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

[merwins]

I am just trying to efficiently get to the crux of what vanilla 5e mechanics/rules/intentions are.

5E is an incomplete ruleset. Just like every other RPG.
A perfectly ruled RPG would be unplayable. You'd spend all your time looking up rules and have no time left for play.
"All" as opposed to "a lot of". Irony!

There are NO rules in place for how, once successfully hidden, you become unhidden, EXCEPT by voluntarily relinquishing your hidden-ness or after you make an attack roll.
There are NO rules for how to conceal yourself from any senses except vision and hearing. How do you hide from Tremorsense? Or Blindsight? Adjudication is required.

How is the DM to adjudicate the detection of hidden characters when a druid shapeshifts into a dog or wolf? A perception check? What makes the druid's smell-based perception any better in dog form? There are some creative approaches from Google search, but no explicit rules.

I listened to the Crawford podcast up until he said "foil-age" instead of "fo-lee-age". Gakh. Anyway, in that segment, which starts at about 39:30, my belief is that they're simply adjudicating scenarios for the next 2-3 minutes. (Cuz they say so.) They are not applying rules that can be quoted from the 5E books. If Crawford's interpretation works for you, fantastic. It doesn't help anyone who only has the books.

The best I'm able to infer about designer intent for hiding (from that segment of the podcast) is that hiding emphasizes a dependence on location. It should have been obvious to me before since they repeatedly talk about "giving away your position."

Still, this opens the can of worms where, if you move, you're required to make another Stealth check to hide again. They actually discourage this approach in favor of having your hide roll stand until you're discovered or you relinquish your hidden-ness. There's a contradictory mindset there that I attribute to a need to streamline play.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.

When you say that I don't speak for standard 5e, are you just saying I don't work for WofTC? That is true. But I am speaking for standard 5e, that is my intention. I have tried to understand what standard 5e is and that is what I am speaking about. Now ofcourse I am probably wrong about alot, and all that, but it kind of goes without saying. None of us here work for WofTC do we? no us "speak for standard 5e". Not sure what you intend to convey with that sentence really.

When I said "creatures PP is always operational as long as they are conscious", well again, you keep saying you watched the podcast but you deny that? That is a quote from that podcast from Crawford. Now your denial of that statement is completely correct, there are situations when a pcs PP does not contribute to noticing stuff, as outlined in teh PHB. However I suspect Crawford is aware of that, and since he said that and we assume he knows the rules, denying that statement of his is a bit pedantic. Although I agree it needs to be mentioned for people who have not yet read the rule books.

Sneaking up on things, heavily obscured; that is fine, but it seems to me that RAI do not require such strict conditions.

So I said I agree "pretty much" with your OP on hiding. Now you want to say hiding and stealth are basically the same, this is new and I do not agree with that. But in your OP, I just don't agree with this;

"I would add to the top two above circumstances the requirement that the area or object must be of sufficient size to create uncertainty as to your precise location, or you must not be observed entering the area or getting behind the object by the creature from which you are hiding, whereas invisibility creates its own uncertainty as long as the invisible creature is free to move."

This contradicts hiding clarifications in the podcast. And again I think your confusion is thinking hiding and stealth are synomins, which you then go into attempting to justify from supposed prose in various books.

It doesnt matter how we individually fluff up in our minds what different things means, it only matters if it effects mechanics. Which it seems to me that this is basically emerging into mechanics, like this;

You require concealment (or some other special condition) to stealth past things.
I do not. I merely require that the players are sufficiently low perceptual footprint (stealth check beats PP).

Ok, the last thing about you wanting specific quotes; it is one thing for me to give quotes and another for you to notice them.

Really getting formal on this stuff doesnt interest me, I assume people are charitable and truthful and all that. If you want to get all formal - you can start and ill join. Otherwise I just believe you are speaking truthfully and so based on that, infer things.

So forinstance if some writer had a famous book, and a podcast where he explains extra information not in that book. Say the main character in the book is clearly very confident, and the podcast explains that the characters backstory not in the book is that he is only that way because of event A. And then in a forum, I state well that guy is only that way due to event A. Then someone says, no he isnt. And I say it is clarified as the case in the podcast, and they say they have watched the podcast... Assuming they are honest, and I can only assume that at the point in the podcast where that fact was stated, they were distracted and missed it. They should watch the podcast again, that is on them, even if they feel insulted by me saying to watch the podcast, I am only trying to help them...

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I'll try and make my 2¢ short...

The hiding sidebar from PBR, p. 60, begins, "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." What does this mean to you?

Many will reply that it means it's the DM's job to determine if you can hide under a given set of circumstances, making hiding a matter of "DM, may I?"

First part, it means exactly what it says. There's no way to parse "...circumstances are appropriate for hiding" into any more simpler form. You're asking the same thing as if you asked "...situations are good for making food". We could break down "situations" ("circumstances") into a several million point list, and we could break down "good" ("appropriate") into another several-million point list. But that would be silly. So lets just use the english language and use "circumstances" and "appropriate". The book is assumed to be read by someone who understands basic english. If someone is wondering what "circumstances" and "appropriate" means, they need to go back to grade school.

Second, uh...the ENTIRE PREMISE OF A DM BASED RPG IS TO ASK THE DM IF YOU CAN TRY/DO SOMETHING! That's kind of how it works...

* ...I'll try and force the door open.
* ...can I find a better price in town?
* ...does it look possible to walk across?
* ...I'm going to shoot it in the eye!

See, ALL of those are "DM, may I?". Every single one.

I read it slightly differently. The way I read it, it means it's the DM's job to determine whether or not, and where, to place said appropriate circumstances in an encounter area or an area of exploration, just as it's the DM's job to determine the existence and placement of monsters, traps, treasures, and other elements of the game's fictional world.

To each his/her own. To me it sounds like you want a million-point list of "appropriate circumstances" for the DM to pick and choose when he "builds encounters". Go for it. I'll stick to on-the-spot common sense rulings.

But what are the appropriate circumstances for hiding?

You may as well be asking "what are the appropriate circumstances for listening" (insert "fighting", "talking", "walking", "sleeping", or just about any other "-ing" verb you can think of).

I think the rule-book tells us pretty clearly what they are.

Here's my list of appropriate circumstances under which you can try to hide:
---SNIP---
What circumstances do you consider appropriate for hiding?

The rule book isn't "clear" in the sense of it giving absolute's. It's clear in that is says "here's some vague words for describing when you can try and Hide". This is a GOOD thing, imho. I'd rather have this than a million-plus list any day...

When I DM, the circumstances in which I consider appropriate for hiding is this: "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". I mean, it honestly CAN'T get any more clear than that without resorting to, as I said, a million-plus list of absolute "circumstances".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Hiya!

I'll try and make my 2¢ short...



First part, it means exactly what it says. There's no way to parse "...circumstances are appropriate for hiding" into any more simpler form. You're asking the same thing as if you asked "...situations are good for making food". We could break down "situations" ("circumstances") into a several million point list, and we could break down "good" ("appropriate") into another several-million point list. But that would be silly. So lets just use the english language and use "circumstances" and "appropriate". The book is assumed to be read by someone who understands basic english. If someone is wondering what "circumstances" and "appropriate" means, they need to go back to grade school.

Second, uh...the ENTIRE PREMISE OF A DM BASED RPG IS TO ASK THE DM IF YOU CAN TRY/DO SOMETHING! That's kind of how it works...

* ...I'll try and force the door open.
* ...can I find a better price in town?
* ...does it look possible to walk across?
* ...I'm going to shoot it in the eye!

See, ALL of those are "DM, may I?". Every single one.



To each his/her own. To me it sounds like you want a million-point list of "appropriate circumstances" for the DM to pick and choose when he "builds encounters". Go for it. I'll stick to on-the-spot common sense rulings.



You may as well be asking "what are the appropriate circumstances for listening" (insert "fighting", "talking", "walking", "sleeping", or just about any other "-ing" verb you can think of).



The rule book isn't "clear" in the sense of it giving absolute's. It's clear in that is says "here's some vague words for describing when you can try and Hide". This is a GOOD thing, imho. I'd rather have this than a million-plus list any day...

When I DM, the circumstances in which I consider appropriate for hiding is this: "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". I mean, it honestly CAN'T get any more clear than that without resorting to, as I said, a million-plus list of absolute "circumstances".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The ancient realisation that what seems obvious and "common sense" really needs to be well defined; gave rise to philosophy, science, formal descriptions, etc.. Formal definitions are not million point list; they are simple and short, criteria that allows you to clearly know when something is or is not in the category.

So whilst I appreciate your sentiment, and on the face of it it seems good wisdom; we in modern times know it is wrong.

Whilst the rule books are not and should not be written in pure formal language, they are atleast close enough so that people get a reasonable gist of how to operate a game.

It is not appropriate(1) to fight in the market; its rude, illegal, etc..
It is appropriate(2) to fight in the market; you have the ability to do so.

[incidentally your "go to grade school" approach, implies 1, which is clearly incorrect WRT to the topic]

That is just one of the infinite formal fallacies (ambiguity) that people started to spot, which eventually totally destroyed our notion of common sense understanding. Common sense understanding no longer exists within fields that attempt to understand things.


Essentially it was realised we have no idea what people are talking about and cant possibly know, its far too complex... People that think about those things realised this, philosophers know and understand the least; No sorry they know they understand the least, so they know the most, since most people do not think that deeply about things, and have the false idea that they know/understand stuff.

Normally none of this really matters; unless you are a scientist or philosopher or something. However in "rulebooks" it comes to the fore, because they tend to get people really considering deeply what is being said. "rulebooks" straddle a strange place somewhere between formal papers and normal prose.

 

[merwins]

So whilst I appreciate your sentiment, and on the face of it it seems good wisdom; we in modern times know it is wrong.

https://youtu.be/qc7jblpaPdM

Congratulations, [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION], I think you broke [MENTION=6862757]Rodney[/MENTION].

 

[Ovinomancer]

The ancient realisation that what seems obvious and "common sense" really needs to be well defined; gave rise to philosophy, science, formal descriptions, etc.. Formal definitions are not million point list; they are simple and short, criteria that allows you to clearly know when something is or is not in the category.

So whilst I appreciate your sentiment, and on the face of it it seems good wisdom; we in modern times know it is wrong.

Whilst the rule books are not and should not be written in pure formal language, they are atleast close enough so that people get a reasonable gist of how to operate a game.

It is not appropriate(1) to fight in the market; its rude, illegal, etc..
It is appropriate(2) to fight in the market; you have the ability to do so.

[incidentally your "go to grade school" approach, implies 1, which is clearly incorrect WRT to the topic]

That is just one of the infinite formal fallacies (ambiguity) that people started to spot, which eventually totally destroyed our notion of common sense understanding. Common sense understanding no longer exists within fields that attempt to understand things.


Essentially it was realised we have no idea what people are talking about and cant possibly know, its far too complex... People that think about those things realised this, philosophers know and understand the least; No sorry they know they understand the least, so they know the most, since most people do not think that deeply about things, and have the false idea that they know/understand stuff.

Normally none of this really matters; unless you are a scientist or philosopher or something. However in "rulebooks" it comes to the fore, because they tend to get people really considering deeply what is being said. "rulebooks" straddle a strange place somewhere between formal papers and normal prose.

This is not even wrong.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

This is not even wrong.

It directly addresses the post it is referencing. "not even wrong" famous physicist quote; basically not even related/totally missing the point/etc.....

Anyway I think that is a worst possible response to a comment I make; If true it means I am completely confused about what the topic even is. In this case, I don't think it applies tho

 

[Ovinomancer]

It directly addresses the post it is referencing. "not even wrong" famous physicist quote; basically not even related/totally missing the point/etc.....

Anyway I think that is a worst possible response to a comment I make; If true it means I am completely confused about what the topic even is. In this case, I don't think it applies tho

You made so many foundational errors, the least of which is that 5e is intentionally written in casual language, not formal language, that you didn't even get in the ballpark of wrong.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

You made so many foundational errors, the least of which is that 5e is intentionally written in casual language, not formal language, that you didn't even get in the ballpark of wrong.

Ok I get my comment maybe a little "technical" for some people to easily understand.

Formal langauge is a specific term though, I don't mean that like how we use "formal" in everyday language, like formal dress/manner, or more or less formal, in that way. A formal language is a special type of construct, like first order logic or mathematics, or programming languages; they are precise special kinds of ways of making a "language"; The 5e rulebooks are definitely not written in any kind of "formal language"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language

Anyway that comment was referencing the comment it references, it completely and utterly refutes the comment it refers to... However it is a bit off topic for me write pages of educational material that would be necessary for anyone to understand it. I thought I wrote that comment in a way that most people could easily grok the basic gist of it, but yeah, no worries.

EDIT: incidentally, if the rulebooks were written in a formal language, there would be no argument about the rules at all, everything stated in it would be an axiom (100% true) or a theorem (100% true and provably so). And anything that anyone claims the rules are saying would be a theorem of the system as well, provable in the system. There would be no confusion at all. The problem is, you would need a degree to be able to read it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok I get my comment maybe a little "technical" for some people to easily understand.

Formal langauge is a specific term though, I don't mean that like how we use "formal" in everyday language, like formal dress/manner, or more or less formal, in that way. A formal language is a special type of construct, like first order logic or mathematics, or programming languages; they are precise special kinds of ways of making a "language"; The 5e rulebooks are definitely not written in any kind of "formal language"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language

Anyway that comment was referencing the comment it references, it completely and utterly refutes the comment it refers to... However it is a bit off topic for me write pages of educational material that would be necessary for anyone to understand it. I thought I wrote that comment in a way that most people could easily grok the basic gist of it, but yeah, no worries.

EDIT: incidentally, if the rulebooks were written in a formal language, there would be no argument about the rules at all, everything stated in it would be an axiom (100% true) or a theorem (100% true and provably so). And anything that anyone claims the rules are saying would be a theorem of the system as well, provable in the system. There would be no confusion at all. The problem is, you would need a degree to be able to read it.

This is laughable. You quote wiki and then make assertions that aren't supported by your quote. Formal languages don't require unambiguous meaning, they require unambiguous construction -- the sentence and words follow all of the rules of the language. Unambiguous meaning doesn't flow from this, although might be helped. Symbolic mathematics is a formal language -- it has rules of construction such that 2+2=4 follows the rules but +=242 doesn't. But even following the rules doesn't mean truth is conveyed, because 2+2=5 is perfectly valid in the mathematics formal language, it's just untrue. As for ambiguity, that can be both trivially found in symbolic mathematics, such as 2+2>-898544451267. This is a proper construction in the language, also true, and also ambiguous in meaning. It has infinite correct answers and infinite incorrect answers.

To follow into the 5e rules, they are not presented in a formal language. Casual language has mutable rules of grammar and construction (slang is a good example), and 5e is written in casual, everyday language. It follows grammar and syntax rules well enough to get it's meaning across (it does pretty well), but doesn't meet the narrow requirements of formal language. And, even if written in a formal language (there are a few out there), the ambiguities of the ruleset would still survive -- I can write 'the DM decides when hiding is appropriate' in a formal framework and still have the ambiguity of the decision being arbitrary based on an individual's opinions. Formal language doesn't prevent this, it's just a framework that allows for clearly defined grammar and syntax in a language.

So, yeah, laughable. You clearly don't grasp the complexities of the concepts you're saying others don't understand while making assertions about those concepts that are facially untrue. Formal language doesn't result in unambiguous conclusions, it just results in unambiguous structure.

And, as I said, that was the least of the mistakes in your post. Your post doesn't refute the one it responds to, it postures and rambles and ultimately doesn't address anything except by bald assertion.