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.
But per the RAW, leaving cover doesn't break the Hidden condition! Why can you just step behind a column and become invisible until you attack??
No, as sneaky guy walking right in front of someone's face without being noticed is a bridge too far. Magic in the world means that fire coming out of someone's fingertips is normal, but it is limited in use (spell slots). You can Hide all day long every 6 seconds and nobody would have any idea where you are.
It's also problematic that someone using their limited resources to cast Invisibility is getting the same thing as someone dipping behind a column. And neither of them actually say that the enemy doesn't know where you are, or even that the enemy can't see you! It says you can't be affected by things that require sight unless you can be seen. WHICH IS THE RULE FOR EVERYONE, INVISIBLE OR NOT!
...but achieving superhuman feats with skills should require more than routine skill.
By your own example: how is DEX 18, proficiency bonus +3, Expertise, plus Reliable Talent "routine skill"?
At level 1 (or by taking 1 level in Rogue) and having a 16/17 in Dex, you have a +7 (+3 Dex, +2 Prof, +2 Exp). That means your average Stealth test is going to be 17.5 (63% success rate)
I would say that any level 1 character falls under "routine skill". Getting to level 7 means that you never fail, and I would call level 7 moderate skill. At level 7, spellcasters have 1 4th level slot (excluding Warlocks, of course). This means that a Rogue at level 7 is outperforming (no concentration, no time limit) a Wizard casting Greater Invisibility at the cost of a bonus action each turn.
Once this Rogue gets to level 9 (if they're a Thief), they don't even need to spend a bonus action, they just need to sacrifice 1d6 sneak attack damage (4d6 instead of 5d6, oh darn). And they can do this all day long. The Wizard at this level can do this a max of 4 times per day, sacrificing a significantly higher amount of potential damage than 1d6 by not spending those slots on something better.
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.
But per the RAW, leaving cover doesn't break the Hidden condition! Why can you just step behind a column and become invisible until you attack??
No, as sneaky guy walking right in front of someone's face without being noticed is a bridge too far. Magic in the world means that fire coming out of someone's fingertips is normal, but it is limited in use (spell slots). You can Hide all day long every 6 seconds and nobody would have any idea where you are.
It's also problematic that someone using their limited resources to cast Invisibility is getting the same thing as someone dipping behind a column. And neither of them actually say that the enemy doesn't know where you are, or even that the enemy can't see you! It says you can't be affected by things that require sight unless you can be seen. WHICH IS THE RULE FOR EVERYONE, INVISIBLE OR NOT!
There's no "but per the RAW" here, that's how it was intended and expected to play out. By leaving all enemies' line of sight, you escape their ability to track your movements, ducking around and behind their fields of view, exploiting their blind spots, and yes, even hiding in plain sight. Don't tell me you've never seen the Awareness Test video.
Rogues get to do one thing really well. Comparing this to the hugely varied reality-altering power of wizards is, frankly, insane. Shucks, they can only transmute their bodies, blink to the ethereal plane, spew dragon breath, and raise the dead a limited number of times a day? Rogues OP pls nerf. BTW, those are all level 3 and below spells.
. . .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.
. . .
Uh...being able to actually cast Invisibility at level 7? That is being supernaturally stealthy.
...but achieving superhuman feats with skills should require more than routine skill.
By your own example: how is DEX 18, proficiency bonus +3, Expertise, plus Reliable Talent "routine skill"?
At level 1 (or by taking 1 level in Rogue) and having a 16/17 in Dex, you have a +7 (+3 Dex, +2 Prof, +2 Exp). That means your average Stealth test is going to be 17.5 (63% success rate)
I would say that any level 1 character falls under "routine skill". Getting to level 7 means that you never fail, and I would call level 7 moderate skill. At level 7, spellcasters have 1 4th level slot (excluding Warlocks, of course). This means that a Rogue at level 7 is outperforming (no concentration, no time limit) a Wizard casting Greater Invisibility at the cost of a bonus action each turn.
Once this Rogue gets to level 9 (if they're a Thief), they don't even need to spend a bonus action, they just need to sacrifice 1d6 sneak attack damage (4d6 instead of 5d6, oh darn). And they can do this all day long. The Wizard at this level can do this a max of 4 times per day, sacrificing a significantly higher amount of potential damage than 1d6 by not spending those slots on something better.
I would say this is actually a really good counter-argument to Stealth being fully equal to full on Invisibility. Being able to sustain a Greater Invisibility effect all day long with only the loss of your Bonus Actions at 7th level would be insane. Being able to remain hidden all day long as long as you don't run out into the open sounds much more reasonable.
Sure, the Wizard has other spells they can cast as well, and the Rogue has other abilities besides their Stealth. At 7th level the Wizard can cast spells like Fireball a couple of times, while the Rogue can get their Sneak Attack damage practically endlessly.
I think this, more than anything, typifies what is going on. The majority of abilities held by someone like a Rogue or Fighter can be surpassed by a Wizard (Rogues can climb using Athletics, Wizards can Spider Climb, Rogue can Sneak Attack, Wizard can Fireball, etc.) who casts a spell. However, to do that the Wizard must consume a spell slot and those are in limited supply. Once they are gone the abilities of the Wizard go way, way down. Meanwhile the Rogue and Fighter can continue on all day long with most of their abilities.
Stronger function but less ability to continuously use it? That sounds like balance design to me (whether they hit that balance is a separate issue).
Rogues get to do one thing really well. Comparing this to the hugely varied reality-altering power of wizards is, frankly, insane. Shucks, they can only transmute their bodies, blink to the ethereal plane, spew dragon breath, and raise the dead a limited number of times a day? Rogues OP pls nerf. BTW, those are all level 3 and below spells.
Rogues get to do all sorts of things really well.
By the time a Wizard is casting 4th level spells a Rogue is probably doing 5d6 + 4 + Bonuses with nearly every attack.
Hide, Dash, or Disengage as a Bonus Action? Sweet. Unless I'm being chased by a Monk I've got a great chance to outrun whatever I need to get away from.
Most effects that have a Dex save? They will probably take no damage. At worst they take half damage.
Get hit with some monster damage roll? Spend a Reaction and take half damage.
Sacrifice a little damage for a reasonable chance to give an opponent Disadvantage to their attacks, knock them prone, or get away without spending a Bonus Action? That sounds pretty nice.
Four Skills with your Ability Modifier +6 (so probably +10 in a lot of cases), and you can't roll less than a 10 on the die when using them? Yes, please!
And, of course, this is just the features given to them for being Rogues. They will also have some fairly nice subclass abilities at this point.
So let's not act like Rogues must absolutely have mystically good stealth or they are useless. There are Rogue builds that don't even use it, for crying out loud.
So let's not act like Rogues must absolutely have mystically good stealth or they are useless. There are Rogue builds that don't even use it, for crying out loud.
Doesn't that prove that it isn't mystically good, if some builds don't even use it? If Hiding was as OP as everyone makes it sound, it would be a requirement for every rogue or they'd miss out on significant damage.
The fact of the matter is, Hide/Invisibility is hugely situational, and now largely redundant due to Vex weapon mastery. It's fine against a single target, but there's no need to get hide advantage rolls if you're shooting with a shortbow. Hide is really only useful if you're the one being targeted because it can get the attention off you for a turn. But if you're in melee, you'd have to Disengage with your bonus, move to cover, hope you don't get chased, and then on the next turn, hide, move back, and sneak attack again. If you're shooting from ranged and hiding with your bonus every turn, you've lost the extra attack damage, and you aren't getting the bonus from attacking from Invisibility anyway since you already have Vex. PLUS, when you're fighting a whole room of enemies as is the usual, finding somewhere to hide out of every enemy's line of sight is often impossible. So treating Hide like some godmode cheat is overstating it to say the very least. At worst, it's something you could use every two turns when using a turn 1 Vex+Nick weapon combo attack, disengage, move to cover, turn 2 hide, move to melee, attack with advantage. And then you're vulnerable to be attacked anyway! It's completely reasonable when you actually play it out.
If you are shooting from range and hiding with your bonus action, how are you losing the bonus damage? Sure, you lost Steady Aim, but since they can't see you, you still have Advantage.
Sure, Vex can remove the need to hide to get that Advantage, but you didn't lose anything by hiding.
I have to say that I am slightly confused by your position when you say ' treating Hide like some godmode cheat is overstating it'. We aren't treating it like some godmode cheat. We are saying there are some quite reasonable restrictions to it (if you move out in the open and stand there like a doofus people are going to spot you) and that you can't use it as a godmode cheat (no wandering around all day long as though completely Invisible and just walk past guards who couldn't help but notice you).
If you are shooting from range and hiding with your bonus action, how are you losing the bonus damage? Sure, you lost Steady Aim, but since they can't see you, you still have Advantage.
Sure, Vex can remove the need to hide to get that Advantage, but you didn't lose anything by hiding.
I have to say that I am slightly confused by your position when you say ' treating Hide like some godmode cheat is overstating it'. We aren't treating it like some godmode cheat. We are saying there are some quite reasonable restrictions to it (if you move out in the open and stand there like a doofus people are going to spot you) and that you can't use it as a godmode cheat (no wandering around all day long as though completely Invisible and just walk past guards who couldn't help but notice you).
Well, that is what should happen, but RAW leaving cover and standing in the open don't actually make you lose Invisibility. RAW you could absolutely dip behind a column, hide, and then be Invisible, and walk past those guards without them being able to see you so long as you don't attack, cast a spell, or make a sound louder than a whisper. They would have to beat your Stealth check to see you. And if you're out of combat, there is nothing stopping you from spamming the Hide action until you roll a Nat20 so that no one will ever see you.
If you are shooting from range and hiding with your bonus action, how are you losing the bonus damage? Sure, you lost Steady Aim, but since they can't see you, you still have Advantage.
Sure, Vex can remove the need to hide to get that Advantage, but you didn't lose anything by hiding.
I have to say that I am slightly confused by your position when you say ' treating Hide like some godmode cheat is overstating it'. We aren't treating it like some godmode cheat. We are saying there are some quite reasonable restrictions to it (if you move out in the open and stand there like a doofus people are going to spot you) and that you can't use it as a godmode cheat (no wandering around all day long as though completely Invisible and just walk past guards who couldn't help but notice you).
That's the point, they can't notice me if I'm stealthier than they can perceive me. Roleplay it however you have to so it makes sense narratively, but that's how the mechanic works. If you lack the imagination to be able to tell that story, I weep for your players.
RAW to me differ, you have the Invisible condition while hidden, which you aren't if you walk in open view and no longer try to conceal yourself.
Even if it still would, DM can always auto success as trivial the Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception.
That's not the RAW though. The enemy has to check perception higher than your stealth roll to find you. Leaving cover is not in the list of how to break the the Hide/invisible condition.
That's the point, they can't notice me if I'm stealthier than they can perceive me. Roleplay it however you have to so it makes sense narratively, but that's how the mechanic works. If you lack the imagination to be able to tell that story, I weep for your players.
Well, it's within reason, by RAW. "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" and all that.
Which really just means that a DM can just say "no" if you try to sneak down a well-lit, empty hallway with two guards facing you. Without a distraction, that is, which is where the gameplay happens. Similar if you just "stand there like a doofus."
Thing is, in combat, of course everyone is a little distracted, and no-one is "just standing there like a doofus." That's where sneaking up to melee while hidden makes sense, and where "they need a Search action and a good roll to find you" makes sense for the action economy. After all, at best we're talking about "get Sneak Attack each round" and "maybe don't get targetted off your turn." (Well, ignoring the fact that you need your targets to be within about 1/2 Move of cover, and you need to forgo Disengage and such to repeat this every turn, and your DM might start applying Disadvantage if you get repetitive, and...)
The “everyone is distracted in combat” argument doesn’t really hold up for gameplay, given the game is played with a god’s eye view and they dropped even optional facing and flanking rules from the new DMG. If I don’t have to justify being constantly aware of everything happening on the map at any other point, it’s rather unreasonable to say that suddenly LoS doesn’t count because someone is moving quietly.
That's the point, they can't notice me if I'm stealthier than they can perceive me. Roleplay it however you have to so it makes sense narratively, but that's how the mechanic works. If you lack the imagination to be able to tell that story, I weep for your players.
Well, it's within reason, by RAW. "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" and all that.
Which really just means that a DM can just say "no" if you try to sneak down a well-lit, empty hallway with two guards facing you. Without a distraction, that is, which is where the gameplay happens. Similar if you just "stand there like a doofus."
If your stealth roll beats their perception, then that means they're sufficiently distracted or unperceptive to notice you. Again, that's a narrative roleplay issue, not a mechanical one.
The “everyone is distracted in combat” argument doesn’t really hold up for gameplay, given the game is played with a god’s eye view and they dropped even optional facing and flanking rules from the new DMG. If I don’t have to justify being constantly aware of everything happening on the map at any other point, it’s rather unreasonable to say that suddenly LoS doesn’t count because someone is moving quietly.
If you want to ignore the RAW, then you can just say so. What's not reasonable is making logical leaps that aren't necessary. Successfully hiding makes you invisible, until the hide breaks according to the specific requirements. That's it.
That's not the RAW though. The enemy has to check perception higher than your stealth roll to find you. Leaving cover is not in the list of how to break the the Hide/invisible condition.
RAW You stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you, which may be the case here.
The “everyone is distracted in combat” argument doesn’t really hold up for gameplay, given the game is played with a god’s eye view and they dropped even optional facing and flanking rules from the new DMG. If I don’t have to justify being constantly aware of everything happening on the map at any other point, it’s rather unreasonable to say that suddenly LoS doesn’t count because someone is moving quietly.
You are free to play that way at your table (at least if you're the DM).
...
They also dropped 360-degree combat awareness. "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you" was not repeated in 2024.
Arguably, this gets to why they chose the Invisible Condition for this --- to make hiding make sense from a "god's eye view." In BG3, hiding makes you invisible until you cross an enemy's cone of vision. Modern D&D has done away with "cones of vision" and replaced them with either Search actions or DM fiat, probably because tracking cones for everyone, without facing rules, is a giant hassle.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My bad; I was thinking of the 2014 version
But per the RAW, leaving cover doesn't break the Hidden condition! Why can you just step behind a column and become invisible until you attack??
No, as sneaky guy walking right in front of someone's face without being noticed is a bridge too far. Magic in the world means that fire coming out of someone's fingertips is normal, but it is limited in use (spell slots). You can Hide all day long every 6 seconds and nobody would have any idea where you are.
It's also problematic that someone using their limited resources to cast Invisibility is getting the same thing as someone dipping behind a column. And neither of them actually say that the enemy doesn't know where you are, or even that the enemy can't see you! It says you can't be affected by things that require sight unless you can be seen. WHICH IS THE RULE FOR EVERYONE, INVISIBLE OR NOT!
At level 1 (or by taking 1 level in Rogue) and having a 16/17 in Dex, you have a +7 (+3 Dex, +2 Prof, +2 Exp). That means your average Stealth test is going to be 17.5 (63% success rate)
I would say that any level 1 character falls under "routine skill". Getting to level 7 means that you never fail, and I would call level 7 moderate skill. At level 7, spellcasters have 1 4th level slot (excluding Warlocks, of course). This means that a Rogue at level 7 is outperforming (no concentration, no time limit) a Wizard casting Greater Invisibility at the cost of a bonus action each turn.
Once this Rogue gets to level 9 (if they're a Thief), they don't even need to spend a bonus action, they just need to sacrifice 1d6 sneak attack damage (4d6 instead of 5d6, oh darn). And they can do this all day long. The Wizard at this level can do this a max of 4 times per day, sacrificing a significantly higher amount of potential damage than 1d6 by not spending those slots on something better.
There's no "but per the RAW" here, that's how it was intended and expected to play out. By leaving all enemies' line of sight, you escape their ability to track your movements, ducking around and behind their fields of view, exploiting their blind spots, and yes, even hiding in plain sight. Don't tell me you've never seen the Awareness Test video.
Rogues get to do one thing really well. Comparing this to the hugely varied reality-altering power of wizards is, frankly, insane. Shucks, they can only transmute their bodies, blink to the ethereal plane, spew dragon breath, and raise the dead a limited number of times a day? Rogues OP pls nerf. BTW, those are all level 3 and below spells.
Uh...being able to actually cast Invisibility at level 7? That is being supernaturally stealthy.
I would say this is actually a really good counter-argument to Stealth being fully equal to full on Invisibility. Being able to sustain a Greater Invisibility effect all day long with only the loss of your Bonus Actions at 7th level would be insane. Being able to remain hidden all day long as long as you don't run out into the open sounds much more reasonable.
Sure, the Wizard has other spells they can cast as well, and the Rogue has other abilities besides their Stealth. At 7th level the Wizard can cast spells like Fireball a couple of times, while the Rogue can get their Sneak Attack damage practically endlessly.
I think this, more than anything, typifies what is going on. The majority of abilities held by someone like a Rogue or Fighter can be surpassed by a Wizard (Rogues can climb using Athletics, Wizards can Spider Climb, Rogue can Sneak Attack, Wizard can Fireball, etc.) who casts a spell. However, to do that the Wizard must consume a spell slot and those are in limited supply. Once they are gone the abilities of the Wizard go way, way down. Meanwhile the Rogue and Fighter can continue on all day long with most of their abilities.
Stronger function but less ability to continuously use it? That sounds like balance design to me (whether they hit that balance is a separate issue).
Rogues get to do all sorts of things really well.
And, of course, this is just the features given to them for being Rogues. They will also have some fairly nice subclass abilities at this point.
So let's not act like Rogues must absolutely have mystically good stealth or they are useless. There are Rogue builds that don't even use it, for crying out loud.
Doesn't that prove that it isn't mystically good, if some builds don't even use it? If Hiding was as OP as everyone makes it sound, it would be a requirement for every rogue or they'd miss out on significant damage.
The fact of the matter is, Hide/Invisibility is hugely situational, and now largely redundant due to Vex weapon mastery. It's fine against a single target, but there's no need to get hide advantage rolls if you're shooting with a shortbow. Hide is really only useful if you're the one being targeted because it can get the attention off you for a turn. But if you're in melee, you'd have to Disengage with your bonus, move to cover, hope you don't get chased, and then on the next turn, hide, move back, and sneak attack again. If you're shooting from ranged and hiding with your bonus every turn, you've lost the extra attack damage, and you aren't getting the bonus from attacking from Invisibility anyway since you already have Vex. PLUS, when you're fighting a whole room of enemies as is the usual, finding somewhere to hide out of every enemy's line of sight is often impossible. So treating Hide like some godmode cheat is overstating it to say the very least. At worst, it's something you could use every two turns when using a turn 1 Vex+Nick weapon combo attack, disengage, move to cover, turn 2 hide, move to melee, attack with advantage. And then you're vulnerable to be attacked anyway! It's completely reasonable when you actually play it out.
If you are shooting from range and hiding with your bonus action, how are you losing the bonus damage? Sure, you lost Steady Aim, but since they can't see you, you still have Advantage.
Sure, Vex can remove the need to hide to get that Advantage, but you didn't lose anything by hiding.
I have to say that I am slightly confused by your position when you say ' treating Hide like some godmode cheat is overstating it'. We aren't treating it like some godmode cheat. We are saying there are some quite reasonable restrictions to it (if you move out in the open and stand there like a doofus people are going to spot you) and that you can't use it as a godmode cheat (no wandering around all day long as though completely Invisible and just walk past guards who couldn't help but notice you).
Well, that is what should happen, but RAW leaving cover and standing in the open don't actually make you lose Invisibility. RAW you could absolutely dip behind a column, hide, and then be Invisible, and walk past those guards without them being able to see you so long as you don't attack, cast a spell, or make a sound louder than a whisper. They would have to beat your Stealth check to see you. And if you're out of combat, there is nothing stopping you from spamming the Hide action until you roll a Nat20 so that no one will ever see you.
RAW to me differ, you have the Invisible condition while hidden, which you aren't if you walk in open view and no longer try to conceal yourself.
Even if it still would, DM can always auto success as trivial the Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception.
That's the point, they can't notice me if I'm stealthier than they can perceive me. Roleplay it however you have to so it makes sense narratively, but that's how the mechanic works. If you lack the imagination to be able to tell that story, I weep for your players.
That's not the RAW though. The enemy has to check perception higher than your stealth roll to find you. Leaving cover is not in the list of how to break the the Hide/invisible condition.
Well, it's within reason, by RAW. "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" and all that.
Which really just means that a DM can just say "no" if you try to sneak down a well-lit, empty hallway with two guards facing you. Without a distraction, that is, which is where the gameplay happens. Similar if you just "stand there like a doofus."
Thing is, in combat, of course everyone is a little distracted, and no-one is "just standing there like a doofus." That's where sneaking up to melee while hidden makes sense, and where "they need a Search action and a good roll to find you" makes sense for the action economy. After all, at best we're talking about "get Sneak Attack each round" and "maybe don't get targetted off your turn."
(Well, ignoring the fact that you need your targets to be within about 1/2 Move of cover, and you need to forgo Disengage and such to repeat this every turn, and your DM might start applying Disadvantage if you get repetitive, and...)
The “everyone is distracted in combat” argument doesn’t really hold up for gameplay, given the game is played with a god’s eye view and they dropped even optional facing and flanking rules from the new DMG. If I don’t have to justify being constantly aware of everything happening on the map at any other point, it’s rather unreasonable to say that suddenly LoS doesn’t count because someone is moving quietly.
If your stealth roll beats their perception, then that means they're sufficiently distracted or unperceptive to notice you. Again, that's a narrative roleplay issue, not a mechanical one.
If you want to ignore the RAW, then you can just say so. What's not reasonable is making logical leaps that aren't necessary. Successfully hiding makes you invisible, until the hide breaks according to the specific requirements. That's it.
RAW You stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you, which may be the case here.
You are free to play that way at your table (at least if you're the DM).
...
They also dropped 360-degree combat awareness. "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you" was not repeated in 2024.
Arguably, this gets to why they chose the Invisible Condition for this --- to make hiding make sense from a "god's eye view." In BG3, hiding makes you invisible until you cross an enemy's cone of vision. Modern D&D has done away with "cones of vision" and replaced them with either Search actions or DM fiat, probably because tracking cones for everyone, without facing rules, is a giant hassle.