Ha. That document even says "Game objects are more rigorously capitalized. The following terms are capitalized:" and doesn't list concealed.
In fact, the only time it uses the word "conceal" is "The new search action encompasses Wisdom checks to discern hidden things, such as Wisdom (Perception) checks to find a concealed creature."
Gosh, I wonder if hiding conceals you, and if Perception finds you... It is a mystery of RAI, surely. </sarcasm>
But the condition never says "you are concealed". It says that you have three effects: Surprise, Concealed, and Attacks Affected.
That's an amazing sentence, it doesn't say you are concealed, it just says that you are Concealed.
That's not what I said at all. But it's a great strawman!
Invisible gives you an effect called Concealed., which is defined right after that little period.
The PHB and DMG does this same thing for really everything. It gives a game term or game object in the form of a bolded word followed by a period. Immediately following the period is the definition of that game term.
Ha. That document even says "Game objects are more rigorously capitalized. The following terms are capitalized:" and doesn't list concealed.
In fact, the only time it uses the word "conceal" is "The new search action encompasses Wisdom checks to discern hidden things, such as Wisdom (Perception) checks to find a concealed creature."
Gosh, I wonder if hiding conceals you, and if Perception finds you... It is a mystery of RAI, surely. </sarcasm>
It says that as part of the Search action. So, you're saying that the only way to find a Concealed. character is the Search action?
This document doesn't specifically list a lot of things that are "game objects" that are capitalized. But you know what it does list:
"Named parts of actions, class features, magic items, spells, etc. {the Break Enchantment feature of the Dispel Evil and Good spell}"
It lists as an example the Break Enchantment. part of Dispel Evil and Good, which lo and behold, is the exact same nomenclature as Concealed.
Ha. That document even says "Game objects are more rigorously capitalized. The following terms are capitalized:" and doesn't list concealed. In fact, the only time it uses the word "conceal" is "The new search action encompasses Wisdom checks to discern hidden things, such as Wisdom (Perception) checks to find a concealed creature." Gosh, I wonder if hiding conceals you, and if Perception finds you... It is a mystery of RAI, surely. </sarcasm>
It says that as part of the Search action. So, you're saying that the only way to find a Concealed. character is the Search action? This document doesn't specifically list a lot of things that are "game objects" that are capitalized. But you know what it does list: "Named parts of actions, class features, magic items, spells, etc. {the Break Enchantment feature of the Dispel Evil and Good spell}" It lists as an example the Break Enchantment. part of Dispel Evil and Good, which lo and behold, is the exact same nomenclature as Concealed.
Yes, headings are indeed capitalized. You are quoting a style guide. "Many more game terms are capitalized in SRD 5.2.1 than in 5.1; update their capitalization in your content to match."
Don't change the subject; pay attention to the threading. - There is zero evidence that concealed is a "term of art" that does not "correspond to common language". They use the term, uncapitalized and unadorned, throughout the book. Nowhere is it used as a term of art. They used it as a heading. - Nothing in any of the published materials defines a "term of art" or any formatting rules for declaring one. - Therefore, the notion that "concealed" is a term of art is an interpretation. It is not some special RAW-blessed idea. All RAW-only readings of the text are, by necessity, interpretation.
Dispel Evil and Good sure does break some enchantments. And to quote myself from over a year ago in this very thread, "Waaah, the birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, but doesn't say they are on fire!"
- There is zero evidence that concealed is a "term of art" that does not "correspond to common language".
"Term of art" and "Game term" are the same thing; they're a phrase that has special meaning in the game. Concealed, within the invisible condition, is a game term. Elsewhere it is used without capitalization, which means the way it's used elsewhere may not even have the same meaning (I used the phrase 'term of art' because before you asked me for a source I was relying on half-remembered interviews that talked about this).
Ha. That document even says "Game objects are more rigorously capitalized. The following terms are capitalized:" and doesn't list concealed. In fact, the only time it uses the word "conceal" is "The new search action encompasses Wisdom checks to discern hidden things, such as Wisdom (Perception) checks to find a concealed creature." Gosh, I wonder if hiding conceals you, and if Perception finds you... It is a mystery of RAI, surely. </sarcasm>
It says that as part of the Search action. So, you're saying that the only way to find a Concealed. character is the Search action? This document doesn't specifically list a lot of things that are "game objects" that are capitalized. But you know what it does list: "Named parts of actions, class features, magic items, spells, etc. {the Break Enchantment feature of the Dispel Evil and Good spell}" It lists as an example the Break Enchantment. part of Dispel Evil and Good, which lo and behold, is the exact same nomenclature as Concealed.
Yes, headings are indeed capitalized. You are quoting a style guide. "Many more game terms are capitalized in SRD 5.2.1 than in 5.1; update their capitalization in your content to match."
Don't change the subject; pay attention to the threading. - There is zero evidence that concealed is a "term of art" that does not "correspond to common language". They use the term, uncapitalized and unadorned, throughout the book. Nowhere is it used as a term of art. They used it as a heading. - Nothing in any of the published materials defines a "term of art" or any formatting rules for declaring one. - Therefore, the notion that "concealed" is a term of art is an interpretation. It is not some special RAW-blessed idea. All RAW-only readings of the text are, by necessity, interpretation.
Dispel Evil and Good sure does break some enchantments. And to quote myself from over a year ago in this very thread, "Waaah, the birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, but doesn't say they are on fire!"
I'm sorry, are you saying that the SRD is a style guide? It literally means System Reference Document.
And you're right, "concealed" is not a "term of art"/game term and it corresponds to the natural language understanding. However, Concealed. is a game term and is defined in the Invisible condition. So if they had said "you are concealed", you would have a leg to stand on. But they don't say that, do they? The rule says you have the effect Concealed. and defines exactly what that means.
And a better way to phrase your childish birthday cake argument to more align with the RAW, it would go something like this: "The birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, if they are on fire. But there are no matches, lighters, or even fire mechanic in the game."
Man, are we really just splitting hairs here at this point? This thread (56 pages long) has long turned into pedantic interpretations by legalese rules lawyers that's devolved into bad faith argumentation. The only consensus is that there's is a group that interprets the rules as functional WITHOUT any homebrewing, while there is another that interprets them as dysfunctional WITHOUT any homebrewing. And I say this because you can interpret the rules as functional or dysfunctional as is, and to say any interpretation that makes them functional is homebrewing is honestly being dismissive and petty of these folks. We're long past arguing the merits of the rules and gone into trying to "win" over the others. If you don't like the rule, then alter it in your home games, but understand that not everyone will agree with your interpretations if you play at another table.
I'm sorry, are you saying that the SRD is a style guide? It literally means System Reference Document.
The document is a lot of things. Primarily it is writing that can be included in other works, via Creative Commons.
The update document only talks about capitalization in terms of writing style (when your derivative works should capitalize words).
The SRD itself very clearly states when it is providing definitions. The update document goes into very thorough detail about what definitions have been added, changed, etc. It does not correlate capitalization with definition. It is not saying what you think it says.
And a better way to phrase your childish birthday cake argument to more align with the RAW, it would go something like this: "The birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, if they are on fire. But there are no matches, lighters, or even fire mechanic in the game."
You've got an Action to "Prepare Birthday Cake" that says you are lighting candles, tells you how to use matches, and even gives you a mechanic for blowing lit candles out. It further tells you that it ceases being a Birthday Cake once the candles are blown out (sad!). You've got a "Birthday Cake" Condition that lists "Lit Candles." as one of its effects. Then there's a sentence that says you need to blow out the candles before you can touch them, unless you somehow can touch Birthday Cakes. And you've got several seperate rules that let you "touch things that are on fire" or "move things without touching them."
Of course the candles are lit. Oh no, they bolded the term! It must mean it can't mean what it means!
I know that I'm interpreting the text. I know that you are, too.
Well, i was hoping I'd find a practical guide to how Hiding actually works now. I am disappointed. What a disaster of a rule if no one can agree on how it works.
(I read it as you can only find a hiding creature with a perception check or a spell like see invisibility (so long as it doesn't do one of the other things which explicitly breaks Hide's invisibility), but I see even that could not be agreed on).
That’s the most literal interpretation of the text, the issue being the sheer amount of nonsensical results it produces, both in direct implementation and when you start applying the “the text and nothing but the text” principle that produces that reading to other parts of the game.
If you’re a player, ask your DM. They already have the final say, and if they have their own preconception of how Hide works trying to counter with this mess is unlikely to impress them. If you’re a DM, go with your gut but don’t be afraid to revise if it turns out your initial call is badly broken in either direction. The text might give you some inspiration, but this is one of those cases where for getting practical and satisfying results they’re more like guidelines.
Well, i was hoping I'd find a practical guide to how Hiding actually works now. I am disappointed. What a disaster of a rule if no one can agree on how it works.
(I read it as you can only find a hiding creature with a perception check or a spell like see invisibility (so long as it doesn't do one of the other things which explicitly breaks Hide's invisibility), but I see even that could not be agreed on).
That's how it's being applied in Organized Play in my experience. Contrary to what some here say, it does work as advertised in the PHB (aka no issues). However, if you already have a pre-conceived idea of how it should work like, you will have issues no matter what.
It "works" in that you do X and get Y. Whether Y is reasonable for X is another matter, and as has been amply demonstrated here ending Y is a whole mess of interpretations.
That's how it's being applied in Organized Play in my experience.
Which, absent any official AL rulings, is really just "here's what my tiny sample set does". As far as I can tell AL hasn't tried to rule on anything of the sort.
Unless I'm mistaken, the people (person?) arguing that Hide is perfectly fine and intuitive as is (while also allowing someone to stand out in the open after a successful roll and not be "found") seem to have left the thread some time ago. As far as I can tell, the argument has devolved into "what makes hide—and to what degree is it—unintuitive" with people arguing from different angles, but all ultimately making the same point: that hide needs some work.
A few people are saying that the text works perfectly well without needed interpretation, but leads to unintuitive conclusions that need to be corrected by the DM, while others are saying the text itself isn't tenable without some heavy lifting from the DM to make it work in an intuitive manner.
Not to open this kettle of worms again, I sort of agreed with that poster. Not that you can dance in front of someone, but that by successfully making a stealth check you are maybe tossing a rock to distract people as you move across a open area. accepting that the check is being abstracted into a turn based system with no defined facing. Though yes at some level it would be impossible. But outside of some white room characters would be able to stealth in almost any situation they would normally be in as long as they role play is as trying to hide. In the case of the white room, no cover blah blah, id give the room sort of like a lair effect of hidden people are seen.
To piggyback on this: my recent experience at conventions, AL and LoG are that they are using Perception and Passive Perception to find creatures that are hidden, using it to even ambush players. In a few games my characters have walked in front of a creature hiding and in my line of sight, and unless my passive perception is high enough to beat the enemy's stealth score, I have to run the Search action if I want to find them. This may not be an official ruling, but it's how it's being done in Organized Play so far.
That makes Rogues pretty overpowered then. If they can Hide as a BA and only be found by Passive Perception (PP over 15 is pretty rare unless you have Expertise or Proficiency and a +4 to Wis) or by taking the entire Search Action, Rogues are effectively permanently Invisible in combat unless your DM dedicates an enemy to taking the Search action, which is pretty metagame-y.
And once they hit 7, they are going to succeed every time. This kind of makes Expertise in Stealth a must for playing a Rogue now, because it makes you bonkers broken. Advantage on every attack, untargetable when it's not your turn (so long as you BA Hide at the end of your turn).
There is nothing overpowered about hide mechanically, within the game, creatures already have means of achieving a similar effect with less charachter investment.
Hide requires you to find cover,
pass a 15 check
and lasts only until the next time you attack cast a spell or can be found.
there are many ways to obtain advantage for one hit, some classes can always have advantage, including rogue.(steady aim)
vengeance paladin.
there are many ways to gain disadvantage against attacks, that dont stop you from attacking, like grapple+prone (which confers bith advantage and disadvanatage for any one within range) Monk can dodge, people can all take the dodge action.
multiple ways to get advantage on initiative that are more durable, champion has, as 1 part if one feature, advantage on initiative, they are not the only one.
casters can cast invisibility from level 2, and greater invisibility later on.
The mechanics of hide are not overly impressive.
in fact its more difficult than most skill checks are for determining an outcome, 1. you need to do it ahead of time, 2. it requires both a DC and an opposed roll.
you could just as easily with those investments, on a rogue, reliably convince people you are supposed to be there, (deception/persuation), intimidate people,
And to be clear, you arent required to make a search action to find some one, you can be found by a perception check(wisdom) check. the Search action is a listed way for players to initiate perception checks, but a DM can call for a check whenever they want. They even specifically mention the DM calling for a check when something is hidden in the area. The DM can also always opt to do hidden rolls whenever they think it would apply. Passive checks are used instead of actual rolls, at the dm''s descretion.
Arguments have everything from "it works that way as written as long as you lean a little bit on interpreting some of that written language a certain way" to "the rules are completely unusable as written and need complete DM fiat to function the way you would expect".
I don't really consider those arguments meaningfully distinct; they both amount to "up to the DM to make the rules work sensibly". The simplest way of doing that is to just toss the entire text of the hide and just say "you can hide if the DM says it's appropriate to hide".
As has been said before, you as a DM can homebrew whatever you want. But acting as if because something has DM discretion within it, it means the rule is non functional, negates every rule in the game, The dm guide tells them the DM decides when any and all rules apply.;
"
Improviser. A big part of being the DM is deciding how to apply the rules as you go and imagining the consequences of the characters’ actions in a way that will make the game fun for everyone.
Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules."
this is mentioned in the basics of DMing, and shows up in multiple places and ways. Essentially every rule in the game is used as the DM wants or doesnt want.
The rule is not broken, you simply dont like what it tells you:
Finds you, mechanically is with a perception check. Non mechanically you can be found as the narrative demands.
Just like mechanically you escape a grapple by making a roll, but narratively something may end it by other means. Mechanically you can evade a fireball with evasion feature, but narratively the DM can determine there is no save/way to avoid it in this situation.
If the dm decides you get attacked, knocked out and wake up in a prison, thats what happens. No attack roll, constitution save, etc.
2014 stealth rules are a bad rule, because baseline the serve very little purpose, and dont answer the question of being stealthy that most players will ask. IE i would like to sneak past/by someone or be unnoticed, or i would like to catch someone by surprise.
You can DM as you choose of course, but i would never play a rogue in a 5E campaign that uses 2014 rules. In fact i remember one of my first experiences playing 5E, me and my brother(he was DMIng) scoured the rules to understand the raw of hide, and once it was certain that hide did nothing baseline if you leave cover in 2014, i stopped playing that charachter. A Class literally made to backstab and hide in combat (bonus actions only matter in combat) and a hide action which does nothing in combat that being behind cover dont already do, is a deeply flawed class.
The main reason rogues have expertise as a design concept is so they can reliably use stealth and sleight of hand for class fantasy reasons. If your DMing negates that, it negates the primary reason people would be attracted to the rogue fantasy. And thats why it had to be changed.
I would reccomend if you do ever plan to DM for a rogue you come up with a consistent way they can make use of stealth to be unnoticed even when creatures have 360 degree super vision, and hear everything in a 60 foot range.
In fact if your players plan to play OOC its going to come up often, as sneaking past someone, getting the jump on them, or just being unnoticed by them while observing is a fairly common occurence.
This room contains two beds—one disheveled, the other neatly made—a chest of drawers, and a small table flanked by two chairs. Dirty dishes rest on the table. A shadowy hallway to the east leads to a door. This area contains two hidden foes.
Ronnom Daamos. Aware of the trouble he's caused, Ronnom (Medium, Neutral Evil Assassin) is hiding in the Dim Light of the hallway to the east. Until the human man moves or speaks, noticing him requires taking a Search action and making a successful DC 20 Wisdom (Perception) check. If Eko and Mok lead the characters here (see area M25), or if the characters arrive here from the east (area M36), Ronnom emerges from the shadows to parley with them. Otherwise, he tries to remain hidden.
Ronnom doesn't put himself in harm's way if he can help it. When confronted by one or more unfamiliar foes, he flees to Skalanthas's lair (area M38). If all routes to the lair are cut off, Ronnom tries to bribe enemies with the contents of his top drawer (see "Treasure" below). He fights as a last resort and surrenders if reduced to 20 Hit Points or fewer and unable to flee.
Veen.Veen is an Oni that has cast Invisibility on herself. Veen kidnapped Ronnom when he was a child. When the oni perceived the boy's malevolent nature, she befriended Ronnom, and the two remain allies to this day. Using her shape-shifting ability, Veen presents herself as a tall, red-haired, human woman with jade-green eyes. If the characters combat Ronnom, Veen fights to the death to defend him.
Which is helpful for understanding RAI, but is fairly hard to square with RAW. There are a couple of issues:
He is hiding in dim light, which means he is lightly obscured. However, neither effect has any listed interactions with hide; the two most straightforward readings are that the prerequisites for hide only apply when taking the action (in which case he doesn't need dim light to remain unseen), or that the prerequisites for hide are ongoing (in which case he can't hide in dim light).
Related to (1), the search action to find him does not mention disadvantage for dim light, which makes me think it does not apply, nor does it address whether darkvision has any effect.
The assassin is hidden until he moves or speaks. Speaks, sure, that's a listed way of ending hide. Moves? Not so much.
Saying "you need to be heavily obscured or 3/4 cover to become hidden, but being lightly obscured or 1/2 cover is sufficient to remain hidden" is a plausible enough rule (and accounts for both (1) and (3), and is mostly the way it worked in 3e and 4e) but never actually stated.
For the record, where is that declared in any of the books? Is that RAW? Or is that your interpretation of RAW?
https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/srd/guide/converting-to-srd-5.2.1.pdf discusses capitalization of game terms.
Ha. That document even says "Game objects are more rigorously capitalized. The following terms are capitalized:" and doesn't list concealed.
In fact, the only time it uses the word "conceal" is "The new search action encompasses Wisdom checks to discern hidden things, such as Wisdom (Perception) checks to find a concealed creature."
Gosh, I wonder if hiding conceals you, and if Perception finds you... It is a mystery of RAI, surely. </sarcasm>
That's not what I said at all. But it's a great strawman!
Invisible gives you an effect called Concealed., which is defined right after that little period.
The PHB and DMG does this same thing for really everything. It gives a game term or game object in the form of a bolded word followed by a period. Immediately following the period is the definition of that game term.
It says that as part of the Search action. So, you're saying that the only way to find a Concealed. character is the Search action?
This document doesn't specifically list a lot of things that are "game objects" that are capitalized. But you know what it does list:
"Named parts of actions, class features, magic items, spells, etc. {the Break Enchantment feature of the Dispel Evil and Good spell}"
It lists as an example the Break Enchantment. part of Dispel Evil and Good, which lo and behold, is the exact same nomenclature as Concealed.
Yes, headings are indeed capitalized. You are quoting a style guide. "Many more game terms are capitalized in SRD 5.2.1 than in 5.1; update their capitalization in your content to match."
Don't change the subject; pay attention to the threading.
- There is zero evidence that concealed is a "term of art" that does not "correspond to common language". They use the term, uncapitalized and unadorned, throughout the book. Nowhere is it used as a term of art. They used it as a heading.
- Nothing in any of the published materials defines a "term of art" or any formatting rules for declaring one.
- Therefore, the notion that "concealed" is a term of art is an interpretation. It is not some special RAW-blessed idea. All RAW-only readings of the text are, by necessity, interpretation.
Dispel Evil and Good sure does break some enchantments. And to quote myself from over a year ago in this very thread, "Waaah, the birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, but doesn't say they are on fire!"
"Term of art" and "Game term" are the same thing; they're a phrase that has special meaning in the game. Concealed, within the invisible condition, is a game term. Elsewhere it is used without capitalization, which means the way it's used elsewhere may not even have the same meaning (I used the phrase 'term of art' because before you asked me for a source I was relying on half-remembered interviews that talked about this).
I'm sorry, are you saying that the SRD is a style guide? It literally means System Reference Document.
And you're right, "concealed" is not a "term of art"/game term and it corresponds to the natural language understanding. However, Concealed. is a game term and is defined in the Invisible condition. So if they had said "you are concealed", you would have a leg to stand on. But they don't say that, do they? The rule says you have the effect Concealed. and defines exactly what that means.
And a better way to phrase your childish birthday cake argument to more align with the RAW, it would go something like this: "The birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, if they are on fire. But there are no matches, lighters, or even fire mechanic in the game."
Man, are we really just splitting hairs here at this point? This thread (56 pages long) has long turned into pedantic interpretations by legalese rules lawyers that's devolved into bad faith argumentation. The only consensus is that there's is a group that interprets the rules as functional WITHOUT any homebrewing, while there is another that interprets them as dysfunctional WITHOUT any homebrewing. And I say this because you can interpret the rules as functional or dysfunctional as is, and to say any interpretation that makes them functional is homebrewing is honestly being dismissive and petty of these folks. We're long past arguing the merits of the rules and gone into trying to "win" over the others. If you don't like the rule, then alter it in your home games, but understand that not everyone will agree with your interpretations if you play at another table.
The document is a lot of things. Primarily it is writing that can be included in other works, via Creative Commons.
The update document only talks about capitalization in terms of writing style (when your derivative works should capitalize words).
The SRD itself very clearly states when it is providing definitions. The update document goes into very thorough detail about what definitions have been added, changed, etc. It does not correlate capitalization with definition. It is not saying what you think it says.
You've got an Action to "Prepare Birthday Cake" that says you are lighting candles, tells you how to use matches, and even gives you a mechanic for blowing lit candles out. It further tells you that it ceases being a Birthday Cake once the candles are blown out (sad!). You've got a "Birthday Cake" Condition that lists "Lit Candles." as one of its effects. Then there's a sentence that says you need to blow out the candles before you can touch them, unless you somehow can touch Birthday Cakes. And you've got several seperate rules that let you "touch things that are on fire" or "move things without touching them."
Of course the candles are lit. Oh no, they bolded the term! It must mean it can't mean what it means!
I know that I'm interpreting the text. I know that you are, too.
Well, i was hoping I'd find a practical guide to how Hiding actually works now. I am disappointed. What a disaster of a rule if no one can agree on how it works.
(I read it as you can only find a hiding creature with a perception check or a spell like see invisibility (so long as it doesn't do one of the other things which explicitly breaks Hide's invisibility), but I see even that could not be agreed on).
That’s the most literal interpretation of the text, the issue being the sheer amount of nonsensical results it produces, both in direct implementation and when you start applying the “the text and nothing but the text” principle that produces that reading to other parts of the game.
If you’re a player, ask your DM. They already have the final say, and if they have their own preconception of how Hide works trying to counter with this mess is unlikely to impress them. If you’re a DM, go with your gut but don’t be afraid to revise if it turns out your initial call is badly broken in either direction. The text might give you some inspiration, but this is one of those cases where for getting practical and satisfying results they’re more like guidelines.
That's how it's being applied in Organized Play in my experience. Contrary to what some here say, it does work as advertised in the PHB (aka no issues). However, if you already have a pre-conceived idea of how it should work like, you will have issues no matter what.
It "works" in that you do X and get Y. Whether Y is reasonable for X is another matter, and as has been amply demonstrated here ending Y is a whole mess of interpretations.
Which, absent any official AL rulings, is really just "here's what my tiny sample set does". As far as I can tell AL hasn't tried to rule on anything of the sort.
Incidentally, we can actually make one definite statement: the search action is not the only way to find a hidden creature; https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sae/sage-advice-compendium#SAC-Adventuring1 describes finding a hidden creature without using the search action.
There is nothing overpowered about hide mechanically, within the game, creatures already have means of achieving a similar effect with less charachter investment.
Hide requires you to find cover,
pass a 15 check
and lasts only until the next time you attack cast a spell or can be found.
there are many ways to obtain advantage for one hit, some classes can always have advantage, including rogue.(steady aim)
vengeance paladin.
there are many ways to gain disadvantage against attacks, that dont stop you from attacking, like grapple+prone (which confers bith advantage and disadvanatage for any one within range) Monk can dodge, people can all take the dodge action.
multiple ways to get advantage on initiative that are more durable, champion has, as 1 part if one feature, advantage on initiative, they are not the only one.
casters can cast invisibility from level 2, and greater invisibility later on.
The mechanics of hide are not overly impressive.
in fact its more difficult than most skill checks are for determining an outcome, 1. you need to do it ahead of time, 2. it requires both a DC and an opposed roll.
you could just as easily with those investments, on a rogue, reliably convince people you are supposed to be there, (deception/persuation), intimidate people,
And to be clear, you arent required to make a search action to find some one, you can be found by a perception check(wisdom) check. the Search action is a listed way for players to initiate perception checks, but a DM can call for a check whenever they want. They even specifically mention the DM calling for a check when something is hidden in the area. The DM can also always opt to do hidden rolls whenever they think it would apply. Passive checks are used instead of actual rolls, at the dm''s descretion.
t
As has been said before, you as a DM can homebrew whatever you want. But acting as if because something has DM discretion within it, it means the rule is non functional, negates every rule in the game, The dm guide tells them the DM decides when any and all rules apply.;
"
Improviser. A big part of being the DM is deciding how to apply the rules as you go and imagining the consequences of the characters’ actions in a way that will make the game fun for everyone.
Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules."
this is mentioned in the basics of DMing, and shows up in multiple places and ways. Essentially every rule in the game is used as the DM wants or doesnt want.
The rule is not broken, you simply dont like what it tells you:
Finds you, mechanically is with a perception check. Non mechanically you can be found as the narrative demands.
Just like mechanically you escape a grapple by making a roll, but narratively something may end it by other means. Mechanically you can evade a fireball with evasion feature, but narratively the DM can determine there is no save/way to avoid it in this situation.
If the dm decides you get attacked, knocked out and wake up in a prison, thats what happens. No attack roll, constitution save, etc.
2014 stealth rules are a bad rule, because baseline the serve very little purpose, and dont answer the question of being stealthy that most players will ask. IE i would like to sneak past/by someone or be unnoticed, or i would like to catch someone by surprise.
You can DM as you choose of course, but i would never play a rogue in a 5E campaign that uses 2014 rules. In fact i remember one of my first experiences playing 5E, me and my brother(he was DMIng) scoured the rules to understand the raw of hide, and once it was certain that hide did nothing baseline if you leave cover in 2014, i stopped playing that charachter. A Class literally made to backstab and hide in combat (bonus actions only matter in combat) and a hide action which does nothing in combat that being behind cover dont already do, is a deeply flawed class.
The main reason rogues have expertise as a design concept is so they can reliably use stealth and sleight of hand for class fantasy reasons. If your DMing negates that, it negates the primary reason people would be attracted to the rogue fantasy. And thats why it had to be changed.
I would reccomend if you do ever plan to DM for a rogue you come up with a consistent way they can make use of stealth to be unnoticed even when creatures have 360 degree super vision, and hear everything in a 60 foot range.
In fact if your players plan to play OOC its going to come up often, as sneaking past someone, getting the jump on them, or just being unnoticed by them while observing is a fairly common occurence.
In the Dragon Delves: The Dragon of Najkir adventure is an encounter with a hidden assassin;
Which is helpful for understanding RAI, but is fairly hard to square with RAW. There are a couple of issues:
Saying "you need to be heavily obscured or 3/4 cover to become hidden, but being lightly obscured or 1/2 cover is sufficient to remain hidden" is a plausible enough rule (and accounts for both (1) and (3), and is mostly the way it worked in 3e and 4e) but never actually stated.
ANother odd thing is they refer to two hidden foes, but the other enemy Veen is under Invisibility,
I don't know so far if there are other 5E24 adventure explicitely making uses of Hide