. . . I do have positive RAW that there is no other written way to fulfill that criteria. . .
Yes, there is. The fact that there is no roll for a 'trivial' action is explicitly spelled out in the DM's Guide means that there is a written way to fulfill the criteria of 'finding' a character.
While the RAW say that your Stealth roll is the DC for you to be found, they only mean that in 'average' circumstances. Do you expect a blind and deaf character to automatically find a Rogue just because they got a slightly lucky roll?
Thus, if a character is in a situation where spotting them is 'trivial', they are found no matter how good their Stealth was.
This doesn't mean that a Rogue should always be spotted the instant they break cover. Assuming it is plausible that they stay hidden then the DC is what should be used to find them. However, it does mean that Rogues can't treat Stealth as Invisibility. There has to be some plausibility to their action.
And, if what appears to be pretty clear intent is not enough for you and you really want to insist on a pedantic reading of RAW, here is what is written:
Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
What that says is that if a creature has to make a check, they have to roll that DC. It does not state that it is the only way to find you or that they are always required to make the check. That is only the DC if they are making a Wisdom (Perception) check. Mandating that check is something you are adding in yourself and is not, strictly, RAW.
Thus, RAW, if you do something that obviates the need for a check to be made (e.g., walking down our hypothetical hall) you absolutely can lose the Invisible Condition.
You're going out of your way and bending over backwards to subvert very plain and obvious language. Which is your prerogative, but it isn't supported by the text. The Hide rule is clear about the requirements to Hide and gain Invisibility, and the requirements to be found while hidden. Anything else is your own mental gymnastics.
Its one way and like i said ''Even if it still would, DM can always auto success as trivial the Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception.''
It's not trivial if there's an explicit DC requirement set by a player's own successful roll. Would you play with a DM who auto-successed every attack roll against you as well?
No, but I happily play with a DM who will not let me remain hidden when their is absolutely no cover despite the fact that my level 10 Assassin has a +14 to Stealth (20 Dex, Expertise, and a Luckstone), Reliable Talent, and a Cloak of Elvenkind.
Even with the magical aid of my Luckstone and my Cloak of Elvenkind, a magical item designed specifically to enhance Stealth, I recognize the limitations of a Skill as opposed to a Spell.
The Invisibility resulting from Hide and the Invisibility resulting from the spell are the exact same condition. There is no mechanical difference aside from the requirements to end Hide, specifically, a perception check (passive or Search action) that beats the stealth roll. Arbitrarily altering the DC due to a general rule when there's already a specific rule is bad logic and bad gameplay.
No worries, and I think we are actually pretty much in agreement for how to work Stealth. I won't be so kind as to say 'both guards suddenly experience hysterical blindness because you rolled really well', but if the player can come up with some plausible way to make their Stealth work (didn't you say the ceilings in the halls were 25' high vaulted ceilings? The brightly lit chandeliers would obscure a lot of their vision up there, so isn't it believable for me to climb up there and sneak along?) I would then allow the roll (perhaps with modifiers).
. . . I do have positive RAW that there is no other written way to fulfill that criteria. . .
Yes, there is. The fact that there is no roll for a 'trivial' action is explicitly spelled out in the DM's Guide means that there is a written way to fulfill the criteria of 'finding' a character.
While the RAW say that your Stealth roll is the DC for you to be found, they only mean that in 'average' circumstances. Do you expect a blind and deaf character to automatically find a Rogue just because they got a slightly lucky roll?
Thus, if a character is in a situation where spotting them is 'trivial', they are found no matter how good their Stealth was.
This doesn't mean that a Rogue should always be spotted the instant they break cover. Assuming it is plausible that they stay hidden then the DC is what should be used to find them. However, it does mean that Rogues can't treat Stealth as Invisibility. There has to be some plausibility to their action.
And, if what appears to be pretty clear intent is not enough for you and you really want to insist on a pedantic reading of RAW, here is what is written:
Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
What that says is that if a creature has to make a check, they have to roll that DC. It does not state that it is the only way to find you or that they are always required to make the check. That is only the DC if they are making a Wisdom (Perception) check. Mandating that check is something you are adding in yourself and is not, strictly, RAW.
Thus, RAW, if you do something that obviates the need for a check to be made (e.g., walking down our hypothetical hall) you absolutely can lose the Invisible Condition.
You're going out of your way and bending over backwards to subvert very plain and obvious language. Which is your prerogative, but it isn't supported by the text. The Hide rule is clear about the requirements to Hide and gain Invisibility, and the requirements to be found while hidden. Anything else is your own mental gymnastics.
Its one way and like i said ''Even if it still would, DM can always auto success as trivial the Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception.''
It's not trivial if there's an explicit DC requirement set by a player's own successful roll. Would you play with a DM who auto-successed every attack roll against you as well?
No, but I happily play with a DM who will not let me remain hidden when their is absolutely no cover despite the fact that my level 10 Assassin has a +14 to Stealth (20 Dex, Expertise, and a Luckstone), Reliable Talent, and a Cloak of Elvenkind.
Even with the magical aid of my Luckstone and my Cloak of Elvenkind, a magical item designed specifically to enhance Stealth, I recognize the limitations of a Skill as opposed to a Spell.
The Invisibility resulting from Hide and the Invisibility resulting from the spell are the exact same condition. There is no mechanical difference aside from the requirements to end Hide, specifically, a perception check (passive or Search action) that beats the stealth roll. Arbitrarily altering the DC due to a general rule when there's already a specific rule is bad logic and bad gameplay.
I'm feeling too lazy to go in and modify the html, so I just underlined the important sentence at the end.
The mechanical difference is not the requirements to end Hide. It's a requirement for ending the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action. It might seem a little pedantic, but it is also very important.
Here, explicitly, are the things that end the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action (the mechanical difference between using the Hide Action and casting Invisibility):
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.
Do you notice what is missing? A restriction that says that the enemy can only find you by making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Yes, I know the paragraph up above specifies the DC of a Wisdom (Perception) check, but if we take the logic that you are proposing (that this is the only way someone can be found after the Hide action) then I could just sit down on someone's lap while whispering in their ear and remain Invisible. They didn't make a Wisdom (Perception) check, after all, and I'm not committing any of the other activities that end the Condition (we will say that sitting in someone's lap does not constitute an actual Attack action, and if you insist that it does than I can just move to other ridiculous situations such as juggling flaming torches, so please, don't waste our time with that argument), so by your reasoning I'm still Invisible.
Oh, and if you can't find some plausible way to explain how they don't find me while I am sitting on their lap/juggling flaming torches, then you're a bad DM.
The Invisibility resulting from Hide and the Invisibility resulting from the spell are the exact same condition. There is no mechanical difference aside from the requirements to end Hide, specifically, a perception check (passive or Search action) that beats the stealth roll. Arbitrarily altering the DC due to a general rule when there's already a specific rule is bad logic and bad gameplay.
And by the same logic, if someone is on the other side of a wall, I should still be able to see them by beating their stealth check? The DM can always give situational modifiers or simply rule that a check is automatic or impossible.
I'm feeling too lazy to go in and modify the html, so I just underlined the important sentence at the end.
The mechanical difference is not the requirements to end Hide. It's a requirement for ending the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action. It might seem a little pedantic, but it is also very important.
Here, explicitly, are the things that end the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action (the mechanical difference between using the Hide Action and casting Invisibility):
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.
Do you notice what is missing? A restriction that says that the enemy can only find you by making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Yes, I know the paragraph up above specifies the DC of a Wisdom (Perception) check, but if we take the logic that you are proposing (that this is the only way someone can be found after the Hide action) then I could just sit down on someone's lap while whispering in their ear and remain Invisible. They didn't make a Wisdom (Perception) check, after all, and I'm not committing any of the other activities that end the Condition (we will say that sitting in someone's lap does not constitute an actual Attack action, and if you insist that it does than I can just move to other ridiculous situations such as juggling flaming torches, so please, don't waste our time with that argument), so by your reasoning I'm still Invisible.
Oh, and if you can't find some plausible way to explain how they don't find me while I am sitting on their lap/juggling flaming torches, then you're a bad DM.
Yes, losing invisible doesn't end Hide, losing Hide ends Invisible. That's what I already said last time. Both are ended when the creature makes an attack roll, unless Supreme Sneak applies.
Injecting your own requirement about what the text doesn't say is neither helpful nor compelling. The rule also doesn't say a creature can find you with a Perception check, which might allow for the imaginary alternative you're clinging to. It says "your check's total...is the DC for a creature to find you." There's no ambiguity at all, and I won't entertain this argument further.
Juggling flaming torches obviously makes noise louder than a whisper. Sitting in someone's lap wouldn't pass below their notice (passive perception). If you would stop trying to stretch every what-if to an absurd extreme, this would be a more productive discussion. The application in controversy is specifically maintaining Hide's Invisible condition after moving from being obscured or behind cover. I have yet to see any rule or rational argument to the contrary. A creature can look the wrong way while another passes through its periphery. It might not see something directly under its nose if it isn't looking. Being unseen in combat is truly the most mundane of special abilities in the game, and it's shocking how hard people push back against it.
If you could make changes to the 2024 Stealth mechanics, what would they be? For example, maybe if you end your turn out of cover you lose Invisibility or some other change.
Personally I'm totally okay with the rules being vague. I generally prefer more rules-light systems like Mothership. But I'm curious what other people would change.
And by the same logic, if someone is on the other side of a wall, I should still be able to see them by beating their stealth check? The DM can always give situational modifiers or simply rule that a check is automatic or impossible.
No, but you might hear them, same as any other perception check.
If you could make changes to the 2024 Stealth mechanics, what would they be? For example, maybe if you end your turn out of cover you lose Invisibility or some other change.
Personally I'm totally okay with the rules being vague. I generally prefer more rules-light systems like Mothership. But I'm curious what other people would change.
This is reasonable and at least somewhat supported by the Supreme Sneak feat. I'd also approve of a movement penalty to move silently, unless you have the Boots of Elvenkind.
I'm feeling too lazy to go in and modify the html, so I just underlined the important sentence at the end.
The mechanical difference is not the requirements to end Hide. It's a requirement for ending the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action. It might seem a little pedantic, but it is also very important.
Here, explicitly, are the things that end the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action (the mechanical difference between using the Hide Action and casting Invisibility):
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.
Do you notice what is missing? A restriction that says that the enemy can only find you by making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Yes, I know the paragraph up above specifies the DC of a Wisdom (Perception) check, but if we take the logic that you are proposing (that this is the only way someone can be found after the Hide action) then I could just sit down on someone's lap while whispering in their ear and remain Invisible. They didn't make a Wisdom (Perception) check, after all, and I'm not committing any of the other activities that end the Condition (we will say that sitting in someone's lap does not constitute an actual Attack action, and if you insist that it does than I can just move to other ridiculous situations such as juggling flaming torches, so please, don't waste our time with that argument), so by your reasoning I'm still Invisible.
Oh, and if you can't find some plausible way to explain how they don't find me while I am sitting on their lap/juggling flaming torches, then you're a bad DM.
Yes, losing invisible doesn't end Hide, losing Hide ends Invisible. That's what I already said last time. Both are ended when the creature makes an attack roll, unless Supreme Sneak applies.
Injecting your own requirement about what the text doesn't say is neither helpful nor compelling. The rule also doesn't say a creature can find you with a Perception check, which might allow for the imaginary alternative you're clinging to. It says "your check's total...is the DC for a creature to find you." There's no ambiguity at all, and I won't entertain this argument further.
Juggling flaming torches obviously makes noise louder than a whisper. Sitting in someone's lap wouldn't pass below their notice (passive perception). If you would stop trying to stretch every what-if to an absurd extreme, this would be a more productive discussion. The application in controversy is specifically maintaining Hide's Invisible condition after moving from being obscured or behind cover. I have yet to see any rule or rational argument to the contrary. A creature can look the wrong way while another passes through its periphery. It might not see something directly under its nose if it isn't looking. Being unseen in combat is truly the most mundane of special abilities in the game, and it's shocking how hard people push back against it.
You are wrong about the amount of noise juggling torches makes (at least as long as you don't drop them), but we can leave that for now.
Why doesn't sitting on their lap pass below their notice? I rolled a 34. Their Passive Perception is way lower than that. Are you trying to say that there may be times in which they can succeed despite the rolls?
That sounds an awful lot like what we've been saying.
You are wrong about the amount of noise juggling torches makes (at least as long as you don't drop them), but we can leave that for now.
Why doesn't sitting on their lap pass below their notice? I rolled a 34. Their Passive Perception is way lower than that. Are you trying to say that there may be times in which they can succeed despite the rolls?
That sounds an awful lot like what we've been saying.
I can hear juggled fiery torches from more than twenty feet away. I can't hear a whisper more than five feet away. One is obviously louder than the other.
Invisibility obviously only affects whether something can be seen. You must also move quietly or you'd be discovered that way. Are you bothered that the Hide rule didn't account for whether an enemy can smell or taste you, either? Because if that's the case, smelly vagrant rogues can never hide anywhere, ever.
If you could make changes to the 2024 Stealth mechanics, what would they be?
Throw them out and use a more functional set of rules? The least-effort answer is to just use the 2014 rules, though you can make the 2024 rules functional with some adjustments. For example, I might adjust the 2024 rules to specify:
If you are in plain sight (neither cover nor obscurement) of an enemy at the end if your turn or at the end of that enemy's turn, you are no longer hidden.
If you are in plain sight during your turn, at the end if your turn you are no longer hidden, unless you successfully hide again after revealing yourself.
DC for stealth is 15 or highest passive perception, whichever is more.
That means
If you leap out of a hiding place and attack, you get the benefits of being invisible.
If you're hiding and an enemy runs past you but doesn't stick around, you aren't automatically found.
If you're hiding and an enemy runs to where they (correctly) think you're hiding and tries to attack without taking a search action, you'll get the benefits of being invisible.
If you try to dart from cover to cover, you'll have to spend actions and make checks.
I'm feeling too lazy to go in and modify the html, so I just underlined the important sentence at the end.
The mechanical difference is not the requirements to end Hide. It's a requirement for ending the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action. It might seem a little pedantic, but it is also very important.
Here, explicitly, are the things that end the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action (the mechanical difference between using the Hide Action and casting Invisibility):
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.
Do you notice what is missing? A restriction that says that the enemy can only find you by making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Yes, I know the paragraph up above specifies the DC of a Wisdom (Perception) check, but if we take the logic that you are proposing (that this is the only way someone can be found after the Hide action) then I could just sit down on someone's lap while whispering in their ear and remain Invisible. They didn't make a Wisdom (Perception) check, after all, and I'm not committing any of the other activities that end the Condition (we will say that sitting in someone's lap does not constitute an actual Attack action, and if you insist that it does than I can just move to other ridiculous situations such as juggling flaming torches, so please, don't waste our time with that argument), so by your reasoning I'm still Invisible.
Oh, and if you can't find some plausible way to explain how they don't find me while I am sitting on their lap/juggling flaming torches, then you're a bad DM.
Yes, losing invisible doesn't end Hide, losing Hide ends Invisible. That's what I already said last time. Both are ended when the creature makes an attack roll, unless Supreme Sneak applies.
Injecting your own requirement about what the text doesn't say is neither helpful nor compelling. The rule also doesn't say a creature can find you with a Perception check, which might allow for the imaginary alternative you're clinging to. It says "your check's total...is the DC for a creature to find you." There's no ambiguity at all, and I won't entertain this argument further.
Juggling flaming torches obviously makes noise louder than a whisper. Sitting in someone's lap wouldn't pass below their notice (passive perception). If you would stop trying to stretch every what-if to an absurd extreme, this would be a more productive discussion. The application in controversy is specifically maintaining Hide's Invisible condition after moving from being obscured or behind cover. I have yet to see any rule or rational argument to the contrary. A creature can look the wrong way while another passes through its periphery. It might not see something directly under its nose if it isn't looking. Being unseen in combat is truly the most mundane of special abilities in the game, and it's shocking how hard people push back against it.
I was just rewatching Legend of Vox Machina. Vax literally does this. He is at one end of a hallway behind a bend. A guard is walking toward him. He has no way to avoid the guard. So he tosses a small object against the wall next to the guard. The guard turns toward the sound. Vax quickly moves directly behind the guard. As the guard turns back, Vax matches his turn, remaining behind him. The guard continues on and Vax is past him.
Game mechanics as they could have occurred: Vax used the hide action and stated his intention to walk past the guard. The DM says, "That's going to be tough. Add 10 to the DC." Vax's player hits the roll. The guard doesn't get an active perception check because he has no warning that there is an intruder, so he's not actively looking for him. Vax now has the Invisible condition. He walks down the hallway past the guard who can not see him because he is "invisible." Everything else is flavor to explain how a hiding character could pull it off.
The DM says, "That's going to be tough. Add 10 to the DC."
A recurring problem I'm seeing in this thread is that people continually fail to take into account the DM's ability/responsibility to interpret situations and rules. Someone will certainly say, "But the DM adding 10 to the DC isn't RAW!" When it is the DM's responsibility to resolve these situations in a reasonable and fun way.
To quote the DMG:
"Rules Aren't Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don't let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn't define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round."
"Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone is reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group's fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light."
You are wrong about the amount of noise juggling torches makes (at least as long as you don't drop them), but we can leave that for now.
Why doesn't sitting on their lap pass below their notice? I rolled a 34. Their Passive Perception is way lower than that. Are you trying to say that there may be times in which they can succeed despite the rolls?
That sounds an awful lot like what we've been saying.
I can hear juggled fiery torches from more than twenty feet away. I can't hear a whisper more than five feet away. One is obviously louder than the other.
Invisibility obviously only affects whether something can be seen. You must also move quietly or you'd be discovered that way. Are you bothered that the Hide rule didn't account for whether an enemy can smell or taste you, either? Because if that's the case, smelly vagrant rogues can never hide anywhere, ever.
Yes, but the RAW, and this is what you are hanging your hat on, is that the DC to find the character is the Stealth roll, and the only way to find the character is to beat that roll.
RAW, I rolled Stealth before I sat on their lap. That's a DC 34 to find me (Hide does not differentiate between senses, so 34 even for your sense of touch, even though I am sitting in your lap). You can't find me without beating that roll. That is the claim you have been maintaining. Zero exceptions to that because that is what RAW says.
But now you want to make an exception.
I'll ask you to pick a lane. In one lane, you have RAW and no exceptions. This is where that lane leads. The other lane recognizes that there are exceptions where rolling against that Stealth roll should not be required no matter how phenomenally good that roll was.
Now, you can certain argue where the lines are drawn for these exceptions. I suspect where you want to draw them is somewhere a bit more extreme than where others do, but that's fine. All I'm asking you to do is to recognize that other people aren't just making rules up. They are doing the best they can to figure out where those same lines should be and they came up with a different answer.
Yes, but the RAW, and this is what you are hanging your hat on, is that the DC to find the character is the Stealth roll, and the only way to find the character is to beat that roll.
RAW, I rolled Stealth before I sat on their lap. That's a DC 34 to find me (Hide does not differentiate between senses, so 34 even for your sense of touch, even though I am sitting in your lap). You can't find me without beating that roll. That is the claim you have been maintaining. Zero exceptions to that because that is what RAW says.
But now you want to make an exception.
I'll ask you to pick a lane. In one lane, you have RAW and no exceptions. This is where that lane leads. The other lane recognizes that there are exceptions where rolling against that Stealth roll should not be required no matter how phenomenally good that roll was.
Now, you can certain argue where the lines are drawn for these exceptions. I suspect where you want to draw them is somewhere a bit more extreme than where others do, but that's fine. All I'm asking you to do is to recognize that other people aren't just making rules up. They are doing the best they can to figure out where those same lines should be and they just disagree with where they should be drawn.
There's still no conflict with what you're describing. A perception check is what's necessary to find the hidden creature, not for that hidden creature to reveal itself. Consider your juggling torches, the Invisible concealed condition only applies to equipment you're wearing or carrying. The clubs would be fully visible, revealing your position. And you should know: You can’t willingly end a move in a space occupied by another creature. You'd fall prone, making much more noise than a whisper.
Ok. That's a really good point*. Guess I'll have to change my example, like I told you I would if you came up with something silly.
I sit in the throne and the King comes in to sit down. He can't figure out why he keeps falling on the floor every time he tries to sit down (he's the one ending his turn in my space, after all) and all the wise men in all the land are flummoxed because I got an 18 on the die for my Stealth roll and now have a total of 32.
*That's sarcasm. It's not a good point because that rule is for movement in combat and we aren't talking about a combat situation, but I figured I'd humor you and show how the situation can get even worse.
Ok. That's a really good point*. Guess I'll have to change my example, like I told you I would if you came up with something silly.
I sit in the throne and the King comes in to sit down. He can't figure out why he keeps falling on the floor every time he tries to sit down (he's the one ending his turn in my space, after all) and all the wise men in all the land are flummoxed because I got an 18 on the die for my Stealth roll and now have a total of 32.
*That's sarcasm. It's not a good point because that rule is for movement in combat and we aren't talking about a combat situation, but I figured I'd humor you and show how the situation can get even worse.
A 34 DC is above "nearly impossible," so yes you can't be seen. But you can still be touched, smelled, etc. Even attacked, with disadvantage. Would you stay silent after one of the knights' swords finally cuts you? Or when an area spell damages you even when you save? And do you think the Invisibility spell would function any differently in this scenario, time limit notwithstanding?
Edit: And are this king's wise men so foolish that they never considered calling for someone with truesight, blindsight, or see invisibility? Has this kingdom never heard of invisible spells or creatures? Pretty stupid for a king in Faerun, I have to say.
Yes, but the RAW, and this is what you are hanging your hat on, is that the DC to find the character is the Stealth roll, and the only way to find the character is to beat that roll.
RAW, I rolled Stealth before I sat on their lap. That's a DC 34 to find me (Hide does not differentiate between senses, so 34 even for your sense of touch, even though I am sitting in your lap). You can't find me without beating that roll. That is the claim you have been maintaining. Zero exceptions to that because that is what RAW says.
But now you want to make an exception.
I'll ask you to pick a lane. In one lane, you have RAW and no exceptions. This is where that lane leads. The other lane recognizes that there are exceptions where rolling against that Stealth roll should not be required no matter how phenomenally good that roll was.
Now, you can certain argue where the lines are drawn for these exceptions. I suspect where you want to draw them is somewhere a bit more extreme than where others do, but that's fine. All I'm asking you to do is to recognize that other people aren't just making rules up. They are doing the best they can to figure out where those same lines should be and they just disagree with where they should be drawn.
There's still no conflict with what you're describing. A perception check is what's necessary to find the hidden creature, not for that hidden creature to reveal itself. Consider your juggling torches, the Invisible concealed condition only applies to equipment you're wearing or carrying. The clubs would be fully visible, revealing your position. And you should know: You can’t willingly end a move in a space occupied by another creature. You'd fall prone, making much more noise than a whisper.
A Perception check doesn't have to be necessarily an active check (Search), it can be Passive Perception. The Hide action only requires for someone to beat the Stealth score of the one hiding, and both the Rules Glossary and the DMG Perception section indicate Passive Perception can be used in lieu of an active check by the DM:
Passive Perception
Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature’s general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
A creature’s Passive Perception equals 10 plus the creature’s Wisdom (Perception) check bonus. If the creature has Advantage on such checks, increase the score by 5. If the creature has Disadvantage on them, decrease the score by 5. For example, a level 1 character with a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception has a Passive Perception of 14 (10 + 2 + 2). If that character has Advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks, the score becomes 19.
And ultimately, the DM is the arbiter of the rules, and can determine when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding based on the situation per page 19 of the PHB. Don't get me wrong, I do believe the current rules are more lenient to allow for situations like the Vax scenario listed by Sperril above, but I also prescribe to the idea that if you hide and then come out in front of a guard to dance the Macarena, don't expect the DM to say that you're still hidden.
And ultimately, the DM is the arbiter of the rules, and can determine when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding based on the situation per page 19 of the PHB.
Though honestly, I think Hiding, hide, stealth, and other references such as Chases aren't really consistent with each other and probably indicate rules that were in flux until fairly late in the development process.
And ultimately, the DM is the arbiter of the rules, and can determine when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding based on the situation per page 19 of the PHB.
Though honestly, I think Hiding, hide, stealth, and other references such as Chases aren't really consistent with each other and probably indicate rules that were in flux until fairly late in the development process.
Don't disagree with that; they had a different version for each playtest all the way to playtest 8.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're going out of your way and bending over backwards to subvert very plain and obvious language. Which is your prerogative, but it isn't supported by the text. The Hide rule is clear about the requirements to Hide and gain Invisibility, and the requirements to be found while hidden. Anything else is your own mental gymnastics.
The Invisibility resulting from Hide and the Invisibility resulting from the spell are the exact same condition. There is no mechanical difference aside from the requirements to end Hide, specifically, a perception check (passive or Search action) that beats the stealth roll. Arbitrarily altering the DC due to a general rule when there's already a specific rule is bad logic and bad gameplay.
No worries, and I think we are actually pretty much in agreement for how to work Stealth. I won't be so kind as to say 'both guards suddenly experience hysterical blindness because you rolled really well', but if the player can come up with some plausible way to make their Stealth work (didn't you say the ceilings in the halls were 25' high vaulted ceilings? The brightly lit chandeliers would obscure a lot of their vision up there, so isn't it believable for me to climb up there and sneak along?) I would then allow the roll (perhaps with modifiers).
I'm feeling too lazy to go in and modify the html, so I just underlined the important sentence at the end.
The mechanical difference is not the requirements to end Hide. It's a requirement for ending the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action. It might seem a little pedantic, but it is also very important.
Here, explicitly, are the things that end the Invisible Condition after using the Hide Action (the mechanical difference between using the Hide Action and casting Invisibility):
Do you notice what is missing? A restriction that says that the enemy can only find you by making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
Yes, I know the paragraph up above specifies the DC of a Wisdom (Perception) check, but if we take the logic that you are proposing (that this is the only way someone can be found after the Hide action) then I could just sit down on someone's lap while whispering in their ear and remain Invisible. They didn't make a Wisdom (Perception) check, after all, and I'm not committing any of the other activities that end the Condition (we will say that sitting in someone's lap does not constitute an actual Attack action, and if you insist that it does than I can just move to other ridiculous situations such as juggling flaming torches, so please, don't waste our time with that argument), so by your reasoning I'm still Invisible.
Oh, and if you can't find some plausible way to explain how they don't find me while I am sitting on their lap/juggling flaming torches, then you're a bad DM.
And by the same logic, if someone is on the other side of a wall, I should still be able to see them by beating their stealth check? The DM can always give situational modifiers or simply rule that a check is automatic or impossible.
Yes, losing invisible doesn't end Hide, losing Hide ends Invisible. That's what I already said last time. Both are ended when the creature makes an attack roll, unless Supreme Sneak applies.
Injecting your own requirement about what the text doesn't say is neither helpful nor compelling. The rule also doesn't say a creature can find you with a Perception check, which might allow for the imaginary alternative you're clinging to. It says "your check's total...is the DC for a creature to find you." There's no ambiguity at all, and I won't entertain this argument further.
Juggling flaming torches obviously makes noise louder than a whisper. Sitting in someone's lap wouldn't pass below their notice (passive perception). If you would stop trying to stretch every what-if to an absurd extreme, this would be a more productive discussion. The application in controversy is specifically maintaining Hide's Invisible condition after moving from being obscured or behind cover. I have yet to see any rule or rational argument to the contrary. A creature can look the wrong way while another passes through its periphery. It might not see something directly under its nose if it isn't looking. Being unseen in combat is truly the most mundane of special abilities in the game, and it's shocking how hard people push back against it.
Question for folks still tuning into this thread:
If you could make changes to the 2024 Stealth mechanics, what would they be? For example, maybe if you end your turn out of cover you lose Invisibility or some other change.
Personally I'm totally okay with the rules being vague. I generally prefer more rules-light systems like Mothership. But I'm curious what other people would change.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
No, but you might hear them, same as any other perception check.
This is reasonable and at least somewhat supported by the Supreme Sneak feat. I'd also approve of a movement penalty to move silently, unless you have the Boots of Elvenkind.
You are wrong about the amount of noise juggling torches makes (at least as long as you don't drop them), but we can leave that for now.
Why doesn't sitting on their lap pass below their notice? I rolled a 34. Their Passive Perception is way lower than that. Are you trying to say that there may be times in which they can succeed despite the rolls?
That sounds an awful lot like what we've been saying.
I can hear juggled fiery torches from more than twenty feet away. I can't hear a whisper more than five feet away. One is obviously louder than the other.
Invisibility obviously only affects whether something can be seen. You must also move quietly or you'd be discovered that way. Are you bothered that the Hide rule didn't account for whether an enemy can smell or taste you, either? Because if that's the case, smelly vagrant rogues can never hide anywhere, ever.
Throw them out and use a more functional set of rules? The least-effort answer is to just use the 2014 rules, though you can make the 2024 rules functional with some adjustments. For example, I might adjust the 2024 rules to specify:
That means
I was just rewatching Legend of Vox Machina. Vax literally does this. He is at one end of a hallway behind a bend. A guard is walking toward him. He has no way to avoid the guard. So he tosses a small object against the wall next to the guard. The guard turns toward the sound. Vax quickly moves directly behind the guard. As the guard turns back, Vax matches his turn, remaining behind him. The guard continues on and Vax is past him.
Game mechanics as they could have occurred: Vax used the hide action and stated his intention to walk past the guard. The DM says, "That's going to be tough. Add 10 to the DC." Vax's player hits the roll. The guard doesn't get an active perception check because he has no warning that there is an intruder, so he's not actively looking for him. Vax now has the Invisible condition. He walks down the hallway past the guard who can not see him because he is "invisible." Everything else is flavor to explain how a hiding character could pull it off.
A recurring problem I'm seeing in this thread is that people continually fail to take into account the DM's ability/responsibility to interpret situations and rules. Someone will certainly say, "But the DM adding 10 to the DC isn't RAW!" When it is the DM's responsibility to resolve these situations in a reasonable and fun way.
To quote the DMG:
"Rules Aren't Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don't let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn't define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round."
"Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone is reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group's fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light."
I have Darkvision, by the way.
Yes, but the RAW, and this is what you are hanging your hat on, is that the DC to find the character is the Stealth roll, and the only way to find the character is to beat that roll.
RAW, I rolled Stealth before I sat on their lap. That's a DC 34 to find me (Hide does not differentiate between senses, so 34 even for your sense of touch, even though I am sitting in your lap). You can't find me without beating that roll. That is the claim you have been maintaining. Zero exceptions to that because that is what RAW says.
But now you want to make an exception.
I'll ask you to pick a lane. In one lane, you have RAW and no exceptions. This is where that lane leads. The other lane recognizes that there are exceptions where rolling against that Stealth roll should not be required no matter how phenomenally good that roll was.
Now, you can certain argue where the lines are drawn for these exceptions. I suspect where you want to draw them is somewhere a bit more extreme than where others do, but that's fine. All I'm asking you to do is to recognize that other people aren't just making rules up. They are doing the best they can to figure out where those same lines should be and they came up with a different answer.
There's still no conflict with what you're describing. A perception check is what's necessary to find the hidden creature, not for that hidden creature to reveal itself. Consider your juggling torches, the Invisible concealed condition only applies to equipment you're wearing or carrying. The clubs would be fully visible, revealing your position. And you should know: You can’t willingly end a move in a space occupied by another creature. You'd fall prone, making much more noise than a whisper.
Ok. That's a really good point*. Guess I'll have to change my example, like I told you I would if you came up with something silly.
I sit in the throne and the King comes in to sit down. He can't figure out why he keeps falling on the floor every time he tries to sit down (he's the one ending his turn in my space, after all) and all the wise men in all the land are flummoxed because I got an 18 on the die for my Stealth roll and now have a total of 32.
*That's sarcasm. It's not a good point because that rule is for movement in combat and we aren't talking about a combat situation, but I figured I'd humor you and show how the situation can get even worse.
A 34 DC is above "nearly impossible," so yes you can't be seen. But you can still be touched, smelled, etc. Even attacked, with disadvantage. Would you stay silent after one of the knights' swords finally cuts you? Or when an area spell damages you even when you save? And do you think the Invisibility spell would function any differently in this scenario, time limit notwithstanding?
Edit: And are this king's wise men so foolish that they never considered calling for someone with truesight, blindsight, or see invisibility? Has this kingdom never heard of invisible spells or creatures? Pretty stupid for a king in Faerun, I have to say.
A Perception check doesn't have to be necessarily an active check (Search), it can be Passive Perception. The Hide action only requires for someone to beat the Stealth score of the one hiding, and both the Rules Glossary and the DMG Perception section indicate Passive Perception can be used in lieu of an active check by the DM:
And ultimately, the DM is the arbiter of the rules, and can determine when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding based on the situation per page 19 of the PHB. Don't get me wrong, I do believe the current rules are more lenient to allow for situations like the Vax scenario listed by Sperril above, but I also prescribe to the idea that if you hide and then come out in front of a guard to dance the Macarena, don't expect the DM to say that you're still hidden.
Though honestly, I think Hiding, hide, stealth, and other references such as Chases aren't really consistent with each other and probably indicate rules that were in flux until fairly late in the development process.
Don't disagree with that; they had a different version for each playtest all the way to playtest 8.