No it isn't. The concealed effect says nothing about whether you can be seen. It says you cannot be affected by things that require you to be seen, unless you can be seen.
Of course it tells you that you are not seen. It is an impossible statement otherwise. "Waaah, the birthday cake mechanic says I need to blow out the candles, but doesn't say they are on fire!"
I mean, there's no real question that they intended for the effect to make you unseen, this isn't a case of RAI being unclear, but it's a problem when RAW is a mismatch with RAI.
If players were CPUs that could only follow coded instructions, you'd have a point. But they are not. Given that the authors have not explained their intent with the new book yet, the very fact that you understand RAI comes from the written words themselves. As if they are doing their jobs.
But "[t]here needs to be an actual effect preventing you from being seen" is egregious --- the "concealed" effect is doing exactly that!
No, it isn't. The concealed effect in the text for the Invisible Condition actually has an exact definition. There's nothing "natural language" about that section. It's a keyword that gives an exact name to an effect. Then, that effect is immediately precisely defined. It has the mechanical meaning in the game that is actually written there.
Incorrect. Modern D&D doesn't have "keywords" like that, unless it redefines them entirely. The concealed effect is listing the mechanical effects of itself, so players/dms do not need to improvise them. But the definition of "concealed" still stands and is quite obvious.
...
This whole conversation is about the mechanical effects of hiding (and invisibility in general), in a subforum about rules and mechanics. The mechanics are what matter here. And they are clear (heh). Mechanics that require sight don't work on invisible things, unless the person using them has a special exception (telling them they can see invisible things). You want to say the invisible person is still reflecting and blocking light? Cool. Also mechanically meaningless. Is invisibility actual transparency? A shimmering refraction effect? "Just someone always being in your blind spots"? All the same. This doesn't require a natural language definition of "concealed" or "invisible," but it sure is nice that it pretty clearly (heh) follows their natural definitions.
This is why I listed the updated Blindsight, Truesight and Tremorsense, because mechanically in the game they're the only types of sight/senses that can pierce the Invisible condition. The second he asserted that because Concealed doesn't state how you can be seen then normal sight also works, you are creating a mutually exclusive impossibility. The Invisible condition rules merely state what it does, but not how to mechanically remove it. In this case, "somehow can see you" is not a mechanic because it does not provide functional details or procedures; those are found in the Feature that gave the Invisible condition.
Incorrect. Modern D&D doesn't have "keywords" like that, unless it redefines them entirely. The concealed effect is listing the mechanical effects of itself, so players/dms do not need to improvise them. But the definition of "concealed" still stands and is quite obvious.
If you don't like the term "keyword", then call it something else. The point remains the same. It should be obvious when reading all of the various published material that there is a common formatting design that the developers often use in order to keep their writing clear and concise. That was the reason for bringing up the goblin example -- so that it would be obvious that this style of writing is quite common throughout the game. They provide a name for a particular feature. Then, they define exactly what that feature is and does. The actual name of the feature is absolutely irrelevant -- it has no mechanical consequence. It's just a label. The thing that it is labeling is what's important. Just because a particular effect within the Invisible Condition is named "Concealed" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Invisible Condition actually causes a creature to become invisible.
The invisible condition is removed when you no longer have the prerequisites for hiding (3/4 cover or heavily obscured). This makes stealth nearly useless.
I'm curious why you still feel this way? Except for some minor differences this is pretty much how it was already working in 2014. In combat, the most common usage would be to hide behind something and then "pop-out" to 3/4 cover to make an attack from range. This allows you to gain Advantage on the attack. It should now be more justified for a DM to deny this advantage when simply locating yourself behind cover (without hiding) and then attempting to make that same attack because as soon as you try to pop-out you are no longer an unseen attacker. This was sort of hand-waived in the past, but now this has been cleaned up by the inclusion of 3/4 cover in the hiding rules so now I think that you'll pretty much have to hide to make this sort of attack with advantage.
Based on the info from the original post, it looks like passive perception will continue to have the same role as it did before in 2014. It will count as a "free" perception check for the purposes of the hiding rules.
The rules don't say that the condition changes your transparency... so it doesn't. Also, since hiding clearly does not make you transparent, and uses the same condition, the condition can't be making you transparent.
I still sort of disagree with this. Not about being "transparent" per se, but I think that it's reasonable for you to be considered to be an invisible creature if you are actually hidden. I don't think that there's anything wrong with the concept of finding an invisible creature with a perception check -- a successful perception check does not have to necessarily mean that you actually see something in order to "find" it.
Given that, I really believe that all they would have to do is to reinsert the line which says: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." and this entire rewrite would actually work as intended. It's absolutely baffling to me that they left this out. So bizarre.
----------
Also, I'm curious why there aren't more people in this thread that are bothered by the inclusion of the DC15 check requirement. I really think that that change is absolutely awful. I have a feeling that there was an explanation given for this when it was first playtested -- it's just one of those things that I thought for sure would never make it past even one round of playtesting and somehow it made it all the way into the final print. That's pretty surprising to me. It sort of feels like a byproduct of trying to nerf the Surprise mechanic and then it ended up bleeding into all stealth attempts such that at low levels there's no longer any differentiation between how difficult it is to hide from or sneak past various different kinds of monsters which I think is a shame. Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing that I think is here to stay now that it got through playtesting since there's nothing about it that's erroneous per se, it's just bad.
The invisible condition is removed when you no longer have the prerequisites for hiding (3/4 cover or heavily obscured). This makes stealth nearly useless.
I'm curious why you still feel this way?
Because hiding is redundant with being heavily obscured (other than initiative, all benefits of being hidden are already granted by being heavily obscured) so its only use case is 3/4 cover, which just doesn't come up very often.
Also, I'm curious why there aren't more people in this thread that are bothered by the inclusion of the DC15 check requirement. I really think that that change is absolutely awful. I have a feeling that there was an explanation given for this when it was first playtested -- it's just one of those things that I thought for sure would never make it past even one round of playtesting and somehow it made it all the way into the final print. That's pretty surprising to me. It sort of feels like a byproduct of trying to nerf the Surprise mechanic and then it ended up bleeding into all stealth attempts such that at low levels there's no longer any differentiation between how difficult it is to hide from or sneak past various different kinds of monsters which I think is a shame. Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing that I think is here to stay now that it got through playtesting since there's nothing about it that's erroneous per se, it's just bad.
I asked my DM and he actually likes the DC15 requirement. He said it's because it makes it harder for characters, specially at lower levels, to do it unless they invest in stealth. He described it as a DC15 is actually a difficult roll when you prescribe to the Ability Score understanding that 10 is the average for a normal person, so those who have the training have a better chance to do it.
Overall, he actually liked the changes to the rules and said they make it easier to run if you use Common Sense. I was actually surprised at his response considering how many threads are out there with grievances
Let me get this straight: You have to be concealed (behind cover, out of line of sight) to Hide, which makes you Invisible, which makes you concealed. You then remain invisible (concealed) even when you are no longer concealed (leaving cover) so you can attack someone who has line of sight to you with advantage.
This also means that if you hide and stay hidden, on the enemy's next turn, the have to walk around your cover and spend their action to find you (otherwise, they come to right where you are hiding, but cannot see you since you are now invisible), so they can't attack. You could then move to the other side of the cover and hide again, starting the whole process over again.
Let me get this straight: You have to be concealed (behind cover, out of line of sight) to Hide, which makes you Invisible, which makes you concealed. You then remain invisible (concealed) even when you are no longer concealed (leaving cover) so you can attack someone who has line of sight to you with advantage.
This also means that if you hide and stay hidden, on the enemy's next turn, the have to walk around your cover and spend their action to find you (otherwise, they come to right where you are hiding, but cannot see you since you are now invisible), so they can't attack. You could then move to the other side of the cover and hide again, starting the whole process over again.
These rules are bad....
I have a feeling that you probably cannot see my posts, but I'll respond to this anyway.
This is why I strongly believe that the line "On a successful check, you have the Invisible Condition" actually means that when there is no longer a valid successful check then you no longer have the Condition -- this is the natural duration for the Condition when hiding, although this is less explicitly stated than it was in 2014 when they simply said "Until you stop hiding". If you use this interpretation, then all of a sudden pretty much all of the new rules for hiding actually work pretty well.
I disagree. To me when you successfully Hide, you have the Invisible condition until a creature to finds you, which can occur with a Wisdom (Perception) check, Passive Perception score or because the DM determines that circumstances are not appropriate for hiding.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, speak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.
Also, the rule for Unseen Attackers is still present in 2024, so in your scenario, even if you Hide again the enemy is still aware of your presence even if he can't see you.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, speak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.
Also, the rule for Unseen Attackers is still present in 2024, so in your scenario, even if you Hide again the enemy is still aware of your presence even if he can't see you.
Edit: Plaguescarred explained it better
But them being aware of you doesn't make you not invisible, and being invisible is what gets you advantage on your attacks.
A game mechanic being completely up to the whim of the DM is bad game design. You can now say, "I got behind total cover and take the Hide action." and the DM can just say, "Nah."
I don't know if I agree with the argument that telling the DM to make the call is bad game design. It just is what it is--telling the DM to make the call.
The invisible condition is removed when you no longer have the prerequisites for hiding (3/4 cover or heavily obscured). This makes stealth nearly useless.
I'm curious why you still feel this way?
Because hiding is redundant with being heavily obscured (other than initiative, all benefits of being hidden are already granted by being heavily obscured) so its only use case is 3/4 cover, which just doesn't come up very often.
I guess we're all assuming that some other parts of the book have been changed, such as the concept of Hiding meaning "unseen and unheard" and therefore making your location "unknown" such that your enemy would have to "guess the square" to attempt to attack you (at Disadvantage). I'm not sure if that change was confirmed or not. In 2014, this portion of the hiding rules used to exist within the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section of Chapter 9.
If that "guess the square" mechanic was removed, then it's true that there's no longer a reason to Hide if you're already located in an area of Darkness, for example.
Side Note: What is up with the Surprise (initiative) clause not being dependent on whether or not you can be seen? That feels like another really big flaw in the new rule. Suppose I am an actual invisible creature somehow, but all of my enemies have Truesight. Why would it make any sense for me to be able to surprise them in combat? I'm standing right in front of them, and they can see me! Another huge oversight in my opinion.
----------
I wanted to add a quick discussion about why I believe if they would just add back in the line that "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" then everything would work as intended, including the interaction with Darkness and Darkvision.
It turns out that a creature does not actually have to hide when standing in Darkness, although they can if they want. A creature who has Darkvision can see the creature who is standing in the Darkness -- it is a special sense, but it's not a special sense that is traditionally meant to be able to see an invisible creature. However, if the creature in Darkness hides then the new rules state that he gets the Invisible Condition (for the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume that this Condition is fixed to make a creature actually unable to be seen). So, can a creature with Darkvision actually see that creature who is hiding in darkness?
Well, under my interpretation of the new Hiding rules, all of the prerequisites for hiding must remain in effect in order for you to have the Invisible Condition. One of those prerequisites is that you must be out of any enemy's Line of Sight. Whether or not that other creature has Darkvision or not, you are within the Line of Sight of that creature even though you are obscured by Darkness. Therefore, you are not actually able to Hide and you do not have the Invisible Condition.
There are six possible combinations: Creature A is standing in Darkness, Creature A hides in Darkness, Creature A is actually invisible and is located in Darkness (for now, I am assuming that under the new rules there is never a reason for an actual invisible creature to hide, even though this was a point of emphasis in 2014 that "An invisible creature can always try to hide".) This is combined with Creature B has normal sight, Creature B has Darkvision:
1. A in Darkness, B has normal sight: Obscured / Unseen attacker. A has advantage on the attack.
2. A hides in Darkness, B has normal sight: B has "Line of Sight", so the Hide fails. Result: Obscured / Unseen attacker. A has advantage on the attack.
3. A is actually Invisible and in Darkness, B has normal sight: A retains the (fixed) Invisible Condition. Result: Invisible. A has advantage on the attack.
4. A in Darkness, B has Darkvision: A is seen. A makes a normal attack.
5. A hides in Darkness, B has Darkvision: B has "Line of Sight", so the Hide fails. Result: A is seen. A makes a normal attack. (This actually makes sense, and I believe is intended)
6. A is actually Invisible and in Darkness, B has Darkvision: A retains the (fixed) Invisible Condition. Result: Invisible. A has advantage on the attack.
In situations 3 and 6, if the invisible creature actually hides in the darkness, the hide check would fail, but that wouldn't matter very much mechanically since the creature is still Invisible. Situation 6 is yet another example of why it is important to actually fix the Invisible Condition to include the line "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". Without this, situation 6 results in creature B seeing creature A with his Darkvision and the advantage is lost.
But we can see that as long as this one fix is implemented (and I propose also fixing the Surprise (initiative) clause to be dependent on being unseen just like the other two clauses), then all of the new Hiding and Invisibility rules would be functioning as intended.
EDIT: I forgot that I wanted to add one more example to emphasize the concept and I don't want to make a separate post for it.
Suppose there is a blinded creature standing in front of you. You cannot actually Hide (to temporarily "have" the Invisible Condition) from that creature since that creature does have "Line of Sight" to you, even though he is blinded. However, you would still get advantage on your attacks due to the Blinded Condition.
But them being aware of you doesn't make you not invisible, and being invisible is what gets you advantage on your attacks.
If you became invisible from hiding (as opposed to the invisibility spell), they can "find" you with a perception check (because that's an extra way for the condition to end when you hide). That finding could happen while you're still in cover, or happen while you're trying to sneak in for a stabbing (assuming they have opportunity to take an action after you've left cover).
And the DM can rule just about anything, but no-one has seen any RAW about using passive perception to find hidden people yet. However, it's a fine excuse for a more-contested version of "nah, circumstances aren't good for your stealth anymore."
I disagree. To me when you successfully Hide, you have the Invisible condition until a creature to finds you, which can occur with a Wisdom (Perception) check, Passive Perception score or because the DM determines that circumstances are not appropriate for hiding.
If you became invisible from hiding (as opposed to the invisibility spell), they can "find" you with a perception check (because that's an extra way for the condition to end when you hide). That finding could happen while you're still in cover, or happen while you're trying to sneak in for a stabbing (assuming they have opportunity to take an action after you've left cover).
Why in the world are people still insisting that this is what the new rule is saying? It is absolutely not the intent to allow a creature to successfully hide for only a moment in order to become a permanently invisible creature. You don't duck behind a building for a second and then spend the next couple of hours wandering around in a crowded city street as an invisible person simply because none of the other people in the street are bothering to attempt a perception check to find you. That is ludicrous and is 100% not what the new hiding rules are saying. There is absolutely no way that you can walk across a wide open field straight at somebody and then stab them as if you are actually invisible. That's just never happening.
The Hide rule says that you HAVE the Condition ON a successful check. If there is currently no active successful check, then you do not have it. The successful check indicates that all of the requirements for Hiding are met and now you are successfully Hiding. This is the equivalent of saying "you have the condition when you successfully hide". Or, "you have the condition when you are successfully hidden". It's conditional. It's not meant to be permanent. Hiding doesn't make a person actually an invisible person. It just grants the same benefits that an invisible person has while they are hiding. Anything else makes absolutely no sense. If it's a problem with the wording that is causing this confusion, then this too should be tweaked via errata. I think that the wording is fine, but it's surprising how many people are misinterpreting it.
I don't know if I agree with the argument that telling the DM to make the call is bad game design. It just is what it is--telling the DM to make the call.
A rule should be clear enough that players have a reasonable understanding of what they should expect. There will still be edge cases that the DM needs to adjudicate.
I disagree. To me when you successfully Hide, you have the Invisible condition until a creature to finds you, which can occur with a Wisdom (Perception) check, Passive Perception score or because the DM determines that circumstances are not appropriate for hiding.
If you became invisible from hiding (as opposed to the invisibility spell), they can "find" you with a perception check (because that's an extra way for the condition to end when you hide). That finding could happen while you're still in cover, or happen while you're trying to sneak in for a stabbing (assuming they have opportunity to take an action after you've left cover).
Why in the world are people still insisting that this is what the new rule is saying? It is absolutely not the intent to allow a creature to successfully hide for only a moment in order to become a permanently invisible creature. You don't duck behind a building for a second and then spend the next couple of hours wandering around in a crowded city street as an invisible person simply because none of the other people in the street are bothering to attempt a perception check to find you. That is ludicrous and is 100% not what the new hiding rules are saying. There is absolutely no way that you can walk across a wide open field straight at somebody and then stab them as if you are actually invisible. That's just never happening.
The Hide rule says that you HAVE the Condition ON a successful check. If there is currently no active successful check, then you do not have it. The successful check indicates that all of the requirements for Hiding are met and now you are successfully Hiding. This is the equivalent of saying "you have the condition when you successfully hide". Or, "you have the condition when you are successfully hidden". It's conditional. It's not meant to be permanent. Hiding doesn't make a person actually an invisible person. It just grants the same benefits that an invisible person has while they are hiding. Anything else makes absolutely no sense. If it's a problem with the wording that is causing this confusion, then this too should be tweaked via errata. I think that the wording is fine, but it's surprising how many people are misinterpreting it.
Except that IS what the rules say, and, yes, it is ludicrous! And it spells out exactly how you lose the condition. Nowhere does it say that you lose the Invisible condition when you move out of cover and nowhere does it say it only lasts while you are hiding (at least the 2014 rules had that!). Or are you saying that you only get Invisible the instant that you make the check and then lose it? Do you have to continually roll checks to maintain it?
The only really ambiguous way to lose the Invisible condition is an "enemy finds you", which is also not spelled out. Typically, the only way to find something hidden is by using your action to make a perception check. So you could 100% duck, BA hide, turn invisible, walk up to a target, and stab them all before becoming visible again.
That is the RAW. I really, really hope it was not the RAI, but that is 100% the RAW.
But them being aware of you doesn't make you not invisible, and being invisible is what gets you advantage on your attacks.
If you became invisible from hiding (as opposed to the invisibility spell), they can "find" you with a perception check (because that's an extra way for the condition to end when you hide). That finding could happen while you're still in cover, or happen while you're trying to sneak in for a stabbing (assuming they have opportunity to take an action after you've left cover).
And the DM can rule just about anything, but no-one has seen any RAW about using passive perception to find hidden people yet. However, it's a fine excuse for a more-contested version of "nah, circumstances aren't good for your stealth anymore."
So they have to burn their action on their turn to see you after you have left your hiding spot. That is if you didn't get to stab them on your own turn. Do you see how ludicrous that is??
So they have to burn their action on their turn to see you after you have left your hiding spot. That is if you didn't get to stab them on your own turn. Do you see how ludicrous that is??
In a game without strict facing mechanics, it's one of the only ways to make "backstabbing" work.
(Also, "strict facing mechanics" turn into unmanageably goop when rounds last a whole 6 seconds, because pivoting is so fast.)
I strongly suspect all the extra "DM determines if hiding is appropriate" language is to let DMs guard against the most ludicrous examples, like sneaking down a brightly lit hallway when the target is at the end, looking right at you...
But this really does make a lot of sense if you let it represent "being really good at staying out of the gaze of distracted combatents."
Anyway, maybe the DMG will come out and have a clear explainer of all this, and outright say "no, we really did write the whole mechanic just for cowards and snipers; no-one expects backstabbing to work in modern D&D." But I kinda expect any such explainer to say the opposite of that.
In a game without strict facing mechanics, it's one of the only ways to make "backstabbing" work.
The way backstabbing works is "someone else is distracting the target, so you get sneak attack bonuses because you have an ally next to the target"; stealth is not involved at all. Which is the way backstabbing has worked since at least 3e (3e, 3.5e, and 4e required flanking, meaning an ally on the opposite side; 5e loosened it to an an ally anywhere adjacent to the target).
This is why I listed the updated Blindsight, Truesight and Tremorsense, because mechanically in the game they're the only types of sight/senses that can pierce the Invisible condition. The second he asserted that because Concealed doesn't state how you can be seen then normal sight also works, you are creating a mutually exclusive impossibility. The Invisible condition rules merely state what it does, but not how to mechanically remove it. In this case, "somehow can see you" is not a mechanic because it does not provide functional details or procedures; those are found in the Feature that gave the Invisible condition.
If you don't like the term "keyword", then call it something else. The point remains the same. It should be obvious when reading all of the various published material that there is a common formatting design that the developers often use in order to keep their writing clear and concise. That was the reason for bringing up the goblin example -- so that it would be obvious that this style of writing is quite common throughout the game. They provide a name for a particular feature. Then, they define exactly what that feature is and does. The actual name of the feature is absolutely irrelevant -- it has no mechanical consequence. It's just a label. The thing that it is labeling is what's important. Just because a particular effect within the Invisible Condition is named "Concealed" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Invisible Condition actually causes a creature to become invisible.
I'm curious why you still feel this way? Except for some minor differences this is pretty much how it was already working in 2014. In combat, the most common usage would be to hide behind something and then "pop-out" to 3/4 cover to make an attack from range. This allows you to gain Advantage on the attack. It should now be more justified for a DM to deny this advantage when simply locating yourself behind cover (without hiding) and then attempting to make that same attack because as soon as you try to pop-out you are no longer an unseen attacker. This was sort of hand-waived in the past, but now this has been cleaned up by the inclusion of 3/4 cover in the hiding rules so now I think that you'll pretty much have to hide to make this sort of attack with advantage.
Based on the info from the original post, it looks like passive perception will continue to have the same role as it did before in 2014. It will count as a "free" perception check for the purposes of the hiding rules.
I still sort of disagree with this. Not about being "transparent" per se, but I think that it's reasonable for you to be considered to be an invisible creature if you are actually hidden. I don't think that there's anything wrong with the concept of finding an invisible creature with a perception check -- a successful perception check does not have to necessarily mean that you actually see something in order to "find" it.
Given that, I really believe that all they would have to do is to reinsert the line which says: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." and this entire rewrite would actually work as intended. It's absolutely baffling to me that they left this out. So bizarre.
----------
Also, I'm curious why there aren't more people in this thread that are bothered by the inclusion of the DC15 check requirement. I really think that that change is absolutely awful. I have a feeling that there was an explanation given for this when it was first playtested -- it's just one of those things that I thought for sure would never make it past even one round of playtesting and somehow it made it all the way into the final print. That's pretty surprising to me. It sort of feels like a byproduct of trying to nerf the Surprise mechanic and then it ended up bleeding into all stealth attempts such that at low levels there's no longer any differentiation between how difficult it is to hide from or sneak past various different kinds of monsters which I think is a shame. Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing that I think is here to stay now that it got through playtesting since there's nothing about it that's erroneous per se, it's just bad.
Because hiding is redundant with being heavily obscured (other than initiative, all benefits of being hidden are already granted by being heavily obscured) so its only use case is 3/4 cover, which just doesn't come up very often.
I asked my DM and he actually likes the DC15 requirement. He said it's because it makes it harder for characters, specially at lower levels, to do it unless they invest in stealth. He described it as a DC15 is actually a difficult roll when you prescribe to the Ability Score understanding that 10 is the average for a normal person, so those who have the training have a better chance to do it.
Overall, he actually liked the changes to the rules and said they make it easier to run if you use Common Sense. I was actually surprised at his response considering how many threads are out there with grievances
I curious, does anyone have the wording for the other conditions?
Let me get this straight: You have to be concealed (behind cover, out of line of sight) to Hide, which makes you Invisible, which makes you concealed. You then remain invisible (concealed) even when you are no longer concealed (leaving cover) so you can attack someone who has line of sight to you with advantage.
This also means that if you hide and stay hidden, on the enemy's next turn, the have to walk around your cover and spend their action to find you (otherwise, they come to right where you are hiding, but cannot see you since you are now invisible), so they can't attack. You could then move to the other side of the cover and hide again, starting the whole process over again.
These rules are bad....
I have a feeling that you probably cannot see my posts, but I'll respond to this anyway.
This is why I strongly believe that the line "On a successful check, you have the Invisible Condition" actually means that when there is no longer a valid successful check then you no longer have the Condition -- this is the natural duration for the Condition when hiding, although this is less explicitly stated than it was in 2014 when they simply said "Until you stop hiding". If you use this interpretation, then all of a sudden pretty much all of the new rules for hiding actually work pretty well.
I disagree. To me when you successfully Hide, you have the Invisible condition until a creature to finds you, which can occur with a Wisdom (Perception) check, Passive Perception score or because the DM determines that circumstances are not appropriate for hiding.
You're forgetting this still applies:
Hiding
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, speak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.
Also, the rule for Unseen Attackers is still present in 2024, so in your scenario, even if you Hide again the enemy is still aware of your presence even if he can't see you.
Edit: Plaguescarred explained it better
But them being aware of you doesn't make you not invisible, and being invisible is what gets you advantage on your attacks.
A game mechanic being completely up to the whim of the DM is bad game design. You can now say, "I got behind total cover and take the Hide action." and the DM can just say, "Nah."
I don't know if I agree with the argument that telling the DM to make the call is bad game design. It just is what it is--telling the DM to make the call.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I guess we're all assuming that some other parts of the book have been changed, such as the concept of Hiding meaning "unseen and unheard" and therefore making your location "unknown" such that your enemy would have to "guess the square" to attempt to attack you (at Disadvantage). I'm not sure if that change was confirmed or not. In 2014, this portion of the hiding rules used to exist within the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section of Chapter 9.
If that "guess the square" mechanic was removed, then it's true that there's no longer a reason to Hide if you're already located in an area of Darkness, for example.
Side Note: What is up with the Surprise (initiative) clause not being dependent on whether or not you can be seen? That feels like another really big flaw in the new rule. Suppose I am an actual invisible creature somehow, but all of my enemies have Truesight. Why would it make any sense for me to be able to surprise them in combat? I'm standing right in front of them, and they can see me! Another huge oversight in my opinion.
----------
I wanted to add a quick discussion about why I believe if they would just add back in the line that "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" then everything would work as intended, including the interaction with Darkness and Darkvision.
It turns out that a creature does not actually have to hide when standing in Darkness, although they can if they want. A creature who has Darkvision can see the creature who is standing in the Darkness -- it is a special sense, but it's not a special sense that is traditionally meant to be able to see an invisible creature. However, if the creature in Darkness hides then the new rules state that he gets the Invisible Condition (for the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume that this Condition is fixed to make a creature actually unable to be seen). So, can a creature with Darkvision actually see that creature who is hiding in darkness?
Well, under my interpretation of the new Hiding rules, all of the prerequisites for hiding must remain in effect in order for you to have the Invisible Condition. One of those prerequisites is that you must be out of any enemy's Line of Sight. Whether or not that other creature has Darkvision or not, you are within the Line of Sight of that creature even though you are obscured by Darkness. Therefore, you are not actually able to Hide and you do not have the Invisible Condition.
There are six possible combinations: Creature A is standing in Darkness, Creature A hides in Darkness, Creature A is actually invisible and is located in Darkness (for now, I am assuming that under the new rules there is never a reason for an actual invisible creature to hide, even though this was a point of emphasis in 2014 that "An invisible creature can always try to hide".) This is combined with Creature B has normal sight, Creature B has Darkvision:
1. A in Darkness, B has normal sight: Obscured / Unseen attacker. A has advantage on the attack.
2. A hides in Darkness, B has normal sight: B has "Line of Sight", so the Hide fails. Result: Obscured / Unseen attacker. A has advantage on the attack.
3. A is actually Invisible and in Darkness, B has normal sight: A retains the (fixed) Invisible Condition. Result: Invisible. A has advantage on the attack.
4. A in Darkness, B has Darkvision: A is seen. A makes a normal attack.
5. A hides in Darkness, B has Darkvision: B has "Line of Sight", so the Hide fails. Result: A is seen. A makes a normal attack. (This actually makes sense, and I believe is intended)
6. A is actually Invisible and in Darkness, B has Darkvision: A retains the (fixed) Invisible Condition. Result: Invisible. A has advantage on the attack.
In situations 3 and 6, if the invisible creature actually hides in the darkness, the hide check would fail, but that wouldn't matter very much mechanically since the creature is still Invisible. Situation 6 is yet another example of why it is important to actually fix the Invisible Condition to include the line "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". Without this, situation 6 results in creature B seeing creature A with his Darkvision and the advantage is lost.
But we can see that as long as this one fix is implemented (and I propose also fixing the Surprise (initiative) clause to be dependent on being unseen just like the other two clauses), then all of the new Hiding and Invisibility rules would be functioning as intended.
EDIT: I forgot that I wanted to add one more example to emphasize the concept and I don't want to make a separate post for it.
Suppose there is a blinded creature standing in front of you. You cannot actually Hide (to temporarily "have" the Invisible Condition) from that creature since that creature does have "Line of Sight" to you, even though he is blinded. However, you would still get advantage on your attacks due to the Blinded Condition.
If you became invisible from hiding (as opposed to the invisibility spell), they can "find" you with a perception check (because that's an extra way for the condition to end when you hide). That finding could happen while you're still in cover, or happen while you're trying to sneak in for a stabbing (assuming they have opportunity to take an action after you've left cover).
And the DM can rule just about anything, but no-one has seen any RAW about using passive perception to find hidden people yet. However, it's a fine excuse for a more-contested version of "nah, circumstances aren't good for your stealth anymore."
and also . . .
Why in the world are people still insisting that this is what the new rule is saying? It is absolutely not the intent to allow a creature to successfully hide for only a moment in order to become a permanently invisible creature. You don't duck behind a building for a second and then spend the next couple of hours wandering around in a crowded city street as an invisible person simply because none of the other people in the street are bothering to attempt a perception check to find you. That is ludicrous and is 100% not what the new hiding rules are saying. There is absolutely no way that you can walk across a wide open field straight at somebody and then stab them as if you are actually invisible. That's just never happening.
The Hide rule says that you HAVE the Condition ON a successful check. If there is currently no active successful check, then you do not have it. The successful check indicates that all of the requirements for Hiding are met and now you are successfully Hiding. This is the equivalent of saying "you have the condition when you successfully hide". Or, "you have the condition when you are successfully hidden". It's conditional. It's not meant to be permanent. Hiding doesn't make a person actually an invisible person. It just grants the same benefits that an invisible person has while they are hiding. Anything else makes absolutely no sense. If it's a problem with the wording that is causing this confusion, then this too should be tweaked via errata. I think that the wording is fine, but it's surprising how many people are misinterpreting it.
A rule should be clear enough that players have a reasonable understanding of what they should expect. There will still be edge cases that the DM needs to adjudicate.
Except that IS what the rules say, and, yes, it is ludicrous! And it spells out exactly how you lose the condition. Nowhere does it say that you lose the Invisible condition when you move out of cover and nowhere does it say it only lasts while you are hiding (at least the 2014 rules had that!). Or are you saying that you only get Invisible the instant that you make the check and then lose it? Do you have to continually roll checks to maintain it?
The only really ambiguous way to lose the Invisible condition is an "enemy finds you", which is also not spelled out. Typically, the only way to find something hidden is by using your action to make a perception check. So you could 100% duck, BA hide, turn invisible, walk up to a target, and stab them all before becoming visible again.
That is the RAW. I really, really hope it was not the RAI, but that is 100% the RAW.
So they have to burn their action on their turn to see you after you have left your hiding spot. That is if you didn't get to stab them on your own turn. Do you see how ludicrous that is??
In a game without strict facing mechanics, it's one of the only ways to make "backstabbing" work.
(Also, "strict facing mechanics" turn into unmanageably goop when rounds last a whole 6 seconds, because pivoting is so fast.)
I strongly suspect all the extra "DM determines if hiding is appropriate" language is to let DMs guard against the most ludicrous examples, like sneaking down a brightly lit hallway when the target is at the end, looking right at you...
But this really does make a lot of sense if you let it represent "being really good at staying out of the gaze of distracted combatents."
Anyway, maybe the DMG will come out and have a clear explainer of all this, and outright say "no, we really did write the whole mechanic just for cowards and snipers; no-one expects backstabbing to work in modern D&D." But I kinda expect any such explainer to say the opposite of that.
The way backstabbing works is "someone else is distracting the target, so you get sneak attack bonuses because you have an ally next to the target"; stealth is not involved at all. Which is the way backstabbing has worked since at least 3e (3e, 3.5e, and 4e required flanking, meaning an ally on the opposite side; 5e loosened it to an an ally anywhere adjacent to the target).
When it comes to Hiding, if to conceal yourself you must be out of any enemy's line of sight and you remain invisible until an enemy finds you;
Tables playing in Theater of the Mind will rely DM fiat to handle that.
Tables using Grid Play will rely on guidelines for how you determine line of sight to handle that.
They were printed in the Dungeon Master Guide 2014 so we shall see with 2024 version but i expect it will too.