A simple “Unseen” condition that simply grants advantage to checks or attacks against any creature that can’t see you would have been a hell of a better Condition for being hidden then using the Invisible Condition.
There's a ton of ways of cleaning up the rules, but it would help to know what they were trying to do.
A simple “Unseen” condition that simply grants advantage to checks or attacks against any creature that can’t see you would have been a hell of a better Condition for being hidden then using the Invisible Condition.
There's a ton of ways of cleaning up the rules, but it would help to know what they were trying to do.
I actually think this is why I'm so sore about the loss of the "using each ability" section. The use examples can really help to clarify what the designers meant even when a couple words get lost in translation.
Like we've mentioned, it isn't difficult to make adjustments and allow for smooth, reasonable play at the table. We're just trying to sus out the base intent behind the Hide action.
Is it the beginning of stealth, required to go sneaking about?
Is it a duck and cover maneuver used to avoid detection?
Is it primarily a combat action, and not really intended for use outside of initiative?
We likely won't arrive at a satisfying answer until (if) clarification is provided via errata, but I like to think it through and hear others' thoughts anyway.
Based on how the Hide [Action] is written, none of these statements are accurate:
1) Is it the beginning of stealth, required to go sneaking about? > No. There is nothing in the description that supports this. The character taking the action is required to make a Dexterity (Stealth) ability check and on a successful outcome they gain the Invisible condition. This condition doesn't provide any benefits to the character for making future stealth checks or provides benefits to the character's movement. Based on how the action's description is written; it is heavily implied that the character benefiting form the action will be stationary.
2) Is it a duck and cover maneuver used to avoid detection? > The duck and cover maneuver provides a buff to the character taking the action. The Invisible condition provides three benefits: Surprise, Concealed,and Attacks Affected. These benefits do not aid the character in avoiding detection. Surprise gives Advantage on the Initiative roll. Concealed,and Attacks Affected offers defensive and offensive benefits. Nothing written helps the character to avoid detection.
3) Is it primarily a combat action, and not really intended for use outside of initiative? > One of the benefits (Surprise) to action can only be gained when the action is taken outside of Initiative. It is fair to say that a character should be anticipating an Initiative moment; but taking the action before the Initiative roll is beneficial.
The Hide [Action] is not written (or intended) to help with sneaking around. As I stated before, it would be better to homebrew actions to meet the scenarios being discussed in the thread (or just call for Dexterity (Stealth) ability checks and rule accordingly). But the Hide [Action] is not intended to address many of the game scenarios being discussed her; and it is not essential to making Dexterity (Stealth) with respect to sneaking around or avoiding detection.
2) Is it a duck and cover maneuver used to avoid detection? > The duck and cover maneuver provides a buff to the character taking the action. The Invisible condition provides three benefits: Surprise, Concealed,and Attacks Affected. These benefits do not aid the character in avoiding detection. Surprise gives Advantage on the Initiative roll. Concealed,and Attacks Affected offers defensive and offensive benefits. Nothing written helps the character to avoid detection.
I am working under the assumption that the Concealed effect of the Invisible condition means the same as its dictionary definition: Being hidden from view, made secret or unseen.
If that is the case, it absolutely protects from detection by requiring a Search action to even see the hider.
If it is not the case, the spell Invisibility does not protect you from view either, because the only effect of the spell is to grant the Invisible condition.
And yes, I agree none of the numbered points are completely in line with the text as written. As I mentioned, we're kind of looking for the intended function of the hide action, with the assumption that the current rules have some degree of error.
I think some worked examples might help with figuring out how, independent of rules, it seems like stealth ought to work. Here's a set of examples, I'd be curious about answers:
A thief comes across a guard (20' away) in a brightly corridor with an L intersection. He ducks behind the corner, cunning action stealth, then runs out to stab the guard. Does he get the benefit of stealth?
The same as #1, but the corridor is dimly lit (and the guard does not have darkvision).
The same as #1, but rather than running out, he just pops out (half cover) and throws a knife.
The same as #1, but the thief has a fighter ally who remains in the guard's line of sight (but is not obstructing line of sight to the thief).
The same as #4, but the corridor is dimly lit.
The same as #4, but the thief pops out and throws a knife.
A thief comes across a guard in a brightly lit corridor with an L intersection. He ducks behind the corner, cunning action stealth, and stays there. The guard charges around the corner (clear line of sight on the thief). Does he need a search action to find the thief, or can he immediately attack, and if he attacks, does he have disadvantage? If he does have disadvantage (due to the thief's invisible condition), does the thief remain invisible?
As #7, but the corridor is dimly lit.
As #7, but the thief has boots of spider climb and hides on the ceiling.
The Hide [Action] is not written (or intended) to help with sneaking around. As I stated before, it would be better to homebrew actions to meet the scenarios being discussed in the thread (or just call for Dexterity (Stealth) ability checks and rule accordingly). But the Hide [Action] is not intended to address many of the game scenarios being discussed her; and it is not essential to making Dexterity (Stealth) with respect to sneaking around or avoiding detection.
These passages from the 2024 PHB and DMG seem to contradict with this mentality:
"Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak 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."
"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."
2) Is it a duck and cover maneuver used to avoid detection? > The duck and cover maneuver provides a buff to the character taking the action. The Invisible condition provides three benefits: Surprise, Concealed,and Attacks Affected. These benefits do not aid the character in avoiding detection. Surprise gives Advantage on the Initiative roll. Concealed,and Attacks Affected offers defensive and offensive benefits. Nothing written helps the character to avoid detection.
I am working under the assumption that the Concealed effect of the Invisible condition means the same as its dictionary definition: Being hidden from view, made secret or unseen.
If that is the case, it absolutely protects from detection by requiring a Search action to even see the hider.
If it is not the case, the spell Invisibility does not protect you from view either, because the only effect of the spell is to grant the Invisible condition.
And yes, I agree none of the numbered points are completely in line with the text as written. As I mentioned, we're kind of looking for the intended function of the hide action, with the assumption that the current rules have some degree of error.
The Hide [Action] and the Invisible condition are not synonymous. We need to keep on point and ensure we are talking about the correct things.
The Invisible condition doesn't aid in avoiding detection. The rules state a creature can attack another creature that is invisible. And the condition does not provide any benefits to the character making a stealth check or penalties to a creature making a perception check to find the creature. The benefits to being concealed or unseen are: 1) a creature isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen and 2) Attack rolls against the creature have Disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have Advantage.
The perception check made by a searching creature is a regular ability check. If successful, the Hide [Action] ends (thus ending the Invisible condition that was granted by action). The perception check is made to counter the Hide [Action]; and if the creature fails the perception check the creature can still attack the character that is hidden. Failing the perception check has no bearing on if the creature knows the character is present or hinders a creature from taking actions that are directed toward the character (with the exception of actions that require a target to be seen).
The intended function of the Hide [Action] is for a character to use obstructions to gain benefits to defenses against attacks and to gain benefits to making attacks. It provides no additional benefits to sneaking, avoiding detection, or deceiving characters. It comes down to the game situation to dictate if the failed perception check would result in a creature not being able to detect the character or just have difficulty with successfully attacking the character.
The Invisible condition doesn't aid in avoiding detection. The rules state a creature can attack another creature that is invisible. And the condition does not provide any benefits to the character making a stealth check or penalties to a creature making a perception check to find the creature. The benefits to being concealed or unseen are: 1) a creature isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen and 2) Attack rolls against the creature have Disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have Advantage.
Are you trying to assert that being unseen grants benefits that do not actually include literally being unseen? If this is the case, do you assert that casting the invisibility spell does not remove you from sight?
The intended function of the Hide [Action] is for a character to use obstructions to gain benefits to defenses against attacks and to gain benefits to making attacks. It provides no additional benefits to sneaking, avoiding detection, or deceiving characters. It comes down to the game situation to dictate if the failed perception check would result in a creature not being able to detect the character or just have difficulty with successfully attacking the character.
Again, this is in direct contrast with the stated intention in both the 2024 DMG and PHB.
"Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak 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."
"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."
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.
#4 Same as #2 but also uses passive perception. Removes the sillier stuff. Creatures that are generally aware or actively looking can spot hiders who come out of cover, creatures with poor general awareness and not actively looking don't. Simple. Makes sense. Maps to reality really well. Is in line with the rules.
Seems a no brainer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
#4 Same as #2 but also uses passive perception. Removes the sillier stuff. Creatures that are generally aware or actively looking can spot hiders who come out of cover, creatures with poor general awareness and not actively looking don't. Simple. Makes sense. Maps to reality really well. Is in line with the rules.
Seems a no brainer.
I do think that's a step in the right direction, though I'll say that 15 is above the passive perception of nearly all the current (2014) humanoid NPCs, so I'm not certain it's the best solution. In most intrigue situations it still allows just about every one of the silly abuse cases.
For example, a Guard (2014 basic rules) only has a passive perception of 12. A trained member of the city watch... Who still might not see you if you were standing directly in front of them.
The Invisible condition doesn't aid in avoiding detection. The rules state a creature can attack another creature that is invisible. And the condition does not provide any benefits to the character making a stealth check or penalties to a creature making a perception check to find the creature. The benefits to being concealed or unseen are: 1) a creature isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen and 2) Attack rolls against the creature have Disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have Advantage.
Are you trying to assert that being unseen grants benefits that do not actually include literally being unseen? If this is the case, do you assert that casting the invisibility spell does not remove you from sight?
I'd say the implication is the hide action not only makes you unseen but unfound. With the invisibility spell you are concealed but people still might know where you are. Basically hide includes a sort of invisibility to more senses than just sight. It is not outright stated, which again goes to the thrust of this thread as its hard to parse the intent of these rules. But that is the implication of what I get from this section Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. Invisibility doesn't state that finding you is any more difficult than finding a seen person, though obviously it would have to be done with senses other than normal sight. They can pop off shots at you just at disadvantage for example, as you are found, just unseen. And under normal circumstances when hiding vs just being invisible enemies wont even know to search for you. One of the weird things is some of the things that would normally get people to search are actually things that just break your invisibility/hiding.
Sorry, but what exactly are we talking about? There seems to be bunch of different discussions going on about different cases.
There is the "What is required to try to move quietly / not be noticed?" Conversation which seems to boil down to "If there's nobody around why do I need to find cover to start to hide" Which doesn't make any sense, if there is nobody around, then Hiding vs not Hiding doesn't make any difference. You can certainly attempt to move quietly if you want but if there is no threat of being discovered then you shouldn't be rolling anything as per the 2024 d20 Test rules, you can just do that. If there are people around that you are Hiding from then you must have cover from them or be obscured, I don't get where the confusion is:
if you are attempting to sneak through a dungeon and are in one room with a closed door to the other room that contains monsters, you can absolutely Hide while standing in the middle of the room because there is total cover between you and the monsters thus meeting the conditions to Hide.
If someone then opens the door loudly or in a way that initiates combat you will be immediately found because the monsters will be alerted and see you as the cover is gone.
If someone then opens the door quietly without drawing attention, then you remain hidden unless/ until the monsters on the other side of the door are looking in your direction - see: Invisible condition doesn't end until you are found. However, those monsters don't need to make a perception check to spot you if they turn their attention in your direction since there is nothing keeping you hidden.
There is the "Can I run up and sneak attack someone in combat?" debate which is very clearly a No and has been since 2014, unless the DM rules there is a specific situation that would make it possible.
There is a "Can I run from one hiding place to another without being spotted?" discussion which again comes down to whether or not whomever you are trying to hide from is paying attention or not. If they are paying attention to your direction (e.g. in combat, or walking towards you) then no as soon as you leave cover you are found without a Perception check being necessary. If they are not paying attention you could remain hidden. But again it depends on the situation so it is up to the DM how possible it is/isn't in that situation.
The intention of the Perception check is for cases where you remain in your hiding spot. If you are Hiding in an acceptable location, then an enemy can find you if their Perception check beats your Stealth check. If you are not in a hiding spot, an enemy can find you simply by paying attention in your general direction, no check required. The DM determine when an enemy is / is not paying attention in your general direction given the situation at hand.
There is the "Can I run up and sneak attack someone in combat?" debate which is very clearly a No and has been since 2014, unless the DM rules there is a specific situation that would make it possible.
The text that makes this clearly a no is not present in the 2024 rules. (unless I missed it, which is entirely possible).
There is a "Can I run from one hiding place to another without being spotted?" discussion which again comes down to whether or not whomever you are trying to hide from is paying attention or not. If they are paying attention to your direction (e.g. in combat, or walking towards you) then no as soon as you leave cover you are found without a Perception check being necessary. If they are not paying attention you could remain hidden. But again it depends on the situation so it is up to the DM how possible it is/isn't in that situation.
The question here isn't whether or not you are spotted, but whether or not your invisibility is lost after you leave your hiding spot (i.e. cover, obscuration).
Of course you are correct about the situational nature of being spotted, but the invisible(hidden) condition is binary and only removed by the triggers specified in the Hide action. So, a more salient question would be: If you move from one hiding spot to the next and are not spotted, does the Invisible(hidden) condition carry from one spot to the other? Is it maintained for the travel between hiding locations, or must you make a second hiding check at the next instance of cover to regain the Invisible(hidden) condition?
These answers can always depend on the consensus between players and DM, that's rule zero. But the base rule only specifically calls out that the DM decides when it is appropriate to hide, not when it is appropriate to lose invisibility, so it seems like the designers thought they had made the ending triggers clear enough.
The intention of the Perception check is for cases where you remain in your hiding spot. If you are Hiding in an acceptable location, then an enemy can find you if their Perception check beats your Stealth check. If you are not in a hiding spot, an enemy can find you simply by paying attention in your general direction, no check required. The DM determine when an enemy is / is not paying attention in your general direction given the situation at hand.
I think this as well, but many others do not. Leaving the hiding spot is not specified as a trigger for losing the Invisible(hidden) condition. To me it seems obvious, but others have raised some counter points that are not unreasonable.
1.) The designers currently intend for the Hide action to be the main use of Dexterity(stealth).
I disagree with this personally, but this passage does support the idea that it is meant to be used as a large part of avoiding notice:
"Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak 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."
This has led to some arguing that Invisible(hidden) is synonymous with "unnoticed" in this version of the rules, and that breaking one breaks the other.
2.) Hide is mainly intended (or at least equally intended) as a combat action.
The action itself mentions breaking the condition after an attack, which speaks to an intent of creating opportunities for attacks with advantage while Invisible(hidden). I think it is ridiculous to allow an Invisible(hidden) creature to run around the battlefield unseen and untargetable, but I also think it is uncool (and I love things that are cool) to strip the skirmisher playstyle of all fantastical elements, whether the character is magical or not.
That is why, in combat, I would likely rule that a successfully hidden creature loses their invisibility at the end of their turn instead of immediately upon exiting cover (neither of which are currently RAW). I think letting the player do one cool thing after springing from hiding is a great compromise.
So, the reason so many disparate scenarios are floating around in this thread is because people are trying to cross examine how the Hide action works in different situations in the hopes of uncovering its "base intended function" if you will.
Of course you are correct about the situational nature of being spotted, but the invisible(hidden) condition is binary and only removed by the triggers specified in the Hide action
"being spotted" == "being found". As I said many pages ago, the requirements to be "found" is deliberately not described because they are situational. Your Invisible condition from being Hidden ends if you are found by the enemies, you are found by the enemies if they notice you, whether or not they notice you is up to DM discretion because it depends on the enemy and the situation.
The intention of the designers is clear. It doesn't matter what you 'want' the rules to allow or not. The intention is that the Hide action based on what is written in the rules is that it :
grants you the Invisible condition until you are found. (PHB Invisible condition, Hide action)
a successful Perception check agains your Stealth check definitely finds you and removes the Invisible condition. (PHB Hide action)
if it is trivially easy to find a hidden creature it is automatically found, and their Invisibility condition removed, no check required. (DMG d20 Tests)
whether or not it is considered trivially easy to find a hidden creature is determined by the DM given the situation. (DMG d20Tests)
According to 2014 SRD: 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. -> recommends to DMs that it is trivially easy for enemies to find hiding creatures if they come out of their hiding spot to approach them while in combat.
The intention of Hiding rules is and has always been to leave it up to DM interpretation of the situation because Hiding is completely dependent on the situation and it is a waste of everyone's time and would result in bad gameplay to have hard-and-fast rules (see the stupidity of Skyrim stealth).
According to 2014 SRD: 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. -> recommends to DMs that it is trivially easy for enemies to find hiding creatures if they come out of their hiding spot to approach them.
That has been effectively removed (as far as I can tell). Probably for good reason; the "fog of war" is way more interesting and "realistic" and the 2014 alertness made stealth-in-combat very limited.
Obviously, it is difficult to say if this was on purpose, because they haven't spent much time discussing intent of the new hiding rules. But a sign that points in this direction: the 2024 version of the Observant feat gives "Quick Search. You can take the Search action as a Bonus Action." This definitely suggests they intend the Search rules to be done in combat time, subject to the action economy, and "observant" people to be better (faster) at finding hidden people in combat. And it replaced what was in 2014 a bonus to passive perception and passive investigation. Again, implying that active search actions are meant to be the norm, which would play very well alongside "finding" people using the new hiding rules.
If you move from one hiding spot to the next and are not spotted, does the Invisible(hidden) condition carry from one spot to the other? Is it maintained for the travel between hiding locations, or must you make a second hiding check at the next instance of cover to regain the Invisible(hidden) condition?
Yes, the Invisible Condition doesn't end until you are found, or make a noise above a whisper. If neither of those things occur while you move from one spot to another you remain Hidden & effectively Invisible and you do not need to roll another check. If either of them do happen then you are found, lose the invisible condition, and must reroll to regain it.
Leaving the hiding spot is not specified as a trigger for losing the Invisible(hidden) condition.
Correct it isn't because leaving the hiding spot and "being found" are not the same thing, but they are related to each other. Leaving a hiding spot can make it trivially easy for an enemy to "find" you thus making you automatically lose the Invisible condition without the enemy needing to make a perception check - because it is trivially easy. But it doesn't always do so, hence why whether or not it is trivially easy for enemies to find you is left up to the DM to adjudicate given the situation.
That is why, in combat, I would likely rule that a successfully hidden creature loses their invisibility at the end of their turn instead of immediately upon exiting cover (neither of which are currently RAW)
Those would fall under RAW since it is left to DM interpretation what conditions are required to make it trivially easy to find a creature. You can choose to rule that no matter the situation, it is never trivially easy for an enemy to find a hidden creature until the end of the Hider's turn. But another DM can rule completely differently and both of those are still RAW. RAI is that there is no universal truth for when it is or isn't trivially easy for an enemy to find a hidden creature, and DMs should not feel like their hands are tied to allow players to using the Hide action in implausible exploitative ways, and should adjust depending on the situation to maximize the fun of the game for their particular table.
The Dungeon Master Guide has few examples of Dexterity (Stealth) check VS Passive Perception scores.
Ending A chase: A chase ends when one side or the other stops, when each quarry escapes, or when the pursuers are close enough to their quarry to catch it. If neither side gives up the chase, the quarry makes a Dexterity (Stealth) check on Initiative count 0 each round, after every participant in the chase has taken its turn. If the quarry is never out of the lead pursuer’s sight, the check fails automatically. Otherwise, compare the check’s total to the Passive Perception scores of the pursuers. If the quarry consists of multiple creatures, they all make the check separately, so it’s possible for one quarry to escape while others remain in the chase.
Escape Factor: If the total of the quarry’s check is greater than the highest Passive Perception score of the pursuers, the quarry escapes. If not, the chase continues for another round. Escape doesn’t necessarily mean the quarry has outpaced its pursuers. For example, in a city, escape might mean the quarry ducked into a crowd or slipped around a corner, leaving no clue as to where it went.
Guard Post: Sapient, social denizens of the dungeon generally guard the entrances to their shared spaces. A guard post may just be a room with a table where bored sentries play a dice game, or it might be a pair of iron golems backed up by spellcasters hiding in balconies overhead. When you design a guard post, decide how many guards are on duty, note their Passive Perception scores, and decide what they do when they notice intruders. Some will rush headlong into a fight, while others will negotiate, sound an alarm, or flee to get help.
According to 2014 SRD: 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. -> recommends to DMs that it is trivially easy for enemies to find hiding creatures if they come out of their hiding spot to approach them.
That has been effectively removed (as far as I can tell). Probably for good reason; the "fog of war" is way more interesting and "realistic" and the 2014 alertness made stealth-in-combat very limited.
Obviously, it is difficult to say if this was on purpose, because they haven't spent much time discussing intent of the new hiding rules. But a sign that points in this direction: the 2024 version of the Observant feat gives "Quick Search. You can take the Search action as a Bonus Action." This definitely suggests they intend the Search rules to be done in combat time
I strongly disagree. Influence has also been made an action, but it is clearly not intended to be used in combat frequently. Likewise Study has also been made an action and there is a feat that grants it as a bonus action but it still largely has no use in combat. Arcane Trickster has been able to pick locks as a BA since 2014 and it wasn't intended to be used in combat frequently. Those a clearly just reorganization of the rules based on modular design principals like a computer programmer would do if they were designing the game - likely a result of the influx of videogame developers into the WotC workforce.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if they are also inspired by 4e which used an initiative order and defined actions for social encounters too. It would certainly make it easier to build AI DMs if all encounters use initiative and a list of defined actions.
There's a ton of ways of cleaning up the rules, but it would help to know what they were trying to do.
I actually think this is why I'm so sore about the loss of the "using each ability" section. The use examples can really help to clarify what the designers meant even when a couple words get lost in translation.
Based on how the Hide [Action] is written, none of these statements are accurate:
1) Is it the beginning of stealth, required to go sneaking about?
> No. There is nothing in the description that supports this. The character taking the action is required to make a Dexterity (Stealth) ability check and on a successful outcome they gain the Invisible condition. This condition doesn't provide any benefits to the character for making future stealth checks or provides benefits to the character's movement. Based on how the action's description is written; it is heavily implied that the character benefiting form the action will be stationary.
2) Is it a duck and cover maneuver used to avoid detection?
> The duck and cover maneuver provides a buff to the character taking the action. The Invisible condition provides three benefits: Surprise, Concealed, and Attacks Affected. These benefits do not aid the character in avoiding detection. Surprise gives Advantage on the Initiative roll. Concealed, and Attacks Affected offers defensive and offensive benefits. Nothing written helps the character to avoid detection.
3) Is it primarily a combat action, and not really intended for use outside of initiative?
> One of the benefits (Surprise) to action can only be gained when the action is taken outside of Initiative. It is fair to say that a character should be anticipating an Initiative moment; but taking the action before the Initiative roll is beneficial.
The Hide [Action] is not written (or intended) to help with sneaking around. As I stated before, it would be better to homebrew actions to meet the scenarios being discussed in the thread (or just call for Dexterity (Stealth) ability checks and rule accordingly). But the Hide [Action] is not intended to address many of the game scenarios being discussed her; and it is not essential to making Dexterity (Stealth) with respect to sneaking around or avoiding detection.
I am working under the assumption that the Concealed effect of the Invisible condition means the same as its dictionary definition: Being hidden from view, made secret or unseen.
If that is the case, it absolutely protects from detection by requiring a Search action to even see the hider.
If it is not the case, the spell Invisibility does not protect you from view either, because the only effect of the spell is to grant the Invisible condition.
And yes, I agree none of the numbered points are completely in line with the text as written. As I mentioned, we're kind of looking for the intended function of the hide action, with the assumption that the current rules have some degree of error.
I think some worked examples might help with figuring out how, independent of rules, it seems like stealth ought to work. Here's a set of examples, I'd be curious about answers:
These passages from the 2024 PHB and DMG seem to contradict with this mentality:
"Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak 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."
"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."
The Hide [Action] and the Invisible condition are not synonymous. We need to keep on point and ensure we are talking about the correct things.
The Invisible condition doesn't aid in avoiding detection. The rules state a creature can attack another creature that is invisible. And the condition does not provide any benefits to the character making a stealth check or penalties to a creature making a perception check to find the creature. The benefits to being concealed or unseen are: 1) a creature isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen and 2) Attack rolls against the creature have Disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have Advantage.
The perception check made by a searching creature is a regular ability check. If successful, the Hide [Action] ends (thus ending the Invisible condition that was granted by action). The perception check is made to counter the Hide [Action]; and if the creature fails the perception check the creature can still attack the character that is hidden. Failing the perception check has no bearing on if the creature knows the character is present or hinders a creature from taking actions that are directed toward the character (with the exception of actions that require a target to be seen).
The intended function of the Hide [Action] is for a character to use obstructions to gain benefits to defenses against attacks and to gain benefits to making attacks. It provides no additional benefits to sneaking, avoiding detection, or deceiving characters. It comes down to the game situation to dictate if the failed perception check would result in a creature not being able to detect the character or just have difficulty with successfully attacking the character.
The Hide action grants the Invisible condition and nothing else. The terms are not synonymous, but they are inexorably linked.
Are you trying to assert that being unseen grants benefits that do not actually include literally being unseen? If this is the case, do you assert that casting the invisibility spell does not remove you from sight?
Again, this is in direct contrast with the stated intention in both the 2024 DMG and PHB.
"Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak 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."
"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."
#4
Same as #2 but also uses passive perception.
Removes the sillier stuff. Creatures that are generally aware or actively looking can spot hiders who come out of cover, creatures with poor general awareness and not actively looking don't. Simple. Makes sense. Maps to reality really well. Is in line with the rules.
Seems a no brainer.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I do think that's a step in the right direction, though I'll say that 15 is above the passive perception of nearly all the current (2014) humanoid NPCs, so I'm not certain it's the best solution. In most intrigue situations it still allows just about every one of the silly abuse cases.
For example, a Guard (2014 basic rules) only has a passive perception of 12. A trained member of the city watch... Who still might not see you if you were standing directly in front of them.
I'd say the implication is the hide action not only makes you unseen but unfound. With the invisibility spell you are concealed but people still might know where you are. Basically hide includes a sort of invisibility to more senses than just sight. It is not outright stated, which again goes to the thrust of this thread as its hard to parse the intent of these rules. But that is the implication of what I get from this section Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. Invisibility doesn't state that finding you is any more difficult than finding a seen person, though obviously it would have to be done with senses other than normal sight. They can pop off shots at you just at disadvantage for example, as you are found, just unseen. And under normal circumstances when hiding vs just being invisible enemies wont even know to search for you. One of the weird things is some of the things that would normally get people to search are actually things that just break your invisibility/hiding.
That's what it did in 2014, but in 2024 it doesn't.
Sorry, but what exactly are we talking about? There seems to be bunch of different discussions going on about different cases.
There is the "What is required to try to move quietly / not be noticed?" Conversation which seems to boil down to "If there's nobody around why do I need to find cover to start to hide" Which doesn't make any sense, if there is nobody around, then Hiding vs not Hiding doesn't make any difference. You can certainly attempt to move quietly if you want but if there is no threat of being discovered then you shouldn't be rolling anything as per the 2024 d20 Test rules, you can just do that. If there are people around that you are Hiding from then you must have cover from them or be obscured, I don't get where the confusion is:
if you are attempting to sneak through a dungeon and are in one room with a closed door to the other room that contains monsters, you can absolutely Hide while standing in the middle of the room because there is total cover between you and the monsters thus meeting the conditions to Hide.
If someone then opens the door loudly or in a way that initiates combat you will be immediately found because the monsters will be alerted and see you as the cover is gone.
If someone then opens the door quietly without drawing attention, then you remain hidden unless/ until the monsters on the other side of the door are looking in your direction - see: Invisible condition doesn't end until you are found. However, those monsters don't need to make a perception check to spot you if they turn their attention in your direction since there is nothing keeping you hidden.
There is the "Can I run up and sneak attack someone in combat?" debate which is very clearly a No and has been since 2014, unless the DM rules there is a specific situation that would make it possible.
There is a "Can I run from one hiding place to another without being spotted?" discussion which again comes down to whether or not whomever you are trying to hide from is paying attention or not. If they are paying attention to your direction (e.g. in combat, or walking towards you) then no as soon as you leave cover you are found without a Perception check being necessary. If they are not paying attention you could remain hidden. But again it depends on the situation so it is up to the DM how possible it is/isn't in that situation.
The intention of the Perception check is for cases where you remain in your hiding spot. If you are Hiding in an acceptable location, then an enemy can find you if their Perception check beats your Stealth check. If you are not in a hiding spot, an enemy can find you simply by paying attention in your general direction, no check required. The DM determine when an enemy is / is not paying attention in your general direction given the situation at hand.
We are attempting to parse out the intention of the Hide action.
Basically, the main question of this discussion is "What is the hide action meant to do, and how is it meant to do it?"
The text that makes this clearly a no is not present in the 2024 rules. (unless I missed it, which is entirely possible).
The question here isn't whether or not you are spotted, but whether or not your invisibility is lost after you leave your hiding spot (i.e. cover, obscuration).
Of course you are correct about the situational nature of being spotted, but the invisible(hidden) condition is binary and only removed by the triggers specified in the Hide action. So, a more salient question would be: If you move from one hiding spot to the next and are not spotted, does the Invisible(hidden) condition carry from one spot to the other? Is it maintained for the travel between hiding locations, or must you make a second hiding check at the next instance of cover to regain the Invisible(hidden) condition?
These answers can always depend on the consensus between players and DM, that's rule zero. But the base rule only specifically calls out that the DM decides when it is appropriate to hide, not when it is appropriate to lose invisibility, so it seems like the designers thought they had made the ending triggers clear enough.
I think this as well, but many others do not. Leaving the hiding spot is not specified as a trigger for losing the Invisible(hidden) condition. To me it seems obvious, but others have raised some counter points that are not unreasonable.
1.) The designers currently intend for the Hide action to be the main use of Dexterity(stealth).
I disagree with this personally, but this passage does support the idea that it is meant to be used as a large part of avoiding notice:
"Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak 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."
This has led to some arguing that Invisible(hidden) is synonymous with "unnoticed" in this version of the rules, and that breaking one breaks the other.
2.) Hide is mainly intended (or at least equally intended) as a combat action.
The action itself mentions breaking the condition after an attack, which speaks to an intent of creating opportunities for attacks with advantage while Invisible(hidden). I think it is ridiculous to allow an Invisible(hidden) creature to run around the battlefield unseen and untargetable, but I also think it is uncool (and I love things that are cool) to strip the skirmisher playstyle of all fantastical elements, whether the character is magical or not.
That is why, in combat, I would likely rule that a successfully hidden creature loses their invisibility at the end of their turn instead of immediately upon exiting cover (neither of which are currently RAW). I think letting the player do one cool thing after springing from hiding is a great compromise.
So, the reason so many disparate scenarios are floating around in this thread is because people are trying to cross examine how the Hide action works in different situations in the hopes of uncovering its "base intended function" if you will.
"being spotted" == "being found". As I said many pages ago, the requirements to be "found" is deliberately not described because they are situational. Your Invisible condition from being Hidden ends if you are found by the enemies, you are found by the enemies if they notice you, whether or not they notice you is up to DM discretion because it depends on the enemy and the situation.
The intention of the designers is clear. It doesn't matter what you 'want' the rules to allow or not. The intention is that the Hide action based on what is written in the rules is that it :
According to 2014 SRD: 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. -> recommends to DMs that it is trivially easy for enemies to find hiding creatures if they come out of their hiding spot to approach them while in combat.
The intention of Hiding rules is and has always been to leave it up to DM interpretation of the situation because Hiding is completely dependent on the situation and it is a waste of everyone's time and would result in bad gameplay to have hard-and-fast rules (see the stupidity of Skyrim stealth).
That has been effectively removed (as far as I can tell). Probably for good reason; the "fog of war" is way more interesting and "realistic" and the 2014 alertness made stealth-in-combat very limited.
Obviously, it is difficult to say if this was on purpose, because they haven't spent much time discussing intent of the new hiding rules. But a sign that points in this direction:
the 2024 version of the Observant feat gives "Quick Search. You can take the Search action as a Bonus Action."
This definitely suggests they intend the Search rules to be done in combat time, subject to the action economy, and "observant" people to be better (faster) at finding hidden people in combat. And it replaced what was in 2014 a bonus to passive perception and passive investigation. Again, implying that active search actions are meant to be the norm, which would play very well alongside "finding" people using the new hiding rules.
Yes, the Invisible Condition doesn't end until you are found, or make a noise above a whisper. If neither of those things occur while you move from one spot to another you remain Hidden & effectively Invisible and you do not need to roll another check. If either of them do happen then you are found, lose the invisible condition, and must reroll to regain it.
Correct it isn't because leaving the hiding spot and "being found" are not the same thing, but they are related to each other. Leaving a hiding spot can make it trivially easy for an enemy to "find" you thus making you automatically lose the Invisible condition without the enemy needing to make a perception check - because it is trivially easy. But it doesn't always do so, hence why whether or not it is trivially easy for enemies to find you is left up to the DM to adjudicate given the situation.
Those would fall under RAW since it is left to DM interpretation what conditions are required to make it trivially easy to find a creature. You can choose to rule that no matter the situation, it is never trivially easy for an enemy to find a hidden creature until the end of the Hider's turn. But another DM can rule completely differently and both of those are still RAW. RAI is that there is no universal truth for when it is or isn't trivially easy for an enemy to find a hidden creature, and DMs should not feel like their hands are tied to allow players to using the Hide action in implausible exploitative ways, and should adjust depending on the situation to maximize the fun of the game for their particular table.
The Dungeon Master Guide has few examples of Dexterity (Stealth) check VS Passive Perception scores.
I strongly disagree. Influence has also been made an action, but it is clearly not intended to be used in combat frequently. Likewise Study has also been made an action and there is a feat that grants it as a bonus action but it still largely has no use in combat. Arcane Trickster has been able to pick locks as a BA since 2014 and it wasn't intended to be used in combat frequently. Those a clearly just reorganization of the rules based on modular design principals like a computer programmer would do if they were designing the game - likely a result of the influx of videogame developers into the WotC workforce.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if they are also inspired by 4e which used an initiative order and defined actions for social encounters too. It would certainly make it easier to build AI DMs if all encounters use initiative and a list of defined actions.
The biggest reason to think melee stealth is supposed to be possible in 2024 is pouncing monsters such as the tiger.