D&D 5E "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"

[Rodney Mulraney]

Very good. Those are all good and fair answers. We all would have slightly different cut offs there and maybe some other factors would play into the scenario but I think we all have some idea of what we think would typically be good or bad enough in that scenario.

Can I ask another question.

Scenario 1: 1v1 Rogue vs Orc. Rogues Turn: Rogue runs behind a large rock. Takes the hide action. Then fires at the enemy. He gets advantage.
Scenario 2: 1v1 Rogue vs Orc. Rogues Turn: Rogue runs behind a large rock. He does not take the hide action. Then he fires at the enemy. He does not get advantage.

Besides the game mechanics difference where one gets advantage and one does not can you name one difference in the fictional game world between these scenarios?

That is a good point and worth mentioning. I cant name a single difference. These kinds of issues though, I just fall back to the "rules are very abstract" to settle myself.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That is a good point and worth mentioning. I cant name a single difference. These kinds of issues though, I just fall back to the "rules are very abstract" to settle myself.

Well, except that one rogue hid and one rogue didn't.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

I make the distinction you are making differently. In my games, you need to be heavily obscured or concealed by an obstruction to hide from/sneak past/sneak up on any creature, whether alert or not. It makes no difference. The difference comes in when I'm deciding whether to use the dice. If the creature whose notice you are trying to avoid isn't alert, then you succeed without a roll.



I really don't understand why you chose to avoid my questions. I appreciate your linking the podcast, but why do you assume others haven't listened to it? This is a 5e forum. I can assure you that everyone here that's interested, including myself, has heard the podcast. I can also assure you that the mechanics regarding hiding/sneaking are very firmly placed in my mind. Personally, I find your interpretation of them to be quite odd.

Sorry, I don't mean to avoid questions or anything. It is just you must realise that the way you do things is really quite different to how standard 5e does them. So I thought you didnt know how standard 5e mechanics these things. Since you are now saying you are merely having a different interpretation and that you find my intrepretation odd, well that is pretty confusing for me. I cant understand why you think what you do is consistent with the RAW whereas what I advise is "odd".

creatures PP is operational as long as they are conscious. Stealth is rolled because you can roll lower than monsters PP and they notice you, maybe if you have high mods to stealth you cant roll lower than a monsters PP... but that is an edge case. Also how is it possible to sneak up on anything if you do it your way? You'd never get to them since the obstruction is in the way and if you go around it you are no longer concealed and they spot you?

Well really it doesnt matter how you fluff up things and what mechanics you homerule; I mean I homerule or flout the rules lots, that is good and all, but the issue here is really about what the 5e standard rules say we should do.

I mean maybe the OP here actually is interested in homerules for the question, if that is the case, then I would be wrong about that, but it seems to me the OP is a rules clarification question, not a request for houserulling ideas.

EDIT: Oh sorry, I just realised you are the OP. In your OP though you laid out what you think which is pretty much the same as what I think, and as far as I think it is the mechanics of standard 5e. What we disagree about is a side issue then.

EDIT2: Ok, sorry about the edits - the thing you found odd was my distinction between hiding and stealth, and perception not being vision, but the totality of perceptual aparatus of a creature, right? Well that is emphasised by Crawford in the mentioned podcast.

 

[Xetheral]

What circumstances do you consider appropriate for hiding?

I deem circumstances appropriate for hiding whenever I would call for a (likely Passive) Perception check to perceive (i.e. see or hear, occasionally other senses) a creature who isn't hiding. A creature in such circumstances who takes an action to hide replaces the Perception DC with the result of their Stealth check (absent unusual circumstances, the original DC is effectively a floor on the result of the Stealth check). Additonally, I always deem circumstances as appropriate for hiding if the conditions of a special ability are met.

The basic idea behind my approach is that when there is no question that a creature is seen or heard (e.g. unobstructed view, sufficiently close range, noiseless environment, lack of distractions, etc.), then (absent a special ability) there is no possible method by which to conceal oneself, so hiding is useless.

Similarly, if there is no question that that a creature is NOT seen or heard (e.g. totally obstructed view, extreme range, loud environment, all-consuming distraction) hiding is pointless because the would-be hider won't be perceived anyway.

In the middle ground, when the perceiving is uncertain (and thus a check is warranted) where one's skill at hiding has a chance to make a difference. Therefore, those are the circumstances I deem appropriate for hiding.

I know my approach is somewhat idiosyncratic, but I find it works well and is easily explainable to both new and experienced players. Its largest downside is the potential for setting different base Perception DCs in similar situations, so it requires a little extra thought to make sure I'm staying reasonably consistent.

(Note that I do not interpret the rule about creatures being alert in combat as implying auto-detection of everythig not-hidden. Also, being unperceived in my approach does not preclude an enemy knowing or deducing one's location.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

(Note that I do not interpret the rule about creatures being alert in combat as implying auto-detection of everythig not-hidden. Also, being unperceived in my approach does not preclude an enemy knowing or deducing one's location.)

I liked your whole post, but this part is my favorite. Can't rep it twice though.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To be clear, you started with people normally notice everything around them and then segued into a distraction might be sufficient to have someone not normally notice you slipping away.

Actually, I started with "If you can see me I can see you". I meant that it's possible, not that it's happening. So if I'm looking in the opposite direction I may not actually see you, but I can (or could) see you, in the sense that if I look in the right place, there you are. (With some edge case exceptions.)

Apparently you interpreted that to mean, "If you can see me, I do see you." Which would be a silly position to hold.

I think this is also the root of the disagreement over the rule, given that WotC also uses language that could mean either "does currently perceive you" and "there is an unbroken line of sight."

Beyond that point I tire of debating this with you.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, I don't mean to avoid questions or anything. It is just you must realise that the way you do things is really quite different to how standard 5e does them.

I really wish you'd stop doing that.

You're new here. You admit to being a new DM as well. Why do you keep telling people you know how standard D&D works better than they know? You do realize it's entirely possible your interpretation isn't held by the majority of people out there, right? You've left open the possibility for that haven't you? Multiple times now you've told people who have been posting here for literally almost 20 years that you assume they have not read nor understood basic rules they're talking about (and in this post you were talking to someone whose been posting at least since the playtest began) purely because they have a different opinion than you about how those rules work. How about a little common respect for your peers and assume everyone has read and understood the rules they're talking about and that anyone's interpretation of those rules, including your own, COULD be wrong?

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

I really wish you'd stop doing that.

You're new here. You admit to being a new DM as well. Why do you keep telling people you know how standard D&D works better than they know? You do realize it's entirely possible your interpretation isn't held by the majority of people out there, right? You've left open the possibility for that haven't you? Multiple times now you've told people who have been posting here for literally almost 20 years that you assume they have not read nor understood basic rules they're talking about (and in this post you were talking to someone whose been posting at least since the playtest began) purely because they have a different opinion than you about how those rules work. How about a little common respect for your peers and assume everyone has read and understood the rules they're talking about and that anyone's interpretation of those rules, including your own, COULD be wrong?

And Id wish youd stop doing that

The very reason I word things like I do, is because it is easiest to find out if I am wrong if I do that. Some of the best DMs, who have an amazing grasp of the rules, do not play by them, they are so experienced and good at what they do, they have devised a whole host of rulings/shortcuts/changes that make for a better for them and their players game. You and others may assume I am an arrogant jerk, but as I keep explaining, I am just trying to efficiently get to the crux of what vanilla 5e mechanics/rules/intentions are.

I freely tell others what I know, but my goal and love is learning.

EDIT: oh yeah I forgot to say, but I only bothered to join this forum to get information, because I read many threads here and realised the high level of knowledge and experience you all have, it is because I have a high respect for you all, that I choose to make threads here in the hope of learning from you all.

EDIT2: Oh, I should mention as well, that im addicted to learning things. So you may think that how I word things is "wrong", but I have a massive experience in learning all sorts of things and have homed in on what is for me the optimum way of extracting information from various sources. So it is unlikely you will convince me to change how I do this... I appreciate your intention of helping me on that, even if it is misplaced. Out of the minority of people that care about my "wording" and think I'm arrogant jerk, most of them will want to correct me; which is exactly what I want. The few that will feel that way and not even want to interact with me over the issue, are generally the type of personalities that it is hard getting useful information from anyway.
Incidentally the perfect information source is someone who words things exactly like I do (maybe with better grammar), since they pay little attention to feelings and just state exactly what they think are the facts and they do not mince words; you know that they think they are stating actual facts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And Id wish youd stop doing that

The very reason I word things like I do, is because it is easiest to find out if I am wrong if I do that. Some of the best DMs, who have an amazing grasp of the rules, do not play by them, they are so experienced and good at what they do, they have devised a whole host of rulings/shortcuts/changes that make for a better for them and their players game. You and others may assume I am an arrogant jerk, but as I keep explaining, I am just trying to efficiently get to the crux of what vanilla 5e mechanics/rules/intentions are.

I freely tell others what I know, but my goal and love is learning.

EDIT: oh yeah I forgot to say, but I only bothered to join this forum to get information, because I read many threads here and realised the high level of knowledge and experience you all have, it is because I have a high respect for you all, that I choose to make threads here in the hope of learning from you all.

EDIT2: Oh, I should mention as well, that im addicted to learning things. So you may think that how I word things is "wrong", but I have a massive experience in learning all sorts of things and have homed in on what is for me the optimum way of extracting information from various sources. So it is unlikely you will convince me to change how I do this... I appreciate your intention of helping me on that, even if it is misplaced. Out of the minority of people that care about my "wording" and think I'm arrogant jerk, most of them will want to correct me; which is exactly what I want. The few that will feel that way and not even want to interact with me over the issue, are generally the type of personalities that it is hard getting useful information from anyway.
Incidentally the perfect information source is someone who words things exactly like I do (maybe with better grammar), since they pay little attention to feelings and just state exactly what they think are the facts and they do not mince words; you know that they think they are stating actual facts.

You should listen to Misty. He has an aggressive argumentation style as well. I do, too, and I'm agreeing with him about they way you're presenting your case. You've been wrong a few times in this thread, and, while I fully understand that idea of forcefully presenting your ideas and being challenged and learning from that, your style is needlessly aggressive and dismissive. And, yeah, the irony of my telling someone else that is very, very high, so, maybe you should take that under advisement. You're more likely to end up on block lists than receive wisdom.

 

[Hriston]

Sorry, I don't mean to avoid questions or anything. It is just you must realise that the way you do things is really quite different to how standard 5e does them.

You don't speak for "standard 5e".

creatures PP is operational as long as they are conscious.

No, not if they aren't staying alert for danger. Creatures that focus their attention on other tasks do not contribute their passive Perception to noticing hidden threats.

Also how is it possible to sneak up on anything if you do it your way? You'd never get to them since the obstruction is in the way and if you go around it you are no longer concealed and they spot you?

Have you heard of a heavily obscured area? Or the DM ruling the target's distracted, for that matter?

I mean maybe the OP here actually is interested in homerules for the question, if that is the case, then I would be wrong about that, but it seems to me the OP is a rules clarification question, not a request for houserulling ideas.

EDIT: Oh sorry, I just realised you are the OP.

I started this thread to get an idea of the kinds of circumstances under which other DMs and players would expect hiding to take place. Some recent discussions led me to believe there would be a wide variety of opinions on this subject. I'm actually surprised at the degree of consensus expressed so far, although there has been quite a bit of derailment that doesn't really address the OP. I don't want to make this about how hiding works in general, just what circumstances in the fiction and what game-identified factors and conditions create the opportunity to hide.

In your OP though you laid out what you think which is pretty much the same as what I think, and as far as I think it is the mechanics of standard 5e.

You say, "pretty much". I'm curious what the differences are, keeping in mind that when I say "hide", I'm talking about any attempt to avoid or escape the notice of another creature.

What we disagree about is a side issue then.

EDIT2: Ok, sorry about the edits - the thing you found odd was my distinction between hiding and stealth, and perception not being vision, but the totality of perceptual aparatus of a creature, right?

Let's take these one at a time.

Hiding, as the term is used in the game, is an attempt to avoid or escape the notice of another creature, whether you are moving or not. In game terms, it's an action, separate from your movement. Synonyms for hiding or trying to hide found in the game-book are: concealing yourself from someone, slinking past someone, slipping away from someone, sneaking up on or by someone, moving stealthily, trying to be stealthy, or using stealth. A creature that is hiding is also referred to in the game-book as a stealthy creature. In all cases, the thing which is being attempted is to keep someone from noticing you.

Stealth is a skill which, if you are proficient, lets you add your proficiency bonus to any DEX (Stealth) checks you make when you try to hide (as above).

So yes, I find your distinction between hiding and stealth to be inaccurate to say the least.

Now, I agree with you that Perception relies on more of your senses than just vision. The odd thing here is that you assume I hold an incorrect opinion when I've made no statement to that effect, but I notice that's consistent with the general bent of your comments to other posters as well and not just me.

Well that is emphasised by Crawford in the mentioned podcast.

I've listened to the podcast and I disagree. Perhaps it would serve your argument better if you had some specific quotes from the podcast that you felt supported you. Simply repeating your assertion that the podcast supports your position isn't very effective.