The more I read the book the more I think the intended meaning is that you are concealed. It doesn't say that. But the rogue thief ability seems to only make sense if you hide and remain hidden/concealed as you move about. Of course it could intend for you to use a ranged weapon, but it doesn't specify so...
I disagree with that. The whole idea behind losing the Condition that was acquired through hiding when you make an attack is that you are giving away your position when you attack. This was more clearly written in 2014, but that's still the idea. When you are hidden your location is unknown because you are unseen and unheard until you make a loud noise or cast a loud spell, or you do something that someone will see like making an attack. But in order to be unseen and unheard you have to actually remain unseen and unheard.
If you are currently unseen and unheard when you make your attack (or you pop out to three-quarters cover to do so), that will almost always be a ranged attack.
The Rogue Thief Supreme Sneak ability is just saying that if you make an attack like this then you can choose to remain hidden (by remaining in a hidden position). It's a little weird that this ability doesn't also allow you to end your turn in a Heavily Obscured area, but that's a separate discussion.
It seems to me, with the new application of the invisible condition, you can both have & not have the condition at the same time. & that doesnt make sense.
I go behind a wall with my companion. I hide successfully. I now have the invisible condition. But my companion can see me since we are both behind the wall together. If my friend can see me, I don't have the condition for her, but I do for someone else?
I dont like how 'invisible' now has 2 ambiguous meanings either. Being invisible via magic you are transparent in the traditional sense of 'invisibility' - but now this also applies to just being behind a wall. Those are 2 very different things & it's important to differentiate. Not least because new players sometimes tend to say 'invisible' when they are hiding & we correct them because you are not see-through like the spell - now this wording has confused the issue. Now we have to explain, "youre not invisible, youre invisible" LOL
In the 2014 rules on hiding (PHB pg177), it says that if you come out of hiding & approach a creature you are usually seen. Does this explanation still exist?
Since a recipient either has a condition or doesn’t, you effectively have the Invisible condition when you Hide and allies can see you. But two of the benefits are not applicable to a creature that can somehow see you, meaning while Concealed you can still be affected by any ally's effect that requires its target to be seen and you'll get no Attacks Affected against your allies. most importantly, you can still get the benefit of Surprise.
So what if I hide behind the wall with my friend & there is also another enemy who can see me further away. I have hidden from enemy A, I have the condition, but I don't have the condition for Enemy B.
and allies can see you Is there a specific rule that says aliies can see you?
So what if I hide behind the wall with my friend & there is also another enemy who can see me further away. I have hidden from enemy A, I have the condition, but I don't have the condition for Enemy B.
and allies can see you Is there a specific rule that says aliies can see you?
Rules as written you do not have the hide condition as it ends if you are spotted. (Or it seems like in this case never could have hid in the first place)
So what if I hide behind the wall with my friend & there is also another enemy who can see me further away. I have hidden from enemy A, I have the condition, but I don't have the condition for Enemy B.
and allies can see you Is there a specific rule that says aliies can see you?
To try to conceal yourself, you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight so you can't Hide if an enemy can see you. And if you successfully Hide, the Invisible condition ends on you immediately after an enemy finds you.
Any ally or enemy creature can see you if you're within their line of sight and not Heavily Obscured or behind opaque Total Cover such as a wall, in the example you provided ''my companion can see me since we are both behind the wall together''
Hide: With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
The condition ends on you 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.
It seems to me, with the new application of the invisible condition, you can both have & not have the condition at the same time. & that doesnt make sense.
I go behind a wall with my companion. I hide successfully. I now have the invisible condition. But my companion can see me since we are both behind the wall together. If my friend can see me, I don't have the condition for her, but I do for someone else?
So what if I hide behind the wall with my friend & there is also another enemy who can see me further away. I have hidden from enemy A, I have the condition, but I don't have the condition for Enemy B.
and allies can see you Is there a specific rule that says aliies can see you?
These were actually both fairly serious and unanswerable questions under the 2014 rules and in my opinion both of these have been cleaned up and made clearer by the 2024 rules.
The reason is because the Hide action specifically requires being "out of an enemy's line of sight". So, you can now successfully Hide next to your companions. For the same reason, it is now clear that you cannot be hidden from one creature but not another -- you have to be concealed from all enemies in order to attempt to Hide and you lose the Condition when found (you are either hidden or you aren't).
In the 2014 rules on hiding (PHB pg177), it says that if you come out of hiding & approach a creature you are usually seen. Does this explanation still exist?
The absence of this sort of language explicitly appearing in the 2024 rules is part of why this thread is so long. There is a camp that strongly believes that the intention is for you to now be able to walk out into the open and melee attack a creature while maintaining the benefits of being hidden -- at least until the current turn ends (as loosely implied by the Tiger stat block and by the Rogue Thief Supreme Sneak feature . . . even though there is currently no text indicating this "until the end of your turn" type of timeframe) or perhaps even indefinitely.
The interpretation that more closely aligns with the 2014 rules is that you must maintain the prerequisites for Hiding in order to maintain the validity of your ongoing Stealth check score and the corresponding Invisible Condition.
Which of these interpretations is actually intended is not explicitly clear at all.
It seems to me, with the new application of the invisible condition, you can both have & not have the condition at the same time. & that doesnt make sense.
I go behind a wall with my companion. I hide successfully. I now have the invisible condition. But my companion can see me since we are both behind the wall together. If my friend can see me, I don't have the condition for her, but I do for someone else?
So what if I hide behind the wall with my friend & there is also another enemy who can see me further away. I have hidden from enemy A, I have the condition, but I don't have the condition for Enemy B.
and allies can see you Is there a specific rule that says aliies can see you?
These were actually both fairly serious and unanswerable questions under the 2014 rules and in my opinion both of these have been cleaned up and made clearer by the 2024 rules.
The reason is because the Hide action specifically requires being "out of an enemy's line of sight". So, you can now successfully Hide next to your companions. For the same reason, it is now clear that you cannot be hidden from one creature but not another -- you have to be concealed from all enemies in order to attempt to Hide and you lose the Condition when found (you are either hidden or you aren't).
In the 2014 rules on hiding (PHB pg177), it says that if you come out of hiding & approach a creature you are usually seen. Does this explanation still exist?
The absence of this sort of language explicitly appearing in the 2024 rules is part of why this thread is so long. There is a camp that strongly believes that the intention is for you to now be able to walk out into the open and melee attack a creature while maintaining the benefits of being hidden -- at least until the current turn ends (as loosely implied by the Tiger stat block and by the Rogue Thief Supreme Sneak feature . . . even though there is currently no text indicating this "until the end of your turn" type of timeframe) or perhaps even indefinitely.
The interpretation that more closely aligns with the 2014 rules is that you must maintain the prerequisites for Hiding in order to maintain the validity of your ongoing Stealth check score and the corresponding Invisible Condition.
Which of these interpretations is actually intended is not explicitly clear at all.
I actually (despite what most of my posts may come off as) believe the hide action clearly indicates that you can in fact hide behind a tree and then walk 100 miles without losing the invisible condition.
The main issue I think comes from other interactions. First, does walking make more sound than a whisper? We generally presume it does as an invisible creature can still be heard. Previously the way you avoid that with invisibility is to hide. But that presumably does nothing as you can't stack conditions and arguably would increase the ways to end the condition on you.
Second issue is perception. The book indicates that you only need to roll a perception check when something isn't obvious. Someone walking in front of you while you are not distracted is obvious and therefore you should be noticed regardless of your roll.
A third issue is that if we go with hiding granting invisible once you leave a tree then it is better than actual invisibility as it has no way of detection (you can't make sound/you don't) and you can cast non verbal spells (as long as they aren't an attack).
4th issue is how to deal with Greater invisibility. If we decide moving doesn't make sound then presumably a creature with greater invisibility can never be detected. You attack then move. ( There is basically a 1% chance of the enemy guessing the correct square you moved to and then they still have disadvantage at that point) But should a stealth check be used? And if so does it cost an action? Bonus action? Or just free? Or would you need to take the hide action? But that doesn't do anything... Or does it. Does the stealth check with hiding set a limit of how quietly you are moving.
I actually (despite what most of my posts may come off as) believe the hide action clearly indicates that you can in fact hide behind a tree and then walk 100 miles without losing the invisible condition.
I think that there are a few reasons why this is probably incorrect although some tweaks for clarity would definitely help.
If this does become the common interpretation, then this needs to be addressed via errata asap as there is 100% no possible way that that is the intention.
First, does walking make more sound than a whisper?
The idea has always been that walking makes less sound than a whisper if you passed your stealth check -- otherwise, you were walking too loudly and that's why the stealth roll was poor. In 2014, when you made a successful stealth check you were considered to be unseen and unheard and your location was unknown. Your location was really only unknown if you were able to walk to a new location while hidden -- otherwise, stealth really doesn't work. I believe that all of these same concepts still apply in 2024 but it's less explicitly spelled out -- you have to look at the rules from a few different areas of the book, not just the Hide action rule.
For example, in 2014, the Invisible creature could be heard while walking if they were not attempting to Hide. If they were successfully hidden, you would not be able to hear them walking.
Second issue is perception. The book indicates that you only need to roll a perception check when something isn't obvious. Someone walking in front of you while you are not distracted is obvious and therefore you should be noticed regardless of your roll.
I agree with this. You really should only be hidden while you are hidden (duh).
4th issue is how to deal with Greater invisibility. If we decide moving doesn't make sound then presumably a creature with greater invisibility can never be detected. You attack then move. ( There is basically a 1% chance of the enemy guessing the correct square you moved to and then they still have disadvantage at that point) But should a stealth check be used? And if so does it cost an action? Bonus action? Or just free? Or would you need to take the hide action? But that doesn't do anything... Or does it. Does the stealth check with hiding set a limit of how quietly you are moving.
Greater Invisibility is meant to be a pretty strong spell. Note that the duration of that spell is only 1 minute. Such a creature can still be heard though, so you don't have to guess the square. There is nothing about the Invisible Condition that suggests that a creature who has that condition cannot be heard. In 2014 it was explicit that this creature could then successfully hide to become unheard, and their location would become unknown. In my opinion, we can also get there with the 2024 rules, but we have to squint a bit at several different rules all at once to get there. All of this assumes that the Invisible condition becomes fixed to actually make the creature invisible of course.
So what if I hide behind the wall with my friend & there is also another enemy who can see me further away. I have hidden from enemy A, I have the condition, but I don't have the condition for Enemy B.
and allies can see you Is there a specific rule that says aliies can see you?
You cannot hide. Enemy B seeing you prevents you from even trying to hide. And Enemy B finding you ends the condition. The rules are written in a way that you either have the condition or you do not. There is no having it for one group of enemies and not having it for another group.
Greater Invisibility is meant to be a pretty strong spell. Note that the duration of that spell is only 1 minute. Such a creature can still be heard though, so you don't have to guess the square. There is nothing about the Invisible Condition that suggests that a creature who has that condition cannot be heard. In 2014 it was explicit that this creature could then successfully hide to become unheard, and their location would become unknown. In my opinion, we can also get there with the 2024 rules, but we have to squint a bit at several different rules all at once to get there. All of this assumes that the Invisible condition becomes fixed to actually make the creature invisible of course.
I think there isn't a good way to hide while invisible. Conditions don't stack, so I would assume that hiding would just grant you an additional way of losing the condition, without benefiting you. Unless it also overrides the spell casting limitation. Honestly, it feels like they made changes and it just never came up what happens if you try do hide while invisible. It seems odd to me that none of these issues came up while playtesting the game.
I think there isn't a good way to hide while invisible. Conditions don't stack, so I would assume that hiding would just grant you an additional way of losing the condition, without benefiting you. Unless it also overrides the spell casting limitation. Honestly, it feels like they made changes and it just never came up what happens if you try do hide while invisible. It seems odd to me that none of these issues came up while playtesting the game.
I think that we worked it out earlier in the thread that you would have two instances of the Invisible Condition and if you were found via a Perception Check you would only lose the Hide action's instance.
In my current interpretation of hiding, you also become no longer unheard (no longer concealed) because your location becomes known, even if you remain Invisible from another instance, or you just remain Unseen (which is different than continuing to be "unable to be seen", which is what the Invisible Condition "should" be granting if it is ever fixed).
I think there isn't a good way to hide while invisible. Conditions don't stack, so I would assume that hiding would just grant you an additional way of losing the condition, without benefiting you. Unless it also overrides the spell casting limitation. Honestly, it feels like they made changes and it just never came up what happens if you try do hide while invisible. It seems odd to me that none of these issues came up while playtesting the game.
I think that we worked it out earlier in the thread that you would have two instances of the Invisible Condition and if you were found via a Perception Check you would only lose the Hide action's instance.
In my current interpretation of hiding, you also become no longer unheard (no longer concealed) because your location becomes known, even if you remain Invisible from another instance, or you just remain Unseen (which is different than continuing to be "unable to be seen", which is what the Invisible Condition "should" be granting if it is ever fixed).
Yeah I suppose the question becomes while each one has their own duration, that still seems to allow ending one instance would end both since you can't have the condition twice.
Honestly I think the idea is you make a stealth check without taking the hide action or with the hide action but without gaining the condition. To even get the hide condition you would need to run behind a tree.
Yeah I suppose the question becomes while each one has their own duration, that still seems to allow ending one instance would end both since you can't have the condition twice.
You can have a condition twice. You just don't get the effects of a condition twice.
Yeah I suppose the question becomes while each one has their own duration, that still seems to allow ending one instance would end both since you can't have the condition twice.
You can have a condition twice. You just don't get the effects of a condition twice.
Yeah but there isn't really a point to having the invisible condition twice whether the effects stack or don't stack. It just gives you more ways to end the condition and you would need to hide behind something and get a 15 to hide.much more elegant to just require a stealth check not the hide action
Honestly I think the idea is you make a stealth check without taking the hide action or with the hide action but without gaining the condition. To even get the hide condition you would need to run behind a tree.
Maybe I'm losing track of what we're talking about here, but I'm not sure what any of this means. You only make a Stealth check when you take the Hide action -- it's the thing that determines if you become successfully hidden. Spells such as Greater Invisibility do not interact with the Stealth check at all.
It shouldn't be necessary for an invisible creature to have to position themselves behind anything in order to attempt to Hide. It used to be explicit that an invisible creature was considered to be heavily obscured for the purposes of hiding. In the 2024 rules I'm actually not sure how we get there though. Even though the prerequisites for attempting to Hide really are trying to say that you aren't seen when you try to Hide -- it doesn't actually say that.
What's really disappointing is that hiding is such an important and frequently used mechanic and it's been botched so badly that it's not easy for the developers to actually fix it with errata, considering printing space and page formatting and all of that when it comes to re-printing the physical books in the future and so on. So, we might have many years go by where every DM has to house-rule all of the Hiding and Invisibility mechanics without even necessarily knowing or understanding what was even intended. It's a real shame for sure.
Yeah but there isn't really a point to having the invisible condition twice whether the effects stack or don't stack. It just gives you more ways to end the condition and you would need to hide behind something and get a 15 to hide.much more elegant to just require a stealth check not the hide action
It looks like you keep missing the subtlety on this. If you are an invisible creature with the Invisible condition that can be broken by attacking, dealing damage or casting a spell, and then you successfully Hide . . . you are now an invisible creature that is hidden (concealed), so your location becomes unknown (confirmed by the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule). While you do this, you have the Hide action's Invisible condition, which can be broken if an enemy finds you, you make a loud sound, you make an attack or you cast a loud spell.
At this point, if an enemy finds you with a Perception check, that enemy has only managed to break one instance of your Invisible condition since only one of them can be broken like that. So, you are now no longer hidden which gives away your location. You lose that instance of the Invisible condition. But you are still an invisible creature with the first instance of the Invisible condition that can only be broken by attacking, dealing damage or casting a spell.
Honestly I think the idea is you make a stealth check without taking the hide action or with the hide action but without gaining the condition. To even get the hide condition you would need to run behind a tree.
Maybe I'm losing track of what we're talking about here, but I'm not sure what any of this means. You only make a Stealth check when you take the Hide action -- it's the thing that determines if you become successfully hidden. Spells such as Greater Invisibility do not interact with the Stealth check at all.
It shouldn't be necessary for an invisible creature to have to position themselves behind anything in order to attempt to Hide. It used to be explicit that an invisible creature was considered to be heavily obscured for the purposes of hiding. In the 2024 rules I'm actually not sure how we get there though. Even though the prerequisites for attempting to Hide really are trying to say that you aren't seen when you try to Hide -- it doesn't actually say that.
What's really disappointing is that hiding is such an important and frequently used mechanic and it's been botched so badly that it's not easy for the developers to actually fix it with errata, considering printing space and page formatting and all of that when it comes to re-printing the physical books in the future and so on. So, we might have many years go by where every DM has to house-rule all of the Hiding and Invisibility mechanics without even necessarily knowing or understanding what was even intended. It's a real shame for sure.
If you are invisible it seems silly to require you to go find a tree to hide behind (or some other action to qualify to be able to take the hide action.) in order take the hide action when you are invisible. It seems like if an invisible target who already has the invisible condition wants to not make a sound, it would be more appropriate to just ask for a steath check rather than require all the requirements of the hide action which really shouldn't apply.
I would definitely agree, there is no easy solution here. They need to sage advice it at least so people can get on the same page. This makes me think it might be easier to just stay with 2014 or go TOV. I don't even know how people completely new to the game is supposed to navigate this.
I am stunned that the writers of 2024 could do no better than this. They have had 10 years to go over the stealth rules as written in 2014 and make them better. And we get this instead. Instead of writing good rules, they have simply pushed it on the DM to make a call each time. Is that okay? Meh....yeah I suppose....but they could at least have given guidelines to it. I'm sure the DMG won't go into detail on how to handle stealth and hiding...which is a shame, because it is an important part of the game and we need decent rules around it so that both players and DMs can handle it with some level of consistency and fairness.
Here is a great example:
The rogue creeps up through the forest towards a camp. Light is shining from several torches and a campfire. He spots someone on watch. He wants to get close and hide behind a tent nearby and is currently hiding behind a tree. There is no cover between the tree and the tent.
It is not hard to imagine that the rogue should be able to sneak over behind the tent during a period when the person on watch is not looking in that direction. Makes sense for a Stealth check to be made, modified by the speed the rogue takes (which by the way, they still have not come out and said how fast is stealth speed). The stealth check in question is not really for hiding, but for being quiet, for "moving silently".
According to the rules though, the rogue would make the test while behind the tree (3/4 cover or full). Now they get the "invisible" condition (lame! why not have a hidden condition instead???? being hidden and being invisible is really two different things...separate them!) but as soon as they step out from behind the tree, they no longer have the cover and thus are now seen by the guard.
Honestly Wizards...write up a stealth guide for players and DMs. Its too late for you to actually fix hiding now...but the least you could do is write up a comprehensive guide for everyone.
p.s. a static DC of 15 is also lazy/moronic. It should have stayed the passive perception of those you are trying to sneak past. End of Story.
I disagree with that. The whole idea behind losing the Condition that was acquired through hiding when you make an attack is that you are giving away your position when you attack. This was more clearly written in 2014, but that's still the idea. When you are hidden your location is unknown because you are unseen and unheard until you make a loud noise or cast a loud spell, or you do something that someone will see like making an attack. But in order to be unseen and unheard you have to actually remain unseen and unheard.
If you are currently unseen and unheard when you make your attack (or you pop out to three-quarters cover to do so), that will almost always be a ranged attack.
The Rogue Thief Supreme Sneak ability is just saying that if you make an attack like this then you can choose to remain hidden (by remaining in a hidden position). It's a little weird that this ability doesn't also allow you to end your turn in a Heavily Obscured area, but that's a separate discussion.
It seems to me, with the new application of the invisible condition, you can both have & not have the condition at the same time. & that doesnt make sense.
I go behind a wall with my companion. I hide successfully. I now have the invisible condition. But my companion can see me since we are both behind the wall together.
If my friend can see me, I don't have the condition for her, but I do for someone else?
I dont like how 'invisible' now has 2 ambiguous meanings either. Being invisible via magic you are transparent in the traditional sense of 'invisibility' - but now this also applies to just being behind a wall.
Those are 2 very different things & it's important to differentiate.
Not least because new players sometimes tend to say 'invisible' when they are hiding & we correct them because you are not see-through like the spell - now this wording has confused the issue. Now we have to explain, "youre not invisible, youre invisible" LOL
In the 2014 rules on hiding (PHB pg177), it says that if you come out of hiding & approach a creature you are usually seen. Does this explanation still exist?
Since a recipient either has a condition or doesn’t, you effectively have the Invisible condition when you Hide and allies can see you. But two of the benefits are not applicable to a creature that can somehow see you, meaning while Concealed you can still be affected by any ally's effect that requires its target to be seen and you'll get no Attacks Affected against your allies. most importantly, you can still get the benefit of Surprise.
So what if I hide behind the wall with my friend & there is also another enemy who can see me further away.
I have hidden from enemy A, I have the condition, but I don't have the condition for Enemy B.
and allies can see you
Is there a specific rule that says aliies can see you?
Rules as written you do not have the hide condition as it ends if you are spotted. (Or it seems like in this case never could have hid in the first place)
To try to conceal yourself, you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight so you can't Hide if an enemy can see you. And if you successfully Hide, the Invisible condition ends on you immediately after an enemy finds you.
Any ally or enemy creature can see you if you're within their line of sight and not Heavily Obscured or behind opaque Total Cover such as a wall, in the example you provided ''my companion can see me since we are both behind the wall together''
and also
These were actually both fairly serious and unanswerable questions under the 2014 rules and in my opinion both of these have been cleaned up and made clearer by the 2024 rules.
The reason is because the Hide action specifically requires being "out of an enemy's line of sight". So, you can now successfully Hide next to your companions. For the same reason, it is now clear that you cannot be hidden from one creature but not another -- you have to be concealed from all enemies in order to attempt to Hide and you lose the Condition when found (you are either hidden or you aren't).
The absence of this sort of language explicitly appearing in the 2024 rules is part of why this thread is so long. There is a camp that strongly believes that the intention is for you to now be able to walk out into the open and melee attack a creature while maintaining the benefits of being hidden -- at least until the current turn ends (as loosely implied by the Tiger stat block and by the Rogue Thief Supreme Sneak feature . . . even though there is currently no text indicating this "until the end of your turn" type of timeframe) or perhaps even indefinitely.
The interpretation that more closely aligns with the 2014 rules is that you must maintain the prerequisites for Hiding in order to maintain the validity of your ongoing Stealth check score and the corresponding Invisible Condition.
Which of these interpretations is actually intended is not explicitly clear at all.
One reference to Hide behind things is in the Exemple of Skill Use;
I actually (despite what most of my posts may come off as) believe the hide action clearly indicates that you can in fact hide behind a tree and then walk 100 miles without losing the invisible condition.
The main issue I think comes from other interactions. First, does walking make more sound than a whisper? We generally presume it does as an invisible creature can still be heard. Previously the way you avoid that with invisibility is to hide. But that presumably does nothing as you can't stack conditions and arguably would increase the ways to end the condition on you.
Second issue is perception. The book indicates that you only need to roll a perception check when something isn't obvious. Someone walking in front of you while you are not distracted is obvious and therefore you should be noticed regardless of your roll.
A third issue is that if we go with hiding granting invisible once you leave a tree then it is better than actual invisibility as it has no way of detection (you can't make sound/you don't) and you can cast non verbal spells (as long as they aren't an attack).
4th issue is how to deal with Greater invisibility. If we decide moving doesn't make sound then presumably a creature with greater invisibility can never be detected. You attack then move. ( There is basically a 1% chance of the enemy guessing the correct square you moved to and then they still have disadvantage at that point) But should a stealth check be used? And if so does it cost an action? Bonus action? Or just free? Or would you need to take the hide action? But that doesn't do anything... Or does it. Does the stealth check with hiding set a limit of how quietly you are moving.
I think that there are a few reasons why this is probably incorrect although some tweaks for clarity would definitely help.
If this does become the common interpretation, then this needs to be addressed via errata asap as there is 100% no possible way that that is the intention.
The idea has always been that walking makes less sound than a whisper if you passed your stealth check -- otherwise, you were walking too loudly and that's why the stealth roll was poor. In 2014, when you made a successful stealth check you were considered to be unseen and unheard and your location was unknown. Your location was really only unknown if you were able to walk to a new location while hidden -- otherwise, stealth really doesn't work. I believe that all of these same concepts still apply in 2024 but it's less explicitly spelled out -- you have to look at the rules from a few different areas of the book, not just the Hide action rule.
For example, in 2014, the Invisible creature could be heard while walking if they were not attempting to Hide. If they were successfully hidden, you would not be able to hear them walking.
I agree with this. You really should only be hidden while you are hidden (duh).
Greater Invisibility is meant to be a pretty strong spell. Note that the duration of that spell is only 1 minute. Such a creature can still be heard though, so you don't have to guess the square. There is nothing about the Invisible Condition that suggests that a creature who has that condition cannot be heard. In 2014 it was explicit that this creature could then successfully hide to become unheard, and their location would become unknown. In my opinion, we can also get there with the 2024 rules, but we have to squint a bit at several different rules all at once to get there. All of this assumes that the Invisible condition becomes fixed to actually make the creature invisible of course.
You cannot hide. Enemy B seeing you prevents you from even trying to hide. And Enemy B finding you ends the condition. The rules are written in a way that you either have the condition or you do not. There is no having it for one group of enemies and not having it for another group.
I think there isn't a good way to hide while invisible. Conditions don't stack, so I would assume that hiding would just grant you an additional way of losing the condition, without benefiting you. Unless it also overrides the spell casting limitation. Honestly, it feels like they made changes and it just never came up what happens if you try do hide while invisible. It seems odd to me that none of these issues came up while playtesting the game.
I think that we worked it out earlier in the thread that you would have two instances of the Invisible Condition and if you were found via a Perception Check you would only lose the Hide action's instance.
In my current interpretation of hiding, you also become no longer unheard (no longer concealed) because your location becomes known, even if you remain Invisible from another instance, or you just remain Unseen (which is different than continuing to be "unable to be seen", which is what the Invisible Condition "should" be granting if it is ever fixed).
Yeah I suppose the question becomes while each one has their own duration, that still seems to allow ending one instance would end both since you can't have the condition twice.
Honestly I think the idea is you make a stealth check without taking the hide action or with the hide action but without gaining the condition. To even get the hide condition you would need to run behind a tree.
You can have a condition twice. You just don't get the effects of a condition twice.
Yeah but there isn't really a point to having the invisible condition twice whether the effects stack or don't stack. It just gives you more ways to end the condition and you would need to hide behind something and get a 15 to hide.much more elegant to just require a stealth check not the hide action
Maybe I'm losing track of what we're talking about here, but I'm not sure what any of this means. You only make a Stealth check when you take the Hide action -- it's the thing that determines if you become successfully hidden. Spells such as Greater Invisibility do not interact with the Stealth check at all.
It shouldn't be necessary for an invisible creature to have to position themselves behind anything in order to attempt to Hide. It used to be explicit that an invisible creature was considered to be heavily obscured for the purposes of hiding. In the 2024 rules I'm actually not sure how we get there though. Even though the prerequisites for attempting to Hide really are trying to say that you aren't seen when you try to Hide -- it doesn't actually say that.
What's really disappointing is that hiding is such an important and frequently used mechanic and it's been botched so badly that it's not easy for the developers to actually fix it with errata, considering printing space and page formatting and all of that when it comes to re-printing the physical books in the future and so on. So, we might have many years go by where every DM has to house-rule all of the Hiding and Invisibility mechanics without even necessarily knowing or understanding what was even intended. It's a real shame for sure.
It looks like you keep missing the subtlety on this. If you are an invisible creature with the Invisible condition that can be broken by attacking, dealing damage or casting a spell, and then you successfully Hide . . . you are now an invisible creature that is hidden (concealed), so your location becomes unknown (confirmed by the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule). While you do this, you have the Hide action's Invisible condition, which can be broken if an enemy finds you, you make a loud sound, you make an attack or you cast a loud spell.
At this point, if an enemy finds you with a Perception check, that enemy has only managed to break one instance of your Invisible condition since only one of them can be broken like that. So, you are now no longer hidden which gives away your location. You lose that instance of the Invisible condition. But you are still an invisible creature with the first instance of the Invisible condition that can only be broken by attacking, dealing damage or casting a spell.
If you are invisible it seems silly to require you to go find a tree to hide behind (or some other action to qualify to be able to take the hide action.) in order take the hide action when you are invisible. It seems like if an invisible target who already has the invisible condition wants to not make a sound, it would be more appropriate to just ask for a steath check rather than require all the requirements of the hide action which really shouldn't apply.
I would definitely agree, there is no easy solution here. They need to sage advice it at least so people can get on the same page. This makes me think it might be easier to just stay with 2014 or go TOV. I don't even know how people completely new to the game is supposed to navigate this.
I am stunned that the writers of 2024 could do no better than this. They have had 10 years to go over the stealth rules as written in 2014 and make them better. And we get this instead. Instead of writing good rules, they have simply pushed it on the DM to make a call each time. Is that okay? Meh....yeah I suppose....but they could at least have given guidelines to it. I'm sure the DMG won't go into detail on how to handle stealth and hiding...which is a shame, because it is an important part of the game and we need decent rules around it so that both players and DMs can handle it with some level of consistency and fairness.
Here is a great example:
The rogue creeps up through the forest towards a camp. Light is shining from several torches and a campfire. He spots someone on watch. He wants to get close and hide behind a tent nearby and is currently hiding behind a tree. There is no cover between the tree and the tent.
It is not hard to imagine that the rogue should be able to sneak over behind the tent during a period when the person on watch is not looking in that direction. Makes sense for a Stealth check to be made, modified by the speed the rogue takes (which by the way, they still have not come out and said how fast is stealth speed). The stealth check in question is not really for hiding, but for being quiet, for "moving silently".
According to the rules though, the rogue would make the test while behind the tree (3/4 cover or full). Now they get the "invisible" condition (lame! why not have a hidden condition instead???? being hidden and being invisible is really two different things...separate them!) but as soon as they step out from behind the tree, they no longer have the cover and thus are now seen by the guard.
Honestly Wizards...write up a stealth guide for players and DMs. Its too late for you to actually fix hiding now...but the least you could do is write up a comprehensive guide for everyone.
p.s. a static DC of 15 is also lazy/moronic. It should have stayed the passive perception of those you are trying to sneak past. End of Story.