I think the issue that they keep referencing is that once you successfully hide, you gain the Invisible condition, which per the rules say you need to make a Perception check with the Search Action to detect.
You need the Search action to detect them IF they're still obscured or behind cover. Otherwise, they already violated the requirements to Hide and no Search is needed.
You need to be out of sight to hide and gain the invisible condition, but you don't lose this condition unless you make noise louder than a whisper, an enemy succeeds at a search action (perception check) against your hide check result, or cast a spell with a verbal component.
Not technically. The actual wording is
On a success, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a wisdom (perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
There's a significant hole here: the rules state that a wisdom (perception) roll is a way of finding a hidden creature, but they don't state that it's the only way.
I'm pretty sure this is what they meant. Finding you only requires a skill check when it's difficult. If you're standing in the middle of a sunny field, no action needed to find you.
But they didn't say it explicitly. (Assuming there's nothing elsewhere in the books.) Sigh.
I think the core of the problem is naming things. The condition is called "invisible". It's obvious why they used it -- it has the mechanical effects they want. If somebody is invisible, you can't see them, and they get these bonuses. If somebody is hiding, you can't see them, and they get these bonuses.
But "invisible" has connotations. If they'd renamed the condition "unseen", people wouldn't reflexively read the rules as "when you hide, you become actually invisible". The question of whether somebody must take the search action to find you would still be open due to the poor wording, but it's a shorter conceptual leap to read it such that they don't.
It's worth noting that all the problems with hide came up in the playtest. They just got ignored.
It would be really easy to fix, too. Just change one sentence (I had a more complete suggestion in the thread above, but this fixes the obvious issues).
On a successful check, you have the Invisible conditionare treated as Heavily Obscured as long as you remain Lightly Obscured or have at least half cover.
That does what people expect from stealth
You have to be out of sight to become hidden. Once hidden, you don't need to be completely out of sight, but you need to be at least hard to see.
See Invisibility has no effect (heavily obscured does not cause the observer to be invisible, it causes the observer to be blind).
Truesight only matters if the reason you're obscured is magical.
Blindsight continues to defeat it, as blindsight ignores the blinded condition.
I think the issue that they keep referencing is that once you successfully hide, you gain the Invisible condition, which per the rules say you need to make a Perception check with the Search Action to detect.
You need the Search action to detect them IF they're still obscured or behind cover. Otherwise, they already violated the requirements to Hide and no Search is needed.
You would think, but that's not how they're interpreting it because if Invisibility also grants the Invisible condition, then that means Hide makes you Invisible as well.
You need to be out of sight to hide and gain the invisible condition, but you don't lose this condition unless you make noise louder than a whisper, an enemy succeeds at a search action (perception check) against your hide check result, or cast a spell with a verbal component.
Not technically. The actual wording is
On a success, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a wisdom (perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
There's a significant hole here: the rules state that a wisdom (perception) roll is a way of finding a hidden creature, but they don't state that it's the only way.
I'm pretty sure this is what they meant. Finding you only requires a skill check when it's difficult. If you're standing in the middle of a sunny field, no action needed to find you.
But they didn't say it explicitly. (Assuming there's nothing elsewhere in the books.) Sigh.
I think the core of the problem is naming things. The condition is called "invisible". It's obvious why they used it -- it has the mechanical effects they want. If somebody is invisible, you can't see them, and they get these bonuses. If somebody is hiding, you can't see them, and they get these bonuses.
But "invisible" has connotations. If they'd renamed the condition "unseen", people wouldn't reflexively read the rules as "when you hide, you become actually invisible". The question of whether somebody must take the search action to find you would still be open due to the poor wording, but it's a shorter conceptual leap to read it such that they don't.
Exactly; people are taking this as in this case the Invisible condition from Hide as in literally Invisible. But, because Invisibility also grants the Invisible condition, they're taking it means the same even if they're not. It doesn't pass the Common Sense rule that if you're using the Hide Action you've suddenly have optic camouflage like the freakin Predator.
I think the issue that they keep referencing is that once you successfully hide, you gain the Invisible condition, which per the rules say you need to make a Perception check with the Search Action to detect.
You need the Search action to detect them IF they're still obscured or behind cover. Otherwise, they already violated the requirements to Hide and no Search is needed.
You would think, but that's not how they're interpreting it because if Invisibility also grants the Invisible condition, then that means Hide makes you Invisible as well.
Invisible isn't absolute though, the condition clearly states you lose the benefits if you can be seen. Note that the Invisible condition itself doesn't actually say you can't be seen, so it doesn't become some kind of self-fulfilling loop like some folks here are implying.
Just getting out from behind whatever you did the Hide action behind can't just cancel out your Invisibility condition. Enemies don't have 360 vision and a Rogue should be able to Hide bonus action and then pop out to shoot an arrow or sneak up behind for a stab.
Line of sight removing the Hide actions Invisibility condition instantly can't be how it works because moving stealthily can mean so many different things. Like, if the party wants to move through a crowd of people unnoticed or move silently, not just unseen, does that not ask for a Hide action and a stealth check?
The rules as they are written in those pictures are confusing. Are they as they appear in the books or paraphrased?
In point of fact, for the purposes of combat play in D&D all characters do in fact have constant omnidirectional awareness. Or do you make a note of what direction your character is facing and ignore anything that is happening behind them since they can't see it?
In point of fact, for the purposes of combat play in D&D all characters do in fact have constant omnidirectional awareness. Or do you make a note of what direction your character is facing and ignore anything that is happening behind them since they can't see it?
No, of course not. I'm just saying that in the context of a Rogue using a bonus action Hide to gain advantage on their attack. Did it not work like that in the 2014 PHB or have I been doing wrong the hole time? Did they make it so popping out for a quick action breaks your Hide instantly because the Rogue gains advantage with Steady Aim now instead?
The new Hide rules just don't make sense to me and reads really unclear to me.
In point of fact, for the purposes of combat play in D&D all characters do in fact have constant omnidirectional awareness. Or do you make a note of what direction your character is facing and ignore anything that is happening behind them since they can't see it?
No, of course not. I'm just saying that in the context of a Rogue using a bonus action Hide to gain advantage on their attack. Did it not work like that in the 2014 PHB or have I been doing wrong the hole time? Did they make it so popping out for a quick action breaks your Hide instantly because the Rogue gains advantage with Steady Aim now instead?
The new Hide rules just don't make sense to me and reads really unclear to me.
Making an attack has always ended Hidden unless you had another feature or effect to cover for you. From Unseen Attackers section of the PHB:
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
You can try and argue that it doesn't specifically say "you are no longer hidden", but that's rather implicit in "giv[ing] away your location".
For the purposes of 5e's combat all characters have constant omnidirectional sight, so you can't "rush from hiding" and benefit from being unseen, it takes finessing the terrain and/or a feature/effect to close to melee and attack unseen. This has always been the case in 5e. The typical Rogue tactic is to Hide after you make the attack roll on your turn if you're doing snap shots from cover, not before.
In point of fact, for the purposes of combat play in D&D all characters do in fact have constant omnidirectional awareness. Or do you make a note of what direction your character is facing and ignore anything that is happening behind them since they can't see it?
No, of course not. I'm just saying that in the context of a Rogue using a bonus action Hide to gain advantage on their attack. Did it not work like that in the 2014 PHB or have I been doing wrong the hole time? Did they make it so popping out for a quick action breaks your Hide instantly because the Rogue gains advantage with Steady Aim now instead?
The new Hide rules just don't make sense to me and reads really unclear to me.
Making an attack has always ended Hidden unless you had another feature or effect to cover for you. From Unseen Attackers section of the PHB:
If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
You can try and argue that it doesn't specifically say "you are no longer hidden", but that's rather implicit in "giv[ing] away your location".
For the purposes of 5e's combat all characters have constant omnidirectional sight, so you can't "rush from hiding" and benefit from being unseen, it takes finessing the terrain and/or a feature/effect to close to melee and attack unseen. This has always been the case in 5e. The typical Rogue tactic is to Hide after you make the attack roll on your turn if you're doing snap shots from cover, not before.
Yes, i know attacking gives you away. What I don't understand with the new Hide rules are, if I have hidden on the turn before, does popping out for an attack give away your location or does the attack give away your location?
Invisible isn't absolute though, the condition clearly states you lose the benefits if you can be seen. Note that the Invisible condition itself doesn't actually say you can't be seen, so it doesn't become some kind of self-fulfilling loop like some folks here are implying.
Good observation but also... incredibly weird. Because it means the invisible condition... does not actually make you invisible.
You know what didn't have a problem with this? The 2014 rules.
The 2014 rules were a horrible mess that everyone interpreted differently and needed fixing. The problem is... they didn't fix them, they just replaced them with a new horrible mess.
3.5e and 4e had coherent rules for stealth. They were often problematic, but they at least made sense. 5th edition, in the name of 'simplification', produced nonsense.
I dislike both factors. The DC 15 check. Why?? Why set it this high and not give modifiers?
I think it's fine in practice. A first-level character without expertise (+2 proficiency, +3 dex) will successfully hide a bit more than half the time. Expertise gets it to about 2/3. To successfully hide literally all the time, you only need Reliable Talent, and you're pretty close by 9th level. (+13 from dex and expertise)
I also dislike the use of the word invisible. GMs all over are going to have angry conversations with Rogues.
Yeah, that's the entire problem. They were too deep in the rules to back out and see how it'd be read.
Mechanically, it's fine:
The Invisible condition doesn't actually mean you're invisible
It also explicitly says that if you're seen, you don't get the benefits
The Search action is for situations where straight line of sight isn't sufficient -- the classic D&D "hide in shadows", for instance.
it's odd to me that you don't automatically detect a Hiding creature that is not Obscured or behind Cover.
I would also like to have a clear sentence like that—a clear rule about spotting you in those scenarios. Some people might think this is common sense, but whether it is or not, it's good to have it written down.
Cover or Concealment: Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check. You have to maintain cover or concealment to remain unnoticed. If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you (no Perception check required).
Or... this phrase from 5e... "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly"
Lastly, what about passive perception? Is it still a way of detecting a hidden creature, or is detection only possible with an active roll?
Some folk would say they are already hidden so that in the clear bit doesn't count.
According the "rules" after you are hidden/invisible you are only detected if somebody does an active search. Which is annoying because per the rules the DC will be 15+
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The effect ends when "an enemy finds you". Does that mean they did the Search action or youre just in their line of sight. You dont get the benefits in either case so I dont think hiding is the middle in combat is very useful anymore. Rogues have Steady Aim for advantage now so Im not sure theres any downside to this change overall other than the confusion.
Line of sight removing the Hide actions Invisibility condition instantly can't be how it works because moving stealthily can mean so many different things. Like, if the party wants to move through a crowd of people unnoticed or move silently, not just unseen, does that not ask for a Hide action and a stealth check?
Crowds are made of creatures, and creatures provide cover, so you're still not sauntering out into the open in this scenario. It fits with the rules just fine.
All characters do in fact have 360 vision by default, because line of sight has no limited angles, it extends in all directions from a creature. "Facing" was a variant rule in prior editions that didn't make it to 5e.
You need the Search action to detect them IF they're still obscured or behind cover. Otherwise, they already violated the requirements to Hide and no Search is needed.
I'm pretty sure this is what they meant. Finding you only requires a skill check when it's difficult. If you're standing in the middle of a sunny field, no action needed to find you.
But they didn't say it explicitly. (Assuming there's nothing elsewhere in the books.) Sigh.
I think the core of the problem is naming things. The condition is called "invisible". It's obvious why they used it -- it has the mechanical effects they want. If somebody is invisible, you can't see them, and they get these bonuses. If somebody is hiding, you can't see them, and they get these bonuses.
But "invisible" has connotations. If they'd renamed the condition "unseen", people wouldn't reflexively read the rules as "when you hide, you become actually invisible". The question of whether somebody must take the search action to find you would still be open due to the poor wording, but it's a shorter conceptual leap to read it such that they don't.
It's worth noting that all the problems with hide came up in the playtest. They just got ignored.
It would be really easy to fix, too. Just change one sentence (I had a more complete suggestion in the thread above, but this fixes the obvious issues).
That does what people expect from stealth
You would think, but that's not how they're interpreting it because if Invisibility also grants the Invisible condition, then that means Hide makes you Invisible as well.
Exactly; people are taking this as in this case the Invisible condition from Hide as in literally Invisible. But, because Invisibility also grants the Invisible condition, they're taking it means the same even if they're not. It doesn't pass the Common Sense rule that if you're using the Hide Action you've suddenly have optic camouflage like the freakin Predator.
Invisible isn't absolute though, the condition clearly states you lose the benefits if you can be seen. Note that the Invisible condition itself doesn't actually say you can't be seen, so it doesn't become some kind of self-fulfilling loop like some folks here are implying.
Just getting out from behind whatever you did the Hide action behind can't just cancel out your Invisibility condition. Enemies don't have 360 vision and a Rogue should be able to Hide bonus action and then pop out to shoot an arrow or sneak up behind for a stab.
Line of sight removing the Hide actions Invisibility condition instantly can't be how it works because moving stealthily can mean so many different things. Like, if the party wants to move through a crowd of people unnoticed or move silently, not just unseen, does that not ask for a Hide action and a stealth check?
The rules as they are written in those pictures are confusing. Are they as they appear in the books or paraphrased?
In point of fact, for the purposes of combat play in D&D all characters do in fact have constant omnidirectional awareness. Or do you make a note of what direction your character is facing and ignore anything that is happening behind them since they can't see it?
No, of course not. I'm just saying that in the context of a Rogue using a bonus action Hide to gain advantage on their attack. Did it not work like that in the 2014 PHB or have I been doing wrong the hole time? Did they make it so popping out for a quick action breaks your Hide instantly because the Rogue gains advantage with Steady Aim now instead?
The new Hide rules just don't make sense to me and reads really unclear to me.
Making an attack has always ended Hidden unless you had another feature or effect to cover for you. From Unseen Attackers section of the PHB:
You can try and argue that it doesn't specifically say "you are no longer hidden", but that's rather implicit in "giv[ing] away your location".
For the purposes of 5e's combat all characters have constant omnidirectional sight, so you can't "rush from hiding" and benefit from being unseen, it takes finessing the terrain and/or a feature/effect to close to melee and attack unseen. This has always been the case in 5e. The typical Rogue tactic is to Hide after you make the attack roll on your turn if you're doing snap shots from cover, not before.
Yes, i know attacking gives you away. What I don't understand with the new Hide rules are, if I have hidden on the turn before, does popping out for an attack give away your location or does the attack give away your location?
Good observation but also... incredibly weird. Because it means the invisible condition... does not actually make you invisible.
The 2014 rules were a horrible mess that everyone interpreted differently and needed fixing. The problem is... they didn't fix them, they just replaced them with a new horrible mess.
3.5e and 4e had coherent rules for stealth. They were often problematic, but they at least made sense. 5th edition, in the name of 'simplification', produced nonsense.
I dislike both factors. The DC 15 check. Why?? Why set it this high and not give modifiers?
I also dislike the use of the word invisible. GMs all over are going to have angry conversations with Rogues.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I think it's fine in practice. A first-level character without expertise (+2 proficiency, +3 dex) will successfully hide a bit more than half the time. Expertise gets it to about 2/3. To successfully hide literally all the time, you only need Reliable Talent, and you're pretty close by 9th level. (+13 from dex and expertise)
Yeah, that's the entire problem. They were too deep in the rules to back out and see how it'd be read.
Mechanically, it's fine:
it's odd to me that you don't automatically detect a Hiding creature that is not Obscured or behind Cover.
I would also like to have a clear sentence like that—a clear rule about spotting you in those scenarios. Some people might think this is common sense, but whether it is or not, it's good to have it written down.
This rule from 4e provided by @Pantagruel666 is also similar about what I'm thinking would be a good addition to the new hidding rules:
Or... this phrase from 5e... "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly"
Lastly, what about passive perception? Is it still a way of detecting a hidden creature, or is detection only possible with an active roll?
Some folk would say they are already hidden so that in the clear bit doesn't count.
According the "rules" after you are hidden/invisible you are only detected if somebody does an active search. Which is annoying because per the rules the DC will be 15+
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The effect ends when "an enemy finds you". Does that mean they did the Search action or youre just in their line of sight. You dont get the benefits in either case so I dont think hiding is the middle in combat is very useful anymore. Rogues have Steady Aim for advantage now so Im not sure theres any downside to this change overall other than the confusion.
Crowds are made of creatures, and creatures provide cover, so you're still not sauntering out into the open in this scenario. It fits with the rules just fine.
All characters do in fact have 360 vision by default, because line of sight has no limited angles, it extends in all directions from a creature. "Facing" was a variant rule in prior editions that didn't make it to 5e.
LOL. Pull the other one! 😂
That limits the Hide action. It does not limit what you do after taking the hide action.