How do you run Stealth/Hiding

[SirVladamir]

So the rules on stealth/hiding are not very detailed. The easy part is stealth run vs passive perception. But now add in these factors, how do you run it.

1. A hidden rogue needs to move 10 feet attack an enemy that is in combat. The enemy knows the rogue is somewhere, just not sure where. Is the attack with advantage? what about 2nd attack via bonus off hand or extra attack feature.
2. A Wood elf with mobility moves in (stealthy) attacks, finishes move then uses cunning action to hide, using trees/underbrush to hide.
3. What if the target fails the perception check, but a nearby ally succeeds.

When do you use passive vs rolled perception?

I'm running a group of PCs that all have stealth and enjoy using it. I want to make the rulings fair and consistent, without giving the PCs a huge advantage, or nerfing stealth too badly.

[DMThac0]

I am answering these from my table, not as a direct quote from the book, so take it as you will.

1: Unless a player/npc states they are looking for a hidden opponent it is automatically a contest vs passive.

2: Any attacks made from a hidden attacker are made with advantage, after which they are no longer hidden.

3: A hidden player/npc is hidden from any player/npc who does not beat the stealth contest, even if another player/npc beat the contest.
--3A: If the player/npc announces the location of a hidden player/npc there is an automatic +3 (to simulate advantage) added to the passive.
--3b: If the player/npc is told/knows about a hidden player/npc, and acts before the hidden player/npc, they may choose to make a Perception roll.

4: If a player/npc hides after their attack they are hidden unless passive perception beats the contest, otherwise see 3B.

That about covers the basics, some rulings are handled per situation but, this is the general way I handle it.

[Hail Tempus]

So the rules on stealth/hiding are not very detailed. The easy part is stealth run vs passive perception. But now add in these factors, how do you run it.

1. A hidden rogue needs to move 10 feet attack an enemy that is in combat. The enemy knows the rogue is somewhere, just not sure where. Is the attack with advantage? what about 2nd attack via bonus off hand or extra attack feature.
2. A Wood elf with mobility moves in (stealthy) attacks, finishes move then uses cunning action to hide, using trees/underbrush to hide.
3. What if the target fails the perception check, but a nearby ally succeeds.

When do you use passive vs rolled perception?

I'm running a group of PCs that all have stealth and enjoy using it. I want to make the rulings fair and consistent, without giving the PCs a huge advantage, or nerfing stealth too badly.Oh boy, you've done it now. This topic is a can of worms.

As a DM, I'd rule as follows:

1) If a rogue needs to cross open ground (i.e., he is no longer unseen by the target and therefore cannot be hidden), he can't attack with advantage.
2) If they're in an appropriate environment, such as a fairly dense forest environment, the Wood Elf should be allowed to Hide. I'd make him have to keep changing his hiding spot, though, if he wants the benefit of advantage. But, if he's trying to make a melee attack, see my answer to 1 above.
3) Doesn't make any difference.

Passive perception is for when someone is, well passively perceiving the world around them. Making an Perception check is an affirmative act, and in combat requires an Action.

The most important thing to remember is that if your target can see you (and 5e rules assume that everyone in combat has 360' awareness), you can't Hide from them. Also, remember that just because someone can't see you doesn't mean you're Hidden from them. Hiding doesn't happen automatically.

[Man_Over_Game]

So the rules on stealth/hiding are not very detailed. The easy part is stealth run vs passive perception. But now add in these factors, how do you run it.

Stealth-moving is a bit odd. RAW, there's not much about it.

Officially, however, JC has said that moving into an enemy's line of sight will break stealth, period. However, you can "pop" out of cover to make a ranged attack, maintaining cover and stealth as you attack, and losing stealth after the attack (unless you're using the Skulker feat). He mentions no punishments on using the same cover over and over again.

Semi-officially, Mearls has said that he'd cause disadvantage for having stealth in the same location.

Unoffically, this is how I like to run it:


MOG Stealth:



You may attempt to Hide when you are Heavily Obscured from every enemy's detection (including from Full Cover)
If you move into an enemy's line of sight, you are still considered hidden until the end of your turn, when you are then revealed. You may not be revealed if you end your turn while in a location you could attempt to Hide in, and you take the Hide Action before your turn ends. This cannot be the same Hide action that you took to initiate your Stealth.
Moving while Partially Obscured does not count as entering an enemy's line of sight.
If you are spotted and are within 15 feet of where you were last seen, Perception Checks and Passive Perception made against your Stealth Checks have advantage until the end of your next turn.
If an enemy cannot hear you, their Perception checks and Passive Perception to detect you have Disadvantage.
Attacking is the exception; if you attack, you are immediately revealed to the target after your attack resolves.
If you are revealed to a creature, you are revealed to all other creatures that can communicate with it.

These abilities are subject to change to other abilities in-game, as in instances related to Wood Elves or the Skulker feat.

This makes spamming stealth for Rogues harder, but makes sustained stealth much better.

It allows players to stealthily move around and engage in melee combat.

But most importantly, it leaves very little to guesswork, and everyone knows exactly how stealth is going to work.

----------------

With this, a Rogue could Action: Hide, move into a new location and Bonus Action: Hide and still be hidden despite moving into enemy's line of sight. The idea is that the Rogue timed their movements to move only when the enemy isn't looking or by creating a mild distraction away from their designation. A Non-Rogue can do the same, but since they cannot use the Hide action more than once per turn (except, I guess, without Action Surge), they'd have to move in much smaller increments.

You can also kill a target in melee and remain hidden, to run up and attack a second target, both attacks getting Advantage. You'd be revealed as soon as you attacked and failed to kill someone. Killing someone might not reveal you, but it's definitely enough to raise the alarm, preventing Surprise on additional targets (think Far Cry style of stealth).

Needless to say, this makes Assassins REALLY fun.

To answer your questions, though,

Officially:

The Player is revealed before attacking
The player is revealed after attacking and hides as normal
The player is revealed if the two can communicate.



With my houserules:

The player makes his first attack with advantage, but after the attack resolves, the player is revealed to the target and makes their second attack as normal.
Depends on the conditions:
If the target is dead, and you didn't enter anyone else's line of sight, you're still hidden and have no need to make another Stealth check.
If the target is dead, but you entered someone else's line of sight, you have to make a Stealth check to remain hidden.
If the target is alive, you are revealed and may attempt to Hide somewhere nearby, but enemies have a bonus to their Perception to find you if you're still in the immediate vicinity (Advantage for Passive Perception translates to a +5)

The player is revealed if the two can communicate.

[Laserlight]

1. A hidden rogue needs to move 10 feet attack an enemy that is in combat. The enemy knows the rogue is somewhere, just not sure where.
2. A Wood elf with mobility moves in (stealthy) attacks, finishes move then uses cunning action to hide, using trees/underbrush to hide.
3. What if the target fails the perception check, but a nearby ally succeeds.


1 & 2: See PHB p177: "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out o f 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."
Unless the DM rules the target is distracted, you're not Hidden when you reach the target. (This is one reason people feel that Ranged Rogues are stronger than Melee Rogues).

1a: Whether you hit or miss with your first attack roll, you give away your location and are not Hidden for any further attacks. See "Unseen Attackers" PHB 194-195

3. You're Hidden vs the one who didn't perceive you. Of course, if the ally says "Enemy behind that tree!", the DM will probably give the non-perceptive one another roll.

4. When a character is actively searching, he rolls PER (or, at my table, the DM rolls it so the player doesn't know whether "there's nothing there" is because there's nothing there or because he rolled a 1). If the character isn't actively searching, the DM compares the sneaker's Hide roll to the target's Passive.

[jas61292]

I love stealth, and stealthy characters are my favorite kind. That said, stealth is for intelligent combat strategy, and not for mindless spamming of advantage, in my opinion. As such, I'm rather tough on stealth in my games.

So called "pop up" stealth is a strict no no (rogues are expected to get sneak attack most rounds though allies in melee, not through advantage), and whether or not a character can move in battle without being seen is highly situational.

Thus, as regards to question 1, it depends. If the rogue hides but then comes right back up from where they disappeared from before walking out in the open towards the enemy, they are not hidden and don't get advantage. If the rogue has taken advantage of numerous obstacles and popped back out in a new location behind the enemy, then I probably would grant advantage. If it is less obvious, I may ask for another stealth check (possibly with advantage or disadvantage) to see if they are able to sneak up unseen. Regardless of what happens though, a second attack in such situations will never have advantage, barring special circumstances.

In the second situation, the elf gets his advantage on his attack and hides again. That all works fine, but any further action would be resolved based on circumstances as described above. If there is lots of natural cover, this is great for the elf, but it still will not allow pop up stealth.

As for the third situation, failing the perception means they fail to notice the hiding character. If an ally does not fail their perception, they can inform them that someone is hiding, and they can attempt a perception check as an action. However, even if they do not, they are aware of the character's presence now, and so, once again will not be susceptible to an attack at advantage unless the hiding character does something mor than just pop out from where the ally pointed and attack.

Ultimately, my guiding rule is that to have advantage you must be unseen, and to attack, you must be able to see the opponent, which usually means they can see you. To remain unseen while attacking requires more than simply having good Stealth.

Stealth, to me, is mainly about defense and avoiding attacks. It is not (other than through initial surprise) about boosting offense.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

So the rules on stealth/hiding are not very detailed. The easy part is stealth run vs passive perception. But now add in these factors, how do you run it.

1. A hidden rogue needs to move 10 feet attack an enemy that is in combat. The enemy knows the rogue is somewhere, just not sure where. Is the attack with advantage? what about 2nd attack via bonus off hand or extra attack feature.
2. A Wood elf with mobility moves in (stealthy) attacks, finishes move then uses cunning action to hide, using trees/underbrush to hide.
3. What if the target fails the perception check, but a nearby ally succeeds.

When do you use passive vs rolled perception?

I'm running a group of PCs that all have stealth and enjoy using it. I want to make the rulings fair and consistent, without giving the PCs a huge advantage, or nerfing stealth too badly.

This is how I do stealth. Since there aren't many RAW on stealth there are as many opinions as DMs just about. But my take follows and is fairly situational:

1. If the enemy doesn't know where the rogue is for any reason then I would grant advantage. The second attack would be normal because I think it's clear in RAW that an attack breaks stealth isn't it? Now that I think about it, even "extra attack" is still within a split second in game so the NPC wouldn't really have time to react. I might end up flopping on this and giving advantage to both, especially if the rogue is well-hidden.

2. The elf is hidden if they successfully took the hide action after moving away and breaking line of sight sufficiently. Alternatively, if they didn't use the hide bonus action but just broke line of sight, the NPC would know where they are but attacks would have disadvantage as long as the NPC can't see them. Contrast this with the PC popping out of cover, firing with a normal attack, then popping back in. This is demonstrated well in The Patriot's first big fight scene in the woods. There's not knowing where someone is (hide), then there's knowing where the are but not being able to see them (Mel Gibson hiding behind a tree as soldiers shoot the tree).

3. If the ally could say something like, "Hey look out, he's right behind you!" and the NPC could reasonably use the information and a turn of the head to discern the player's exact location then I'd allow it. But if the player is still behind a bush or something then I'd say the NPC still doesn't know enough to negate the player having advantage.

[Hail Tempus]

Alternatively, if they didn't use the hide bonus action but just broke line of sight, the NPC would know where they are but attacks would have disadvantage as long as the NPC can't see them Wouldn't the cover rules be more appropriate in this situation? If someone has full cover behind a tree, attackers shouldn't be able to target him at all unless they move into a position where they can see him. They know he's there, they just can't get a shot at him. It's a different situation from fighting an invisible, but not Hidden, opponent.

[Man_Over_Game]

Wouldn't the cover rules be more appropriate in this situation? If someone has full cover behind a tree, attackers shouldn't be able to target him at all unless they move into a position where they can see him. They know he's there, they just can't get a shot at him. It's a different situation from fighting an invisible, but not Hidden, opponent.

I thought the same thing. Mel Gibson isn't "hidden" by 5e rules, just behind cover. He can still attempt to "hide", but doing so would simply imply that his actions behind the tree are unknown, but the troops know exactly where he is. Mostly, this comes down to masking his timing for an attack.

[Digimike]

So the rules on stealth/hiding are not very detailed. The easy part is stealth run vs passive perception. But now add in these factors, how do you run it.

1. A hidden rogue needs to move 10 feet attack an enemy that is in combat. The enemy knows the rogue is somewhere, just not sure where. Is the attack with advantage? what about 2nd attack via bonus off hand or extra attack feature.
2. A Wood elf with mobility moves in (stealthy) attacks, finishes move then uses cunning action to hide, using trees/underbrush to hide.
3. What if the target fails the perception check, but a nearby ally succeeds.

When do you use passive vs rolled perception?

I'm running a group of PCs that all have stealth and enjoy using it. I want to make the rulings fair and consistent, without giving the PCs a huge advantage, or nerfing stealth too badly.

1. Rogue would roll stealth for the movement vs the enemy's passive perception. If the roll succeeds then the attacks during the round are with advantage.
2. If you rule there is enough brush to provide cover, and the elf has the movement to reach it then it's good provided the roll beats the enemy's passive perception.
3. Then the target doesn't know the location and the allies do. If the target decides to use it's action to search the allies would provide advantage and likely a bonus to the target.

Rolled perception implies the character is using it's action to look for something/someone. Passive is always active.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Wouldn't the cover rules be more appropriate in this situation? If someone has full cover behind a tree, attackers shouldn't be able to target him at all unless they move into a position where they can see him. They know he's there, they just can't get a shot at him. It's a different situation from fighting an invisible, but not Hidden, opponent.

Yes, but depending on the situation. If you're behind a big wall or a California Redwood, then no you couldn't be targeted. If you're behind a regular tree that's only slightly bigger than you or a thick bush, I'd allow disadvantage. The reason is that it isn't easy to take cover and ensure you're completely obscured without at least taking an action to do so.

So if you're just moving behind something like a bush or tree without taking an action to hide, there's a chance you leave some of yourself visible. --->Disadvantage for your attackers

See: cats and kids trying to hid from adults, be it behind curtains, chairs, or really anything. Does that make sense?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I thought the same thing. Mel Gibson isn't "hidden" by 5e rules, just behind cover. He can still attempt to "hide", but doing so would simply imply that his actions behind the tree are unknown, but the troops know exactly where he is. Mostly, this comes down to masking his timing for an attack.

That's my point. Him getting behind the tree just gives disadvantage to his attackers. He doesn't get advantage on the attacks.

[Keravath]

According to the rules ...
-if you have appropriate cover you can attempt to hide (total cover for most, light natural obscuration for wood elves, larger creatures for some halflings)
-if your stealth check roll exceeds the creatures passive perception then you are hidden from that creature
-if you move in the open to approach a target you will usually (at the DMs discretion) lose your hidden status
- simply popping out from behind cover to make an attack does not revoke the hidden status (based on sage advice comments - discussion happens likely because the amount of moving required to break stealth is not explicitly defined)
- once you have taken an attack you are no longer hidden so subsequent attacks from extra attack do not benefit from hidden status


Some folks impose a number of additional homebrewed constraints ...
- can't hide behind the same terrain twice
- limited hiding in combat

However, this may depend on how the individual DM imagines hiding to work. The rules themselves do not impose constraints on what situations are valid for hiding ... if the target can't see you then you can try hiding is all that the rules indicate.

Hiding can be interpreted as breaking the target's awareness of the attacker ... they can not keep track of them and as a result have little or no warning when the hidden character attacks resulting in advantage on that attack for the attacker. In this interpretation, all that the attacker requires to obtain advantage is to be able to make an attack without sufficient warning being telegraphed to the target so that they are unable to respond. Since a combat round is only 6 seconds, we are actually discussing a second or so delay in reaction time by the target to allow the attacker to have a better chance of hitting effectively (advantage).

[guachi]

Man_Over_Game, I like your stealth rules. Consider them stolen.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That's my point. Him getting behind the tree just gives disadvantage to his attackers. He doesn't get advantage on the attacks.

I think it just give him cover.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I think it just give him cover.

Yes, and attacking a creature you can't see imposes disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

Yes, and attacking a creature you can't see imposes disadvantage.
Attacking a creature behind cover* means you can't hit it at all.

Edit: *I mean total cover. If it has partial cover, it provides a bonus to AC, not disadvantage on attack rolls.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Total cover = no line of sight, no attacking.

Half or three-quarters cover = mutual (obscured) line of sight, attacking possible, DM's adjudication whether this can be done in any given situation without breaking stealth before the attack, as (not) clarified by JC in podcast thingy. There are situations where it seems like it should obviously be possible, others where it should equally obviously be impossible, many cases in between. So, depending on who's Pex's DM that day...

[Keravath]

Total cover = no line of sight, no attacking.

Half or three-quarters cover = mutual (obscured) line of sight, attacking possible, DM's adjudication whether this can be done in any given situation without breaking stealth before the attack, as (not) clarified by JC in podcast thingy. There are situations where it seems like it should obviously be possible, others where it should equally obviously be impossible, many cases in between. So, depending on who's Pex's DM that day...

Half or three quarters cover does NOT mean "mutual (obscured) line of sight" though it can mean that.

Someone hiding behind a tree, a box or a wall, may have 1/2 cover (+2 to AC) or 3/4 cover (+5 to AC) for attacks against them. They may have no penalty attacking someone else (depending on the DM judgement) because they are next to whatever is providing cover.

If you are in a forest, and two creatures are firing at each other at range and there are a bunch of trees obstructing each other then each creature could have cover relative to the other one.

If you are trying to fire into a melee with creatures between you and your target, the target may also have cover. Depending on where those creatures are, you may or may not have cover for any return fire.

Cover is not necessarily reciprocal, it depends on the situation and its application is up to the DM.

[Chronos]

The problem with requiring total concealment for hiding is that if you already have total concealment, you don't even need to hide.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The problem with requiring total concealment for hiding is that if you already have total concealment, you don't even need to hide.

It is the difference between not being seen to not being noticed.

[Hail Tempus]

The problem with requiring total concealment for hiding is that if you already have total concealment, you don't even need to hide. That's not how the rules on Hiding work, though. Being unseen (or concealed) is a necessary condition to attempting to Hide, but it's not suffficient. Watch how combat is depicted in movies and TV shows. When someone dives behind cover during a firefight, his enemies might not be able to see him or shoot at him, but they still know where he is. The Hide action in DnD represents someone not only making themselves unseen from their opponent, but also doing so in a manner that their opponent doesn't know where they're hiding.

Keep in mind, you can be hidden but not under cover. For example, an invisible rogue can Hide in the middle of an empty field (or behind a tapestry), but if someone were to make their Perception check to find them, the rogue wouldn't get the benefit of the increases in AC provided by the cover rules (though their attacker would still have disadvantage on attacks).

Hiding, cover and being unseen are all related, but there's a variety of ways for them to interact.

[Man_Over_Game]

Man_Over_Game, I like your stealth rules. Consider them stolen.

I'm glad you like them! It took me a while to come up with something that was simple, fluid and fun. Hopefully it does well for you.

My one gripe is that it doesn't cover anything in regards to distance to enemies to be spotted, but that might be intentional (allowing room to sneak up on someone, steal their keys, and back out undetected), and every idea I came up with that cared about distance would have been very stupid.

If you notice any major flaws, or if you come up with any ideas to improve it, please let me know!

[Man_Over_Game]

That's not how the rules on Hiding work, though. Being unseen (or concealed) is a necessary condition to attempting to Hide, but it's not suffficient. Watch how combat is depicted in movies and TV shows. When someone dives behind cover during a firefight, his enemies might not be able to see him or shoot at him, but they still know where he is. The Hide action in DnD represents someone not only making themselves unseen from their opponent, but also doing so in a manner that their opponent doesn't know where they're hiding.

Keep in mind, you can be hidden but not under cover. For example, an invisible rogue can Hide in the middle of an empty field (or behind a tapestry), but if someone were to make their Perception check to find them, the rogue wouldn't get the benefit of the increases in AC provided by the cover rules (though their attacker would still have disadvantage on attacks).

Hiding, cover and being unseen are all related, but there's a variety of ways for them to interact.

Technically, the only requirement to Hide is just not being noticed. Assuming the hider beat the Passive Perception on all targets, he's successfully hiding.

There is some errata that helps clarify:
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.

Now, Passive Perception is allowed to get Advantage (translates to a +5), and a Hide action is allowed to be made with Disadvantage, so if the situation is unlikely to Hide in a circumstance (but the DM doesn't say it's impossible), then I'd just add one of those modifiers to what seems the most likely.

Add a houserule that says "If a creature knows your rough area, it gets Advantage on its Perception to detect you against Stealth", or "If you Hide in the same location you used to break line of sight, you have Disadvantage on your Hide action"

[Malifice]

1. A hidden rogue needs to move 10 feet attack an enemy that is in combat. The enemy knows the rogue is somewhere, just not sure where. Is the attack with advantage?

Unless the attack is made from hiding (I.e. from the place the Rogue is hidden, or the Rogue can somehow approach a target keeping to its blind spot/ unseen) the Rogue ceases being hidden once he's out in the open.


what about 2nd attack via bonus off hand or extra attack feature.

Even if the Rogue could cover the distance unseen (i.e. sneak up behind his target etc) once he makes his first attack, he reveals himself and stops being hidden.

So no.


2. A Wood elf with mobility moves in (stealthy) attacks, finishes move then uses cunning action to hide, using trees/underbrush to hide.


If he's under direct observation he cant attempt to hide. The hiding attempt requires him to be unable to be seen clearly before he makes the check, and light natural obscurement doesnt meet that requirement if the Elf is under direct observation.

However if his target is distracted and looking the other way, then the Elf can use his mask of the wild ability to hide in light natural obscurement just fine.


3. What if the target fails the perception check, but a nearby ally succeeds.

Then the Rogue is hidden relative to the first target, but not hidden relative to the second.


When do you use passive vs rolled perception?


You roll Perception when you take the Search action (TN = Stealth check result of hidden creatures). You use passive perception as the TN when a hostile creature uses the Hide action.

[Malifice]

Technically, the only requirement to Hide is just not being noticed. Assuming the hider beat the Passive Perception on all targets, he's successfully hiding.

Actually the requirement is (subject to the DM ruling) you must be 'unable to be seen clearly' in order to attempt to Hide.

This particular DM rules that if an enemy watches you attempting to hide (i.e. watches you move behind a pillar in an empty room) and thus knows where you are (and is objectively correct in that knowledge, as in you didnt move behind the pillar, misty step elsewhere while not being watched, and hide elsewhere) then you cannot attempt to Hide (the attempt automatically fails).

In hectic combat situations when your barbarian friend is trying to carve the enemies face in with an axe, this rarely comes up. Its a common sense ruling that the enemy creature isnt watching you closely at all and you can make the attempt just fine.

Context is important. Hence why we have 'The DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.'

[Man_Over_Game]

Actually the requirement is (subject to the DM ruling) you must be 'unable to be seen clearly' in order to attempt to Hide.

This particular DM rules that if an enemy watches you attempting to hide (i.e. watches you move behind a pillar in an empty room) and thus knows where you are (and is objectively correct in that knowledge, as in you didnt move behind the pillar, misty step elsewhere while not being watched, and hide elsewhere) then you cannot attempt to Hide (the attempt automatically fails).

In hectic combat situations when your barbarian friend is trying to carve the enemies face in with an axe, this rarely comes up. Its a common sense ruling that the enemy creature isnt watching you closely at all and you can make the attempt just fine.

Context is important. Hence why we have 'The DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.'

Sure, but there has to be a valid reason for the fact that a Lightfoot Halfling can hide behind humanoids that's on the same level as how a Wood Elf can hide while Partially Obscured.

I think there's two different "versions" of Hide that DMs use, and we're on opposite sides of the fence:

Hidden refers to enemies not knowing your location. To Hide, enemies cannot explicitly *know* of your location. You cannot Hide in a location that leaves no ambiguity (like in an outhouse).
Hidden refers to having your actions be unknown to the target, which may include your location. You cannot Hide while you are being observed.


#1 is location dependent, and #2 is action dependent. Unfortunately, there's not really enough rules to determine which is more right or which is more wrong, I just see most DM's picking one of these two versions and sticking with it.

[Spiritchaser]

If he's under direct observation he cant attempt to hide. The hiding attempt requires him to be unable to be seen clearly before he makes the check, and light natural obscurement doesnt meet that requirement if the Elf is under direct observation

Just a minor point, it’s the “not seen clearly” that is critical here, whatever the interpretation of that is (and as we know there is no guidance on that point) so a DM might well determine that backlighting and shadow have enough impact, and that light obscurement is situationally enough, elf or not, direct observation or not.

Another DM would also be acting consistently with RAW in stating that natural light obscurement would nearly always be enough, although that feels wrong and badly cheapens the wood elf mask of the wild racial, which strongly implies that there needs to be a higher standard for non wood elves, though what that standard might be is left to the DMs discretion.

[Ganymede]

1: I generally do not allow someone to cross open ground in combat without being spotted. Unusual circumstances might change that, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

2: This sounds like a question dealing with when it is reasonable to hide. I would allow this wood elf to hide like this in a combat situation as long as the hiding spot is not obvious (i.e. the elf wouldn't be able to run behind a lone tree and hide behind it because the elf's location would be obvious. On the other hand, the elf could hide in a fog bank or a swath of tall grasses because the elf's location would not be obvious.).

3: I let PCs burn a reaction to shout something substantive out of turn, so I'd probably just use that here.



{Crawford} mentions no punishments on using the same cover over and over again.

Semi-officially, Mearls has said that he'd cause disadvantage for having stealth in the same location.



Since then, the phrase "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding” was added to the rules. Both Crawford's implication and Mearls' statement fit neatly into that addition.

[Malifice]

[QUOTE=Man_Over_Game;23582250]Sure, but there has to be a valid reason for the fact that a Lightfoot Halfling can hide behind humanoids that's on the same level as how a Wood Elf can hide while Partially Obscured.

If an NPC is chatting to a PC Halfling and Human, and the Halfling walks behind the Human while in full view of the NPC and tries to Hide, I rule 'auto-fail, you arent hidden'. The monster knows where you are (he saw you go there) and is objectively correct in that knowledge. You are not hidden relative to that monster.

If the Halfling does so while not under direct observation of the creature he's trying to hide from that's a different story. Creating a distraction first for example.

Ditto the Thief that tries to hide in a box while under direct observation. It auto-fails.

Different story (obviously) if he climbs in the box while the room is empty and tries to Hide (and a monster walks in afterwards) or if the monster in the room is sufficiently distracted (say by a friendly Barbarian trying to smash his face in a with a sharp heavy thing while screaming at him in an insensate fury).

Its simply a question of context (and this is reflected in the rules by the line 'the DM determines when circumstances are OK for hiding'). Just apply the rule of common sense when determining if a creature can hide (or become hidden) relative to another creature.

I've never had a problem with the RAW on hiding. They were intentionally written vague to allow the MMORPG crew the ability to run it as 'mash the Stealth button' if they so desire, and for us Old School DMs to rule via interpreting the rules through common sense, and context.

Broadly speaking in order to Hide, you must first position yourself to be 'unable to be seen clearly' by 1 or more creatures (and for the circumstances to dictate that hiding is possible; subject to the DM and the context of the encounter). Becoming invisible is the best way of course, because it fulfils both conditions, and allows you to attempt to Hide largely when ever you want.

If you satisfy those two requirements (make yourself unseen, or nearly so, and the DM rules hiding is possible in the current context), you then take the Hide action and must roll higher than the Passive Perception of nearby observers to be hidden from them.

Once hidden, you stay so until they either take the Search action and find you, or you give yourself away (by attacking, becoming visible to the target, or otherwise revealing yourself).

I've never had a problem with the RAW personally. Most of the problems I have seen with it involve DMs not applying common sense, or having hangups on earlier editions (ruling invisibility is 'auto hidden' sort of stuff, which irks me no end).

[Malifice]

Just a minor point, it’s the “not seen clearly” that is critical here, whatever the interpretation of that is (and as we know there is no guidance on that point) so a DM might well determine that backlighting and shadow have enough impact, and that light obscurement is situationally enough, elf or not, direct observation or not.

For sure. DMs can (indeed they are expected to) make rulings on when you can (or cannot) attempt to hide. That includes determining when a creature can (or cannot) be 'seen clearly'.

One point from above; are people still trying to make the claim that one cant attack from hiding and remain hidden (until the attack is resolved)?.

Clearly they can (you peek around the tree and snap off a shot with your Xbow or whatever). That's clearly the intent of the rules, and I would have thought it was beyond settled by now.

A PC could be hidden 60' away from a battle in the shrubs watching the battle unfold (unable to be seen clearly, and hidden). He snaps a shot off with his crossbow from his hiding spot and ceases to become hidden (hit or miss; unless he's a Skulker and misses).

Re: crossing open ground and staying hidden, the general rule is 'nope; unless you attack from your position of hiding, moving across open ground to make an attack breaks your hiding' unless the DM determines that you can remain hidden while crossing that open ground (for example, the monster has his back to you).

If my PC rogue (hidden) asks me if he can sneak up on a monster for a 'backstab' I'll consider the context of the encounter. If the monster is unaware of the Rogue (and thus almost certainly focused on his companions), and the monster is positioned in such a way that it's likely that his back is to the Rogue (miniatures help, but so does ToTM if the description warrants), or circumstances are likely that the Rogue could sneak up behind the monster (approach unseen), then i'd allow it.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Attacking a creature behind cover* means you can't hit it at all.

Edit: *I mean total cover. If it has partial cover, it provides a bonus to AC, not disadvantage on attack rolls.

True, but this is where it gets tricky. Just a few pages before the cover rules we have the rules for attacking a creature you can't see. I try to use these in conjunction with each other rather than separate from each other. So depending on the situation I might make someone untargetable, give them +5 AC, or give the attacker disadvantage. In my mind there's a difference behind being behind a wall or a building vs a tree roughly your size (without taking the hide action).

It's also worth noting that I almost never play with a grid anymore, so positions in combat are more approximations than exact locations. I've found the advantage/disadvantage system a really simple way to implement rules for stealth, cover, etc.

Like I said, it's tricky and there are as many opinions on stealth and how it should work as there are DMs. This is just what I've found helpful to this point, though I'm open to changing. Especially if any of my players ever complained or told me they were confused about how it worked. I tend to favor the players when they're using stealth or the terrain to their advantage because I like them being creative rather than just "hitting the thing."

[Malifice]

True, but this is where it gets tricky. Just a few pages before the cover rules we have the rules for attacking a creature you can't see. I try to use these in conjunction with each other rather than separate from each other. So depending on the situation I might make someone untargetable, give them +5 AC, or give the attacker disadvantage. In my mind there's a difference behind being behind a wall or a building vs a tree roughly your size (without taking the hide action).

It's also worth noting that I almost never play with a grid anymore, so positions in combat are more approximations than exact locations. I've found the advantage/disadvantage system a really simple way to implement rules for stealth, cover, etc.

Like I said, it's tricky and there are as many opinions on stealth and how it should work as there are DMs. This is just what I've found helpful to this point, though I'm open to changing. Especially if any of my players ever complained or told me they were confused about how it worked. I tend to favor the players when they're using stealth or the terrain to their advantage because I like them being creative rather than just "hitting the thing."

Cover is a physical barrier. Obscurement (or unseen) targets are in relation to a target you cant see, but not due to a physical barrier.

A target behind a wall has cover. A target standing in a pool of darkness has total obscurement.

The rules for hiding are written so you do not need to be totally unseen (you just need be able to 'not be seen clearly'). You can be behind a pillar, tree or low wall and peering around or over it and quietly watching a monster and remain hidden relative to that monster.

You can attack an adjacent creature with a melee attack (or a far away one with a ranged attack) from such a hiding position just fine, revealing yourself only after the attack is resolved.

OTOH, If you have to leap out from behind your tree and move to attack a creature standing 10 feet away, you arent hidden when you make the attack (barring the DM ruling you can remain largely or totally unseen during your movement, and thus sneak up on them without revealing yourself).

[Max_Killjoy]

In modern CQB circles, you'll sometimes see this as the distinction between "cover" and "concealment" -- a lot of things people think are "cover" are just "concealment", because a bullet will go right through it.

[Malifice]

In modern CQB circles, you'll sometimes see this as the distinction between "cover" and "concealment" -- a lot of things people think are "cover" are just "concealment", because a bullet will go right through it.

The rule we got taught in the Army was 'unless the tree you're behind is big enough for you to put your arms around it and have your fingers not touching the fingers of the other hand, it's not cover.'

Spent years hiding behind large trees in training.

Then they deploy you to the desert.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Cover is a physical barrier. Obscurement (or unseen) targets are in relation to a target you cant see, but not due to a physical barrier.

A target behind a wall has cover. A target standing in a pool of darkness has total obscurement.

The rules for hiding are written so you do not need to be totally unseen (you just need be able to 'not be seen clearly'). You can be behind a pillar, tree or low wall and peering around or over it and quietly watching a monster and remain hidden relative to that monster.

You can attack an adjacent creature with a melee attack (or a far away one with a ranged attack) from such a hiding position just fine, revealing yourself only after the attack is resolved.

OTOH, If you have to leap out from behind your tree and move to attack a creature standing 10 feet away, you arent hidden when you make the attack (barring the DM ruling you can remain largely or totally unseen during your movement, and thus sneak up on them without revealing yourself).

Yes. I agree with all of this. Maybe the tree is a bad example, especially since they're using muskets in the patriot. Let's take a thick bush or something of that nature. Maybe even an evergreen tree with thick branches that reach to the ground.

I'd grant disadvantage because while it's not likely that someone sitting behind a bush (but not hidden) will get hit with an arrow, there's still a slight chance. It's a physical object that I would also count as full cover if it's large enough. But because of the nature of the situation, I'd recognize that there's a chance the creature gets hit with an arrow, thus granting disadvantage to the attack rather than saying the creature can't be targeted at all.

Edit: Not sure if you read my first comment or two, but all of this is contingent on the fact that a creature is simply using movement to take some form of cover and not a full hide action or bonus action.