A rogue wants to hide during combat on a big field. There are 3 enemies and 2 other players spread out here as well. The rogue wants to hide behind the long hedge that goes around the field. The rogue jumps behind the wall and with his Cunning Action hides during his bonus action. He rolls a total of 17 on his hide (bonus) action. The DM checks if the check goes above any of the enemy's passive perceptions. One of the enemies has a passive perception above 17 and does see the rogue's position.
Should the rogue be told if he is hidden or not If the DM is supposed to tell the rogue he is hidden, should he tell him what enemies he is hidden from or not? "Yes you are hidden but not to that enemy over there, he did see you". It seems a little weird that the rogue has such a good perception of his enemies to tell if he is hidden or not and from whom. If the DM isnot supposed to tell the rogue if he is hidden and from whom then the problem comes to the actual attack from the rogue. The rogue wants to use his attack to shoot a bolt with his crossbow. Is the rogue supposed to attack and then get to know if he has advantage on the attack or not?
Rogue - "I attack this enemy" DM - "You do that" Rogue - "Do I have advantage?" DM - "Yes" *Rogue rolls to hit and with advantage*
Is this the right way to handle the situation by the DM?
The hiding rules are deliberately simplistic and open-ended so it's hard to talk about a "right" way of using them. The intent is that hiding is all-or-nothing - either you escape the notice of every enemy, or you fail. There's nothing stopping you from allowing more complex outcomes, but that does raise additional questions regarding when and how the creatures that noticed the Rogue gets to warn their friends. Whatever you decide, be sure to set the player's expectations accordingly.
Personally I've always gone with the simple all-or-nothing approach. D&D combat can take a significant amount of time. I'd caution against turning a common action into a complicated affair.
If the rogue is hidden, then he won't know who he can attack until it is his/her turn, since he can't see any targets. Only then will he find out if he has advantage on any of the potential targets.
I don't see any reason to notify the player since the character thinks that he is hiding.
The DM is supposed to narrate the result of the roll, not announce whether or not the roll beat a contested check. The rogue PC might be allowed an Insight check to attempt to discern the opposition's reaction or if they've noticed anything.
Rogue - I want to hide behind the hedge. (Rolls Stealth - 18)
DM - (Checks passive scores - one monster succeeds) You move quickly and quietly behind the hedge and duck low to prevent being seen. What else would you like to do on your turn?
Rogue - Am I hidden?
DM - You can use your Action (I might treat this as a Search Action - devoting one's attention) to make an Insight check to see if anyone reacted to you or is acting like they noticed. Is this what you want to do?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
A rogue wants to hide during combat on a big field. There are 3 enemies and 2 other players spread out here as well. The rogue wants to hide behind the long hedge that goes around the field. The rogue jumps behind the wall and with his Cunning Action hides during his bonus action. He rolls a total of 17 on his hide (bonus) action. The DM checks if the check goes above any of the enemy's passive perceptions. One of the enemies has a passive perception above 17 and does see the rogue's position.
Should the rogue be told if he is hidden or not If the DM is supposed to tell the rogue he is hidden, should he tell him what enemies he is hidden from or not? "Yes you are hidden but not to that enemy over there, he did see you". It seems a little weird that the rogue has such a good perception of his enemies to tell if he is hidden or not and from whom. If the DM isnot supposed to tell the rogue if he is hidden and from whom then the problem comes to the actual attack from the rogue. The rogue wants to use his attack to shoot a bolt with his crossbow. Is the rogue supposed to attack and then get to know if he has advantage on the attack or not?
Rogue - "I attack this enemy" DM - "You do that" Rogue - "Do I have advantage?" DM - "Yes" *Rogue rolls to hit and with advantage*
Is this the right way to handle the situation by the DM?
I never tell the player, I simply say, you think you are hidden and then when they make the attack I tell them if they get sneak attack damage or not from that enemy.
If the enemy goes before them depending on what they do I might let them do something to show they know where the player is, I also will let monsters and NPCs warn there allies if it makes sense yelling out that one of them just hid behind that bush but if the hiding player is less of a threat then someone closer they may ignore it thinking he is running away.
A hiding creature generally thinks it is hidden until proven wrong. You might dicern if you were detected, but not necessarily though. For exemple, if you can perceive an enemy, you might realise you've been spotted by seeing or hearing their reaction or not if said enemy specifically doesn't make it obvious, if you cannot see it looking your way or if you are not aware of its presence because it is also hidden.
But it's exceptional as most of the time it occurs between a hidden creature vs a perceptible one unaware of it that suddenly detect a threat, in which case it's generally obvious.
DM - You can use your Action (I might treat this as a Search Action - devoting one's attention) to make an Insight check to see if anyone reacted to you or is acting like they noticed. Is this what you want to do?
Yikes. The player is already investing an action into hiding, which presumably includes looking for right time to slink off and paying attention to enemies. Charging them another action just to find out if what they did worked? Harsh.
If they roll high enough, they will have a sense on how hidden they are.
I don't outright tell them, but I generally describe from the other players POV - "You see X vanish into the bushes".
They will eventually know if they attack with advantage or not. (I don't lock them into attacking a specific target though, and that might be considered unrealistic, but if they invested resources into doing stuff, I generally am ok with throwing them a bone).
Rogue - I want to hide behind the hedge. (Rolls Stealth - 18)
DM - (Checks passive scores - one monster succeeds) You move quickly and quietly behind the hedge and duck low to prevent being seen. What else would you like to do on your turn?
Rogue - Am I hidden?
DM - You can use your Action (I might treat this as a Search Action - devoting one's attention) to make an Insight check to see if anyone reacted to you or is acting like they noticed. Is this what you want to do?
Before requiring an action to find out, i would rely on a Passive Perception, Investigation or Insight to determine if it perceived or deduced he was spotted if it was not obvious.
Rogue - I want to hide behind the hedge. (Rolls Stealth - 18)
DM - (Checks passive scores - one monster succeeds) You move quickly and quietly behind the hedge and duck low to prevent being seen. What else would you like to do on your turn?
Rogue - Am I hidden?
DM - You can use your Action (I might treat this as a Search Action - devoting one's attention) to make an Insight check to see if anyone reacted to you or is acting like they noticed. Is this what you want to do?
Before requiring an action to find out, i would rely on a Passive Perception, Investigation or Insight to determine if it perceived or deduced he was spotted if it was not obvious.
I personally like this, in the sense they ask. Our folks generally make assumptions, based on their rolls, on how well their hiding went. The fringe cases, 15-17 and such often create a fair bit of anxiety, but nobody has asked that I can recall. Sometimes they have NOT successfully hidden and that becomes apparent mid-combat or activity usually. Often to hilarious results, I might add during activities, when "sneaking" up on someone who not only knows you're there, but is aware that you think you're being stealthy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Rogue - I want to hide behind the hedge. (Rolls Stealth - 18)
DM - (Checks passive scores - one monster succeeds) You move quickly and quietly behind the hedge and duck low to prevent being seen. What else would you like to do on your turn?
Rogue - Am I hidden?
DM - You can use your Action (I might treat this as a Search Action - devoting one's attention) to make an Insight check to see if anyone reacted to you or is acting like they noticed. Is this what you want to do?
Before requiring an action to find out, i would rely on a Passive Perception, Investigation or Insight to determine if it perceived or deduced he was spotted if it was not obvious.
You'll notice that the action was phrased as a question, not a requirement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
For me it depends on how intelligent the enemies are. In the above case:
Stupid enemies: "you duck behind the wall and stealthily make your way behind the hedge, but as you do so you hear someone shout "There he is!".
Smart enemies: "You duck behind the wall and stealthily make your way behind the hedge."
Meanwhile the unseen enemies have communicated silently that they have seen him behind the hedge, and are aiming to make a sneak atatck of their own!
As soon as they pop up to make an attack, I'll inform them who looks surprised and who is looking right at them from behind a shield. They'd then get to make a split-second decision who they're shooting.
Also if there are other players, I would let them know (secretly if possible) that they see the group signal that they've seen the rogue, so if they want to shout a warning in their turn, they can! Ideally, I like to keep players knowing as much as characters, for immersions sake!
The hiding rules are deliberately simplistic and open-ended so it's hard to talk about a "right" way of using them. The intent is that hiding is all-or-nothing - either you escape the notice of every enemy, or you fail. There's nothing stopping you from allowing more complex outcomes, but that does raise additional questions regarding when and how the creatures that noticed the Rogue gets to warn their friends. Whatever you decide, be sure to set the player's expectations accordingly.
Personally I've always gone with the simple all-or-nothing approach. D&D combat can take a significant amount of time. I'd caution against turning a common action into a complicated affair.
I don't think the intent is all or nothing. If you look at the surprise rules for comparing stealth vs passive perception it is clear that all or nothing is not the intent.
"The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."
In this case, the DM compares the stealth check vs passive perception and determines which of the opponents are aware of the exact location of other threats.
---
In the OP case, EVERYONE in the combat knows the rogue ducked behind the hedge. All the stealth check vs passive perception does is determine how aware the individual creatures are of the location of the rogue and whether they are sufficiently aware of them when they again become visible to mitigate the benefits of being hidden. Hidden in 5e means unseen and unheard and that you are not aware of the actions the character is taking. A creature with a high passive perception in this case will still be aware of the rogue's location - likely they weren't quiet enough or they give themselves away somehow when they pop back into view.
The rogue can certainly be effectively hidden from some but not others. The creature that is still aware of the rogues location could yell "The rogue is behind the hedge" but everyone knows that is where the rogue went. It doesn't convey any additional information and doesn't give the other creatures the ability to know when or if the rogue is going to attack.
The rules do not discuss what information is available to the rogue. For many ability checks it is obvious whether the check was successful or not. However, there are some like stealth vs passive perception that aren't. In this case, the rogue is out of sight behind the hedge and has no way to know which creatures might still be aware of their position or not. In this case, as DM, I'd have the rogue pop out to make their attack then tell them whether to roll with advantage or not depending on whether the rogue was successfully hidden from their chosen target or not.
For me it depends on how intelligent the enemies are. In the above case:
Stupid enemies: "you duck behind the wall and stealthily make your way behind the hedge, but as you do so you hear someone shout "There he is!".
Smart enemies: "You duck behind the wall and stealthily make your way behind the hedge."
I'm not sure why smart enemies would not also indicate his position. Since hiding is an all-or-nothing thing, if one enemy notices the character they are presumably telling their allies. I suppose they could do so with hand movements or whatever, but there's not much of an in-game reason they would want the rogue to think he succeeded if he didn't.
Personally, I think when a competent player tries something they are trained in, they are generally aware of how well they did it. In the case of hiding, I'd say the rogue was watching the enemies as he went behind the hedge, and unless the enemy was very deceptive or the rogue was very poor at insight, he'd observe if he was spotted.
I also have some sympathy for rogues. They need sneak attack for their class to function as intended in combat, and being coy about whether or not they'll get it would just teach the player 1) not to hide and/or 2) not to be a rogue. Honestly the hide rules are such a vague mess that I wouldn't be surprised if many DMs were unconsciously (or consciously) making it not worthwhile so they didn't have to deal with adjudicating it. Our job should be interpreting rules, not writing them when the developers kick the can.
Yikes. The player is already investing an action into hiding, which presumably includes looking for right time to slink off and paying attention to enemies. Charging them another action just to find out if what they did worked? Harsh.
It's only an extra action if they want to actually confirm that it worked. Also, boss shouting "Someone go kill the rogue behind the hedge" will probably be a clue that it failed.
Then again, I don't give NPCs telepathy unless it's actually one of their powers, so if they aren't communicating, you're hidden from everyone whose passive perception you beat.
For me it depends on how intelligent the enemies are. In the above case:
Stupid enemies: "you duck behind the wall and stealthily make your way behind the hedge, but as you do so you hear someone shout "There he is!".
Smart enemies: "You duck behind the wall and stealthily make your way behind the hedge."
I'm not sure why smart enemies would not also indicate his position. Since hiding is an all-or-nothing thing, if one enemy notices the character they are presumably telling their allies. I suppose they could do so with hand movements or whatever, but there's not much of an in-game reason they would want the rogue to think he succeeded if he didn't.
Personally, I think when a competent player tries something they are trained in, they are generally aware of how well they did it. In the case of hiding, I'd say the rogue was watching the enemies as he went behind the hedge, and unless the enemy was very deceptive or the rogue was very poor at insight, he'd observe if he was spotted.
I also have some sympathy for rogues. They need sneak attack for their class to function as intended in combat, and being coy about whether or not they'll get it would just teach the player 1) not to hide and/or 2) not to be a rogue. Honestly the hide rules are such a vague mess that I wouldn't be surprised if many DMs were unconsciously (or consciously) making it not worthwhile so they didn't have to deal with adjudicating it. Our job should be interpreting rules, not writing them when the developers kick the can.
Rogues have it easy, there are lots of ways to trigger sneak attack without hiding, supporting the tank is one of many.
The default behaviour for 5E seems to be "everyone knows where everyone is" and "to hide, you have to hide from everyone."
Turn it around on the players. If an enemy is hidden from character A but not character B, the player of B will generally object, saying something like "I tell A where the enemy is!"
So the game keeps it simple - to be hidden, you have to be hidden from everyone on the other side. One die roll from you, one die roll (or passive check) from everyone on that other side.
Besides, tracking which figures are hidden with respect to all the other figures in the combat is a lot of work at the table.
I would base this on whether the Rogue could see the person that spotted them or not. If they can, I'd do an Insight check to see if the spotter was looking at them. If they can't see them, I would let them assume they were hidden until some other condition convinced them otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A rogue wants to hide during combat on a big field. There are 3 enemies and 2 other players spread out here as well. The rogue wants to hide behind the long hedge that goes around the field. The rogue jumps behind the wall and with his Cunning Action hides during his bonus action. He rolls a total of 17 on his hide (bonus) action. The DM checks if the check goes above any of the enemy's passive perceptions. One of the enemies has a passive perception above 17 and does see the rogue's position.
Should the rogue be told if he is hidden or not
If the DM is supposed to tell the rogue he is hidden, should he tell him what enemies he is hidden from or not? "Yes you are hidden but not to that enemy over there, he did see you". It seems a little weird that the rogue has such a good perception of his enemies to tell if he is hidden or not and from whom.
If the DM is not supposed to tell the rogue if he is hidden and from whom then the problem comes to the actual attack from the rogue. The rogue wants to use his attack to shoot a bolt with his crossbow. Is the rogue supposed to attack and then get to know if he has advantage on the attack or not?
Rogue - "I attack this enemy"
DM - "You do that"
Rogue - "Do I have advantage?"
DM - "Yes"
*Rogue rolls to hit and with advantage*
Is this the right way to handle the situation by the DM?
Vad är väl en bal på slottet.
The hiding rules are deliberately simplistic and open-ended so it's hard to talk about a "right" way of using them. The intent is that hiding is all-or-nothing - either you escape the notice of every enemy, or you fail. There's nothing stopping you from allowing more complex outcomes, but that does raise additional questions regarding when and how the creatures that noticed the Rogue gets to warn their friends. Whatever you decide, be sure to set the player's expectations accordingly.
Personally I've always gone with the simple all-or-nothing approach. D&D combat can take a significant amount of time. I'd caution against turning a common action into a complicated affair.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
i do tell the rogue when he is or isn't hiden so he can know witch enemy will or will not get the sneaky damage, i'm a simple DM i guess
If the rogue is hidden, then he won't know who he can attack until it is his/her turn, since he can't see any targets. Only then will he find out if he has advantage on any of the potential targets.
I don't see any reason to notify the player since the character thinks that he is hiding.
The DM is supposed to narrate the result of the roll, not announce whether or not the roll beat a contested check. The rogue PC might be allowed an Insight check to attempt to discern the opposition's reaction or if they've noticed anything.
Rogue - I want to hide behind the hedge. (Rolls Stealth - 18)
DM - (Checks passive scores - one monster succeeds) You move quickly and quietly behind the hedge and duck low to prevent being seen. What else would you like to do on your turn?
Rogue - Am I hidden?
DM - You can use your Action (I might treat this as a Search Action - devoting one's attention) to make an Insight check to see if anyone reacted to you or is acting like they noticed. Is this what you want to do?
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I never tell the player, I simply say, you think you are hidden and then when they make the attack I tell them if they get sneak attack damage or not from that enemy.
If the enemy goes before them depending on what they do I might let them do something to show they know where the player is, I also will let monsters and NPCs warn there allies if it makes sense yelling out that one of them just hid behind that bush but if the hiding player is less of a threat then someone closer they may ignore it thinking he is running away.
A hiding creature generally thinks it is hidden until proven wrong. You might dicern if you were detected, but not necessarily though. For exemple, if you can perceive an enemy, you might realise you've been spotted by seeing or hearing their reaction or not if said enemy specifically doesn't make it obvious, if you cannot see it looking your way or if you are not aware of its presence because it is also hidden.
But it's exceptional as most of the time it occurs between a hidden creature vs a perceptible one unaware of it that suddenly detect a threat, in which case it's generally obvious.
Yikes. The player is already investing an action into hiding, which presumably includes looking for right time to slink off and paying attention to enemies. Charging them another action just to find out if what they did worked? Harsh.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If they roll high enough, they will have a sense on how hidden they are.
I don't outright tell them, but I generally describe from the other players POV - "You see X vanish into the bushes".
They will eventually know if they attack with advantage or not. (I don't lock them into attacking a specific target though, and that might be considered unrealistic, but if they invested resources into doing stuff, I generally am ok with throwing them a bone).
Before requiring an action to find out, i would rely on a Passive Perception, Investigation or Insight to determine if it perceived or deduced he was spotted if it was not obvious.
I personally like this, in the sense they ask. Our folks generally make assumptions, based on their rolls, on how well their hiding went. The fringe cases, 15-17 and such often create a fair bit of anxiety, but nobody has asked that I can recall. Sometimes they have NOT successfully hidden and that becomes apparent mid-combat or activity usually. Often to hilarious results, I might add during activities, when "sneaking" up on someone who not only knows you're there, but is aware that you think you're being stealthy.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
You'll notice that the action was phrased as a question, not a requirement.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
For me it depends on how intelligent the enemies are. In the above case:
Stupid enemies: "you duck behind the wall and stealthily make your way behind the hedge, but as you do so you hear someone shout "There he is!".
Smart enemies: "You duck behind the wall and stealthily make your way behind the hedge."
Meanwhile the unseen enemies have communicated silently that they have seen him behind the hedge, and are aiming to make a sneak atatck of their own!
As soon as they pop up to make an attack, I'll inform them who looks surprised and who is looking right at them from behind a shield. They'd then get to make a split-second decision who they're shooting.
Also if there are other players, I would let them know (secretly if possible) that they see the group signal that they've seen the rogue, so if they want to shout a warning in their turn, they can! Ideally, I like to keep players knowing as much as characters, for immersions sake!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I don't think the intent is all or nothing. If you look at the surprise rules for comparing stealth vs passive perception it is clear that all or nothing is not the intent.
"The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."
In this case, the DM compares the stealth check vs passive perception and determines which of the opponents are aware of the exact location of other threats.
---
In the OP case, EVERYONE in the combat knows the rogue ducked behind the hedge. All the stealth check vs passive perception does is determine how aware the individual creatures are of the location of the rogue and whether they are sufficiently aware of them when they again become visible to mitigate the benefits of being hidden. Hidden in 5e means unseen and unheard and that you are not aware of the actions the character is taking. A creature with a high passive perception in this case will still be aware of the rogue's location - likely they weren't quiet enough or they give themselves away somehow when they pop back into view.
The rogue can certainly be effectively hidden from some but not others. The creature that is still aware of the rogues location could yell "The rogue is behind the hedge" but everyone knows that is where the rogue went. It doesn't convey any additional information and doesn't give the other creatures the ability to know when or if the rogue is going to attack.
The rules do not discuss what information is available to the rogue. For many ability checks it is obvious whether the check was successful or not. However, there are some like stealth vs passive perception that aren't. In this case, the rogue is out of sight behind the hedge and has no way to know which creatures might still be aware of their position or not. In this case, as DM, I'd have the rogue pop out to make their attack then tell them whether to roll with advantage or not depending on whether the rogue was successfully hidden from their chosen target or not.
I'm not sure why smart enemies would not also indicate his position. Since hiding is an all-or-nothing thing, if one enemy notices the character they are presumably telling their allies. I suppose they could do so with hand movements or whatever, but there's not much of an in-game reason they would want the rogue to think he succeeded if he didn't.
Personally, I think when a competent player tries something they are trained in, they are generally aware of how well they did it. In the case of hiding, I'd say the rogue was watching the enemies as he went behind the hedge, and unless the enemy was very deceptive or the rogue was very poor at insight, he'd observe if he was spotted.
I also have some sympathy for rogues. They need sneak attack for their class to function as intended in combat, and being coy about whether or not they'll get it would just teach the player 1) not to hide and/or 2) not to be a rogue. Honestly the hide rules are such a vague mess that I wouldn't be surprised if many DMs were unconsciously (or consciously) making it not worthwhile so they didn't have to deal with adjudicating it. Our job should be interpreting rules, not writing them when the developers kick the can.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It's only an extra action if they want to actually confirm that it worked. Also, boss shouting "Someone go kill the rogue behind the hedge" will probably be a clue that it failed.
Then again, I don't give NPCs telepathy unless it's actually one of their powers, so if they aren't communicating, you're hidden from everyone whose passive perception you beat.
Rogues have it easy, there are lots of ways to trigger sneak attack without hiding, supporting the tank is one of many.
The default behaviour for 5E seems to be "everyone knows where everyone is" and "to hide, you have to hide from everyone."
Turn it around on the players. If an enemy is hidden from character A but not character B, the player of B will generally object, saying something like "I tell A where the enemy is!"
So the game keeps it simple - to be hidden, you have to be hidden from everyone on the other side. One die roll from you, one die roll (or passive check) from everyone on that other side.
Besides, tracking which figures are hidden with respect to all the other figures in the combat is a lot of work at the table.
Not really. Just track their hide check and compare to the passive perception of characters who wish to interact with hidden character.
I would base this on whether the Rogue could see the person that spotted them or not. If they can, I'd do an Insight check to see if the spotter was looking at them. If they can't see them, I would let them assume they were hidden until some other condition convinced them otherwise.