I do not believe that exiting the hiding spot (cover, etc.) would necessarily end stealth for the creature, but I do think it is intended to end the invisible condition. The difference between "not currently seen" and "not able to be seen".
In 2024 rules these are not different from each other. If you are "in stealth" that is to have the Invisible condition because they want to mimic BG3 where to visually communicate that a character is hidden it changed to look invisible. The invisible condition now includes both literally being invisible (actually cannot be seen even if someone is looking at you), and effectively being invisible (cannot be seen because people aren't looking at you or can't look at you b/c something is in the way).
However the rules for "finding" a creature, thus ending the Invisible condition that results from Hiding/stealth, differ for in-combat vs not-in-combat. In combat, there is the provision that most enemies are alert and paying attention to everything around them to avoid getting killed, outside of combat that doesn't need to be the case. You could do the "I throw a pebble to distract the guards and sneak past them" outside of combat - though it is left entirely up to the DM how mechanically this works because it completely depends on the situation (e.g. a Beholder would react to that very differently than a humanoid guard) - if it is reasonable to do so, whereas most of the time (except by DM special consideration) you can't do that inside of combat.
I do not believe that exiting the hiding spot (cover, etc.) would necessarily end stealth for the creature, but I do think it is intended to end the invisible condition. The difference between "not currently seen" and "not able to be seen".
In 2024 rules these are not different from each other. If you are "in stealth" that is to have the Invisible condition because they want to mimic BG3 where to visually communicate that a character is hidden it changed to look invisible. The invisible condition now includes both literally being invisible (actually cannot be seen even if someone is looking at you), and effectively being invisible (cannot be seen because people aren't looking at you or can't look at you b/c something is in the way).
I'd wager that they started out by writing two conditions, one for hidden and one for invisible, and realized they had the exact same condition mechanics, only differing in what ends them. But BG3 is a pretty good explanation for why they would expect most players to be on board with it. (Call it the "Unseen Condition" might have been wiser.)
However the rules for "finding" a creature, thus ending the Invisible condition that results from Hiding/stealth, differ for in-combat vs not-in-combat. In combat, there is the provision that most enemies are alert and paying attention to everything around them to avoid getting killed, outside of combat that doesn't need to be the case. You could do the "I throw a pebble to distract the guards and sneak past them" outside of combat - though it is left entirely up to the DM how mechanically this works because it completely depends on the situation (e.g. a Beholder would react to that very differently than a humanoid guard) - if it is reasonable to do so, whereas most of the time (except by DM special consideration) you can't do that inside of combat.
I don't think the bolded part is established anywhere in RAW. Can you provide a citation?
Anyway, in combat, things are pretty ruled by the action economy, and the action-economy way of handling this is with the Search action or with Passive Perception (at DM discretion, as always).
But there are many complicating factors, as you mention --- True Sight and Beholders and other such things just being some examples.
I do not believe that exiting the hiding spot (cover, etc.) would necessarily end stealth for the creature, but I do think it is intended to end the invisible condition. The difference between "not currently seen" and "not able to be seen".
In 2024 rules these are not different from each other. If you are "in stealth" that is to have the Invisible condition because they want to mimic BG3 where to visually communicate that a character is hidden it changed to look invisible. The invisible condition now includes both literally being invisible (actually cannot be seen even if someone is looking at you), and effectively being invisible (cannot be seen because people aren't looking at you or can't look at you b/c something is in the way).
I disagree with this interpretation. I do not think the designers intended to replace stealth checks with the Hide action, nor do I think that finding a shrub to hide behind is intended to be a requirement for beginning any stealthy activity.
I also don't see support anywhere in the text for the idea that invisibility is a prerequisite for making checks related to moving quietly or without attracting attention. An attempt to move quickly and quietly by the player might spur the DM to call for an ability check using Dexterity. Because the goal is to remain unnoticed, the DM might specify that the player can add the modifier from their stealth skill to the check's total.
Nowhere in the sections on checks or proficiencies does it specify that a dexterity check to remain unnoticed must be made "while Invisible", at least not that I saw.
I found this passage in the Dungeon Master Guide about finding hidden creature for Calculated DCs;
We already know how it works for creatures that are actually hiding and actually need a check to find. The issue is whether there are conditions for automatic removal of hiding.
There's a way Resolving Outcome can be automatic. If a DM determine its trivial to spot a hidden creature walking in an open room then no D20 Test should be needed.
Is a D20 Test Warranted? If the task is trivial or impossible, don’t bother with a D20 Test. A character can move across an empty room or drink from a flask without making a Dexterity check, whereas no lucky die roll will allow a character with an ordinary bow to hit the moon with an arrow. Call for a D20 Test only if there’s a chance of both success and failure and if there are meaningful consequences for failure.
The glossary entry for Actions:[Hide] gives insight on what can break the condition of hiding, and making an attack roll is one of the condition breaking options.
The D20 Test i'm referring to isn't an attack roll but an ability check.
Ex. If a DM determine its trivial to spot a hidden creature walking in an open room then no Wisdom (Perception) check should be needed.
One of the only time as DM i'd ask an hidden creature for a Dexterity (Stealth) check would be to circumstantially determine if it makes sound louder than a whisper ex. moving over broken glass, opening squeaky door etc...
That’s a mighty big assumption that a hidden creature will just waltz right in to that room in plain sight without attempting to distract or blind others to its presence.
The whole point of this discussion is "What, if anything, does a hidden creature need to do to distract or blind others to its presence when it moves out of concealment?"
There are three possible answer to this
It's not possible. The interpretation of "hiding is lost when the prerequisites for hiding are lost" supports this interpretation. It has the problem of making hiding nearly useless.
It's possible with no further action. The interpretation of "hiding is only lost on a successful search action" supports this interpretation. It has the problem of permitting a wide variety of nonsensical results.
It requires further conditions to make it possible. The 2014 rules ("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. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted") support this interpretation. The 2024 rules do not.
The 2014 rules do not have any guidelines on what those circumstances might be.
My suspicion is that 2024 wanted to change "it usually sees you" to "it usually does not see you" but did not want to go all the way to #2, but if so, they entirely failed to express this intent.
My suspicion is that 2024 wanted to change "it usually sees you" to "it usually does not see you" but did not want to go all the way to #2, but if so, they entirely failed to express this intent.
My suspicion is that #2 was intended, exaclty, in combat when the DM would otherwise need to provide complicated rulings under stress. Subject to circumstantial advantage/disadvantage/etc. at DM's discretion.
Whereas out of combat, for "sneaking past castle guards" and the like, it's much easier to track field of vision and distraction shenanigans, and basically play metal-gear-solid-style sneaking rules.
And I think it's quite clear they shifted to "it usually does not see you" as the default, because 360 alert vision made the stealth game kinda stupid.
Frankly, combat already goes slow enough that I’d say we don’t need a “viable” Hide option because it’d just draw out turns unless you go with #2, which would be fairly broken. Any other way to use it where it’s not killed by LoS either involves tracking facing, invites a bunch of theater of the mind arguments over what’s happening, or means the DM needs to stop and check passive perception every time the hidden character comes out of cover. Hide is a niche action mostly for Rogues working the back row, or for unconventional combats. It’s not supposed to be something every Rogue should want to spam nearly every turn.
Hide is a niche action mostly for Rogues working the back row, or for unconventional combats. It’s not supposed to be something every Rogue should want to spam nearly every turn.
I agree, and I don't think it is meant to be the new defacto stealth option for exploration either.
My suspicion is that #2 was intended, exaclty, in combat when the DM would otherwise need to provide complicated rulings under stress. Subject to circumstantial advantage/disadvantage/etc. at DM's discretion.
I don't know if I agree with that. #2 allows too many abuse cases for the Invisible(hidden) creature. One could RAW weave around the combat arena and not be targetable for several turns, even while in the open, so long as they didn't make an attack or a sound louder than a whisper. Taking actions doesn't even break this version of invisibility, so they could use the Help action or administer first aid without ever being seen. Heck, as written, they could even stand in the open and cast non verbal spells while remaining concealed and untargetable.
Of course the DM is in the position to disallow this as not making sense, but that's a judgement that contradicts the rules as written. I don't think an action should be written in a way that assumes a DM will need to arbitrate against it.
My suspicion is that 2024 wanted to change "it usually sees you" to "it usually does not see you" but did not want to go all the way to #2, but if so, they entirely failed to express this intent.
I agree. I would guess the designers had something close to a 1.5 in mind while they wrote the text, and the oversight cropped up because they already understood their own intentions, which we aren't privy to.
Which of course is inevitable, perfection is an unreasonable expectation. I just hope they clarify it at some point, lol.
Frankly, combat already goes slow enough that I’d say we don’t need a “viable” Hide option because it’d just draw out turns unless you go with #2, which would be fairly broken.
There are some options that are fast enough to resolve -- for example, you can remove invisibility at the end of the turn (allowing leaping out of cover for a surprise attack).
Frankly, combat already goes slow enough that I’d say we don’t need a “viable” Hide option because it’d just draw out turns unless you go with #2, which would be fairly broken.
There are some options that are fast enough to resolve -- for example, you can remove invisibility at the end of the turn (allowing leaping out of cover for a surprise attack).
Invisibility lasting until the end of your turn once cover is broken is a very sensible ruling, I think.
Frankly, combat already goes slow enough that I’d say we don’t need a “viable” Hide option because it’d just draw out turns unless you go with #2, which would be fairly broken.
There are some options that are fast enough to resolve -- for example, you can remove invisibility at the end of the turn (allowing leaping out of cover for a surprise attack).
Which also makes Hide fairly nonviable for actually trying to escape or avoid hostilities.
The answer to the question of “What does a creature have to do to distract or blind others to its presence as it is moving out of/towards concealment?” Is to simply roll a hide check, and the DM or Player can bargain for a better roll depending on past actions.
I don't quite follow. Do you mean that the initial hide check should be sufficient to include the creature moving out of cover and toward another instance of cover, or that a second hide check should be rolled when hopping from cover to cover?
I'm also not sure what bargaining you are referring to, unless you mean granting advantage or lowering the DC.
( now if the opposing creature happens to spot the sneaking creature, then sure the situation has changed, but the sneaking creature should be given a chance to pause and rethink its actions. Not get punished for doing what they are supposed to be good at.)
"Happens to spot the sneaking creature" is the entire source of ambiguity regarding these rules. As written, if they are invisible, you cannot "spot" them unless one of the triggers in the Hide text occurs and breaks the condition. If "find" requires a Search, then spotting by happenstance is impossible.
Which also makes Hide fairly nonviable for actually trying to escape or avoid hostilities.
Hiding seems to confer significant protection against detection, so I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
Unless you are considering being Invisible(hidden) to be a requirement of going unnoticed, which does seem to be the interpretation of some.
I interpreted it as follows:
Invisible(hidden): Concealed and protected from sight. Only active scrutiny can reveal the creature.
Dexterity(stealth) - out of cover: Moving quickly and quietly. A successful check makes you unnoticed, but not protected from sight should circumstances warrant a creature looking in your direction.
Movement - no check: You're just walking down a hall. Maybe waving.
The answer to the question of “What does a creature have to do to distract or blind others to its presence as it is moving out of/towards concealment?” Is to simply roll a hide check, and the DM or Player can bargain for a better roll depending on past actions.
I don't quite follow. Do you mean that the initial hide check should be sufficient to include the creature moving out of cover and toward another instance of cover, or that a second hide check should be rolled when hopping from cover to cover?
A second (or Nth) Hide check would be required if the rogue made an attack in between, definitely. Or anything else that would spoil the condition, like casting a spell with a verbal component, using an item with an attack roll, making other noise, etc.
But I think the point here is "the action that keeps you from being found is a Hide check."
Personally, I don't think it's overpowered at all to let a (already hidden) rogue come out of hiding, move 15 feet or so, get a single sneak attack (even with Nick, a second attack won't have advantage...), move 15 feet or so to a new cover position, and re-hide. They'll be giving up Disengage, Dash, Steady Aim, second attacks, etc. to do that, probably taking an opportunity attack, probably investing one or two feats and an expertise to make it work at all reliably, and they can only do it in an environment with suitable amounts of both cover and targets. And their DPS won't quite keep up with dedicated martials...
I'm also not sure what bargaining you are referring to, unless you mean granting advantage or lowering the DC.
( now if the opposing creature happens to spot the sneaking creature, then sure the situation has changed, but the sneaking creature should be given a chance to pause and rethink its actions. Not get punished for doing what they are supposed to be good at.)
"Happens to spot the sneaking creature" is the entire source of ambiguity regarding these rules. As written, if they are invisible, you cannot "spot" them unless one of the triggers in the Hide text occurs and breaks the condition. If "find" requires a Search, then spotting by happenstance is impossible.
"Find" could also include Passive Perception...
"The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check." from the PHB and "Sometimes, asking players to make Wisdom (Perception) checks for their characters tips them off that there’s something they should be searching for, giving them a clue you’d rather they didn’t have. In those circumstances, use characters’ Passive Perception scores instead." from the DMG.
...personally, as a DM I wouldn't use that in combat unless (as mentioned in thread) there was a character in some sort of "overwatch" position. And to make it interesting, such characters are probably also snipers in sniper nests, and communicating "there's a enemy right there!" would give away their hiding position...
Anyway, outside of combat, so meaning when the characters are not suffering from tunnel vision and lethal distraction, I'd invoke all sorts of "common sense" rules, and probably require distractions and what not to sneak directly past otherwise-alert guards. And give the guards other advantages...
So, it's clear to me that there are two points of contention here: 1) You don't like calling a hidden character "invisible." I think the hiding mechanics are just fine; would it help to just rename the condition "unseen" and not get hung up on the idea that hiding makes you transparent? 2) You think it's unreasonable to, when "unseen," just sneak up to or past enemy combatents, without some additional skill check. To me, that makes sense if the enemy is surrounded by bubble wrap or jingly bells scattered on the floor...or some other special circumstance that would make it harder than normal. But, in combat, absent special circumstances like that, the sneaker has already passed a DC 15 Stealth check. They should be good.
So, it's clear to me that there are two points of contention here: 1) You don't like calling a hidden character "invisible." I think the hiding mechanics are just fine; would it help to just rename the condition "unseen" and not get hung up on the idea that hiding makes you transparent? 2) You think it's unreasonable to, when "unseen," just sneak up to or past enemy combatents, without some additional skill check. To me, that makes sense if the enemy is surrounded by bubble wrap or jingly bells scattered on the floor...or some other special circumstance that would make it harder than normal. But, in combat, absent special circumstances like that, the sneaker has already passed a DC 15 Stealth check. They should be good.
I do not have any issue with calling a hidden character invisible. I also don't think it's unreasonable to sneak past a creature without an additional skill check.
My main points of contention have been outlined several times in this thread, but I can reiterate them.
1. The rule has at least three accurate but contradictory interpretations based on the text alone. Pantagruel succinctly outlined them recently, so I won't bother retyping them.
2. I do not think that Hide is meant to be the main use of the stealth action, nor is Invisible(hidden) meant to be the normal state of a character performing a Dexterity(stealth) check.
I am completely fine with calling a creature that is skillfully concealed behind cover invisible, because the definition of the word simply means unable to be seen.
I'm not comfortable with having a creature removed from cover being considered invisible though, both because they are not logically concealed, and because of the potential abuse cases also mentioned recently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In 2024 rules these are not different from each other. If you are "in stealth" that is to have the Invisible condition because they want to mimic BG3 where to visually communicate that a character is hidden it changed to look invisible. The invisible condition now includes both literally being invisible (actually cannot be seen even if someone is looking at you), and effectively being invisible (cannot be seen because people aren't looking at you or can't look at you b/c something is in the way).
However the rules for "finding" a creature, thus ending the Invisible condition that results from Hiding/stealth, differ for in-combat vs not-in-combat. In combat, there is the provision that most enemies are alert and paying attention to everything around them to avoid getting killed, outside of combat that doesn't need to be the case. You could do the "I throw a pebble to distract the guards and sneak past them" outside of combat - though it is left entirely up to the DM how mechanically this works because it completely depends on the situation (e.g. a Beholder would react to that very differently than a humanoid guard) - if it is reasonable to do so, whereas most of the time (except by DM special consideration) you can't do that inside of combat.
I'd wager that they started out by writing two conditions, one for hidden and one for invisible, and realized they had the exact same condition mechanics, only differing in what ends them. But BG3 is a pretty good explanation for why they would expect most players to be on board with it. (Call it the "Unseen Condition" might have been wiser.)
I don't think the bolded part is established anywhere in RAW. Can you provide a citation?
Anyway, in combat, things are pretty ruled by the action economy, and the action-economy way of handling this is with the Search action or with Passive Perception (at DM discretion, as always).
But there are many complicating factors, as you mention --- True Sight and Beholders and other such things just being some examples.
I disagree with this interpretation. I do not think the designers intended to replace stealth checks with the Hide action, nor do I think that finding a shrub to hide behind is intended to be a requirement for beginning any stealthy activity.
I also don't see support anywhere in the text for the idea that invisibility is a prerequisite for making checks related to moving quietly or without attracting attention. An attempt to move quickly and quietly by the player might spur the DM to call for an ability check using Dexterity. Because the goal is to remain unnoticed, the DM might specify that the player can add the modifier from their stealth skill to the check's total.
Nowhere in the sections on checks or proficiencies does it specify that a dexterity check to remain unnoticed must be made "while Invisible", at least not that I saw.
The D20 Test i'm referring to isn't an attack roll but an ability check.
Ex. If a DM determine its trivial to spot a hidden creature walking in an open room then no Wisdom (Perception) check should be needed.
One of the only time as DM i'd ask an hidden creature for a Dexterity (Stealth) check would be to circumstantially determine if it makes sound louder than a whisper ex. moving over broken glass, opening squeaky door etc...
For what matter the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, wheter in combat or not.
The whole point of this discussion is "What, if anything, does a hidden creature need to do to distract or blind others to its presence when it moves out of concealment?"
There are three possible answer to this
My suspicion is that 2024 wanted to change "it usually sees you" to "it usually does not see you" but did not want to go all the way to #2, but if so, they entirely failed to express this intent.
My suspicion is that #2 was intended, exaclty, in combat when the DM would otherwise need to provide complicated rulings under stress. Subject to circumstantial advantage/disadvantage/etc. at DM's discretion.
Whereas out of combat, for "sneaking past castle guards" and the like, it's much easier to track field of vision and distraction shenanigans, and basically play metal-gear-solid-style sneaking rules.
And I think it's quite clear they shifted to "it usually does not see you" as the default, because 360 alert vision made the stealth game kinda stupid.
Frankly, combat already goes slow enough that I’d say we don’t need a “viable” Hide option because it’d just draw out turns unless you go with #2, which would be fairly broken. Any other way to use it where it’s not killed by LoS either involves tracking facing, invites a bunch of theater of the mind arguments over what’s happening, or means the DM needs to stop and check passive perception every time the hidden character comes out of cover. Hide is a niche action mostly for Rogues working the back row, or for unconventional combats. It’s not supposed to be something every Rogue should want to spam nearly every turn.
I agree, and I don't think it is meant to be the new defacto stealth option for exploration either.
I don't know if I agree with that. #2 allows too many abuse cases for the Invisible(hidden) creature. One could RAW weave around the combat arena and not be targetable for several turns, even while in the open, so long as they didn't make an attack or a sound louder than a whisper. Taking actions doesn't even break this version of invisibility, so they could use the Help action or administer first aid without ever being seen. Heck, as written, they could even stand in the open and cast non verbal spells while remaining concealed and untargetable.
Of course the DM is in the position to disallow this as not making sense, but that's a judgement that contradicts the rules as written. I don't think an action should be written in a way that assumes a DM will need to arbitrate against it.
I agree. I would guess the designers had something close to a 1.5 in mind while they wrote the text, and the oversight cropped up because they already understood their own intentions, which we aren't privy to.
Which of course is inevitable, perfection is an unreasonable expectation. I just hope they clarify it at some point, lol.
There are some options that are fast enough to resolve -- for example, you can remove invisibility at the end of the turn (allowing leaping out of cover for a surprise attack).
Invisibility lasting until the end of your turn once cover is broken is a very sensible ruling, I think.
Which also makes Hide fairly nonviable for actually trying to escape or avoid hostilities.
I don't quite follow. Do you mean that the initial hide check should be sufficient to include the creature moving out of cover and toward another instance of cover, or that a second hide check should be rolled when hopping from cover to cover?
I'm also not sure what bargaining you are referring to, unless you mean granting advantage or lowering the DC.
"Happens to spot the sneaking creature" is the entire source of ambiguity regarding these rules. As written, if they are invisible, you cannot "spot" them unless one of the triggers in the Hide text occurs and breaks the condition. If "find" requires a Search, then spotting by happenstance is impossible.
Hiding seems to confer significant protection against detection, so I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
Unless you are considering being Invisible(hidden) to be a requirement of going unnoticed, which does seem to be the interpretation of some.
I interpreted it as follows:
Invisible(hidden): Concealed and protected from sight. Only active scrutiny can reveal the creature.
Dexterity(stealth) - out of cover: Moving quickly and quietly. A successful check makes you unnoticed, but not protected from sight should circumstances warrant a creature looking in your direction.
Movement - no check: You're just walking down a hall. Maybe waving.
I meant remove at end of turn if exposed, not automatically remove at the end of every turn.
A second (or Nth) Hide check would be required if the rogue made an attack in between, definitely. Or anything else that would spoil the condition, like casting a spell with a verbal component, using an item with an attack roll, making other noise, etc.
But I think the point here is "the action that keeps you from being found is a Hide check."
Personally, I don't think it's overpowered at all to let a (already hidden) rogue come out of hiding, move 15 feet or so, get a single sneak attack (even with Nick, a second attack won't have advantage...), move 15 feet or so to a new cover position, and re-hide. They'll be giving up Disengage, Dash, Steady Aim, second attacks, etc. to do that, probably taking an opportunity attack, probably investing one or two feats and an expertise to make it work at all reliably, and they can only do it in an environment with suitable amounts of both cover and targets. And their DPS won't quite keep up with dedicated martials...
"Find" could also include Passive Perception...
"The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check." from the PHB and "Sometimes, asking players to make Wisdom (Perception) checks for their characters tips them off that there’s something they should be searching for, giving them a clue you’d rather they didn’t have. In those circumstances, use characters’ Passive Perception scores instead." from the DMG.
...personally, as a DM I wouldn't use that in combat unless (as mentioned in thread) there was a character in some sort of "overwatch" position. And to make it interesting, such characters are probably also snipers in sniper nests, and communicating "there's a enemy right there!" would give away their hiding position...
Anyway, outside of combat, so meaning when the characters are not suffering from tunnel vision and lethal distraction, I'd invoke all sorts of "common sense" rules, and probably require distractions and what not to sneak directly past otherwise-alert guards. And give the guards other advantages...
So, it's clear to me that there are two points of contention here:
1) You don't like calling a hidden character "invisible." I think the hiding mechanics are just fine; would it help to just rename the condition "unseen" and not get hung up on the idea that hiding makes you transparent?
2) You think it's unreasonable to, when "unseen," just sneak up to or past enemy combatents, without some additional skill check. To me, that makes sense if the enemy is surrounded by bubble wrap or jingly bells scattered on the floor...or some other special circumstance that would make it harder than normal. But, in combat, absent special circumstances like that, the sneaker has already passed a DC 15 Stealth check. They should be good.
I do not have any issue with calling a hidden character invisible. I also don't think it's unreasonable to sneak past a creature without an additional skill check.
My main points of contention have been outlined several times in this thread, but I can reiterate them.
1. The rule has at least three accurate but contradictory interpretations based on the text alone. Pantagruel succinctly outlined them recently, so I won't bother retyping them.
2. I do not think that Hide is meant to be the main use of the stealth action, nor is Invisible(hidden) meant to be the normal state of a character performing a Dexterity(stealth) check.
I am completely fine with calling a creature that is skillfully concealed behind cover invisible, because the definition of the word simply means unable to be seen.
I'm not comfortable with having a creature removed from cover being considered invisible though, both because they are not logically concealed, and because of the potential abuse cases also mentioned recently.