I think that one of the problems with the Hide action as it is written now is that it still uses the phrase "line of sight" within the prerequisites, which has a specific mechanical meaning in the game as defined in the DMG. They should replace that phrase with something more generic such as "you must be out of view of all enemies". The reason why that would work better is because the assumption of constant 360-degree awareness has been removed in the 2024 iteration, so the phrase "if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you" actually is useful -- but not when it's referring to "line of sight". Line of Sight simply doesn't work that way in the game, so that should be changed via errata. If this proposed change were made, then it immediately makes more sense why "three-quarters cover" is listed as one of the possible prerequisites for successfully hiding. As currently written, three-quarters cover simply doesn't work correctly because there is always Line of Sight to three-quarters cover.
If that one thing were fixed, the rest of it actually works pretty well now.
What the Hide action does is explained on the very first line. The action is an attempt to conceal yourself. A successful Hide action means that you successfully conceal yourself. That is what the action actually does.
No, a successful hide action gives you what the text says a successful hide action gives you. The first line is descriptive text, not something that defines an effect.
What the Hide action does is explained on the very first line. The action is an attempt to conceal yourself. A successful Hide action means that you successfully conceal yourself. That is what the action actually does.
No, a successful hide action gives you what the text says a successful hide action gives you. The first line is descriptive text, not something that defines an effect.
Meh. I disagree.
Suppose for a moment that the first sentence was changed to: "With the Hide action, you try to conceal your location from your enemies by becoming unseen and unheard by them." Then keep everything else the same. Would you still be ignoring this as "descriptive text" and then claiming that the Hide action is just all about having the Invisible condition and nothing else? Such a notion seriously misses the point.
You really have to look at the text for the action as a whole in a different way than you've been reading it, otherwise you'll continue to miss the point of it.
Suppose for a moment that the first sentence was changed to: "With the Hide action, you try to conceal your location from your enemies by becoming unseen and unheard by them." Then keep everything else the same. Would you still be ignoring this as "descriptive text" and then claiming that the Hide action is just all about having the Invisible condition and nothing else?
If they didn't change the rules text for success, yes. I would (even more) seriously doubt the competency of the editor at that point, but for the existing text, the normal meaning of 'conceal', absent further details or definitions, is in fact to make something hard to see.
As I understand it, everything in game requires a Search check (normally Perception but potentially Investigation/Insight/etc.) to notice.
However, most of the time, this Search check DC is so trivial that even unobservant characters/monsters can make it with trivial ease. That Ancient Red Dragon sipping tea and eating crumpets in your foyer? That's a DC 2. Even non-proficient characters with minimal Wisdom can see it. We don't bother with such checks (or even listing the DC), but they're still there 'under the hood'. Ordinarily, the Search DC for a player character just standing around in an otherwise empty room is equally trivial.
Now, Invisible grants three benefits: Surprise (Advantage on Initiative), the inability to take that Search check above by visual means and Advantage/Disadvantage on attacks. Blind also grants enemies the same benefits. Blindfighting, Truesight or See Invisible will negate those benefits within their range.
So let's talk about something completely different: Stealth.
Stealth can only be entered if you have Cover (3/4 normally, inferred 1/2 for Halfling). You must make a DC 15 Stealth check and the roll becomes the DC to notice you. Once entered, Stealth only ends via four ways:
you make a sound louder than a whisper
an enemy finds you
you make an attack roll
you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
Since Stealth also grants you the Invisible condition, the second condition will never apply against any enemy that cannot see through Invisible (via See Invisible, Truesight or Blindsight as above). If Stealth ever drops, you also lose the Invisible condition from Stealth (although not any other Invisible condition). The Invisible condition is, as above, what provides you with benefits like Advantage on attacks. So you can't use Stealth Invisible for the Advantage necessary to Sneak Attack a Lich (who has Truesight) any more than you can use the Invisible spell.
Moreover, since Lich can see through Invisible, so they can now make a Search check to find you while a normal enemy doesn't even have the option of a Search check (based on sight). If you weren't in Stealth, this would (as above) be trivial. Since you're in Stealth, they need to make a check against your Stealth DC. Most of the time, this means they'll need to take an Action to Search (and probably fail anyway if you've got the kind of proficiencies a Stealth-using character would have).
It's also important to note that if any enemy sees you, Stealth (and its associated Invisibility) breaks for all enemies. That 25 you rolled on your Stealth check is probably enough for a single Lich (+9 Perception) to not easily find you. An army of Liches? At least one of them is going to roll a 16+. Likewise, if that Lich is willing to spend as many Actions as it takes, they'll eventually roll high enough. If you rolled a 30? No amount of time or number of Liches will ever enable them to find you - the only way they'll be able to detect you is if you violate one of the other three Stealth conditions.
This makes Stealth offensively only ok. If you want Advantage for Sneak Attack, Steady Aim or Vex are far more reliable since Stealth's Invisible portion is what grants Advantage - and anything that can negate the Invisible condition will negate the Advantage. You also can't use Stealth at all unless you can manage to generate that Cover/Obscurement/etc.
Defensively, Stealth is a powerhouse. Before I enter the Lich's lair, I can enter Stealth. Since I'm a level 20 Rogue with Expertise in Stealth, I have +17 to my roll. The minimum I can possibly roll is 27 (due to Reliable Talent). I stroll into the Lich's lair. It's Passive Perception isn't good enough to detect me (+9). It could take an Action to Search but this is a bit unrealistic since Liches don't spend all day taking Actions to Search when they don't have any reason to do so. So I stroll past the Lich, grab his phylactery (ok, fine, Spirit Jar) and wander back out of the room, the Lich none the wiser. Of course, the Lich could potentially prevent this by closing the door (opening and then re-closing the door would probably violate the Stealth conditions in some way).
But you would already gain 2/3 of the advantages of the Invisible condition just to meet the conditions needed to attempt to Hide. You must be unseen in order to attempt to hide. So before you even try, you already cannot be affected by things that require sight. If you are out of sight and can somehow attack (I'm not even sure that you could attempt to attack without becoming unhidden, as you would no longer be covered), then you would already get the unseen attacker / unseen target advantages. All your missing is advantage on Initiative, but that only comes up if you were hiding before it was rolled.
And there is nothing in either Hide or Invisible that prevents a creature from performing a search check (there is also nothing in either one that says this must be done). If I ducked behind a pillar and took the Hide action, would someone who walked around the pillar need to spend their whole action just to see me there? I think that would fall under the "can somehow see you" of you no longer being hidden/Invisible.
It seems like they got halfway through writing Stealth rules, said "This is hard..." and just gave up with a shrug of, "Well, the DMs can handle it. They'll all just have to houserule this previously core mechanic of the game and pillar of an entire class."
Now, Invisible grants three benefits: Surprise (Advantage on Initiative), the inability to take that Search check above by visual means and Advantage/Disadvantage on attacks.
The Perception skill has been simplified in 2024. References to Perception checks "based on sight" have mostly been removed. Trying to see something vs trying to hear something are not always separated out now, particularly when it comes to attempting to notice an enemy. Perception is now described as:
Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss.
Stealth can only be entered if you have Cover (3/4 normally, inferred 1/2 for Halfling). You must make a DC 15 Stealth check and the roll becomes the DC to notice you. Once entered, Stealth only ends via four ways:
you make a sound louder than a whisper
an enemy finds you
you make an attack roll
you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
Since Stealth also grants you the Invisible condition, the second condition will never apply against any enemy that cannot see through Invisible (via See Invisible, Truesight or Blindsight as above).
That's not how this works. You have the Invisible condition and its associated benefits by virtue of being hidden, while you remain hidden. The Hide action explicitly explains a mechanic by which you can be found with an enemy Wisdom (Perception) check, which, as mentioned above, involves a combination of senses. This Invisible condition does not make you unable to be seen -- it just makes it so that you can less obviously be seen. If you are sitting behind three-quarters cover, then normal vision might see you even though you have the Invisible condition if the Perception check is high enough . . . because that's what the Hide action says.
In fact, this might be the main reason why the designers removed the language from the Invisible condition itself that "you can't be seen" when you have the condition. The condition now just grants a series of benefits -- it no longer has anything to do with actually being "un-see-able".
The Invisible condition is, as above, what provides you with benefits like Advantage on attacks. So you can't use Stealth Invisible for the Advantage necessary to Sneak Attack a Lich (who has Truesight) any more than you can use the Invisible spell.
I do like this explanation. You can't really be an "Unseen Attacker" without this since you would need to "pop-out" to three-quarters cover to make an attack at which point you could be seen unless you have the Invisible condition.
Moreover, since Lich can see through Invisible, so they can now make a Search check to find you while a normal enemy doesn't even have the option of a Search check (based on sight). If you weren't in Stealth, this would (as above) be trivial. Since you're in Stealth, they need to make a check against your Stealth DC. Most of the time, this means they'll need to take an Action to Search (and probably fail anyway if you've got the kind of proficiencies a Stealth-using character would have).
No. You don't need to be able to see through Invisible to take a Search action to find a hidden enemy. This is explained within the text of the Hide action.
However, if an enemy CAN see through Invisible, such as with truesight, then I would rule that if you ever pop-out to three-quarters cover then you are automatically found by this enemy without any Search action since they can see you clearly as if you didn't have the Invisible condition (such as, if you were sitting in three-quarters cover but never took the Hide action).
So I stroll past the Lich, grab his phylactery (ok, fine, Spirit Jar) and wander back out of the room, the Lich none the wiser.
This isn't really how it works either. You only maintain the benefits of hiding "while hidden". Even if your minimum Stealth check can never lose to an enemy's Passive Perception, you cannot just wander around in the room out in the open. Your subsequent activities must be conducted in such a way that you are reasonably maintaining your Stealth ("The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"). A DM is certainly justified in ruling that if you come out of hiding . . . then you are no longer hidden.
This isn't really how it works either. You only maintain the benefits of hiding "while hidden". Even if your minimum Stealth check can never lose to an enemy's Passive Perception, you cannot just wander around in the room out in the open. Your subsequent activities must be conducted in such a way that you are reasonably maintaining your Stealth ("The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"). A DM is certainly justified in ruling that if you come out of hiding . . . then you are no longer hidden.
The "wander around in the room out in the open" is why we have rules for Advantage/Disadvantage on the roll. But if you're going to rule as a DM that the Stealth DC is meaningless, then you might as well just delete the skill from your PHB. Any interpretation that claims Stealth only works when you're in a situation where you can't be seen anyway requires you believe the developers intended the skill to be useless.
The Stealth DC has plenty of meaning "while hidden". Of course the Stealth DC is meaningless if you aren't actually being stealthy. Why wouldn't it be?
So you are claiming that the text which says: "you have the Invisible condition while hidden" allows you to just "stroll into the Lich's lair" and "I stroll past the Lich, grab his [whatever] and wander back out of the room, the Lich none the wiser"?
What does that say about what you believe the developers intended for a skill that they've called stealth which is related to an action that they've called Hide?
The Stealth DC has plenty of meaning "while hidden". Of course the Stealth DC is meaningless if you aren't actually being stealthy. Why wouldn't it be?
So you are claiming that the text which says: "you have the Invisible condition while hidden" allows you to just "stroll into the Lich's lair" and "I stroll past the Lich, grab his [whatever] and wander back out of the room, the Lich none the wiser"?
What does that say about what you believe the developers intended for a skill that they've called stealth which is related to an action that they've called Hide?
to clarify, are you saying that if a DM rules that coming out of cover removes the hidden effect, that its justified?
or are you saying that if the player narritively describes themself as not attempting to be stealthy its justified?
So you are claiming that the text which says: "you have the Invisible condition while hidden" allows you to just "stroll into the Lich's lair" and "I stroll past the Lich, grab his [whatever] and wander back out of the room, the Lich none the wiser"?
In the given situation (everything about Hiding is situational), the DM probably rules it's not appropriate for hiding. If the Lich is just standing there, staring at the single entrance with their unblinking, unsleeping eyes (creepy)...yeah, sucks to sneak.
Or the DM makes the PC roll for Stealth to move quietly, each move/dash action, to see if they beat the Lich's passive perception, lest the Lich notice them and end the condition. Perhaps the Lich is scurrying about, organizing their scrolls and whatnot.
actually, do this for magical invisibility, too --- so Smaug can hear Bilbo.
In combat, I'd give at least the first move action (be it same turn or next turn) for "free," using the Hide check's value, to reduce the rolling. Not really relevant if they started steathin' elewhere.
Actually, in pitched combat, where everyone (Lich included) is busy casting spells, swinging weapons, getting stabbed...I might just make the Lich actually take the Search action, thus actually play the action economy game. Lich has the Observant feat? Great, they can use a Bonus Action!
The Stealth DC has plenty of meaning "while hidden". Of course the Stealth DC is meaningless if you aren't actually being stealthy. Why wouldn't it be?
So you are claiming that the text which says: "you have the Invisible condition while hidden" allows you to just "stroll into the Lich's lair" and "I stroll past the Lich, grab his [whatever] and wander back out of the room, the Lich none the wiser"?
What does that say about what you believe the developers intended for a skill that they've called stealth which is related to an action that they've called Hide?
to clarify, are you saying that if a DM rules that coming out of cover removes the hidden effect, that its justified?
or are you saying that if the player narritively describes themself as not attempting to be stealthy its justified?
In this case, I was mostly meaning your second statement. The concept of Hiding for one snapshot moment in time and then completely coming out of hiding and boldly and carelessly walking around in the open "because I made a stealth check" instead of actually continuing to hide / sneak / stealth your way around just absolutely does not fly with me. If the enemy is alert in a large room that has no cover or obscured areas, it makes no sense to momentarily "Hide" outside of the room and then just be able to casually and brazenly walk in and all the way across and out of that room without a care in the world. A DM is justified in simply not allowing such nonsense.
However, I also believe that your first statement is the actual rule and the actual intent, but it's more understandable why some folks feel like the concept of hiding and especially sneaking is and should be less strict than that interpretation, especially in light of the removal of the assumption of 360-degree awareness. But the rules do state that successfully hiding involves being behind at least three-quarters cover and that you only have the benefits afforded by your successful Stealth roll "while hidden". That's the baseline RAW. A DM will have to situationally make rulings that go against the RAW (house ruling) if they want to occasionally allow a creature to sneak up on an "unsuspecting" or "distracted" enemy. There is nothing wrong with that -- the rules themselves encourage the DM to do this . . . to use the rules as a starting point and then to make whatever rulings make sense for your game. But there is value in at least knowing what the RAI / RAW is as a baseline.
Just to further explain my previous post, remember that the DM always has the power to grant advantage or disadvantage to any D20 Test:
The DM can also decide that circumstances grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage.
So, if the party sets up a really interesting distraction which results in a character "sneaking up behind" an enemy and attacking it from melee range . . . the DM can just grant advantage on that attack roll because it's cool.
In other words, the reason for granting advantage in that situation doesn't necessarily have to be "because he is hidden". It can just be because the DM decides that circumstances warrant granting advantage on that roll.
Bear in mind that skills - especially those at a high level - are meant to indicate levels of performance that the player themselves is incapable of and may not even know how to do. I can't walk on a tightrope line between two skyscrapers. I can't even describe how to go about it. But some human being can do that, so it's entirely reasonable to simply make it an Acrobatics roll without the player having to describe every little detail.
The same is true for virtually all social rolls. Even if I was willing to roleplay out every encounter, there's no way I can be as Persuasive as that level 20 Bard. That's why we have the Persuasion skill - to represent skills possessed by the character that the player doesn't have.
We already have a rule about Advantage and Disadvantage on the Perception roll that covers the "gee, this will be hard to pull off" scenario. But when you're running a campaign where you assert that every situation isn't just at Disadvantage but impossible, you're essentially deleting the skill from the game - and that creates a huge game imbalance. Rogues (and other Stealth-y builds) are supposed to be able to do the things I described just like Fighters aren't supposed to instantly cripple someone when they graze them with a Great Sword (which is what would happen in real life).
Even worse, most of the "you can't Stealth here!" examples are ones that are dependent on the failure of the DM rather than the failure of the player. The reason the Lich is sitting there all day staring at the door is the meta-reason that he knows he's a encounter for the players. The DM doesn't spend the time to build up the Lich's schedule of activities in a lived-in environment because the game is designed to abstract that task via skill rolls. But if you're going to refuse to use the abstraction of skill rolls, you either have to incorporate that level of detail or you're doing a disservice to your players - for whom core abilities of their character are impossible because you're refusing to give them the information you demand they work from.
In this case, I was mostly meaning your second statement. The concept of Hiding for one snapshot moment in time and then completely coming out of hiding and boldly and carelessly walking around in the open "because I made a stealth check" instead of actually continuing to hide / sneak / stealth your way around just absolutely does not fly with me.
We're talking about what the rules say, not about how a DM might choose to handle things. As written, we have absolutely no information about what behaviors, other than the ones specifically mentioned in the hide action, cause you to no longer be hidden. Does boldly and carelessly walking around in the open cause you to no longer be hidden? Probably, but there's no rules reason to say one way or the other. The general things that should be resolved with stealth include
How do you hide when you have 3/4 cover... when 3/4 cover does not block line of sight, and you cannot hide while in line of sight?
Are the requirements for remaining hidden the same as the requirements for hiding? If not, what are those requirements?
Does hiding affect whether your location is known?
What does passive perception do in 2024?
If a creature sees you in a way other than making a perception check (e.g. it has truesight), does that count as being 'found'?
We're talking about what the rules say, not about how a DM might choose to handle things. As written, we have absolutely no information about what behaviors, other than the ones specifically mentioned in the hide action, cause you to no longer be hidden. Does boldly and carelessly walking around in the open cause you to no longer be hidden?
The action states how it ends: "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." If you don't do any of those three things (and the DM doesn't just fiat rule that you can't hide), you stay hidden.
How do you hide when you have 3/4 cover... when 3/4 cover does not block line of sight, and you cannot hide while in line of sight?
You hide by being a sneaky bastard and blending in. Probably by being really still and careful. Or not --- you could fail the roll. (Though note that a Rogue with expertise in Stealth likely can't fail a Stealth DC below 20 by level 7).
Are the requirements for remaining hidden the same as the requirements for hiding? If not, what are those requirements?
The general, written requirements for remaining hidden are, simply, not making a loud sound, not getting found, not attacking, and not casting a verbal spell.
Does hiding affect whether your location is known?
It conceals you. You become unseen and unheard (at least until you are found, by getting noticed, passively or actively). There's an "Unseen Attackers and Targets" box in chapter 1; it's relevent to more than just Hiding.
What does passive perception do in 2024?
"The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check" per the rules glossary. (I'm not pasting the whole definition here.)
If a creature sees you in a way other than making a perception check (e.g. it has truesight), does that count as being 'found'?
Truesight lets them see an invisible person, but if you are "just" hidden, they'd see you upon looking, regardless of Truesight. Blindsight would negate cover of darkness, but still not alert them to your presence. Tremor Sense is the one to worry about, since it acts like a 360 degree sonar.
(Neither Truesight nor Blindsight give you eyes in the back of your head, nor super hearing.)
Sure it does. It closes the problem wherein you could have invisibility the spell cast on you and have it get ended early by being spotted after trying to hide. Somehow.
It didn't do that before, but it does make it more explicit that it doesn't do so.
It did, that's why the errata. It is exactly what the errata fixed.
Old phrasing:
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 just straight up said Invisibility ends on you if any of those things happen. It made no caveats for where you got the Invisibility from, or multiple sources. Just that it ends on you.
The new wording fixed this problem. Aka the reason for the errata you said "doesn't do anything". That's the thing it did.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Just by the level of discussion on this topic, I think we can all agree that these stealth rules were really poorly written and concepted. Even the people talking about how they work are either making HUGE assumptions or just saying, "Well your DM will determine everything."
"DM determines everything" should neve be the answer on a core mechanic. It would be like writing the attack rule: "You make a D20 test and add your ability modifiers and proficiency bonus to the roll against the target's AC. You must meet or beat their AC to hit them. If your test is lower than their AC, you miss, unless you somehow hit."
Adding the "unless they can somehow see you" with absolutely ZERO explanation or examples makes the entire stealth rule at the whim of your DM. If someone walks up to/around your hiding place, do they now "somehow see you"? Who knows? You could build a super stealthy Rogue and then the DM could just say, "Well akchually no..." and be perfectly within the RAW. How could you possibly run an AL version?
There are just so many issues with 5.5e in the writing and concepting (not to mention the recent errata that MASSIVELY nerfed the way overpowered summoning spells) that it seems like they didn't put any effort in. Yes, 5e had it's issues. Yes, 5.5e cleared up some of those issues, but it introduced a lot more, bigger issues.
As written, we have absolutely no information about what behaviors, other than the ones specifically mentioned in the hide action, cause you to no longer be hidden.
Yes and that is a deliberate and good choice by the designers because who wants 2 pages of listing out every possible situation the designers can think of and listing out whether that does or does not break hiding.
How do you hide when you have 3/4 cover... when 3/4 cover does not block line of sight, and you cannot hide while in line of sight?
You spend time & effort to duck & position yourself behind that cover such that you are no longer visible to the creature you are trying to hide from.
Are the requirements for remaining hidden the same as the requirements for hiding? If not, what are those requirements?
Yes, why would they be different?
Does hiding affect whether your location is known?
Sometimes but not always, it depends on the situation thus is left up to the DM to adjudicate.
What does passive perception do in 2024?
It might still affect:
Pickpocketing, cheating in cards, and other uses of Sleight of Hand.
Detecting Traps and other Hazards when you aren't actively searching from them
If a creature sees you in a way other than making a perception check (e.g. it has truesight), does that count as being 'found'?
Yes, otherwise they would have specified in the rules that the only way to break hiding is if the hider makes a noise or a seeker succeeds on a Perception check to find them. They did not do that because there are lots of ways to "find" someone all of which are valid ways to break hiding.
For instance a trivial example: A Rogue paints a bit of cardboard to look like a wall and carries it around with them and then swats behind it to hide from a guard. The guard notices there is an obvious thing painted to look like the wall over by the wall. All of the below would allow the guard to "find" the rogue:
Making a perception check - allows them to notice the rogue's fingers holding the cardboard or notice the rogue's cloak flutter for a moment and be visible.
Setting fire to the cardboard and it burning away, revealing the rogue.
Moving around so they can see the opposite side of the cardboard where the rogue is squatting.
"DM determines everything" should neve be the answer on a core mechanic. It would be like writing the attack rule: "You make a D20 test and add your ability modifiers and proficiency bonus to the roll against the target's AC. You must meet or beat their AC to hit them. If your test is lower than their AC, you miss, unless you somehow hit."
That is not a good equivalency. A much better equivalency would be Grapple, because that is also an example using Skills in Combat.
Note that Ending a Grapple has a very similar situation to stopping being hidden:
A Grappled creature can use its action to make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check against the grapple’s escape DC, ending the condition on itself on a success. The condition also ends if the grappler has the Incapacitated condition or if the distance between the Grappled target and the grappler exceeds the grapple’s range. In addition, the grappler can release the target at any time (no action required).
Just like with the Hiding rules we have:
A way for a Skill check to be used as an Action to end the condition: Hiding = Perception, Grapple = Athletics/Acrobatics
A way for the Skill user to end the condition: Hiding = making noise, attacking or casting a spell, Grapple = becoming incapacitated or choosing to release them
A vague way that there are lots of different methods to achieve which are not all listed out: Hiding = an enemy finding you, Grapple = the target being beyond the grapple's range.
For #3 there are lots of ways of achieving this so the designers deliberately don't list them all out, and some are clearly situational.
For example for Grappling: Teleportation, and Forced Movement are both obvious solutions, but there is at least 1 case where it is obvious it doesn't apply: falling. Falling is considered forced movement so would logically move someone beyond the range of a grappler's grapple, however a blanket ruling of it as such would mean that if say the halfling wizard falls, the orc barbarian can't reach out and grab them because that would be a grapple and falling forced movement would overrule it.
Hiding is the same, it is fundamentally situational, hence it requires human input to decide when it is or isn't possible to hide. Otherwise you necessarily will have edge cases that make no sense -> just see Skyrim's bucket on an NPCs head, or BG3 allowing you to duck behind a shopkeeper's counter to steal from them, or countless other examples.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I forgot to mention:
I think that one of the problems with the Hide action as it is written now is that it still uses the phrase "line of sight" within the prerequisites, which has a specific mechanical meaning in the game as defined in the DMG. They should replace that phrase with something more generic such as "you must be out of view of all enemies". The reason why that would work better is because the assumption of constant 360-degree awareness has been removed in the 2024 iteration, so the phrase "if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you" actually is useful -- but not when it's referring to "line of sight". Line of Sight simply doesn't work that way in the game, so that should be changed via errata. If this proposed change were made, then it immediately makes more sense why "three-quarters cover" is listed as one of the possible prerequisites for successfully hiding. As currently written, three-quarters cover simply doesn't work correctly because there is always Line of Sight to three-quarters cover.
If that one thing were fixed, the rest of it actually works pretty well now.
No, a successful hide action gives you what the text says a successful hide action gives you. The first line is descriptive text, not something that defines an effect.
Meh. I disagree.
Suppose for a moment that the first sentence was changed to: "With the Hide action, you try to conceal your location from your enemies by becoming unseen and unheard by them." Then keep everything else the same. Would you still be ignoring this as "descriptive text" and then claiming that the Hide action is just all about having the Invisible condition and nothing else? Such a notion seriously misses the point.
You really have to look at the text for the action as a whole in a different way than you've been reading it, otherwise you'll continue to miss the point of it.
If they didn't change the rules text for success, yes. I would (even more) seriously doubt the competency of the editor at that point, but for the existing text, the normal meaning of 'conceal', absent further details or definitions, is in fact to make something hard to see.
As I understand it, everything in game requires a Search check (normally Perception but potentially Investigation/Insight/etc.) to notice.
However, most of the time, this Search check DC is so trivial that even unobservant characters/monsters can make it with trivial ease. That Ancient Red Dragon sipping tea and eating crumpets in your foyer? That's a DC 2. Even non-proficient characters with minimal Wisdom can see it. We don't bother with such checks (or even listing the DC), but they're still there 'under the hood'. Ordinarily, the Search DC for a player character just standing around in an otherwise empty room is equally trivial.
Now, Invisible grants three benefits: Surprise (Advantage on Initiative), the inability to take that Search check above by visual means and Advantage/Disadvantage on attacks. Blind also grants enemies the same benefits. Blindfighting, Truesight or See Invisible will negate those benefits within their range.
So let's talk about something completely different: Stealth.
Stealth can only be entered if you have Cover (3/4 normally, inferred 1/2 for Halfling). You must make a DC 15 Stealth check and the roll becomes the DC to notice you. Once entered, Stealth only ends via four ways:
Since Stealth also grants you the Invisible condition, the second condition will never apply against any enemy that cannot see through Invisible (via See Invisible, Truesight or Blindsight as above). If Stealth ever drops, you also lose the Invisible condition from Stealth (although not any other Invisible condition). The Invisible condition is, as above, what provides you with benefits like Advantage on attacks. So you can't use Stealth Invisible for the Advantage necessary to Sneak Attack a Lich (who has Truesight) any more than you can use the Invisible spell.
Moreover, since Lich can see through Invisible, so they can now make a Search check to find you while a normal enemy doesn't even have the option of a Search check (based on sight). If you weren't in Stealth, this would (as above) be trivial. Since you're in Stealth, they need to make a check against your Stealth DC. Most of the time, this means they'll need to take an Action to Search (and probably fail anyway if you've got the kind of proficiencies a Stealth-using character would have).
It's also important to note that if any enemy sees you, Stealth (and its associated Invisibility) breaks for all enemies. That 25 you rolled on your Stealth check is probably enough for a single Lich (+9 Perception) to not easily find you. An army of Liches? At least one of them is going to roll a 16+. Likewise, if that Lich is willing to spend as many Actions as it takes, they'll eventually roll high enough. If you rolled a 30? No amount of time or number of Liches will ever enable them to find you - the only way they'll be able to detect you is if you violate one of the other three Stealth conditions.
This makes Stealth offensively only ok. If you want Advantage for Sneak Attack, Steady Aim or Vex are far more reliable since Stealth's Invisible portion is what grants Advantage - and anything that can negate the Invisible condition will negate the Advantage. You also can't use Stealth at all unless you can manage to generate that Cover/Obscurement/etc.
Defensively, Stealth is a powerhouse. Before I enter the Lich's lair, I can enter Stealth. Since I'm a level 20 Rogue with Expertise in Stealth, I have +17 to my roll. The minimum I can possibly roll is 27 (due to Reliable Talent). I stroll into the Lich's lair. It's Passive Perception isn't good enough to detect me (+9). It could take an Action to Search but this is a bit unrealistic since Liches don't spend all day taking Actions to Search when they don't have any reason to do so. So I stroll past the Lich, grab his phylactery (ok, fine, Spirit Jar) and wander back out of the room, the Lich none the wiser. Of course, the Lich could potentially prevent this by closing the door (opening and then re-closing the door would probably violate the Stealth conditions in some way).
But you would already gain 2/3 of the advantages of the Invisible condition just to meet the conditions needed to attempt to Hide. You must be unseen in order to attempt to hide. So before you even try, you already cannot be affected by things that require sight. If you are out of sight and can somehow attack (I'm not even sure that you could attempt to attack without becoming unhidden, as you would no longer be covered), then you would already get the unseen attacker / unseen target advantages. All your missing is advantage on Initiative, but that only comes up if you were hiding before it was rolled.
And there is nothing in either Hide or Invisible that prevents a creature from performing a search check (there is also nothing in either one that says this must be done). If I ducked behind a pillar and took the Hide action, would someone who walked around the pillar need to spend their whole action just to see me there? I think that would fall under the "can somehow see you" of you no longer being hidden/Invisible.
It seems like they got halfway through writing Stealth rules, said "This is hard..." and just gave up with a shrug of, "Well, the DMs can handle it. They'll all just have to houserule this previously core mechanic of the game and pillar of an entire class."
This is not true. Anything that is trivial to notice does not require any Search action:
In general, DCs and die rolls are only used when the outcome is uncertain.
The Perception skill has been simplified in 2024. References to Perception checks "based on sight" have mostly been removed. Trying to see something vs trying to hear something are not always separated out now, particularly when it comes to attempting to notice an enemy. Perception is now described as:
That's not how this works. You have the Invisible condition and its associated benefits by virtue of being hidden, while you remain hidden. The Hide action explicitly explains a mechanic by which you can be found with an enemy Wisdom (Perception) check, which, as mentioned above, involves a combination of senses. This Invisible condition does not make you unable to be seen -- it just makes it so that you can less obviously be seen. If you are sitting behind three-quarters cover, then normal vision might see you even though you have the Invisible condition if the Perception check is high enough . . . because that's what the Hide action says.
In fact, this might be the main reason why the designers removed the language from the Invisible condition itself that "you can't be seen" when you have the condition. The condition now just grants a series of benefits -- it no longer has anything to do with actually being "un-see-able".
I do like this explanation. You can't really be an "Unseen Attacker" without this since you would need to "pop-out" to three-quarters cover to make an attack at which point you could be seen unless you have the Invisible condition.
No. You don't need to be able to see through Invisible to take a Search action to find a hidden enemy. This is explained within the text of the Hide action.
However, if an enemy CAN see through Invisible, such as with truesight, then I would rule that if you ever pop-out to three-quarters cover then you are automatically found by this enemy without any Search action since they can see you clearly as if you didn't have the Invisible condition (such as, if you were sitting in three-quarters cover but never took the Hide action).
This isn't really how it works either. You only maintain the benefits of hiding "while hidden". Even if your minimum Stealth check can never lose to an enemy's Passive Perception, you cannot just wander around in the room out in the open. Your subsequent activities must be conducted in such a way that you are reasonably maintaining your Stealth ("The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"). A DM is certainly justified in ruling that if you come out of hiding . . . then you are no longer hidden.
The "wander around in the room out in the open" is why we have rules for Advantage/Disadvantage on the roll. But if you're going to rule as a DM that the Stealth DC is meaningless, then you might as well just delete the skill from your PHB. Any interpretation that claims Stealth only works when you're in a situation where you can't be seen anyway requires you believe the developers intended the skill to be useless.
The Stealth DC has plenty of meaning "while hidden". Of course the Stealth DC is meaningless if you aren't actually being stealthy. Why wouldn't it be?
So you are claiming that the text which says: "you have the Invisible condition while hidden" allows you to just "stroll into the Lich's lair" and "I stroll past the Lich, grab his [whatever] and wander back out of the room, the Lich none the wiser"?
What does that say about what you believe the developers intended for a skill that they've called stealth which is related to an action that they've called Hide?
to clarify, are you saying that if a DM rules that coming out of cover removes the hidden effect, that its justified?
or are you saying that if the player narritively describes themself as not attempting to be stealthy its justified?
In this case, I was mostly meaning your second statement. The concept of Hiding for one snapshot moment in time and then completely coming out of hiding and boldly and carelessly walking around in the open "because I made a stealth check" instead of actually continuing to hide / sneak / stealth your way around just absolutely does not fly with me. If the enemy is alert in a large room that has no cover or obscured areas, it makes no sense to momentarily "Hide" outside of the room and then just be able to casually and brazenly walk in and all the way across and out of that room without a care in the world. A DM is justified in simply not allowing such nonsense.
However, I also believe that your first statement is the actual rule and the actual intent, but it's more understandable why some folks feel like the concept of hiding and especially sneaking is and should be less strict than that interpretation, especially in light of the removal of the assumption of 360-degree awareness. But the rules do state that successfully hiding involves being behind at least three-quarters cover and that you only have the benefits afforded by your successful Stealth roll "while hidden". That's the baseline RAW. A DM will have to situationally make rulings that go against the RAW (house ruling) if they want to occasionally allow a creature to sneak up on an "unsuspecting" or "distracted" enemy. There is nothing wrong with that -- the rules themselves encourage the DM to do this . . . to use the rules as a starting point and then to make whatever rulings make sense for your game. But there is value in at least knowing what the RAI / RAW is as a baseline.
Just to further explain my previous post, remember that the DM always has the power to grant advantage or disadvantage to any D20 Test:
So, if the party sets up a really interesting distraction which results in a character "sneaking up behind" an enemy and attacking it from melee range . . . the DM can just grant advantage on that attack roll because it's cool.
In other words, the reason for granting advantage in that situation doesn't necessarily have to be "because he is hidden". It can just be because the DM decides that circumstances warrant granting advantage on that roll.
Bear in mind that skills - especially those at a high level - are meant to indicate levels of performance that the player themselves is incapable of and may not even know how to do. I can't walk on a tightrope line between two skyscrapers. I can't even describe how to go about it. But some human being can do that, so it's entirely reasonable to simply make it an Acrobatics roll without the player having to describe every little detail.
The same is true for virtually all social rolls. Even if I was willing to roleplay out every encounter, there's no way I can be as Persuasive as that level 20 Bard. That's why we have the Persuasion skill - to represent skills possessed by the character that the player doesn't have.
We already have a rule about Advantage and Disadvantage on the Perception roll that covers the "gee, this will be hard to pull off" scenario. But when you're running a campaign where you assert that every situation isn't just at Disadvantage but impossible, you're essentially deleting the skill from the game - and that creates a huge game imbalance. Rogues (and other Stealth-y builds) are supposed to be able to do the things I described just like Fighters aren't supposed to instantly cripple someone when they graze them with a Great Sword (which is what would happen in real life).
Even worse, most of the "you can't Stealth here!" examples are ones that are dependent on the failure of the DM rather than the failure of the player. The reason the Lich is sitting there all day staring at the door is the meta-reason that he knows he's a encounter for the players. The DM doesn't spend the time to build up the Lich's schedule of activities in a lived-in environment because the game is designed to abstract that task via skill rolls. But if you're going to refuse to use the abstraction of skill rolls, you either have to incorporate that level of detail or you're doing a disservice to your players - for whom core abilities of their character are impossible because you're refusing to give them the information you demand they work from.
We're talking about what the rules say, not about how a DM might choose to handle things. As written, we have absolutely no information about what behaviors, other than the ones specifically mentioned in the hide action, cause you to no longer be hidden. Does boldly and carelessly walking around in the open cause you to no longer be hidden? Probably, but there's no rules reason to say one way or the other. The general things that should be resolved with stealth include
The action states how it ends: "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." If you don't do any of those three things (and the DM doesn't just fiat rule that you can't hide), you stay hidden.
You hide by being a sneaky bastard and blending in. Probably by being really still and careful. Or not --- you could fail the roll. (Though note that a Rogue with expertise in Stealth likely can't fail a Stealth DC below 20 by level 7).
The general, written requirements for remaining hidden are, simply, not making a loud sound, not getting found, not attacking, and not casting a verbal spell.
It conceals you. You become unseen and unheard (at least until you are found, by getting noticed, passively or actively). There's an "Unseen Attackers and Targets" box in chapter 1; it's relevent to more than just Hiding.
"The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check" per the rules glossary. (I'm not pasting the whole definition here.)
Truesight lets them see an invisible person, but if you are "just" hidden, they'd see you upon looking, regardless of Truesight. Blindsight would negate cover of darkness, but still not alert them to your presence. Tremor Sense is the one to worry about, since it acts like a 360 degree sonar.
(Neither Truesight nor Blindsight give you eyes in the back of your head, nor super hearing.)
It did, that's why the errata. It is exactly what the errata fixed.
Old phrasing:
It just straight up said Invisibility ends on you if any of those things happen. It made no caveats for where you got the Invisibility from, or multiple sources. Just that it ends on you.
The new wording fixed this problem. Aka the reason for the errata you said "doesn't do anything". That's the thing it did.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Just by the level of discussion on this topic, I think we can all agree that these stealth rules were really poorly written and concepted. Even the people talking about how they work are either making HUGE assumptions or just saying, "Well your DM will determine everything."
"DM determines everything" should neve be the answer on a core mechanic. It would be like writing the attack rule: "You make a D20 test and add your ability modifiers and proficiency bonus to the roll against the target's AC. You must meet or beat their AC to hit them. If your test is lower than their AC, you miss, unless you somehow hit."
Adding the "unless they can somehow see you" with absolutely ZERO explanation or examples makes the entire stealth rule at the whim of your DM. If someone walks up to/around your hiding place, do they now "somehow see you"? Who knows? You could build a super stealthy Rogue and then the DM could just say, "Well akchually no..." and be perfectly within the RAW. How could you possibly run an AL version?
There are just so many issues with 5.5e in the writing and concepting (not to mention the recent errata that MASSIVELY nerfed the way overpowered summoning spells) that it seems like they didn't put any effort in. Yes, 5e had it's issues. Yes, 5.5e cleared up some of those issues, but it introduced a lot more, bigger issues.
Yes and that is a deliberate and good choice by the designers because who wants 2 pages of listing out every possible situation the designers can think of and listing out whether that does or does not break hiding.
You spend time & effort to duck & position yourself behind that cover such that you are no longer visible to the creature you are trying to hide from.
Yes, why would they be different?
Sometimes but not always, it depends on the situation thus is left up to the DM to adjudicate.
It might still affect:
Yes, otherwise they would have specified in the rules that the only way to break hiding is if the hider makes a noise or a seeker succeeds on a Perception check to find them. They did not do that because there are lots of ways to "find" someone all of which are valid ways to break hiding.
For instance a trivial example: A Rogue paints a bit of cardboard to look like a wall and carries it around with them and then swats behind it to hide from a guard. The guard notices there is an obvious thing painted to look like the wall over by the wall. All of the below would allow the guard to "find" the rogue:
That is not a good equivalency. A much better equivalency would be Grapple, because that is also an example using Skills in Combat.
Note that Ending a Grapple has a very similar situation to stopping being hidden:
Just like with the Hiding rules we have:
For #3 there are lots of ways of achieving this so the designers deliberately don't list them all out, and some are clearly situational.
For example for Grappling: Teleportation, and Forced Movement are both obvious solutions, but there is at least 1 case where it is obvious it doesn't apply: falling. Falling is considered forced movement so would logically move someone beyond the range of a grappler's grapple, however a blanket ruling of it as such would mean that if say the halfling wizard falls, the orc barbarian can't reach out and grab them because that would be a grapple and falling forced movement would overrule it.
Hiding is the same, it is fundamentally situational, hence it requires human input to decide when it is or isn't possible to hide. Otherwise you necessarily will have edge cases that make no sense -> just see Skyrim's bucket on an NPCs head, or BG3 allowing you to duck behind a shopkeeper's counter to steal from them, or countless other examples.