They should've renamed it, but I see no reason not to expect that the invisibility spell will work like it needs to with the condition being this way.
We've now seen the text on reddit. The Invisibility spell grants the Invisible status effect, nothing else, exactly the way it worked in 2014.
Sigh.
If that's all the text, I got nothing.
(OK, that's a lie. I can still make it work without anything silly going on, but they are bloody well not making it easy, and my hopes for 2024 having had a pass by people who know how to write rules rigorously have been thoroughly dashed.)
So, making tweaks to result in something sensible and easy to handle. Some base terminology
Lightly Obscured
Vision rolls to spot the target have disadvantage, unless the observer has the ability to ignore the obscurement.
A creature is lightly obscured if at least one of the following is true
At least half of its body is behind an opaque obstacle or effect (thus, half cover from an opaque obstacle is lightly obscured)
It is entirely behind something partially transparent or translucent, such as moderate foliage or a translucent curtain.
It is dimly lit.
Some other effect (as described in the effect, or DMs discretion) would render them lightly obscured.
A character or creature is assumed to know whether it is or will be lightly obscured against observers it knows of.
Heavily Obscured
Vision rolls to spot the target are impossible.
The target is unaffected by any abilities that require the target to be seen.
Attack rolls by the target against creatures it can see are made with advantage.
Attack rolls by against the target are made with disadvantage.
The above effects are negated if the observer has the ability to ignore the obscurement.
A creature is heavily obscured if at least one of the following is true
It is entirely behind or within an opaque obstacle or effect.
It is in darkness.
Some other effect (as described in the effect, or DMs discretion) would render them heavily obscured.
Outside of unusual circumstances, a character will know whether they're heavily obscured from a potential viewer that they're aware of.
Blind
The creature treats all targets as heavily obscured.
Blindsight
Within its radius, the creature ignores obscurement due to effects other than obstacles.
Darkvision
Within its radius, the creature ignores obscurement due to dim light, and treats nonmagical darkness as lightly obscuring.
Hidden
The creature is treated as heavily obscured as long as it is at least lightly obscured.
The creature has advantage on initiative checks (alternative: the creature may roll stealth in place of initiative).
The condition ends automatically if any of the following happens
The creature is clearly visible to any opponent (not obscured, or the opponent can ignore the obscurement it has)
Any opponent succeeds at a Search test against
The creature attacks, casts a spell with verbal components, or takes any other action which would reveal them, such as casting a spell with visible effects that originate from the caster.
The DM may rule that certain actions reveal the character unless an appropriate test (usually sleight of hand or stealth) is made.
A creature will normally know if an action would reveal it to an opponent it is aware of.
Hide
Requires the creature to be heavily obscured or behind at least 3/4 cover.
Grants the Hidden condition. The DC of a search test to find a hidden creature is equal to the hide result.
Invisible
The creature is magically heavily obscured.
Truesight
Within its radius, the creature
ignores obscurement due to darkness or magical effects.
automatically detects illusions.
perceives the true form of shapechangers and creatures transformed by magic.
Isn't the whole point of passive perception to handle stuff like this?
The 5e rules are not hard. You make a dex (stealth) check. DM compares to passive perception. If yours is higher, you are hidden and your next attack has advantage.
Its literally one line.
All they needed to do was to add some clarifications like "you must be at least lightly obscured" or whatever.
Isn't the whole point of passive perception to handle stuff like this?
No? Passive scores are the equivalent of taking 10 in 3e, there's no evidence they affect stealth at all in 2024, and the only effect in the 2014 rules is to set the target for hide checks.
The 2024 passive rules say there are used by the gm to find things without effort, you can ignore them if you want, but your just ignoring the rules.
’Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature's general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check’‘
also note , passive perception is still on new monster stat blocks revealed, what do you think it’s for?
Perhaps the 2024 DMG will also contain guidelines for using ability scores like 2014, letting DM opt to not do any Wisdom (Perception) check in some case where someone instead finds you automatically without rolling or using passive perception if judging it's justified for example.
Using Ability Score: (2014) Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate
Isn't the whole point of passive perception to handle stuff like this?
No? Passive scores are the equivalent of taking 10 in 3e, there's no evidence they affect stealth at all in 2024, and the only effect in the 2014 rules is to set the target for hide checks.
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, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.
If you hide (in combat or otherwise), its compared against the passive perception. Creatures may then take the search action on their turn for another crack at finding you if they want to.
Isn't the whole point of passive perception to handle stuff like this?
No? Passive scores are the equivalent of taking 10 in 3e, there's no evidence they affect stealth at all in 2024, and the only effect in the 2014 rules is to set the target for hide checks.
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, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.
If you hide (in combat or otherwise), its compared against the passive perception. Creatures may then take the search action on their turn for another crack at finding you if they want to.
This thread is about the 2024 rules, in which, as Pantagruel already stated, there's no evidence passive perception is relevant to Hiding.
Isn't the whole point of passive perception to handle stuff like this?
No? Passive scores are the equivalent of taking 10 in 3e, there's no evidence they affect stealth at all in 2024, and the only effect in the 2014 rules is to set the target for hide checks.
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, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.
If you hide (in combat or otherwise), its compared against the passive perception. Creatures may then take the search action on their turn for another crack at finding you if they want to.
This thread is about the 2024 rules, in which, as Pantagruel already stated, there's no evidence passive perception is relevant to Hiding.
I mean, it's right there in the 2024 Passive Perception definition. To say there's no evidence is misleading. Just because the Hiding word isn't present, doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Hiding says to "Make note of your (Stealth) check's total, which is the DC for a creature tofindyou with aWisdom (Perception) check," but it doesn't specify you have to use the Search action; that was inserted by Treantmonk to denote an active Perception Check
Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature's general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check. A creature's Passive Perception equals 10 plus the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check bonus. If the creature has Advantage on such checks, increase the score by 5. If the creature has Disadvantage on them, decrease the score by 5. For example, a level 1 character with a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception has a Passive Perception of 14 (10 + 2 + 2). If that character has Advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks, the score becomes 19.
Also, here's all the rules regarding hiding, invisible, stealth and perception from the 2024 PHB in one post: the_stealth_rule_actually_has_five_parts. When you read all of them, the rules become much more clear.
I just don't get why people are being so pedantic to the point of splitting hairs. The whole point of DnD is to come up with ridiculous scenarios with the rules as guidelines and have fun, not being willfully obtuse.
Pentagreul is wrong . 2024 has passive perception which explicitly says it’s used for wisdom checks that aren’t conscious.
wisdom checks are how you find creatures.
a passive check is considered the same as a check, the key difference is it’s a DM side option.
passive perception is on the new monster blocks, it does not make sense to say passive perception has no connection to hide rules. It’s a wisdom check.
Your rules make backstabbing Impossible like 2014, I’ll pass
Not sure how you even read it that way.
you require lightly obscured for hidden. People who get backstabbed usually do not have an object between them and the attacker, and it often happens in well lit areas.
if you light a torch you are immune to backstab, nah doesn’t hold up.
the very common concept of the sucker punch doesn’t exist in your world.
Pentagreul is wrong . 2024 has passive perception which explicitly says it’s used for wisdom checks that aren’t conscious.
The problem is that there's no evidence that it gets used in combat. Passive scores are absolutely relevant to non-combat stealth.
In any case, assuming passive scores are relevant to combat does not solve the problem with 2024 hide. It does mean that if you roll, say, a 15, and your opponent has a passive perception of 17 and has unobstructed vision (obscurement would reduce the passive score to 12) they would find you, but... that shouldn't be a check at all. If you really don't have anything concealing you, you should just be automatically found without a roll.
you require lightly obscured for hidden. People who get backstabbed usually do not have an object between them and the attacker, and it often happens in well lit areas.
It is not actually that hard to acquire 50% cover (which, as I defined obscured, would grant obscured), and if you try to walk up in plain sight to stab someone... you deserve to fail.
Pentagreul is wrong . 2024 has passive perception which explicitly says it’s used for wisdom checks that aren’t conscious.
The problem is that there's no evidence that it gets used in combat. Passive scores are absolutely relevant to non-combat stealth.
In any case, assuming passive scores are relevant to combat does not solve the problem with 2024 hide. It does mean that if you roll, say, a 15, and your opponent has a passive perception of 17 and has unobstructed vision (obscurement would reduce the passive score to 12) they would find you, but... that shouldn't be a check at all. If you really don't have anything concealing you, you should just be automatically found without a roll.
you require lightly obscured for hidden. People who get backstabbed usually do not have an object between them and the attacker, and it often happens in well lit areas.
It is not actually that hard to acquire 50% cover (which, as I defined obscured, would grant obscured), and if you try to walk up in plain sight to stab someone... you deserve to fail.
Hiding and perception are not combat specific features, there is no distinction between hiding outside of combat or in combat, likewise perceiving.
The evidence is the hiding rule says that you can be found with a wisdom check, the passive perception rules say the gm can use passive perception instead of a wisdom check at their discretion
in logic, math and English, this is thransitive property.
if someone says you can use a rectangle In your drawing
and a square is defined as a type of rectangle
then you can use a square in your drawing.
i don’t really love their minmalistic language, because I think it causes confusion, but this book is full of minimalistic language. I don’t think it’s super clear for every reader, however it is logically sound (usually)
monsters primarily use passive perception to detect hidden players. According to the book, if the dm thinks someone would be able to perceive something without actively looking, they are instructed to use passive perception in place of a wisdom perception check
whether they have unobstructed vision is partially determined by stealth vs perception. The hiding person is trying not to be seen, the perceiving person is trying to detect that person. You are stating the outcome of the roll before the roll. Note in dnd 5e position is not explicit, and neither is where the monsters are looking. In 2014 they decided this mean 360 degree vision as far as the eye can see, and in 2024 this is no longer the case. In the case of someone hiding versus someone looking, the rolls determine if they were seen.
In the case where the gm has narratively decided someone is looking straight at you, your hide won’t be effective. Invisible only has 3 benefits, and concealed/advantage both don’t work while someone can see you. However baring the story requiring them to be seen, you should let the rolls decide. It should come up as often as the dm auto fails a character on a save. The recomendation in passive perception rule is to give the perceived advantage if you think the situation would be default to avoid being seen. And that is a +5. This gives your regular veteran 17 passive perception, which is considered a difficult dc. Usually only people with significant investment can make that. A red dragon has passive perception of 23, with advantage that’s a 27. They have already accounted for this. The guys who they can easily evade are meant to be fooled, the guys who are perceptive can catch them.Yes the rogue invested in stealth is slippery, that’s the whole point, in 2014, they generally were not. Hiding was only useful if the dm fudged the rules. Now hiding is generally useful unless the dm fudges the rules, that’s a better game design.
As far as sucker punching people in broad daylight in assaults, yes it happens all the time and is very common. People don’t have eyes in the back of their head. I know one dude who was hit with a bottle while trying to defend his girl, another who was stabbed in the back, And another time I was fighting multiple people, I was informed later one of them pulled out a knife behind me. You may believe the sucker punch, the pickpocket, or even the person behind you putting two fingers behind your head is near impossible, but it’s really not.
As far as sucker punching people in broad daylight in assaults, yes it happens all the time and is very common. People don’t have eyes in the back of their head. I know one dude who was hit with a bottle while trying to defend his girl, another who was stabbed in the back, And another time I was fighting multiple people, I was informed later one of them pulled out a knife behind me. You may believe the sucker punch, the pickpocket, or even the person behind you putting two fingers behind your head is near impossible, but it’s really not.
Facing is an optional rule in D&D. Without it, there's no way to sneak up behind a target because they have no defined 'back' location (though in most of those examples sneak attack would work anyway).
Really, the Invisible condition should really just be Hidden or Unseen or something.
I don’t mind the hiding rules as written. Because ALL attempts at hiding do require DM adjudication. It’s one of those rules that just does not work entirely as procedural rules. Not without firm line of sight AND facing rules, which just add a huge layer of complications. At that point, miniatures become required and the game really becomes more of a miniature combat game.
Pentagreul is wrong . 2024 has passive perception which explicitly says it’s used for wisdom checks that aren’t conscious.
The problem is that there's no evidence that it gets used in combat. Passive scores are absolutely relevant to non-combat stealth.
In any case, assuming passive scores are relevant to combat does not solve the problem with 2024 hide. It does mean that if you roll, say, a 15, and your opponent has a passive perception of 17 and has unobstructed vision (obscurement would reduce the passive score to 12) they would find you, but... that shouldn't be a check at all. If you really don't have anything concealing you, you should just be automatically found without a roll.
you require lightly obscured for hidden. People who get backstabbed usually do not have an object between them and the attacker, and it often happens in well lit areas.
It is not actually that hard to acquire 50% cover (which, as I defined obscured, would grant obscured), and if you try to walk up in plain sight to stab someone... you deserve to fail.
Hiding and perception are not combat specific features, there is no distinction between hiding outside of combat or in combat, likewise perceiving.
The evidence is the hiding rule says that you can be found with a wisdom check, the passive perception rules say the gm can use passive perception instead of a wisdom check at their discretion
in logic, math and English, this is thransitive property.
if someone says you can use a rectangle In your drawing
and a square is defined as a type of rectangle
then you can use a square in your drawing.
i don’t really love their minmalistic language, because I think it causes confusion, but this book is full of minimalistic language. I don’t think it’s super clear for every reader, however it is logically sound (usually)
monsters primarily use passive perception to detect hidden players. According to the book, if the dm thinks someone would be able to perceive something without actively looking, they are instructed to use passive perception in place of a wisdom perception check
whether they have unobstructed vision is partially determined by stealth vs perception. The hiding person is trying not to be seen, the perceiving person is trying to detect that person. You are stating the outcome of the roll before the roll. Note in dnd 5e position is not explicit, and neither is where the monsters are looking. In 2014 they decided this mean 360 degree vision as far as the eye can see, and in 2024 this is no longer the case. In the case of someone hiding versus someone looking, the rolls determine if they were seen.
In the case where the gm has narratively decided someone is looking straight at you, your hide won’t be effective. Invisible only has 3 benefits, and concealed/advantage both don’t work while someone can see you. However baring the story requiring them to be seen, you should let the rolls decide. It should come up as often as the dm auto fails a character on a save. The recomendation in passive perception rule is to give the perceived advantage if you think the situation would be default to avoid being seen. And that is a +5. This gives your regular veteran 17 passive perception, which is considered a difficult dc. Usually only people with significant investment can make that. A red dragon has passive perception of 23, with advantage that’s a 27. They have already accounted for this. The guys who they can easily evade are meant to be fooled, the guys who are perceptive can catch them.Yes the rogue invested in stealth is slippery, that’s the whole point, in 2014, they generally were not. Hiding was only useful if the dm fudged the rules. Now hiding is generally useful unless the dm fudges the rules, that’s a better game design.
As far as sucker punching people in broad daylight in assaults, yes it happens all the time and is very common. People don’t have eyes in the back of their head. I know one dude who was hit with a bottle while trying to defend his girl, another who was stabbed in the back, And another time I was fighting multiple people, I was informed later one of them pulled out a knife behind me. You may believe the sucker punch, the pickpocket, or even the person behind you putting two fingers behind your head is near impossible, but it’s really not.
The reason the language is minimalistic is because WotC decided to remove superfluous language from the rules to allow flexibility and less confusion. The problem is that it has now caused a whole new set of confusion.
Its damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The condition, like all conditions, is the mechanical effects of something. In this case, it's the effects of people not being able to see you.
They should've renamed it, but I see no reason not to expect that the invisibility spell will work like it needs to with the condition being this way.
It's now a lot like the charmed condition, where people tend to think that the condition is more like charm person.
We've now seen the text on reddit. The Invisibility spell grants the Invisible status effect, nothing else, exactly the way it worked in 2014.
Sigh.
If that's all the text, I got nothing.
(OK, that's a lie. I can still make it work without anything silly going on, but they are bloody well not making it easy, and my hopes for 2024 having had a pass by people who know how to write rules rigorously have been thoroughly dashed.)
So, making tweaks to result in something sensible and easy to handle. Some base terminology
Lightly Obscured
Heavily Obscured
Blind
Blindsight
Darkvision
Hidden
Hide
Invisible
Truesight
Isn't the whole point of passive perception to handle stuff like this?
The 5e rules are not hard. You make a dex (stealth) check. DM compares to passive perception. If yours is higher, you are hidden and your next attack has advantage.
Its literally one line.
All they needed to do was to add some clarifications like "you must be at least lightly obscured" or whatever.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
No? Passive scores are the equivalent of taking 10 in 3e, there's no evidence they affect stealth at all in 2024, and the only effect in the 2014 rules is to set the target for hide checks.
Your rules make backstabbing Impossible like 2014, I’ll pass
The 2024 passive rules say there are used by the gm to find things without effort, you can ignore them if you want, but your just ignoring the rules.
’Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature's general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check’‘
also note , passive perception is still on new monster stat blocks revealed, what do you think it’s for?
Perhaps the 2024 DMG will also contain guidelines for using ability scores like 2014, letting DM opt to not do any Wisdom (Perception) check in some case where someone instead finds you automatically without rolling or using passive perception if judging it's justified for example.
Not sure how you even read it that way.
That was supposed to be a rhetorical question. In the PHB in the Ability Scores section: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2014/using-ability-scores#DexterityChecks
If you hide (in combat or otherwise), its compared against the passive perception. Creatures may then take the search action on their turn for another crack at finding you if they want to.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
This thread is about the 2024 rules, in which, as Pantagruel already stated, there's no evidence passive perception is relevant to Hiding.
I mean, it's right there in the 2024 Passive Perception definition. To say there's no evidence is misleading. Just because the Hiding word isn't present, doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Hiding says to "Make note of your (Stealth) check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check," but it doesn't specify you have to use the Search action; that was inserted by Treantmonk to denote an active Perception Check
Also, here's all the rules regarding hiding, invisible, stealth and perception from the 2024 PHB in one post: the_stealth_rule_actually_has_five_parts. When you read all of them, the rules become much more clear.
I just don't get why people are being so pedantic to the point of splitting hairs. The whole point of DnD is to come up with ridiculous scenarios with the rules as guidelines and have fun, not being willfully obtuse.
Pentagreul is wrong . 2024 has passive perception which explicitly says it’s used for wisdom checks that aren’t conscious.
wisdom checks are how you find creatures.
a passive check is considered the same as a check, the key difference is it’s a DM side option.
passive perception is on the new monster blocks, it does not make sense to say passive perception has no connection to hide rules. It’s a wisdom check.
you require lightly obscured for hidden. People who get backstabbed usually do not have an object between them and the attacker, and it often happens in well lit areas.
if you light a torch you are immune to backstab, nah doesn’t hold up.
the very common concept of the sucker punch doesn’t exist in your world.
The problem is that there's no evidence that it gets used in combat. Passive scores are absolutely relevant to non-combat stealth.
In any case, assuming passive scores are relevant to combat does not solve the problem with 2024 hide. It does mean that if you roll, say, a 15, and your opponent has a passive perception of 17 and has unobstructed vision (obscurement would reduce the passive score to 12) they would find you, but... that shouldn't be a check at all. If you really don't have anything concealing you, you should just be automatically found without a roll.
It is not actually that hard to acquire 50% cover (which, as I defined obscured, would grant obscured), and if you try to walk up in plain sight to stab someone... you deserve to fail.
Hiding and perception are not combat specific features, there is no distinction between hiding outside of combat or in combat, likewise perceiving.
The evidence is the hiding rule says that you can be found with a wisdom check, the passive perception rules say the gm can use passive perception instead of a wisdom check at their discretion
in logic, math and English, this is thransitive property.
if someone says you can use a rectangle In your drawing
and a square is defined as a type of rectangle
then you can use a square in your drawing.
i don’t really love their minmalistic language, because I think it causes confusion, but this book is full of minimalistic language. I don’t think it’s super clear for every reader, however it is logically sound (usually)
monsters primarily use passive perception to detect hidden players. According to the book, if the dm thinks someone would be able to perceive something without actively looking, they are instructed to use passive perception in place of a wisdom perception check
whether they have unobstructed vision is partially determined by stealth vs perception. The hiding person is trying not to be seen, the perceiving person is trying to detect that person. You are stating the outcome of the roll before the roll. Note in dnd 5e position is not explicit, and neither is where the monsters are looking. In 2014 they decided this mean 360 degree vision as far as the eye can see, and in 2024 this is no longer the case. In the case of someone hiding versus someone looking, the rolls determine if they were seen.
In the case where the gm has narratively decided someone is looking straight at you, your hide won’t be effective. Invisible only has 3 benefits, and concealed/advantage both don’t work while someone can see you. However baring the story requiring them to be seen, you should let the rolls decide. It should come up as often as the dm auto fails a character on a save. The recomendation in passive perception rule is to give the perceived advantage if you think the situation would be default to avoid being seen. And that is a +5. This gives your regular veteran 17 passive perception, which is considered a difficult dc. Usually only people with significant investment can make that. A red dragon has passive perception of 23, with advantage that’s a 27. They have already accounted for this. The guys who they can easily evade are meant to be fooled, the guys who are perceptive can catch them.Yes the rogue invested in stealth is slippery, that’s the whole point, in 2014, they generally were not. Hiding was only useful if the dm fudged the rules. Now hiding is generally useful unless the dm fudges the rules, that’s a better game design.
As far as sucker punching people in broad daylight in assaults, yes it happens all the time and is very common. People don’t have eyes in the back of their head. I know one dude who was hit with a bottle while trying to defend his girl, another who was stabbed in the back, And another time I was fighting multiple people, I was informed later one of them pulled out a knife behind me. You may believe the sucker punch, the pickpocket, or even the person behind you putting two fingers behind your head is near impossible, but it’s really not.
The action economy doesn't exist outside of combat, so we don't know if using passive perception takes an action.
Facing is an optional rule in D&D. Without it, there's no way to sneak up behind a target because they have no defined 'back' location (though in most of those examples sneak attack would work anyway).
Really, the Invisible condition should really just be Hidden or Unseen or something.
I don’t mind the hiding rules as written. Because ALL attempts at hiding do require DM adjudication. It’s one of those rules that just does not work entirely as procedural rules. Not without firm line of sight AND facing rules, which just add a huge layer of complications. At that point, miniatures become required and the game really becomes more of a miniature combat game.
The reason the language is minimalistic is because WotC decided to remove superfluous language from the rules to allow flexibility and less confusion. The problem is that it has now caused a whole new set of confusion.
Its damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.