. . . 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.
I knew there was a reason that this comment didn't sit right with me. Straight from the Dungeon Master's Guide under Perception:
An important time to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check is when another creature is using the Stealth skill to hide. Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so.
I don't see "choose to be unhidden" as one of the ways you can be unhidden in that list.
Would you argue that it's impossible for a hidden character to use only visual cues to become unhidden, then? That a character is unable to use stealth to get into a position to signal allies because they will then be invisible to them? That waving a torch over your head has your allies squinting in the distance but if you softly cough (apparently your allies don't even need to be able to hear it, taking that list literally, as there is no language suggesting that anything needs to actually be near enough to you to hear this "sound louder than a whisper") they can suddenly see you from 100 yards away?
I don't actually have a problem with a stealthy character getting their whole turn still technically "hidden" when moving out from cover. What I have a problem with is the thief that doesn't want to be hidden anymore, but is limited to a rather restrictive list on how to go about not being hidden.
I leave you with this admittedly contrived example: A thief is sneaking around a glass tower at night. They roll high on their stealth check and make it past all the guards to a central room. Entering that room, they set off a silence trap and the (glass) door shuts behind them with no way to open it from the inside. At this point, there is literally no way for anyone to ever find this thief, even in his black cloak against the clear glass of the room as the Sun rises. The thief's friends who had been waiting outside can now see in and the thief has completely disappeared. They think he's abandoned them, I guess. The thief then proceeds to die of dehydration as he is completely unable to ever be found.
The list of how Hide ends doesn't require a third party as a witness, simply that some kind of noise or attack is made. The thief initiating an unarmed attack against itself (slap in the face) would satisfy both, though the silence trap does negate the sound element here. The attack doesn't even need to hit, it just needs to be rolled. Additionally, removing any equipment like the cloak ends the concealment on that equipment. Repeatedly picking up and throwing a large black cloak that vanishes from notice every time it's in the thief's hands is sure to get some kind of attention.
I'm all for contrivances, don't get me wrong. But contrived questions get contrived answers. Ultimately, you have to rationally explain in any such example why the Hide-Invisible condition should behave any different from the Spell-Invisible condition. They are mechanically and thus functionally identical. That's all.
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.
Easy! I would make Hiding and Invisibility different. Hiding doesn't make you Invisible/invisible. It would make you Hidden. Hidden ends when you are in plain sight (leave 3/4 cover). That way someone can walk around the column you are hiding behind and not need to spend their whole action to Search, potentially failing, to see you standing there. This also covers the hiding in a bush still requiring them to take the Search action, because you're still in 3/4 / full cover (but the DM could give them advantage if they are within 5 ft. of you).
The Hidden condition would also state that creatures you have successfully hidden from are treated as being Blinded to you (just like when you try to see into an area of Heavy Obscurement). This means that you can Hide from one target, but not from others or vice versa.
Invisibility would actually make you invisible the way everyone understands it. It would have the 2014 line put back in that you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
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.
I said a 32, not 34, and a dedicated 9th level Rogue with 0 magic items will hit that roll 10% of the time (or more if they get Advantage). It was not arbitrarily chosen for exactly that reason.
I could talk about how you are metagaming by having the knights attacking an empty throne, but the funniest part is that you want to insist that they still can't see the guy sitting right there as they are doing that. Does that really sound right to you?
Oh! And you want to say I must make noise when I take damage? I don't see that written anywhere. You're the one trying to say 'must follow RAW or you're wrong', so please, don't bring in any arguments where you have to either add or ignore a rule.
Ironically, this means that all that chopping by the knights and those fireballs you are talking about, even after the Rogue has perished, he is still sitting Invisibly in the throne, under your interpretation, because death doesn't end the condition (nothing in the RAW about it).
So your answer is that it will take basically magical intervention to see the Rogue sitting right there? Even though people are sliding off his lap, people can't see him until a spell is cast, because he rolled well on a Skill Check?
This is the problem with trying to drive in 'Lane 1'.
edit: And I just realized, the best part, the absolute best part, is that you as the DM have to come up with the explanation for why no one can see the dead Rogue, under your own criteria, or else you are a 'bad DM' and I should 'weep for your players'.
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.
I said a 32, not 34, and a dedicated 9th level Rogue with 0 magic items will hit that roll 10% of the time (or more if they get Advantage). It was not arbitrarily chosen for exactly that reason.
I could talk about how you are metagaming by having the knights attacking an empty throne, but the funniest part is that you want to insist that they still can't see the guy sitting right there as they are doing that. Does that really sound right to you?
Oh! And you want to say I must make noise when I take damage? I don't see that written anywhere. You're the one trying to say 'must follow RAW or you're wrong', so please, don't bring in any arguments where you have to either add or ignore a rule.
Ironically, this means that all that chopping by the knights and those fireballs you are talking about, even after the Rogue has perished, he is still sitting Invisibly in the throne, under your interpretation, because death doesn't end the condition (nothing in the RAW about it).
So your answer is that it will take basically magical intervention to see the Rogue sitting right there? Even though people are sliding off his lap, people can't see him until a spell is cast, because he rolled well on a Skill Check?
This is the problem with trying to drive in 'Lane 1'.
edit: And I just realized, the best part, the absolute best part, is that you as the DM have to come up with the explanation for why no one can see the dead Rogue, under your own criteria, or else you are a 'bad DM' and I should 'weep for your players'.
Let's try and keep the hair-splitting to the ones that are in contention. Both 32 and 34 are above the Nearly Impossible task difficulty DC of 30. Forgive an insignificant typo.
Simply because you aren't seen, that doesn't mean no one can tell that something is in your space. You can still be touched and smelled, just not seen. In your torch juggling example, presuming the impossibility of doing so silently, everyone would be able to see exactly where the torches were appearing and disappearing from, despite your personal concealment. Otherwise, why does the Invisible condition specifically say that attacks against you have Disadvantage? Any successful physical attack will make some amount of sound above a whisper even if it's just a fist against a face. Nothing in the rule states that the noise has to be voluntary. A gut punch is sure to elicit some kind of grunt, cloth can rip, skin slaps, and so on. If you were toppled prone, hitting the floor would thud. Being moved by an area attack would make your boots skid along the floor. There's no list of what can possibly make noise because there doesn't need to be. But there needed to be a list of circumstances where Hide ends, and we have it. Being in line of sight is not one of them, because you're Invisible.
It's telling that you ignored how this would play out exactly the same when using the Invisibility spell. Do you have a problem with how that spell works too? I'd have to assume so, if you think this scenario is so absurd. It's a lousy royal security detail if literally no one has See Invisibility.
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.
I said a 32, not 34, and a dedicated 9th level Rogue with 0 magic items will hit that roll 10% of the time (or more if they get Advantage). It was not arbitrarily chosen for exactly that reason.
I could talk about how you are metagaming by having the knights attacking an empty throne, but the funniest part is that you want to insist that they still can't see the guy sitting right there as they are doing that. Does that really sound right to you?
Oh! And you want to say I must make noise when I take damage? I don't see that written anywhere. You're the one trying to say 'must follow RAW or you're wrong', so please, don't bring in any arguments where you have to either add or ignore a rule.
Ironically, this means that all that chopping by the knights and those fireballs you are talking about, even after the Rogue has perished, he is still sitting Invisibly in the throne, under your interpretation, because death doesn't end the condition (nothing in the RAW about it).
So your answer is that it will take basically magical intervention to see the Rogue sitting right there? Even though people are sliding off his lap, people can't see him until a spell is cast, because he rolled well on a Skill Check?
This is the problem with trying to drive in 'Lane 1'.
edit: And I just realized, the best part, the absolute best part, is that you as the DM have to come up with the explanation for why no one can see the dead Rogue, under your own criteria, or else you are a 'bad DM' and I should 'weep for your players'.
Let's try and keep the hair-splitting to the ones that are in contention. Both 32 and 34 are above the Nearly Impossible task difficulty DC of 30. Forgive an insignificant typo.
Simply because you aren't seen, that doesn't mean no one can tell that something is in your space. You can still be touched and smelled, just not seen.
Mmmm....Not if they don't beat a 32. That's the Difficulty to see me, RAW, end of discussion.
Unless <gasp!> you are saying it would be possible for someone to perceive me without beating that roll.
In your torch juggling example, presuming the impossibility of doing so silently, everyone would be able to see exactly where the torches were appearing and disappearing from, despite your personal concealment. Otherwise, why does the Invisible condition specifically say that attacks against you have Disadvantage? Any successful physical attack will make some amount of sound above a whisper even if it's just a fist against a face. Nothing in the rule states that the noise has to be voluntary. A gut punch is sure to elicit some kind of grunt, cloth can rip, skin slaps, and so on. If you were toppled prone, hitting the floor would thud. Being moved by an area attack would make your boots skid along the floor. There's no list of what can possibly make noise because there doesn't need to be.
Nope. Nothing in RAW about any of those activities forcing the Rogue to make noise. This is almost always the weakness when people try to resort to 'RAW'. They want to insist on following the RAW, but then somewhere along the line they also have to insist on adding extra rules.
e.g., Your peasant rail gun? Sure, you got them all lined up and they pass along the spear until it is moving at roughly 5 times the speed of sound. Sure, you made your Attack roll. Now roll the 1d6 for the Piercing damage. What do you mean it should be higher? RAW, a spear does 1d6. There's no rule that adds anything because you accelerated it to ludicrous speed.
So, if you are going to insist that RAW means he can't be seen in the chair, even though he is in plain sight, please do not add rules like 'X will cause him to make noise' or 'being dead ends the Condition'. Your steadfast refusal to allow others to decide upon mitigating circumstances that are explicitly written in the rules means you don't get to add them either.
But there needed to be a list of circumstances where Hide ends, and we have it. Being in line of sight is not one of them, because you're Invisible.
For clarity, I am not saying merely being in LoS ends the Condition. I'm saying that being in LoS when there is no reasonable chance for you to be hidden (lack of cover, no confusing circumstances, etc.) ends the Condition, and it does so because, although you have a Condition name Invisible you are not, in fact, Invisible. You simply gain certain benefits (and if you look at the Condition itself it does not say it is impossible to see you without beating a Perception roll).
Yes, the name of the Condition carries an implication, but most of us resolve that by saying they did a terrible job naming the Condition. Regardless of that, you should take the implication of the name to insist that a Rogue using Stealth turns Invisible, because implications are not RAW and you are insisting on RAW.
It's telling that you ignored how this would play out exactly the same when using the Invisibility spell. Do you have a problem with how that spell works too? I'd have to assume so, if you think this scenario is so absurd. It's a lousy royal security detail if literally no one has See Invisibility.
No. I completely get that it would play out this way using the Invisibility spell. I am not talking about the Invisibility spell. Pretty much the only times I mention the Invisibility spell is when I say 'Stealth is not the Invisibility spell'. Yes, they have identical effects, while they are functioning, but the rules for Hide cause Stealth to end when the character is found, while Invisibility ends under other circumstances (loss of Concentration, Duration, casting of spells that lack Verbal components regardless of effect).
The list of how Hide ends doesn't require a third party as a witness, simply that some kind of noise or attack is made. The thief initiating an unarmed attack against itself (slap in the face) would satisfy both, though the silence trap does negate the sound element here. The attack doesn't even need to hit, it just needs to be rolled. Additionally, removing any equipment like the cloak ends the concealment on that equipment. Repeatedly picking up and throwing a large black cloak that vanishes from notice every time it's in the thief's hands is sure to get some kind of attention.
I'm all for contrivances, don't get me wrong. But contrived questions get contrived answers. Ultimately, you have to rationally explain in any such example why the Hide-Invisible condition should behave any different from the Spell-Invisible condition. They are mechanically and thus functionally identical. That's all.
Well, identical except for "an enemy finds you" as a clause that removes the condition. And that's where the major sticking point is in this thread. The point of my contrived example was to highlight the point above it: that someone who is hidden can't simply decide to come out of hiding by insisting that the only way "an enemy finds you" is with an active Perception (Wisdom) Check that beats the DC from the stealth roll by the hider. They are forced to make noise (without even needing to be in earshot of anyone, which you agree with), or attack something.
What gets me the most is that it's easier to stop being invisible from the invisible spell (because you can simply choose to end it) than being hidden, using this hyper strict reading.
In terms of design intent, I think it's safe to say that the intent is rules that pass cinematic (rather than realistic) SoD. Based on that assumption, we can assume a master of stealth (whatever we think that means) is Batman, whereas a person who casts invisibility is Sue Storm. I'm inclined to think Batman is more like 7th level (+10 stealth and reliable) or 13th level (+15 stealth) than like first level (unless we're talking the 1960s TV show), but still, it's a reasonable way of looking at the situation.
So, can Batman get through a room of modest skill guards unnoticed despite lack of cover? I would say... yes, but he's going to have to do more than walk through the room, he's going to have to do things (corresponding to additional actions and skill checks) and craft a plausible narrative for how he did it, and it will require skill checks that a lower skilled character could not be expected to make (so DC above 15).
In terms of design intent, I think it's safe to say that the intent is rules that pass cinematic (rather than realistic) SoD. Based on that assumption, we can assume a master of stealth (whatever we think that means) is Batman, whereas a person who casts invisibility is Sue Storm. I'm inclined to think Batman is more like 7th level (+10 stealth and reliable) or 13th level (+15 stealth) than like first level (unless we're talking the 1960s TV show), but still, it's a reasonable way of looking at the situation.
So, can Batman get through a room of modest skill guards unnoticed despite lack of cover? I would say... yes, but he's going to have to do more than walk through the room, he's going to have to do things (corresponding to additional actions and skill checks) and craft a plausible narrative for how he did it, and it will require skill checks that a lower skilled character could not be expected to make (so DC above 15).
And I agree with this PoV. We might draw the line as to exactly how far the Cinematic standard extends at different points, but the only time you see someone slip past two guards in the hallway scenario using mere Stealth as described is when the movie is making fun of the trope of someone super-duper stealthy.
Situations come up that could distract the guards? Go to town. The player figures out some clever way to generate such a situation? Even better. Ultimately, though, the maximum capability of Stealth (something which can be used almost limitlessly) needs to be lower than the maximum capability of the Invisibility spell (which has a very finite limit as to how long it can be used) for reasons of balance.
Mmmm....Not if they don't beat a 32. That's the Difficulty to see me, RAW, end of discussion.
Unless <gasp!> you are saying it would be possible for someone to perceive me without beating that roll.
No, you need to be specific with your words when rules lawyering; that's the DC to find you. Not see, find. Once you're found, which could be roleplayed to feature any of the other available senses, Invisible ends and you can then be seen. The benefit of being Invisible means you're Concealed: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. That means a creature with Truesight, Blindsight, or See Invisibility would negate the Invisible condition and you can be targeted without Disadvantage by that specific creature. You would still be hidden and Invisible to other creatures unless you make noise after being attacked.
I don't have to explain how narrative gameplay works. It's well within the DM's discretion to say, "You want to bang two pots together, but silently? Well, that's impossible and you made noise, so you've been found and are no longer Invisible." Or, "The flailing knight's spear connects with your head, making an audible crack, and you can no longer escape the notice of the other creatures around you. You've been found and have lost the Invisible condition."
I appreciate stretching for the mechanical limits of the written language, that's what I'm here for. But I don't especially care that you don't like how they wrote Hide and Invisible together. I think it functions the way they expected players would use it. It's a simple way to avoid having to map out every creature's vision cone for combat purposes: you can Hide, move into melee range, and attack with advantage for a Sneak Attack. Could it have used an extra sentence for more clarity? Maybe, but I truly don't see this one specific ability being tortured and abused in any real way, in any real game. RAW, the difference between the function of Hide Invisibility and Spell Invisibility are strictly narrative. Bummer.
In terms of design intent, I think it's safe to say that the intent is rules that pass cinematic (rather than realistic) SoD. Based on that assumption, we can assume a master of stealth (whatever we think that means) is Batman, whereas a person who casts invisibility is Sue Storm. I'm inclined to think Batman is more like 7th level (+10 stealth and reliable) or 13th level (+15 stealth) than like first level (unless we're talking the 1960s TV show), but still, it's a reasonable way of looking at the situation.
So, can Batman get through a room of modest skill guards unnoticed despite lack of cover? I would say... yes, but he's going to have to do more than walk through the room, he's going to have to do things (corresponding to additional actions and skill checks) and craft a plausible narrative for how he did it, and it will require skill checks that a lower skilled character could not be expected to make (so DC above 15).
And I agree with this PoV. We might draw the line as to exactly how far the Cinematic standard extends at different points, but the only time you see someone slip past two guards in the hallway scenario using mere Stealth as described is when the movie is making fun of the trope of someone super-duper stealthy.
Situations come up that could distract the guards? Go to town. The player figures out some clever way to generate such a situation? Even better. Ultimately, though, the maximum capability of Stealth (something which can be used almost limitlessly) needs to be lower than the maximum capability of the Invisibility spell (which has a very finite limit as to how long it can be used) for reasons of balance.
Just humor me real quick, what balance reasons are you considering? I think only Rogues can really abuse stealth and they're generally limited to one sneak attack per turn, which they'll probably get anyway and don't need Stealth to pull it off in many scenarios.
I'm not saying it can't be abused, I'm just not clever enough to imagine a situation to easily abuse it off the top of my head. Thanks!
In terms of design intent, I think it's safe to say that the intent is rules that pass cinematic (rather than realistic) SoD. Based on that assumption, we can assume a master of stealth (whatever we think that means) is Batman, whereas a person who casts invisibility is Sue Storm. I'm inclined to think Batman is more like 7th level (+10 stealth and reliable) or 13th level (+15 stealth) than like first level (unless we're talking the 1960s TV show), but still, it's a reasonable way of looking at the situation.
So, can Batman get through a room of modest skill guards unnoticed despite lack of cover? I would say... yes, but he's going to have to do more than walk through the room, he's going to have to do things (corresponding to additional actions and skill checks) and craft a plausible narrative for how he did it, and it will require skill checks that a lower skilled character could not be expected to make (so DC above 15).
And I agree with this PoV. We might draw the line as to exactly how far the Cinematic standard extends at different points, but the only time you see someone slip past two guards in the hallway scenario using mere Stealth as described is when the movie is making fun of the trope of someone super-duper stealthy.
Situations come up that could distract the guards? Go to town. The player figures out some clever way to generate such a situation? Even better. Ultimately, though, the maximum capability of Stealth (something which can be used almost limitlessly) needs to be lower than the maximum capability of the Invisibility spell (which has a very finite limit as to how long it can be used) for reasons of balance.
Just humor me real quick, what balance reasons are you considering? I think only Rogues can really abuse stealth and they're generally limited to one sneak attack per turn, which they'll probably get anyway and don't need Stealth to pull it off in many scenarios.
I'm not saying it can't be abused, I'm just not clever enough to imagine a situation to easily abuse it off the top of my head. Thanks!
Well there’s the obvious “you can’t see me”! defense of apparently being completely unfindable without an Action or special senses simply because you stepped behind a crate or something.
I'm not referring to abuse. I'm referring to balance.
Walking down a hallway past two guards when there is no way for them to miss the Rogue, and being able to do it over and over and over again limitlessly while the Wizard can only do it for a short amount of time is a balance issue. It is compensated for by having the spell be slightly more powerful (lacking the 'Condition ends if found' clause).
To be clear, I've got no problem with a supernaturally stealthy character (e.g., Arcane Trickster) who spends the majority of the time skulking around using their supremely good skill, then busts out Invisibility to get past the 'how did you get passed my guards?! That's impossible!' situation because, while there is no limit to the amount of time they can be using their skill, there is a limit to how often they can pull off 'That's impossible!'.
Additionally, as I have indicated, allowing the 'normal' Rogue to pull off that kind of thing purely through skill devalues the Spellcasting feature of the Arcane Trickster. They are sacrificing the abilities of other subclasses in order to pull off 'that's impossible!', so people who haven't made that sacrifice shouldn't get it for free.
Also, please note, I'm not advocating that merely breaking cover instantly removes the Invisible Condition on a Rogue. Rogues should be able to count on using their Stealth probably 90%+ of the time. What I am advocating is that there be some sort of limitations to it compensates for the limitations that the Invisibility spell has (e.g., Duration, spell slots) which the skill does not.
The list of how Hide ends doesn't require a third party as a witness, simply that some kind of noise or attack is made. The thief initiating an unarmed attack against itself (slap in the face) would satisfy both, though the silence trap does negate the sound element here. The attack doesn't even need to hit, it just needs to be rolled. Additionally, removing any equipment like the cloak ends the concealment on that equipment. Repeatedly picking up and throwing a large black cloak that vanishes from notice every time it's in the thief's hands is sure to get some kind of attention.
I'm all for contrivances, don't get me wrong. But contrived questions get contrived answers. Ultimately, you have to rationally explain in any such example why the Hide-Invisible condition should behave any different from the Spell-Invisible condition. They are mechanically and thus functionally identical. That's all.
Well, identical except for "an enemy finds you" as a clause that removes the condition. And that's where the major sticking point is in this thread. The point of my contrived example was to highlight the point above it: that someone who is hidden can't simply decide to come out of hiding by insisting that the only way "an enemy finds you" is with an active Perception (Wisdom) Check that beats the DC from the stealth roll by the hider. They are forced to make noise (without even needing to be in earshot of anyone, which you agree with), or attack something.
What gets me the most is that it's easier to stop being invisible from the invisible spell (because you can simply choose to end it) than being hidden, using this hyper strict reading.
You actually can't voluntarily end the Invisibility spell unless you're the caster concentrating. Otherwise, you have similar constraints as Hide: The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
You actually can't voluntarily end the Invisibility spell unless you're the caster concentrating. Otherwise, you have similar constraints as Hide: The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
Yes, I understand that. But the situation where invisibility is cast on you is not comparable. You can't succeed on a stealth check to hide someone else.
You actually can't voluntarily end the Invisibility spell unless you're the caster concentrating. Otherwise, you have similar constraints as Hide: The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
Yes, I understand that. But the situation where invisibility is cast on you is not comparable. You can't succeed on a stealth check to hide someone else.
Sure, but a character from any class can perform the same stealth check to hide whenever they meet the requirements. This isn't a rogue-exclusive skill we're talking about. All of the tortured narrative non-combat scenarios that have been thrown around could be accomplished by any other character. It's solely because Rogues get Cunning Action so it's useful in combat that people are upset. Oh no, so Rogues have six ways to get Advantage on an attack, not five?! Heaven forbid.
Just humor me real quick, what balance reasons are you considering?
Bonus action hide can be a balance problem due to action economy issues (attack first, then hide as a bonus action to have the defensive benefits until the next turn; that totally shuts down creature that use attacks that require vision unless they have an ability to penetrate stealth by a means other than the search action). Of course, that mostly worked in 2014. The problems with stealth in 2024 are not mostly about balance, they're about it behaving in an unclear and unintuitive way -- using the simplest RAW reading, it both does things that we don't expect it to do (lets you remain unseen in plain sight) and fails to do things we expect it to do (hide doesn't actually say that you become unheard, or that your location is unknown).
You actually can't voluntarily end the Invisibility spell unless you're the caster concentrating. Otherwise, you have similar constraints as Hide: The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
Yes, I understand that. But the situation where invisibility is cast on you is not comparable. You can't succeed on a stealth check to hide someone else.
Sure, but a character from any class can perform the same stealth check to hide whenever they meet the requirements. This isn't a rogue-exclusive skill we're talking about. All of the tortured narrative non-combat scenarios that have been thrown around could be accomplished by any other character. It's solely because Rogues get Cunning Action so it's useful in combat that people are upset. Oh no, so Rogues have six ways to get Advantage on an attack, not five?! Heaven forbid.
The issue is a) it’s a glaring nonsensical interpretation of what a skill check can achieve on the same order as “I flap my arms hard enough to fly” and b) the fact that the Action is worthless for most classes but if not actively broken then certainly dancing on the edge of it for Rogues, since- again- it allows them to literally render themselves untargetable if a DM puts any significant objects or corners on a given map essentially at will.
Also, please note, I'm not advocating that merely breaking cover instantly removes the Invisible Condition on a Rogue. Rogues should be able to count on using their Stealth probably 90%+ of the time. What I am advocating is that there be some sort of limitations to it compensates for the limitations that the Invisibility spell has (e.g., Duration, spell slots) which the skill does not.
Yes, there absolutely should be limitations. The problem is that there are not per RAW.
The problem is that RAW makes no distinction between magical invisibility and hiding in the benefits it gets you. You hide, you get the Invisible condition, and only attacking, casting a verbal spell, making a sound louder than a whisper, or an enemy finds you (spelled out as a Wisdom (Perception) check).
The thing that 5e Invisibility did was let you take the Hide action while out in the open. This let you sneak across the wide open room with Stealth checks. 5.5e Hide makes you Invisible and negates the need for Stealth checks altogether by doing it just once (or spamming it however many times you need to get a Nat20). If we assume that they actually meant Invisible to mean invisible, then Hiding is ridiculously broken. If we read Invisible as written, then you can never become invisible, you just can't be seen unless you can be seen, making Invisibility and Greater Invisibility absolutely useless.
Unfortunately, there is no middle ground per RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I knew there was a reason that this comment didn't sit right with me. Straight from the Dungeon Master's Guide under Perception:
An important time to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check is when another creature is using the Stealth skill to hide. Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so.
Glad that's settled.
I don't see "choose to be unhidden" as one of the ways you can be unhidden in that list.
Would you argue that it's impossible for a hidden character to use only visual cues to become unhidden, then? That a character is unable to use stealth to get into a position to signal allies because they will then be invisible to them? That waving a torch over your head has your allies squinting in the distance but if you softly cough (apparently your allies don't even need to be able to hear it, taking that list literally, as there is no language suggesting that anything needs to actually be near enough to you to hear this "sound louder than a whisper") they can suddenly see you from 100 yards away?
I don't actually have a problem with a stealthy character getting their whole turn still technically "hidden" when moving out from cover. What I have a problem with is the thief that doesn't want to be hidden anymore, but is limited to a rather restrictive list on how to go about not being hidden.
I leave you with this admittedly contrived example:
A thief is sneaking around a glass tower at night. They roll high on their stealth check and make it past all the guards to a central room. Entering that room, they set off a silence trap and the (glass) door shuts behind them with no way to open it from the inside. At this point, there is literally no way for anyone to ever find this thief, even in his black cloak against the clear glass of the room as the Sun rises. The thief's friends who had been waiting outside can now see in and the thief has completely disappeared. They think he's abandoned them, I guess. The thief then proceeds to die of dehydration as he is completely unable to ever be found.
The list of how Hide ends doesn't require a third party as a witness, simply that some kind of noise or attack is made. The thief initiating an unarmed attack against itself (slap in the face) would satisfy both, though the silence trap does negate the sound element here. The attack doesn't even need to hit, it just needs to be rolled. Additionally, removing any equipment like the cloak ends the concealment on that equipment. Repeatedly picking up and throwing a large black cloak that vanishes from notice every time it's in the thief's hands is sure to get some kind of attention.
I'm all for contrivances, don't get me wrong. But contrived questions get contrived answers. Ultimately, you have to rationally explain in any such example why the Hide-Invisible condition should behave any different from the Spell-Invisible condition. They are mechanically and thus functionally identical. That's all.
Easy! I would make Hiding and Invisibility different. Hiding doesn't make you Invisible/invisible. It would make you Hidden. Hidden ends when you are in plain sight (leave 3/4 cover). That way someone can walk around the column you are hiding behind and not need to spend their whole action to Search, potentially failing, to see you standing there. This also covers the hiding in a bush still requiring them to take the Search action, because you're still in 3/4 / full cover (but the DM could give them advantage if they are within 5 ft. of you).
The Hidden condition would also state that creatures you have successfully hidden from are treated as being Blinded to you (just like when you try to see into an area of Heavy Obscurement). This means that you can Hide from one target, but not from others or vice versa.
Invisibility would actually make you invisible the way everyone understands it. It would have the 2014 line put back in that you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
I said a 32, not 34, and a dedicated 9th level Rogue with 0 magic items will hit that roll 10% of the time (or more if they get Advantage). It was not arbitrarily chosen for exactly that reason.
I could talk about how you are metagaming by having the knights attacking an empty throne, but the funniest part is that you want to insist that they still can't see the guy sitting right there as they are doing that. Does that really sound right to you?
Oh! And you want to say I must make noise when I take damage? I don't see that written anywhere. You're the one trying to say 'must follow RAW or you're wrong', so please, don't bring in any arguments where you have to either add or ignore a rule.
Ironically, this means that all that chopping by the knights and those fireballs you are talking about, even after the Rogue has perished, he is still sitting Invisibly in the throne, under your interpretation, because death doesn't end the condition (nothing in the RAW about it).
So your answer is that it will take basically magical intervention to see the Rogue sitting right there? Even though people are sliding off his lap, people can't see him until a spell is cast, because he rolled well on a Skill Check?
This is the problem with trying to drive in 'Lane 1'.
edit: And I just realized, the best part, the absolute best part, is that you as the DM have to come up with the explanation for why no one can see the dead Rogue, under your own criteria, or else you are a 'bad DM' and I should 'weep for your players'.
Let's try and keep the hair-splitting to the ones that are in contention. Both 32 and 34 are above the Nearly Impossible task difficulty DC of 30. Forgive an insignificant typo.
Simply because you aren't seen, that doesn't mean no one can tell that something is in your space. You can still be touched and smelled, just not seen. In your torch juggling example, presuming the impossibility of doing so silently, everyone would be able to see exactly where the torches were appearing and disappearing from, despite your personal concealment. Otherwise, why does the Invisible condition specifically say that attacks against you have Disadvantage? Any successful physical attack will make some amount of sound above a whisper even if it's just a fist against a face. Nothing in the rule states that the noise has to be voluntary. A gut punch is sure to elicit some kind of grunt, cloth can rip, skin slaps, and so on. If you were toppled prone, hitting the floor would thud. Being moved by an area attack would make your boots skid along the floor. There's no list of what can possibly make noise because there doesn't need to be. But there needed to be a list of circumstances where Hide ends, and we have it. Being in line of sight is not one of them, because you're Invisible.
It's telling that you ignored how this would play out exactly the same when using the Invisibility spell. Do you have a problem with how that spell works too? I'd have to assume so, if you think this scenario is so absurd. It's a lousy royal security detail if literally no one has See Invisibility.
Mmmm....Not if they don't beat a 32. That's the Difficulty to see me, RAW, end of discussion.
Unless <gasp!> you are saying it would be possible for someone to perceive me without beating that roll.
Nope. Nothing in RAW about any of those activities forcing the Rogue to make noise. This is almost always the weakness when people try to resort to 'RAW'. They want to insist on following the RAW, but then somewhere along the line they also have to insist on adding extra rules.
e.g., Your peasant rail gun? Sure, you got them all lined up and they pass along the spear until it is moving at roughly 5 times the speed of sound. Sure, you made your Attack roll. Now roll the 1d6 for the Piercing damage. What do you mean it should be higher? RAW, a spear does 1d6. There's no rule that adds anything because you accelerated it to ludicrous speed.
So, if you are going to insist that RAW means he can't be seen in the chair, even though he is in plain sight, please do not add rules like 'X will cause him to make noise' or 'being dead ends the Condition'. Your steadfast refusal to allow others to decide upon mitigating circumstances that are explicitly written in the rules means you don't get to add them either.
For clarity, I am not saying merely being in LoS ends the Condition. I'm saying that being in LoS when there is no reasonable chance for you to be hidden (lack of cover, no confusing circumstances, etc.) ends the Condition, and it does so because, although you have a Condition name Invisible you are not, in fact, Invisible. You simply gain certain benefits (and if you look at the Condition itself it does not say it is impossible to see you without beating a Perception roll).
Yes, the name of the Condition carries an implication, but most of us resolve that by saying they did a terrible job naming the Condition. Regardless of that, you should take the implication of the name to insist that a Rogue using Stealth turns Invisible, because implications are not RAW and you are insisting on RAW.
No. I completely get that it would play out this way using the Invisibility spell. I am not talking about the Invisibility spell. Pretty much the only times I mention the Invisibility spell is when I say 'Stealth is not the Invisibility spell'. Yes, they have identical effects, while they are functioning, but the rules for Hide cause Stealth to end when the character is found, while Invisibility ends under other circumstances (loss of Concentration, Duration, casting of spells that lack Verbal components regardless of effect).
Well, identical except for "an enemy finds you" as a clause that removes the condition. And that's where the major sticking point is in this thread. The point of my contrived example was to highlight the point above it: that someone who is hidden can't simply decide to come out of hiding by insisting that the only way "an enemy finds you" is with an active Perception (Wisdom) Check that beats the DC from the stealth roll by the hider. They are forced to make noise (without even needing to be in earshot of anyone, which you agree with), or attack something.
What gets me the most is that it's easier to stop being invisible from the invisible spell (because you can simply choose to end it) than being hidden, using this hyper strict reading.
In terms of design intent, I think it's safe to say that the intent is rules that pass cinematic (rather than realistic) SoD. Based on that assumption, we can assume a master of stealth (whatever we think that means) is Batman, whereas a person who casts invisibility is Sue Storm. I'm inclined to think Batman is more like 7th level (+10 stealth and reliable) or 13th level (+15 stealth) than like first level (unless we're talking the 1960s TV show), but still, it's a reasonable way of looking at the situation.
So, can Batman get through a room of modest skill guards unnoticed despite lack of cover? I would say... yes, but he's going to have to do more than walk through the room, he's going to have to do things (corresponding to additional actions and skill checks) and craft a plausible narrative for how he did it, and it will require skill checks that a lower skilled character could not be expected to make (so DC above 15).
And I agree with this PoV. We might draw the line as to exactly how far the Cinematic standard extends at different points, but the only time you see someone slip past two guards in the hallway scenario using mere Stealth as described is when the movie is making fun of the trope of someone super-duper stealthy.
Situations come up that could distract the guards? Go to town. The player figures out some clever way to generate such a situation? Even better. Ultimately, though, the maximum capability of Stealth (something which can be used almost limitlessly) needs to be lower than the maximum capability of the Invisibility spell (which has a very finite limit as to how long it can be used) for reasons of balance.
No, you need to be specific with your words when rules lawyering; that's the DC to find you. Not see, find. Once you're found, which could be roleplayed to feature any of the other available senses, Invisible ends and you can then be seen. The benefit of being Invisible means you're Concealed: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. That means a creature with Truesight, Blindsight, or See Invisibility would negate the Invisible condition and you can be targeted without Disadvantage by that specific creature. You would still be hidden and Invisible to other creatures unless you make noise after being attacked.
I don't have to explain how narrative gameplay works. It's well within the DM's discretion to say, "You want to bang two pots together, but silently? Well, that's impossible and you made noise, so you've been found and are no longer Invisible." Or, "The flailing knight's spear connects with your head, making an audible crack, and you can no longer escape the notice of the other creatures around you. You've been found and have lost the Invisible condition."
I appreciate stretching for the mechanical limits of the written language, that's what I'm here for. But I don't especially care that you don't like how they wrote Hide and Invisible together. I think it functions the way they expected players would use it. It's a simple way to avoid having to map out every creature's vision cone for combat purposes: you can Hide, move into melee range, and attack with advantage for a Sneak Attack. Could it have used an extra sentence for more clarity? Maybe, but I truly don't see this one specific ability being tortured and abused in any real way, in any real game. RAW, the difference between the function of Hide Invisibility and Spell Invisibility are strictly narrative. Bummer.
Just humor me real quick, what balance reasons are you considering? I think only Rogues can really abuse stealth and they're generally limited to one sneak attack per turn, which they'll probably get anyway and don't need Stealth to pull it off in many scenarios.
I'm not saying it can't be abused, I'm just not clever enough to imagine a situation to easily abuse it off the top of my head. Thanks!
I have Darkvision, by the way.
Well there’s the obvious “you can’t see me”! defense of apparently being completely unfindable without an Action or special senses simply because you stepped behind a crate or something.
I'm not referring to abuse. I'm referring to balance.
Walking down a hallway past two guards when there is no way for them to miss the Rogue, and being able to do it over and over and over again limitlessly while the Wizard can only do it for a short amount of time is a balance issue. It is compensated for by having the spell be slightly more powerful (lacking the 'Condition ends if found' clause).
To be clear, I've got no problem with a supernaturally stealthy character (e.g., Arcane Trickster) who spends the majority of the time skulking around using their supremely good skill, then busts out Invisibility to get past the 'how did you get passed my guards?! That's impossible!' situation because, while there is no limit to the amount of time they can be using their skill, there is a limit to how often they can pull off 'That's impossible!'.
Additionally, as I have indicated, allowing the 'normal' Rogue to pull off that kind of thing purely through skill devalues the Spellcasting feature of the Arcane Trickster. They are sacrificing the abilities of other subclasses in order to pull off 'that's impossible!', so people who haven't made that sacrifice shouldn't get it for free.
Also, please note, I'm not advocating that merely breaking cover instantly removes the Invisible Condition on a Rogue. Rogues should be able to count on using their Stealth probably 90%+ of the time. What I am advocating is that there be some sort of limitations to it compensates for the limitations that the Invisibility spell has (e.g., Duration, spell slots) which the skill does not.
You actually can't voluntarily end the Invisibility spell unless you're the caster concentrating. Otherwise, you have similar constraints as Hide: The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
Yes, I understand that. But the situation where invisibility is cast on you is not comparable. You can't succeed on a stealth check to hide someone else.
Sure, but a character from any class can perform the same stealth check to hide whenever they meet the requirements. This isn't a rogue-exclusive skill we're talking about. All of the tortured narrative non-combat scenarios that have been thrown around could be accomplished by any other character. It's solely because Rogues get Cunning Action so it's useful in combat that people are upset. Oh no, so Rogues have six ways to get Advantage on an attack, not five?! Heaven forbid.
Bonus action hide can be a balance problem due to action economy issues (attack first, then hide as a bonus action to have the defensive benefits until the next turn; that totally shuts down creature that use attacks that require vision unless they have an ability to penetrate stealth by a means other than the search action). Of course, that mostly worked in 2014. The problems with stealth in 2024 are not mostly about balance, they're about it behaving in an unclear and unintuitive way -- using the simplest RAW reading, it both does things that we don't expect it to do (lets you remain unseen in plain sight) and fails to do things we expect it to do (hide doesn't actually say that you become unheard, or that your location is unknown).
The issue is a) it’s a glaring nonsensical interpretation of what a skill check can achieve on the same order as “I flap my arms hard enough to fly” and b) the fact that the Action is worthless for most classes but if not actively broken then certainly dancing on the edge of it for Rogues, since- again- it allows them to literally render themselves untargetable if a DM puts any significant objects or corners on a given map essentially at will.
Yes, there absolutely should be limitations. The problem is that there are not per RAW.
The problem is that RAW makes no distinction between magical invisibility and hiding in the benefits it gets you. You hide, you get the Invisible condition, and only attacking, casting a verbal spell, making a sound louder than a whisper, or an enemy finds you (spelled out as a Wisdom (Perception) check).
The thing that 5e Invisibility did was let you take the Hide action while out in the open. This let you sneak across the wide open room with Stealth checks. 5.5e Hide makes you Invisible and negates the need for Stealth checks altogether by doing it just once (or spamming it however many times you need to get a Nat20). If we assume that they actually meant Invisible to mean invisible, then Hiding is ridiculously broken. If we read Invisible as written, then you can never become invisible, you just can't be seen unless you can be seen, making Invisibility and Greater Invisibility absolutely useless.
Unfortunately, there is no middle ground per RAW.