Invisibility's Invisible, but not Hiding's Invisible, unless the DM rules that it makes enought noise but the ability doesn't specifically say so.
Hiding: In a successful check, 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.
I think the "an enemy finds you" fits really well into "hey look at where all those flames are coming from", doncha think? If not, just imagine being hidden with a flamethrower and letting it loose. You become very much found. That's not even taking it as an "RAI", that's RAW.
I think so. But the Hiding rules, as opposed to the Invisibility spell, doesn't say it ends the Invisible condition upon dealing damage.
Hiding acrion: 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.
Invisibility spell: A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
Invisibility's Invisible, but not Hiding's Invisible, unless the DM rules that it makes enought noise but the ability doesn't specifically say so.
Hiding: In a successful check, 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.
I think the "an enemy finds you" fits really well into "hey look at where all those flames are coming from", doncha think? If not, just imagine being hidden with a flamethrower and letting it loose. You become very much found. That's not even taking it as an "RAI", that's RAW.
I think so. But the Hiding rules, as opposed to the Invisibility spell, doesn't say it ends the Invisible condition upon dealing damage.
Hiding acrion: 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.
Invisibility spell: A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
Yes, but I'm not talking about the "damage" stipulation, I'm talking about the "an enemy finds you" stipulation. A jet of fire coming out of the bushes would mean the enemy knows where you are, same as a loud noise. Notice it doesn't say "when an enemy sees you", it says "finds you".
So even if they aren't targeted or damaged by the jet of fire coming from cover, they would immediately know you were there.
Yes, but I'm not talking about the "damage" stipulation, I'm talking about the "an enemy finds you" stipulation. A jet of fire coming out of the bushes would mean the enemy knows where you are, same as a loud noise. Notice it doesn't say "when an enemy sees you", it says "finds you".
So even if they aren't targeted or damaged by the jet of fire coming from cover, they would immediately know you were there.
An entirely reasonable assumption which lacks any rules support.
I'm reasonably confident that the devs intended for the list of actions that break stealth to be non-exhaustive... but there are a ton of edge cases where I really have no idea what they intended.
Yes, but I'm not talking about the "damage" stipulation, I'm talking about the "an enemy finds you" stipulation. A jet of fire coming out of the bushes would mean the enemy knows where you are, same as a loud noise. Notice it doesn't say "when an enemy sees you", it says "finds you".
So even if they aren't targeted or damaged by the jet of fire coming from cover, they would immediately know you were there.
An entirely reasonable assumption which lacks any rules support.
I'm reasonably confident that the devs intended for the list of actions that break stealth to be non-exhaustive... but there are a ton of edge cases where I really have no idea what they intended.
I don't know how it lacks rules support. It says it right there in the rules. "an enemy finds you". The DM gets to decide what that means, just the same as the DM gets to decide if you make a "sound louder than a whisper". That's the rule, and the way D&D is played. It is not a 1:1 simulation. There doesn't need to be a spelled-out line in the PHB for every situation. It is literally why the DM exists. If an enemy finds you the "Invisible" condition ends (from Hiding) and the DM gets to decide when that has occurred. They were very specific to not say when an enemy "sees" you.
I don't know how it lacks rules support. It says it right there in the rules. "an enemy finds you".
Revealing yourself is not an enemy finding you.
Please explain? If you are playing hide-and-seek, and you are the person hiding, do you claim victory by jumping out from behind the tree in front of the seeker and saying "You didn't find me, I have merely revealed myself! I win!"
This is exactly what I mean by people not approaching the game/rules in good faith. A player operating in good faith would not be trying to loophole/"gotcha!" the rules by stating they are not found if they reveal themselves. That interpretation would lead to someone "Hiding" behind a tree and then walking out in the open, suggesting they were not "found" because they "revealed" themselves, which is obviously not in good faith.
Just jumping in to say I think the "enemy finds you" is doing exactly what they want. It's both RAW and RAI. AFAIK "find" is not defined (see what I did there?) in the rules. Therefore, it's up to the DM. You want to hide and then sneak up behind someone? Convince the DM that the enemy didn't "find" you while you did that. The DM deciding the enemy wasn't so preoccupied that they couldn't see you trying to sneak up can (and probably should) be situation dependent. They may even call for a roll depending on the environment (heavy boots on hardwood floors vs silk slippers on grass. Far too many different situations possible for line items to address.
Just jumping in to say I think the "enemy finds you" is doing exactly what they want.
The problem is that 'find' is an active verb. It implies that the enemy is doing something, as opposed to you doing something to reveal yourself.
It doesn't imply that all. "I lost my pen, but I found it again when it fell into my lap, through no effort on my part" is a 100% correct use of the word "found." Any GM who wants to split the hair you're splitting is welcome to, because "find" is not defined in the rules. But because it's not defined in the rules, we fall back to the common English meaning of the word. And by that meaning, if an enemy reveals themselves to me, I have found them, because that's how English-speakers speak. A GM can say "But that's now how I use it," and sure. I'm not gonna argue with them about how they run their game or how they speak. But they'd be in a very tiny minority of English speakers.
Just jumping in to say I think the "enemy finds you" is doing exactly what they want. It's both RAW and RAI. AFAIK "find" is not defined (see what I did there?) in the rules. Therefore, it's up to the DM. You want to hide and then sneak up behind someone? Convince the DM that the enemy didn't "find" you while you did that. The DM deciding the enemy wasn't so preoccupied that they couldn't see you trying to sneak up can (and probably should) be situation dependent. They may even call for a roll depending on the environment (heavy boots on hardwood floors vs silk slippers on grass. Far too many different situations possible for line items to address.
in the sentence where they say enemy finds you, they say you can be found with a wisdom/perception check. In passive perception, they say it used instead of a wisdom check to find something without actively trying.
i think find may be there to give a little leeway, but the rule basically is saying to use perception versus stealth as the baseline rule. DMs can alter or adjust rules, but baseline, find you should involve a perception or passive perception.
that said, the invisible condition gives you little benefit while you are seen by any means. Concealment and advantage don’t occur if you are seen.
Narratively a hidden character iis trying to avoid being seen, so narratively a DM might decide if you choose to make yourself seen, you are no longer attempting to hide.
The same exact way you can carry a rock with a strength check, but if you declare you let go the rock, it doesn’t float in the air due to a successful strength check. The dm does this all the time, and they can mitigate or change things anytime they feel it’s warranted. Lifting a rock may require two checks, if it’s hard to balance, str and dex.
5e is not an explicit system where every facet is in the rules, the DM is intended to fill lots of gaps and adjust things. The dm is never intended to be limited or constrained by the rules. However, the rules give you a good idea of the acceptable baseline. The rules will usually work if you follow them, but you don’t have to. A bad rule is one that needs to be adjusted or broken most of the time because it creates problems at many tables.
directly relating to hiding, the new rule works way more often than the previous rule for characters trying to engage with sneaky behaviors, edge cases will always be up to the dm, no matter what the rule. There is no rule which causes no drama for all situation no matter the circumstances
tldr, I don’t think find is meant to mean the dm regularly negates hidden for an undefined reason (it is implicitly defined in the same rule) but the dm always and can adjust things when narrative and mechanics clash or there is an edge case, that’s the baseline assumption of 5e.
I think so. But the Hiding rules, as opposed to the Invisibility spell, doesn't say it ends the Invisible condition upon dealing damage.
Another thing that jump to the eyes, casting a spell with somatic or material components stop the Invisibility spell, but not the Hiding action.
Yes, but I'm not talking about the "damage" stipulation, I'm talking about the "an enemy finds you" stipulation. A jet of fire coming out of the bushes would mean the enemy knows where you are, same as a loud noise. Notice it doesn't say "when an enemy sees you", it says "finds you".
So even if they aren't targeted or damaged by the jet of fire coming from cover, they would immediately know you were there.
An entirely reasonable assumption which lacks any rules support.
I'm reasonably confident that the devs intended for the list of actions that break stealth to be non-exhaustive... but there are a ton of edge cases where I really have no idea what they intended.
I don't know how it lacks rules support. It says it right there in the rules. "an enemy finds you". The DM gets to decide what that means, just the same as the DM gets to decide if you make a "sound louder than a whisper". That's the rule, and the way D&D is played. It is not a 1:1 simulation. There doesn't need to be a spelled-out line in the PHB for every situation. It is literally why the DM exists. If an enemy finds you the "Invisible" condition ends (from Hiding) and the DM gets to decide when that has occurred. They were very specific to not say when an enemy "sees" you.
Revealing yourself is not an enemy finding you.
Please explain? If you are playing hide-and-seek, and you are the person hiding, do you claim victory by jumping out from behind the tree in front of the seeker and saying "You didn't find me, I have merely revealed myself! I win!"
This is exactly what I mean by people not approaching the game/rules in good faith. A player operating in good faith would not be trying to loophole/"gotcha!" the rules by stating they are not found if they reveal themselves. That interpretation would lead to someone "Hiding" behind a tree and then walking out in the open, suggesting they were not "found" because they "revealed" themselves, which is obviously not in good faith.
Just jumping in to say I think the "enemy finds you" is doing exactly what they want. It's both RAW and RAI. AFAIK "find" is not defined (see what I did there?) in the rules. Therefore, it's up to the DM. You want to hide and then sneak up behind someone? Convince the DM that the enemy didn't "find" you while you did that. The DM deciding the enemy wasn't so preoccupied that they couldn't see you trying to sneak up can (and probably should) be situation dependent. They may even call for a roll depending on the environment (heavy boots on hardwood floors vs silk slippers on grass. Far too many different situations possible for line items to address.
The problem is that 'find' is an active verb. It implies that the enemy is doing something, as opposed to you doing something to reveal yourself.
It doesn't imply that all. "I lost my pen, but I found it again when it fell into my lap, through no effort on my part" is a 100% correct use of the word "found." Any GM who wants to split the hair you're splitting is welcome to, because "find" is not defined in the rules. But because it's not defined in the rules, we fall back to the common English meaning of the word. And by that meaning, if an enemy reveals themselves to me, I have found them, because that's how English-speakers speak. A GM can say "But that's now how I use it," and sure. I'm not gonna argue with them about how they run their game or how they speak. But they'd be in a very tiny minority of English speakers.
in the sentence where they say enemy finds you, they say you can be found with a wisdom/perception check. In passive perception, they say it used instead of a wisdom check to find something without actively trying.
i think find may be there to give a little leeway, but the rule basically is saying to use perception versus stealth as the baseline rule. DMs can alter or adjust rules, but baseline, find you should involve a perception or passive perception.
that said, the invisible condition gives you little benefit while you are seen by any means. Concealment and advantage don’t occur if you are seen.
Narratively a hidden character iis trying to avoid being seen, so narratively a DM might decide if you choose to make yourself seen, you are no longer attempting to hide.
The same exact way you can carry a rock with a strength check, but if you declare you let go the rock, it doesn’t float in the air due to a successful strength check. The dm does this all the time, and they can mitigate or change things anytime they feel it’s warranted. Lifting a rock may require two checks, if it’s hard to balance, str and dex.
5e is not an explicit system where every facet is in the rules, the DM is intended to fill lots of gaps and adjust things. The dm is never intended to be limited or constrained by the rules. However, the rules give you a good idea of the acceptable baseline. The rules will usually work if you follow them, but you don’t have to. A bad rule is one that needs to be adjusted or broken most of the time because it creates problems at many tables.
directly relating to hiding, the new rule works way more often than the previous rule for characters trying to engage with sneaky behaviors, edge cases will always be up to the dm, no matter what the rule. There is no rule which causes no drama for all situation no matter the circumstances
tldr, I don’t think find is meant to mean the dm regularly negates hidden for an undefined reason (it is implicitly defined in the same rule) but the dm always and can adjust things when narrative and mechanics clash or there is an edge case, that’s the baseline assumption of 5e.