If you're in fog or in magical darkness or something, it works mechanically. But ultimately, intentionally, and explicitly, stealth and hiding in combat are largely in the realm of DM adjudication.
I bring it up as it's often debated wether you can hide from a creature obviously knowing your position, usually based on the principle that if your position is given hiding is impossible from this rule:
Hiding: you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase
I feel like this is one of those cases where we have to extrapolate from the senses - hidden means you are concealed from sight and sound and smell (all of which can be used by creatures to perceive hidden things), as we even have various monster features that indicate advantage for these traits.
But we never really discuss touch being another sense. My rational guess would be that the designers would have considered touch to be self-explanatory: that any creature you’re physically touching is automatically perceived.
I feel like this is one of those cases where we have to extrapolate from the senses - hidden means you are concealed from sight and sound and smell (all of which can be used by creatures to perceive hidden things), as we even have various monster features that indicate advantage for these traits.
But we never really discuss touch being another sense. My rational guess would be that the designers would have considered touch to be self-explanatory: that any creature you’re physically touching is automatically perceived.
You bring an excellent point. While grappling or being grappled, you should automatically succeed any Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on touch. (unless you're completly numb and can't feel your limbs or something)
I mean it looks obvious to many, but i wanted to stress test this RAW
If we analyze the core function, Touch perception could determine your presence isn't it?
Hiding: When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence...When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score.
Wisdom: Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses.
The only circumstance where I'd consider allowing it is if the grappler was something like a roper, whose grappling appendages can be pretty far away from its main body where it takes up space on a grid. Even then, it's a tough argument to make, because the appendage is clearly right there, grappling you, and it's part of the monster, but that's just one of the quirky things about monsters with reach.
The rules don't say no, but it should be impossible as a consequence of what the action does.
Being hidden means it doesn't know your position. If it has an intelligence higher than 2, then even being invisible and unheard isn't enough for it to forget it grappled you.
But who know, you might be able to trick some creatures if combined with an illusion or ventriloquism. So how about: it depends.
Is this thread more concerned with what is a reasonable argument? Or are we concerned with what loophole the rules allow? Because I will give two very different responses depending on which way we're going.
The rules say that the DM should only call for a roll when both success and failure are possible and meaningful. The rules only “allow” you to try to hide from someone who’s grappling you if the DM thinks that success should be possible. As DxJxC mentioned, there are maybe some extremely niche circumstances where that may be the case, but broadly speaking, the rational answer (and one fully supported by the rules) is no.
Is this thread more concerned with what is a reasonable argument? Or are we concerned with what loophole the rules allow? Because I will give two very different responses depending on which way we're going.
Give everything you got i'd like to hear all arguments and we're all there to discuss rules inside & out so don't hold any punches! ☺
The rules say that the DM should only call for a roll when both success and failure are possible and meaningful. The rules only “allow” you to try to hide from someone who’s grappling you if the DM thinks that success should be possible. As DxJxC mentioned, there are maybe some extremely niche circumstances where that may be the case, but broadly speaking, the rational answer (and one fully supported by the rules) is no.
This is the answer.
There is, by default, only one situation where a player may take a Hide attempt without the DM's permission: when that creature is Invisible. All from PHB 7:
Default: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." Guidance provided for when the DM might decide its appropriate/inappropriate includes:
"You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" ... "What can you see? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly obscured or heavily obscured"
"You give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase"
Exception: "An invisible creature can always try to hide."
So by default, nobody can try to hide unless the DM says they can try to hide, and the DM when making that decision should consider if the situation is "appropriate" by examining things like whether the hider can be seen "clearly" (with dim light or other obscurement being a "factor" that might make a creature not seen clearly), or whether they are making noise. Nothing says the DM can't also consider other factors, like whether the hider is touching the creature they're trying to hide from, or locked in position in a way where they can't move to hide... that would feel appropriate to prohibit, totally within DM's discretion. EXCEPT THAT, no matter how inappropriate the situation, "an invisible creature can always try to hide," no matter what.
If the hider has Skulker or the like, I would argue that creates a new invisibility-type exception to the "when appropriate" rule, meaning that a Skulker in light obscurement can always try to hide, no matter what. (Though, I'm sure you're all aware I would argue that, since there's another thread on that topic). But putting that aside...
TLDR: Can a grappling creature hide? Yes, if the DM thinks it is appropriate, but I imagine many DMs would find that to be not appropriate.But also, if the grappling creature is Invisible, then always yes.
There is, by default, only one situation where a player may take a Hide attempt without the DM's permission: when that creature is Invisible. All from PHB 7:
Exception: "An invisible creature can always try to hide."
That is false a DM could always determine you can't hide. Do not hang up too much on that sentence's word '"always" as it's incorrect. An invisible creature can't always try to hide. There's ciscumstances where it won't be able to (tremorsense, blindsight etc) and any other DM fiat. For exemple, a DM could determine an invisible creature can't try to hide because it smell too strongly (ex. skunk), him or somethign it carries makes too much noise or it's being grappled etc...
More importantly, nothing goes without DM's permission.
If you're grappled by an invisible creature that you can't see (or, grappled in the dark while you're effectively Blinded), you certainly would know that something has a hold of you. And, you'd probably assume that that something is somewhere within 5 feet of you, in one of those 8 squares (though, it could be further away if its a creature with reach, or some other special ability that lets it grapple at greater distances?). Would you necessarily know exactly what square they're in, if you haven't otherwise succeeded at a Perception check to find them? I'm not sure it would be ridiculous to say that you might not know where they are.
Would it be more ridiculous to not know where that grappling creature is if the room is only dim, instead of pitch black and blinding? Yeah, I think that a reasonable DM would probably say that usually you wouldn't be able to effectively hide in that context. I happen to think that Skulker and related racial traits provide a supernatural exception to that, making you so exceptionally stealthy that you could still attempt to hide and vanish in the dim light and chaos... would the DM maybe hand out disadvantage on that because its an inappropriate situation? Or give the enemy advantage on their check to find you? Sure...
I'd say it would often be reasonably appropriatefor an unseen creature (they are Invisible, or you are Blinded to them due to heavy obscurement) to hide from a creature they are grappling. But even when inappropriate (they're loud and stinky or whatever), an Invisible creature can still nevertheless make the attempt as an explicit special effect of their condition, even if the DM wants to discourage it by handing out a penalty like disadvantage. Its a special power they are entitled to by virtue of having the Invisible condition, as described in PHB Chapter 7, and the DM would be houseruling to disallow that attempt.
I'd say it would often be reasonably inappropriatefor a poorly-seen creature (they are visible but in light obscurement dim light or light foliage or light fog, etc.) to attempt to hide from a creature they're grappling, so a reasonable DM could not allow the check at all if they are not Invisible. But, the way I read Skulker , a skulker would be able to nevertheless make the attempt as an explicit special effect of their feat/racial trait, even if the DM wants to discourage it by handing out a penalty like disadvantage, unless they houseruled to deny them the attempt. But, that's at least debatable based on your interpretation of how Skulker works (even though I strongly feel I am correct, to avoid PHB Chapter 7 being rendered incoherent/incorrect).
No guys, I think Chicken is right. An invisible creature can always try to hide. And always trumps everything.
DM says no? They can do it anyway because an invisible creature can always try to hide.
Not the character's turn? They can do it anyway because an invisible creature can always try to hide.
Invisible character tries and fails to hide? They can do it anyway because an invisible creature can always try to hide.
Character is dead? They can do it anyway because an invisible creature can always try to hide.
Not currently playing D&D? They can do it anyway because an invisible creature can always try to hide.
I mean, that's clearly not what I'm saying, but sure build me up as a strawman. A character is "always" entitled to use their action to dodge, dash, disengage, or attack (unless another effect or condition has removed that option)... but is not "always" entitled to take a Hide action on their turn, if the DM hasn't decided that conditions are appropriate for the attempt to be allowed. If invisible, they are entitled to always attempt it, the condition itself is sufficient context to make the attempt allowed.
That should not be a controversial argument. I mean, it's printed in plain English in the PHB. "An invisible creature can always try to hide" isn't exactly latin.
Can you try to hide from a creature grappling you or that you have grappled?
If you're in fog or in magical darkness or something, it works mechanically. But ultimately, intentionally, and explicitly, stealth and hiding in combat are largely in the realm of DM adjudication.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I bring it up as it's often debated wether you can hide from a creature obviously knowing your position, usually based on the principle that if your position is given hiding is impossible from this rule:
Hiding: you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase
I feel like this is one of those cases where we have to extrapolate from the senses - hidden means you are concealed from sight and sound and smell (all of which can be used by creatures to perceive hidden things), as we even have various monster features that indicate advantage for these traits.
But we never really discuss touch being another sense. My rational guess would be that the designers would have considered touch to be self-explanatory: that any creature you’re physically touching is automatically perceived.
Hidden is defined in the rules as unseen and unheard. If you can pull it off, you can try it.
Yes, this is an absurd position.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You bring an excellent point. While grappling or being grappled, you should automatically succeed any Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on touch. (unless you're completly numb and can't feel your limbs or something)
I mean it looks obvious to many, but i wanted to stress test this RAW
If we analyze the core function, Touch perception could determine your presence isn't it?
Hiding: When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence...When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score.
Wisdom: Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses.
The only circumstance where I'd consider allowing it is if the grappler was something like a roper, whose grappling appendages can be pretty far away from its main body where it takes up space on a grid. Even then, it's a tough argument to make, because the appendage is clearly right there, grappling you, and it's part of the monster, but that's just one of the quirky things about monsters with reach.
The rules don't say no, but it should be impossible as a consequence of what the action does.
Being hidden means it doesn't know your position. If it has an intelligence higher than 2, then even being invisible and unheard isn't enough for it to forget it grappled you.
But who know, you might be able to trick some creatures if combined with an illusion or ventriloquism. So how about: it depends.
Is this thread more concerned with what is a reasonable argument? Or are we concerned with what loophole the rules allow? Because I will give two very different responses depending on which way we're going.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The rules say that the DM should only call for a roll when both success and failure are possible and meaningful. The rules only “allow” you to try to hide from someone who’s grappling you if the DM thinks that success should be possible. As DxJxC mentioned, there are maybe some extremely niche circumstances where that may be the case, but broadly speaking, the rational answer (and one fully supported by the rules) is no.
Give everything you got i'd like to hear all arguments and we're all there to discuss rules inside & out so don't hold any punches! ☺
This conversation would be much more straightforward if 'hidden' was a condition.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is the answer.
There is, by default, only one situation where a player may take a Hide attempt without the DM's permission: when that creature is Invisible. All from PHB 7:
So by default, nobody can try to hide unless the DM says they can try to hide, and the DM when making that decision should consider if the situation is "appropriate" by examining things like whether the hider can be seen "clearly" (with dim light or other obscurement being a "factor" that might make a creature not seen clearly), or whether they are making noise. Nothing says the DM can't also consider other factors, like whether the hider is touching the creature they're trying to hide from, or locked in position in a way where they can't move to hide... that would feel appropriate to prohibit, totally within DM's discretion. EXCEPT THAT, no matter how inappropriate the situation, "an invisible creature can always try to hide," no matter what.
If the hider has Skulker or the like, I would argue that creates a new invisibility-type exception to the "when appropriate" rule, meaning that a Skulker in light obscurement can always try to hide, no matter what. (Though, I'm sure you're all aware I would argue that, since there's another thread on that topic). But putting that aside...
TLDR: Can a grappling creature hide? Yes, if the DM thinks it is appropriate, but I imagine many DMs would find that to be not appropriate. But also, if the grappling creature is Invisible, then always yes.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That is false a DM could always determine you can't hide. Do not hang up too much on that sentence's word '"always" as it's incorrect. An invisible creature can't always try to hide. There's ciscumstances where it won't be able to (tremorsense, blindsight etc) and any other DM fiat. For exemple, a DM could determine an invisible creature can't try to hide because it smell too strongly (ex. skunk), him or somethign it carries makes too much noise or it's being grappled etc...
More importantly, nothing goes without DM's permission.
The PHB: "an invisible creature can always try to hide."
vs.
Plaguescarred: "an invisible creature CAN'T always try to hide."
Well, one of those statements is RAW....
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not saying it's not a written rule, i'm saying it's objectively false. If you disagree, prove me wrong ! Fort exemple;
Can an invisible creature try to hide from one with Truesight? No
Can an invisible creature try to hide from one with See Invisibility spell active? No
Can an invisible creature try to hide while under a Faerie Fire active? No
No guys, I think Chicken is right. An invisible creature can always try to hide. And always trumps everything.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm not sure its necessarily ridiculous.
If you're grappled by an invisible creature that you can't see (or, grappled in the dark while you're effectively Blinded), you certainly would know that something has a hold of you. And, you'd probably assume that that something is somewhere within 5 feet of you, in one of those 8 squares (though, it could be further away if its a creature with reach, or some other special ability that lets it grapple at greater distances?). Would you necessarily know exactly what square they're in, if you haven't otherwise succeeded at a Perception check to find them? I'm not sure it would be ridiculous to say that you might not know where they are.
Would it be more ridiculous to not know where that grappling creature is if the room is only dim, instead of pitch black and blinding? Yeah, I think that a reasonable DM would probably say that usually you wouldn't be able to effectively hide in that context. I happen to think that Skulker and related racial traits provide a supernatural exception to that, making you so exceptionally stealthy that you could still attempt to hide and vanish in the dim light and chaos... would the DM maybe hand out disadvantage on that because its an inappropriate situation? Or give the enemy advantage on their check to find you? Sure...
I'd say it would often be reasonably appropriate for an unseen creature (they are Invisible, or you are Blinded to them due to heavy obscurement) to hide from a creature they are grappling. But even when inappropriate (they're loud and stinky or whatever), an Invisible creature can still nevertheless make the attempt as an explicit special effect of their condition, even if the DM wants to discourage it by handing out a penalty like disadvantage. Its a special power they are entitled to by virtue of having the Invisible condition, as described in PHB Chapter 7, and the DM would be houseruling to disallow that attempt.
I'd say it would often be reasonably inappropriate for a poorly-seen creature (they are visible but in light obscurement dim light or light foliage or light fog, etc.) to attempt to hide from a creature they're grappling, so a reasonable DM could not allow the check at all if they are not Invisible. But, the way I read Skulker , a skulker would be able to nevertheless make the attempt as an explicit special effect of their feat/racial trait, even if the DM wants to discourage it by handing out a penalty like disadvantage, unless they houseruled to deny them the attempt. But, that's at least debatable based on your interpretation of how Skulker works (even though I strongly feel I am correct, to avoid PHB Chapter 7 being rendered incoherent/incorrect).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I mean, that's clearly not what I'm saying, but sure build me up as a strawman. A character is "always" entitled to use their action to dodge, dash, disengage, or attack (unless another effect or condition has removed that option)... but is not "always" entitled to take a Hide action on their turn, if the DM hasn't decided that conditions are appropriate for the attempt to be allowed. If invisible, they are entitled to always attempt it, the condition itself is sufficient context to make the attempt allowed.
That should not be a controversial argument. I mean, it's printed in plain English in the PHB. "An invisible creature can always try to hide" isn't exactly latin.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.