Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Guest1888013255 Jul 15, 2015 12:37:28	I've looked long and hard at stealth mechanics in 5e, and I can't understand why Hide is even an action.  I mean, if you are in a place where something can't see or hear you, according to the rules, you are hidden.  If you are in a place where you are seen, and doing something that can be heard, you are not hidden.   Hidden in 5e is simply defined as "unseen and unheard."  Stealth vs Perception is essentially a contest.     If something is unaware of your presense, and you are unseen and unheard, you roll stealth when you do anything and test it against the passive perception of an enemy.  In this case, it seems to me, the character rolling the stealth check is the challenger.   If something IS aware of your presence, but can't see or hear you (hiding in barrels, etc), they may perform an active Perception check to try and detect you.  In this contest between stealth and perception, the enemy is essentially the challenger.    I can think of no reason ever that any character would need to take the "hide" action, since being hidden in and of itself is not skill-based, but environment based.  It is the ability to remain unseen and unheard, via stealth checks, that requires action on the part of the character.    Or do the rules imply that on every move you decide to roll stealth, you must use your standard action to "hide?"  In which case, you may not atack with a standard action on the same turn?   Thoughts?
#2 strider13x Jul 15, 2015 12:54:30	So you have never played Hide n Seek? Did you act to place yourself in a hiding spot? You are actively hiding from someone trying not to be noticed, that is why it is an action. If being noticed (or not noticed) is automatic then no hide check or action is needed. But I bet if as a player the DM allowed monsters to Hide while you Seek without taking an Action you'd be upset! (Sorry, you don't see anything because... nonsense.) Are they Attacking or are they Hiding? Can't do both (except Rogues)...
#3 Wuzzard Jul 15, 2015 13:04:49	In combat, hiding is an action because being hidden gives you an advantage and so it should cost you something to obtain it.  If you are not in combat, then there is no action economy to fret over.
#4 Tempest_Stormwind Jul 15, 2015 14:03:23	The benefits of standing in a hiding spot without acting to take advantage of it are covered via Cover and being Lightly / Heavily Obscured, and these are not minor benefits. If you take steps to muffling your noise and keeping to shadows / out of line of sight (that is, you spend the action to Hide), then you get the benefit of being hidden.
#5 Vulf Jul 15, 2015 19:50:28	2 levels of Rogue are what it takes to hide as a bonus action. And even then, it is up to the DM as to whether or not the enemies forgot where you went. That's why sneak attack is a lot easier to get in this edition.   Really though, I'd rather take the Mobile feat and use the bonus action to dash on an elf, and sprint off 90' each round, ignoring all difficult terrain, and still get to attack.
#6 Greenstone.Walker Jul 15, 2015 21:19:28	Guest1888013255 wrote:
#7 Imaculata Jul 15, 2015 23:54:55	It takes effort to find a hiding place. Of course a DM should only ask for a Hide check, if there is a chance that someone might find you. If there's no one around to see you, then a hide check is pointless.   Take these scenarios for example:   * The player is in a public street, and listening in on some nobles. But he hears footsteps of approaching guards. This requires a hide check, to maybe crawl into a barrel, or hide in a nearby barn. To actually find a hiding place in time requires effort. So while it is environment based, it is also skill based. * The player is in a forest, spying on an enemy camp. This may require a hiding check, because he's trying to do so unnoticed, and there may be guards around. The guards make their rounds and could run into the player during their patrols. And there may also be a guard up in a watchtower that could notice the player. This is a case of taking precaution, and it requires effort to find a spot where neither a watchtower nor patrolling guards will spot you. * The player is sneaking into the cave of a sleeping dragon, but the dragon opens one of his eyes. The player has to hide from sight, which requires a check. You may think that simply ducking behind a big pile of treasure is enough to be hidden from sight. But maybe the coins make a sound, or maybe you aren't quick enough, and the dragon catches you before manage to hide from sight. Maybe you can't even find a place to duck behind in time, since it is a split second thing.   In DnD, with a lot of these we don't automatically assume success for the players, because we also don't automatically assume failure on behalf of the enemies. This is why we have skill checks. See, Arlas the Thief may be very skilled at tiptoeing his way towards a barrel, and silently slipping inside it. But Kronk the Barbarian is less stealthy, and perhaps his giant sword would be sticking out of the barrel. We don't automatically assume the barbarian fails (he may get a lucky roll), which is why we let the dice decide.
#8 Noctaem Jul 16, 2015 12:04:49	Greenstone.Walker wrote:
(Reply to #7) Danny_Montanny	Imaculata wrote:
#10 Imaculata Jul 17, 2015 0:16:44	Oh totally, but I was trying to explain to the OP while a Hide skill check is justified in the first place.   See, you can succeed at a stealth check, and sneak by a group of guards unnoticed (if they fail their perception check). But hiding takes just as much effort. Because what if someone is actively searching the area, and trying to find you? We don't assume that just because you are completely hidden from sight inside a barrel, that the guards will there for not find you. They may open a few barrels, but do they open the one you are hiding in? This is why we have skill checks. We don't assume that the player nor the enemy succeeds or fails by default. Both have a chance at success, and that success is determined by a check.
#11 Danny_Montanny Jul 17, 2015 3:46:51	A Hide (or stealth) check is made when success or failure of said action is uncertain to the DM.   As the DM I can say that it's certain the guards will find you in the barrel, or it's certain they won't. Ultimately the question is, do I think (as the DM) the guards will check the barrel the Rogue's hiding in? If I think they do, the Rogue will be found, if I think they don't, he won't.   The game is created that the DM decides who succeeds or fails by default. Then, and only if they're uncertain of the outcome, will they call for a check.
#12 Imaculata Jul 17, 2015 6:44:11	Danny_Montanny wrote:
#13 Noctaem Jul 17, 2015 6:52:28	Danny_Montanny wrote:
#14 Coredump00 Jul 17, 2015 8:07:19	Danny is 100% right. It is how the game rules are written.  An ability check is only called for when an outcome is uncertain.  Anyone, as a DM, is free to assume everything is always uncertain.... but that is not assumed by the rules.
#15 Danny_Montanny Jul 17, 2015 8:36:55	If either the DM or the players play the game in bad faith then you're going to have a problem.   I can easily judge that your street rat wasn't sneaky enough to slink past everyone in the market, especially wary merchants who would notice a person running (something one only does in a market if there's trouble). When the guard starts questioning the merchants about a thief, they'd be likely to tell him they saw the kid running toward where the barrels are. The player now has a choice, do they trust their hiding spot, or try to find a new one?   The biggest mistake you made in your example, Imaculata, is that you told the player where they hide. You don't get to do that. Your job is to describe the environment, and that's it. If the player needs clarification, such as by asking, "is there somewhere I can hide?" You would then describe the environment more, maybe giving some suggestions you think woul be appropriate. But you never, ever, tell the player what they do. A player asking, "can I hide somewhere?" is not an action. You only adjudicate actions.
#16 Imaculata Jul 18, 2015 3:59:41	Danny_Montanny wrote:
#17 Alynn Jul 18, 2015 6:54:55	Autosuccess/Autofailure is a think a DM can judge. Consider the following:   Say our guards are lazy, and they won't open barrels, this is stated in the adventure text about the barrels (self made, or premade). If the player hides in a barrel, I would say that he can go ahead and hide with a roll, but I know as the DM that he will auto succeed. The guards come in, look around, and leave.   but   Say our guards are highly trained, paid well, and relentless. It's stated in the adventure text that they will open and look into every barrel, because they were burned last time by a bunch of dwarves and a hobbit (wait, wrong story). Now we know as the DM that it will be a failure if the PC hides in a barrel. But you can make a better hide check give them more time to figure out what to do as other barrels are opened first.   More likely than not,   Our guards are a mixed bag of people, with veterans and rookies galore. Some may look through every barrel, some may not. We as the DM aren't certain, so we roll the dice as our guards make a group investigation check versus our player's stealth check.       My point is, there are hide autosuccess/auto failures. But more often, upwards of 95%, the dice do the talking. However, in my opinion, the fact that the guards are lazy or steadfast isn't something that should be decided during the game, it should be decided beforehand at design time.
#18 iserith Jul 18, 2015 7:54:58	Notably, Imaculata does not play D&D 5e and instead plays D&D 3.Xe. Things are often handled differently between these two editions. Obviously, this is a D&D 5e sub-forum.   See also DMG 236-237 regarding "The Role of Dice" to see how different DMs handle whether an action is uncertain enough to warrant a check, the drawbacks to always rolling, always ignoring the dice, and why the "middle path" is advisable.
#19 iserith Jul 18, 2015 8:15:07	Imaculata wrote:
#20 Danny_Montanny Jul 18, 2015 9:37:51	The PC attacking an Orc is the player taking an action. The DM narrating the result is perfectly OK. A PC asking if there's somewhere to hide is not an action, however. It may show intent to hide, but to make the assumption that they're going to is wrong. And we all know what's to be said about making assumptions...   EDIT: I also have to question why someone would be giving advice on 5e when they don't have the experience of playing that edition.
#21 Imaculata Jul 18, 2015 15:22:47	Because this is a question that is not really tied to a specific edition at all. It's not different from 3rd edition. Besides, while I don't play 5e edition, that doesn't mean that I don't know how 5e is played.   I both agree and disagree with Iserith here. Yes, it's great if you ask your players for more detail, but not all groups like to play that way. There is no right or wrong way to play here. You can fill in the blanks as a DM, or not, depending on what you prefer. But it is not inherently wrong to do so.   And the critical roll episode perfectly illustrates this. You have players that decribe in great detail what they want to do. For example, Grog the Barbarian decribes how he wants to rip the jaw off of some pour Duergar. Fine, the DM makes him roll an attack, and narrates the outcome. But some other players go less into detail, and so the DM describes the action in more detail for them. You can do both, whether you play 3rd edition or 5e edition. It doesn't matter.   So if a player just states that he hides, the DM can narrate how he hides for him. That is not a wrong way to DM the game. If you prefer that the player does the narration, that is fine too.
#22 Danny_Montanny Jul 18, 2015 16:27:07	How is it that you can't see "is there somewhere I can hide" is in no way "I try to hide"?   A player asking questions of the DM is not a player taking actions. I don't care who's doing the narration, there still has to be an action taking place. Maybe the player had a different idea of a place to hide and they were just asking for some clarification on what their options may be? Asking a question doesn't make them automatically hide where you, the DM, want them to.   A player states the goal of their action and how they want to approach said goal. I don't care what edition, or RPG for that matter, it is. A question is not, or will ever be, a statement of action.
#23 Imaculata Jul 19, 2015 2:00:19	Why are you derailing this into a discussion about asking questions and taking actions? Where did I ever say that asking for a place to hide is an action? What you're talking about has nothing to do with the question the OP originally asked, nor does it have to do anything with what I'm talking about.   The OP asked why Hide is even an action. I explained that there are uncertainties, because a guard would normally have to do a search/investigation versus the hide, in order to find the hidden player. Now you could decide as a DM that there is no way that the guard won't find the player. There could be context that ensures a 100% chance of being found, or not being found. But that is besides the point really. Under any other circumstance, I think there is no guarantee for either the player or the guard to succeed or fail. Which is why you make a Hide check. Seems pretty clear cut to me.   Now later on in the discussion, you said that its the DM who decides if the player is discovered or not. I think this is wrong, except in the case of absolute certainty, because most of the time I think there should be uncertainty there. If the DM simply negates all checks, the players may feel cheated. I feel the success of a guard is by no means guaranteed. Even if we use my example, and the guard has gotten some directions from some of the locals, it is by no means guaranteed that they point the guard in the right direction. And that is why we have a hide check and a search/investigation check.   Now I don't know why you keep derailing this into a discussion about what is an action, and what is not an action. At no point did I suggest that asking a question, is taking an action, and yet you assume for some reason that this is the case, while my post discussed something totally different. Is my writing incomprehensible for some reason? Or are you just reading something totally different into it, than what I'm actually saying?
#24 Xeviat-DM Jul 19, 2015 22:26:54	Was there a misunderstanding? "Why is Hide an action" doesn't sound to me like the question is why is there a roll, but why does it require an action. It requires an action because you have to try to be stealthy. Now, you can sometimes be naturally stealthy, which back in 3E I used a "passive stealth" type score (Stealth+5; I had combined them early; -5 if you were running). Stealth in older editions required you to move at half speed; it's functionally the same now, except you can't take an action.   Now, if you are in total darkness, against someone without dark vision or outside of their range, you cannot be seen, but you could still be heard. Using Stealth then means you're going to try to be quiet.   If that's not good enough, you could have total darkness apply advantage to Stealth; it's easier to hide in total darkness then behind a bush or in shadows.