This all depends on what "hidden" means in game terms.
If a rogue ducks behind a wall and takes the hide action from a goblin on the other side and succeeds then the goblin has lost track of exactly where the rogue is. They can't efficiently watch for their next action. They don't know when the rogue might pop out and do something.
However, they STILL know that the last place they saw the rogue was behind the wall.
Now put a goblin on the rogues side of the wall. The rogue can't hide from them. That goblin yells "The rogue is behind the wall". Well, duh, the goblins on the other side already know the rogue is behind the wall. It tells them nothing new. They still don't know when, if or where the rogue might pop out to attack.
So, does the goblin who can see the rogue now have to give a running commentary? "The rogue is moving along the wall to the south, he's going to shoot! Wait he was only faking. Look out! He is shooting! Ooops sorry not yet." Rogue pops out to shoot, the creature on the other side of the wall didn't know when he was going to pop out and can't really spend the time or effort trying to figure out the running commentary from his ally.
The same goes for hiding behind any object. Consider a tree in the middle of a battlefield, if it provides sufficient cover a rogue can hide behind it ... and even if it is just only a bunch of leaves that lightly obscure things a wood elf rogue can STILL try to hide there. Every opponent on the battlefield KNOWS there is a woodelf hiding behind the tree but if the wood elf is successful at the hide check then they have managed to conceal the actions they are taking from the opponents who can't see them sufficiently that they can gain advantage on their next attack.
Thats all hiding does if you look at the rules. It means you are unseen and unheard by some of the opponents on the field and they won't get the second or two warning of the impending attack that would allow them to make full use of their defences ... so you get advantage on the attack roll. It doesn't mean you are unseen and unheard by everyone (the rules don't say that) ... just that some of the opponents on the field don't know exactly where you are sufficient to get a warning when you take an action.
That is my take on it and it appears to be supported by RAW. You are welcome to house rule that hiding only works if you can hide from everyone or that observers could take their action to try to describe what the rogue is doing so that the target would not be subject to disadvantage but that isn't what is in the books.
On top of that, I think it would be hilarious to listen to a goblin trying to fill out sentences describing the rogues actions sufficiently that the other goblin will have enough warning of the coming attack ... this is particularly true if that goblin is already involved in combat. Neither goblin has any way of knowing whether the other is even talking to them on a chaotic battlefield ... one yells the rogue is behind the wall! Well they already knew that ... in addition neither goblin has any idea whether the other one passed or failed a perception check so how can they even know that they need to describe what the rogue is doing? Bottom line to me is that the whole "relay position" thing makes no sense in an actual combat and the typical information wouldn't be detailed enough to make any difference.
If the NPC can see behind the wall then the rogue cannot attempt to hide. The NPC knows exactly where the rogue is (which is, you know, the opposite of hiding).
If the NPC can't see behind the wall and therefore can't see the position of the rogue then the rogue can attempt to hide. The attempt includes trying to move silently, trying to not raise dust or disturb foliage, etc. If the rogue's player's DEX\Stealth roll beats the GM's WIS\Perception roll then the rogue is actually hidden (as per the game condition).
In this case the NPC doesn't know anything more specific than "the rogue is behind the wall somewhere, maybe, they might have moved, I'm not sure."
3: Rogue: I dive into the shadows, they're all human so they can't see me in the dark.
If the NPC can see the rogue (maybe they have truesight or darkvision from a spell or race) then the rogue can't attempt to hide.
If there is only one shadow and no way to move out of it without being observed, then the rogue cannot attempt to hide because the NPC knows exactly where the rogue is. They would get the benefits of being unseen but not hidden.
If there are lots of shadows then the rogue can attempt to hide. As always, the attempt might be automatically successful or require a contested roll depending on circumstances (rule 0 of RPGs).
All three situations would, in your game, completely negate the hide action because at least one npc could see and call out the position of the player who is trying to hide?
If that's the case, and all creatures are assumed to have 360 degree vision at all times, how does one successfully hide in your game?
Not at all. You are using a strawman fallacy.
What I am saying is:
If an observer knows exactly where you are then you can't attempt hide from that observer. Hidden means that the observer either doesn't know your location or doesn't know you are even there at all. Being hidden is more than just being unseen.
Additionally, if you are hidden from one foe but not hidden from another then the second foe will try to tell the first foe where you are. If they can do this then you are no longer hidden.
If the NPC can see behind the wall then the rogue cannot attempt to hide. The NPC knows exactly where the rogue is (which is, you know, the opposite of hiding).
If the NPC can't see behind the wall and therefore can't see the position of the rogue then the rogue can attempt to hide. The attempt includes trying to move silently, trying to not raise dust or disturb foliage, etc. If the rogue's player's DEX\Stealth roll beats the GM's WIS\Perception roll then the rogue is actually hidden (as per the game condition).
In this case the NPC doesn't know anything more specific than "the rogue is behind the wall somewhere, maybe, they might have moved, I'm not sure."
3: Rogue: I dive into the shadows, they're all human so they can't see me in the dark.
If the NPC can see the rogue (maybe they have truesight or darkvision from a spell or race) then the rogue can't attempt to hide.
If there is only one shadow and no way to move out of it without being observed, then the rogue cannot attempt to hide because the NPC knows exactly where the rogue is. They would get the benefits of being unseen but not hidden.
If there are lots of shadows then the rogue can attempt to hide. As always, the attempt might be automatically successful or require a contested roll depending on circumstances (rule 0 of RPGs).
All three situations would, in your game, completely negate the hide action because at least one npc could see and call out the position of the player who is trying to hide?
If that's the case, and all creatures are assumed to have 360 degree vision at all times, how does one successfully hide in your game?
Not at all. You are using a strawman fallacy.
What I am saying is:
If an observer knows exactly where you are then you can't attempt hide from that observer. Hidden means that the observer either doesn't know your location or doesn't know you are even there at all. Being hidden is more than just being unseen.
Additionally, if you are hidden from one foe but not hidden from another then the second foe will try to tell the first foe where you are. If they can do this then you are no longer hidden.
"Additionally, if you are hidden from one foe but not hidden from another then the second foe will try to tell the first foe where you are. If they can do this then you are no longer hidden."
This is the part where we disagree.
In the three examples that DMThac0 presented he stated
"All three situations would, in your game, completely negate the hide action because at least one npc could see and call out the position of the player who is trying to hide?'
I think we all agree that in all of these cases if there is no additional observer and the rogue passes his stealth check then he is hidden. However, if there is someone who can see the rogue you claim that they would then tell the first foe where they are and thus they would no longer be hidden.
"The rogue is behind the wall"
"The rogue is in the house"
"The rogue is in the shadows"
However, in all these examples, one foe telling the other that the rogue is in a certain location does NOT allow the first foe to either SEE or HEAR the rogue. The rogue passed their stealth check against the first foe. The first foe knows where they were last seen ... behind the wall, in the house, in the shadows ... having an ally tell them that the rogue is "behind the wall", "in the house", " hiding in the shadows" does NOT allow the first foe to see the rogue, does NOT change the status of being unseen and unheard by the first foe ... does NOT in fact remove the hidden status to the first foe.
You are free to house rule it otherwise ... but nowhere in the rules does it state that hidden status is lost if a different foe is able to see you. It only states that if you are unseen and unheard (as determined by passing a stealth check) then you are hidden from that particular opponent and someone yelling about where you are does not, in any way, affect your stealth status relative to the first foe.
It only states that if you are unseen and unheard (as determined by passing a stealth check) then you are hidden from that particular opponent and someone yelling about where you are does not, in any way, affect your stealth status relative to the first foe.
On the other hand, common sense and the English language say that you aren't hidden from someone who knows exactly where you are.
You say that is common sense, but the rules say otherwise: you are out of sight or in a situation the DM considers appropiate for Hiding? Good take the Hide action, roll your Stealth check vs. the Passive Perception of whom you want to hide from, those which Perception you rolled higher, you are now HIDDEN from (still only if you are out of their sight), What does it means? This, Third paragraph. Nothing less, nothing more. Having your position pin pointed dosen't make you not hidden, you just need to be unseen and unheard. Period.
Hidden =/= Unknown Position
If someone tells you there's a guy Hidden behind a tree, but, for any reason, you can't see him nor ear him, he's still Hidden, because your senses can't tell that someone's there. Yeah, you've been told where he is , but this dosen't make him anymore visibile or audible to you. You now know that there's someone around and where he is, you can easly walk around the tree and see him, or try to look better, but until you do either, your perception of the individual remains the same regardles of his position being relayed to you.
It only states that if you are unseen and unheard (as determined by passing a stealth check) then you are hidden from that particular opponent and someone yelling about where you are does not, in any way, affect your stealth status relative to the first foe.
On the other hand, common sense and the English language say that you aren't hidden from someone who knows exactly where you are.
However, that is not what the rules say AND your comment is not exactly true.
First the rules say unseen and unheard. If they pass their stealth check indicating that they were successful in hiding themselves from you then you can't see or hear them any more. You know where they WERE but not where they ARE. They are hidden. Even in our world, if you can't see your opponent they are hidden even if you know they are behind a particular obstacle.
(As a real world example, that may or may not make sense :) ... have you ever played paintball or laser tag? Someone ducks behind a wall or a tree or some other obstacle and stops (or moves slowly), you can't see them, you know where they were but not where they are. You are trying to watch for other players and keep an eye on where the hidden player went. They suddenly pop out at one end of the obstacle and fire. Your reaction time to dodge or fire back is very short. Compare this to a situation where you see the opponent step out from behind an obstacle and raise their weapon to shoot. You are dodging, moving and returning fire. Your chances of being hit are much lower. Although this is NOT in any rule book, this is my interpretation of what the hiding mechanism in 5e is supposed to represent in combat. It is not "I don't know where the opponent is" ... it is "I don't know exactly where the opponent is NOW" and as a result there is less warning of an impending attack and thus advantage on the attack roll. This is just a made up explanation of what might be going on ... however, it is completely consistent with the ACTUAL rules which is the point.)
They may still be behind the obstacle but that doesn't tell you whether they will duck out from the left or right side, whether they might duck out high or low, whether they might climb the back side of the obstacle and peak out over the top. Even your friend yelling at you that they are behind the tree STILL doesn't help since you have lost track of exactly where they are and do not get the usual time to prepare for any actions they take. This is what gives the hidden character advantage on their attack role, the defender does not have the usual awareness that an attack is about to arrive and 5e simplifies this whole process so that if you manage to hide (thus breaking the direct awareness of your target) you will have advantage on the attack roll because they will have less warning of the incoming attack than usual.
That is all that is behind the mechanic.
If you are hidden from an opponent when you attack you get advantage on the attack roll. Hidden is defined and unseen and unheard and is typically determined by a stealth ability check against a passive perception. When a creature is hidden from you, you don't know exactly where they are. There are no rules for allies to be able to prevent the hidden condition by telling you where the hidden creature is since telling you where they are does not allow you to see them or in any way perceive them if they passed their stealth roll.
This did get me thinking though. If a rogue is hidden from a goblin, but not from a hobgoblin, could the goblin hold his attack until he saw the target and wait for the hobgoblin to attack the rogue? If a hidden rogue is attacked by a non-hidden hobgoblin, would that commotion cause the rogue to no longer be unseen/unheard? And if not, is there anything the hobgoblin could do to reveal the rogue? Could he for instance shove the rogue out in the open so the goblin can see him? Can he grapple the rogue? Would that even help?
This did get me thinking though. If a rogue is hidden from a goblin, but not from a hobgoblin, could the goblin hold his attack until he saw the target and wait for the hobgoblin to attack the rogue? If a hidden rogue is attacked by a non-hidden hobgoblin, would that commotion cause the rogue to no longer be unseen/unheard? And if not, is there anything the hobgoblin could do to reveal the rogue? Could he for instance shove the rogue out in the open so the goblin can see him? Can he grapple the rogue? Would that even help?
Usually, being hidden in combat is mostly useful just on the rogue's turn so they can attack with advantage. If the goblin moved so they could clearly see the rogue removing whatever circumstance the rogue used to hide in the first place then the rogue would no longer be hidden from the goblin. If the hobgoblin goes behind the wall and shoves the rogue to a location where the goblin could see them clearly then the rogue would no longer be hidden from the goblin.
If the hobgoblin goes behind the wall and attacks the rogue but the rogue is still behind whatever cover granted them the ability to hide then it would be a DM call as to whether there was enough noise made to lose the hidden status to the goblin. Based on RAW, the rogue could remain hidden if unseen an unheard. If they make too much noise then they won't be hidden anymore. Too much is a DM called based on how much noise is in the environment and how much noise the listener might be making to determine whether the rogue can be heard clearly enough.
There is nothing in the rules that says you can't be hidden from some creatures and not from others so taking a hide action to be hidden from one creature is not prevented by being in line of view of a team mate.
Combatants talk. If you are hidden from one kobold but not another, a shout of "rogue's behind that wall" means you are not hidden from either.
I'm resurrecting this thread to point out that despite my not being sure if I agreed with this take, it seems that Jeremy Crawford does. I was listening to this podcast about stealth and hiding and if you listen exactly 18 minutes in, Jeremy says that when you make your roll to hide, it sticks with you until your hidden condition changes. "You keep whatever that [stealth check] result was until you are no longer hidden, and again, that is because you have run out of hiding, or you made a loud noise, or someone discovered you. As soon as that happens--even one person discovers you, basically that nullifies whatever you rolled and if you want to hide again, you're going to have to make another check."
(Standard disclaimer applies to whatever value you place on Jeremy Crawford's opinions)
My question (4 years later so here comes another necromancy charge) is if an ally is on one side of a creature establishing a flank (even if you don't use flank rukes it's still a relative term) and the rogue is disengaged so the ally is the only melee combatant engaged with the enemy creature would you be able to use hide from behind the creature, assuming there is only one creature that can only see in one direction at a time?
That very last part of your question doesn't generally apply in 5e. Combatants are always assumed to be looking in / facing every direction at the same time.
My question (4 years later so here comes another necromancy charge) is if an ally is on one side of a creature establishing a flank (even if you don't use flank rukes it's still a relative term) and the rogue is disengaged so the ally is the only melee combatant engaged with the enemy creature would you be able to use hide from behind the creature, assuming there is only one creature that can only see in one direction at a time?
While being within 5 feet of another creature doesn't prevent you from hiding, you still need to not be seen clearly by it, wether invisible, heavily obscured or blinded otherwise the only character that can attempt to hide in such manner is the Lightfoot Halfling, which is usually determined by having half cover from it.
Naturally Stealthy. You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
My players like to abuse this but it doesn't feel like the game intended for this to be used so often during combat, especially when the enemy has been looking at the player the entire time. One player is using it especially often because her Goblin character can use the hide action as a bonus, so she's constantly evoking an advantage roll on attacks.
I've read the rules up and down but I can't find anything specifically saying this isn't possible. Can you really just hide during combat whenever you want RAW?
It's simply not true that you need to be hidden from *all* foes to be hidden from *any* foe. RAW doesn't work that way, and neither does real life. RAW-wise, whether or not a foe notices you or knows your exact location, that's for the dice to decide.
In real life, the reality is that people aren't paying attention to things in front of them all the time. The classic example is selective attention testing:
Participants are asked beforehand to count how many times the ball gets passed around. Afterward, participants have no idea that there was a gorilla right there in front of them.
You can see the same thing in basketball all the time, where highly trained world-class athletes routinely lose sight of players right in front of them who they're supposed to be guarding against - and this happens despite the fact that basketball players talk to each other all the time.
What Jeremy Crawford says on the podcast linked in post #30 makes sense for breaking your cover, but that's separate from the original stealth check itself.
If we're to make a realistic narrative for how this works, this is what I'd suggest:
#1 - You have to change position so that you're obscured from the view of some number of foes.
#2 - You only get to claim stealth against foes who can't see your new position.
#3 - If your stealth check beats a foe's perception check, that means they either...
...(a) had their attention diverted by something else on the field while you moved, and/or ...(b) weren't able to track where you ran off to, and/or ...(c) didn't hear or understand or process any information passed on to them by one of their co-combatants (e.g. "The rogue is behind that log!" "Which one?! I didn't see where you were pointing...").
Etc etc
In other words, just like we don't assume stealth automatically works, we also can't assume enemy combatant communication automatically works, either. The NPC's have to actually earn it, as the dice decide.
And more broadly speaking: of course a rogue should be able to hide on the battlefield routinely. The idea is that the PC's will have certain bread-and-butter go-to moves, "spammable moves." As DM, I take it as my responsibility to find a way to respond to that spammable move, or even adopt it myself, rather than making up a new rule to say "hey btw I just decided your go-to move isn't valid anymore."
(And if I did do a rule change like that, I'd certainly allow the player to re-design their character accordingly - it's really not fair to the player to have them design the PC under one implementation of the rules, only to have them play under a different version that really nixes that PC design).
Some suggestions for countering the rogue's sneak attack:
1 - Place NPC's in positions (especially higher ground) that maximize their line of sight across the battlefield.
2 - Space NPC's to minimize situations where the proximity of other PC's might grant advantage to the rogue.
3 - Create conditions that impose disadvantage on attack rolls: blinding a PC, poisoning a PC, knocking a PC prone, frightening a PC, etc.
4 - Exploit the rogue's Hide action to target weaker PC's who are left exposed, unprotected, unbuffered etc. (Basically "blitzing the quarterback," so to speak).
It's simply not true that you need to be hidden from *all* foes to be hidden from *any* foe. RAW doesn't work that way, and neither does real life. RAW-wise, whether or not a foe notices you or knows your exact location, that's for the dice to decide.
In real life, the reality is that people aren't paying attention to things in front of them all the time. The classic example is selective attention testing:
Participants are asked beforehand to count how many times the ball gets passed around. Afterward, participants have no idea that there was a gorilla right there in front of them.
You can see the same thing in basketball all the time, where highly trained world-class athletes routinely lose sight of players right in front of them who they're supposed to be guarding against - and this happens despite the fact that basketball players talk to each other all the time.
What Jeremy Crawford says on the podcast linked in post #30 makes sense for breaking your cover, but that's separate from the original stealth check itself.
If we're to make a realistic narrative for how this works, this is what I'd suggest:
#1 - You have to change position so that you're obscured from the view of some number of foes.
#2 - You only get to claim stealth against foes who can't see your new position.
#3 - If your stealth check beats a foe's perception check, that means they either...
...(a) had their attention diverted by something else on the field while you moved, and/or ...(b) weren't able to track where you ran off to, and/or ...(c) didn't hear or understand or process any information passed on to them by one of their co-combatants (e.g. "The rogue is behind that log!" "Which one?! I didn't see where you were pointing...").
Etc etc
In other words, just like we don't assume stealth automatically works, we also can't assume enemy combatant communication automatically works, either. The NPC's have to actually earn it, as the dice decide.
And more broadly speaking: of course a rogue should be able to hide on the battlefield routinely. The idea is that the PC's will have certain bread-and-butter go-to moves, "spammable moves." As DM, I take it as my responsibility to find a way to respond to that spammable move, or even adopt it myself, rather than making up a new rule to say "hey btw I just decided your go-to move isn't valid anymore."
(And if I did do a rule change like that, I'd certainly allow the player to re-design their character accordingly - it's really not fair to the player to have them design the PC under one implementation of the rules, only to have them play under a different version that really nixes that PC design).
As far as the rules go, a creature trying to hide needs to be behind cover and typically unseen. For most, this does not mean they can hide behind other creatures in the fight, this is a specific ability that halflings have. Similarly, being lightly obscured behind bushes, trees or something else where you are still partly visible is insufficient for most creatures trying to hide but it is possible for wood elves that can specifically hide while lightly obscured by natural phenomena.
With those exceptions, as long as a rogue can find cover then they can use their bonus action to attempt to hide even while involved in a fight (other creatures could use their action but often hiding in combat is only a viable option for a rogue since it is a bonus action.. However, since Tasha's introduced the steady aim ability for rogues at level 3, this may be a more reliable option in some cases since unlike a stealth/hide check, it can't fail.
The first rule for hiding is that the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, which an enemy too distracted to see you clearly could be.
It's simply not true that you need to be hidden from *all* foes to be hidden from *any* foe. RAW doesn't work that way, and neither does real life. RAW-wise, whether or not a foe notices you or knows your exact location, that's for the dice to decide.
In real life, the reality is that people aren't paying attention to things in front of them all the time. The classic example is selective attention testing:
Participants are asked beforehand to count how many times the ball gets passed around. Afterward, participants have no idea that there was a gorilla right there in front of them.
You can see the same thing in basketball all the time, where highly trained world-class athletes routinely lose sight of players right in front of them who they're supposed to be guarding against - and this happens despite the fact that basketball players talk to each other all the time.
What Jeremy Crawford says on the podcast linked in post #30 makes sense for breaking your cover, but that's separate from the original stealth check itself.
If we're to make a realistic narrative for how this works, this is what I'd suggest:
#1 - You have to change position so that you're obscured from the view of some number of foes.
#2 - You only get to claim stealth against foes who can't see your new position.
#3 - If your stealth check beats a foe's perception check, that means they either...
...(a) had their attention diverted by something else on the field while you moved, and/or ...(b) weren't able to track where you ran off to, and/or ...(c) didn't hear or understand or process any information passed on to them by one of their co-combatants (e.g. "The rogue is behind that log!" "Which one?! I didn't see where you were pointing...").
Etc etc
In other words, just like we don't assume stealth automatically works, we also can't assume enemy combatant communication automatically works, either. The NPC's have to actually earn it, as the dice decide.
And more broadly speaking: of course a rogue should be able to hide on the battlefield routinely. The idea is that the PC's will have certain bread-and-butter go-to moves, "spammable moves." As DM, I take it as my responsibility to find a way to respond to that spammable move, or even adopt it myself, rather than making up a new rule to say "hey btw I just decided your go-to move isn't valid anymore."
(And if I did do a rule change like that, I'd certainly allow the player to re-design their character accordingly - it's really not fair to the player to have them design the PC under one implementation of the rules, only to have them play under a different version that really nixes that PC design).
As far as the rules go, a creature trying to hide needs to be behind cover and typically unseen. For most, this does not mean they can hide behind other creatures in the fight, this is a specific ability that halflings have. Similarly, being lightly obscured behind bushes, trees or something else where you are still partly visible is insufficient for most creatures trying to hide but it is possible for wood elves that can specifically hide while lightly obscured by natural phenomena.
With those exceptions, as long as a rogue can find cover then they can use their bonus action to attempt to hide even while involved in a fight (other creatures could use their action but often hiding in combat is only a viable option for a rogue since it is a bonus action.. However, since Tasha's introduced the steady aim ability for rogues at level 3, this may be a more reliable option in some cases since unlike a stealth/hide check, it can't fail.
I'm having a hard time connecting your reply to the comment I'd written. Would you mind clarifying what part it is that you're responding to? I think we might be having different interpretations of the "general thrust" of what I'd written.
As far as the rules go, a creature trying to hide needs to be behind cover and typically unseen.
This isn't completely accurate. Of course the DM decides when hiding is possible, but generally a creature can attempt to hide without cover if they are invisible or are standing in total darkness, for example.
It's simply not true that you need to be hidden from *all* foes to be hidden from *any* foe. RAW doesn't work that way, and neither does real life. RAW-wise, whether or not a foe notices you or knows your exact location, that's for the dice to decide.
This is incorrect, the rules as written do not say this.
In 5e, many rules are simplified at the expense of realism. The hiding rules are one example.
Suppose you had 10 PC / allies in a fight against 10 monsters in a large room full of pillars -- for example purposes assume everyone has a bonus action Hide ability and is using it every turn when ducking behind a pillar which provides some cover from at least somebody. With your proposal we would have to keep a 10 x 10 spreadsheet with 100 entries for who is hidden from whom at all times which must be updated in multiple places after every time somebody takes a turn. And another similar spreadsheet to determine if that 2nd person is actually hidden from the 1st, so 200 entries tracked and updated in total.
Instead, in 5e, every combatant is either hidden or they are not. See how much simpler that is? Not super realistic but better for game flow.
The most relevant rules are in Chapter 7:
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.
. . .
Passive Perception. 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
This means that if you are not discovered and you don't stop hiding, the check that you made persists -- you don't have to make multiple stealth rolls when multiple monsters try to find you. However, the caveat is "until you are discovered" and that's it. If you are discovered, your roll is no longer contested by the check of any creature (enemy). Therefore, if you are discovered by any enemy, you are no longer hidden. (And yet, if this begins combat, you might still surprise some opponents but not others. That's seemingly inconsistent but those are the rules.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This all depends on what "hidden" means in game terms.
If a rogue ducks behind a wall and takes the hide action from a goblin on the other side and succeeds then the goblin has lost track of exactly where the rogue is. They can't efficiently watch for their next action. They don't know when the rogue might pop out and do something.
However, they STILL know that the last place they saw the rogue was behind the wall.
Now put a goblin on the rogues side of the wall. The rogue can't hide from them. That goblin yells "The rogue is behind the wall". Well, duh, the goblins on the other side already know the rogue is behind the wall. It tells them nothing new. They still don't know when, if or where the rogue might pop out to attack.
So, does the goblin who can see the rogue now have to give a running commentary? "The rogue is moving along the wall to the south, he's going to shoot! Wait he was only faking. Look out! He is shooting! Ooops sorry not yet." Rogue pops out to shoot, the creature on the other side of the wall didn't know when he was going to pop out and can't really spend the time or effort trying to figure out the running commentary from his ally.
The same goes for hiding behind any object. Consider a tree in the middle of a battlefield, if it provides sufficient cover a rogue can hide behind it ... and even if it is just only a bunch of leaves that lightly obscure things a wood elf rogue can STILL try to hide there. Every opponent on the battlefield KNOWS there is a woodelf hiding behind the tree but if the wood elf is successful at the hide check then they have managed to conceal the actions they are taking from the opponents who can't see them sufficiently that they can gain advantage on their next attack.
Thats all hiding does if you look at the rules. It means you are unseen and unheard by some of the opponents on the field and they won't get the second or two warning of the impending attack that would allow them to make full use of their defences ... so you get advantage on the attack roll. It doesn't mean you are unseen and unheard by everyone (the rules don't say that) ... just that some of the opponents on the field don't know exactly where you are sufficient to get a warning when you take an action.
That is my take on it and it appears to be supported by RAW. You are welcome to house rule that hiding only works if you can hide from everyone or that observers could take their action to try to describe what the rogue is doing so that the target would not be subject to disadvantage but that isn't what is in the books.
On top of that, I think it would be hilarious to listen to a goblin trying to fill out sentences describing the rogues actions sufficiently that the other goblin will have enough warning of the coming attack ... this is particularly true if that goblin is already involved in combat. Neither goblin has any way of knowing whether the other is even talking to them on a chaotic battlefield ... one yells the rogue is behind the wall! Well they already knew that ... in addition neither goblin has any idea whether the other one passed or failed a perception check so how can they even know that they need to describe what the rogue is doing? Bottom line to me is that the whole "relay position" thing makes no sense in an actual combat and the typical information wouldn't be detailed enough to make any difference.
If the NPC can see behind the wall then the rogue cannot attempt to hide. The NPC knows exactly where the rogue is (which is, you know, the opposite of hiding).
If the NPC can't see behind the wall and therefore can't see the position of the rogue then the rogue can attempt to hide. The attempt includes trying to move silently, trying to not raise dust or disturb foliage, etc. If the rogue's player's DEX\Stealth roll beats the GM's WIS\Perception roll then the rogue is actually hidden (as per the game condition).
In this case the NPC doesn't know anything more specific than "the rogue is behind the wall somewhere, maybe, they might have moved, I'm not sure."
Again, if the NPC can see inside the building (e.g. blindsight, scrying) then the rogue cannot attempt to hide.
If the NPC can't see then the rogue can attempt to hide, as above.
If the NPC can see the rogue (maybe they have truesight or darkvision from a spell or race) then the rogue can't attempt to hide.
If there is only one shadow and no way to move out of it without being observed, then the rogue cannot attempt to hide because the NPC knows exactly where the rogue is. They would get the benefits of being unseen but not hidden.
If there are lots of shadows then the rogue can attempt to hide. As always, the attempt might be automatically successful or require a contested roll depending on circumstances (rule 0 of RPGs).
Not at all. You are using a strawman fallacy.
What I am saying is:
If an observer knows exactly where you are then you can't attempt hide from that observer. Hidden means that the observer either doesn't know your location or doesn't know you are even there at all. Being hidden is more than just being unseen.
Additionally, if you are hidden from one foe but not hidden from another then the second foe will try to tell the first foe where you are. If they can do this then you are no longer hidden.
"Additionally, if you are hidden from one foe but not hidden from another then the second foe will try to tell the first foe where you are. If they can do this then you are no longer hidden."
This is the part where we disagree.
In the three examples that DMThac0 presented he stated
"All three situations would, in your game, completely negate the hide action because at least one npc could see and call out the position of the player who is trying to hide?'
I think we all agree that in all of these cases if there is no additional observer and the rogue passes his stealth check then he is hidden. However, if there is someone who can see the rogue you claim that they would then tell the first foe where they are and thus they would no longer be hidden.
"The rogue is behind the wall"
"The rogue is in the house"
"The rogue is in the shadows"
However, in all these examples, one foe telling the other that the rogue is in a certain location does NOT allow the first foe to either SEE or HEAR the rogue. The rogue passed their stealth check against the first foe. The first foe knows where they were last seen ... behind the wall, in the house, in the shadows ... having an ally tell them that the rogue is "behind the wall", "in the house", " hiding in the shadows" does NOT allow the first foe to see the rogue, does NOT change the status of being unseen and unheard by the first foe ... does NOT in fact remove the hidden status to the first foe.
You are free to house rule it otherwise ... but nowhere in the rules does it state that hidden status is lost if a different foe is able to see you. It only states that if you are unseen and unheard (as determined by passing a stealth check) then you are hidden from that particular opponent and someone yelling about where you are does not, in any way, affect your stealth status relative to the first foe.
@David42 Thank you, that does a good job at elaborating on the intent of my examples.
On the other hand, common sense and the English language say that you aren't hidden from someone who knows exactly where you are.
The English language disagrees.
You say that is common sense, but the rules say otherwise: you are out of sight or in a situation the DM considers appropiate for Hiding? Good take the Hide action, roll your Stealth check vs. the Passive Perception of whom you want to hide from, those which Perception you rolled higher, you are now HIDDEN from (still only if you are out of their sight), What does it means? This, Third paragraph. Nothing less, nothing more. Having your position pin pointed dosen't make you not hidden, you just need to be unseen and unheard. Period.
Hidden =/= Unknown Position
If someone tells you there's a guy Hidden behind a tree, but, for any reason, you can't see him nor ear him, he's still Hidden, because your senses can't tell that someone's there. Yeah, you've been told where he is , but this dosen't make him anymore visibile or audible to you. You now know that there's someone around and where he is, you can easly walk around the tree and see him, or try to look better, but until you do either, your perception of the individual remains the same regardles of his position being relayed to you.
However, that is not what the rules say AND your comment is not exactly true.
First the rules say unseen and unheard. If they pass their stealth check indicating that they were successful in hiding themselves from you then you can't see or hear them any more. You know where they WERE but not where they ARE. They are hidden. Even in our world, if you can't see your opponent they are hidden even if you know they are behind a particular obstacle.
(As a real world example, that may or may not make sense :) ... have you ever played paintball or laser tag? Someone ducks behind a wall or a tree or some other obstacle and stops (or moves slowly), you can't see them, you know where they were but not where they are. You are trying to watch for other players and keep an eye on where the hidden player went. They suddenly pop out at one end of the obstacle and fire. Your reaction time to dodge or fire back is very short. Compare this to a situation where you see the opponent step out from behind an obstacle and raise their weapon to shoot. You are dodging, moving and returning fire. Your chances of being hit are much lower. Although this is NOT in any rule book, this is my interpretation of what the hiding mechanism in 5e is supposed to represent in combat. It is not "I don't know where the opponent is" ... it is "I don't know exactly where the opponent is NOW" and as a result there is less warning of an impending attack and thus advantage on the attack roll. This is just a made up explanation of what might be going on ... however, it is completely consistent with the ACTUAL rules which is the point.)
They may still be behind the obstacle but that doesn't tell you whether they will duck out from the left or right side, whether they might duck out high or low, whether they might climb the back side of the obstacle and peak out over the top. Even your friend yelling at you that they are behind the tree STILL doesn't help since you have lost track of exactly where they are and do not get the usual time to prepare for any actions they take. This is what gives the hidden character advantage on their attack role, the defender does not have the usual awareness that an attack is about to arrive and 5e simplifies this whole process so that if you manage to hide (thus breaking the direct awareness of your target) you will have advantage on the attack roll because they will have less warning of the incoming attack than usual.
That is all that is behind the mechanic.
If you are hidden from an opponent when you attack you get advantage on the attack roll. Hidden is defined and unseen and unheard and is typically determined by a stealth ability check against a passive perception. When a creature is hidden from you, you don't know exactly where they are. There are no rules for allies to be able to prevent the hidden condition by telling you where the hidden creature is since telling you where they are does not allow you to see them or in any way perceive them if they passed their stealth roll.
This did get me thinking though. If a rogue is hidden from a goblin, but not from a hobgoblin, could the goblin hold his attack until he saw the target and wait for the hobgoblin to attack the rogue? If a hidden rogue is attacked by a non-hidden hobgoblin, would that commotion cause the rogue to no longer be unseen/unheard? And if not, is there anything the hobgoblin could do to reveal the rogue? Could he for instance shove the rogue out in the open so the goblin can see him? Can he grapple the rogue? Would that even help?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Usually, being hidden in combat is mostly useful just on the rogue's turn so they can attack with advantage. If the goblin moved so they could clearly see the rogue removing whatever circumstance the rogue used to hide in the first place then the rogue would no longer be hidden from the goblin. If the hobgoblin goes behind the wall and shoves the rogue to a location where the goblin could see them clearly then the rogue would no longer be hidden from the goblin.
If the hobgoblin goes behind the wall and attacks the rogue but the rogue is still behind whatever cover granted them the ability to hide then it would be a DM call as to whether there was enough noise made to lose the hidden status to the goblin. Based on RAW, the rogue could remain hidden if unseen an unheard. If they make too much noise then they won't be hidden anymore. Too much is a DM called based on how much noise is in the environment and how much noise the listener might be making to determine whether the rogue can be heard clearly enough.
I'm resurrecting this thread to point out that despite my not being sure if I agreed with this take, it seems that Jeremy Crawford does. I was listening to this podcast about stealth and hiding and if you listen exactly 18 minutes in, Jeremy says that when you make your roll to hide, it sticks with you until your hidden condition changes. "You keep whatever that [stealth check] result was until you are no longer hidden, and again, that is because you have run out of hiding, or you made a loud noise, or someone discovered you. As soon as that happens--even one person discovers you, basically that nullifies whatever you rolled and if you want to hide again, you're going to have to make another check."
(Standard disclaimer applies to whatever value you place on Jeremy Crawford's opinions)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
My question (4 years later so here comes another necromancy charge) is if an ally is on one side of a creature establishing a flank (even if you don't use flank rukes it's still a relative term) and the rogue is disengaged so the ally is the only melee combatant engaged with the enemy creature would you be able to use hide from behind the creature, assuming there is only one creature that can only see in one direction at a time?
That very last part of your question doesn't generally apply in 5e. Combatants are always assumed to be looking in / facing every direction at the same time.
While being within 5 feet of another creature doesn't prevent you from hiding, you still need to not be seen clearly by it, wether invisible, heavily obscured or blinded otherwise the only character that can attempt to hide in such manner is the Lightfoot Halfling, which is usually determined by having half cover from it.
Yes but only if you meet the requirement.
It's simply not true that you need to be hidden from *all* foes to be hidden from *any* foe. RAW doesn't work that way, and neither does real life. RAW-wise, whether or not a foe notices you or knows your exact location, that's for the dice to decide.
In real life, the reality is that people aren't paying attention to things in front of them all the time. The classic example is selective attention testing:
Participants are asked beforehand to count how many times the ball gets passed around. Afterward, participants have no idea that there was a gorilla right there in front of them.
You can see the same thing in basketball all the time, where highly trained world-class athletes routinely lose sight of players right in front of them who they're supposed to be guarding against - and this happens despite the fact that basketball players talk to each other all the time.
What Jeremy Crawford says on the podcast linked in post #30 makes sense for breaking your cover, but that's separate from the original stealth check itself.
If we're to make a realistic narrative for how this works, this is what I'd suggest:
#1 - You have to change position so that you're obscured from the view of some number of foes.
#2 - You only get to claim stealth against foes who can't see your new position.
#3 - If your stealth check beats a foe's perception check, that means they either...
...(a) had their attention diverted by something else on the field while you moved, and/or
...(b) weren't able to track where you ran off to, and/or
...(c) didn't hear or understand or process any information passed on to them by one of their co-combatants (e.g. "The rogue is behind that log!" "Which one?! I didn't see where you were pointing...").
Etc etc
In other words, just like we don't assume stealth automatically works, we also can't assume enemy combatant communication automatically works, either. The NPC's have to actually earn it, as the dice decide.
And more broadly speaking: of course a rogue should be able to hide on the battlefield routinely. The idea is that the PC's will have certain bread-and-butter go-to moves, "spammable moves." As DM, I take it as my responsibility to find a way to respond to that spammable move, or even adopt it myself, rather than making up a new rule to say "hey btw I just decided your go-to move isn't valid anymore."
(And if I did do a rule change like that, I'd certainly allow the player to re-design their character accordingly - it's really not fair to the player to have them design the PC under one implementation of the rules, only to have them play under a different version that really nixes that PC design).
Some suggestions for countering the rogue's sneak attack:
1 - Place NPC's in positions (especially higher ground) that maximize their line of sight across the battlefield.
2 - Space NPC's to minimize situations where the proximity of other PC's might grant advantage to the rogue.
3 - Create conditions that impose disadvantage on attack rolls: blinding a PC, poisoning a PC, knocking a PC prone, frightening a PC, etc.
4 - Exploit the rogue's Hide action to target weaker PC's who are left exposed, unprotected, unbuffered etc. (Basically "blitzing the quarterback," so to speak).
As far as the rules go, a creature trying to hide needs to be behind cover and typically unseen. For most, this does not mean they can hide behind other creatures in the fight, this is a specific ability that halflings have. Similarly, being lightly obscured behind bushes, trees or something else where you are still partly visible is insufficient for most creatures trying to hide but it is possible for wood elves that can specifically hide while lightly obscured by natural phenomena.
With those exceptions, as long as a rogue can find cover then they can use their bonus action to attempt to hide even while involved in a fight (other creatures could use their action but often hiding in combat is only a viable option for a rogue since it is a bonus action.. However, since Tasha's introduced the steady aim ability for rogues at level 3, this may be a more reliable option in some cases since unlike a stealth/hide check, it can't fail.
The first rule for hiding is that the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, which an enemy too distracted to see you clearly could be.
I'm having a hard time connecting your reply to the comment I'd written. Would you mind clarifying what part it is that you're responding to? I think we might be having different interpretations of the "general thrust" of what I'd written.
This isn't completely accurate. Of course the DM decides when hiding is possible, but generally a creature can attempt to hide without cover if they are invisible or are standing in total darkness, for example.
This is incorrect, the rules as written do not say this.
In 5e, many rules are simplified at the expense of realism. The hiding rules are one example.
Suppose you had 10 PC / allies in a fight against 10 monsters in a large room full of pillars -- for example purposes assume everyone has a bonus action Hide ability and is using it every turn when ducking behind a pillar which provides some cover from at least somebody. With your proposal we would have to keep a 10 x 10 spreadsheet with 100 entries for who is hidden from whom at all times which must be updated in multiple places after every time somebody takes a turn. And another similar spreadsheet to determine if that 2nd person is actually hidden from the 1st, so 200 entries tracked and updated in total.
Instead, in 5e, every combatant is either hidden or they are not. See how much simpler that is? Not super realistic but better for game flow.
The most relevant rules are in Chapter 7:
This means that if you are not discovered and you don't stop hiding, the check that you made persists -- you don't have to make multiple stealth rolls when multiple monsters try to find you. However, the caveat is "until you are discovered" and that's it. If you are discovered, your roll is no longer contested by the check of any creature (enemy). Therefore, if you are discovered by any enemy, you are no longer hidden. (And yet, if this begins combat, you might still surprise some opponents but not others. That's seemingly inconsistent but those are the rules.)