I like it, but would you allow something with blindsight or tremorsense to "see through" the hiding? If not, you would need to add stipulations (or a blanket statement about it). In my mind, the language of 2014 "unseen and unheard" was good because it explicitly told you that it wasn't just vision-based.
I would absolutely allow Tremorsense, but would be iffy on Blindsight. Tremorsense could detect you through a wall, so there's no way that you would really be able to hide. Blindsight would probably depend? If it was, say, a bat with really good hearing, then yes, I would allow that. If it was a Fighter with Blind Fighting style, sure! It only works 10 feet out anyway.
In the current rules, what makes the hidden state preferable to straight up invisibility is the ability to move quietly that the successful stealth check grants you (as per the definition of stealth).
Your proposed definition of Hidden doesn't mention that at all, and therefore every creature would always be able to estimate the location of any other creature, so long as their hearing is not impaired.
5.5e Hiding doesn't take hearing into account either. The only thing it gives you is Invisible which explicitly only affects vision.
All of these things about being unheard would typically be done out of combat and are covered by a Stealth roll. The Hide Action is specifically an action you take in combat, so it wouldn't affect all of the "I hide under the bed and hold my breath" or "I slink through the bushes outside of the light of the campfire". Those are just a Stealth check just like climbing a rock wall would be an Athletics/Acrobatics check. Either could feasibly be done during combat, but might have other qualifiers (i.e. climbing a 60 ft. rock wall might require your action to maintain your hold between turns).
Sorry to necro, but this thread is the most thorough discussion on the subject I've found so far.
Going by the RAW, hiding in combat seems very straightforward, and it's only by projecting non-RAW expectations that gets things muddied. The sticking point is this:
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
Aside from breaking your own Hide with noise, speech, or an attack (which would have Advantage), what conditions are there under which a creature can find something that's hidden? The only mechanical way is by Perception:
Finding Hidden Objects: When your character searches for hidden things...make a Wisdom (Perception) check, provided you describe the character searching in the hidden object’s vicinity. On a success, you find the object, other important details, or both.
Perception: Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss.
The lawyering around "invisible" is almost irrelevant. Once you're successfully hidden, the enemy doesn't notice you until it finds you via perception. We know that requires either its passive perception to beat your Hide roll, or its Search action to beat your Hide on its turn. If it's your turn in combat, the latter doesn't matter, and the former is unlikely to be high enough to matter either. There's no written carveout where entering a visible space automatically breaks that Invisibility; the enemy has to find you first. In a fast-paced fight, it makes perfect narrative sense for a combatant to get distracted and lose track of you as you hid, crept up in his blind spot, and stabbed him in the neck.
In short, going by RAW, rogues can hide in cover, move (quietly) while retaining the Hidden/Invisible status, approach to melee range, and attack with advantage, thus qualifying for Sneak Attack damage. I would welcome a change to require half-speed to maintain Hidden, since running full speed should make some amount of noise, but again, that isn't in the rules so it doesn't matter.
I would welcome a change to require half-speed to maintain Hidden, since running full speed should make some amount of noise, but again, that isn't in the rules so it doesn't matter.
Given "Escape notice by moving quietly..." as part of the definition of Stealth, you wouldn't be off requiring an extra Stealth roll when moving, to keep it silent.
I largely agree with you, but just as there is no carveout that says entering a visible space automatically makes you visible, there is nothing that says that you can enter a visible space without being seen.
Now this doesn't mean I think that a rogue should automatically be seen just because they enter a visible space. As you said, in a fast-paced fight, quite likely poorly lit, it does make narrative sense for a combatant to not see the person skulking around the fringes of the battle, even though they are within line of sight.
I only bring this point up because I also don't think that a rogue should be able to move down a well lit featureless corridor toward two guards who are standing at the opposite end looking down the hall no matter how good their Stealth roll was. That type of action should remain within the realm of actual Invisibility.
Yes, this creates an area of DMs discretion. While those two cases are relatively clean cut, what about if the rogue passes between a hostile and the ally they are fighting since they both have 10' of Reach? Directly behind the ally they are fighting and they only have 5' of Reach? 20' back behind the ally?
However, judgement calls like this are all part and parcel of the job of being a DM.
Aside from breaking your own Hide with noise, speech, or an attack (which would have Advantage), what conditions are there under which a creature can find something that's hidden? The only mechanical way is by Perception:
The only mechanical way via the search action is by Perception. There are a wide variety of effects that would just automatically find you; whether being in plain sight is one of them is not addressed anywhere.
I only bring this point up because I also don't think that a rogue should be able to move down a well lit featureless corridor toward two guards who are standing at the opposite end looking down the hall no matter how good their Stealth roll was. That type of action should remain within the realm of actual Invisibility.
Sure, but what you're describing doesn't sound like an in-combat Hide either. If you have cover and are out of line of sight, which are necessary to Hide in the first place, I don't see why a successful Hide shouldn't give the Rogue initiative advantage and a first-round sneak attack when starting combat, provided that the Rogue can close the distance to melee in that first turn. Guards are famous for dozing off at their posts and being caught by surprise.
The only mechanical way via the search action is by Perception. There are a wide variety of effects that would just automatically find you; whether being in plain sight is one of them is not addressed anywhere.
The specific way to find a hidden object is checking Perception. Why would any other rule apply here?
The only mechanical way via the search action is by Perception. There are a wide variety of effects that would just automatically find you; whether being in plain sight is one of them is not addressed anywhere.
The specific way to find a hidden object is checking Perception. Why would any other rule apply here?
Because a change in situation means the creature or object is no longer hidden.
I only bring this point up because I also don't think that a rogue should be able to move down a well lit featureless corridor toward two guards who are standing at the opposite end looking down the hall no matter how good their Stealth roll was. That type of action should remain within the realm of actual Invisibility.
The problem with this statement is that "actual invisibility" doesn't exist in 5.5e. Hiding and the spell [/spell]Invisibility[/spell] do the exact same thing. Being Invisible [game term] does not make you invisible (common understanding). You just are not affected by things that require you to be seen if you can't be seen (which is the same rule for Cover, Heavily Obscured, and just generally everything).
5.5e broke both features by trying to roll them into one.
The only mechanical way via the search action is by Perception. There are a wide variety of effects that would just automatically find you; whether being in plain sight is one of them is not addressed anywhere.
The specific way to find a hidden object is checking Perception. Why would any other rule apply here?
Because a change in situation means the creature or object is no longer hidden.
That may be RAI, but it's not RAW. "An enemy finds you" is not defined anywhere. So you could be standing right in front of someone, they take the search action, royally flub it, and they still would have no idea you were there.
They should really add a "how an enemy finds you" subsection there with some bullet points. Like maybe passing a check, taking the search action, or you move to 1/2 or less cover?
Right, and the changes that would cause a Hidden character to lose Hidden are explicitly stated: noise above a whisper, speaking a spell, attacking, and being found. Not simply being in line of sight, but actively found. Finding requires perception, and if your Hide beats their perception, they cant find you. Otherwise, Hide would only be of any use if you're exclusively attacking from ranged behind cover.
That may be RAI, but it's not RAW. "An enemy finds you" is not defined anywhere.
Which does not mean that finding someone requires the search action. It just means the rules are not clearly written.
What do you both mean? It's right there in the Hide rule:
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
That may be RAI, but it's not RAW. "An enemy finds you" is not defined anywhere.
Which does not mean that finding someone requires the search action. It just means the rules are not clearly written.
What do you both mean? It's right there in the Hide rule:
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
That's the DC to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. It does not cover finding you in any other way, nor does it specify that it's the only one way to find you.
There are two coherent ways to interpret the rules for hide, and it's probable neither one is RAI
The requirements are instantaneous; once you have hidden, you remain that way until something reveals you.
The requirements are ongoing; if you lose the requirements, you are no longer hidden.
So, what constitutes as no longer "being hidden?" This is where the ridiculousness of waving your hands in front of a guard's face, but doing it silently means you do not break hide by RAW because taking that list to be exhaustive means you can't voluntarily stop being hidden.
I only bring this point up because I also don't think that a rogue should be able to move down a well lit featureless corridor toward two guards who are standing at the opposite end looking down the hall no matter how good their Stealth roll was. That type of action should remain within the realm of actual Invisibility.
The problem with this statement is that "actual invisibility" doesn't exist in 5.5e. Hiding and the spell [/spell]Invisibility[/spell] do the exact same thing. Being Invisible [game term] does not make you invisible (common understanding). You just are not affected by things that require you to be seen if you can't be seen (which is the same rule for Cover, Heavily Obscured, and just generally everything).
5.5e broke both features by trying to roll them into one.
They don't do the exact same thing any more than Invisibility and Greater Invisibility do 'the exact same thing'. They do give you the same Condition, that is true, but in the case of Hide the condition ends if someone 'finds' you, whereas it does not in the case of Invisibility/Greater Invisibility.
Now, I do agree that there could be better clarification as to what 'find' means and how Invisibility/Greater Invisibility interact with Perception rolls (as is written, I cannot find any verbiage that says the Perception rolls involving vision can't succeed against something hidden by the Invisibility spell). I also think that it would have been wiser to give the Condition a different name (e.g. Unseen) so that players using the Hide action don't believe that they are actually Invisible. (Such a condition could then also be extended to any occasion where a character is unable to see another, such as one or the other being inside Darkness).
Despite the room for improvement, however, I would not call it 'broken'.
I only bring this point up because I also don't think that a rogue should be able to move down a well lit featureless corridor toward two guards who are standing at the opposite end looking down the hall no matter how good their Stealth roll was. That type of action should remain within the realm of actual Invisibility.
The problem with this statement is that "actual invisibility" doesn't exist in 5.5e. Hiding and the spell [/spell]Invisibility[/spell] do the exact same thing. Being Invisible [game term] does not make you invisible (common understanding). You just are not affected by things that require you to be seen if you can't be seen (which is the same rule for Cover, Heavily Obscured, and just generally everything).
5.5e broke both features by trying to roll them into one.
They don't do the exact same thing any more than Invisibility and Greater Invisibility do 'the exact same thing'. They do give you the same Condition, that is true, but in the case of Hide the condition ends if someone 'finds' you, whereas it does not in the case of Invisibility/Greater Invisibility.
Now, I do agree that there could be better clarification as to what 'find' means and how Invisibility/Greater Invisibility interact with Perception rolls (as is written, I cannot find any verbiage that says the Perception rolls involving vision can't succeed against something hidden by the Invisibility spell). I also think that it would have been wiser to give the Condition a different name (e.g. Unseen) so that players using the Hide action don't believe that they are actually Invisible. (Such a condition could then also be extended to any occasion where a character is unable to see another, such as one or the other being inside Darkness).
Despite the room for improvement, however, I would not call it 'broken'.
So you wouldn't say that Invisibility not actually making you translucent is not broken (broken in the sense of not working, not in the sense of grossly overpowered)? By this reading, Invisibility could very well create a giant cardboard box that goes around you so people can't target you by sight. They still know exactly where you are and can Fireball you, but can't cast [Tooltip Not Found] at you.
That's the DC to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. It does not cover finding you in any other way, nor does it specify that it's the only one way to find you.
There are two coherent ways to interpret the rules for hide, and it's probable neither one is RAI
The requirements are instantaneous; once you have hidden, you remain that way until something reveals you.
The requirements are ongoing; if you lose the requirements, you are no longer hidden.
There's no specified mechanic to find a hidden creature other than a perception check, and it isn't reasonable to default to something other than what's explicit. It's also not reasonable to presume text that isn't there. The rule gives four situations that can end Hidden, none of which is movement nor leaving cover.
It would certainly make sense to expand on the rule, for example if a hidden creature ends its turn within an enemy's line of sight, it loses Hidden. Consider Supreme Sneak:
If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, this attack doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.
That Invisibility isn't broken even after an attack, and then the rogue can return to cover to keep it going. Doesn't that imply that leaving cover in the first place didn't break the Hide?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would absolutely allow Tremorsense, but would be iffy on Blindsight. Tremorsense could detect you through a wall, so there's no way that you would really be able to hide. Blindsight would probably depend? If it was, say, a bat with really good hearing, then yes, I would allow that. If it was a Fighter with Blind Fighting style, sure! It only works 10 feet out anyway.
5.5e Hiding doesn't take hearing into account either. The only thing it gives you is Invisible which explicitly only affects vision.
All of these things about being unheard would typically be done out of combat and are covered by a Stealth roll. The Hide Action is specifically an action you take in combat, so it wouldn't affect all of the "I hide under the bed and hold my breath" or "I slink through the bushes outside of the light of the campfire". Those are just a Stealth check just like climbing a rock wall would be an Athletics/Acrobatics check. Either could feasibly be done during combat, but might have other qualifiers (i.e. climbing a 60 ft. rock wall might require your action to maintain your hold between turns).
Sorry to necro, but this thread is the most thorough discussion on the subject I've found so far.
Going by the RAW, hiding in combat seems very straightforward, and it's only by projecting non-RAW expectations that gets things muddied. The sticking point is this:
Aside from breaking your own Hide with noise, speech, or an attack (which would have Advantage), what conditions are there under which a creature can find something that's hidden? The only mechanical way is by Perception:
The lawyering around "invisible" is almost irrelevant. Once you're successfully hidden, the enemy doesn't notice you until it finds you via perception. We know that requires either its passive perception to beat your Hide roll, or its Search action to beat your Hide on its turn. If it's your turn in combat, the latter doesn't matter, and the former is unlikely to be high enough to matter either. There's no written carveout where entering a visible space automatically breaks that Invisibility; the enemy has to find you first. In a fast-paced fight, it makes perfect narrative sense for a combatant to get distracted and lose track of you as you hid, crept up in his blind spot, and stabbed him in the neck.
In short, going by RAW, rogues can hide in cover, move (quietly) while retaining the Hidden/Invisible status, approach to melee range, and attack with advantage, thus qualifying for Sneak Attack damage. I would welcome a change to require half-speed to maintain Hidden, since running full speed should make some amount of noise, but again, that isn't in the rules so it doesn't matter.
Given "Escape notice by moving quietly..." as part of the definition of Stealth, you wouldn't be off requiring an extra Stealth roll when moving, to keep it silent.
I largely agree with you, but just as there is no carveout that says entering a visible space automatically makes you visible, there is nothing that says that you can enter a visible space without being seen.
Now this doesn't mean I think that a rogue should automatically be seen just because they enter a visible space. As you said, in a fast-paced fight, quite likely poorly lit, it does make narrative sense for a combatant to not see the person skulking around the fringes of the battle, even though they are within line of sight.
I only bring this point up because I also don't think that a rogue should be able to move down a well lit featureless corridor toward two guards who are standing at the opposite end looking down the hall no matter how good their Stealth roll was. That type of action should remain within the realm of actual Invisibility.
Yes, this creates an area of DMs discretion. While those two cases are relatively clean cut, what about if the rogue passes between a hostile and the ally they are fighting since they both have 10' of Reach? Directly behind the ally they are fighting and they only have 5' of Reach? 20' back behind the ally?
However, judgement calls like this are all part and parcel of the job of being a DM.
The only mechanical way via the search action is by Perception. There are a wide variety of effects that would just automatically find you; whether being in plain sight is one of them is not addressed anywhere.
Sure, but what you're describing doesn't sound like an in-combat Hide either. If you have cover and are out of line of sight, which are necessary to Hide in the first place, I don't see why a successful Hide shouldn't give the Rogue initiative advantage and a first-round sneak attack when starting combat, provided that the Rogue can close the distance to melee in that first turn. Guards are famous for dozing off at their posts and being caught by surprise.
The specific way to find a hidden object is checking Perception. Why would any other rule apply here?
Because a change in situation means the creature or object is no longer hidden.
The problem with this statement is that "actual invisibility" doesn't exist in 5.5e. Hiding and the spell [/spell]Invisibility[/spell] do the exact same thing. Being Invisible [game term] does not make you invisible (common understanding). You just are not affected by things that require you to be seen if you can't be seen (which is the same rule for Cover, Heavily Obscured, and just generally everything).
5.5e broke both features by trying to roll them into one.
That may be RAI, but it's not RAW. "An enemy finds you" is not defined anywhere. So you could be standing right in front of someone, they take the search action, royally flub it, and they still would have no idea you were there.
They should really add a "how an enemy finds you" subsection there with some bullet points. Like maybe passing a check, taking the search action, or you move to 1/2 or less cover?
Right, and the changes that would cause a Hidden character to lose Hidden are explicitly stated: noise above a whisper, speaking a spell, attacking, and being found. Not simply being in line of sight, but actively found. Finding requires perception, and if your Hide beats their perception, they cant find you. Otherwise, Hide would only be of any use if you're exclusively attacking from ranged behind cover.
Which does not mean that finding someone requires the search action. It just means the rules are not clearly written.
What do you both mean? It's right there in the Hide rule:
That's the DC to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. It does not cover finding you in any other way, nor does it specify that it's the only one way to find you.
There are two coherent ways to interpret the rules for hide, and it's probable neither one is RAI
"...while hidden."
So, what constitutes as no longer "being hidden?" This is where the ridiculousness of waving your hands in front of a guard's face, but doing it silently means you do not break hide by RAW because taking that list to be exhaustive means you can't voluntarily stop being hidden.
They don't do the exact same thing any more than Invisibility and Greater Invisibility do 'the exact same thing'. They do give you the same Condition, that is true, but in the case of Hide the condition ends if someone 'finds' you, whereas it does not in the case of Invisibility/Greater Invisibility.
Now, I do agree that there could be better clarification as to what 'find' means and how Invisibility/Greater Invisibility interact with Perception rolls (as is written, I cannot find any verbiage that says the Perception rolls involving vision can't succeed against something hidden by the Invisibility spell). I also think that it would have been wiser to give the Condition a different name (e.g. Unseen) so that players using the Hide action don't believe that they are actually Invisible. (Such a condition could then also be extended to any occasion where a character is unable to see another, such as one or the other being inside Darkness).
Despite the room for improvement, however, I would not call it 'broken'.
So you wouldn't say that Invisibility not actually making you translucent is not broken (broken in the sense of not working, not in the sense of grossly overpowered)? By this reading, Invisibility could very well create a giant cardboard box that goes around you so people can't target you by sight. They still know exactly where you are and can Fireball you, but can't cast [Tooltip Not Found] at you.
There's no specified mechanic to find a hidden creature other than a perception check, and it isn't reasonable to default to something other than what's explicit. It's also not reasonable to presume text that isn't there. The rule gives four situations that can end Hidden, none of which is movement nor leaving cover.
It would certainly make sense to expand on the rule, for example if a hidden creature ends its turn within an enemy's line of sight, it loses Hidden. Consider Supreme Sneak:
That Invisibility isn't broken even after an attack, and then the rogue can return to cover to keep it going. Doesn't that imply that leaving cover in the first place didn't break the Hide?