One thing is sure, more clearly written rules tend to be much less subject of debates.
Evidence please? Pathfinder 2e has more clearly written rules but there is still endless discussion of them online too, because tons of people forget the rules or can't find the appropriate rule or are using the wrong rule - e.g. using concealment instead of hiding or cover - or endlessly debating which rule applies in various situations - e.g. whether a swamp monster in a lagoon is concealed? has cover? or is hidden? or are there special "underwater" rules that apply? Can it be more than one of those at once?
And TBH, if the rule generates tons of debate but doesn't actually interfere with anyone's gameplay - which most of you have basically admitted is the case for these rules - then it's actually a boon for the company because look at all the free "engagement" and free advertising they will get from people making "explainer" content about it.
And TBH, if the rule generates tons of debate but doesn't actually interfere with anyone's gameplay - which most of you have basically admitted is the case for these rules.
That is not the case for these rules -- if you can't even determine what a rule is intended to do, the only option is to ignore the rule and create your own house rules. I suspect most people are solving the problem by using the 2014 rules, which while not great, are at least generally comprehensible.
Nope, the design team did not intend for it to be required to use the Search action to find a Hidden creature. If they did they would have specified that: "The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy uses the Search Action to find you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
They did not do that, they intentionally left it vague, so that DMs can rule what constitutes "find you" based on the situation. Just as they intentionally left "you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight" vague and undefined so that DMs can rule what constitutes an enemy's line of sight depending on the situation. If they had intended the Hiding rules to be completely unambiguous and rigorously defined that would have left both those clauses out.
As I said above the design of Hiding is intentionally vague because Hiding is situational and it is a waste of everyone's time to try to define how it works in every possible situation, because it is generally very obvious how hiding works in any given situation. i.e. yes, you can move behind a big set of curtains to hide from an enemy, and that enemy can either use the Search Action to notice the curtains don't look right or to spot your toes poking out from the bottom, but also if the enemy pulls the curtain aside for any other reason - e.g. to open the window - that also constitutes them finding you and you are no longer hidden. It doesn't even have to be the enemy that does it, if one of your friends throws a fireball that incinerates the curtains you are also found by the enemies.
The intention of the designers is for DMs and Players to use their brains to determine when it is / isn't possible to Hide and when a hiding character is / isn't found in any given situation.
------------
Similarly obviously the intent of the design team is that spells that make you invisible make you invisible [note the lack of capitalization thus I am referring to not the Invisible condition]. They would not have wasted space printing spells that don't do anything at all. You can waste your time arguing all you like about whether some pedantic reading of the rule text does or doesn't grammatically support that. But obviously, a spell that is called "Invisibility" is intended to make you invisible until the spell ends.
You are intentionally misreading this thread as an argument.
You are intentionally framing a discussion about game theory as an inability to adjudicate gameplay.
Not everything printed is perfect, or written as intended. This is evidenced by the errata that has already been added, and by errata documents that will come later as a summary of those corrections. No, this does not make it poorly designed, but it does warrant discussion.
If you view the discussion of such things as a "waste of time", do not take part. I will not ask nicely again.
As far as your constructive input goes, I agree that pulling aside a curtain would break the invisible condition. As would an enemy moving to a vantage point that rendered your cover ineffective at blocking line of sight. This is covered by the second bullet point. But, as you can see, while Invisible condition is intact, the search action is required to discern the location or presence of something which is not obvious.
I would note that if the intention is for stealth to be "intentionally vague", they could have just copied "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." from the 2014 rules. However, the stated intent of cutting down on "mother may I" rules in 2024 suggest that they were trying to not be vague... and failed miserably.
I haven't made it all the way through the 2024 DMG yet, but I was looking at it earlier and found this passage that seems to clarify the situation further:
"An important time to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check is when another creature is using the Stealth skill to hide. Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so."
If a hidden creature moves out of Total Cover in any enemy’s line of sight, noticing it should be trivially easy since it prevent Hiding.
Depends on how abstract you take the skill to be. Yes strolling in front of someone with no concealment or cover would be trivially easy. But does the skill roll encompass ideas like you are tossing a stone to draw their attention and line of sight away from where you are walking. The player can or can not narrate it, but that is what the roll that beats a 15 could be interpreted as including. Which is why it is plausible a search check could be needed.
If a hidden creature moves out of Total Cover in any enemy’s line of sight, noticing it should be trivially easy since it prevent Hiding.
Yes I agree. At this point I'm pretty convinced they intended that the conditions required to take the hide action must continue to be present for the creature to remain hidden.
Just like I'm pretty sure that the intent was that the Twilight cleric's flight is only supposed to function while they continue to be in dim light or darkness.
If a hidden creature moves out of Total Cover in any enemy’s line of sight, noticing it should be trivially easy since it prevent Hiding.
Yes I agree. At this point I'm pretty convinced they intended that the conditions required to take the hide action must continue to be present for the creature to remain hidden.
Just like I'm pretty sure that the intent was that the Twilight cleric's flight is only supposed to function while they continue to be in dim light or darkness.
Probably the intent but in both cases it depends on how you see the skill or ability working. For stealth you can assume the slower speed, skill roll etc take that into account where you are pausing at cover and dashing across open areas when they aren't looking or causing distractions so you can. For the ability if you are creating wings of shadow for example you might only need the shadow to create the wings, but not keep them going. Neither the skill nor the ability give much fluff if any on how they work, which makes the intent harder to parse.
For stealth if someone were going to move right out of cover into their line of sight i'd ask are you breaking stealth, if no I'd probably ask what are you doing to maintain your stealth given you are walking right in front of them. And depending on how plausible it was I'd either let it happen or require some other check like deception.
If a hidden creature moves out of Total Cover in any enemy’s line of sight, noticing it should be trivially easy since it prevent Hiding.
Yes I agree. At this point I'm pretty convinced they intended that the conditions required to take the hide action must continue to be present for the creature to remain hidden.
Just like I'm pretty sure that the intent was that the Twilight cleric's flight is only supposed to function while they continue to be in dim light or darkness.
Probably the intent but in both cases it depends on how you see the skill or ability working. For stealth you can assume the slower speed, skill roll etc take that into account where you are pausing at cover and dashing across open areas when they aren't looking or causing distractions so you can. For the ability if you are creating wings of shadow for example you might only need the shadow to create the wings, but not keep them going. Neither the skill nor the ability give much fluff if any on how they work, which makes the intent harder to parse.
For stealth if someone were going to move right out of cover into their line of sight i'd ask are you breaking stealth, if no I'd probably ask what are you doing to maintain your stealth given you are walking right in front of them. And depending on how plausible it was I'd either let it happen or require some other check like deception.
This is kind of what I meant by the second bullet in my post.
"Losing the conditions required to Hide ends the Invisible condition, but does not (necessarily) break stealth."
I think that the hide check makes you invisible as long as you are hidden. You are only hidden and invisible as long a the conditions to take the hide action are true. But, not being invisible/hidden does not make you noticed, it just makes you not invisible. So if you throw a rock and move out of cover while the enemy investigates, you didn't lose stealth, but you aren't invisible/hidden. If the enemy then turns back around while you're out of cover, it doesn't have to search because you are no longer hidden.
To me, it makes sense to have to take the hide action again once you reach a new hiding spot, since you've been out of cover and moving around, and would need to carefully duck away again.
Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so."
Yes, but is an entirely exposed character hidden?
No, I don't think so. It seems like the intent is that you are only hidden while you keep the conditions that were required to make the check in the first place.
Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so."
Yes, but is an entirely exposed character hidden?
If everyone is looking elsewhere, yes.
I'd argue that they are still unnoticed, but not hidden. If a hidden creature is never trivially easy to spot, then a creature that is trivially easy to spot cannot be hidden.
No, I don't think so. It seems like the intent is that you are only hidden while you keep the conditions that were required to make the check in the first place.
That makes hiding basically useless, because you can't make the check if anyone can see you, and being invisible when no-one can see you in the first place is... pointless?
My assumption is that the intent is that you can leap out of a hiding place and attack with advantage, and generally remain unnoticed if it's plausible given the circumstances, but you do have to make the effort of maintaining plausibility -- no leaping out and waving pom-poms. That's not particularly close to what the rules actually say, though.
No, I don't think so. It seems like the intent is that you are only hidden while you keep the conditions that were required to make the check in the first place.
That makes hiding basically useless, because you can't make the check if anyone can see you, and being invisible when no-one can see you in the first place is... pointless?
My assumption is that the intent is that you can leap out of a hiding place and attack with advantage, and generally remain unnoticed if it's plausible given the circumstances, but you do have to make the effort of maintaining plausibility -- no leaping out and waving pom-poms. That's not particularly close to what the rules actually say, though.
Not really pointless. If you are sneaking down a hallway and a guard turns to look, you are spotted.
If you are sneaking down a hallway and hear the guard approaching, then successfully take the Hide action, you are Invisible while in your hiding spot. When the guard turns to look down the hallway, they don't spot you unless they a) Have a reason to take the search action and b) succeed on the check.
You are also not revealed until after taking an attack, so if you make an attack while the enemy is in range of your hiding spot, either ranged or melee, you receive the benefits of being invisible.
No, I don't think so. It seems like the intent is that you are only hidden while you keep the conditions that were required to make the check in the first place.
That makes hiding basically useless, because you can't make the check if anyone can see you, and being invisible when no-one can see you in the first place is... pointless?
My assumption is that the intent is that you can leap out of a hiding place and attack with advantage, and generally remain unnoticed if it's plausible given the circumstances, but you do have to make the effort of maintaining plausibility -- no leaping out and waving pom-poms. That's not particularly close to what the rules actually say, though.
Not really pointless. If you are sneaking down a hallway and a guard turns to look, you are spotted.
If you are sneaking down a hallway and hear the guard approaching, then successfully take the Hide action, you are Invisible while in your hiding spot. When the guard turns to look down the hallway, they don't spot you unless they a) Have a reason to take the search action and b) succeed on the check.
You are also not revealed until after taking an attack, so if you make an attack while the enemy is in range of your hiding spot, either ranged or melee, you receive the benefits of being invisible.
I think the intention is that to make the check, an enemy can't actually see you duck behind cover. Then you remain Invisible while in your hiding spot (behind full or 3/4 cover, or heavily obscured).
Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so."
Yes, but is an entirely exposed character hidden?
If everyone is looking elsewhere, yes.
I'd argue that they are still unnoticed, but not hidden. If a hidden creature is never trivially easy to spot, then a creature that is trivially easy to spot cannot be hidden.
You remain hidden (invisible condition with riders) until someone finds you. By either Passive Perception, a Search action, or DM fiat.
One thing is sure, more clearly written rules tend to be much less subject of debates.
Evidence please? Pathfinder 2e has more clearly written rules but there is still endless discussion of them online too, because tons of people forget the rules or can't find the appropriate rule or are using the wrong rule - e.g. using concealment instead of hiding or cover - or endlessly debating which rule applies in various situations - e.g. whether a swamp monster in a lagoon is concealed? has cover? or is hidden? or are there special "underwater" rules that apply? Can it be more than one of those at once?
And TBH, if the rule generates tons of debate but doesn't actually interfere with anyone's gameplay - which most of you have basically admitted is the case for these rules - then it's actually a boon for the company because look at all the free "engagement" and free advertising they will get from people making "explainer" content about it.
That is not the case for these rules -- if you can't even determine what a rule is intended to do, the only option is to ignore the rule and create your own house rules. I suspect most people are solving the problem by using the 2014 rules, which while not great, are at least generally comprehensible.
Other actions aren't nearly as much subject of debates for exemple, because it's more clear how they work.
Same for Weapon Mastery for example, Nick is much more discussed than any other one.
You are intentionally misreading this thread as an argument.
You are intentionally framing a discussion about game theory as an inability to adjudicate gameplay.
Not everything printed is perfect, or written as intended. This is evidenced by the errata that has already been added, and by errata documents that will come later as a summary of those corrections. No, this does not make it poorly designed, but it does warrant discussion.
If you view the discussion of such things as a "waste of time", do not take part. I will not ask nicely again.
As far as your constructive input goes, I agree that pulling aside a curtain would break the invisible condition. As would an enemy moving to a vantage point that rendered your cover ineffective at blocking line of sight. This is covered by the second bullet point. But, as you can see, while Invisible condition is intact, the search action is required to discern the location or presence of something which is not obvious.
I would note that if the intention is for stealth to be "intentionally vague", they could have just copied "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." from the 2014 rules. However, the stated intent of cutting down on "mother may I" rules in 2024 suggest that they were trying to not be vague... and failed miserably.
I haven't made it all the way through the 2024 DMG yet, but I was looking at it earlier and found this passage that seems to clarify the situation further:
"An important time to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check is when another creature is using the Stealth skill to hide. Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so."
If a hidden creature moves out of Total Cover in any enemy’s line of sight, noticing it should be trivially easy since it prevent Hiding.
Depends on how abstract you take the skill to be. Yes strolling in front of someone with no concealment or cover would be trivially easy. But does the skill roll encompass ideas like you are tossing a stone to draw their attention and line of sight away from where you are walking. The player can or can not narrate it, but that is what the roll that beats a 15 could be interpreted as including. Which is why it is plausible a search check could be needed.
Yes I agree. At this point I'm pretty convinced they intended that the conditions required to take the hide action must continue to be present for the creature to remain hidden.
Just like I'm pretty sure that the intent was that the Twilight cleric's flight is only supposed to function while they continue to be in dim light or darkness.
Probably the intent but in both cases it depends on how you see the skill or ability working. For stealth you can assume the slower speed, skill roll etc take that into account where you are pausing at cover and dashing across open areas when they aren't looking or causing distractions so you can. For the ability if you are creating wings of shadow for example you might only need the shadow to create the wings, but not keep them going. Neither the skill nor the ability give much fluff if any on how they work, which makes the intent harder to parse.
For stealth if someone were going to move right out of cover into their line of sight i'd ask are you breaking stealth, if no I'd probably ask what are you doing to maintain your stealth given you are walking right in front of them. And depending on how plausible it was I'd either let it happen or require some other check like deception.
Yes, but is an entirely exposed character hidden?
If everyone is looking elsewhere, yes.
This is kind of what I meant by the second bullet in my post.
"Losing the conditions required to Hide ends the Invisible condition, but does not (necessarily) break stealth."
I think that the hide check makes you invisible as long as you are hidden. You are only hidden and invisible as long a the conditions to take the hide action are true. But, not being invisible/hidden does not make you noticed, it just makes you not invisible. So if you throw a rock and move out of cover while the enemy investigates, you didn't lose stealth, but you aren't invisible/hidden. If the enemy then turns back around while you're out of cover, it doesn't have to search because you are no longer hidden.
To me, it makes sense to have to take the hide action again once you reach a new hiding spot, since you've been out of cover and moving around, and would need to carefully duck away again.
No, I don't think so. It seems like the intent is that you are only hidden while you keep the conditions that were required to make the check in the first place.
I'd argue that they are still unnoticed, but not hidden. If a hidden creature is never trivially easy to spot, then a creature that is trivially easy to spot cannot be hidden.
That makes hiding basically useless, because you can't make the check if anyone can see you, and being invisible when no-one can see you in the first place is... pointless?
My assumption is that the intent is that you can leap out of a hiding place and attack with advantage, and generally remain unnoticed if it's plausible given the circumstances, but you do have to make the effort of maintaining plausibility -- no leaping out and waving pom-poms. That's not particularly close to what the rules actually say, though.
Not really pointless. If you are sneaking down a hallway and a guard turns to look, you are spotted.
If you are sneaking down a hallway and hear the guard approaching, then successfully take the Hide action, you are Invisible while in your hiding spot. When the guard turns to look down the hallway, they don't spot you unless they a) Have a reason to take the search action and b) succeed on the check.
You are also not revealed until after taking an attack, so if you make an attack while the enemy is in range of your hiding spot, either ranged or melee, you receive the benefits of being invisible.
I think the intention is that to make the check, an enemy can't actually see you duck behind cover. Then you remain Invisible while in your hiding spot (behind full or 3/4 cover, or heavily obscured).
You remain hidden (invisible condition with riders) until someone finds you. By either Passive Perception, a Search action, or DM fiat.