circumstances where a creature definately can't see you (for example, you're invisible), no check is required to get advantage - the check is only needed in situations where it is in question if it can 'see you clearly'. The fact that you can still hide when someone can see you provided they can't see you clearly is surely an indication you can still hide when someone knows generally where you are?

[Cazero]

hidden = unseen and unheard
Will you all stop that? It's blatantly false !
Hidden usualy implies unseen and unheard. Being both unseen and unheard doesn't imply being hidden.

For starters, there are other senses in play. If I'm grappling an invisible goblin under the effect of the Silence spell, the goblin clearly isn't hidden from me. Several creatures in the MM explicitly use scent to locate creatures, something against wich the Silence+Invisibility trick is litteraly useless.
Then, there are cases where "unseen and unheard" is blatantly false. If a stone golem is pretending to be a stone statue, it can hide in plain sight for the purposes of an ambush. If a fight happen in a mirror gallery with strong echo, I can be hidden (the enemy has to guess my position) without being unseen or unheard !

The possibility are limitless. That's why the rules mention arbitration. Stop blindly applying RAW, that never worked for anything. Use your goddamn common sense.

[imanidiot]

Rogues are balanced around being able to use Sneak Attack most of the time. If your Rogue isn't able to at least half the time (at least, I'm aiming for 75-80%)either you or the player is doimg something wrong.

[BurgerBeast]

No, it doesnt mean that at all.

Thats the invisible condition. Its covered elsewhere.

Classic Malifice.

"Dinosaurs are big."

"No, dinosaurs are not big. That's whales. Whales are big."

Sorry, pal.

Hidden means implies [edit: that's for Cazero, who is correct] two things: unseen and unheard. If you are hidden, you are unseen. If you're invisible, you're also unseen. Dinosaurs and whales are both big.

[Malifice]

QUOTE=Contrast;22166060]I agree, RAW puts all the power in the DMs hand. A DM could rule I'm not hidden from a target 12 miles away in an underground cave and RAW would support them. I don't think they should rule that way but they could. What I'm arguing is that hiding is only tangentially related with being surprised by someones location.

You jumping up and down in a box is not going to 'surprise me of your location.' You're in the ****ing box.

If you we'rent in the box (for example you used a fake secret trap door to escape and slink off elsewhere) then yeah, I might very well be surprised at your location. But of course I allow a Stealth check to slink off and hide in these very situations.

Just use common sense. This is what the rule: 'The DM determines when you can attempt to hide' is all about.


So in my example of the rogue telling the fighter he will hide in the closet in the next room - when the fighter walks into the room he wants to figure out if the rogue was telling the truth without opening the closet, would you say an opposed stealth vs perception check was appropriate?

Not if the Fighter opened the damn door. If he stopped to listen before opening it (and the Rogue was sitting in there quietly) then yes, an opposed Stealth v Perception is called for.


Admittedly I wouldn't argue about getting advantage on the perception check seeing as he knows exactly what he's looking for. If the rogue beats the fighters perception with his stealth score he is unseen and unheard. What is this if not hiding?

Its not hiding when the Fighter knows where the Rogue is, and is objectively correct in that knowledge. The Rogue is in no way hidden.

If you disagree, I bet you suck at the game of hide and seek.


This fighter thinks he knows where you are but he has no evidence until such time as he walks over and opens the closet door. Schrödinger's rogue :smallbiggrin:

There is no Schrodinger effect because we already have a person observing and adjudicating this who knows the objective truth (the DM). The Rogue doesnt exist in a state of superposition both hidden in the closet and hidden elsewhere. He's either in the closet (and discovered when the door is opened) or he is hidden elsewhere (and in that case, the Fighter is going to have to go 'seeking' for him via the Search action).

Get it yet?

[Malifice]

Hidden means implies [edit: that's for Cazero, who is correct] two things: unseen and unheard. If you are hidden, you are unseen. If you're invisible, you're also unseen. Dinosaurs and whales are both big.

Using Ability Scores
Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when
circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, the question isn’t whether a creature
can see you when you’re hiding. The question
is whether it can see you clearly.

Not 'unseen'. 'Unable to be seen clearly.' See the difference?

[Contrast]

You jumping up and down in a box is not going to 'surprise me of your location.'

You quoted my post specifically outlining I don't think that people will always be surprised by the location of someone hidden so I explicitly wasn't making that argument.


Not if the Fighter opened the damn door. If he stopped to listen before opening it (and the Rogue was sitting in there quietly) then yes, an opposed Stealth v Perception is called for.

So you agree a stealth vs perception check is appropriate in a situation where one party already knows the location of the other party. And if the stealth check is passed the fighter has no evidence from his current situation to suggest that the rogue is in the closet?



Its not hiding when the Fighter knows where the Rogue is, and is objectively correct in that knowledge. The Rogue is in no way hidden.

What specifically in rules terms are you saying the difference is between a rogue in a closet who has passed a successful stealth check when the fighter knows for other reasons he's in the closet and a rogue in a closet who has passed a successful stealth check when the fighter doesn't know for other reasons he's in the closet?

Both are precisely as capable of being targetted for attacks (though in the second case this would likely require metagaming or a particular hatred of closets).

Also, to reiterate - being hidden isn't actually what grants advantage. Attacking a target who can't see you is what grants advantage - presumably justified in this case by the fighter not being able to see the rogue readying his knife or whatever. Of course if the fighter knew for other reasons that the rogue was going to be in the closet and suspected he might leap out on him he could approach cautiously (taking the dodge action) and deny the rogue his sneak attack by cancelling the advantage.



If you disagree, I bet you suck at the game of hide and seek.

Being hidden is the first step to someone not knowing where you are. It is not always the only step. I can hide somewhere and win hide and seek. If I hide there again next time I am still equally physically hidden but I'm probably going to be found pretty quick. What I'm arguing is that in 5E hiding in combat is often going to be a case of physically hiding yourself rather than getting someone to not know where you are specifically.

Lets say my friend is looking for me. I told him I'd be in my house. He approaches, see the curtins drawn and knocks on the door and gets no answer. I'm actually in the garden. Does my presence in either my house or my garden impact how hidden I am from him? I would argue no. In either case he can't see or otherwise detect my presence. I am hidden from him in either location (until of course he walks round the back and pokes his head over the fence and sees me sitting in the garden).


There is no Schrodinger effect because we already have a person observing and adjudicating this who knows the objective truth (the DM). The Rogue doesnt exist in a state of superposition both hidden in the closet and hidden elsewhere. He's either in the closet (and discovered when the door is opened) or he is hidden elsewhere (and in that case, the Fighter is going to have to go 'seeking' for him via the Search action).

I note you say he is discovered on the door being opened. I thought your argument was that there was nothing to discover because he wasn't hidden? More seriously, please assume all future references to theoretical physicists I make in this thread are intended in a light hearted fashion and are not meant to seriously imply rogues make use of quantum uncertainty when stepping into closets (with the possible exception of doorways to Narnia which I'm sure we can all agree are an exceptional circumstance :smallwink:). Apart from anything else you would hope that the rogue at least knows where he's hiding, regardless of if the fighter does or doesn't. :smallbiggrin:

[Zalabim]

Of course if the fighter knew for other reasons that the rogue was going to be in the closet and suspected he might leap out on him he could approach cautiously (taking the dodge action) and deny the rogue his sneak attack by cancelling the advantage.
Just for completeness, Dodge doesn't protect you from attacks attacks from enemies you can't see.

[BurgerBeast]

@Malifice:

My point is the invalidity of your arguments in general, and specifically the insistence, in more or less every discussion you have, that your interpretation carries more weight than it should.


No, it doesnt mean that at all. (That you are unseen)

Thats (being unseen) the invisible condition. Its covered elsewhere.

(Parenthetical notes added)

No. Being unseen is not the invisible condition. You are flat out wrong.


I wouldnt because thats (frankly) a stupid mental image.

At no point is the fool jumping up and down in that box 'hidden' from me.

If you think otherwise, then thats just weird and we have different understandings of what 'hidden' mean.

Well, I guess the argument is over, everyone. Malifice thinks it's weird and stupid.


Using Ability Scores
Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when
circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, the question isn’t whether a creature
can see you when you’re hiding. The question
is whether it can see you clearly.

Not 'unseen'. 'Unable to be seen clearly.' See the difference?

I think you're misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting. It's perfectly clear to me that someone who is unable to be seen clearly can be considered unseen. For example, camouflage or other forms of hiding in plain sight. Also, seeing something moving in the trees, but not clearly enough to know what it is.

The problem is definitely your definition of hidden. You seem to think, based on the jack-in-the-box example, entirely differently about what hidden means. Hidden provides the ability to make unseen attacks. Even knowing someone is hidden behind a pillar, you still do not know when, nor from what angle, the attack may come. That's it, really. Wit the jack-in-the-box, you don't know when, and this can be enough to catch you off-guard.

[orange74]

All I can think of reading this thread is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTQYEkIvN2M

[mcsillas]

So, say she shot an arrow and then hid again in the same spot, (didn't move at all). A creature with a basic intelligence would then know where the arrow came from, but not see her. So, if the creature wanted to attack her, would it be disadvantage or would they be able to even target her? As in a targeted attack, not AOE.

It doesn't matter the creature's intellect, once the attack hits or misses (barring Skulker feat), she is no longer hidden (unseen and unheard). A few ways to remedy this if you're an enemy trying find someone hidden behind an object:

1. Ready action with the trigger being, "if she pops out of cover they attack once her position is revealed" (no longer hidden).

2. Have the enemy move to an angle where they have line of sight - hidden does not mean invisible.

3. If she tries to pop out of the same location more than once, many DMs impose disadvantage to her stealth check.

If the hidden attack comes from a lightly obscured area, once the attack hits or misses, the one hidden has revealed their location and can be seen. They must move to a new location to bonus action hide again.

In a heavily obscured location, once the attack hits or misses, it is not necessary to move because you're effectively invisible - enemy suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see you.