. . .I would say so, but as we’ve seen, the argument exists that by RAW if a player’s actions don’t explicitly break Hide only a Search Action can. I don’t agree, but by a strictly by the book reading the case is there.
That argument is badly flawed. Being 'found' is not explicitly spelled out. One way to do it is, but there is nothing written that states that is the only way. Thus, the argument cannot be made that it is RAW.
Now, the argument can certainly be made 'I feel that the designers meant it to be that way', but that is now an Interpretation.
In short, neither position exists in a land of 'strictly RAW' and I will happily point that out to people on either side who try to insist that their way is the only way the text can be read.
I will also admit to being in the camp of 'Stealth is not Invisibility' and if people want to discuss narrative issues, balance issues, or anything else I think those are perfectly legitimate topics. I just don't think that, at present, anyone has a legitimate claim to 'RAW'.
The DM making decisions about what they players can and cannot do in any particular situation is the core game mechanics.
While this is true, one of the goals mentioned for 2024 was cutting down on "mother may I" mechanics, and I have to assume that that was a significant part of the motivation for changing the hide action, because there was a lot of inconsistency to how DMs handled it in 2014. As such, I have to assume that they were trying to cut down on the uncertainty about how it worked.
The DM making decisions about what they players can and cannot do in any particular situation is the core game mechanics.
While this is true, one of the goals mentioned for 2024 was cutting down on "mother may I" mechanics, and I have to assume that that was a significant part of the motivation for changing the hide action, because there was a lot of inconsistency to how DMs handled it in 2014. As such, I have to assume that they were trying to cut down on the uncertainty about how it worked.
Unfortunately Stealth and Perception are one of those things where, unless you want to spend just an absolutely ungodly amount of time and space making rules, it is better off leaving it in the hands of the DM.
I, for one, do not really want to calculate the Decibel drop of competing sounds at different distances so I can figure out if one sound is obscuring the other. Likewise, I don't really want to be wading through rules that talk about illumination in a way that can deal with complex issues such as being hidden by being on the opposite side of a bright fire (or some other light source).
As it is, the attempt to 'standardize' the rules for Stealth can lead to some pretty hilarious situations, if people really insist on following them.
e.g., The Scout, lying in the tall grass half a mile from the castle wall coughs quietly. Suddenly all the guards see him because he made a sound louder than a whisper, despite the fact that there is no way they could have heard the actual sound.
I'm not sure why you believe Stealth and Perception require an ungodly amount of rules. They're actually pretty simple in 2024 and you don't need much input from the DM at all. What it sounds like is that you don't want the rules to be simple. But this is no different than complaining about reducing weapons combat down to simple dice rolls. Obviously, fighting with weapons is far more complicated and situational than a simple die roll. That doesn't mean we can't abstract it as one.
If i understand correctly you are saying that only the search action would cover "an enemy finds you"
I’m not, but I acknowledge that the argument exists and by a very literal reading of RAW I can follow the chain of thought for “your roll is the DC to find you” and “you are Invisible until you make a sound louder than a whisper, are found, attack, or use a V component” meaning the only way you are found is via the Search DC. Which is why I’m saying Hide was poorly constructed; it starts with establishing a hard mechanical threshold and then says something that could be interpreted either as DM fiat or as reaffirming that the DC is the only way the condition can end prior to you taking one of the actions. The latter creates all kinds of nonsensical outcomes, but the writing fails to clearly define which path was intended.
I'm not sure why you believe Stealth and Perception require an ungodly amount of rules. They're actually pretty simple in 2024 and you don't need much input from the DM at all. What it sounds like is that you don't want the rules to be simple. But this is no different than complaining about reducing weapons combat down to simple dice rolls. Obviously, fighting with weapons is far more complicated and situational than a simple die roll. That doesn't mean we can't abstract it as one.
It’s simple according to certain interpretations, but it creates nonsensical outcomes where I can turn a corner in a well-lit hallway, Hide, and require someone who then follows to beat my Stealth roll to find me despite there being no cover and ample light down the hallway. Yes, the game is not a simulation, but one does expect a strong degree of verisimilitude- if I let go of something it falls, if I bend a dry branch it breaks, etc. The idea that Hide functions as I described above is problematic to people because it’s like the nat 20 Persuade to get a king to give you his kingdom- it’s a result so irrational it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
I’m not, but I acknowledge that the argument exists and by a very literal reading of RAW I can follow the chain of thought for “your roll is the DC to find you” and “you are Invisible until you make a sound louder than a whisper, are found, attack, or use a V component” meaning the only way you are found is via the Search DC. Which is why I’m saying Hide was poorly constructed; it starts with establishing a hard mechanical threshold and then says something that could be interpreted either as DM fiat or as reaffirming that the DC is the only way the condition can end prior to you taking one of the actions. The latter creates all kinds of nonsensical outcomes, but the writing fails to clearly define which path was intended.
Technically, the RAW provides a mechanical threshold, but explicitly allows the DM to say "you just can't hide here." So the DM fiat pre-empts the mechanic rather than being a rude surprise to the hider.
Once you are Hidden, the DM can still mess with you (give you Disadvantage on "move silently" checks; give people Advantage (+5) on hearing you with Passive Perception; giving dedicated guards Advantage on searching for you... And if they want to say "look, if the guy comes around the corner, he'll just see you, unless you duck behind the second desk," they still can.
Again, in the case of combat, where the "action economy" is king and the game needs discrete mechanics to be playable, "finding you requires a Search Action" is a very wise rule.
I'm not sure why you believe Stealth and Perception require an ungodly amount of rules.
Well, it only requires a lot of rules if you want the rules to actually produce sensible results. There are two simple ways of reading the 2024 hide rules (either you're automatically revealed when you lose the listed prerequisites, or you are only revealed by the listed ways of losing stealth), but both of them produce results that a lot of people don't like.
I'm not sure why you believe Stealth and Perception require an ungodly amount of rules. They're actually pretty simple in 2024 and you don't need much input from the DM at all. What it sounds like is that you don't want the rules to be simple. But this is no different than complaining about reducing weapons combat down to simple dice rolls. Obviously, fighting with weapons is far more complicated and situational than a simple die roll. That doesn't mean we can't abstract it as one.
It’s simple according to certain interpretations, but it creates nonsensical outcomes where I can turn a corner in a well-lit hallway, Hide, and require someone who then follows to beat my Stealth roll to find me despite there being no cover and ample light down the hallway. Yes, the game is not a simulation, but one does expect a strong degree of verisimilitude- if I let go of something it falls, if I bend a dry branch it breaks, etc. The idea that Hide functions as I described above is problematic to people because it’s like the nat 20 Persuade to get a king to give you his kingdom- it’s a result so irrational it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Those "nonsensical outcomes" are no more nonsensical than anything else in D&D. Characters who specialize in Stealth are supposed to do precisely what you consider "nonsensical", in the same way that some medium size builds can hurl enormous flying creatures to the ground with their bare hands.
I’m not, but I acknowledge that the argument exists and by a very literal reading of RAW I can follow the chain of thought for “your roll is the DC to find you” and “you are Invisible until you make a sound louder than a whisper, are found, attack, or use a V component” meaning the only way you are found is via the Search DC. Which is why I’m saying Hide was poorly constructed; it starts with establishing a hard mechanical threshold and then says something that could be interpreted either as DM fiat or as reaffirming that the DC is the only way the condition can end prior to you taking one of the actions. The latter creates all kinds of nonsensical outcomes, but the writing fails to clearly define which path was intended.
Technically, the RAW provides a mechanical threshold, but explicitly allows the DM to say "you just can't hide here." So the DM fiat pre-empts the mechanic rather than being a rude surprise to the hider.
Once you are Hidden, the DM can still mess with you (give you Disadvantage on "move silently" checks; give people Advantage (+5) on hearing you with Passive Perception; giving dedicated guards Advantage on searching for you... And if they want to say "look, if the guy comes around the corner, he'll just see you, unless you duck behind the second desk," they still can.
Again, in the case of combat, where the "action economy" is king and the game needs discrete mechanics to be playable, "finding you requires a Search Action" is a very wise rule.
I'll sort of split the difference with you;
'Finding requires successful use of Perception, barring extenuating circumstances'.
If someone, or something, has a high enough Perception that it beats the roll with Passive Perception it feels like they shouldn't have to take a Search Action. We are talking a Passive Perception of at least 15 (any lower roll fails the Hide Action) and in a lot of cases we are probably looking at scores like 23 or more (9th level Rogue, 20 Dex, Expertise in Stealth, and Reliable Talent). Anything that perceptive should be able to spot things that are 'barely hidden'.
And 'extenuating circumstances' needs to be added A) because such things simply occur, and B) because without the language it is too open to abuse ('Oh, I'm not Attacking. That would end my Stealth. I'm just using the Help Action to assist him in combat", "Feat X lets me cast Cure Wounds without a Verbal component, so no one can see me standing right next to the fighter in the middle of combat casting it on him over and over', etc.).
Again, in the case of combat, where the "action economy" is king and the game needs discrete mechanics to be playable, "finding you requires a Search Action" is a very wise rule.
Um... no, it fairly thoroughly breaks the action economy if the only way to find someone is the search action.
I'm not sure why you believe Stealth and Perception require an ungodly amount of rules. They're actually pretty simple in 2024 and you don't need much input from the DM at all. What it sounds like is that you don't want the rules to be simple. But this is no different than complaining about reducing weapons combat down to simple dice rolls. Obviously, fighting with weapons is far more complicated and situational than a simple die roll. That doesn't mean we can't abstract it as one.
It’s simple according to certain interpretations, but it creates nonsensical outcomes where I can turn a corner in a well-lit hallway, Hide, and require someone who then follows to beat my Stealth roll to find me despite there being no cover and ample light down the hallway. Yes, the game is not a simulation, but one does expect a strong degree of verisimilitude- if I let go of something it falls, if I bend a dry branch it breaks, etc. The idea that Hide functions as I described above is problematic to people because it’s like the nat 20 Persuade to get a king to give you his kingdom- it’s a result so irrational it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Those "nonsensical outcomes" are no more nonsensical than anything else in D&D. Characters who specialize in Stealth are supposed to do precisely what you consider "nonsensical", in the same way that some medium size builds can hurl enormous flying creatures to the ground with their bare hands.
So then Characters who specialize in Persuasion should be able to do things like convince the King to turn over their kingdom with a good die roll?
Technically, the RAW provides a mechanical threshold, but explicitly allows the DM to say "you just can't hide here." So the DM fiat pre-empts the mechanic rather than being a rude surprise to the hider. Once you are Hidden, the DM can still mess with you (give you Disadvantage on "move silently" checks; give people Advantage (+5) on hearing you with Passive Perception; giving dedicated guards Advantage on searching for you... And if they want to say "look, if the guy comes around the corner, he'll just see you, unless you duck behind the second desk," they still can. Again, in the case of combat, where the "action economy" is king and the game needs discrete mechanics to be playable, "finding you requires a Search Action" is a very wise rule.
I'll sort of split the difference with you; 'Finding requires successful use of Perception, barring extenuating circumstances'. If someone, or something, has a high enough Perception that it beats the roll with Passive Perception it feels like they shouldn't have to take a Search Action. We are talking a Passive Perception of at least 15 (any lower roll fails the Hide Action) and in a lot of cases we are probably looking at scores like 23 or more (9th level Rogue, 20 Dex, Expertise in Stealth, and Reliable Talent). Anything that perceptive should be able to spot things that are 'barely hidden'. And 'extenuating circumstances' needs to be added A) because such things simply occur, and B) because without the language it is too open to abuse ('Oh, I'm not Attacking. That would end my Stealth. I'm just using the Help Action to assist him in combat", "Feat X lets me cast Cure Wounds without a Verbal component, so no one can see me standing right next to the fighter in the middle of combat casting it on him over and over', etc.).
I would leave "Passive Perception beats the actual Hide Action" to those extenuating circumstances. My favorite example is "you try to Hide while there's a counter-sniper in an overwatch position" or something like that.
And I think any sane DM would rule that the Help Action makes a sound louder than a whisper, etc.
Again, in the case of combat, where the "action economy" is king and the game needs discrete mechanics to be playable, "finding you requires a Search Action" is a very wise rule.
Um... no, it fairly thoroughly breaks the action economy if the only way to find someone is the search action.
It takes an Action (or Bonus Action for a Rogue), a good roll, and some special circumstances to Hide; it takes an Action (or Bonus Action for someone with the Observant Feat), a good roll, and no special circumstance to find. Pretty fair to me.
Imagine the PC is the one fighting a rogue: You know there's a sniper hiding in the bushes "over there" who keeps shooting you or your allies, so on your turn you go to those bushes and Search. If you are Observant, you can save your Action to attack them when you find them! Or there's a stabby guy who keeps springing out of the bushes, shanking you, then disappearing back, and you don't have any good targets. Choose Dodge as your Action --- no Sneak Attack for them! (Monks can do that as a Bonus Action!)
It takes an Action (or Bonus Action for a Rogue), a good roll, and some special circumstances to Hide; it takes an Action (or Bonus Action for someone with the Observant Feat), a good roll, and no special circumstance to find. Pretty fair to me.
It's far too easy to build a character who can reliably achieve 25-30 on stealth checks to make penetrating stealth dependent on taking an action.
So then Characters who specialize in Persuasion should be able to do things like convince the King to turn over their kingdom with a good die roll?
This is an odd non-sequitur. You can't use Persuasion for this purpose for the same reason you can't roll Insight to make an enemy's head explode: there are no rules supporting that use of those skills. In contrast, we have detailed rules regarding Stealth and its specific applications.
I get that some people don't want to accept that those rules exist, but they do exist, they are intended and they're necessary for game balance.
The issue being that by RAW if I and an enemy are in non-magical darkness and they don’t have darkvision, I could be a Rogue, Hide as a Bonus Action, and then use my Action to light a torch, lantern, etc and still remain Invisible by the argument that only the explicitly spelled out criteria end Hide. It’s completely nonsensical, but the ambiguity of what qualifies as being found and use of Invisible for the effect create the result. Yes, it’s a nonsensical case, but unlike Peasant Railgun type stuff it’s running on actual mechanics, not inference. Ergo, I and other feel the RAW is very poorly constructed here.
What are you talking about? No that's not how RAW works. RAW as soon as you light a torch you are not hidden - you are standing in full view with a spotlight on you, so your Invisible condition ends and the enemy can strike you without any penalty.
I would say so, but as we’ve seen, the argument exists that by RAW if a player’s actions don’t explicitly break Hide only a Search Action can. I don’t agree, but by a strictly by the book reading the case is there.
Only by people who want to break the game, they shouldn't be listened to, and DMs should kick them from the table. No amount of writing will ever prevent people who want to break the game from coming up with a illogical "interpretation" that allows them to break the game, it will only turn people off of the game by having a massive rule book with weirdly technical language. Because the human brain is much better at coming up with rationalizations to justify doing what it wants to do than actually thinking rationally. If you don't agree with an argument then maybe stop spreading it?
So then Characters who specialize in Persuasion should be able to do things like convince the King to turn over their kingdom with a good die roll?
This is an odd non-sequitur. You can't use Persuasion for this purpose for the same reason you can't roll Insight to make an enemy's head explode: there are no rules supporting that use of those skills. In contrast, we have detailed rules regarding Stealth and its specific applications.
I get that some people don't want to accept that those rules exist, but they do exist, they are intended and they're necessary for game balance.
There absolutely is in 2024:
Influence [Action]
With the Influence action, you urge a monster to do something. ... The DM then determines whether the monster feels willing, unwilling, or hesitant due to your interaction; this determination establishes whether an ability check is necessary, as explained below.
Willing. If your urging aligns with the monster’s desires, no ability check is necessary; the monster fulfills your request in a way it prefers.
Unwilling. If your urging is repugnant to the monster or counter to its alignment, no ability check is necessary; it doesn’t comply.
Hesitant. If you urge the monster to do something that it is hesitant to do, you must make an ability check, which is affected by the monster’s attitude: Indifferent, Friendly, or Hostile, each of which is defined in this glossary. The Influence Checks table suggests which ability check to make based on how you’re interacting with the monster. The DM chooses the check, which has a default DC equal to 15 or the monster’s Intelligence score, whichever is higher. On a successful check, the monster does as urged. On a failed check, you must wait 24 hours (or a duration set by the DM) before urging it in the same way again.
This has the exact same proviso as the Hide action where by the DM decides if you can hide, the Influence action is dependent on the DM deciding if you can persuade the target to do a thing.
There's no reference to finding those under Invisibility because it's for when hidden which isn't the case.
Otherwise you generally notice creature unless they're stealthy is how i rules it.
Perception and Encounters
If the characters encounter another group of creatures and neither side is being stealthy, the two groups automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another
But if they both give you the same condition, how am I visible with one and not with the other? And isn't Hiding by definition being stealthy??
You're not visible while Invisible in any way shape or form, unless a Special Senses such as Blindsight or Truesight that specifically let you see see creatures that have the Invisible condition.
This was absolutely the case in 2014. But nothing in Invisible says that for 5.5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That argument is badly flawed. Being 'found' is not explicitly spelled out. One way to do it is, but there is nothing written that states that is the only way. Thus, the argument cannot be made that it is RAW.
Now, the argument can certainly be made 'I feel that the designers meant it to be that way', but that is now an Interpretation.
In short, neither position exists in a land of 'strictly RAW' and I will happily point that out to people on either side who try to insist that their way is the only way the text can be read.
I will also admit to being in the camp of 'Stealth is not Invisibility' and if people want to discuss narrative issues, balance issues, or anything else I think those are perfectly legitimate topics. I just don't think that, at present, anyone has a legitimate claim to 'RAW'.
While this is true, one of the goals mentioned for 2024 was cutting down on "mother may I" mechanics, and I have to assume that that was a significant part of the motivation for changing the hide action, because there was a lot of inconsistency to how DMs handled it in 2014. As such, I have to assume that they were trying to cut down on the uncertainty about how it worked.
If i understand correctly you are saying that only the search action would cover "an enemy finds you"
Unfortunately Stealth and Perception are one of those things where, unless you want to spend just an absolutely ungodly amount of time and space making rules, it is better off leaving it in the hands of the DM.
I, for one, do not really want to calculate the Decibel drop of competing sounds at different distances so I can figure out if one sound is obscuring the other. Likewise, I don't really want to be wading through rules that talk about illumination in a way that can deal with complex issues such as being hidden by being on the opposite side of a bright fire (or some other light source).
As it is, the attempt to 'standardize' the rules for Stealth can lead to some pretty hilarious situations, if people really insist on following them.
e.g., The Scout, lying in the tall grass half a mile from the castle wall coughs quietly. Suddenly all the guards see him because he made a sound louder than a whisper, despite the fact that there is no way they could have heard the actual sound.
I'm not sure why you believe Stealth and Perception require an ungodly amount of rules. They're actually pretty simple in 2024 and you don't need much input from the DM at all. What it sounds like is that you don't want the rules to be simple. But this is no different than complaining about reducing weapons combat down to simple dice rolls. Obviously, fighting with weapons is far more complicated and situational than a simple die roll. That doesn't mean we can't abstract it as one.
I’m not, but I acknowledge that the argument exists and by a very literal reading of RAW I can follow the chain of thought for “your roll is the DC to find you” and “you are Invisible until you make a sound louder than a whisper, are found, attack, or use a V component” meaning the only way you are found is via the Search DC. Which is why I’m saying Hide was poorly constructed; it starts with establishing a hard mechanical threshold and then says something that could be interpreted either as DM fiat or as reaffirming that the DC is the only way the condition can end prior to you taking one of the actions. The latter creates all kinds of nonsensical outcomes, but the writing fails to clearly define which path was intended.
It’s simple according to certain interpretations, but it creates nonsensical outcomes where I can turn a corner in a well-lit hallway, Hide, and require someone who then follows to beat my Stealth roll to find me despite there being no cover and ample light down the hallway. Yes, the game is not a simulation, but one does expect a strong degree of verisimilitude- if I let go of something it falls, if I bend a dry branch it breaks, etc. The idea that Hide functions as I described above is problematic to people because it’s like the nat 20 Persuade to get a king to give you his kingdom- it’s a result so irrational it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Technically, the RAW provides a mechanical threshold, but explicitly allows the DM to say "you just can't hide here." So the DM fiat pre-empts the mechanic rather than being a rude surprise to the hider.
Once you are Hidden, the DM can still mess with you (give you Disadvantage on "move silently" checks; give people Advantage (+5) on hearing you with Passive Perception; giving dedicated guards Advantage on searching for you... And if they want to say "look, if the guy comes around the corner, he'll just see you, unless you duck behind the second desk," they still can.
Again, in the case of combat, where the "action economy" is king and the game needs discrete mechanics to be playable, "finding you requires a Search Action" is a very wise rule.
Well, it only requires a lot of rules if you want the rules to actually produce sensible results. There are two simple ways of reading the 2024 hide rules (either you're automatically revealed when you lose the listed prerequisites, or you are only revealed by the listed ways of losing stealth), but both of them produce results that a lot of people don't like.
Those "nonsensical outcomes" are no more nonsensical than anything else in D&D. Characters who specialize in Stealth are supposed to do precisely what you consider "nonsensical", in the same way that some medium size builds can hurl enormous flying creatures to the ground with their bare hands.
I'll sort of split the difference with you;
'Finding requires successful use of Perception, barring extenuating circumstances'.
If someone, or something, has a high enough Perception that it beats the roll with Passive Perception it feels like they shouldn't have to take a Search Action. We are talking a Passive Perception of at least 15 (any lower roll fails the Hide Action) and in a lot of cases we are probably looking at scores like 23 or more (9th level Rogue, 20 Dex, Expertise in Stealth, and Reliable Talent). Anything that perceptive should be able to spot things that are 'barely hidden'.
And 'extenuating circumstances' needs to be added A) because such things simply occur, and B) because without the language it is too open to abuse ('Oh, I'm not Attacking. That would end my Stealth. I'm just using the Help Action to assist him in combat", "Feat X lets me cast Cure Wounds without a Verbal component, so no one can see me standing right next to the fighter in the middle of combat casting it on him over and over', etc.).
Um... no, it fairly thoroughly breaks the action economy if the only way to find someone is the search action.
So then Characters who specialize in Persuasion should be able to do things like convince the King to turn over their kingdom with a good die roll?
I would leave "Passive Perception beats the actual Hide Action" to those extenuating circumstances. My favorite example is "you try to Hide while there's a counter-sniper in an overwatch position" or something like that.
And I think any sane DM would rule that the Help Action makes a sound louder than a whisper, etc.
It takes an Action (or Bonus Action for a Rogue), a good roll, and some special circumstances to Hide; it takes an Action (or Bonus Action for someone with the Observant Feat), a good roll, and no special circumstance to find. Pretty fair to me.
Imagine the PC is the one fighting a rogue:
You know there's a sniper hiding in the bushes "over there" who keeps shooting you or your allies, so on your turn you go to those bushes and Search. If you are Observant, you can save your Action to attack them when you find them!
Or there's a stabby guy who keeps springing out of the bushes, shanking you, then disappearing back, and you don't have any good targets. Choose Dodge as your Action --- no Sneak Attack for them! (Monks can do that as a Bonus Action!)
It's far too easy to build a character who can reliably achieve 25-30 on stealth checks to make penetrating stealth dependent on taking an action.
This is an odd non-sequitur. You can't use Persuasion for this purpose for the same reason you can't roll Insight to make an enemy's head explode: there are no rules supporting that use of those skills. In contrast, we have detailed rules regarding Stealth and its specific applications.
I get that some people don't want to accept that those rules exist, but they do exist, they are intended and they're necessary for game balance.
Only by people who want to break the game, they shouldn't be listened to, and DMs should kick them from the table. No amount of writing will ever prevent people who want to break the game from coming up with a illogical "interpretation" that allows them to break the game, it will only turn people off of the game by having a massive rule book with weirdly technical language. Because the human brain is much better at coming up with rationalizations to justify doing what it wants to do than actually thinking rationally. If you don't agree with an argument then maybe stop spreading it?
There absolutely is in 2024:
This has the exact same proviso as the Hide action where by the DM decides if you can hide, the Influence action is dependent on the DM deciding if you can persuade the target to do a thing.
This was absolutely the case in 2014. But nothing in Invisible says that for 5.5e.