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

[Harzel]

Hmm? People we seem to be getting a bit off topic here;

* Yeah I said RPGs are not and should not be written in formal language.

* If it was in a formal language, it would be being applied to the RPG, so have its semantics, again lets not side track into mathematical logic here... its pretty simple concept...

* Who decides what is standard 5e; WotC, their people and books. We ascertain what it all means and then state that, if we are being honest.

The long and short of it is, that no matter how much some people want to argue for the sake of arguing; we have successfully converged on the correct (for the most part), mechanics here.

All evidence to the contrary, you seem determined to believe that there is one 'correct' mechanics. Despite your protestations that you wished to learn, AFAIK your position did not shift a bit throughout the discussion. What you seem to have converged on is the unshakable conviction that your position is The. Right. One.

Some others of us have converged on a somewhat different conclusion.

Congrats everyone, and thanks

We are very happy to have helped you leave with the same opinion that you started with.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think you said what you meant here. I think what you meant was that for every assertion (formally, a sentence in the language) you could prove (from the axioms) whether it was true or false; that is, you could prove either the assertion or its negation. And this demonstrates your naivete about the subjects you are discussing. It is possible that that would be the case, but your axioms would have to be limited in ways that would probably make the game pretty limited, for instance not encompassing all the rules of natural number arithmetic. It would likely be very difficult, under such constraints, to express the rules for a game in which you can attempt anything. For further info, Google "incompleteness theorem".

I thought my reference to set theory would have encompassed all of this, but upon further thought I suspect you were right to spell it out for him.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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?"

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.

But what are the appropriate circumstances for hiding? 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:

• You are in an area that is heavily obscured by such things as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage.
• You are completely concealed by an object that blocks vision entirely.
• You are obscured by a creature that is at least two sizes larger than you.
• You are invisible.

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.

For some characters, there are additional circumstances under which they can try to hide, i.e.:

• You are a wood elf and in an area that is lightly obscured by natural phenomena such as moderate foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist/patchy fog, twilight, dawn, or a particularly brilliant full moon.
• You are a lightfoot halfling and obscured by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
• You are a ranger, 10th level or above, camouflaged as per the Hide in Plain Sight feature, and pressed against a solid surface at least as tall and wide as you are.
• You are a character with the Skulker feat and in an area that is lightly obscured from the point of view of the creature from which you are hiding.

Because these characters can hide under conditions which would otherwise allow them to be seen, I would stipulate the additional requirement that they are not being directly observed by the creature from which they are trying to hide while becoming so hidden.

Of course the DM is also free to determine what colorful details attend such circumstances. For example, while many seem to consider darkness absolute, because it blocks vision entirely, clearly there are many moonlit nights that are not so dark but which would still be considered to impose the condition of darkness.

Hiding is also possible while travelling at a slow pace under any of the above circumstances that apply, which for most characters would be travelling through heavily obscured areas such as a dense forest, thick fog, or under cover of darkness.

What circumstances do you consider appropriate for hiding?

So I think that if the players can give me a reasonable explanation of how they are attempting to hide, then they can make an attempt. That chance can be modified, usually by advantage/disadvantage, but sometimes more severely if it's really a long shot.

So in most combat situations, you'd have disadvantage on your Stealth check and/or they will have advantage on their passive Perception check.

However, if another character used the Help action to create a distraction, then you could attempt it normally. Probably not with advantage, as the advantage caused by the Help action negates the normal disadvantage.

Likewise, I'll go to the rock in the middle of the field.

If you're behind the rock, they know where you are. But the definition of hidden in the game isn't "they know where you are," it's unseen and unheard.

So here's how I handle those situations.

First, you can attempt to hide. It may or may not be with disadvantage or they may have advantage on their Perception check (they know where you are after all).

If you're successfully hidden (either from a successful attempt in the prior round, or you're a rogue that used your Cunning Action as a bonus action first), and your turn occurs before the target, then you are unseen and have advantage on your attack. You are no longer hidden, though and must attempt to hide again.

Why? Because your Stealth check had already succeeded. They know you'll be coming out, but their reaction is mistimed (like Whack-a-Mole).

If, however, their turn happens first, then they can either use their action to make a Perception check, they can do something else, like move to where they can see you, or they can Ready an action to, say, shoot you with an arrow when you pop out. At this point, you're still hidden, but as soon as you pop out, you are no longer hidden because their reaction interrupts your action, and thus they have seen you and you are no longer hidden.

Now here's where it gets even more interesting. If you are hidden behind a wall that has a peephole and you can see them, then this doesn't work. But if you're hiding behind a rock, and they cannot see you, then there is also a chance that you cannot see them. So they could potentially hide from you too, and Ready their action to shoot you with a bow and they will have advantage.

See, it all comes down to a few questions:
Are you in a position where you can be unseen and unheard? If yes, then you can attempt to hide.
Most of the time, your Stealth attempt is made against their passive Perception (unless they want to use an Action to make it).
Once you have successfully hidden, can they change that fact before your attack?

If you're already hidden at the start of your turn, and they can't change that fact, then you have advantage on your attack.
The only circumstance I can think of mechanically that changes that is for them to Ready an action for when you pop out.

Otherwise they have to do something that breaks your hidden state. In other words, if their turn occurs first, they must use an Action to make a Perception check that breaks your stealth (which would be against your passive Stealth as far as I'm concerned), or they move to where they can see you, etc.

It's important to understand that there is really no mechanical benefit to being "hidden." The mechanical benefit of advantage on your attack roll is tied to being unseen. So you don't need to be hidden (which is both unseen and unheard), just unseen. Like a drow with 120' darkvision against an elf with 60 feet. The drow would also have advantage on Stealth checks to hide, but they don't need to hide, they already have the benefit granted while remaining unseen.

So when you "hide" behind a rock in the middle of a field, you're probably not fooling anybody as to where you are. But, you can take advantage of the fact that you can't be seen, and that they will have to react to you popping out at an unexpected interval of time. Of course, they might very well have advantage on their Perception checks to prevent this from happening.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It isn't pedantic because it bears directly on this particular exchange we're having. Let me recount for you, since you seem to have forgotten. You said it's possible to sneak past unalert creatures while in the open as long as you beat their passive Perception, as if being unalert somehow makes you blind. In response, I said I require you to be heavily obscured or concealed to sneak past unalert creatures, the same as any other attempt to escape notice, but that because the creature is not alert, I don't consult its passive Perception and the attempt auto-succeeds. You responded that conscious creatures' passive Perception is always on even when not alert. I replied no, that isn't true. If a creature's attention is otherwise occupied with a task like tracking or foraging, its passive score is not in effect when it comes to noticing hidden/sneaking/stealthy threats. The game (and Jeremy Crawford) describes passive Perception in terms of "always on" with reference to combat, because creatures are assumed to be alert in combat, the exception being DM-ruled distraction. Also to make it clear you don't have to take the Search action to be alert in combat.

I don't agree with what I've bolded, although it certainly doesn't mean you have to agree with me...

I think passive Perception is always active. Don't forget that certain circumstances would provide advantage on that passive Perception as well.

So I don't think you'd need to be heavily obscured or concealed, but your chance of success would be very, very low without something to assist you.

Like throwing a rock in the other direction. That can create a distraction to sneak past in the open. I would make that against their passive Perception since they aren't attempting to detect you, they are trying to detect whatever made that noise "over there."

Also, while your Perception score doesn't apply to a group check when foraging, etc. I'd say that by yourself that activity would give you disadvantage on your Perception check. Yes, you are always alert in combat, but to me that measure of alertness is your passive Perception.

Part of what passive Perception reflects to me is that people are inherently distractible. That a guard isn't just standing their scanning for intruders. They're talking to the other guards, dozing off, checking the time (the sun...), daydreaming, whatever. When you are attempting to sneak past in the open, you're looking for an opening when you can do so. It will be tough. Much tougher than if there was a wall between you. But daily life and numerous scientific studies show that it is possible.

So instead of just saying you fail, I think that in most cases it's about figuring out how difficult it is. Granting advantage to their passive Perception, and disadvantage to your Stealth check bumps up the difficulty pretty high. Or you can just go by the example of the ranger's Hide In Plain Sight ability, and assign a -10 penalty to the Stealth check, or a +10 bonus to the passive Perception.

In the end, it's not that different - it's a near guaranteed failure. And frankly, I'm OK with some things being outright impossible. But I do like to engage the rules to get there when making that sort of adjudication, and it would start with the passive Perception score. It would probably be a very quick calculation in my head, then, "Well, you can certainly attempt it, but you aren't detecting any sort of pattern to the guard's behavior. You'd probably need to find a way to conceal yourself, or ensure that the guard will be occupied for more than a few seconds" and leave it up to the players to find that sort of solution (like throwing the rock).

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. The DM's job is to make that story as interesting and fun as possible. The players are there to provide protagonists for that great story.

When it comes to certain rules, the certainty of definitive rules is outstanding. It allows players to move forward in the game with a knowledge of their chances of success and a succinct path to move the story forward. However, in other areas, there are too many factors involved for a simple, clear and easy rule to service the story well. You end up with either rules that are too complex or rules that have gaps. 5E takes the approach of asking the DM to fill in the gaps after giving a light framework.

I think they could have done a better job on the hiding rules and given us a bit more framework (specifically in how passive checks are to be used), but in the end the rules that exist work - and basically ask the DM to evaluate a situation and set a DC that is fair for the totality of circumstances. To that end, all of these threads asking about the right way to do stealth, hiding, perception, investigation, vision, etc... are missing the point as all of these rules, in the end, are things that can and should only be decided by the DM as only the DM knows the full context of the situation.

 

[Hriston]

So I think that if the players can give me a reasonable explanation of how they are attempting to hide, then they can make an attempt.

But that's an "at-the-table" circumstance. In my OP, I was asking more about what in-game circumstances are conducive to hiding, so yes, let's go to "the rock in the middle of the field." Let's assume this rock is a medium-sized object that creates no ambiguity as to the location of the medium or small-sized creature hiding behind it.

If you're behind the rock, they know where you are. But the definition of hidden in the game isn't "they know where you are," it's unseen and unheard.

I think that's a very poor definition of hidden. I've seen it circulated on these boards as such, but that doesn't seem to be the intent behind the inclusion of that particular gloss in the text, at least not to me. To me, "unseen and unheard" was written under the heading, Unseen Attackers and Targets, to further differentiate the hidden state -- already described as a state in which your location must be guessed, and therefore remains unknown at the point of guessing -- from the otherwise prevailing condition in which an unseen attacker or target's location is known because it can be heard. Furthermore, "unseen and unheard" appears in a sentence that assumes your location's unknown when you're hidden and only becomes known when your attack hits or misses.

A better gloss for hidden would be "unnoticed and undetected" because, for one thing, there are more senses than just sight and hearing by which a creature can be perceived, and for another, it calls attention to the fact that once noticed or detected, it's very difficult to become unnoticed and undetected. More than likely, your location will continue to be tracked until some intervening circumstance calls the certainty of your location into question. Of course, different DMs will require different circumstances to create enough ambiguity (which is the point of this thread), but I think avoiding or evading detection should be the goal of any attempt to hide.

So when you "hide" behind a rock in the middle of a field, you're probably not fooling anybody as to where you are.

Exactly! You're also not giving away your location when your attack hits or misses, because it hasn't been kept secret before that! So, were you really ever hidden?

I think passive Perception is always active.

That's the default, but at least two exceptions are mentioned in the rule-book. An unconscious creature is unaware of its surroundings, and a creature using its awareness for a task besides keeping watch for danger doesn't notice hidden threats with its passive score. This is because the default assumes creatures are alert and keeping watch, as if in combat, at all times. That's what the passive score represents.

So I don't think you'd need to be heavily obscured or concealed, but your chance of success would be very, very low without something to assist you.

Like throwing a rock in the other direction. That can create a distraction to sneak past in the open. I would make that against their passive Perception since they aren't attempting to detect you, they are trying to detect whatever made that noise "over there."

While I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, I think the result would be pretty much the same in my game. The part you seem to be leaving out, though, is what the situation is before the rock is thrown. If you aren't hidden to begin with, but instead have been noticed by the creature from which you are attempting to hide, then throwing a rock won't help you become hidden. It can only help you stay hidden by creating a distraction as you come out of hiding.

Also, while your Perception score doesn't apply to a group check when foraging, etc. I'd say that by yourself that activity would give you disadvantage on your Perception check.

The rule-book doesn't say your passive score doesn't apply to a group check if you're engaged in an activity other than keeping watch. It says it doesn't contribute at all to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats, which is determined not by a group check, but by using each character's passive score to determine whether that character notices a hidden threat.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But that's an "at-the-table" circumstance. In my OP, I was asking more about what in-game circumstances are conducive to hiding, so yes, let's go to "the rock in the middle of the field." Let's assume this rock is a medium-sized object that creates no ambiguity as to the location of the medium or small-sized creature hiding behind it.

I think that's a very poor definition of hidden. I've seen it circulated on these boards as such, but that doesn't seem to be the intent behind the inclusion of that particular gloss in the text, at least not to me. To me, "unseen and unheard" was written under the heading, Unseen Attackers and Targets, to further differentiate the hidden state -- already described as a state in which your location must be guessed, and therefore remains unknown at the point of guessing -- from the otherwise prevailing condition in which an unseen attacker or target's location is known because it can be heard. Furthermore, "unseen and unheard" appears in a sentence that assumes your location's unknown when you're hidden and only becomes known when your attack hits or misses.

A better gloss for hidden would be "unnoticed and undetected" because, for one thing, there are more senses than just sight and hearing by which a creature can be perceived, and for another, it calls attention to the fact that once noticed or detected, it's very difficult to become unnoticed and undetected. More than likely, your location will continue to be tracked until some intervening circumstance calls the certainty of your location into question. Of course, different DMs will require different circumstances to create enough ambiguity (which is the point of this thread), but I think avoiding or evading detection should be the goal of any attempt to hide.

I'm not saying it's a good definition of hidden. It just happens to be one of the definitions provided.

I do agree with you, though, that many times, being undetected is the defining feature of being hidden. You've snuck into a wizard's chamber unnoticed, and go from there, for example. Being undetected can also give you certain situational advantages, although it doesn't in and of itself have a mechanical rule tied to it.

There are really (at least) two sometimes overlapping definitions of hidden used in the rules.

Exactly! You're also not giving away your location when your attack hits or misses, because it hasn't been kept secret before that! So, were you really ever hidden?

Of course. You were hidden from view.

But really, when players are considering the hidden condition in the circumstance of hiding behind a rock, usually it's because they are looking for a mechanical advantage. They aren't trying to suddenly be undetected. They're pretty sure that they know that the other creature knows where they are. They want to get advantage on their next attack since they were hidden.

In addition, the hiding rules support the rock in the field concept. You can "hide" behind the rock, and then roll a Stealth check to see if you can be "hidden."

But once again, I'm not really concerned about parsing the multiple definitions of hidden. I'm just concerned about the mechanical (if any) benefits of being "hidden" as defined in the rules, and really, determining whether a given circumstance would potentially give an advantage.

Personally, I think being fully concealed by cover, with the target not knowing exactly where you might pop out and when, might give you advantage. And I think a Stealth check with situational modifiers is a reasonable way to determine that.

That's the default, but at least two exceptions are mentioned in the rule-book. An unconscious creature is unaware of its surroundings, and a creature using its awareness for a task besides keeping watch for danger doesn't notice hidden threats with its passive score. This is because the default assumes creatures are alert and keeping watch, as if in combat, at all times. That's what the passive score represents.

OK, so it's always active except for noted exceptions. Kind of a given with the rules as a whole. For example, it's not active when you're petrified either, whether the rules state it or not.

Having said that, I'm not sure where it says if they're using their awareness for something else that it doesn't apply. Regardless, I much prefer giving them disadvantage, or even a larger penalty, to it not functioning at all when they are conscious.

While I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, I think the result would be pretty much the same in my game. The part you seem to be leaving out, though, is what the situation is before the rock is thrown. If you aren't hidden to begin with, but instead have been noticed by the creature from which you are attempting to hide, then throwing a rock won't help you become hidden. It can only help you stay hidden by creating a distraction as you come out of hiding.

Why not you're in plain view, a distraction is created, and when they turn back you've disappeared? As long as they aren't looking at you for that moment in time where you hide behind the plant, the column, the furniture, or other potential hiding places. That goes back to what I started with - the circumstances matter, and I rely on the players to provide some of that reasoning. Simply because I might not think of everything.

The rule-book doesn't say your passive score doesn't apply to a group check if you're engaged in an activity other than keeping watch. It says it doesn't contribute at all to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats, which is determined not by a group check, but by using each character's passive score to determine whether that character notices a hidden threat.

Well, since it's the group attempting something, I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke the Group Checks rule. I kind of read "don't contribute ... to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats" to imply the use of the Group Checks rule.

Of course, as the rules state, it's up to the DM to determine whether he asks for a group check or not.

I do agree that somebody being distracted or focused on something else may very well miss something obvious. But I'm not a fan or automatic success or failure, and I don't think the chance of failure in that circumstance is always 100% anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There's a lot of juxtaposition of "knowing" and "inference" going on here to argue a side. Thers a distinct difference between seeing asinine go behind a rock in the middle of a field, at which point you can no longer see, hear, smell, or otherwise detect them, and then knowing exactly atwhere they are or inferring with a high kennel if confidence that's where they are.

If you really think that it's impossible to hide something while being watched, I direct your attention to the common street magician in our completely mundane and nonmagical world.

So, please stop confusing the difference between knowing something through direct observation and inferring something from experience in how the world works paired with past observation. The person behind the rock is hidden, because I cannot detect them, but I have a damn good idea where they are through inference.

 

[Hriston]

Inference is guessing and may apply to a situation in which an object's location is unknown. Object permanence is knowing the object still exists although it can't be sensed directly. I don't think it's too controversial to say these aren't the same thing, but I also don't wish to impose my idea of reality on anyone else's game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Inference is guessing and may apply to a situation in which an object's location is unknown. Object permanence is knowing the object still exists although it can't be sensed directly. I don't think it's too controversial to say these aren't the same thing, but I also don't wish to impose my idea of reality on anyone else's game.

I'm sorry, but it's anyone advancing the idea that the rogue ceases to exist when they go behind the rock? Anyone? No? Then we aren't violating object permanence when we infer that the rogue is dull behind the rock, even though we can't see, hear, or otherwise detect the rogue. We aren't assuming that the rogue ceases to exist, or having a bugblatter moment.

And, your right, inference is guessing, but it's guessing based on previous knowledge and in no way random. It applies at any time we cannot observe a phenomenon, but can infer is existence through other observations or applying concepts like object permanence and having previously observed the phenomenon. If you have no way to observe something, inference is your only tool. When the rogue goes behind the rock and we cannot observe her, we can infer that she's hiding behind the rock.

What you decide to do with that in your game in regards to mechanical hiding is up to you. I'm addressing a faulty argument, not declaring how you have to rule on hiding.