Well... Seems like the hiding / invisibility rules are still a mess. judging by these posts and the numerous back and forth arguments. After all the playtest and time they had to work this out...
Here's a possible improvement (my words in bold):
Invisible Condition: You have Advantage on initiative if you are also hiding [i.e. not making a sound louder than a whisper, making an attack roll, or casting a spell] and you are not surprised ; you aren’t affected by any effect that requires the target to be seen unless the creator can somehow see you, attack rolls against you have Disadvantage and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
IMO, granting Advantage on initiative rolls just for being Invisible steps on the toes of many later level class features that grant Advantage to initiative. It's not because you are Invisible that you are necessarily quick or paying attention.
I wish they had simply created the Hidden condition to avoid confusion with the (magical) Invisible one. Hidden includes being careful not making any noises and requiring obscurement or cover; Invisible does not require any of these things. As Jeremy Crawford pointed out many times for 2014 invisible rules: you can be invisible and still make noise, i.e. not hiding, i.e. not being particular stealthy.
this has been funny to see unfold. Clearly the main issue is the use of the word “invisible”. Seems like a classic example of pour wording by WotC.
im not gonna try to go back and quote each post, but this isn’t even about common sense or interpretation.
RaW, hiding requires cover or obscurement. once you become hidden you get “invisibility condition”. “Invisibility condition” clearly states 2x it doesn’t work if you can be seen. Once you can be obviously be seen, or you are detected, you loose “ invisibility condition”. At which point you obviously aren’t hidden any more.
there really isn’t anything about the “invisibility” spell that makes be believe it is supposed to operate any differently either. It seems to be a spell intended to help a creature “hide” that otherwise would be incapable or bad at it.
''You must be out of any enemy's line of sight'' must be a way to break Hiding.
The problem is that it makes hiding almost completely useless, since you almost always have to move into someone's line of sight to attack them.
Yeah, I don't think you're supposed to try to hide during combat anymore. You hide before to get your advantage on initiative and then step into line of sight to fight. You'll use regular stealth to pass guards and what not outside of combat, but inside combat the only use you have for the Hide action is trying to run away from your enemies.
I would also point out that the “invisible condition” specifically refers to being “concealed”, not being “invisible” or transparent in a Wonder Woman way.
Note that "somehow"; that refers to means by which creatures can see Invisible creatures, as the default general rule is that they can't.
We have yet to see any such 'general rule', and you would expect it to be in the Invisible condition. I imagine it's what they intended, but it's not what they actually wrote.
I'm amazed that they somehow took the horrible mess that is perception in 2014 and made it even worse.
There is now a base DC of 15 to successfully hide.
I'm just here to say I don't see how this a good change and will almost definitely be house-ruled in my games. I more or less like the other changes put forward (will need to test them in practise) but the above rule is silly; the 2014 Adult Red Dragon has a passive perception of 23. Sooooo.... does that just get ignored now if Clanky the Paladin managed just about to roll a 15 Stealth Check?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
There is now a base DC of 15 to successfully hide.
I'm just here to say I don't see how this a good change and will almost definitely be house-ruled in my games. I more or less like the other changes put forward (will need to test them in practise) but the above rule is silly; the 2014 Adult Red Dragon has a passive perception of 23. Sooooo.... does that just get ignored now if Clanky the Paladin managed just about to roll a 15 Stealth Check?
It's a good change because it slightly nerfs the Rogue "attack and Hide as a BA" combo; they can still pretty reliably hit that DC with a Stealth build, but it gives a chance of failure for a while. And to address your example, this does not supersede Passive Perception, it just sets an alternative fail condition.
It's a good change because it slightly nerfs the Rogue "attack and Hide as a BA" combo
At low levels it nerfs that somewhat, as most creatures don't have passives of 15+ (though a lot of animals have advantage on certain perception rolls, which adds +5 passive if applicable, so a DC above 15 was not rare). At high level it's a pure buff, because you'd be making that 15 anyway and it means you no longer need to worry about the creatures with massive passive perception scores.
It's a good change because it slightly nerfs the Rogue "attack and Hide as a BA" combo; they can still pretty reliably hit that DC with a Stealth build, but it gives a chance of failure for a while. And to address your example, this does not supersede Passive Perception, it just sets an alternative fail condition.
Re: chance of failure - totally hear what you're saying, but there was always a chance of failure in the early levels anyway, even with an 'optimised' build so I'm scratching my head at that change. In my head, it's like setting a standard DC Grapple check - even if an opponent is massively larger e.g. a fire giant, suddenly the standard check is beating a more burly foe because of the fixed DC. It just seems weird that Hiding has a fixed DC when other creatures can be naturally better at spotting threats than others, whether it's because of high passive perception or just generally better Wisdom.
If I'm correct in understanding your last sentence, then surely it would be simpler to have Stealth vs Perception / passive perception contest rather than having an alternate fail condition rule to remember? I think the intention was to make Hiding simpler but it just muddies the water when passive perception is in play.
In all fairness, I haven't playtested any of this so take my comments with a pinch of salt!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
It's not that hard to work out: first you check if the Stealth roll met the DC; if no then the character making the attempt simply failed to hide, period. Second, you check the Stealth roll against applicable Passive Perceptions (which might be lower than 15), and if it does not meet or exceed those then those particular creatures detect the character making the attempt.
It's not that hard to work out: first you check if the Stealth roll met the DC; if no then the character making the attempt simply failed to hide, period. Second, you check the Stealth roll against applicable Passive Perceptions (which might be lower than 15), and if it does not meet or exceed those then those particular creatures detect the character making the attempt.
All makes sense. My point is, you could just have the second condition you list be the only condition? I will say I do see this being easier for Newer DM's (15 is an easy DC to remember, and would theoretically save them from having to look up stats) and think that was the intentional design choice. I guess I just see it as being odd as you would have to check passive perception anyway as you mention, so why not just have that be the one and only check? Apart from minor Rogue abuse, I personally don't see the need for this change.
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
It's not that hard to work out: first you check if the Stealth roll met the DC; if no then the character making the attempt simply failed to hide, period. Second, you check the Stealth roll against applicable Passive Perceptions (which might be lower than 15), and if it does not meet or exceed those then those particular creatures detect the character making the attempt.
There is no evidence that passive perception is relevant.
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.
Either a successful search action or coming upon a position that puts the hidden character within their line of sight would constitute finding you. It's worth noting that this much at least is identical to the current 2014 rules, so there's literally no change to how useful hiding in combat is, at least as far as this line of text is concerned.
Either a successful search action or coming upon a position that puts the hidden character within their line of sight would constitute finding you. It's worth noting that this much at least is identical to the current 2014 rules, so there's literally no change to how useful hiding in combat is, at least as far as this line of text is concerned.
In 2014, the Invisible status would mean that coming upon a position that puts the hidden character within line of sight would not constitute finding you. In 2024 they seem to have made it so the Invisible status doesn't actually prevent you from being seen (nothing in the status effect specifies that it affects vision rolls in any way).
It's possible that this is intended, but if so they need to rewrite every spell and monster ability that in 2014 grants the invisible status to specify that it also heavily obscures the character.
Either a successful search action or coming upon a position that puts the hidden character within their line of sight would constitute finding you. It's worth noting that this much at least is identical to the current 2014 rules, so there's literally no change to how useful hiding in combat is, at least as far as this line of text is concerned.
In 2014, the Invisible status would mean that coming upon a position that puts the hidden character within line of sight would not constitute finding you. In 2024 they seem to have made it so the Invisible status doesn't actually prevent you from being seen (nothing in the status effect specifies that it affects vision rolls in any way).
It's possible that this is intended, but if so they need to rewrite every spell and monster ability that in 2014 grants the invisible status to specify that it also heavily obscures the character.
I think that’s an interesting topic, but since Hiding didn’t grant the Invisible condition in 2014, it’s not relevant to my post or the post I was replying to.
Yeah, this does seem like it's going to call for a lot of errata-ing or DM ruling when you try and mix previous instances of the condition. Practically speaking, I don't think this is a serious issue, as it's not hard for a DM to adjudicate. Granted, most of the current effects say something along the lines of "becomes Invisible" not "gains the Invisible condition", so arguably the language already clarifies that the creature is literally invisible as well as having the condition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
''You must be out of any enemy's line of sight'' must be a way to break Hiding.
Well... Seems like the hiding / invisibility rules are still a mess. judging by these posts and the numerous back and forth arguments. After all the playtest and time they had to work this out...
Here's a possible improvement (my words in bold):
Invisible Condition: You have Advantage on initiative if you are also hiding [i.e. not making a sound louder than a whisper, making an attack roll, or casting a spell] and you are not surprised ; you aren’t affected by any effect that requires the target to be seen unless the creator can somehow see you, attack rolls against you have Disadvantage and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
IMO, granting Advantage on initiative rolls just for being Invisible steps on the toes of many later level class features that grant Advantage to initiative. It's not because you are Invisible that you are necessarily quick or paying attention.
I wish they had simply created the Hidden condition to avoid confusion with the (magical) Invisible one. Hidden includes being careful not making any noises and requiring obscurement or cover; Invisible does not require any of these things. As Jeremy Crawford pointed out many times for 2014 invisible rules: you can be invisible and still make noise, i.e. not hiding, i.e. not being particular stealthy.
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
this has been funny to see unfold. Clearly the main issue is the use of the word “invisible”. Seems like a classic example of pour wording by WotC.
im not gonna try to go back and quote each post, but
this isn’t even about common sense or interpretation.
RaW, hiding requires cover or obscurement. once you become hidden you get “invisibility condition”. “Invisibility condition” clearly states 2x it doesn’t work if you can be seen. Once you can be obviously be seen, or you are detected, you loose “ invisibility condition”. At which point you obviously aren’t hidden any more.
there really isn’t anything about the “invisibility” spell that makes be believe it is supposed to operate any differently either. It seems to be a spell intended to help a creature “hide” that otherwise would be incapable or bad at it.
I know, I know, it was just an example of using something like that, but with the wording changed for the purpose of being discovered.
The problem is that it makes hiding almost completely useless, since you almost always have to move into someone's line of sight to attack them.
I think we do have some holes, as we don't yet know how either the Invisibility spell or Heavily Obscured work.
Yeah, I don't think you're supposed to try to hide during combat anymore. You hide before to get your advantage on initiative and then step into line of sight to fight. You'll use regular stealth to pass guards and what not outside of combat, but inside combat the only use you have for the Hide action is trying to run away from your enemies.
I would also point out that the “invisible condition” specifically refers to being “concealed”, not being “invisible” or transparent in a Wonder Woman way.
We have yet to see any such 'general rule', and you would expect it to be in the Invisible condition. I imagine it's what they intended, but it's not what they actually wrote.
I'm amazed that they somehow took the horrible mess that is perception in 2014 and made it even worse.
There is now a base DC of 15 to successfully hide.
I'm just here to say I don't see how this a good change and will almost definitely be house-ruled in my games. I more or less like the other changes put forward (will need to test them in practise) but the above rule is silly; the 2014 Adult Red Dragon has a passive perception of 23. Sooooo.... does that just get ignored now if Clanky the Paladin managed just about to roll a 15 Stealth Check?
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
It's a good change because it slightly nerfs the Rogue "attack and Hide as a BA" combo; they can still pretty reliably hit that DC with a Stealth build, but it gives a chance of failure for a while. And to address your example, this does not supersede Passive Perception, it just sets an alternative fail condition.
At low levels it nerfs that somewhat, as most creatures don't have passives of 15+ (though a lot of animals have advantage on certain perception rolls, which adds +5 passive if applicable, so a DC above 15 was not rare). At high level it's a pure buff, because you'd be making that 15 anyway and it means you no longer need to worry about the creatures with massive passive perception scores.
Re: chance of failure - totally hear what you're saying, but there was always a chance of failure in the early levels anyway, even with an 'optimised' build so I'm scratching my head at that change. In my head, it's like setting a standard DC Grapple check - even if an opponent is massively larger e.g. a fire giant, suddenly the standard check is beating a more burly foe because of the fixed DC. It just seems weird that Hiding has a fixed DC when other creatures can be naturally better at spotting threats than others, whether it's because of high passive perception or just generally better Wisdom.
If I'm correct in understanding your last sentence, then surely it would be simpler to have Stealth vs Perception / passive perception contest rather than having an alternate fail condition rule to remember? I think the intention was to make Hiding simpler but it just muddies the water when passive perception is in play.
In all fairness, I haven't playtested any of this so take my comments with a pinch of salt!
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
It's not that hard to work out: first you check if the Stealth roll met the DC; if no then the character making the attempt simply failed to hide, period. Second, you check the Stealth roll against applicable Passive Perceptions (which might be lower than 15), and if it does not meet or exceed those then those particular creatures detect the character making the attempt.
But unfortunately it doesn't mention Passive Perception, only active Search.
So it is very possible for somebody to hide behind a wall then another person turns the corner to search for them and fails the search roll.
We all know how we will probably run it, but RAW it stinks.
"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
All makes sense. My point is, you could just have the second condition you list be the only condition? I will say I do see this being easier for Newer DM's (15 is an easy DC to remember, and would theoretically save them from having to look up stats) and think that was the intentional design choice. I guess I just see it as being odd as you would have to check passive perception anyway as you mention, so why not just have that be the one and only check? Apart from minor Rogue abuse, I personally don't see the need for this change.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
There is no evidence that passive perception is relevant.
Either a successful search action or coming upon a position that puts the hidden character within their line of sight would constitute finding you. It's worth noting that this much at least is identical to the current 2014 rules, so there's literally no change to how useful hiding in combat is, at least as far as this line of text is concerned.
In 2014, the Invisible status would mean that coming upon a position that puts the hidden character within line of sight would not constitute finding you. In 2024 they seem to have made it so the Invisible status doesn't actually prevent you from being seen (nothing in the status effect specifies that it affects vision rolls in any way).
It's possible that this is intended, but if so they need to rewrite every spell and monster ability that in 2014 grants the invisible status to specify that it also heavily obscures the character.
I think that’s an interesting topic, but since Hiding didn’t grant the Invisible condition in 2014, it’s not relevant to my post or the post I was replying to.
Yeah, this does seem like it's going to call for a lot of errata-ing or DM ruling when you try and mix previous instances of the condition. Practically speaking, I don't think this is a serious issue, as it's not hard for a DM to adjudicate. Granted, most of the current effects say something along the lines of "becomes Invisible" not "gains the Invisible condition", so arguably the language already clarifies that the creature is literally invisible as well as having the condition.