Its one way and like i said ''Even if it still would, DM can always auto success as trivial the Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception.''
It's not trivial if there's an explicit DC requirement set by a player's own successful roll. Would you play with a DM who auto-successed every attack roll against you as well?
. . .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.
Wizards can do this at level 3. How is that unique to Arcane Trickster?
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.
I’m not ignoring RAW; I’m pointing out that the RAW is poorly written and open to interpretation, and yours creates an arbitrary scenario that illogically suspends how the players and DM observe and engage with the board.
Its one way and like i said ''Even if it still would, DM can always auto success as trivial the Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception.''
It's not trivial if there's an explicit DC requirement set by a player's own successful roll. Would you play with a DM who auto-successed every combat roll against you as well?
Having a DC is irrevelant the rules provide a way wether it's rolled by player or static.
I do play with DM making such ruling, which isn't every combat roll roll, only when the character no longer try to conceal itself and decide to walk in plain view, not hiding anymore.
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.
They dropped making it explicit, but I can still use an Action to say use an Enspelled Weapon to target someone due east of me and then use my Reaction to Counterspell a Counterspell someone due west of me attempts, even though a literal interpretation of what is happening would mean my LoS is extending in opposite directions simultaneously. Explicit RAW is not the only thing that counts, and all of the underlying structure of how to run a character on the grid indicates the 360 awareness remains.
I’m not ignoring RAW; I’m pointing out that the RAW is poorly written and open to interpretation, and yours creates an arbitrary scenario that illogically suspends how the players and DM observe and engage with the board.
Tomato, tomahto. Calling it "open to interpretation" to the direct detriment of a player would be a lousy way to DM. It's not poorly written, you just wish they had written something else. This is a fantasy world, mechanically suspending logic is literally the game.
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!
I think the same argument, "Persuasion is not mind control," applies here.
The DMs who would allow a player to Hide, then "walk right in front of someone's face without being noticed" is the same DM who would allow players to use Persuasion on other PCs or convince a King to hand over the throne and then jump off a bridge because someone rolled a 20 on their Persuasion check.
The way the rule is written assumes players and the DM are using common sense and making good-faith judgement calls. I'm in favor of rules moving in this direction.
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.
They dropped making it explicit, but I can still use an Action to say use an Enspelled Weapon to target someone due east of me and then use my Reaction to Counterspell a Counterspell someone due west of me attempts, even though a literal interpretation of what is happening would mean my LoS is extending in opposite directions simultaneously.
Those all depend on knowing something is happening. You can't counterspell a spell you don't know is being cast. Similar to how you can't attack an Invisible opponent if you don't know what grid square they are in ("If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss").
Tracking cones of vision is finicky enough in games with 1-second rounds. In 6-second rounds, like D&D, it's ridiculous. So in 2024 they have "settled" on abstracting it with Perception-vs-Stealth, which fits well enough as anything. (You're making my point for me. They don't track LoS, but that doesn't mean everyone has a god's eye view.)
And even now, if a hidden enemy in combat makes a sound louder than a whisper, or casts a verbal spell, or makes an attack, or...you notice them. If they move quietly, they need to beat your Perception or you'll hear them (find them). Etc.
I’m not ignoring RAW; I’m pointing out that the RAW is poorly written and open to interpretation, and yours creates an arbitrary scenario that illogically suspends how the players and DM observe and engage with the board.
Tomato, tomahto. Calling it "open to interpretation" to the direct detriment of a player would be a lousy way to DM. It's not poorly written, you just wish they had written something else. This is a fantasy world, mechanically suspending logic is literally the game.
The appeal to the player is not a strong argument- the rules exist to proscribe player capabilities just as much as to describe them. As I’ve said in other threads, this interpretation of 2024 Hide is flawed because it swings between remaining close to useless for most classes since it burns an Action to fairly broken on Rogues because they can quickly use it to become functionally untargetable throughout every encounter on a given day and relies on extrapolating an active effect from the negative space of the rules rather than an explicit positive ruling. Yes, I know what Hide says.
-You have the Invisible condition
-Your successful Stealth roll value is the DC to find you with Perception
-You stop being hidden when- among other things- you are found
Note that the rules do not explicitly say “when you are found by a successful Search Action”. Ergo, you do not have positive RAW that a Search Action is the only way to fulfill that criteria; you are filling the negative space of ambiguity in the actual RAW with an interpretation to that effect. If that works for your table, fine, but given no other part of the game indicates unobstructed LoS only functions selectively, it is at least as valid to conclude that you automatically find anything that enters your unobstructed LoS.
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.
They dropped making it explicit, but I can still use an Action to say use an Enspelled Weapon to target someone due east of me and then use my Reaction to Counterspell a Counterspell someone due west of me attempts, even though a literal interpretation of what is happening would mean my LoS is extending in opposite directions simultaneously.
Those all depend on knowing something is happening. You can't counterspell a spell you don't know is being cast. Similar to how you can't attack an Invisible opponent if you don't know what grid square they are in ("If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss").
Tracking cones of vision is finicky enough in games with 1-second rounds. In 6-second rounds, like D&D, it's ridiculous. So in 2024 they have "settled" on abstracting it with Perception-vs-Stealth, which fits well enough as anything. (You're making my point for me. They don't track LoS, but that doesn't mean everyone has a god's eye view.)
And even now, if a hidden enemy in combat makes a sound louder than a whisper, or casts a verbal spell, or makes an attack, or...you notice them. If they move quietly, they need to beat your Perception or you'll hear them (find them). Etc.
Except I need to be able to see to target spells, and yet in this scenario if we’re supposed to assume realism of how sight works I cannot see someone behind me when I already have to see someone in front of me to start the sequence. So either we have a consistent play experience of “if you can draw an unobstructed line to something you can see it without jumping through hoops to justify why your attention isn’t elsewhere at the relevant point” or we have the DM arbitrarily controlling the field of vision to justify specific outcomes. IMO, it’s bad RPG design to interfere with verisimilitude that blatantly.
Note that the rules do not explicitly say “when you are found by a successful Search Action”. Ergo, you do not have positive RAW that a Search Action is the only way to fulfill that criteria; you are filling the negative space of ambiguity in the actual RAW with an interpretation to that effect. If that works for your table, fine, but given no other part of the game indicates unobstructed LoS only functions selectively, it is at least as valid to conclude that you automatically find anything that enters your unobstructed LoS.
I do have positive RAW that there is no other written way to fulfill that criteria. You're the one inventing ambiguity, presuming that there may be some other way to accomplish what was explicitly set out. Well, what is it? Find it in the phb and I'll quickly adjust my position. Creating a gap and then filling it with DM fiat and your own projection of reason is weak against the outright language of the RAW.
You don't have unobstructed LoS on a creature with the Invisible condition. The Invisible condition isn't lost until the Hide is interrupted. End of.
Except I need to be able to see to target spells, and yet in this scenario if we’re supposed to assume realism of how sight works I cannot see someone behind me when I already have to see someone in front of me to start the sequence. So either we have a consistent play experience of “if you can draw an unobstructed line to something you can see it without jumping through hoops to justify why your attention isn’t elsewhere at the relevant point” or we have the DM arbitrarily controlling the field of vision to justify specific outcomes. IMO, it’s bad RPG design to interfere with verisimilitude that blatantly.
This is a straw-man argument. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else actually track cones of vision. Cones of vision don't matter in D&D.
If someone is invisible, you don't see them. If they are unseen and unheard, then you don't know where they are and can't target them. If they are hidden they are unseen and unheard, and if you hear/find them, they cease being hidden/unseen/unheard.
The abstraction "merely" allows for a narrative explanation of why hidden folks can be "invisible" despite leaving cover. Because they are avoiding attention by being stealthy. In a game that tracked cones of vision, this would be a player skill problem of not moving into the cones --- but it's not that, because it's not that sort of game.
This doesn't "interfere" with verisimilitude for me, because I've seen this done in real life, and done it myself in real life. It's actually quite easy when people are distracted, if you are good at moving quietly and steadily. I've seen it done, including to me, en masse, at parties. And those didn't even require the fog of war, just folks talking with each other.
. . .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.
Wizards can do this at level 3. How is that unique to Arcane Trickster?
When did 'unique' come into it? I said 'you need to be careful not to short change the people who are genuinely supernaturally stealthy [such as Arcane Tricksters]'. You said 'I don't see any Arcane Trickster subclass features in the 2024 PHB that enhances their stealth skill with magic'. I said 'being able to actually cast Invisibility at level 7 [is a way they can enhance their stealth skill with magic]'.
When did 'unique' come into it? I said 'you need to be careful not to short change the people who are genuinely supernaturally stealthy [such as Arcane Tricksters]'. You said 'I don't see any Arcane Trickster subclass features in the 2024 PHB that enhances their stealth skill with magic'. I said 'being able to actually cast Invisibility at level 7 [is a way they can enhance their stealth skill with magic]'.
Unique has nothing to do with it.
It feels like you really just want to split hairs on this. No, you didn't literally say that was unique to Arcane Trickster, but the way your post reads infers it, which is why I posted what I did.
Does this answer satisfy you? If not, I invite you to continue this discussion via DM.
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!
I think the same argument, "Persuasion is not mind control," applies here.
The DMs who would allow a player to Hide, then "walk right in front of someone's face without being noticed" is the same DM who would allow players to use Persuasion on other PCs or convince a King to hand over the throne and then jump off a bridge because someone rolled a 20 on their Persuasion check.
The way the rule is written assumes players and the DM are using common sense and making good-faith judgement calls. I'm in favor of rules moving in this direction.
Perhaps I am confused on your position here. I thought that you were advocating that it be ok for just a high Stealth roll to indicate someone is supernaturally good and able to do things that would normally violate common sense (e.g.; walking down a bare well lit hall toward two guards without being seen). But you also seem to agree that a similarly high Persuasion roll does not indicate someone is supernaturally good and able to do things that would normally violate common sense (e.g.; convincing a King to hand over his throne).
Am I misunderstanding one of your positions? (And I ask this in all seriousness, because I think that I am).
Except I need to be able to see to target spells, and yet in this scenario if we’re supposed to assume realism of how sight works I cannot see someone behind me when I already have to see someone in front of me to start the sequence. So either we have a consistent play experience of “if you can draw an unobstructed line to something you can see it without jumping through hoops to justify why your attention isn’t elsewhere at the relevant point” or we have the DM arbitrarily controlling the field of vision to justify specific outcomes. IMO, it’s bad RPG design to interfere with verisimilitude that blatantly.
This is a straw-man argument. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else actually track cones of vision. Cones of vision don't matter in D&D.
If someone is invisible, you don't see them. If they are unseen and unheard, then you don't know where they are and can't target them. If they are hidden they are unseen and unheard, and if you hear/find them, they cease being hidden/unseen/unheard.
The abstraction "merely" allows for a narrative explanation of why hidden folks can be "invisible" despite leaving cover. Because they are avoiding attention by being stealthy. In a game that tracked cones of vision, this would be a player skill problem of not moving into the cones --- but it's not that, because it's not that sort of game.
This doesn't "interfere" with verisimilitude for me, because I've seen this done in real life, and done it myself in real life. It's actually quite easy when people are distracted, if you are good at moving quietly and steadily. I've seen it done, including to me, en masse, at parties. And those didn't even require the fog of war, just folks talking with each other.
But the problem is the game doesn't require distraction, shadows, throngs of people, or a party. Per the RAW, you can do this in an open room lined with guards, so long as you at one point were out of their view. If you slipped in without anyone noticing, they wouldn't even have a notion to take the Search action. You are just strolling invisible down the hall.
But the problem is the game doesn't require distraction, shadows, throngs of people, or a party. Per the RAW, you can do this in an open room lined with guards, so long as you at one point were out of their view. If you slipped in without anyone noticing, they wouldn't even have a notion to take the Search action. You are just strolling invisible down the hall.
""The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."
Tracking all that is just as onerous as tracking cones of vision, and would be even more wordcount. It literally is all left to DM fiat.
It's up to the DM to let "I toss a pebble thataway to draw their attention elsewhere" work. Or to let "you are pretty alert and on-guard, so you just see them approaching" work. They've never had a minigame to handle this before; why would they now? This is all just "rulings, not rules" like the rest of D&D.
. . . I do have positive RAW that there is no other written way to fulfill that criteria. . .
Yes, there is. The fact that there is no roll for a 'trivial' action is explicitly spelled out in the DM's Guide means that there is a written way to fulfill the criteria of 'finding' a character.
While the RAW say that your Stealth roll is the DC for you to be found, they only mean that in 'average' circumstances. Do you expect a blind and deaf character to automatically find a Rogue just because they got a slightly lucky roll?
Thus, if a character is in a situation where spotting them is 'trivial', they are found no matter how good their Stealth was.
This doesn't mean that a Rogue should always be spotted the instant they break cover. Assuming it is plausible that they stay hidden then the DC is what should be used to find them. However, it does mean that Rogues can't treat Stealth as Invisibility. There has to be some plausibility to their action.
And, if what appears to be pretty clear intent is not enough for you and you really want to insist on a pedantic reading of RAW, here is what is written:
Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
What that says is that if a creature has to make a check, they have to roll that DC. It does not state that it is the only way to find you or that they are always required to make the check. That is only the DC if they are making a Wisdom (Perception) check. Mandating that check is something you are adding in yourself and is not, strictly, RAW.
Thus, RAW, if you do something that obviates the need for a check to be made (e.g., walking down our hypothetical hall) you absolutely can lose the Invisible Condition.
Its one way and like i said ''Even if it still would, DM can always auto success as trivial the Wisdom (Perception) check or Passive Perception.''
It's not trivial if there's an explicit DC requirement set by a player's own successful roll. Would you play with a DM who auto-successed every attack roll against you as well?
No, but I happily play with a DM who will not let me remain hidden when their is absolutely no cover despite the fact that my level 10 Assassin has a +14 to Stealth (20 Dex, Expertise, and a Luckstone), Reliable Talent, and a Cloak of Elvenkind.
Even with the magical aid of my Luckstone and my Cloak of Elvenkind, a magical item designed specifically to enhance Stealth, I recognize the limitations of a Skill as opposed to a Spell.
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!
I think the same argument, "Persuasion is not mind control," applies here.
The DMs who would allow a player to Hide, then "walk right in front of someone's face without being noticed" is the same DM who would allow players to use Persuasion on other PCs or convince a King to hand over the throne and then jump off a bridge because someone rolled a 20 on their Persuasion check.
The way the rule is written assumes players and the DM are using common sense and making good-faith judgement calls. I'm in favor of rules moving in this direction.
Perhaps I am confused on your position here. I thought that you were advocating that it be ok for just a high Stealth roll to indicate someone is supernaturally good and able to do things that would normally violate common sense (e.g.; walking down a bare well lit hall toward two guards without being seen). But you also seem to agree that a similarly high Persuasion roll does not indicate someone is supernaturally good and able to do things that would normally violate common sense (e.g.; convincing a King to hand over his throne).
Am I misunderstanding one of your positions? (And I ask this in all seriousness, because I think that I am).
I can see the potential for confusion here. In my initial post, I basically (paraphrasing) said that its ridiculous to pile on the Rogue for getting to be stealthy. If a character consistently rolls 30+ on a check, such as a high level Rogue rolling high Stealth checks, this could be explained as having an almost supernatural ability in a skill. Others have given possible explanations to why a character might get away with Stealth, such as a guard sneezing just at the right moment or a character being distracted by combat. These aren't rules, they're potential explanations to rulings that the DM or a player can use to allow their Rogue to pull off fun and interesting gameplay, at the DM's discretion. This isn't mutually exclusive to DMs ruling against certain scenarios that obviously wouldn't work.
The way I like to GM in most systems is if a player wants to do something that obviously wouldn't work, I simply tell them that it won't work because X. If there's a chance for failure, I tell them "well you could pull that off but if you fail the consequences are Y," and I have them roll a die or whatever other mechanism is used to determine probability. I believe this is pretty standard for most DMs and I don't think I'm unique here. It's easy to forget the flow of actual gameplay when analyzing rules. I think most arguments in this thread that start with, "but RAW says..." don't take into account the fact that there's a DM who is expected to use good judgement. Having rules that are more or less open to interpretation give more power to the DM, and I'm all for it. Saying that a Rogue could be supernaturally stealthy just gives one more avenue to explore when describing how a Rogue sneaks past something without taking away power from the DM.
Part of the confusion may be that there are multiple conversations going on in this one thread that discuss different ideas. If I say, "I eat broccoli," then someone says, "didn't you say you eat carrots?" These statements are both true. I don't eat any one vegetable exclusively and I don't always talk about broccoli when I'm talking about carrots. I hope that clears things up, thanks for asking!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have Darkvision, by the way.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's not trivial if there's an explicit DC requirement set by a player's own successful roll. Would you play with a DM who auto-successed every attack roll against you as well?
Wizards can do this at level 3. How is that unique to Arcane Trickster?
I have Darkvision, by the way.
I’m not ignoring RAW; I’m pointing out that the RAW is poorly written and open to interpretation, and yours creates an arbitrary scenario that illogically suspends how the players and DM observe and engage with the board.
Having a DC is irrevelant the rules provide a way wether it's rolled by player or static.
I do play with DM making such ruling, which isn't every combat roll roll, only when the character no longer try to conceal itself and decide to walk in plain view, not hiding anymore.
They dropped making it explicit, but I can still use an Action to say use an Enspelled Weapon to target someone due east of me and then use my Reaction to Counterspell a Counterspell someone due west of me attempts, even though a literal interpretation of what is happening would mean my LoS is extending in opposite directions simultaneously. Explicit RAW is not the only thing that counts, and all of the underlying structure of how to run a character on the grid indicates the 360 awareness remains.
Tomato, tomahto. Calling it "open to interpretation" to the direct detriment of a player would be a lousy way to DM. It's not poorly written, you just wish they had written something else. This is a fantasy world, mechanically suspending logic is literally the game.
I think the same argument, "Persuasion is not mind control," applies here.
The DMs who would allow a player to Hide, then "walk right in front of someone's face without being noticed" is the same DM who would allow players to use Persuasion on other PCs or convince a King to hand over the throne and then jump off a bridge because someone rolled a 20 on their Persuasion check.
The way the rule is written assumes players and the DM are using common sense and making good-faith judgement calls. I'm in favor of rules moving in this direction.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
Those all depend on knowing something is happening. You can't counterspell a spell you don't know is being cast. Similar to how you can't attack an Invisible opponent if you don't know what grid square they are in ("If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss").
Tracking cones of vision is finicky enough in games with 1-second rounds. In 6-second rounds, like D&D, it's ridiculous. So in 2024 they have "settled" on abstracting it with Perception-vs-Stealth, which fits well enough as anything. (You're making my point for me. They don't track LoS, but that doesn't mean everyone has a god's eye view.)
And even now, if a hidden enemy in combat makes a sound louder than a whisper, or casts a verbal spell, or makes an attack, or...you notice them. If they move quietly, they need to beat your Perception or you'll hear them (find them). Etc.
The appeal to the player is not a strong argument- the rules exist to proscribe player capabilities just as much as to describe them. As I’ve said in other threads, this interpretation of 2024 Hide is flawed because it swings between remaining close to useless for most classes since it burns an Action to fairly broken on Rogues because they can quickly use it to become functionally untargetable throughout every encounter on a given day and relies on extrapolating an active effect from the negative space of the rules rather than an explicit positive ruling. Yes, I know what Hide says.
-You have the Invisible condition
-Your successful Stealth roll value is the DC to find you with Perception
-You stop being hidden when- among other things- you are found
Note that the rules do not explicitly say “when you are found by a successful Search Action”. Ergo, you do not have positive RAW that a Search Action is the only way to fulfill that criteria; you are filling the negative space of ambiguity in the actual RAW with an interpretation to that effect. If that works for your table, fine, but given no other part of the game indicates unobstructed LoS only functions selectively, it is at least as valid to conclude that you automatically find anything that enters your unobstructed LoS.
Except I need to be able to see to target spells, and yet in this scenario if we’re supposed to assume realism of how sight works I cannot see someone behind me when I already have to see someone in front of me to start the sequence. So either we have a consistent play experience of “if you can draw an unobstructed line to something you can see it without jumping through hoops to justify why your attention isn’t elsewhere at the relevant point” or we have the DM arbitrarily controlling the field of vision to justify specific outcomes. IMO, it’s bad RPG design to interfere with verisimilitude that blatantly.
I do have positive RAW that there is no other written way to fulfill that criteria. You're the one inventing ambiguity, presuming that there may be some other way to accomplish what was explicitly set out. Well, what is it? Find it in the phb and I'll quickly adjust my position. Creating a gap and then filling it with DM fiat and your own projection of reason is weak against the outright language of the RAW.
You don't have unobstructed LoS on a creature with the Invisible condition. The Invisible condition isn't lost until the Hide is interrupted. End of.
This is a straw-man argument. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else actually track cones of vision. Cones of vision don't matter in D&D.
If someone is invisible, you don't see them. If they are unseen and unheard, then you don't know where they are and can't target them. If they are hidden they are unseen and unheard, and if you hear/find them, they cease being hidden/unseen/unheard.
The abstraction "merely" allows for a narrative explanation of why hidden folks can be "invisible" despite leaving cover. Because they are avoiding attention by being stealthy. In a game that tracked cones of vision, this would be a player skill problem of not moving into the cones --- but it's not that, because it's not that sort of game.
This doesn't "interfere" with verisimilitude for me, because I've seen this done in real life, and done it myself in real life. It's actually quite easy when people are distracted, if you are good at moving quietly and steadily. I've seen it done, including to me, en masse, at parties. And those didn't even require the fog of war, just folks talking with each other.
When did 'unique' come into it? I said 'you need to be careful not to short change the people who are genuinely supernaturally stealthy [such as Arcane Tricksters]'. You said 'I don't see any Arcane Trickster subclass features in the 2024 PHB that enhances their stealth skill with magic'. I said 'being able to actually cast Invisibility at level 7 [is a way they can enhance their stealth skill with magic]'.
Unique has nothing to do with it.
It feels like you really just want to split hairs on this. No, you didn't literally say that was unique to Arcane Trickster, but the way your post reads infers it, which is why I posted what I did.
Does this answer satisfy you? If not, I invite you to continue this discussion via DM.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
Perhaps I am confused on your position here. I thought that you were advocating that it be ok for just a high Stealth roll to indicate someone is supernaturally good and able to do things that would normally violate common sense (e.g.; walking down a bare well lit hall toward two guards without being seen). But you also seem to agree that a similarly high Persuasion roll does not indicate someone is supernaturally good and able to do things that would normally violate common sense (e.g.; convincing a King to hand over his throne).
Am I misunderstanding one of your positions? (And I ask this in all seriousness, because I think that I am).
But the problem is the game doesn't require distraction, shadows, throngs of people, or a party. Per the RAW, you can do this in an open room lined with guards, so long as you at one point were out of their view. If you slipped in without anyone noticing, they wouldn't even have a notion to take the Search action. You are just strolling invisible down the hall.
""The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."
Tracking all that is just as onerous as tracking cones of vision, and would be even more wordcount. It literally is all left to DM fiat.
It's up to the DM to let "I toss a pebble thataway to draw their attention elsewhere" work. Or to let "you are pretty alert and on-guard, so you just see them approaching" work. They've never had a minigame to handle this before; why would they now? This is all just "rulings, not rules" like the rest of D&D.
Yes, there is. The fact that there is no roll for a 'trivial' action is explicitly spelled out in the DM's Guide means that there is a written way to fulfill the criteria of 'finding' a character.
While the RAW say that your Stealth roll is the DC for you to be found, they only mean that in 'average' circumstances. Do you expect a blind and deaf character to automatically find a Rogue just because they got a slightly lucky roll?
Thus, if a character is in a situation where spotting them is 'trivial', they are found no matter how good their Stealth was.
This doesn't mean that a Rogue should always be spotted the instant they break cover. Assuming it is plausible that they stay hidden then the DC is what should be used to find them. However, it does mean that Rogues can't treat Stealth as Invisibility. There has to be some plausibility to their action.
And, if what appears to be pretty clear intent is not enough for you and you really want to insist on a pedantic reading of RAW, here is what is written:
What that says is that if a creature has to make a check, they have to roll that DC. It does not state that it is the only way to find you or that they are always required to make the check. That is only the DC if they are making a Wisdom (Perception) check. Mandating that check is something you are adding in yourself and is not, strictly, RAW.
Thus, RAW, if you do something that obviates the need for a check to be made (e.g., walking down our hypothetical hall) you absolutely can lose the Invisible Condition.
No, but I happily play with a DM who will not let me remain hidden when their is absolutely no cover despite the fact that my level 10 Assassin has a +14 to Stealth (20 Dex, Expertise, and a Luckstone), Reliable Talent, and a Cloak of Elvenkind.
Even with the magical aid of my Luckstone and my Cloak of Elvenkind, a magical item designed specifically to enhance Stealth, I recognize the limitations of a Skill as opposed to a Spell.
I can see the potential for confusion here. In my initial post, I basically (paraphrasing) said that its ridiculous to pile on the Rogue for getting to be stealthy. If a character consistently rolls 30+ on a check, such as a high level Rogue rolling high Stealth checks, this could be explained as having an almost supernatural ability in a skill. Others have given possible explanations to why a character might get away with Stealth, such as a guard sneezing just at the right moment or a character being distracted by combat. These aren't rules, they're potential explanations to rulings that the DM or a player can use to allow their Rogue to pull off fun and interesting gameplay, at the DM's discretion. This isn't mutually exclusive to DMs ruling against certain scenarios that obviously wouldn't work.
The way I like to GM in most systems is if a player wants to do something that obviously wouldn't work, I simply tell them that it won't work because X. If there's a chance for failure, I tell them "well you could pull that off but if you fail the consequences are Y," and I have them roll a die or whatever other mechanism is used to determine probability. I believe this is pretty standard for most DMs and I don't think I'm unique here. It's easy to forget the flow of actual gameplay when analyzing rules. I think most arguments in this thread that start with, "but RAW says..." don't take into account the fact that there's a DM who is expected to use good judgement. Having rules that are more or less open to interpretation give more power to the DM, and I'm all for it. Saying that a Rogue could be supernaturally stealthy just gives one more avenue to explore when describing how a Rogue sneaks past something without taking away power from the DM.
Part of the confusion may be that there are multiple conversations going on in this one thread that discuss different ideas. If I say, "I eat broccoli," then someone says, "didn't you say you eat carrots?" These statements are both true. I don't eat any one vegetable exclusively and I don't always talk about broccoli when I'm talking about carrots. I hope that clears things up, thanks for asking!
I have Darkvision, by the way.