That would still allow a Rogue to dip behind total cover while being watched, BA hide (becoming invisible), then run out and stab someone that was watching their covered position at advantage, so long as you still had some movement left.
That also means that if someone beat the perception check to find you that you would suddenly become visible to everyone, even if you were under the effects of Invisibility? Someone perceiving your location is as good as them casting Dispel Magic?
No, making an attack is still one of the ways to lose the condition, so having movement left in that case wouldn't matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
That would still allow a Rogue to dip behind total cover while being watched, BA hide (becoming invisible), then run out and stab someone that was watching their covered position at advantage, so long as you still had some movement left.
That also means that if someone beat the perception check to find you that you would suddenly become visible to everyone, even if you were under the effects of Invisibility? Someone perceiving your location is as good as them casting Dispel Magic?
No, making an attack is still one of the ways to lose the condition, so having movement left in that case wouldn't matter.
Per the rules, it is making an attack roll (which you would have to determine advantage before making the roll). Or is there literally no point in hiding during combat as it never grants advantage?
The new rules make hiding either broken or useless. I think I'm sticking with OG 5e.
Invisibility doesn't say you must be out of enemy's line of sight and that it ends if an enemy finds you.
The citation that Silvaa included states that the invisibility condition ends when someone finds you.
"The [Invisible] 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."
Both the Hide action and the Invisibility spell grant the Invisible condition, but the spell doesn't come with the same parameters as the action and it's much more stable way to become Invisible.
But they both end the same way. Meaning that an enemy finding you makes you visible to everybody else. Which would arguably happen instantly if you used Invisibility in someone's line of sight. They would instantly "find" you since they know exactly where you are.
Thus Invisibility got nerfed to uselessness in 5.24.
There's basically five different options for how visible you are
Heavily Obscured/Full Cover: vision checks to find you are impossible.
3/4 Cover: you can be found by vision checks, but may take the hide action.
Lightly Concealed: vision checks to find you are at disadvantage. You cannot take the hide action, but unknown if you are revealed.
1/2 Cover: You cannot take the hide action, but unknown if you are revealed.
Clear View (no cover or concealment): You cannot take the hide action, but unknown if you are revealed.
I think it's pretty clear that you can remain hidden in situations (1) and (2), the argument is about the other three situations . . . I'm not sure what other participants in this thread are proposing.
Situations 1 and 2 appears to be correct by rule.
For reference, here is the new rule in question as provided in the Original Post:
Hide [Action]
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.
To me, what this is saying is: To BE concealed, certain prerequisites must be met:
1. The DM agrees that the situation is appropriate for Hiding.
2. You are Heavily Obscured OR behind Three-Quarters Cover OR behind Total Cover
3. You must be out of any enemy's Line of Sight (no more arguing for hiding vs this enemy but not that enemy)
4. Took the Hide Action in order to become concealed.
5. Passed a DC 15 Stealth check to become concealed.
Upon passing the check, you become concealed, and you temporarily gain the Invisible Condition.
Now, in the 2014 rules, there was an explicit statement that said that you remain hidden "until . . . you stop hiding". The 2024 rule lacks this language. In my opinion, this is not because this has been changed. It's likely because the developers decided that it's just not necessary to explicitly say this because it's obvious. If you stop hiding, why would you still be hidden? That makes no sense.
Therefore, in my opinion, even though it's not as explicit, this rule is saying that if any of the prerequisites #1, #2 or #3 are no longer met then you are no longer concealed since these things are all required to be concealed, so you would no longer have the Invisible condition that comes from being concealed. In other words, you only "have" the condition on a successful check. If that check no longer applies because you are no longer concealed, then you no longer have that condition. You would have to re-Hide with a new successful check in order to "have the condition on a successful check" again.
In the cases where you DO remain concealed because these first 3 prerequisites are all still met, then there is a list of ways to lose the condition in that situation, including: you make a loud sound (this makes no sense for whether or not you are visible, but ok), an enemy finds you (one way to do this is via a Perception Check), you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
And what's this talk in this thread about a possible "free" perception check to find a hidden enemy? There's nothing in the rules posted in the Original Post of this thread that would indicate that such a mechanic exists. Where are people getting that from? Are we now going to have every PC roll a perception check at the beginning of every single one of their turns? Hopefully that's not actually a thing.
Therefore, in my opinion, even though it's not as explicit, this rule is saying that if any of the prerequisites #1, #2 or #3 are no longer met then you are no longer concealed since these things are all required to be concealed, so you would no longer have the Invisible condition that comes from being concealed.
The problem is that it makes hiding almost useless, because if you're out of line of sight... you already get every bonus of invisibility other than the advantage on stealth checks. The 'unseen attackers and targets' rule still exists in 2024, at least according to reddit.
No, making an attack is still one of the ways to lose the condition, so having movement left in that case wouldn't matter.
Per the rules, it is making an attack roll (which you would have to determine advantage before making the roll). Or is there literally no point in hiding during combat as it never grants advantage?
I think Sillvva is just saying that the attack itself would break your hide, so you would not still be hidden afterwards. Just like in 2014.
The issue at hand is "once hidden in 2024, can you run out and backstab?" not "will you still be hidden, afterwards, if you run out and backstab?" It seems pretty likely that they intended to make "run out and backstab" a RAW option, with the 2024 changes, where it wasn't in 2014. Or, at least, it was hella unclear in 2014.
Thus Invisibility got nerfed to uselessness in 5.24.
I think that you are still confusing the Invisibility spell with the Invisible Condition. Remember, the game Feature which grants a Condition will define how that Condition is ended.
So, the rules for Hiding grant the Invisible Condition to creatures who are Hidden. These rules for Hiding then define exactly how that Condition is ended for this Hidden creature, not in general for the whole game.
Likewise, the text for the Invisibility spell also grants the Invisible Condition to a creature. The text for that spell then defines exactly how that Condition is ended for that creature. In the case of the Invisibility spell, the Condition only ends when that creature attacks or casts a spell. So, that creature will remain invisible while walking out in the open. This is not true of a Hidden creature who has the Condition.
Therefore, in my opinion, even though it's not as explicit, this rule is saying that if any of the prerequisites #1, #2 or #3 are no longer met then you are no longer concealed since these things are all required to be concealed, so you would no longer have the Invisible condition that comes from being concealed.
The problem is that it makes hiding almost useless, because if you're out of line of sight... you already get every bonus of invisibility other than the advantage on stealth checks.
I don't have the full text in front of me, but my guess is that the "Unseen Attacker" rule may have been eliminated such that you actually have to become Hidden (or actually Invisible) in order to have advantage on your attacks -- otherwise, you wouldn't be able to successfully "pop out" to make your attack without being seen. I think a lot of us are still just guessing about all of this right now.
Invisibility doesn't say you must be out of enemy's line of sight and that it ends if an enemy finds you.
The citation that Silvaa included states that the invisibility condition ends when someone finds you.
"The [Invisible] 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."
Both the Hide action and the Invisibility spell grant the Invisible condition, but the spell doesn't come with the same parameters as the action and it's much more stable way to become Invisible.
But they both end the same way. Meaning that an enemy finding you makes you visible to everybody else. Which would arguably happen instantly if you used Invisibility in someone's line of sight. They would instantly "find" you since they know exactly where you are.
Thus Invisibility got nerfed to uselessness in 5.24.
Where does it say that the Invisible condition from Invisibility ends if an enemy finds you? Not in the spell for sure.
I don't have the full text in front of me, but my guess is that the "Unseen Attacker" rule may have been eliminated.
Someone on reddit checked that. Nope, it's still there.
Another ... 'interesting' feature of the new Invisible is that it doesn't actually prevent someone from seeing you. It prevents them from targeting you with abilities that require vision, but does not actually prevent seeing you (unlike the blinded condition), and since the condition is negated for any creature that can 'see' you... apparently you can counter the invisibility spell by looking at the target.
Normal senses via Perception don't let you see someone under the Invisibility spell. It take magic or special sense like Truesight for that. The Invisible condition from the Invisibility ends when the spell say so.
For exemple, If you're Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll even if an enemy can see you through your Invisibility.
Meanwhile, if you're Hiding and an enemy that finds you don't have the Invisible condition anymore and thus no Advantage on initiative.
The invisibility grants the Invisible condition. It has no other specifications.
The invisible condition has three effects:
Surprise. If you're Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature.
Notably missing from this is anything actually preventing anyone from seeing you. And, when interpreting RAW, if a rule doesn't say it does something... it doesn't do that thing.
If anyone could see Invisible creature under the Invisibility spell, the Invisible condition would be useless. The See Invisibility spell would be useless.Truesight would be useless.
If anyone could see Invisible creature under the Invisibility spell, the Invisible condition would be useless. The See Invisibility spell would be useless.Truesight would be useless.
That's evidence for it being badly written, not evidence that it doesn't say what it says.
I don't have the full text in front of me, but my guess is that the "Unseen Attacker" rule may have been eliminated.
Someone on reddit checked that. Nope, it's still there.
Another ... 'interesting' feature of the new Invisible is that it doesn't actually prevent someone from seeing you. It prevents them from targeting you with abilities that require vision, but does not actually prevent seeing you (unlike the blinded condition), and since the condition is negated for any creature that can 'see' you... apparently you can counter the invisibility spell by looking at the target.
Oh wow, you're right. How in the world did that make it all the way through playtesting and into print? That needs immediate errata. That's super bad. Technically, the condition isn't actually negated or removed when you are seen, but being seen does cause two of the three clauses to become non-functional. You'd still get the surprise clause as written (for some really strange unknown reason).
It's pretty incredible that they could have botched the Invisible condition so badly after it was already known to work incorrectly for 10 years.
It's pretty incredible that they could have botched the Invisible condition so badly after it was already known to work incorrectly for 10 years.
I think it's because they were trying to making hiding use the invisible condition... but a hidden person can be found with a sufficiently high vision check, so they couldn't just make the invisible status cause vision checks to fail. The fix would be, of course, to add a new status and rearrange things.
When I read the word Concealed in the Invisibility condition, I understand it to mean that you cannot be seen—you're hidden (magically or not), and not visible to others. That's my understanding, at least.
---
Surprise. If you're Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorNo, making an attack is still one of the ways to lose the condition, so having movement left in that case wouldn't matter.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Per the rules, it is making an attack roll (which you would have to determine advantage before making the roll). Or is there literally no point in hiding during combat as it never grants advantage?
The new rules make hiding either broken or useless. I think I'm sticking with OG 5e.
But they both end the same way. Meaning that an enemy finding you makes you visible to everybody else. Which would arguably happen instantly if you used Invisibility in someone's line of sight. They would instantly "find" you since they know exactly where you are.
Thus Invisibility got nerfed to uselessness in 5.24.
Situations 1 and 2 appears to be correct by rule.
For reference, here is the new rule in question as provided in the Original Post:
To me, what this is saying is: To BE concealed, certain prerequisites must be met:
1. The DM agrees that the situation is appropriate for Hiding.
2. You are Heavily Obscured OR behind Three-Quarters Cover OR behind Total Cover
3. You must be out of any enemy's Line of Sight (no more arguing for hiding vs this enemy but not that enemy)
4. Took the Hide Action in order to become concealed.
5. Passed a DC 15 Stealth check to become concealed.
Upon passing the check, you become concealed, and you temporarily gain the Invisible Condition.
Now, in the 2014 rules, there was an explicit statement that said that you remain hidden "until . . . you stop hiding". The 2024 rule lacks this language. In my opinion, this is not because this has been changed. It's likely because the developers decided that it's just not necessary to explicitly say this because it's obvious. If you stop hiding, why would you still be hidden? That makes no sense.
Therefore, in my opinion, even though it's not as explicit, this rule is saying that if any of the prerequisites #1, #2 or #3 are no longer met then you are no longer concealed since these things are all required to be concealed, so you would no longer have the Invisible condition that comes from being concealed. In other words, you only "have" the condition on a successful check. If that check no longer applies because you are no longer concealed, then you no longer have that condition. You would have to re-Hide with a new successful check in order to "have the condition on a successful check" again.
In the cases where you DO remain concealed because these first 3 prerequisites are all still met, then there is a list of ways to lose the condition in that situation, including: you make a loud sound (this makes no sense for whether or not you are visible, but ok), an enemy finds you (one way to do this is via a Perception Check), you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
And what's this talk in this thread about a possible "free" perception check to find a hidden enemy? There's nothing in the rules posted in the Original Post of this thread that would indicate that such a mechanic exists. Where are people getting that from? Are we now going to have every PC roll a perception check at the beginning of every single one of their turns? Hopefully that's not actually a thing.
The problem is that it makes hiding almost useless, because if you're out of line of sight... you already get every bonus of invisibility other than the advantage on stealth checks. The 'unseen attackers and targets' rule still exists in 2024, at least according to reddit.
I think Sillvva is just saying that the attack itself would break your hide, so you would not still be hidden afterwards. Just like in 2014.
The issue at hand is "once hidden in 2024, can you run out and backstab?" not "will you still be hidden, afterwards, if you run out and backstab?" It seems pretty likely that they intended to make "run out and backstab" a RAW option, with the 2024 changes, where it wasn't in 2014. Or, at least, it was hella unclear in 2014.
I think that you are still confusing the Invisibility spell with the Invisible Condition. Remember, the game Feature which grants a Condition will define how that Condition is ended.
So, the rules for Hiding grant the Invisible Condition to creatures who are Hidden. These rules for Hiding then define exactly how that Condition is ended for this Hidden creature, not in general for the whole game.
Likewise, the text for the Invisibility spell also grants the Invisible Condition to a creature. The text for that spell then defines exactly how that Condition is ended for that creature. In the case of the Invisibility spell, the Condition only ends when that creature attacks or casts a spell. So, that creature will remain invisible while walking out in the open. This is not true of a Hidden creature who has the Condition.
I don't have the full text in front of me, but my guess is that the "Unseen Attacker" rule may have been eliminated such that you actually have to become Hidden (or actually Invisible) in order to have advantage on your attacks -- otherwise, you wouldn't be able to successfully "pop out" to make your attack without being seen. I think a lot of us are still just guessing about all of this right now.
Where does it say that the Invisible condition from Invisibility ends if an enemy finds you? Not in the spell for sure.
Someone on reddit checked that. Nope, it's still there.
Another ... 'interesting' feature of the new Invisible is that it doesn't actually prevent someone from seeing you. It prevents them from targeting you with abilities that require vision, but does not actually prevent seeing you (unlike the blinded condition), and since the condition is negated for any creature that can 'see' you... apparently you can counter the invisibility spell by looking at the target.
Normal senses via Perception don't let you see someone under the Invisibility spell. It take magic or special sense like Truesight for that. The Invisible condition from the Invisibility ends when the spell say so.
For exemple, If you're Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll even if an enemy can see you through your Invisibility.
Meanwhile, if you're Hiding and an enemy that finds you don't have the Invisible condition anymore and thus no Advantage on initiative.
That's what your intuition says... and what was almost certainly intended... but it's not what the rules say.
Can you quote which rule says that?
The invisibility grants the Invisible condition. It has no other specifications.
The invisible condition has three effects:
Notably missing from this is anything actually preventing anyone from seeing you. And, when interpreting RAW, if a rule doesn't say it does something... it doesn't do that thing.
If anyone could see Invisible creature under the Invisibility spell, the Invisible condition would be useless. The See Invisibility spell would be useless.Truesight would be useless.
That's evidence for it being badly written, not evidence that it doesn't say what it says.
Oh wow, you're right. How in the world did that make it all the way through playtesting and into print? That needs immediate errata. That's super bad. Technically, the condition isn't actually negated or removed when you are seen, but being seen does cause two of the three clauses to become non-functional. You'd still get the surprise clause as written (for some really strange unknown reason).
It's pretty incredible that they could have botched the Invisible condition so badly after it was already known to work incorrectly for 10 years.
I think it's because they were trying to making hiding use the invisible condition... but a hidden person can be found with a sufficiently high vision check, so they couldn't just make the invisible status cause vision checks to fail. The fix would be, of course, to add a new status and rearrange things.
When I read the word Concealed in the Invisibility condition, I understand it to mean that you cannot be seen—you're hidden (magically or not), and not visible to others. That's my understanding, at least.
---
Surprise. If you're Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature.
I decided to move the non-stealth problems with 2024 to their own thread -- competently written vision rules.