I am stunned that the writers of 2024 could do no better than this.
Why? Were you under the impression that writing clear rules was a strength of the D&D 5e team?
Wizards of the Coast absolutely has people whose expertise is writing clear rules that cover corner cases; go look at the Magic the Gathering Comprehensive Rules. Now, imagine the D&D rulebooks written in that same style. Do you think most readers would have liked that, or would they be put off?
Wizards (probably correctly) felt that a technical writing style would be offputting for a lot of potential customers, and chose a different style. This will, inevitably, result in unclear cases -- technical documents are written the way they are for a reason. The unfortunate problem is that, not only do they not have a technical writer producing the books, they don't seem to have someone on their team with domain expertise in technical writing at all.
I am stunned that the writers of 2024 could do no better than this.
Why? Were you under the impression that writing clear rules was a strength of the D&D 5e team?
Wizards of the Coast absolutely has people whose expertise is writing clear rules that cover corner cases; go look at the Magic the Gathering Comprehensive Rules. Now, imagine the D&D rulebooks written in that same style. Do you think most readers would have liked that, or would they be put off?
Wizards (probably correctly) felt that a technical writing style would be offputting for a lot of potential customers, and chose a different style. This will, inevitably, result in unclear cases -- technical documents are written the way they are for a reason. The unfortunate problem is that, not only do they not have a technical writer producing the books, they don't seem to have someone on their team with domain expertise in technical writing at all.
Nor, apparently, did they take the rules to someone who didn't help write them and ask if they could interpret them correctly without further clarification. I feel like the Hiding rules in 2014 were infinitely more intuitive and made more sense. They really didn't need to bring Invisible into it, and then break Invisibility to boot.
As I read it now, there is no way to become hidden where people don't know where you are. Hiding makes you InvisibleTM and you get literally no benefits by Hiding while you are already InvisibleTM. Neither one of these says people don't know where you are, nor do they even say that people cannot see you (other than the prerequisite of needing to be unseen to Hide in the first place).
Nor, apparently, did they take the rules to someone who didn't help write them and ask if they could interpret them correctly without further clarification.
Actually, there were EIGHT ROUNDS of playtesting where people were supposed to submit their feedback. Why this entire design didn't result in people screaming like the house was on fire I have no idea. In addition, the phrase "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" was inexplicably removed AFTER the eighth and final round of playtesting had already completed. That's something that you just don't do. In any sort of engineering such as mechanical engineering, software engineering and so on, a core principle of a proper development cycle is to repeatedly move from revision --> testing --> revision --> testing and so on before moving the design into production -- but you never end that cycle on revision without another round of testing. This was an incredibly bad mistake and it's the most glaring issue that needs to be fixed right away.
There is also the phrase "For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured" which I don't know when or why that was removed, but that's the clause that actually enabled an invisible creature to attempt to Hide, so something like that probably needs to be put back in as well.
As I read it now, there is no way to become hidden where people don't know where you are. Hiding makes you InvisibleTM and you get literally no benefits by Hiding while you are already InvisibleTM. Neither one of these says people don't know where you are, nor do they even say that people cannot see you (other than the prerequisite of needing to be unseen to Hide in the first place).
Let me again summarize how I think that we can get there based on what is currently written in the new rules. Remember, it was also the case in 2014 that the rules for Hiding were spread out across a few different parts of the book. The same is true in 2024 -- not everything related to hiding appears in the rules for the Hide action and the Invisible condition.
1. "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself." You may or not be successful in doing so, as determined by a Stealth check.
2. To even attempt to Hide, you basically have to already be Unseen.
3. You lose the Condition granted by the Hide action when you are too loud.
4. The Unseen Attackers and Targets rule distinguishes between targets that you can't see but CAN hear vs targets that you can't see AND can't hear. In the latter case, you have to guess the target's location (because, presumably, the target's location is unknown if you can't see it and can't hear it).
5. "If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
6. Conclusion: When you successfully Hide, something more than just being Unseen happens. First, you "have" the Invisible condition. Second, you have succeeded on your attempt to Hide (to conceal yourself) so you are now hidden -- taking all of the above information together, this must mean that you are now Unseen and Unheard and your location is unknown. This is in addition to "having" the Invisible Condition. Third, your successful Stealth roll is ongoing, used for future checks to see if you are found. To me, this implies that everything that is gained from this successful Stealth check only remains valid while that Stealth check remains valid and in effect, potentially determined by the DM.
Actually, there were EIGHT ROUNDS of playtesting where people were supposed to submit their feedback. Why this entire design didn't result in people screaming like the house was on fire I have no idea.
People did complain about it in playtest, and probably on their surveys (I know I did), but some of the problems with perception in 2024 are fairly subtle into you notice them, and then it's hard to unsee. Hiding is the only case where it's not even clear what the authors intended, the other problems are bad writing but it's not too hard to guess the intent.
A lot of things were removed when hide and invisibility started using the same condition.
Another factor is if you attack and lose the hide condition, but the rogues ability lets you keep it if you hide at the end of the round, does that mean the Rogue can make attacks and remain hidden or do they reveal themselves and can be subject to opportunity attacks or do they keep the invisible condition.
If the intention for the new Hide rules really is that you can generally remain hidden until the end of your turn, I can't wait for this scenario to start cropping up in games:
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
DM: "Ok, the enemy pops out from the left side . . . you see it immediately and your Readied action triggers. Make your attack roll."
The attack is resolved, and the player hits the enemy with the readied short bow attack, doing a lot of damage but not quite killing the enemy.
DM: "Ok, the enemy continues its turn now by charging towards you. It runs 25 feet straight at you and attacks you with his Greataxe."
If the intention for the new Hide rules really is that you can generally remain hidden until the end of your turn, I can't wait for this scenario to start cropping up in games:
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
DM: "Ok, the enemy pops out from the left side . . . you see it immediately and your Readied action triggers. Make your attack roll."
The attack is resolved, and the player hits the enemy with the readied short bow attack, doing a lot of damage but not quite killing the enemy.
DM: "Ok, the enemy continues its turn now by charging towards you. It runs 25 feet straight at you and attacks you with his Greataxe."
DM: "The enemy has advantage on this attack."
Player: "Wait . . . what??"
DM: "Yeah. The enemy is still hidden . . ."
Well the player would need to roll disadvantage to attack.
If the intention for the new Hide rules really is that you can generally remain hidden until the end of your turn, I can't wait for this scenario to start cropping up in games:
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
DM: "Ok, the enemy pops out from the left side . . . you see it immediately and your Readied action triggers. Make your attack roll."
The attack is resolved, and the player hits the enemy with the readied short bow attack, doing a lot of damage but not quite killing the enemy.
DM: "Ok, the enemy continues its turn now by charging towards you. It runs 25 feet straight at you and attacks you with his Greataxe."
DM: "The enemy has advantage on this attack."
Player: "Wait . . . what??"
DM: "Yeah. The enemy is still hidden . . ."
Well the player would need to roll disadvantage to attack.
If the intention for the new Hide rules really is that you can generally remain hidden until the end of your turn, I can't wait for this scenario to start cropping up in games:
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
DM: "Ok, the enemy pops out from the left side . . . you see it immediately and your Readied action triggers. Make your attack roll."
The attack is resolved, and the player hits the enemy with the readied short bow attack, doing a lot of damage but not quite killing the enemy.
DM: "Ok, the enemy continues its turn now by charging towards you. It runs 25 feet straight at you and attacks you with his Greataxe."
DM: "The enemy has advantage on this attack."
Player: "Wait . . . what??"
DM: "Yeah. The enemy is still hidden . . ."
Well the player would need to roll disadvantage to attack.
Oh yeah, that too! Lol, that's pretty funny.
I think the issue is that the game is trying to be more video game like where that makes sense. Well it doesn't make sense but people overlook it. The problem is it's just silly in an rpg.
I'm starting to wonder if you hide, come out from hiding and because it is your turn you can make an attack. If you don't and it becomes an enemies turn they can see you.
Even though it requires passive perception I wonder if the intent was it still didn't kick in until the monsters turn.
I can't make it make sense, but it does seem like that is how it works.
I'm starting to wonder if you hide, come out from hiding and because it is your turn you can make an attack. If you don't and it becomes an enemies turn they can see you.
Even though it requires passive perception I wonder if the intent was it still didn't kick in until the monsters turn.
I can't make it make sense, but it does seem like that is how it works.
There is some evidence that it was intended to work like this, at least at some point during the development cycle due to how a few of the monster and class features are worded. But it doesn't actually SAY this anywhere in the game. I don't see any reasonable interpretation that gets us there based on what's actually written.
And again, if that was actually intended, that feels like an insanely horrific design choice just due to various scenarios that will occur such as the one that I posted in Post #377. Hiding simply cannot work that way -- it will be heavily house-ruled all over the place.
----------
From a development perspective, this mechanic is so badly butchered that I'm not even sure how they can even fix it through the errata process, which is meant to just fix existing rules that have obvious errors, not to completely rewrite the rules. They would probably wait until "6th Edition" to completely overhaul how this works. So, that begs the question -- is there a large enough band-aid that can be applied that would actually fix this mechanic or will they throw up their hands and just issue guidance through Sage Advice about what their "intent" was, and just rely on every DM to house-rule it?
I'm starting to wonder if you hide, come out from hiding and because it is your turn you can make an attack. If you don't and it becomes an enemies turn they can see you.
Even though it requires passive perception I wonder if the intent was it still didn't kick in until the monsters turn.
I can't make it make sense, but it does seem like that is how it works.
There is some evidence that it was intended to work like this, at least at some point during the development cycle due to how a few of the monster and class features are worded. But it doesn't actually SAY this anywhere in the game. I don't see any reasonable interpretation that gets us there based on what's actually written.
And again, if that was actually intended, that feels like an insanely horrific design choice just due to various scenarios that will occur such as the one that I posted in Post #377. Hiding simply cannot work that way -- it will be heavily house-ruled all over the place.
----------
From a development perspective, this mechanic is so badly butchered that I'm not even sure how they can even fix it through the errata process, which is meant to just fix existing rules that have obvious errors, not to completely rewrite the rules. They would probably wait until "6th Edition" to completely overhaul how this works. So, that begs the question -- is there a large enough band-aid that can be applied that would actually fix this mechanic or will they throw up their hands and just issue guidance through Sage Advice about what their "intent" was, and just rely on every DM to house-rule it?
Yeah I'm kinda going with the thief's ability that you "stay" hidden if you go back behind cover again. Definitely not how the spell is written. It's almost like passive perception wasnt going to stay in the game. Especially since passive perception only appears in the glossary.
From a development perspective, this mechanic is so badly butchered that I'm not even sure how they can even fix it through the errata process, which is meant to just fix existing rules that have obvious errors, not to completely rewrite the rules.
I've seen errata completely rewrite rules, as long as the actual word count is reasonably small.
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
I see two ways to rule this, depending on the circumstances.
1) There's a fight going on all around you, but you still choose to spend your turn waiting for this person to pop out. You perform a Search action, and if you succeed, the rogue is no longer invisible-via-hiding. If you have the Observant feat, you can Search as a bonus action and still have your attack or whatever.
a) You're fighting a dragon or something, so don't spend your turn Searching, and the rogue sneaks up on you (invisible) and gets an advantage attack. Because you're busy stabbing a dragon. Maybe you have the Observant feat and can Search for the Rogue while stabbing the dragon.
2) There's not really a fight going on; you're just guarding a doorway or something. (The rogue chose a really poor hiding spot, right in front of the guard.) The DM rules (correctly and obviously) that the rogue was seen going behind the crates, and won't be invisible when they come out. You shoot them with a shortbow as soon as they break cover.
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
I see two ways to rule this, depending on the circumstances.
1) There's a fight going on all around you, but you still choose to spend your turn waiting for this person to pop out. You perform a Search action, and if you succeed, the rogue is no longer invisible-via-hiding. If you have the Observant feat, you can Search as a bonus action and still have your attack or whatever.
a) You're fighting a dragon or something, so don't spend your turn Searching, and the rogue sneaks up on you (invisible) and gets an advantage attack. Because you're busy stabbing a dragon. Maybe you have the Observant feat and can Search for the Rogue while stabbing the dragon.
2) There's not really a fight going on; you're just guarding a doorway or something. (The rogue chose a really poor hiding spot, right in front of the guard.) The DM rules (correctly and obviously) that the rogue was seen going behind the crates, and won't be invisible when they come out. You shoot them with a shortbow as soon as they break cover.
So if someone casually walked by the guards and behind a tree, THEN they could turn invisible and sneak past the guards? Nothing would indicate to the guards that person was trying to hide.
Or are you saying that the only way for these rules to work is if the DM house rules when you can and cannot hide regardless of you meeting all of the requirements?
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
I see two ways to rule this, depending on the circumstances.
1) There's a fight going on all around you, but you still choose to spend your turn waiting for this person to pop out. You perform a Search action, and if you succeed, the rogue is no longer invisible-via-hiding. If you have the Observant feat, you can Search as a bonus action and still have your attack or whatever.
a) You're fighting a dragon or something, so don't spend your turn Searching, and the rogue sneaks up on you (invisible) and gets an advantage attack. Because you're busy stabbing a dragon. Maybe you have the Observant feat and can Search for the Rogue while stabbing the dragon.
2) There's not really a fight going on; you're just guarding a doorway or something. (The rogue chose a really poor hiding spot, right in front of the guard.) The DM rules (correctly and obviously) that the rogue was seen going behind the crates, and won't be invisible when they come out. You shoot them with a shortbow as soon as they break cover.
So if someone casually walked by the guards and behind a tree, THEN they could turn invisible and sneak past the guards? Nothing would indicate to the guards that person was trying to hide.
That's the opposite of what I wrote.
Or are you saying that the only way for these rules to work is if the DM house rules when you can and cannot hide regardless of you meeting all of the requirements?
Hiding is literally introduced with (emphasis added) "Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action." I don't know why you would call that a house rule.
They give straightforward rules for turn-based combat, where everything is actions and bonus actions and explicit modifiers, and yet let the DM make basic rulings --- nay, insist the DM apply common sense to less rigorously defined situations.
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
I see two ways to rule this, depending on the circumstances.
1) There's a fight going on all around you, but you still choose to spend your turn waiting for this person to pop out. You perform a Search action, and if you succeed, the rogue is no longer invisible-via-hiding. If you have the Observant feat, you can Search as a bonus action and still have your attack or whatever.
This is a pretty bad ruling because that's not what the player said that their character was doing. He is taking the Ready action, holding his Attack action until he sees the enemy emerge, which triggers the readied action. If you are taking the Ready action, you've used your action. You cannot also take the Search action unless you somehow have more than one action to take. The player did not say that he was taking the Search action.
a) You're fighting a dragon or something, so don't spend your turn Searching, and the rogue sneaks up on you (invisible) and gets an advantage attack. Because you're busy stabbing a dragon. Maybe you have the Observant feat and can Search for the Rogue while stabbing the dragon.
The player didn't mention anything about paying any attention whatsoever to any dragon. He specifically said that he was keeping his eyes peeled with full, uninterrupted attention on the entire wall of crates, waiting for an enemy to emerge from behind it so that he could instantly attack that enemy when that happens. If the rogue "sneaks up" on me from there he is walking directly towards me from the location that I am staring at intently.
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
I see two ways to rule this, depending on the circumstances.
1) There's a fight going on all around you, but you still choose to spend your turn waiting for this person to pop out. You perform a Search action, and if you succeed, the rogue is no longer invisible-via-hiding. If you have the Observant feat, you can Search as a bonus action and still have your attack or whatever.
This is a pretty bad ruling because that's not what the player said that their character was doing. He is taking the Ready action, holding his Attack action until he sees the enemy emerge, which triggers the readied action. If you are taking the Ready action, you've used your action. You cannot also take the Search action unless you somehow have more than one action to take. The player did not say that he was taking the Search action.
a) You're fighting a dragon or something, so don't spend your turn Searching, and the rogue sneaks up on you (invisible) and gets an advantage attack. Because you're busy stabbing a dragon. Maybe you have the Observant feat and can Search for the Rogue while stabbing the dragon.
The player didn't mention anything about paying any attention whatsoever to any dragon. He specifically said that he was keeping his eyes peeled with full, uninterrupted attention on the entire wall of crates, waiting for an enemy to emerge from behind it so that he could instantly attack that enemy when that happens. If the rogue "sneaks up" on me from there he is walking directly towards me from the location that I am staring at intently.
Passive perception is still a thing. A PC wouldn't need to explicitly say they are searching for something if their passive perception would have noticed it.
And perception says you don't have to roll unless it isn't obvious. Someone standing right in front of you is obvious and therefore no roll would be necessary.
The rogue needs to meet the criteria for Hiding in combat in order to hide. If its species may use another person shadows like halfling species, then that works too. They need to beat the DC15.
Once they have passed the DC, the rogue effectively turns invisible, and hides. Yes. Both. Theres no rules about being unheard and unseen anymore, just unseen. A DM can rule because its not trying to been stealth, he can be guessed but because he cant be seen, he will get attacked in disadvantage.
Next, the PP, if any creatures beats with their PP rogue Stealth check, then that creature is *aware* of the sneaky rogue. That creature can discern through their concealing, but has to use the Find action to actually spot you and end your condition. Like when in a game theres a yellow ! Warning someone spotted you. You dont end your invisible condition, but that creature is seeing you and thus you dont gait invisible benefits against the creature.
Next the find check. If a creature uses its Find action, and passes your DC stealth check, you lose condition becoming now visible for everyone.
this hidding seems more like being blurry and sneaky in a battlefield exploiting enemies blindspots or distractions as their fight, remember each round is composed by 6s turns which all happens at same time
This seems like its tooo powerful and such but unless your party likes to meta, youre invisible for anyone trying to see you, and that includes allies, ofc. You cant be targeted by sight for allies either.
The same way you should see invisible as unseen, you should see Find as you got spotted out by everyone. Just because a creature sees you doesnt mean everyone cans, that creature needs to spot you.
I am a new DnD player who just bought the 2024 PHB rulebook, and I haven't played with the earlier rules (this is why maybe I am not so confused by it).
I look at the Hide rules in the 2024 PHB and i find them clear:
If you Hide successfully, you gain Invisible condition. That is, the same Invisible condition that you gain from the Invisibility spell for example. You are Invisible
The difference between Hide's Invisible condition and Invisibility Spell "Invisible" conditions are the circumstances under which the condition is lost, with HIDE having the more strict conditions compared to Invisibility (or Greater Invisibility) Spell.
"Invisible Condition" from HIDE is lost when (p.368)
It makes an attack roll
It casts a Spell with a Verbal component
It makes a sound louder than a whisper
An enemy finds it with a Wisdom (Perception) check vs your Stealth Check's total roll
Invisible Condition from INVISIBILITY spell is lost when the spell ends or (p.289):
It makes an attack roll or Deals damage
It casts a Spell
Invisible Condition from GREATER INVISIBILITY spell is lost when the spell ends (p.281)
(no other conditions)
Disclaimer: Oddly enough, Hidden doesn't list "Deal Damage" , and Invisibility spell doesn't specify "Spells with a Verbal component" in the Casts a Spell condition. If anything, those seem to me like misses /erratas and it'd make sense if those conditions were streamlined between HIDE and INVISIBILITY spell (to avoid mistakes and easier to remember)
Why? Were you under the impression that writing clear rules was a strength of the D&D 5e team?
Wizards of the Coast absolutely has people whose expertise is writing clear rules that cover corner cases; go look at the Magic the Gathering Comprehensive Rules. Now, imagine the D&D rulebooks written in that same style. Do you think most readers would have liked that, or would they be put off?
Wizards (probably correctly) felt that a technical writing style would be offputting for a lot of potential customers, and chose a different style. This will, inevitably, result in unclear cases -- technical documents are written the way they are for a reason. The unfortunate problem is that, not only do they not have a technical writer producing the books, they don't seem to have someone on their team with domain expertise in technical writing at all.
Nor, apparently, did they take the rules to someone who didn't help write them and ask if they could interpret them correctly without further clarification. I feel like the Hiding rules in 2014 were infinitely more intuitive and made more sense. They really didn't need to bring Invisible into it, and then break Invisibility to boot.
As I read it now, there is no way to become hidden where people don't know where you are. Hiding makes you InvisibleTM and you get literally no benefits by Hiding while you are already InvisibleTM. Neither one of these says people don't know where you are, nor do they even say that people cannot see you (other than the prerequisite of needing to be unseen to Hide in the first place).
Actually, there were EIGHT ROUNDS of playtesting where people were supposed to submit their feedback. Why this entire design didn't result in people screaming like the house was on fire I have no idea. In addition, the phrase "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" was inexplicably removed AFTER the eighth and final round of playtesting had already completed. That's something that you just don't do. In any sort of engineering such as mechanical engineering, software engineering and so on, a core principle of a proper development cycle is to repeatedly move from revision --> testing --> revision --> testing and so on before moving the design into production -- but you never end that cycle on revision without another round of testing. This was an incredibly bad mistake and it's the most glaring issue that needs to be fixed right away.
There is also the phrase "For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured" which I don't know when or why that was removed, but that's the clause that actually enabled an invisible creature to attempt to Hide, so something like that probably needs to be put back in as well.
Let me again summarize how I think that we can get there based on what is currently written in the new rules. Remember, it was also the case in 2014 that the rules for Hiding were spread out across a few different parts of the book. The same is true in 2024 -- not everything related to hiding appears in the rules for the Hide action and the Invisible condition.
1. "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself." You may or not be successful in doing so, as determined by a Stealth check.
2. To even attempt to Hide, you basically have to already be Unseen.
3. You lose the Condition granted by the Hide action when you are too loud.
4. The Unseen Attackers and Targets rule distinguishes between targets that you can't see but CAN hear vs targets that you can't see AND can't hear. In the latter case, you have to guess the target's location (because, presumably, the target's location is unknown if you can't see it and can't hear it).
5. "If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
6. Conclusion: When you successfully Hide, something more than just being Unseen happens. First, you "have" the Invisible condition. Second, you have succeeded on your attempt to Hide (to conceal yourself) so you are now hidden -- taking all of the above information together, this must mean that you are now Unseen and Unheard and your location is unknown. This is in addition to "having" the Invisible Condition. Third, your successful Stealth roll is ongoing, used for future checks to see if you are found. To me, this implies that everything that is gained from this successful Stealth check only remains valid while that Stealth check remains valid and in effect, potentially determined by the DM.
People did complain about it in playtest, and probably on their surveys (I know I did), but some of the problems with perception in 2024 are fairly subtle into you notice them, and then it's hard to unsee. Hiding is the only case where it's not even clear what the authors intended, the other problems are bad writing but it's not too hard to guess the intent.
A lot of things were removed when hide and invisibility started using the same condition.
Another factor is if you attack and lose the hide condition, but the rogues ability lets you keep it if you hide at the end of the round, does that mean the Rogue can make attacks and remain hidden or do they reveal themselves and can be subject to opportunity attacks or do they keep the invisible condition.
If the intention for the new Hide rules really is that you can generally remain hidden until the end of your turn, I can't wait for this scenario to start cropping up in games:
Player: "Ok, I see a row of large wooden crates 20 feet ahead of me (say, a 15-foot-long wall) and I know that my enemy is hiding somewhere behind it. I know that the enemy will pop out from either the left side or the right side of these crates to try to attack me.
I stay where I am, I keep my vision heavily focused on the entire row of crates in front of me, and I ready an attack with my shortbow for the moment that I see the enemy pop out from either side."
DM: "Ok, the enemy pops out from the left side . . . you see it immediately and your Readied action triggers. Make your attack roll."
The attack is resolved, and the player hits the enemy with the readied short bow attack, doing a lot of damage but not quite killing the enemy.
DM: "Ok, the enemy continues its turn now by charging towards you. It runs 25 feet straight at you and attacks you with his Greataxe."
DM: "The enemy has advantage on this attack."
Player: "Wait . . . what??"
DM: "Yeah. The enemy is still hidden . . ."
Well the player would need to roll disadvantage to attack.
Oh yeah, that too! Lol, that's pretty funny.
I think the issue is that the game is trying to be more video game like where that makes sense. Well it doesn't make sense but people overlook it. The problem is it's just silly in an rpg.
I'm starting to wonder if you hide, come out from hiding and because it is your turn you can make an attack. If you don't and it becomes an enemies turn they can see you.
Even though it requires passive perception I wonder if the intent was it still didn't kick in until the monsters turn.
I can't make it make sense, but it does seem like that is how it works.
There is some evidence that it was intended to work like this, at least at some point during the development cycle due to how a few of the monster and class features are worded. But it doesn't actually SAY this anywhere in the game. I don't see any reasonable interpretation that gets us there based on what's actually written.
And again, if that was actually intended, that feels like an insanely horrific design choice just due to various scenarios that will occur such as the one that I posted in Post #377. Hiding simply cannot work that way -- it will be heavily house-ruled all over the place.
----------
From a development perspective, this mechanic is so badly butchered that I'm not even sure how they can even fix it through the errata process, which is meant to just fix existing rules that have obvious errors, not to completely rewrite the rules. They would probably wait until "6th Edition" to completely overhaul how this works. So, that begs the question -- is there a large enough band-aid that can be applied that would actually fix this mechanic or will they throw up their hands and just issue guidance through Sage Advice about what their "intent" was, and just rely on every DM to house-rule it?
Yeah I'm kinda going with the thief's ability that you "stay" hidden if you go back behind cover again. Definitely not how the spell is written. It's almost like passive perception wasnt going to stay in the game. Especially since passive perception only appears in the glossary.
I've seen errata completely rewrite rules, as long as the actual word count is reasonably small.
I see two ways to rule this, depending on the circumstances.
1) There's a fight going on all around you, but you still choose to spend your turn waiting for this person to pop out. You perform a Search action, and if you succeed, the rogue is no longer invisible-via-hiding. If you have the Observant feat, you can Search as a bonus action and still have your attack or whatever.
a) You're fighting a dragon or something, so don't spend your turn Searching, and the rogue sneaks up on you (invisible) and gets an advantage attack. Because you're busy stabbing a dragon. Maybe you have the Observant feat and can Search for the Rogue while stabbing the dragon.
2) There's not really a fight going on; you're just guarding a doorway or something. (The rogue chose a really poor hiding spot, right in front of the guard.) The DM rules (correctly and obviously) that the rogue was seen going behind the crates, and won't be invisible when they come out. You shoot them with a shortbow as soon as they break cover.
So if someone casually walked by the guards and behind a tree, THEN they could turn invisible and sneak past the guards? Nothing would indicate to the guards that person was trying to hide.
Or are you saying that the only way for these rules to work is if the DM house rules when you can and cannot hide regardless of you meeting all of the requirements?
That's the opposite of what I wrote.
Hiding is literally introduced with (emphasis added) "Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action." I don't know why you would call that a house rule.
They give straightforward rules for turn-based combat, where everything is actions and bonus actions and explicit modifiers, and yet let the DM make basic rulings --- nay, insist the DM apply common sense to less rigorously defined situations.
This is a pretty bad ruling because that's not what the player said that their character was doing. He is taking the Ready action, holding his Attack action until he sees the enemy emerge, which triggers the readied action. If you are taking the Ready action, you've used your action. You cannot also take the Search action unless you somehow have more than one action to take. The player did not say that he was taking the Search action.
The player didn't mention anything about paying any attention whatsoever to any dragon. He specifically said that he was keeping his eyes peeled with full, uninterrupted attention on the entire wall of crates, waiting for an enemy to emerge from behind it so that he could instantly attack that enemy when that happens. If the rogue "sneaks up" on me from there he is walking directly towards me from the location that I am staring at intently.
Passive perception is still a thing. A PC wouldn't need to explicitly say they are searching for something if their passive perception would have noticed it.
And perception says you don't have to roll unless it isn't obvious. Someone standing right in front of you is obvious and therefore no roll would be necessary.
I would rule like this:
The rogue needs to meet the criteria for Hiding in combat in order to hide. If its species may use another person shadows like halfling species, then that works too. They need to beat the DC15.
Once they have passed the DC, the rogue effectively turns invisible, and hides. Yes. Both. Theres no rules about being unheard and unseen anymore, just unseen. A DM can rule because its not trying to been stealth, he can be guessed but because he cant be seen, he will get attacked in disadvantage.
Next, the PP, if any creatures beats with their PP rogue Stealth check, then that creature is *aware* of the sneaky rogue. That creature can discern through their concealing, but has to use the Find action to actually spot you and end your condition. Like when in a game theres a yellow ! Warning someone spotted you. You dont end your invisible condition, but that creature is seeing you and thus you dont gait invisible benefits against the creature.
Next the find check. If a creature uses its Find action, and passes your DC stealth check, you lose condition becoming now visible for everyone.
this hidding seems more like being blurry and sneaky in a battlefield exploiting enemies blindspots or distractions as their fight, remember each round is composed by 6s turns which all happens at same time
This seems like its tooo powerful and such but unless your party likes to meta, youre invisible for anyone trying to see you, and that includes allies, ofc. You cant be targeted by sight for allies either.
The same way you should see invisible as unseen, you should see Find as you got spotted out by everyone. Just because a creature sees you doesnt mean everyone cans, that creature needs to spot you.
I guess thats the rai with the rules
I am a new DnD player who just bought the 2024 PHB rulebook, and I haven't played with the earlier rules (this is why maybe I am not so confused by it).
I look at the Hide rules in the 2024 PHB and i find them clear:
"Invisible Condition" from HIDE is lost when (p.368)
Invisible Condition from INVISIBILITY spell is lost when the spell ends or (p.289):
Invisible Condition from GREATER INVISIBILITY spell is lost when the spell ends (p.281)
Disclaimer: Oddly enough, Hidden doesn't list "Deal Damage" , and Invisibility spell doesn't specify "Spells with a Verbal component" in the Casts a Spell condition. If anything, those seem to me like misses /erratas and it'd make sense if those conditions were streamlined between HIDE and INVISIBILITY spell (to avoid mistakes and easier to remember)