So, what constitutes as no longer "being hidden?" This is where the ridiculousness of waving your hands in front of a guard's face, but doing it silently means you do not break hide by RAW because taking that list to be exhaustive means you can't voluntarily stop being hidden.
And that's the problem with the rules. They did not write them clearly, so the whole thing has to be DM fiat.
That means that what might work perfectly well at one table, is completely ruled out at another table, all within RAW. I have no idea how AL is going to run these sorts of things. Probably just say, "We're going to use the 5e Stealth rules, because those actually made sense."
That's the DC to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. It does not cover finding you in any other way, nor does it specify that it's the only one way to find you.
There are two coherent ways to interpret the rules for hide, and it's probable neither one is RAI
The requirements are instantaneous; once you have hidden, you remain that way until something reveals you.
The requirements are ongoing; if you lose the requirements, you are no longer hidden.
There's no specified mechanic to find a hidden creature other than a perception check, and it isn't reasonable to default to something other than what's explicit. It's also not reasonable to presume text that isn't there. The rule gives four situations that can end Hidden, none of which is movement nor leaving cover.
It would certainly make sense to expand on the rule, for example if a hidden creature ends its turn within an enemy's line of sight, it loses Hidden. Consider Supreme Sneak:
If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, this attack doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover.
That Invisibility isn't broken even after an attack, and then the rogue can return to cover to keep it going. Doesn't that imply that leaving cover in the first place didn't break the Hide?
That sure seems to be the implication. It also seems to mean that you are invisible when you leave cover until you attack/cast a spell/make a noise louder than a whisper.
But the real answer is: WHO KNOWS?!? Clearly the devs didn't!
That Invisibility isn't broken even after an attack, and then the rogue can return to cover to keep it going. Doesn't that imply that leaving cover in the first place didn't break the Hide?
No. You don't necessarily need to leave cover to attack, and you can have the prerequisites for hide without having cover.
That sure seems to be the implication. It also seems to mean that you are invisible when you leave cover until you attack/cast a spell/make a noise louder than a whisper.
But the real answer is: WHO KNOWS?!? Clearly the devs didn't!
But that's what I was getting at in my first post; I don't think there's anything wrong with how the Hide rule is written. The problem is thinking that it can't mean what it says. Well, it does. You Hide while in cover, and gain Invisible until the Hide is broken.
It's bizarre to me that it's easy to accept fire shooting from someone's fingers as totally reasonable, but a sneaky guy passing below someone else's notice is a bridge too far.
The only mechanical way via the search action is by Perception. There are a wide variety of effects that would just automatically find you; whether being in plain sight is one of them is not addressed anywhere.
The specific way to find a hidden object is checking Perception. Why would any other rule apply here?
Because a change in situation means the creature or object is no longer hidden.
That may be RAI, but it's not RAW. "An enemy finds you" is not defined anywhere. So you could be standing right in front of someone, they take the search action, royally flub it, and they still would have no idea you were there.
They should really add a "how an enemy finds you" subsection there with some bullet points. Like maybe passing a check, taking the search action, or you move to 1/2 or less cover?
Since “an enemy finds you” has not been defined, then by definition your scenario is no more RAW than the opposite.
That sure seems to be the implication. It also seems to mean that you are invisible when you leave cover until you attack/cast a spell/make a noise louder than a whisper.
But the real answer is: WHO KNOWS?!? Clearly the devs didn't!
But that's what I was getting at in my first post; I don't think there's anything wrong with how the Hide rule is written. The problem is thinking that it can't mean what it says. Well, it does. You Hide while in cover, and gain Invisible until the Hide is broken.
It's bizarre to me that it's easy to accept fire shooting from someone's fingers as totally reasonable, but a sneaky guy passing below someone else's notice is a bridge too far.
Here’s where things fundamentally break down- using the “you can only be found by Search” interpretation, a 7th level Rogue essentially has a stronger version of the effect of a Ring of Invisibility just by class features. They can Hide as a Bonus Action, and between Reliable Talent and Expertise they can be set to not get a Stealth roll below 20. Yes, technically they require cover, but that’s not exactly hard to come by, particularly if people insist this concept be applied outside of combat encounters. Call me crazy, but when a 2nd tier character is getting what amounts to an upgraded version of a Legendary magic item under one interpretation of the rules, I think that interpretation needs to be reconsidered.
Here’s where things fundamentally break down- using the “you can only be found by Search” interpretation, a 7th level Rogue essentially has a stronger version of the effect of a Ring of Invisibility just by class features. They can Hide as a Bonus Action, and between Reliable Talent and Expertise they can be set to not get a Stealth roll below 20. Yes, technically they require cover, but that’s not exactly hard to come by, particularly if people insist this concept be applied outside of combat encounters. Call me crazy, but when a 2nd tier character is getting what amounts to an upgraded version of a Legendary magic item under one interpretation of the rules, I think that interpretation needs to be reconsidered.
Yes, that one ring in particular should be given to anyone but a rogue. Every class is capable of near-miraculous feats by level 7. Rogues get to be sneaky. There are plenty of magical items that replicate other class features, they're just lower rarity. I wouldn't argue that the rarity on the ring may be wrong, if that's your gripe.
That sure seems to be the implication. It also seems to mean that you are invisible when you leave cover until you attack/cast a spell/make a noise louder than a whisper.
But the real answer is: WHO KNOWS?!? Clearly the devs didn't!
But that's what I was getting at in my first post; I don't think there's anything wrong with how the Hide rule is written. The problem is thinking that it can't mean what it says. Well, it does. You Hide while in cover, and gain Invisible until the Hide is broken.
It's bizarre to me that it's easy to accept fire shooting from someone's fingers as totally reasonable, but a sneaky guy passing below someone else's notice is a bridge too far.
Here’s where things fundamentally break down- using the “you can only be found by Search” interpretation, a 7th level Rogue essentially has a stronger version of the effect of a Ring of Invisibility just by class features. They can Hide as a Bonus Action, and between Reliable Talent and Expertise they can be set to not get a Stealth roll below 20. Yes, technically they require cover, but that’s not exactly hard to come by, particularly if people insist this concept be applied outside of combat encounters. Call me crazy, but when a 2nd tier character is getting what amounts to an upgraded version of a Legendary magic item under one interpretation of the rules, I think that interpretation needs to be reconsidered.
I feel like you're comparing apples to oranges here. Anyone can put on a ring and attune to it. That's the value behind the ring. You're talking about putting seven levels into Rogue, gaining Expertise in Stealth, etc. If someone builds their entire character around being stealthy, why not let them just be stealthy?
Barbarians can use their Strength to make Perception checks as long as they're sufficiently angry... but Rogues aren't allowed to be almost supernaturally stealthy? We can't suspend just a tiny bit of disbelief for the fun of the players?
Barbarians can use their Strength to make Perception checks as long as they're sufficiently angry... but Rogues aren't allowed to be almost supernaturally stealthy? We can't suspend just a tiny bit of disbelief for the fun of the players?
I'll do you one better...I can sneak up on people, in the heat of battle or not, without cover, in real life. That Rogue ability is the least-unrealistic example. (And the only thing distinctly "rogue" about it is Reliable Talent. And the real world isn't class-based, but I digress.)
I only bring this point up because I also don't think that a rogue should be able to move down a well lit featureless corridor toward two guards who are standing at the opposite end looking down the hall no matter how good their Stealth roll was. That type of action should remain within the realm of actual Invisibility.
The problem with this statement is that "actual invisibility" doesn't exist in 5.5e. Hiding and the spell [/spell]Invisibility[/spell] do the exact same thing. Being Invisible [game term] does not make you invisible (common understanding). You just are not affected by things that require you to be seen if you can't be seen (which is the same rule for Cover, Heavily Obscured, and just generally everything).
5.5e broke both features by trying to roll them into one.
They don't do the exact same thing any more than Invisibility and Greater Invisibility do 'the exact same thing'. They do give you the same Condition, that is true, but in the case of Hide the condition ends if someone 'finds' you, whereas it does not in the case of Invisibility/Greater Invisibility.
Now, I do agree that there could be better clarification as to what 'find' means and how Invisibility/Greater Invisibility interact with Perception rolls (as is written, I cannot find any verbiage that says the Perception rolls involving vision can't succeed against something hidden by the Invisibility spell). I also think that it would have been wiser to give the Condition a different name (e.g. Unseen) so that players using the Hide action don't believe that they are actually Invisible. (Such a condition could then also be extended to any occasion where a character is unable to see another, such as one or the other being inside Darkness).
Despite the room for improvement, however, I would not call it 'broken'.
So you wouldn't say that Invisibility not actually making you translucent is not broken (broken in the sense of not working, not in the sense of grossly overpowered)? By this reading, Invisibility could very well create a giant cardboard box that goes around you so people can't target you by sight. They still know exactly where you are and can Fireball you, but can't cast [Tooltip Not Found] at you.
I specifically said that they could use some clarification there.
'Broken' would be if it explicitly said that people know exactly where you are. You are trying to make an argument by parsing out one section of the RAW (or in this case Rules As Missing), but then skipping over another.
There is nothing in the RAW that says you are translucent. Enemies know where the Invisible Character (henceforth abbreviated IC), and in this case we mean from a magical effect, not the mere Condition, is exactly as well as they know where a Hidden Character (henceforth abbreviated HC) is, with the difference between the two being that even if IC stops being 'hidden' (i.e., opponents have a clear line of sight and there are no mitigating circumstances to prevent them from spotting IC) the Condition continues. They should treat IC in the exact same manner that they treat HC, even if IC is standing out in the open (now, if you can come up with a reasonable interpretation that meets this requirement while either using a cardboard box or by having IC be translucent, I'm all ears). However, at this point we are going to go back and forth trying to split hairs while the intent, at least as far as the Invisibility spell goes, remains pretty clear.
At the end of the day trying to parse out arguments like this is sort of silly and pointless. I do it to show people how other people might reasonably come to some interpretation (so that people in the 'True Strike targets the caster' camp don't feel like the people in the 'True Strike only targets the creature or object attacked' camp are trying to pull a fast one, and vice versa). It can also be fun, sometimes, to show how silly the rules can be when carried to their absolute limits.
However, when you're going it to try and do something that breaks cohesion (well, the rules don't say I don't know where IC is, so I'm going to attack him and just accept that I'm at Disadvantage) you've left the realm of cooperative story telling and moved into the realm of antagonistic interactions between the DM and Players.
Something interesting about this realm is that it is just a colossal waste of everyone's time. If you're the player and you are trying to pull this there is no rule that prevents the DM from suddenly having you attacked by half a dozen ancient chromatic dragons, so you are only 'beating' the DM because he is letting you. If you're the DM and you argue that you can Target a player that way, that's even more of a waste of time. Why are you trying to pretzel rules? Just give your monsters Truesight and be done with it. You've got just as much right to do that as you do to badly twist the rules and your 'victory' when you defeat the players is just as meaningful.
Barbarians can use their Strength to make Perception checks as long as they're sufficiently angry... but Rogues aren't allowed to be almost supernaturally stealthy? We can't suspend just a tiny bit of disbelief for the fun of the players?
A DC 15 skill check should not achieve supernatural results. I don't have a problem with superhuman achievements of skill... but they should actually be of appropriate difficulty. A level 7 rogue with expertise and an 18 Dexterity can auto-succeed against DC 20, and being able to auto-succeed against DC 25 either requires magic items or level 13. If the Hide check was:
DC 15: hide with 3/4 or better cover or heavily obscured.
DC 20: hide with 1/2 of better cover or lightly obscured.
DC 25: hide with no cover and not obscured.
DC 30: hide against special senses such as blindsight.
Pass without Trace: delete the +10 bonus. Pass without trace grants advantage on Stealth and light obscurement.
. . .Barbarians can use their Strength to make Perception checks as long as they're sufficiently angry... but Rogues aren't allowed to be almost supernaturally stealthy? We can't suspend just a tiny bit of disbelief for the fun of the players?
We can, but I will point out that you need to be careful not to short change the people who are genuinely supernaturally stealthy (e.g., Arcane Trickster). You don't want to downgrade a class feature by having other characters replicating it just because they have a good skill roll (especially since it is likely the Arcane Trickster has a comparable skill roll in addition to their special feature).
Barbarians can use their Strength to make Perception checks as long as they're sufficiently angry... but Rogues aren't allowed to be almost supernaturally stealthy? We can't suspend just a tiny bit of disbelief for the fun of the players?
A DC 15 skill check should not achieve supernatural results. I don't have a problem with superhuman achievements of skill... but they should actually be of appropriate difficulty. A level 7 rogue with expertise and an 18 Dexterity can auto-succeed against DC 20, and being able to auto-succeed against DC 25 either requires magic items or level 13. If the Hide check was:
DC 15: hide with 3/4 or better cover or heavily obscured.
DC 20: hide with 1/2 of better cover or lightly obscured.
DC 25: hide with no cover and not obscured.
DC 30: hide against special senses such as blindsight.
Pass without Trace: delete the +10 bonus. Pass without trace grants advantage on Stealth and light obscurement.
sure, no problem.
I'm confused. The DC15 is just to hide at all, it's a minimum bar to entry. A Wizard that dumped Dex would have a tough time passing a DC 15. Going unnoticed is defined as follows and is where the "magic" would happen, as in DC 25+ that you described:
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
DC 15 just to hide at all, sure. But then if they roll a 25, that means DC25 to notice the rogue. That might as well be supernatural. Also, if a Wizard spends their entire life training to have supernatural abilities, why can't a Rogue do the same for Stealth? I'm still confused why it's an issue.
DC 15 just to hide at all, sure. But then if they roll a 25, that means DC25 to notice the rogue. That might as well be supernatural. Also, if a Wizard spends their entire life training to have supernatural abilities, why can't a Rogue do the same for Stealth? I'm still confused why it's an issue.
Supernatural abilities are generally specifically marked as such, or if they're from a skill check, have a difficulty other than Medium. I would not at all mind if the tables for ability checks were changed to flag 25 and 30 as superhuman, in fact I think it would make the game better, but achieving superhuman feats with skills should require more than routine skill.
DC 15 just to hide at all, sure. But then if they roll a 25, that means DC25 to notice the rogue. That might as well be supernatural. Also, if a Wizard spends their entire life training to have supernatural abilities, why can't a Rogue do the same for Stealth? I'm still confused why it's an issue.
Supernatural abilities are generally specifically marked as such, or if they're from a skill check, have a difficulty other than Medium. I would not at all mind if the tables for ability checks were changed to flag 25 and 30 as superhuman, in fact I think it would make the game better, but achieving superhuman feats with skills should require more than routine skill.
I agree, achieving superhuman feats of skill should require more than routine skill. In our example, the Rogue in question has Expertise in Stealth. Far more classes/subclasses have access to magical abilities than access to Expertise. I'd say Expertise is like a supernatural ability in something, seeing how casting magic is far, far more accessible than being an expert in a skill.
. . .Barbarians can use their Strength to make Perception checks as long as they're sufficiently angry... but Rogues aren't allowed to be almost supernaturally stealthy? We can't suspend just a tiny bit of disbelief for the fun of the players?
We can, but I will point out that you need to be careful not to short change the people who are genuinely supernaturally stealthy (e.g., Arcane Trickster). You don't want to downgrade a class feature by having other characters replicating it just because they have a good skill roll (especially since it is likely the Arcane Trickster has a comparable skill roll in addition to their special feature).
Hi there, which special feature are you referencing for Arcane Trickster? I don't see any Arcane Trickster subclass features in the 2024 PHB that enhances their stealth skill with magic. If anything, the source of their skill is more about flavor than stats.
The Thief grew up hungry. If you're caught stealing in this city, you get flogged. She learned from a young age how to never get caught. The Assassin stalks their prey with ruthless efficiency, becoming one with the cold, dead night. The Arcane Trickster... is magic? Yeah, they're stealthy because magic. Arcane Trickster kinda phoned it in.
How they has stronger version of the Ring of Invisibility? With the ring you:
- doesn't need to make any check
- doesn't need to has many of the prior conditions
- only lose the Invisible condition if you take the ring out
Interestingly, the item was made a lot more powerful in 2024 (though since the cloak already granted improved invisibility in 2014, that's mostly just evening things out).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And that's the problem with the rules. They did not write them clearly, so the whole thing has to be DM fiat.
That means that what might work perfectly well at one table, is completely ruled out at another table, all within RAW. I have no idea how AL is going to run these sorts of things. Probably just say, "We're going to use the 5e Stealth rules, because those actually made sense."
That sure seems to be the implication. It also seems to mean that you are invisible when you leave cover until you attack/cast a spell/make a noise louder than a whisper.
But the real answer is: WHO KNOWS?!? Clearly the devs didn't!
No. You don't necessarily need to leave cover to attack, and you can have the prerequisites for hide without having cover.
But that's what I was getting at in my first post; I don't think there's anything wrong with how the Hide rule is written. The problem is thinking that it can't mean what it says. Well, it does. You Hide while in cover, and gain Invisible until the Hide is broken.
It's bizarre to me that it's easy to accept fire shooting from someone's fingers as totally reasonable, but a sneaky guy passing below someone else's notice is a bridge too far.
Since “an enemy finds you” has not been defined, then by definition your scenario is no more RAW than the opposite.
Here’s where things fundamentally break down- using the “you can only be found by Search” interpretation, a 7th level Rogue essentially has a stronger version of the effect of a Ring of Invisibility just by class features. They can Hide as a Bonus Action, and between Reliable Talent and Expertise they can be set to not get a Stealth roll below 20. Yes, technically they require cover, but that’s not exactly hard to come by, particularly if people insist this concept be applied outside of combat encounters. Call me crazy, but when a 2nd tier character is getting what amounts to an upgraded version of a Legendary magic item under one interpretation of the rules, I think that interpretation needs to be reconsidered.
Yes, that one ring in particular should be given to anyone but a rogue. Every class is capable of near-miraculous feats by level 7. Rogues get to be sneaky. There are plenty of magical items that replicate other class features, they're just lower rarity. I wouldn't argue that the rarity on the ring may be wrong, if that's your gripe.
I feel like you're comparing apples to oranges here. Anyone can put on a ring and attune to it. That's the value behind the ring. You're talking about putting seven levels into Rogue, gaining Expertise in Stealth, etc. If someone builds their entire character around being stealthy, why not let them just be stealthy?
Barbarians can use their Strength to make Perception checks as long as they're sufficiently angry... but Rogues aren't allowed to be almost supernaturally stealthy? We can't suspend just a tiny bit of disbelief for the fun of the players?
I have Darkvision, by the way.
I'll do you one better...I can sneak up on people, in the heat of battle or not, without cover, in real life. That Rogue ability is the least-unrealistic example. (And the only thing distinctly "rogue" about it is Reliable Talent. And the real world isn't class-based, but I digress.)
I specifically said that they could use some clarification there.
'Broken' would be if it explicitly said that people know exactly where you are. You are trying to make an argument by parsing out one section of the RAW (or in this case Rules As Missing), but then skipping over another.
There is nothing in the RAW that says you are translucent. Enemies know where the Invisible Character (henceforth abbreviated IC), and in this case we mean from a magical effect, not the mere Condition, is exactly as well as they know where a Hidden Character (henceforth abbreviated HC) is, with the difference between the two being that even if IC stops being 'hidden' (i.e., opponents have a clear line of sight and there are no mitigating circumstances to prevent them from spotting IC) the Condition continues. They should treat IC in the exact same manner that they treat HC, even if IC is standing out in the open (now, if you can come up with a reasonable interpretation that meets this requirement while either using a cardboard box or by having IC be translucent, I'm all ears). However, at this point we are going to go back and forth trying to split hairs while the intent, at least as far as the Invisibility spell goes, remains pretty clear.
At the end of the day trying to parse out arguments like this is sort of silly and pointless. I do it to show people how other people might reasonably come to some interpretation (so that people in the 'True Strike targets the caster' camp don't feel like the people in the 'True Strike only targets the creature or object attacked' camp are trying to pull a fast one, and vice versa). It can also be fun, sometimes, to show how silly the rules can be when carried to their absolute limits.
However, when you're going it to try and do something that breaks cohesion (well, the rules don't say I don't know where IC is, so I'm going to attack him and just accept that I'm at Disadvantage) you've left the realm of cooperative story telling and moved into the realm of antagonistic interactions between the DM and Players.
Something interesting about this realm is that it is just a colossal waste of everyone's time. If you're the player and you are trying to pull this there is no rule that prevents the DM from suddenly having you attacked by half a dozen ancient chromatic dragons, so you are only 'beating' the DM because he is letting you. If you're the DM and you argue that you can Target a player that way, that's even more of a waste of time. Why are you trying to pretzel rules? Just give your monsters Truesight and be done with it. You've got just as much right to do that as you do to badly twist the rules and your 'victory' when you defeat the players is just as meaningful.
A DC 15 skill check should not achieve supernatural results. I don't have a problem with superhuman achievements of skill... but they should actually be of appropriate difficulty. A level 7 rogue with expertise and an 18 Dexterity can auto-succeed against DC 20, and being able to auto-succeed against DC 25 either requires magic items or level 13. If the Hide check was:
sure, no problem.
We can, but I will point out that you need to be careful not to short change the people who are genuinely supernaturally stealthy (e.g., Arcane Trickster). You don't want to downgrade a class feature by having other characters replicating it just because they have a good skill roll (especially since it is likely the Arcane Trickster has a comparable skill roll in addition to their special feature).
I'm confused. The DC15 is just to hide at all, it's a minimum bar to entry. A Wizard that dumped Dex would have a tough time passing a DC 15. Going unnoticed is defined as follows and is where the "magic" would happen, as in DC 25+ that you described:
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
DC 15 just to hide at all, sure. But then if they roll a 25, that means DC25 to notice the rogue. That might as well be supernatural. Also, if a Wizard spends their entire life training to have supernatural abilities, why can't a Rogue do the same for Stealth? I'm still confused why it's an issue.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
Supernatural abilities are generally specifically marked as such, or if they're from a skill check, have a difficulty other than Medium. I would not at all mind if the tables for ability checks were changed to flag 25 and 30 as superhuman, in fact I think it would make the game better, but achieving superhuman feats with skills should require more than routine skill.
I agree, achieving superhuman feats of skill should require more than routine skill. In our example, the Rogue in question has Expertise in Stealth. Far more classes/subclasses have access to magical abilities than access to Expertise. I'd say Expertise is like a supernatural ability in something, seeing how casting magic is far, far more accessible than being an expert in a skill.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
By your own example: how is DEX 18, proficiency bonus +3, Expertise, plus Reliable Talent "routine skill"?
Hi there, which special feature are you referencing for Arcane Trickster? I don't see any Arcane Trickster subclass features in the 2024 PHB that enhances their stealth skill with magic. If anything, the source of their skill is more about flavor than stats.
The Thief grew up hungry. If you're caught stealing in this city, you get flogged. She learned from a young age how to never get caught.
The Assassin stalks their prey with ruthless efficiency, becoming one with the cold, dead night.
The Arcane Trickster... is magic? Yeah, they're stealthy because magic. Arcane Trickster kinda phoned it in.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
That has 100% success rate against DC 20. Dex 14, proficiency bonus +2, and proficient is 50% against DC 15.
How they has stronger version of the Ring of Invisibility? With the ring you:
- doesn't need to make any check
- doesn't need to has many of the prior conditions
- only lose the Invisible condition if you take the ring out
Interestingly, the item was made a lot more powerful in 2024 (though since the cloak already granted improved invisibility in 2014, that's mostly just evening things out).