Hiding. Perception and Advantage

[KyleG]

Ok so I want to know how you'll interpret the RAW on hiding. My own interpretation is hiding conveys two things.
Unseen as it pertains to targeting that person.
Unseen for the purpose of advantage


So if the rogue spends his turn attacking a fighter and then walks behind a rock 20ft away taking the hide action. he is now unseen. The fighter knows where he went but the rogue still would get advantage to attack him as he doesnt know from which side he will appear or exactly when. But if the fighter goes next and walks behind the rock he would just see the rogue, no roll needed, no perception vs stealth. Just "found you" stabby stabby.

Is that a fair interpretation? My DM rules differently, it doesnt affect me in his game, but as i am hopeful of running my own game soon Im wondering if i putting too much stock in realism vs RAW.

Let the rules lawyers commence weigh in please.

[Contrast]

Let the rules lawyers commence weigh in please.

Welcome to the pandoras box you've willfully kicked out :smalltongue:


taking the hide action. he is now unseen

You mostly seem on the money, I think this is the point where I'd raise some question marks.

Its eminently possible to be unseen without ever taking a hide check (dextrity stealth check to hide if we're being specific and, if my experience of discussion rules on the internet is anything to go by, we're about to get specific) - for example, an invisible creature is unseen but not necessarily hidden. Unseen and hidden are not the same thing and you don't actually need to be hidden to gain advantage in theory - just being unseen is enough. It's just that DMs in order to decide if you qualify for the benefits of being unseen will usually rely on the hiding rules to adjudicate.

Its worth saying if combat stealth bothers you, the new Rogue 'Aim' action gives rogues another route for gaining advantage. Just be sure to be clear to your players how you're gonna run things before character creation.

[KyleG]

So can i assume you believe once the hide action is taken your understanding is that the fighter now has no idea where the rogue went and even if he walked behind the rock he would still have to roll for perception?
And that im now in houserule territory?

[Millstone85]

hidden = unseen + unheard

The moment the rogue gets behind the rock, he is unseen. If he then takes the Hide action, he can now be unheard as well.

Being unseen comes with two goodies. Enemies attack you at disadvantage, and you attack them at advantage. However, a rock is a bad example for this, because (1) it is opaque in both direction, meaning you can't see the enemy either and the advantages/disadvantages cancel out, and (2) neither of you can attack through the rock anyway.

Being hidden, again both unseen and unheard, means that the enemy also has to guess your position before attacking you. Here, since the enemy saw you go behind the rock, it is an informed guess. But depending on the size of the rock, the enemy might still have some doubt on your exact position. Though again, because the rock provides full cover, this is a moot point anyway.

Then there is the matter of the jack-in-a-box strategy. In general, it should not work. The moment you reappear, you are seen again. No advantage for you. But a DM might decide that the enemy is sufficiently distracted (say, by the ongoing battle) for that to work.

[Contrast]

So can i assume you believe once the hide action is taken your understanding is that the fighter now has no idea where the rogue went and even if he walked behind the rock he would still have to roll for perception?
And that im now in houserule territory?

...I'm confused.

I agree with your initial statement ('if the fighter goes next and walks behind the rock he would just see the rogue, no roll needed, no perception vs stealth. Just "found you" stabby stabby'). I don't agree with your new statement ('once the hide action is taken your understanding is that the fighter now has no idea where the rogue went and even if he walked behind the rock he would still have to roll for perception?').

Once of the preconditions of hiding is that they can't be able to see you clearly. If they move into a position where they can now see you clearly, you are no longer hidden from them, no test required. People retain object permanence and may be able to infer you are still behind the rock and act accordingly, they just don't currently have any evidence for it.

[KyleG]

...I'm confused.

I agree with your initial statement ('if the fighter goes next and walks behind the rock he would just see the rogue, no roll needed, no perception vs stealth. Just "found you" stabby stabby'). I don't agree with your new statement ('once the hide action is taken your understanding is that the fighter now has no idea where the rogue went and even if he walked behind the rock he would still have to roll for perception?').

Once of the preconditions of hiding is that they can't be able to see you clearly. If they move into a position where they can now see you clearly, you are no longer hidden from them, no test required. People retain object permanence and may be able to infer you are still behind the rock and act accordingly, they just don't currently have any evidence for it.

Phew we are on the same page...its late, i clearly misinterpreted your statement.

And from your initial statement, Its not the advantage mechanic really in question here. Its what happens when the fighters turn comes round... and object permanence as you stated would suggest that they walk behind the rock, find the rogue and battle continues. The Rogue doesn't just get to hide in the shade of the rock with his 38 stealth roll compared to the fighters 18 perception roll. He is literally on the square before him still.

[MoiMagnus]

[The "Hiding" paragraph on p177 of the PHB is up to my knowledge the only official source on this subject]

Hiding is not being unseen. Being unseen is a prerequisite for being hiding, and being hidden helps to remain unseen, but those are two different concepts.

When you are behind a rock, you are immediately unseen. Full stop. However, as soon as you hope from being your rock, you are seen again immediately, before you have the time to attack (hence no advantage from being an unseen attacker). To remain unseen long enough to land your attack before being noticed, you need to be hidden, and the target needs to be "distracted" (which according to the rules, is determined by the DM).

IMO, the target being busy not being killed by other peoples around nearby is enough, but if the target is staring at the rock you're hiding behind ready to shot you, you're not gonna surprise them.

[Glorthindel]

Its worth saying if combat stealth bothers you, the new Rogue 'Aim' action gives rogues another route for gaining advantage. Just be sure to be clear to your players how you're gonna run things before character creation.

I am definitely a fan of that new action, as it removes one of the main reasons why ranged Rogues were so invested in needing to be able to Hide in combat. They needed advantage for their Sneak Attacks, so needed to be able to Hide to get it, and if the DM was disallowing in-combat hiding, he was indirectly nerfing the Rogues ability to generate Sneak Attacks. Now they can generate advantage through the Aim action, the Hide discussion can be seperated, without it revolving entirely around the Rogues expected Sneak Attack frequency (while at the same time indicating that the Cunning Action Hide was likely originally intended as a Advantage / Sneak Attack generator, but everything else about hiding muddied the water, so Cunning Action Aim gives the Rogue the ability they always intended for them, but in a cleaner manner).

[Contrast]

Hiding is not being unseen. Being unseen is a prerequisite for being hiding, and being hidden helps to remain unseen, but those are two different concepts.

This was actually errata'd. The specific wording is 'You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly', not unseen. See also abilities like the wood elf or skulker that let you hide even when you're only lightly obscured.


IMO, the target being busy not being killed by other peoples around nearby is enough, but if the target is staring at the rock you're hiding behind ready to shot you, you're not gonna surprise them.

Given there's already some confusion regarding game terms, lets not mention surprise, eh? :smallbiggrin:

[Millstone85]

The "Hiding" paragraph on p177 of the PHB is up to my knowledge the only official source on this subject"Unseen Attackers and Targets" on p194 also contains valuable information:

"lf you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
"If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly."

[Unoriginal]

Ok so I want to know how you'll interpret the RAW on hiding. My own interpretation is hiding conveys two things.
Unseen as it pertains to targeting that person.
Unseen for the purpose of advantage


So if the rogue spends his turn attacking a fighter and then walks behind a rock 20ft away taking the hide action. he is now unseen. The fighter knows where he went but the rogue still would get advantage to attack him as he doesnt know from which side he will appear or exactly when. But if the fighter goes next and walks behind the rock he would just see the rogue, no roll needed, no perception vs stealth. Just "found you" stabby stabby.

Is that a fair interpretation? My DM rules differently, it doesnt affect me in his game, but as i am hopeful of running my own game soon Im wondering if i putting too much stock in realism vs RAW.

Let the rules lawyers commence weigh in please.

"Unseen" and "hidden" are separate things. When hidden, you are both unseen and unheard (and unpercieved by other senses).

As an example, being invisible doesn't automatically make you hidden, but since you are unseen you can attempt to hide to also become unheard and the like.

A Rogue hiding behind a rock is hidden. The Fighter might suspect they are there and go check, "breaking" the hiding, if they can see the Rogue clearly. Similarly if the Rogue decides to use a Horn of Valhalla to summon reinforcement, they would no longer be hidden because people can clearly hear the horn (assuming nothing stops them from hearing it).

[KyleG]

"Unseen" and "hidden" are separate things. When hidden, you are both unseen and unheard (and unpercieved by other senses).

As an example, being invisible doesn't automatically make you hidden, but since you are unseen you can attempt to hide to also become unheard and the like.

A Rogue hiding behind a rock is hidden. The Fighter might suspect they are there and go check, "breaking" the hiding, if they can see the Rogue clearly. Similarly if the Rogue decides to use a Horn of Valhalla to summon reinforcement, they would no longer be hidden because people can clearly hear the horn (assuming nothing stops them from hearing it).

Yep im probably mixing words here so thats probably not helping. Nor was using rogue.
So, by raw...

X was 5ft from fighter, engaged. they step out of range (forget the OA) behind the rock. And take the hide action (stealth roll). The fighter can (without rolling) walk behind the rock and see them and take action.

Thats it, thats all i want clarified. Im not worried about X popping out for shots on their next turn, whether they have infact sunk into the river and floated 10 miles down stream, just that if they stay behind the rock, regardless of stealth, the fighter can logical walk behind the rock and see them there cowering in fear.

[Millstone85]

X was 5ft from fighter, engaged. they step out of range (forget the OA) behind the rock. And take the hide action (stealth roll). The fighter can (without rolling) walk behind the rock and see them and take action.Yes.


Thats it, thats all i want clarified. Im not worried about X popping out for shots on their next turn, whether they have infact sunk into the river and floated 10 miles down streamYou did ask about X popping out for shots on their next turn.

[clearstream]

So can i assume you believe once the hide action is taken your understanding is that the fighter now has no idea where the rogue went and even if he walked behind the rock he would still have to roll for perception?
And that im now in houserule territory?
Per RAW the fighter would see them (on walking around the rock). Not knowing the location means that the fighter doesn't know what square they are in - and if the rogue was able to say teleport to a different hidden location, the fighter wouldn't know that. What the fighter does know is that they saw a rogue disappear behind that rock.

[clearstream]

Yep im probably mixing words here so thats probably not helping. Nor was using rogue.
So, by raw...

X was 5ft from fighter, engaged. they step out of range (forget the OA) behind the rock. And take the hide action (stealth roll). The fighter can (without rolling) walk behind the rock and see them and take action.

Thats it, thats all i want clarified. Im not worried about X popping out for shots on their next turn, whether they have infact sunk into the river and floated 10 miles down stream, just that if they stay behind the rock, regardless of stealth, the fighter can logical walk behind the rock and see them there cowering in fear.
So far as popping out behind rocks go, that isn't SFAIK completely clear from RAW. If you add up RAW and commentary on RAI it seems like a good way to play it is that a rogue is still hidden in the first square they step into from hiding, until they take any type of action, move, or end their turn. (I'm not sure if one ought to add "are targeted by an effect" to that list?) At my table, I play it that this only works the first time. After that, the rogue needs to find a new angle to attack from.

[Keravath]

Hiding is not invisibility.

As soon as a creature can clearly see a "hidden" creature they are no longer hidden.

Hidden means "unseen and unheard". Seeing something clearly stops a creature from being hidden.

Some creatures have special abilities allowing them to hide when lightly obscured. A wood elf can hide in natural lightly obscured conditions like bushes where they might still be partially visible. A halfling can hide behind a creature at least one size larger. The skulker feat allows hiding in any lightly obscured conditions including dim light, foliage or anything else the DM considers lightly obscured. However, ignoring those exceptions, if you can see a creature they are NOT hidden.

In your example, the fighter can walk around the rock and assuming the rogue is still there, can take there attacks as normal because the rogue is not hidden.

[stoutstien]

Hiding in 5e within any initiative based play is clunky. I've only seen it handled well once or twice over the last few years.

I avoid the whole issue by granting the hidden PC/NPC the ability to stay hidden even if the move into sight but their Dex check value must beat the PP of the enemies and that value increased by 5 for every 5ft they move. If they fail the check they lose the hidden condition for everyone that has LOS.

[Keltest]

In general, i appeal to the rule of common sense in these scenarios. if theres nothing for you to hide behind, then you cant be hidden no matter how good your roll was. Invisibility and/or racial features can increase the amount of viable hiding locations. Even the hiding rules lead with saying that its up to the DM whether circumstances are appropriate for you to be hiding.