Help Needed on Hiding During Combat

[AHF]

Bringing this over from the RAW thread and adding a couple notes for organization:

Questions on Hiding During Combat

Sorry if some of these are elementary but I am a relative newbie trying to DM a party with a Half-Elf Paladin and Halfing Rogue. The 3rd Level Arcane Trickster Rogue uses his cunning action most rounds to hide behind the Paladin. He looks to attack with advantage and sneak attack every round either with a ranged weapon (bow or crossbow) or melee weapon (rapier or short-sword). I've read the rules on stealth and a couple threads but feel like I really don't have a great grasp on it yet.

BASIC HIDING

#1 When the Halfing hides and is in position to get cover from the Paladin, am I supposed to use the stealth roll of the Halfing in a contest versus a perception check of the enemy or use the passive perception of the enemy? With expertise in stealth, it is super easy for the Halfing to beat an enemy's passive perception. I assume that for opponents where the Paladin does not provide cover that the Halfing can't hide.

Example: Hallway with X = Walls, E1 = Enemy 1, P = Paladin, H = Halfing, E2 = Enemy 2

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
E3 ------ E1 ------ P H ----------- E2
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So contest with H's stealth versus E1 perception and E3 perception and no contest with E2? Passive perception for E1 and E3?

BASIC COMBAT WHEN HIDDEN

#2 If the Halfing successfully hides, will he get advantage and sneak attack when attacking E1 or E3 with a ranged attack if the Paladin is not within 5 feet of E1 yet?

#3 If the Halfing successfully hides, can he be targeted by E1 or E3 casting spells with an attack roll at disadvantage (like Firebolt)? Can he be targeted by E1 or E3 by spells without an attack roll (like Hold Person)? Does this depend on whether the spell calls out a need to see the target? (I.e., hold person says a target you can "see" but firebolt just says a creature "within range")

AT WHAT DISTANCE DOES HIDING TAKE PLACE WHEN ALLY IS IN MELEE?

#4
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
E3 ------ E1 P H ------------------- E2
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If the Paladin and E1 are engaged in melee and E1 is using a melee weapon like a longsword with 5 foot range, can the H hide and stay >5 feet back from E1 and then pop out and use a ranged attack at advantage versus E1 and then go back into hiding without drawing an attack of opportunity? (I know sneak attack applies since the Paladin and E1 are engaged in melee but am wondering about the 5 foot disadvantage for ranged attacks and wondering he can hide while remaining further than 5 feet out while still getting the benefit of hiding). If not, is the attack normal (i.e., disadvantage from being at close range canceling out with the advantage from hiding) while still getting the sneak attack due to proximity of E1 and P? If he can't stay >5 feet away does he get to rehide without avoiding an AOO since he stays within 5 feet?

#5 If the Paladin and E1 are engaged in melee, can the H pop out and stab E1 with a melee weapon and use his cunning action to hide without drawing an attack of opportunity? (This is perhaps just a variation on 477(d) and trying to clarify that if he can't hide while being >5 feet away, can he stay within 5 feet and hide without drawing an AOO?)

DOES THE RANGED DISADVANTAGE PENALY APPLY IF ROGUE IS HIDDEN FROM NEARBY OPPONENT?

#6 If the answer to 477(d) is that he can't both hide and avoid being within E1's melee range if he wants to hide behind P, can he pop out and shoot at E3 with advantage instead of trying to shoot E1 at close range or does being within 5 feet of E1 still impose disadvantage even when he is hidden from E1?

CAN A HALFING HIDE USING AN OPPONENT?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
E3 ------ E1 H -------------------
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

#7 Can the Halfling hide from E3 behind opponent E1? (I.e., if E1 is attacking him with a longsword can H swing at E1 and use cunning action to position himself behind E1 to gain hidden status vis-a-vis E3?)

#8 If so, what if the Halfing attempts to hide behind an enemy with a 10 foot reach? Using the example above, can the Rogue hide behind E1 who is attacking him with a halberd (or some other weapon with 10 foot reach) to gain advantage on a ranged attack against E3 by moving 6 feet from E1, shooting E3 and then hiding behind E1 again without provoking an AOO since he never left E1's reach?

Many thanks in advance.

[Easy_Lee]

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

Thus the halfling can hide behind anyone larger than him, even an enemy, as long as that creature is between him and what he's trying to hide from. Picture it like hiding behind a tree.

When hidden, the halfling cannot be seen. Thus he cannot be the target of attacks or spells that require a target if he is hidden from the attacker. This also applies to his allies, by the way. He hides from them too.

The halfling attempts to hide using his stealth check vs passive perception. He's hidden from anyone whose passive perception he beats until he reveals himself, they move into a position that allows them to see him clearly, or they make an active perception check (action) that beats his stealth check. This is one reason why hiding in a backpack is so effective for small rogues; enemies can't see you no matter where they stand, and the backpack's material might provide cover.

The halfling reveals his position when he makes an attack. He has advantage on the attack since he's hidden when he makes the attack. The common ruling is that rogues can poke their heads out of hiding and make one attack while still hidden. The book isn't completely clear on this but it seems to be the intent.

[AHF]

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

Thus the halfling can hide behind anyone larger than him, even an enemy, as long as that creature is between him and what he's trying to hide from. Picture it like hiding behind a tree.

When hidden, the halfling cannot be seen. Thus he cannot be the target of attacks or spells that require a target if he is hidden from the attacker. This also applies to his allies, by the way. He hides from them too.

The halfling attempts to hide using his stealth check vs passive perception. He's hidden from anyone whose passive perception he beats until he reveals himself, they move into a position that allows them to see him clearly, or they make an active perception check (action) that beats his stealth check. This is one reason why hiding in a backpack is so effective for small rogues; enemies can't see you no matter where they stand, and the backpack's material might provide cover.

The halfling reveals his position when he makes an attack. He has advantage on the attack since he's hidden when he makes the attack. The common ruling is that rogues can poke their heads out of hiding and make one attack while still hidden. The book isn't completely clear on this but it seems to be the intent.

That helps a lot.

So when the Halfling emerges from hiding and stabs someone there is no AOO when they use cunning action not to disengage but to re-hide?

(If the Halfling is hiding in a backback can't an opponent just target the backpack? That seems similar to pulling a normal blanket over yourself on the battlefield.)

[AHF]

With the passive perception is this correct?

Level 20 Cleric with 20 Wisdom = 15 Passive Perception (10 + 5 for Wisdom Modifier)

Level 3 Rogue with 16 Dex and Expertise In Stealth = 1d20 + 3 + 2x2(Prof Bonus) = 1d20 +7. Requires a roll of 9 to hide successfully.

[Easy_Lee]

That helps a lot.

So when the Halfling emerges from hiding and stabs someone there is no AOO when they use cunning action not to disengage but to re-hide?

(If the Halfling is hiding in a backback can't an opponent just target the backpack? That seems similar to pulling a normal blanket over yourself on the battlefield.)

Regarding attacking the backpack, yes. The rogue might even count as restrained in that case. Hopefully your players won't get clever and craft an adamantine backpack.

The halfling won't provoke attacks of opportunity while he's hidden but he may not be able to get to a spot the opponent can't see in order to hide if the opponent is close enough to hit him, unless the opponent has long reach. Example, line breaks are five feet:

G = Giant
H = Human paladin
R = Lightfoot halfling rogue

The paladin is concealing the rogue from the giant so the rogue can hide and then, if successful, move out of the giant's reach without provoking an attack of opportunity.


With the passive perception is this correct?

Level 20 Cleric with 20 Wisdom = 15 Passive Perception (10 + 5 for Wisdom Modifier)

Level 3 Rogue with 16 Dex and Expertise In Stealth = 1d20 + 3 + 2x2(Prof Bonus) = 1d20 +7. Requires a roll of 9 to hide successfully.

Unless the cleric has the Perception skill, the above is correct. If the cleric does have perception then it will be 21 (10+5+6). If the cleric also had observant then it would be 26. While I'm at it, an inquisitive rogue who's pushing it might get his passive perception up into the 30s.

[DivisibleByZero]

The paladin is concealing the rogue from the giant so the rogue can hide and then, if successful, move out of the giant's reach without provoking an attack of opportunity.

Only if he can remain hidden from the giant while moving out from behind the paladin, which is doubtful. The instant he steps out from behind the paladin, he is no longer hidden, not from the giant or anyone else who has line of sight on him.
And anyone who had line of sight on him while he was behind the paladin (like his party members, probably) would have known where he was the entire time (unlike what you said before about hiding from his party).
You're only hidden if they can't see you. You can be hidden from person A and not be hidden from person B, both at the same time.

[Easy_Lee]

Only if he can remain hidden from the giant while moving out from behind the paladin, which is doubtful. The instant he steps out from behind the paladin, he is no longer hidden, not from the giant or anyone else who has line of sight on him.
And anyone who had line of sight on him while he was behind the paladin (like his party members, probably) would have known where he was the entire time (unlike what you said before about hiding from his party).
You're only hidden if they can't see you. You can be hidden from person A and not be hidden from person B, both at the same time.

Right. The paladin can see him but he isn't hidden from the giant anymore if he moves back and the giant can see over the paladin. However, he is still hidden from anyone behind the giant. The hide action doesn't require you to specify who or what you're trying to hide behind.

A ruler or similar is useful to make straight lines and determine who can see who.

[AHF]

Only if he can remain hidden from the giant while moving out from behind the paladin, which is doubtful. The instant he steps out from behind the paladin, he is no longer hidden, not from the giant or anyone else who has line of sight on him.

So the moment he steps out from behind the Paladin, does he get advantage on the attack if the target has line of sight?

Does the enemy get an opportunity attack when he retreats behind the Paladin again without using disengage?

(I'm not too fixated on the Giant scenario which seems more concerned with the issue of whether the Giant has line of sight behind the Paladin due to his size - for purposes of this I am assuming he can get concealment behind the Paladin in an effort to understand routine hiding and rogue attacks)

[Easy_Lee]

Targets are no longer hidden as soon as the enemy in question has line of sight to them. Regarding opportunity attacks, stepping into a foe's reach does not normally trigger.

[DivisibleByZero]

So the moment he steps out from behind the Paladin, does he get advantage on the attack if the target has line of sight?

Does the enemy get an opportunity attack when he retreats behind the Paladin again without using disengage?

(I'm not too fixated on the Giant scenario which seems more concerned with the issue of whether the Giant has line of sight behind the Paladin due to his size - for purposes of this I am assuming he can get concealment behind the Paladin in an effort to understand routine hiding and rogue attacks)

Adv: Yes, because he was hidden. Think of it like someone jumping out from behind a door and scaring you. Even if you had an idea that they were there, you didn't know exactly where they were or exactly when they'd jump out and scare you.

OA: Yes, because he is no longer hidden. Unless he hides again, and can remain hidden until he's out of the giant's OA range. If he moves into a space where he is no longer hidden, then he's just moving in the open and is subject to everything that would normally happen to anyone else openly moving to/from that space.

[BlackbirdXX]

I think the other small piece maybe being overlooked is cover and space? As I DM I felt like the Halfling rogue was an easy button until I stopped adding assumptions or rational that aren't in the rules.

So in the hallway example... yes. He can make a ranged attack with advantage against E1 and E3 but P grants E1 1/2 cover and you could argue P + E1 grants E3 3/4 cover. E3 can clearly see him so he should figure that problem out first. :)

As for melee, in the same hallway example... he doesn't have reach to hit E1. He can move through a friendly square but can't 'end' there, even transitionaly to attack. And once he leaves the 'obscurement' provided by P, he is no longer hidden. So he can't just hide and then walk invisible up to E1 and stab him. The minute he advances past P he is no longer obscured.

And once E1 engages P, melee becomes impossible for the H (unless reach, whip maybe).

[Armored Walrus]

Note that AoO requires that you see the target. So you can be not hidden and still not suffer an opportunity attack if the attacker can't see you. So you could Hide behind the paladin, attack w opportunity, move back behind the paladin, NOT HIDE, and still move away without an AoO as long as you never get within line of sight of the giant. It being a giant, though, I would rule that as soon as the halfing takes one step straight back, the giant can see him over the paladin's head. But, not to get bogged down in that specific example (I know, too late) Hidden means those you've Hidden from don't known where you are and can't see you, broken line of sight just means they can't see you. There are different mechanics affected by those two different statuses.

[DivisibleByZero]

Note that AoO requires that you see the target. So you can be not hidden and still not suffer an opportunity attack if the attacker can't see you. So you could Hide behind the paladin, attack w opportunity, move back behind the paladin, NOT HIDE, and still move away without an AoO as long as you never get within line of sight of the giant. It being a giant, though, I would rule that as soon as the halfing takes one step straight back, the giant can see him over the paladin's head. But, not to get bogged down in that specific example (I know, too late) Hidden means those you've Hidden from don't known where you are and can't see you, broken line of sight just means they can't see you. There are different mechanics affected by those two different statuses.

What?

I was about to write a long post arguing this, but then I realized that it was a waste of my time, and would likely just devolve into an endless argument.
So never mind. Carry on thinking that you can stand directly in front of an enemy after revealing yourself by attacking, not attempt to hide, and somehow still not be seen.

[Easy_Lee]

Note that AoO requires that you see the target. So you can be not hidden and still not suffer an opportunity attack if the attacker can't see you. So you could Hide behind the paladin, attack w opportunity, move back behind the paladin, NOT HIDE, and still move away without an AoO as long as you never get within line of sight of the giant. It being a giant, though, I would rule that as soon as the halfing takes one step straight back, the giant can see him over the paladin's head. But, not to get bogged down in that specific example (I know, too late) Hidden means those you've Hidden from don't known where you are and can't see you, broken line of sight just means they can't see you. There are different mechanics affected by those two different statuses.

That's a good point. Attacks of opportunity don't go off if you manage to conceal yourself in some way. By the same token, anyone should be able to step behind a tree or similar and be un-targetable by spells that require line of sight if the caster doesn't have LOS.

[Armored Walrus]

Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

He's not directly in sight of the giant. He's obscured by a creature one size larger. Line of sight rules are independent of Hide rules. The only place they intersect is you have to be obscured (no line of sight) in order to attempt to Hide.

Same way and Invisible creature can move away without an AoO. You have to see the target of an AoO. So even though the Invisible creature is not hidden (ie. folks know what square it's in) it can't be attacked with an AoO.

Again, didn't want to get bogged down in the details of that specific example. Just pointing out that not having line of sight on a creature is different than that creature being hidden.

[BlackbirdXX]

I think I follow what you are saying. If it were a terrain feature instead of your ally that was hiding you it would make more sense.

But I thought any attack, successful or not, basically nullified hidden. So If you hide under a small stack of crates... reach out and sneak attack his tendon... you kinda give yourself away but still can't be targeted? You are no longer hidden but still obscured so no OoA? Of course OoA happens when you move out of his reach, so better hope the crates are piled longways. :)

[Easy_Lee]

I think I follow what you are saying. If it were a terrain feature instead of your ally that was hiding you it would make more sense.

But I thought any attack, successful or not, basically nullified hidden. So If you hide under a small stack of crates... reach out and sneak attack his tendon... you kinda give yourself away but still can't be targeted? You are no longer hidden but still obscured so no OoA? Of course OoA happens when you move out of his reach, so better hope the crates are piled longways. :)

You are no longer hidden if you attack but you might still be unseen. Classic example is the devil's sight warlock attacking from darkness.

[Armored Walrus]

I think I follow what you are saying. If it were a terrain feature instead of your ally that was hiding you it would make more sense.

But I thought any attack, successful or not, basically nullified hidden. So If you hide under a small stack of crates... reach out and sneak attack his tendon... you kinda give yourself away but still can't be targeted? You are no longer hidden but still obscured so no OoA? Of course OoA happens when you move out of his reach, so better hope the crates are piled longways. :)

Have to see a target to get an AoO on it. Hidden or not. So yeah, the attack means you're not longer hidden, but if you can break line of sight somehow before moving out of reach, no AoO. Not sure how I'd rule in your specific example, but the rule itself is that you must be able to see your target in order to AoO them.

Note that being able to melee attack from hiding is considered by some folks here to be an edge ruling as well. In order for you to stab your opponent from under that stack of crates, you have to have line of sight on them, and if you have line of sight on them, they have line of sight on you, so you are not hidden. I personally don't rule it that way, and in your example above I'd probably allow the attack at advantage, but also allow the AoO since the target is going to try to swipe at you while you're still visible with your dagger hand extended from the crates.

[Millstone85]

Line of sight rules are independent of Hide rules. The only place they intersect is you have to be obscured (no line of sight) in order to attempt to Hide.Yes, a general rule is that you must be unseen before you can become hidden. And I do think that being unseen to a creature, being heavily obscured to a creature, and offering no line of sight to a creature, are all the same notion.

But then we have Mask of the Wild, which lets a wood elf attempt to hide even when only lightly obscured by natural stuff. Here, I believe, the logic is inverted. The wood elf is unseen because they are hidden. But if the attempt fails, the wood elf can not otherwise treat the light obscurement as heavy obscurement. Opportunity attacks still trigger and so on.

Same thing, in my opinion, with a lightfoot halfling's Naturally Stealthy trait. You can not declare "No line of sight!" just because there is a medium or larger creature in the way.

[Armored Walrus]

Heh, well I'm not gonna die on that hill. In the end, no matter how many posts we spend on it, we're all going to rule our way in our games.

Hopefully OP got enough food for thought to make a ruling in his.

[Easy_Lee]

Anyway, things are a little complex at times. Here's my advice, OP: whatever you do, be reasonable and be consistent. No one can fault you for those qualities.

[Armored Walrus]

No one can fault you for those qualities.

Except on internet forums.

[Easy_Lee]

Except on internet forums.

Exceptions always exist, except for this statement, and this one, and this one...

[AHF]

Anyway, things are a little complex at times. Here's my advice, OP: whatever you do, be reasonable and be consistent. No one can fault you for those qualities.

Appreciate the follow-up on this discussion. So if I'm reading right in a standard combat it would work something like this:

"The Paladin and Halfling encounter the same 2 Orcs with their Kobold Wizard friend (with 12 wisdom) from earlier who wanted to kill the Halfling for stealing their ale along with their Wizard friend. The Orcs are 30 feet away, scream at you and charge with axes raised. Roll initiative."

Initiative Order - 1H, 2 Orcs (15 HP each), 3P, 4W (15 HP)

W
O1-----------------------H
O2-----------------------P

Round 1
- Halfing (H): I fire my bow at O1 and hide behind the paladin. Misses. Hide: Rolls 1d20+7 against the Orc's 10 passive perception and must therefore roll a 4 or higher versus Orcs and a 5 or higher versus Wizard. Rolls a 7 so hidden from everyone.
- Orcs (O1 & O2): The 2 Orcs charge and both attack the paladin because they can't see H and aren't real strategic.
- Paladin (P): Attacks O1. Hits for 8 dmg.
- Kobold Wizard (W): Can't target H with Magic Missile so blasts P.


W-----------------------O1\
-------------------------O2- PH


Round 2
-Halfling: "I jump out and sneak attack O1 with my rapier." H hits with sneak attack doing 13 damage. O1 is down. "I hide with P between me and O2." (Same 1d20+7 vs 10 for O2 and 11 for W)
-Orc2: H is hidden so O2 can't target H and attacks P.
-Paladin: Attacks O2.
-Wizard: Circles around O2 so he has line of sight on Halfling and casts fire bolt at him.

-------------------W
-------------------
----------------O2-PH

Round 3
-H: Sneak attack O2 and hide from O2 behind P. Same 1d20+7 versus 10 but only a contest against O2 this time.
-O2: Attack P unless H fails stealth check.
-P: Attacks O2, taking O2 out.
-W: Casts flame bolt at H.

Round 4 (every round until end of combat)
-H: I shoot my bow at W and hide with P in between me and W. 1d20 +7 versus 11 passive perception (needs a 5).
-P: Throws a javelin at W.
-W: Can't target H so targets P.

etc.

[BlackbirdXX]

Round 2
-Halfling: "I jump out and sneak attack O1 with my rapier." H hits with sneak attack doing 13 damage. O1 is down. "I hide with P between me and O2." (Same 1d20+7 vs 10 for O2 and 11 for W)
-Orc2: H is hidden so O2 can't target H and attacks P.
-Paladin: Attacks O2.
-Wizard: Circles around O2 so he has line of sight on Halfling and casts fire bolt at him.


This is where it breaks I think.

The halfling isn't occupying the paladins square, just hidden/obscured behind him. He needs to step forward and to the right of the paladin to hit with melee in your layout above. Thus losing his obscuring source and should be instantly visible to both orcs. Now I let it slide because 'cool' and it seems like the spirit of the rule. BUT once he downs Orc 1 and worse if he doesn't, he is still in Orc 2s reach and getting back behind the paladin will draw a AoO unless he disengages thus no hiding. Make sense?

Also Round 3 and on. Don't forget to have your enemies can use tactics also. The W isn't gonna stand in the open, he can seek cover or drop prone for free thus negating advantage on the Halfling sneak attack at range.

[Malifice]

OP, you have the rub of it (in a general mechanical sense).

The halfling can move behind the Paladin, and attempt to Hide as a bonus action thanks to cunning action, and his racial trait.

If his Stealth check beats the passive perception of his target, he is hidden from that target. He gets advantage to attack rolls, and the creature doesnt know where he is anymore (so cant attack him).

This remains the case until he attacks (which reveals him after the attack is resolved, hit or miss) or they use the search action to find him, or he otherwise gives himself away.

That said, hiding is expressly up to DM interpretation and rulings. I certainly dont allow creatures to attempt to hide when its obvious where they are (no ducking into a chest, closing the lid and attempting to 'hide' while in full view of the enemy, unless you have some kind of ability to teleport to a different position while in the chest, or a secret compartment to sneak out of like a magicians assistant does).

If a creature was watching the Halfling as he ducked behind the Paladin, or a tree, or whatever, then I wouldnt allow the Stealth check to Hide at all (DC = Nope). In the chaos of battle I'd certainly allow the occasional attempt, but if he's engaged in melee, or someone is watching him intently I'd rule he cant make the attempt (or rather that he can, but the check auto-fails due to him being watched).

[Farecry]

Also, in round two the wizard, I think, is required to make an active perception check since halfling was hidden. Line of sight doesn’t? immediately break being hidden.

[Farecry]

OP, you have the rub of it (in a general mechanical sense).

The halfling can move behind the Paladin, and attempt to Hide as a bonus action thanks to cunning action, and his racial trait.

If his Stealth check beats the passive perception of his target, he is hidden from that target. He gets advantage to attack rolls, and the creature doesnt know where he is anymore (so cant attack him).

This remains the case until he attacks (which reveals him after the attack is resolved, hit or miss) or they use the search action to find him, or he otherwise gives himself away.

That said, hiding is expressly up to DM interpretation and rulings. I certainly dont allow creatures to attempt to hide when its obvious where they are (no ducking into a chest, closing the lid and attempting to 'hide' while in full view of the enemy, unless you have some kind of ability to teleport to a different position while in the chest, or a secret compartment to sneak out of like a magicians assistant does).

If a creature was watching the Halfling as he ducked behind the Paladin, or a tree, or whatever, then I wouldnt allow the Stealth check to Hide at all (DC = Nope). In the chaos of battle I'd certainly allow the occasional attempt, but if he's engaged in melee, or someone is watching him intently I'd rule he cant make the attempt (or rather that he can, but the check auto-fails due to him being watched).

Do you let your players know beforehand you don’t like the RAW stealth mechanics? I ask because I had a DM who is the same and didn’t tell me until character was in game already, which was super frustrating for me, as it was a stealth concept character. He was gracious enough to let me bring a new character in instead as he agreed his view did break the characters build (started lvl 8) into not being useful.

[DivisibleByZero]

Do you let your players know beforehand you don’t like the RAW stealth mechanics?

The RAW stealth mechanics are that the DM decides when it is appropriate for someone to hide.
There is literally no wrong answer. It is entirely, 100% DM purview/fiat.

[AHF]

This is where it breaks I think.

The halfling isn't occupying the paladins square, just hidden/obscured behind him. He needs to step forward and to the right of the paladin to hit with melee in your layout above. Thus losing his obscuring source and should be instantly visible to both orcs. Now I let it slide because 'cool' and it seems like the spirit of the rule. BUT once he downs Orc 1 and worse if he doesn't, he is still in Orc 2s reach and getting back behind the paladin will draw a AoO unless he disengages thus no hiding. Make sense?

Also Round 3 and on. Don't forget to have your enemies can use tactics also. The W isn't gonna stand in the open, he can seek cover or drop prone for free thus negating advantage on the Halfling sneak attack at range.

So with the Orcs then, hiding behind the Paladin would take the Halfing outside of the 5 foot range and provoke an AOO? If so, can the halfling do the same thing except never enter the 5 foot reach and instead shoot an arrow from his bow with advantage and rehide?

The ability to hide behind a person during combat seems the express intent of the racial ability but I'm having trouble seeing how to implement it. It seems like if the hiding spot behind the person the Halfling is hiding behind is in the 5 foot range then the Halfling can melee attack with advantage and rehide without exiting the 5 foot range and drawing an AOO and if the hiding spot is outside of 5 feet away then he should be able to do the same with a ranged weapon.

[Easy_Lee]

The RAW stealth mechanics are that the DM decides when it is appropriate for someone to hide.
There is literally no wrong answer. It is entirely, 100% DM purview/fiat.

That's not a very useful way of looking at it since players have expectations about how hiding works. And it's not entirely accurate either since the book provides several concrete statements about hiding, such as, "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." Players generally expect to be able to hide if they cannot be seen and in my experience that's how most DMs rule it.

[Malifice]

Do you let your players know beforehand you don’t like the RAW stealth mechanics?

I was citing the RAW stealth mechanics. The first line of the RAW is: 'The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.'

Thats the RAW.

If you climb into a box and close the lid (in an empty room) and you can attempt to hide the box.

If you do it while under direct observation, you can't (or you can try, but you fail as the DC is infinity). The monster knows where you are.

As JC put it in a recent tweet:

'The DM determines whether a creature is sufficiently obscured to successfully hide. And even if there is enough concealment, the DM might decide your attempts fail if you, for example, keep hiding behind the same pillar and your enemy watches you do it. '


That's not a very useful way of looking at it since players have expectations about how hiding works. And it's not entirely accurate either since the book provides several concrete statements about hiding, such as, "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." Players generally expect to be able to hide if they cannot be seen and in my experience that's how most DMs rule it.

There is more to it than simply 'not being seen.' Stepping into a cardboard box and closing the lid (in full view of a dude 10' away) doesnt let you hide from that dude.

There is nothing you can do in that box that is going to make the watching you crawl in there, suddenly forget you did so.

[Millstone85]

I certainly dont allow creatures to attempt to hide when its obvious where they are (no ducking into a chest, closing the lid and attempting to 'hide' while in full view of the enemy, unless you have some kind of ability to teleport to a different position while in the chest, or a secret compartment to sneak out of like a magicians assistant does).Even if you are hidden, an enemy can still attack a position where they think you have a chance to be. If a guard saw you disappear between a curtain and a wall, after what you managed to make no sound, it could be modelized as three squares of hiding area, one of which the guard would attack at random through the curtain. If instead the guard saw you duck into a chest and close the lid, with no sound afterward, you would thus have reached a single square hiding area, which doesn't so much need to be disallowed, just pointed out to be useless.

[Zalabim]

There is nothing you can do in that box that is going to make the watching you crawl in there, suddenly forget you did so.
Hiding isn't about getting creatures to forget what you did. It's all about if they know where you are right now. Can I see the rogue? No, I can see the box. Where is the rogue? In the box. At least I saw him get in the box. I don't hear anything now. Maybe the box has an opening where I can't see. Maybe the rogue has an ability to silently teleport. Maybe the rogue has an ability to loudly teleport, but I don't know where the teleport goes to. Maybe the rogue just pretends to have an ability to loudly teleport to somewhere I don't know where but actually just goes really quiet afterwards. Maybe I think I can still hear the rogue but it's actually a sound from Minor Illusion. Maybe the rogue isn't in the box. I can always open the box to make sure.

Usually the only question a player has about hiding is "does this allow me to attack with advantage" though, and that can be tricky to answer. On one hand, giving the rogue advantage won't break the game, and on the other hand you have DMs who get wounded in the sensibilities whenever rogues do things. It's tough for a DM to balance those two interests. Seriously though, repetitive, boring, or downright nonsensical rogue plans wear out a DMs goodwill until everything else is just no, no, no more.


There is more to it than simply 'not being seen.' Stepping into a cardboard box and closing the lid (in full view of a dude 10' away) doesnt let you hide from that dude.

I certainly dont allow creatures to attempt to hide when its obvious where they are (no ducking into a chest, closing the lid and attempting to 'hide' while in full view of the enemy, unless you have some kind of ability to teleport to a different position while in the chest, or a secret compartment to sneak out of like a magicians assistant does).
Just because the creature can correctly guess where someone is doesn't mean that someone wasn't hiding. Either it's possible to hide in the box or it isn't. The watcher presumably doesn't know whether or not that character can teleport or open a secret compartment or just turn invisible when it's dark. It's just that if someone hides in the box without being able to get away, they'll be revealed when the box is opened. If there's no plan to actually get away or properly hide, it just might not do any good. I wouldn't jump straight from that to "you can't hide there." It feels like a broad misunderstanding of what hiding is for.

[tieren]

It's just that if someone hides in the box without being able to get away, they'll be revealed when the box is opened. If there's no plan to actually get away or properly hide, it just might not do any good. I wouldn't jump straight from that to "you can't hide there." It feels like a broad misunderstanding of what hiding is for.

I think this is the real crux. The PC can hide and no one may care.

If they hide in a chest, sure the NPC doesn't technically know they are still i the chest, but will probably act like they are:

Gnome successfully hides in chest; Orc picks up chest and tosses in lava.

Doesn't matter if the orc perceived the hiding gnome or not, if it saw him go in there it would probably act like he is still there. Now that could be handy if gnome really can misty step or something, or it could be completely moot they took the hiding action at all.

[Malifice]

Hiding isn't about getting creatures to forget what you did. It's all about if they know where you are right now. Can I see the rogue? No, I can see the box. Where is the rogue? In the box.

There you go. You know where the Rogue is so he is not hidden from you.

Im not sure what the Rogue can do inside that box to make you suddenly not know where he is anymore (short of misty step, teleport or a secret panel in the box to move somewhere else, while you still think he's in the box).

People seem to have this weird idea that hiding = [move into cover] and then [do some unspecified thing via the Hide action] once there and bam presto you're 'hidden'.

As opposed to some other dude who also moved into total cover with you and didnt [use the hide action to do some unspecified thing while totally concealed] and thus is not, hidden.

The RAW is 'the DM determines when you can hide.' Its the first rule, and the one that people seem to have a hard enough time remembering.

Are you trying to take the Hide action behind a tree, in a forest, while your opponent battles the Barbarian, and has his back to you? Go for it, roll Stealth. You make it and you hide. When your opponent turns around, he has no idea where you are, and no idea if you're even still around.

Are you trying to hide behind a pillar in an otherwise empty room, while under direct observation? Nope; your Stealth check automatically fails. Your opponent knows where you are. There is nothing you can do behind that pillar to change that. You're not hidden.

If you move behind the pillar (and while there and out of sight) open a secret panel and step inside the pillar? Yep; hide action possible. Roll your Stealth. You make the check and your opponent thinks you're behind the pillar, but he's wrong. You're hidden from him.

Its not rocket science. It just requires common sense. Hence the involvement of the DM.

[AHF]

Are you trying to hide behind a pillar in an otherwise empty room, while under direct observation? Nope; your Stealth check automatically fails. Your opponent knows where you are. There is nothing you can do behind that pillar to change that. You're not hidden.

If you move behind the pillar (and while there and out of sight) open a secret panel and step inside the pillar? Yep; hide action possible. Roll your Stealth. You make the check and your opponent thinks you're behind the pillar, but he's wrong. You're hidden from him.

Its not rocket science. It just requires common sense. Hence the involvement of the DM.

For purposes of whether the Rogue has advantage attacking, the pillar example is an interesting one. The defender knows the rogue is behind the pillar and that if he is in range the rogue will stab at him from behind the pillar. But it is very different than if the pillar isn't there. It is It is harder to anticipate when the attack is coming, the height it will come from, the angle it will come from, etc. Less reaction time since the defender can't see behind the pillar (is it coming at ankle height from the left, at the neck from the right, at the side from the left, etc). Failed stealth role would mean the defender can hear when he is making his move, maybe see some movement before the rogue emerges, etc. so it is more akin to a scenario where the rogue attacks with no pillar. Presumably in that pillar scenario a successful stealth role reflects that fact that the rogue is not making enough noise to tip off the defender and is keeping his movement out of sight until the last moment, etc.

Is that greater difficulty in defending therefore properly reflected in the rogue having advantage on the attack? Or is there no advantage despite the lack of visibility or cues because the defender knows the rogue is behind the pillar?

[tieren]

Is that greater difficulty in defending therefore properly reflected in the rogue having advantage on the attack? Or is there no advantage despite the lack of visibility or cues because the defender knows the rogue is behind the pillar?

Yes, I think the greater difficulty is adequately reflected in the advantage on attack if the rogue's stealth check beat the enemy's perception check in a spot where he can hide.

I think its a case where the labels bother people. If there was a rule that let the rogue get sneak attack damage when they succeed on an acrobatics check to do some weird manuever versus the perception check of the enemy to anticipate it there would be less discussion of it. (and it would still be a prof/exp Dex check against Wis/perception).

Somehow the "hidden" label stumbles everyone up.

[Vaz]

Exceptions always exist, except for this statement, and this one, and this one...

Always exceptions, without exception.

[Malifice]

For purposes of whether the Rogue has advantage attacking, the pillar example is an interesting one. The defender knows the rogue is behind the pillar

Nope. If the defender knows that, the Rogue isn't hidden.

Compare an invisible (and not hidden) creature with one that is invisible (and) hidden.

Or two guys standing behind total cover, one hidden (via taking the hide action once there) and the other not hidden (he's taken the ready action instead). Whats the difference?

Ultimately its up to your DM to determine when one can hide, so YMMV. I personally rule that if the creature can see you clearly going into your hiding spot, you cant hide from him there. The common sense approach (try playing hide and seek when the seeker is watching you hide in the closet or under a bed. See how that works out for you; while you might have total cover, at no stage are you hidden. Its a different story when the seeker closes his eyes while you hide; then you can hide).

If you prefer a game of 'mash the stealth button' then more fun to you.

[tieren]

Compare an invisible (and not hidden) creature with one that is invisible (and) hidden.

Or two guys standing behind total cover, one hidden (via taking the hide action once there) and the other not hidden (he's taken the ready action instead). Whats the difference?



Both invisible creatures attack with advantage no difference.

Hidden guy attacks with advantage, unhidden guy does not.

[Malifice]

Both invisible creatures attack with advantage no difference.

Hidden guy attacks with advantage, unhidden guy does not.

Sigh. That's not the question.

Mash away.

[AHF]

Nope. If the defender knows that, the Rogue isn't hidden.

Compare an invisible (and not hidden) creature with one that is invisible (and) hidden.

Or two guys standing behind total cover, one hidden (via taking the hide action once there) and the other not hidden (he's taken the ready action instead). Whats the difference?

Ultimately its up to your DM to determine when one can hide, so YMMV. I personally rule that if the creature can see you clearly going into your hiding spot, you cant hide from him there. The common sense approach (try playing hide and seek when the seeker is watching you hide in the closet or under a bed. See how that works out for you; while you might have total cover, at no stage are you hidden. Its a different story when the seeker closes his eyes while you hide; then you can hide).

If you prefer a game of 'mash the stealth button' then more fun to you.

It is clear to me as far as hide and seek goes (absent some mechanism like a trap door, the pillar doesn't conceal the location of the target even if completely concealed).

My post, however, was more focused on the combat implications. Do you see the difference between watching a swordsman in the open swing at you where you watch him draw the weapon, know when he is swinging, what weapon he is swinging, what direction it is coming, the part of your body being targeted, etc. and having the swordsman swing at you from behind an opaque sheet where you know he is behind the sheet but have no idea when the swing is coming, what weapon is coming, what angle it is coming from, what part of the body it is targeting, etc.?

That is what makes me wonder how this should go. Should it be advantage on the attack unless the defender takes some action to generate line of sight? (Example: "I know the rogue is around the pillar so I circle the pillar until I see him then attack") Or should it be so obvious a hiding place that there is no advantage?

I know the raw says DM discretion which is why I am struggling. Neither answer seems totally satisfactory to me from a common sense perspective because while hiding behind a pillar doesn't do you any good in hide and seek, it seems like would do some meaningful good in the ability to score a hit in real life and the RAW seems to allow for it as well absent exercising my DM discretion to squash it.

Common sense tells me: Hiding behind a pillar when the other guy doens't know you are there > known to be behind the pillar but can't be seen or heard > swinging in the open. Mechanic seems to require that the middle category either get treated like one of the other two scenarios. Just looking for ways people have implemented this trying to find something that makes sense to me to bring back to the player and implement.

[Easy_Lee]

One resolution to the hidden but unseen vs just unseen, perhaps being hidden lets the player pop out and make one attack with advantage, whereas unseen doesn't.

Note that an unseen attacker has advantage on attacks but if he can't see the target he has disadvantage. Darkness is the great equalizer as it applies advantage and disadvantage to all attacks made within it, canceling out any other sources of advantage or disadvantage. Two blind archers with longbows are more likely to hit each other from 150' away than two prone crossbowmen who are 10' away.

[Xetheral]

One resolution to the hidden but unseen vs just unseen, perhaps being hidden lets the player pop out and make one attack with advantage, whereas unseen doesn't.

Note that an unseen attacker has advantage on attacks but if he can't see the target he has disadvantage. Darkness is the great equalizer as it applies advantage and disadvantage to all attacks made within it, canceling out any other sources of advantage or disadvantage. Two blind archers with longbows are more likely to hit each other from 150' away than two prone crossbowmen who are 10' away.

You can replace the two prone crssbowmen at 10' with two standing longbowmen at 5' and get the same result, except that it's even more ludicrous.

[Millstone85]

People seem to have this weird idea that hiding = [move into cover] and then [do some unspecified thing via the Hide action] once there and bam presto you're 'hidden'.

As opposed to some other dude who also moved into total cover with you and didnt [use the hide action to do some unspecified thing while totally concealed] and thus is not, hidden.Since 5e defines "hidden" as "both unseen and unheard" (PHB p195), that mysterious thing is being vewy vewy quiet.


Im not sure what the Rogue can do inside that box to make you suddenly not know where he is anymore (short of misty step, teleport or a secret panel in the box to move somewhere else, while you still think he's in the box).From where you stand at that moment, there is no difference between (1) a rogue who ducks into a chest, closes the lid and quietly leaves through a secret panel, and (2) a rogue who ducks into a chest, closes the lid and quietly stays there.

And yes, you are going to open the chest either way. But that doesn't make the second scenario unrealistic "button mashing", just a waste of time.

[Easy_Lee]

You can replace the two prone crssbowmen at 10' with two standing longbowmen at 5' and get the same result, except that it's even more ludicrous.

Good point. Also, I just remembered that attacking at long range imposes disadvantage only. Those blind archers could be 600' away and still be more likely to hit each other than the 5' longbowmen.

[Farecry]

So basically, the way the game works is toss out the PHB and DMG because the DM will make the rules as he goes. Got it!

[Easy_Lee]

So basically, the way the game works is toss out the PHB and DMG because the DM will make the rules as he goes. Got it!

Not exactly. Tables share many things in common. For instance: players at most tables follow the same rules when building and playing their characters. It's rare for a player to say something like "I'm going to ignore the finesse requirement for sneak attack with melee weapons" or "I went ahead and gave my sorcerer more spells known because sorcerers don't get enough."

Sadly, it's much less rare for DMs to change or ignore rules when it's convenient for their plans. I suspect every DM does this to one degree or another, thus I believe it's unfair to judge DMs for doing it (philosophy: it's unfair to judge an individual for something that most people do).

That said, it's my observation that most DMs follow most of the rules as written. Does that match your experience?

[Farecry]

Lol, I was being mostly sarcastic. I’ve only played with a couple DM’s and they usually ask me out of game if I know how certain things work as I’m very much a rules person, a remembering not enforcing type. Hence my comment above about remaking a character due to his decision.

[Malifice]

From where you stand at that moment, there is no difference between (1) a rogue who ducks into a chest, closes the lid and quietly leaves through a secret panel, and (2) a rogue who ducks into a chest, closes the lid and quietly stays there.

Presuming (1) and (2) are being watched closely, (1) can attempt to hide. (2) cannot.

[Farecry]

Presuming (1) and (2) are being watched closely, (1) can attempt to hide. (2) cannot.

Technically, they could both attempt to hide, as the person watching wouldn’t know there excact location within the chest. They would know that they were inside it, which would be a different thing. In the above scenario’s, the person watching wouldn’t have knowledge of a trap door or lack of, so from their perspective hiding would be useless until they a) opened the chest and looked or b) smashed/fireballed/eaten the chest. I get what your argument is, but if one scenario is true, then the DC for the check should be the same in either situation whether or not it actually matters. Dc=Nope is true from the DM knowledge, which the person watching doesn’t have.

[Millstone85]

Presuming (1) and (2) are being watched closely, (1) can attempt to hide. (2) cannot.Your watch goes like this:
* A rogue ducks into a chest.
* The rogue closes the lid on themselves.
* The chest remains closed, without creak or crack.

The rogue is now unseen and unheard, i.e. hidden from your senses.

You know the rogue is still in the chest if there is no secret panel or other trick. You do not know if there is a secret panel or other trick.


Technically, they could both attempt to hide, as the person watching wouldn’t know there excact location within the chest.I am assuming the chest is only large enough for a single Medium creature.

The idea I am trying to convey is that it is a Wisdom (Perception) check, not an Intelligence (Investigation) one. It doesn't represent what you know or what informed guesses you can make. It is about what your senses are telling you, right now.

It is like how a creature can be unseen even though you just saw it cast invisibility.

[AHF]

Your watch goes like this:
* A rogue ducks into a chest.
* The rogue closes the lid on themselves.
* The chest remains closed, without creak or crack.

The rogue is now unseen and unheard, i.e. hidden from your senses.

You know the rogue is still in the chest if there is no secret panel or other trick. You do not know if there is a secret panel or other trick.

I think this ties out well to the original post about the halfling hiding behind a comrade. Same dynamic. You know the rogue is behind the comrade but you can't see them or hear them. When the rogue leaps out to the left or the right or stabs at an ankle between the comrade's legs, etc. does he get advantage?

[Malifice]

Your watch goes like this:
* A rogue ducks into a chest.
* The rogue closes the lid on themselves.
* The chest remains closed, without creak or crack.

The rogue is now unseen and unheard, i.e. hidden from your senses.

You know the rogue is still in the chest if there is no secret panel or other trick. You do not know if there is a secret panel or other trick.

I dont need to 'know' if there is a secret panel or other trick. The creature sees the Rogue go into the chest. He watches him do it. He assumes the Rogue is in the chest (where he saw him go). The rogue is not hidden (but he does have total cover from the creature). His stealth check to Hide automatically fails.

The rogue may be unseen and even unheard, but he's in the chest, and the monster knows he's in the chest. The monster is objectively correct in that knowledge. The Rogue is not hidden. The creature could at any time walk over to the chest and in there lies the Rogue.

The test isnt one of absolute removal of Cartesian doubt, or one of absolute knowledge of a fact (which is impossible in any event). Its a test of common sense. The question a DM should ask themselves is: 'Could a person try and hide from me (or hide from the creature) in this circumstance.'

Again; its a different story if the Rogue can move to his hiding place ubobserved (Such as using a secret panel in the chest to move elsewhwere out of sight of the monster). In that case he could hide.

That is RAW (the DM determines when circumstances are available for hiding) and RAI (supported by many tweets on the topic).

[Malifice]

Technically, they could both attempt to hide, as the person watching wouldn’t know there excact location within the chest.

Yes, they could both attempt to hide (be really quiet in the chest). Rogue (1) gets to try to hide (via the Hide action) and apply his Stealth check result vs the pasive Perception of the creature as he slinks away.

Rogue (2) automatically fails, wastes the action, and is not hidden.

[Malifice]

I think this ties out well to the original post about the halfling hiding behind a comrade. Same dynamic. You know the rogue is behind the comrade but you can't see them or hear them. When the rogue leaps out to the left or the right or stabs at an ankle between the comrade's legs, etc. does he get advantage?

If the creature knows the Rogue is behind the comrade (usually on account of watching him run back there), the Rogue is not hidden.

The Rogue can only hide behind the comrade when he (the Rogue) is not being observed closely enough. During the heat of battle, or the monster is looking the other way kind of thing.

[Millstone85]

I think this ties out well to the original post about the halfling hiding behind a comrade. Same dynamic. You know the rogue is behind the comrade but you can't see them or hear them. When the rogue leaps out to the left or the right or stabs at an ankle between the comrade's legs, etc. does he get advantage?
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.Here, the rules do encourage DM fiat, in the sense that the default answer is no but there is room for DM generosity.

Leaping out from behind his comrade, the halfling has come out of hiding. It takes special distracting circumstances for the halfling to stay hidden until after the attack.


Its a test of common sense.No, it is a test of sight and hearing.

[Malifice]

DM: Right Mark - its your turn. You're in a 30'x30' room, with one exit blocked by an Ogre, who is watching you intently. An open chest is in the middle of the room.
Mark: I move over to the chest, climb in, close the lid and attempt to hide in the chest (Hide action). Picks up dice...
DM: Fine, dont bother rolling. You're not hidden. [DM decides on the Ogres turn, it walks over to the chest, opens the lid and attempt to grapple Marks PC]. 'As you lie quietly in the chest, you hear heavy footsteps walk up to the chest, and then see the chest flung open!. A grinning Ogre reaches down to grab you.'

Compare to:

DM: Right mark - its your turn. You're in a 30'x30' room, with one exit blocked by an Ogre, who is watching you intently. An open chest is in the middle of the room.
Mark: I move over to the chest, climb in, and close the lid. While the lid is down I'll quietly cast invisibility, then use my bonus action to attempt to hide (Hide action). Picks up dice...
DM: Fine, roll [roll beats Ogres passive perception] 'On the Ogres turn, he grins, and walks over to the chest, opens the lid look in and... you see his eyes open in amazement as the dimwitted creature looks about in confusion! He starts to look about, sniffing the air [Ogre takes the Search action].'

See how it works? It requires DM involvement (circumstances). This is why the first line of the RAW is 'The DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.'

Of course, your DM might decidfe that mash the stealth button approach is better for his campaign, and Stealth somehow works to strip a creatures knowledge of where you are from existence via some kind of alteration of object permamanence. Go nuts, it's your game.

[BlackbirdXX]

Common sense tells me: Hiding behind a pillar when the other guy doens't know you are there > known to be behind the pillar but can't be seen or heard > swinging in the open. Mechanic seems to require that the middle category either get treated like one of the other two scenarios. Just looking for ways people have implemented this trying to find something that makes sense to me to bring back to the player and implement.

Every DM is different. But to me the difference here is the fact that either side my have allies helping them and nothing is static and resources should be used on both side.

I don't let rogues have free 'hidden' EVERY round. They may be hidden every round, but they need to mix up and be creative and adaptive. I want them to be hidden and sneak attack, it is their class feature. But I feel it is lazy to just let it happen and not adjust to the tactics. But good communication is import... my players know my hints, but I also let them know in plain english. So after a round or 2 of easy mode I pull a "Hey, that Orc was staring right at you when you popped out this time, you think his friend warned him. You can still attack, but not with advantage.... you may have to relocate or find his spotter" And behind the scene I have relocated another combatant and had it use it's action on perception to shut the rogue down instead of a basic attack.

So hiding behind a pillar and not knowing they are there is great. Anyone can spring an ambush, likely getting a surprise attack(s) (There is no round anymore) with advantage and then proceeding to initiative order.

Once that happens the combatants might be aware there is an attacker behind the pillar... but what can they do about it? They have a Paladin/combatants in their face to deal with. Don't get to close.... Have another ally circle around and call warning to possible spoil being 'hidden'. Drop everything and rush the murder machine lurking in the shadows. :) Make that rogue Move, Dash and Bonus Dash once in awhile. :)

So in your example above to me it is more like surprise with advantage>Advantage>normal combat. Varying degrees of benefits do exist.

And the other think I don't see mentioned often... Hiding should be rolled against passive perception unless the creature is actively using its action to search. BUT you can still give a creature advantage on a passive check. (I'm pretty sure it amounts to a flat +5, it's been a little since I looked it up) So after a round or 2 of "Peekaboo, I Stab You", even a stupid creature is gonna get suspicious and giving them advantage on passive perception isn't uncalled for.

[Millstone85]

DM: Fine, dont bother rolling. You're not hidden. [DM decides on the Ogres turn, it walks over to the chest, opens the lid and attempt to grapple Marks PC]. 'As you lie quietly in the chest, you hear heavy footsteps walk up to the chest, and then see the chest flung open!. A grinning Ogre reaches down to grab you.'Or you could go...

DM: Fine, don't bother rolling. You're hidden. [DM decides on the ogre's turn, it walks over to the chest, opens the lid and attempt to grapple Mark's PC]. 'Having fully escaped the ogre's sight and hearing, it seems you are still very much in his thoughts. Soon, the chest is shaken by heavy footsteps and flung open by massive hands, which reach down to grab you.'

[Malifice]

Or you could go...

DM: Fine, dont bother rolling. You're hidden. [DM decides on the Ogres turn, it walks over to the chest, opens the lid and attempt to grapple Marks PC]. 'Having fully escaped the ogre's sight and hearing, it seems you are still very much in his thoughts. Soon, the chest is shaken by heavy footsteps and flung open by massive hands, which reach down to grab you.'

You could rule whatever you wanted to. 'The DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.'

Clearly the issue here is you and I have different understandings of the terms 'hiding' and 'hidden'.

- A PC who enters a room, hears some monsters coming down the hallway, and then ducks behind a crate before they enter, is hidden (presuming he defeats the monsters passive perception as they enter the room). The monsters cant find him unless the take the Search action (and they have no reason to Search yet in any event) or if one of them walks around behind the crate.

- A PC who enters a room, sees 3 monsters in the room looking at him, and then leaps behind a crate in the room to hide as they watch him, is not hidden (dont bother comparing his Stealth check result against the monsters Perception, he fails automatically). The monsters do not need to take the Search action to find the PC. They know where he is. He is not hidden from them (but he does have total cover).

Can you see the difference here? PC 1 (presuming he defeats the monsters passive perception) is hidden. PC 2 is not hidden. It's irrelevant what he rolls on his Stealth check as the monsters know where he is because they watched him go there.

Its common sense. Seriously think of a game of hide and seek.

[Farecry]

You could rule whatever you wanted to. 'The DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.'

Clearly the issue here is you and I have different understandings of the terms 'hiding' and 'hidden'.

- A PC who enters a room, hears some monsters coming down the hallway, and then ducks behind a crate before they enter, is hidden (presuming he defeats the monsters passive perception as they enter the room). The monsters cant find him unless the take the Search action (and they have no reason to Search yet in any event) or if one of them walks around behind the crate.

- A PC who enters a room, sees 3 monsters in the room looking at him, and then leaps behind a crate in the room to hide as they watch him, is not hidden (dont bother comparing his Stealth check result against the monsters Perception, he fails automatically). The monsters do not need to take the Search action to find the PC. They know where he is. He is not hidden from them (but he does have total cover).

Can you see the difference here? PC 1 (presuming he defeats the monsters passive perception) is hidden. PC 2 is not hidden. It's irrelevant what he rolls on his Stealth check as the monsters know where he is because they watched him go there.

Its common sense. Seriously think of a game of hide and seek.

For the purposes of built in game mechanics and the fact that he will generally having multiple people following him in, thus distracting the monsters in a combat sense, not a hide and seek sense, he would be hidden. It’s important for him to be able to hide and pop out to sneakily attack from any side of the crate, which the monsters can’t know since they can’t see him. Yes, intuitively they should realize he is behind the crate, they will not know where at behind it he is, thus creating the advantage of being able to appear on any relevant side of it.

[Malifice]

For the purposes of built in game mechanics and the fact that he will generally having multiple people following him in, thus distracting the monsters in a combat sense, not a hide and seek sense, he would be hidden.

No, he would not.

The monsters know where he is. He aint hidden. They dont need to take the Search action to find him.


It’s important for him to be able to hide and pop out to sneakily attack from any side of the crate, which the monsters can’t know since they can’t see him.

He cant do that. He isnt hidden. The monsters know he's there. He doest get advantage if he suddenly pops over the crate and shoots the monsters.


Yes, intuitively they should realize he is behind the crate, they will not know where at behind it he is, thus creating the advantage of being able to appear on any relevant side of it.

Nope. Irrelevant. He's not hidden.

You're presuming the rules sate some kind of absolute rule that one only needs to move into total cover or heavy obscurement and you can then take the Hide action (and make yourself hidden if you succeed on the Stealth check). Your forgetting the rule that states that the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.

Attempting to hide in full plain view of the enemy (moving behind a lone crate while they watch you) isnt a circumstance that in and of itself that allows for a PC to hide. It doesnt let you hide in the real world as well.

Again, this could change. The PC could move behind the crate, turn invisible and then silently slink off somewhere else [hide action and move]. Or he could jump behind the crate, and then misty step while not seen to go into his final hiding place and then Hide.

Its a question of common sense. The advantage to attack rolls for hiding represents your enemy not knowing where you are with sufficient precision (or not knowing you're there at all). 'Behind that crate' isnt enough. 'Somewhere in this room, maybe'; does count.

This interpretation has been backed up time and time again since the game came out. Ive been saying as much for three years now, and faced a crap ton of opposition to it at first, but it's all but settled now.

In your game, feel free to run it as 'move to cover then hide'. Go nuts. The DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding after all.

In my games hidden = hidden. If what your PC is doing doesnt result in your PC reaching an end state where the monsters wont know where you are without taking the Search action (or you otherwise reveal yourself, or they get lucky) then you are not hidden. If they know where you are, and can simply walk over to you on their turn and clobber you, you are not hidden from them (but you might have total cover or obscurement).

[Malifice]

PHB 177 seems to show very specific rules for hiding actually.

Yeah. First line of the rules are: 'The DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.'

Move behind cover, and then hide alone isnt the rule. You keep trying to say it is, but it isnt.

That general rule exists within the context of: the DM first rules if it's appropriate to hide due to circumstances.

Is the monster closely watching you, as you enter a small amount of isolated cover? [Circumstances are not appropriate for hiding. Do not proceed to step 2.]

Is the monster looking the other way, as you jump behind a tree in a forested area? [Circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Proceed to step 2.]

[Farecry]

Go play paintball, have someone shoot at you, do what you can to avoid it. Then have them stand behind a crate where you can’t see them, have them pop out and shoot at you. Determine which one is easier to dodge out of the way. Then repeat, but with another person shooting at you every couple of second during both phases this time. See if you knowing they are behind the crate, but not where, hinders you.

[Millstone85]

Clearly the issue here is you and I have different understandings of the terms 'hiding' and 'hidden'.Specifically of how those terms are used in D&D 5e.

I think the most interesting sentence in the PHB is this one:
lf you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

The first element of being hidden is being unseen. Being unseen has benefits of its own, and is all about whether or not you can be seen right now. Just because you saw a creature turn invisible earlier doesn't mean you can now treat it as "seen" for the purpose of opportunity attacks and such.

The second element of being hidden is being unheard. I believe this is what taking the Hide action does. You keep your breath low, balance yourself between the creaky-squeaky parts of the ground, and so on.

So far, it matches the notion of being hidden from view and other senses, not necessarily in a hide-and-seek kind of way.

The "give away your location" part is where your interpretation gains strenght. You are not properlty hidden if your location is already a given, as in hide and seek.

[Malifice]

Go play paintball, have someone shoot at you, do what you can to avoid it. Then have them stand behind a crate where you can’t see them, have them pop out and shoot at you. Determine which one is easier to dodge out of the way. Then repeat, but with another person shooting at you every couple of second during both phases this time. See if you knowing they are behind the crate, but not where, hinders you.

It doesnt in any meaningful way.

What would make it hard for you to get out of the way is if you walked right past them and they shot you in the back, they were hidden in a bush like a sniper (and you had no idea they were there) or you were approaching obstacle one, and they were actually behind obstacle two.

Again; if you know where they are with sufficient precision, they are not hidden from you. If you dont know where they are (or even if they are there at all) they are hidden from you.

Also note how in my examples, your opponents need to 'take the Search action' to find you (looking around for you). In your example they dont (they already know your location).


The "give away your location" part is where your interpretation gains strenght. You are not properlty hidden if your location is already a given, as in hide and seek.

I wholly disagree. The 'give away your location' part supports my argument. If your location is known (he's over there - behind that crate!') you dont give away your location when you attack. It's already known.

Compare to a sniper hiding in a bush waiting for you to enter a clearing to shoot you. His location is only known once he fires.

[Psikerlord]

I generally dont allow hiding mid combat because; (i) it doesnt seem realistic to me most of the time, (ii) it's broken (partly because of the benefits being hidden provides, partly because PP makes it far too easy to hide in the first place, partly because it costs the enemy an action to attempt to find the hidden PC, and partly because ready action is a poor counter at higher levels).

[Malifice]

I generally dont allow hiding mid combat because; (i) it doesnt seem realistic to me most of the time, (ii) it's broken (partly because of the benefits being hidden provides, partly because PP makes it far too easy to hide in the first place, partly because it costs the enemy an action to attempt to find the hidden PC, and partly because ready action is a poor counter at higher levels).

Fair enough.

But doesnt your action economy only appy to rogues?

Any one can [Help action] grant advantage for the same cost, plus Searching is the same action os Hiding.

Again; barring Rogues (and goblins and high level rangers and Shadow demons).

[AHF]

Every DM is different. But to me the difference here is the fact that either side my have allies helping them and nothing is static and resources should be used on both side.

I don't let rogues have free 'hidden' EVERY round. They may be hidden every round, but they need to mix up and be creative and adaptive. I want them to be hidden and sneak attack, it is their class feature. But I feel it is lazy to just let it happen and not adjust to the tactics. But good communication is import... my players know my hints, but I also let them know in plain english. So after a round or 2 of easy mode I pull a "Hey, that Orc was staring right at you when you popped out this time, you think his friend warned him. You can still attack, but not with advantage.... you may have to relocate or find his spotter" And behind the scene I have relocated another combatant and had it use it's action on perception to shut the rogue down instead of a basic attack.

So hiding behind a pillar and not knowing they are there is great. Anyone can spring an ambush, likely getting a surprise attack(s) (There is no round anymore) with advantage and then proceeding to initiative order.

Once that happens the combatants might be aware there is an attacker behind the pillar... but what can they do about it? They have a Paladin/combatants in their face to deal with. Don't get to close.... Have another ally circle around and call warning to possible spoil being 'hidden'. Drop everything and rush the murder machine lurking in the shadows. :) Make that rogue Move, Dash and Bonus Dash once in awhile. :)

So in your example above to me it is more like surprise with advantage>Advantage>normal combat. Varying degrees of benefits do exist.

And the other think I don't see mentioned often... Hiding should be rolled against passive perception unless the creature is actively using its action to search. BUT you can still give a creature advantage on a passive check. (I'm pretty sure it amounts to a flat +5, it's been a little since I looked it up) So after a round or 2 of "Peekaboo, I Stab You", even a stupid creature is gonna get suspicious and giving them advantage on passive perception isn't uncalled for.

Very helpful post. Appreciate this one and many others in this thread.

I don't want to neuter the character's "hide behind your comrade" ability which is arguably the defining racial trait for his character and I have trouble coming up with many scenarios where that would be used in preference to hiding behind something environmental outside of situations where the enemy is there to watch it happen. It seems obvious the "hide behind your teammate" mechanic was meant to be used during combat but the potential for repeated use is one of the concerns that triggered this thread. The +5 advantage on passive perception for the opponent(s) or making the Halfling's hide roll take place with disadvantage seems a good middle ground.

[Millstone85]

I wholly disagree. The 'give away your location' part supports my argument.But that's what I said.

If you are going to counter me even when I am starting to be convinced...

[tieren]

I still think people are caught up in the term "hidden".

This is a world with invisibility, teleportation, meld into stone and earth glide, even if the enemy is 99% sure where you are they could be wrong.

Now I encourage you to just think about the mechanical benefits and fluff it however works for your brain.

Compare being hidden to having total cover.

Both can't be targeted by spells that require line of sight (nor likely line of effect). The caster can move and potentially see around the cover or gain line of sight to the hidden character (if possible), both effects more or less the same.

Both hidden and total cover prevent you from being targeted by a melee or or ranged weapon attack. Again the martial may be able to move around and defeat the cover, and if the cover was the only thing allowing hiding the character is no longer hidden and in both instances now available to be attacked, no difference.

So defensively, there is virtually no difference between being hidden and behind total cover (I am assuming here that the total cover is a single pillar or crate as has been discussed earlier in the thread).

Action economy wise some would argue the enemy has to take the search action to find you. But in this instance that isn't true, they basically know where you are. If you are not hidden they literally know where you are, and if you are they can still believe they know where you are (ie behind the pillar). It is perfectly sensible for them to act in all respects like that is where you are, the distinction between hidden and total cover doesn't matter there.

So offensively, we obviously have the added benefit of getting advantage on the attack from hidden. Which is probably the real point of contention "can a PC keep getting advantage on attacks from hiding during combat".

I maintain that they should, because the action economy and class features are set up that way.

Basically we are only talking about rogues, other characters would need to use a whole action to hide, and if they are burning every other action to do that they deserve to get advantage, economy wise not much different that using a PC action to Help another PC.

For the rogue they need position, speed, a hiding place, and their bonus action to pull it off (or the halfling racial feature). They are set up and designed for it, and their damage being so closely tied to sneak attack it nearly requires it. it doesn't break anything to let the rogue get the advantage using these features and economy, it appears what those resources were designed for.