The only way to "get" someone behind total cover is indirectly, anyway, like with the right kind of AoE spell. The point of origin of a Fireball has to be within the caster's line of sight, and the target(s) need to be within the point of origin's line of sight, so in the right circumstances, a Fireball or whatnot could target someone indirectly.
But it isn't just about AoE and Total Cover but attacks in other conditions. For example you can always select the space/square of a target attacked behind Three-Quarter Cover and in Heavily Obscured Area unless hidden.
I also rule that being Invisible without Hiding can be targeted without second guessing, such added benefit making more reasons to do so.
The only logical conclusion is that 5.5e completely removed any way to actually be small "i" invisible (transparent, see through, etc.). Because it grants you the exact same benefit as hiding behind a column. These interpretations also make the Hide action a complete waste. If I am only hidden while outside of an enemy's line of sight, then why take the action at all? They already can't target/affect me with things that require sight, since they can't see me, so why take the action?
The only possible use for it is IF (and this is a really big IF based on the line of sight argument) 3/4 cover still keeps you hidden, then a ranged Rogue could use this to get advantage on their one attack. That is a ridiculous mechanic to include in the game if it is only good for one class in one circumstance. It would have been better to have written a new Cunning Action:
Stealth Shot: If you are behind 3/4 cover, you can use a Bonus Action to grant yourself advantage on the next attack you make this turn. (basically Steady Aim that still lets you move but requires 3/4 cover).
Otherwise Hide (and consequently Invisibility) are absolutely useless.
I think there are very few people who are arguing that it is impossible tostay hidden while inside an enemy's line of sight. It's just that we lean on the "while hidden" and "the DM determines whether conditions are available to hide" and "an enemy finds you" to determine if that's possible instead of automatically saying it must be possible even if conditions are completely contrary to that fact.
The only way to "get" someone behind total cover is indirectly, anyway, like with the right kind of AoE spell. The point of origin of a Fireball has to be within the caster's line of sight, and the target(s) need to be within the point of origin's line of sight, so in the right circumstances, a Fireball or whatnot could target someone indirectly.
But it isn't just about AoE and Total Cover but attacks in other conditions. For example you can always select the space/square of a target attacked behind Three-Quarter Cover and in Heavily Obscured Area unless hidden.
I also rule that being Invisible without Hiding can be targeted without second guessing, such added benefit making more reasons to do so.
But the only thing Hidden/Invisible does is mean you can't be affected by things that require sight. So being Hidden doesn't mean that they can't choose to target my space. Being Hidden also doesn't mean they don't know where I am (per RAW). All being Hidden does is grant me the Invisible condition.
So being behind a wall and not taking the Hide action means that I get all of the advantages of Invisible except Surprise, which only works if you Hide before combat, anyway. Why should I ever take the Hide action? Success only gives you the Invisible condition; it does not mean that enemies don't know where you are.
This is because 5.5e turned Hiding/Invisible on it's head. It used to be that Hiding let you avoid detection and Invisible meant that (among other things) you could Hide without any need for cover. In 5.5e, Hiding makes you Invisible and taking the Hide action while Invisible is completely pointless.
The only logical conclusion is that 5.5e completely removed any way to actually be small "i" invisible (transparent, see through, etc.). Because it grants you the exact same benefit as hiding behind a column. These interpretations also make the Hide action a complete waste. If I am only hidden while outside of an enemy's line of sight, then why take the action at all? They already can't target/affect me with things that require sight, since they can't see me, so why take the action?
The only possible use for it is IF (and this is a really big IF based on the line of sight argument) 3/4 cover still keeps you hidden, then a ranged Rogue could use this to get advantage on their one attack. That is a ridiculous mechanic to include in the game if it is only good for one class in one circumstance. It would have been better to have written a new Cunning Action:
Stealth Shot: If you are behind 3/4 cover, you can use a Bonus Action to grant yourself advantage on the next attack you make this turn. (basically Steady Aim that still lets you move but requires 3/4 cover).
Otherwise Hide (and consequently Invisibility) are absolutely useless.
I think there are very few people who are arguing that it is impossible tostay hidden while inside an enemy's line of sight. It's just that we lean on the "while hidden" and "the DM determines whether conditions are available to hide" and "an enemy finds you" to determine if that's possible instead of automatically saying it must be possible even if conditions are completely contrary to that fact.
Then they should have just written that you take the Hide action and the DM determines whether you are hidden or not. Why do they spell out requirements if the requirements don't always work and it's all DM fiat?
You're inventing "what that means." What it says is that a successful Hide gives Invisible, and there are circumstances that end hidden, none of which is losing or leaving cover.
One of the situations is "the DM determines that hiding is not possible".
If Wizards had intended for the loss of cover to cause hidden to fail, they should have included it in the list. Making a DM ruling to invalidate 90% of the Hide action's utility makes no sense.
They did, in fact, issue errata to clarify that your interpretation was incorrect:
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden
Did it completely clean up the terminology mess and resulting confusion? No, but it makes it clear that continuing to hide is contingent upon circumstances.
What are those circumstances? Undefined. So, like taking the action in the first place, it's DM's call. And, while there are many circumstances where different DMs will disagree, "out in the open, clearly lit, and nothing else going on" ought to be a baseline of "not hidden".
As best I can tell (and I could be mistaken, you have made a lot of posts, and it's definitely not worth the effort of going back to look), your counterargument to this reduces down to:
You're invisible because you're hidden
Therefore, you're hidden because you're invisible
To be fair, the rules for Invisible are "You can't be seen unless you can be seen." so.......
But the only thing Hidden/Invisible does is mean you can't be affected by things that require sight. So being Hidden doesn't mean that they can't choose to target my space. Being Hidden also doesn't mean they don't know where I am (per RAW). All being Hidden does is grant me the Invisible condition.
So being behind a wall and not taking the Hide action means that I get all of the advantages of Invisible except Surprise, which only works if you Hide before combat, anyway. Why should I ever take the Hide action? Success only gives you the Invisible condition; it does not mean that enemies don't know where you are.
While you can't be seen behind opaque Total Cover or Heavily Obscured area, you're not Invisible and your location is known unless you try to conceal yourself by hiding.
If the location of hidden creature or object is known, then it serves no purposes to hide and the rules wouldn't say things like
''If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.'''
''When your character searches for hidden things, such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check, provided you describe the character searching in the hidden object’s vicinity.''
If the location of hidden creature or object is known, then it serves no purposes to hide and the rules wouldn't say things like
Unfortunately, this is just the rules being inconsistently written. Pretty much all the rules other than the hide action itself are written as if the 2014 rules are still in play (which is why the simplest solution to stealth in 2024 is to just use the 2014 rules), and in the 2014 rules hiding did make your location unknown, but 2024 is utterly silent on that point.
If the location of hidden creature or object is known, then it serves no purposes to hide and the rules wouldn't say things like
Unfortunately, this is just the rules being inconsistently written. Pretty much all the rules other than the hide action itself are written as if the 2014 rules are still in play (which is why the simplest solution to stealth in 2024 is to just use the 2014 rules), and in the 2014 rules hiding did make your location unknown, but 2024 is utterly silent on that point.
I agree with Panta. If we have to infer what a rule is supposed to say/mean based on one-off references in other sections, that is really poorly written.
But the only thing Hidden/Invisible does is mean you can't be affected by things that require sight. So being Hidden doesn't mean that they can't choose to target my space. Being Hidden also doesn't mean they don't know where I am (per RAW). All being Hidden does is grant me the Invisible condition.
So being behind a wall and not taking the Hide action means that I get all of the advantages of Invisible except Surprise, which only works if you Hide before combat, anyway. Why should I ever take the Hide action? Success only gives you the Invisible condition; it does not mean that enemies don't know where you are.
While you can't be seen behind opaque Total Cover or Heavily Obscured area, you're not Invisible and your location is known unless you try to conceal yourself by hiding.
If the location of hidden creature or object is known, then it serves no purposes to hide and the rules wouldn't say things like
''If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.'''
''When your character searches for hidden things, such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check, provided you describe the character searching in the hidden object’s vicinity.''
.
The reference to hidden things doesn't fit, unless you are suggesting that secret doors or traps take the Hide action??
If the location of hidden creature or object is known, then it serves no purposes to hide and the rules wouldn't say things like
Unfortunately, this is just the rules being inconsistently written. Pretty much all the rules other than the hide action itself are written as if the 2014 rules are still in play (which is why the simplest solution to stealth in 2024 is to just use the 2014 rules), and in the 2014 rules hiding did make your location unknown, but 2024 is utterly silent on that point.
2014 hide rules are complete garbage.
If the rule says no one can sneak up on anyone, they are farther from reality than 2024 rules. Because its very common for this to occur, often out in the open in broad daylight.
Its very simple, they made hide determined primarily by rolls, and not positioning. The DM is free to alter the rules for narrative reasons(fiat) as they are with every rule in the game. In this game, being persuasive in game doesnt require you to be convincingly persuasive, being intelligent in game doesnt require actually being intelligent, finding hidden idems doesnt require you to have LOS , whether you dodge an attack or make a save is not precluded by position, and even who goes first is not determined by who actually initiates combat, The same structure is being used for stealth. how success full you were at hiding is essentially a contested roll between your stealth skill and the creatures perception skill.
this is not a revolutionary idea, its a basic way that dnd solves unknown outcomes that arent easily represented. The DM is supposed to roll these things then dtermine how it was achieved after the fact, because the system is not pretending to be a pure simulation.
Incorporating positioning into hide rules was inherrently flawed because they have a hand wave line of sight system, and a hand wave positioning system, so having a literal stealth system was always going to be impossible. Positioning in dnd is never meant to be literal, you also are not literally standing around waiting to get hit. Even using a Map at all is optional.
Having any sort of game system that is trying to allow players to create stories and achieve whatever they imagine could happen, yet makes it in game universe impossible to get sucker punched, ignored, or sneak past someone, is a gaping flaw in design.
Like really say 5e is happening in a universe like our own, and player says i'd like to sneak past the guard, the answer cant be, thats not possible in this universe. I'd like stab him while he is distracted by Sarah, game physics impossible, sorry
If the location of hidden creature or object is known, then it serves no purposes to hide and the rules wouldn't say things like
Unfortunately, this is just the rules being inconsistently written. Pretty much all the rules other than the hide action itself are written as if the 2014 rules are still in play (which is why the simplest solution to stealth in 2024 is to just use the 2014 rules), and in the 2014 rules hiding did make your location unknown, but 2024 is utterly silent on that point.
The sentence that was referencing to it in 2014 is in 2024.
The reference to hidden things doesn't fit, unless you are suggesting that secret doors or traps take the Hide action??
No i don't but the rules don't really elaborate on how you hide things such as these yet it's beside the point, which is that you don't know the location of hidden things or creature.
Then they should have just written that you take the Hide action and the DM determines whether you are hidden or not. Why do they spell out requirements if the requirements don't always work and it's all DM fiat?
I mean, the side I'm on is arguing that, though it could have been written more clearly, they did write it that way. The conditions to Hide are spelled out. The conditions for Remaining Hidden are up for interpretation. It is simply my view that those conditions can—and should—be scene and narrative dependent. I want the ability, as a DM, to be able to say that "yes, you can sneak up on this drowsy guard just outside of the poorly lit alley you hid in" AND "no, you cannot simply take a stroll down this brightly lit corridor with 5 guards staring in your direction just because you hid behind a box 500' away 2 hours ago".
The only logical conclusion is that 5.5e completely removed any way to actually be small "i" invisible (transparent, see through, etc.). Because it grants you the exact same benefit as hiding behind a column. These interpretations also make the Hide action a complete waste. If I am only hidden while outside of an enemy's line of sight, then why take the action at all? They already can't target/affect me with things that require sight, since they can't see me, so why take the action?
The only possible use for it is IF (and this is a really big IF based on the line of sight argument) 3/4 cover still keeps you hidden, then a ranged Rogue could use this to get advantage on their one attack. That is a ridiculous mechanic to include in the game if it is only good for one class in one circumstance. It would have been better to have written a new Cunning Action:
Stealth Shot: If you are behind 3/4 cover, you can use a Bonus Action to grant yourself advantage on the next attack you make this turn. (basically Steady Aim that still lets you move but requires 3/4 cover).
Otherwise Hide (and consequently Invisibility) are absolutely useless.
I think there are very few people who are arguing that it is impossible tostay hidden while inside an enemy's line of sight. It's just that we lean on the "while hidden" and "the DM determines whether conditions are available to hide" and "an enemy finds you" to determine if that's possible instead of automatically saying it must be possible even if conditions are completely contrary to that fact.
Then they should have just written that you take the Hide action and the DM determines whether you are hidden or not. Why do they spell out requirements if the requirements don't always work and it's all DM fiat?
Because, even if those requirements aren't absolute, they provide a framework so that DMs can (hopefully) have some idea what the designers intended,
If they just said 'you can only attempt to hide if it is reasonable' then we would have five times the number of arguments. Is it reasonable for me to make a Stealth roll when I only have Half Cover? How about if I'm in Dim Light?
Here's another example of 'stated requirement' not being absolute that I think we can clearly agree upon.
Player: I'm a halfling. I've got Naturally Stealthy which says I can take a Hide action when I am obscured by a creature at least one size larger than me, and right now the Wizard is two sizes larger than me. DM: Yes, but he's two sizes larger than you because he polymorphed himself into a gelatinous cube!
Then they should have just written that you take the Hide action and the DM determines whether you are hidden or not. Why do they spell out requirements if the requirements don't always work and it's all DM fiat?
I mean, the side I'm on is arguing that, though it could have been written more clearly, they did write it that way. The conditions to Hide are spelled out. The conditions for Remaining Hidden are up for interpretation. It is simply my view that those conditions can—and should—be scene and narrative dependent. I want the ability, as a DM, to be able to say that "yes, you can sneak up on this drowsy guard just outside of the poorly lit alley you hid in" AND "no, you cannot simply take a stroll down this brightly lit corridor with 5 guards staring in your direction just because you hid behind a box 500' away 2 hours ago".
I think this gets at the core problem.
Insofar as there are only two "sides" (thus ignoring nuance and all that), there is one side saying "these rules are functional and do what I expect."
The second side is saying "everything is broken and unusable" which is, fundamentally, a worthless answer in a rules forum. The only purposes this seems to serve are 1) scare newer people away from the rules or 2) make the poster feel smart by "dunking" on strawman designers.
(Perhaps there is a third side saying "these rules are functional, in that they prevent stealth from being useful in [melee/all] combat" but these folks seem to keep evolving into the second side. ;)
Side 1 Says : "The DM gets to decide when you can or cannot hide and whether or not you remain hidden given the in-game situation. So you can only sneak up on someone if it makes sense that you could sneak up on them." Side 2 Hears : "The moment you move after having rolled Stealth you are no longer hidden, sneaking is impossible, and Rogue players are stupid and don't deserve to do anything fun ever."
Side 2 Says : "I want to be able to sneak up and assassinate people because that's cool and fun. DMs are meenies and won't ever let me do that." Side 1 Hears : "I want to be able to be permanently invisible at all times and be able to do everything and anything I want without the enemies ever seeing me."
You know what the answer is? Side 2 should stop playing with those DMs, and should stop expecting a book of rules to magically make a toxic game group not be toxic. If you can't trust your DM to rule fairly on when you can / can't hide then don't play with that DM. D&D is a social game, it is built in the unique social contract at each table. If you don't like the social contract at your table find another one. Don't demand the designers give you a bludgeon for you to hit DMs you don't like with. And both sides should stop arguing on the internet and go make some friends to play some D&D with.
And no, "this is fundamentally unclear and you'll have to make your own house rules about it" is a reasonable answer in a rules forum.
That's just you broadcasting your indecision. "DMs need to make rulings" doesn't invalidate a RAW interpretation (because RAW is always a function of interpretation).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But it isn't just about AoE and Total Cover but attacks in other conditions. For example you can always select the space/square of a target attacked behind Three-Quarter Cover and in Heavily Obscured Area unless hidden.
I also rule that being Invisible without Hiding can be targeted without second guessing, such added benefit making more reasons to do so.
I think there are very few people who are arguing that it is impossible to stay hidden while inside an enemy's line of sight. It's just that we lean on the "while hidden" and "the DM determines whether conditions are available to hide" and "an enemy finds you" to determine if that's possible instead of automatically saying it must be possible even if conditions are completely contrary to that fact.
But the only thing Hidden/Invisible does is mean you can't be affected by things that require sight. So being Hidden doesn't mean that they can't choose to target my space. Being Hidden also doesn't mean they don't know where I am (per RAW). All being Hidden does is grant me the Invisible condition.
So being behind a wall and not taking the Hide action means that I get all of the advantages of Invisible except Surprise, which only works if you Hide before combat, anyway. Why should I ever take the Hide action? Success only gives you the Invisible condition; it does not mean that enemies don't know where you are.
This is because 5.5e turned Hiding/Invisible on it's head. It used to be that Hiding let you avoid detection and Invisible meant that (among other things) you could Hide without any need for cover. In 5.5e, Hiding makes you Invisible and taking the Hide action while Invisible is completely pointless.
Then they should have just written that you take the Hide action and the DM determines whether you are hidden or not. Why do they spell out requirements if the requirements don't always work and it's all DM fiat?
To be fair, the rules for Invisible are "You can't be seen unless you can be seen." so.......
While you can't be seen behind opaque Total Cover or Heavily Obscured area, you're not Invisible and your location is known unless you try to conceal yourself by hiding.
If the location of hidden creature or object is known, then it serves no purposes to hide and the rules wouldn't say things like
Unfortunately, this is just the rules being inconsistently written. Pretty much all the rules other than the hide action itself are written as if the 2014 rules are still in play (which is why the simplest solution to stealth in 2024 is to just use the 2014 rules), and in the 2014 rules hiding did make your location unknown, but 2024 is utterly silent on that point.
I agree with Panta. If we have to infer what a rule is supposed to say/mean based on one-off references in other sections, that is really poorly written.
The reference to hidden things doesn't fit, unless you are suggesting that secret doors or traps take the Hide action??
2014 hide rules are complete garbage.
If the rule says no one can sneak up on anyone, they are farther from reality than 2024 rules. Because its very common for this to occur, often out in the open in broad daylight.
Its very simple, they made hide determined primarily by rolls, and not positioning. The DM is free to alter the rules for narrative reasons(fiat) as they are with every rule in the game. In this game, being persuasive in game doesnt require you to be convincingly persuasive, being intelligent in game doesnt require actually being intelligent, finding hidden idems doesnt require you to have LOS , whether you dodge an attack or make a save is not precluded by position, and even who goes first is not determined by who actually initiates combat, The same structure is being used for stealth. how success full you were at hiding is essentially a contested roll between your stealth skill and the creatures perception skill.
this is not a revolutionary idea, its a basic way that dnd solves unknown outcomes that arent easily represented. The DM is supposed to roll these things then dtermine how it was achieved after the fact, because the system is not pretending to be a pure simulation.
Incorporating positioning into hide rules was inherrently flawed because they have a hand wave line of sight system, and a hand wave positioning system, so having a literal stealth system was always going to be impossible. Positioning in dnd is never meant to be literal, you also are not literally standing around waiting to get hit. Even using a Map at all is optional.
Having any sort of game system that is trying to allow players to create stories and achieve whatever they imagine could happen, yet makes it in game universe impossible to get sucker punched, ignored, or sneak past someone, is a gaping flaw in design.
Like really say 5e is happening in a universe like our own, and player says i'd like to sneak past the guard, the answer cant be, thats not possible in this universe. I'd like stab him while he is distracted by Sarah, game physics impossible, sorry
The sentence that was referencing to it in 2014 is in 2024.
No i don't but the rules don't really elaborate on how you hide things such as these yet it's beside the point, which is that you don't know the location of hidden things or creature.
You DM or play with one that do?
I also rule that blinded attacker despite being unable to see, don't need second-guessing the location of creature unless it's hidden.
It's not what the rule says. The rule is that it's up to the DM whether it's possible.
It's not new to 2024.
The simplest answer to "why was it written this way" is "it was done this way in 2014 and we didn't rewrite it".
I mean, the side I'm on is arguing that, though it could have been written more clearly, they did write it that way. The conditions to Hide are spelled out. The conditions for Remaining Hidden are up for interpretation. It is simply my view that those conditions can—and should—be scene and narrative dependent. I want the ability, as a DM, to be able to say that "yes, you can sneak up on this drowsy guard just outside of the poorly lit alley you hid in" AND "no, you cannot simply take a stroll down this brightly lit corridor with 5 guards staring in your direction just because you hid behind a box 500' away 2 hours ago".
Because, even if those requirements aren't absolute, they provide a framework so that DMs can (hopefully) have some idea what the designers intended,
If they just said 'you can only attempt to hide if it is reasonable' then we would have five times the number of arguments. Is it reasonable for me to make a Stealth roll when I only have Half Cover? How about if I'm in Dim Light?
Here's another example of 'stated requirement' not being absolute that I think we can clearly agree upon.
Player: I'm a halfling. I've got Naturally Stealthy which says I can take a Hide action when I am obscured by a creature at least one size larger than me, and right now the Wizard is two sizes larger than me.
DM: Yes, but he's two sizes larger than you because he polymorphed himself into a gelatinous cube!
I think this gets at the core problem.
Insofar as there are only two "sides" (thus ignoring nuance and all that), there is one side saying "these rules are functional and do what I expect."
The second side is saying "everything is broken and unusable" which is, fundamentally, a worthless answer in a rules forum. The only purposes this seems to serve are 1) scare newer people away from the rules or 2) make the poster feel smart by "dunking" on strawman designers.
(Perhaps there is a third side saying "these rules are functional, in that they prevent stealth from being useful in [melee/all] combat" but these folks seem to keep evolving into the second side. ;)
No, those aren't the sides. The major sides are
Typically, the first three camps also think that the rules, as they interpret them, are functional and do what is expected.
And no, "this is fundamentally unclear and you'll have to make your own house rules about it" is a reasonable answer in a rules forum.
If I might summarize the perpetual argument:
Side 1 Says : "The DM gets to decide when you can or cannot hide and whether or not you remain hidden given the in-game situation. So you can only sneak up on someone if it makes sense that you could sneak up on them."
Side 2 Hears : "The moment you move after having rolled Stealth you are no longer hidden, sneaking is impossible, and Rogue players are stupid and don't deserve to do anything fun ever."
Side 2 Says : "I want to be able to sneak up and assassinate people because that's cool and fun. DMs are meenies and won't ever let me do that."
Side 1 Hears : "I want to be able to be permanently invisible at all times and be able to do everything and anything I want without the enemies ever seeing me."
You know what the answer is? Side 2 should stop playing with those DMs, and should stop expecting a book of rules to magically make a toxic game group not be toxic. If you can't trust your DM to rule fairly on when you can / can't hide then don't play with that DM. D&D is a social game, it is built in the unique social contract at each table. If you don't like the social contract at your table find another one. Don't demand the designers give you a bludgeon for you to hit DMs you don't like with. And both sides should stop arguing on the internet and go make some friends to play some D&D with.
That's just you broadcasting your indecision. "DMs need to make rulings" doesn't invalidate a RAW interpretation (because RAW is always a function of interpretation).