"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.
Yes, I can see that you are certain of this. Others are less certain.
"Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
The order of items here makes it easy to assume that the Hide action text is describing the means by which a creature may be found, and then the consequences of being found.
Saying that the requirements for "found" are not described ignores this intuitive link. Asserting that the omission of a clarification in the very next sentence is a deliberate choice by the designers assumes both that the text is without error and that you are knowledgeable of the designers' intentions.
I'm not saying that you are incorrect, only that your interpretation is one of many. The intent is widely disagreed on and as such it cannot be stated that "The intention of the designers is clear", but only that "The intention of the designers is clear to you".
The biggest reason to think melee stealth is supposed to be possible in 2024 is pouncing monsters such as the tiger.
Ugh.. if they had made one change, it would work fine. Just have the free movement be part of the Pounce, it's a G--D---- pounce after all, it should be able to jump as part of the attack. I don't get why WotC are so against jump-attacks.
I strongly disagree. Influence has also been made an action, but it is clearly not intended to be used in combat frequently.
This is categorically incorrect. The following is from the Combat section of Chapter one of the 2024 PHB:
Communicating. You can communicate however you are able—through brief utterances and gestures—as you take your turn. Doing so uses neither your action nor your move.
Extended communication, such as a detailed explanation of something or an attempt to persuade a foe, requires an action. The Influence action is the main way you try to influence a monster.
The Panther or Tiger's Prowl action doesn't make Hide any easier to try to conceal yourself though.
Yes, but they have increased damage on attacks with advantage, and no obvious sources of advantage other than being hidden.
While Pounce benefit from Hide, it can be be used with any source of Advantage and wouldn't say it's the biggest reason to think melee stealth is supposed to be possible in 2024.
I'd also look at Rogue and Sneak Attack, especially when to keep mobility.
I'd say the implication is the hide action not only makes you unseen but unfound.
That's what it did in 2014, but in 2024 it doesn't.
Maybe, that is why I phrased it as, I'd say implication. There is no express language for it. But needing to be found would normally indicate they don't know where you are. Invisibility on its own does not state you need to be found.
Edit to add as a total aside the hide rules really buffed see invisibility as a spell.
Maybe, that is why I phrased it as, I'd say implication. There is no express language for it.
To be implied, there would have to be language that at least suggested that interpretation, and there isn't.
For the most part, 2024 made hiding worse -- it no longer conceals your location, it no longer works against blindsight, see invisibility, or truesight, and "3/4 cover, full cover, or heavily obscured, and no line of sight" is a worse set of requirements than "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly", which at least makes hiding when lightly obscured or in half cover an option. The fixed DC of 15 makes hiding worse at low levels, and probably also at high levels, since most of the creatures with a passive perception of more than 15 also have enhanced senses of some sort (sure, you no longer need to beat that ancient red dragon's passive perception of 26... but since it has 60' of blindsight, there's a good chance hiding doesn't actually do anything).
Edit to add as a total aside the hide rules really buffed see invisibility as a spell.
Yes, hiding being completely useless against anything that can see invisible (through blindsight, see invisibility, truesight, or other abilities) is... not good.
Don't confuse Blindsight/Truesight/etc. for Tremorsense. Tremorsense makes it way easier (automatic under the right circumstances) to find people. The others don't counter hiding directly; by the time you know where to look they no longer have the invisible condition.
That's actually relevant to the invisibility spell et al, as well. Being able to see someone who is invisible doesn't remove the condition; it just allows you to qualify for sight-based mechanics, but some parts (well, one part) of the condition would still hold (they still get advantage on initiative, basically).
Basically, when hidden, being found is a prerequisite for being seen, but if you're "only" hidden, it's the only prerequisite for being seen. Whereas if someone is only invisible, you know where they are but can't see them --- being magically invisible doesn't mean you are automatically hidden. (And those right there are concepts I wish the book actually covered directly. But "rulings, not rules" amiright?)
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 Hide action grants the Invisible condition and nothing else. The terms are not synonymous, but they are inexorably linked.
Agree with the first sentence.
The second sentence I don't feel is truly accurate. There are several ways to get the Invisible condition in the game, it is not limited to only taking the Hide [Action]. A creature can have the Invisible condition without attempting to hide; and just because there is a scenario where a creature could achieve a goal because they were invisible doesn't mean it is guaranteed to be repeated if they take the Hide [Action] because there could be other considerations or requirements that need to be met. There are examples and questions brought up in this thread discussing how and when the Invisible condition ends when granted by the Hide [Action]; in several of those examples, if the Invisible condition was granted by a different game effect, it would not end in the situation because the character would still meet the requirements to have the condition. This is what I meant, that we do not consider that the Hide [Action] is always a requirement when discussing a character attempting activities while being invisible.
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?
No. Absolutely not. I was listing the in game benefits that a character gains from being unseen. One of them literally states the creature is immune to effects that require them to be seen. This is because they are unseen. What about my statement implies "being unseen grants benefits that do not actually include literally being unseen". Again, the first benefit listed is an immunity to effects that requires the creature to be seen; this is because the creature cannot be seen.
Detection is not limited to just being seen. It is possible that a character can know if the presence of, even know the location of, another creature but cannot see the creature. Being unseen (the Invisible condition) does not impose any penalties to the perception checks. Taking the Hide [Action] is a straight up stealth check; which is common throughout the game. "The Invisible condition doesn't aid in avoiding detection" is in references tot he fact that the condition doesn't apply something like +X bonus the characters DC to be found or requires a creature to first succeed on a perception check prior to attempting an attack roll agains the invisible creature.
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."
So the first reference you provide states: 1) For a creature to hide it must take the Hide [Action] (which is logical; and no arguments here) 2) It states that it is common for creatures to hide and provides narrative examples when a creature would attempt to hide. The statement does not change how the Hide [Action] works in the game. The action doesn't increase you perception on ability checks when attempting to spy. The action doesn't increase your stealth check when trying to move past a guard. The action does help with attempting an ambush. This statement also doesn't say that hiding is required to attempt these actions. It just lists narrative examples in the game when a creature may opt to attempt to hide. I am discussing how the mechanics of the action work in game.
The second citation makes sense, and no challenge here and I don't think any posts have said otherwise.
Maybe, that is why I phrased it as, I'd say implication. There is no express language for it.
To be implied, there would have to be language that at least suggested that interpretation, and there isn't.
For the most part, 2024 made hiding worse -- it no longer conceals your location, it no longer works against blindsight, see invisibility, or truesight, and "3/4 cover, full cover, or heavily obscured, and no line of sight" is a worse set of requirements than "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly", which at least makes hiding when lightly obscured or in half cover an option. The fixed DC of 15 makes hiding worse at low levels, and probably also at high levels, since most of the creatures with a passive perception of more than 15 also have enhanced senses of some sort (sure, you no longer need to beat that ancient red dragon's passive perception of 26... but since it has 60' of blindsight, there's a good chance hiding doesn't actually do anything).
Edit to add as a total aside the hide rules really buffed see invisibility as a spell.
Yes, hiding being completely useless against anything that can see invisible (through blindsight, see invisibility, truesight, or other abilities) is... not good.
I think there is language that suggests it which is why I listed it. Feel free to disagree, its a free country.
Again, you don't have to be found if people know where you are.
The Hide action grants the Invisible condition and nothing else. The terms are not synonymous, but they are inexorably linked.
Agree with the first sentence.
The second sentence I don't feel is truly accurate. There are several ways to get the Invisible condition in the game, it is not limited to only taking the Hide [Action]. A creature can have the Invisible condition without attempting to hide; and just because there is a scenario where a creature could achieve a goal because they were invisible doesn't mean it is guaranteed to be repeated if they take the Hide [Action] because there could be other considerations or requirements that need to be met.
You are quite correct; I should have specified that I meant specifically that Hide and the Invisible(hidden) condition -that is, invisibility with the Hide [Action] specific riders- are linked, not necessarily other instances of the Invisible condition.
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?
No. Absolutely not. I was listing the in game benefits that a character gains from being unseen. One of them literally states the creature is immune to effects that require them to be seen. This is because they are unseen. What about my statement implies "being unseen grants benefits that do not actually include literally being unseen". Again, the first benefit listed is an immunity to effects that requires the creature to be seen; this is because the creature cannot be seen.
I see, I took "doesn't aid in avoiding detection" as being an assertion that it does not prevent you from being seen and therefore does not reasonably confer any narrative aid in going undetected. I have encountered that particular argument before and apparently allowed my anticipation of it to color my reading of your statement.
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.
I had the same misinterpretation here, where I assumed you meant it was not reasonable to take the Hide action while attempting to avoid detection, because the benefits it confers are purely combat related.
I apologize for the misunderstanding; I'll take care to read a bit better next time!
Don't confuse Blindsight/Truesight/etc. for Tremorsense. Tremorsense makes it way easier (automatic under the right circumstances) to find people. The others don't counter hiding directly; by the time you know where to look they no longer have the invisible condition.
I was just about to say something along these lines. See Invisibility allows you to see an Invisible creature "as if they were visible", and even visible creatures can't be seen through full cover or heavy obscurement. (3/4 cover is potentially a different story, but hey, what are ya gonna do?)
Even with Truesight, you cannot see an Invisible creature behind Total Cover. This isn't explicitly stated in that Special Sense (it's mentioned in Blindsight, tough), but it makes sense because you don't have line of sight with the hidden creature.
If they are behind total cover you can't see them. It is not about them being invisible or visible. But as soon as they pop out of cover to do something they would not be invisible. Even if you fall on the you need a search check to find them side of this discussion, the invisibility is broken as soon as they break cover with see invisible. I assume even the most stringent reading of hiding would normally allow them to pop out to 3/4 cover and fire off a shot before invisibility/hide is broken, well with see invisible their invisible condition would break as soon as they popped out and before the shot was fired. That is a solid buff to a 2nd level spell as hidden/invisible enemies imo are a lot more common than magically invisible enemies.
If they are behind total cover you can't see them. It is not about them being invisible or visible. But as soon as they pop out of cover to do something they would not be invisible. Even if you fall on the you need a search check to find them side of this discussion, the invisibility is broken as soon as they break cover with see invisible. I assume even the most stringent reading of hiding would normally allow them to pop out to 3/4 cover and fire off a shot before invisibility/hide is broken, well with see invisible their invisible condition would break as soon as they popped out and before the shot was fired. That is a solid buff to a 2nd level spell as hidden/invisible enemies imo are a lot more common than magically invisible enemies.
I don't think that's a good interpretation. See Invisible doesn't tell you where to look. "Hidden" means they don't know where you are; if you just ducked behind cover and they know damn well where you are, you aren't hidden (so "there's only one tree to hide behind and everyone is watching" is a fine example for "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding").
If you believe you can maintain the hidden-invisible condition after leaving cover (as I do), it's because you are using your Stealth skills to stay out of the "view arc" of all the bad guys. The reason you are "invisible" is because they aren't looking at you (ever seen Mystery Men?). See Invisible (and Truesight) do not extend your view arc. Blindsight does, within its usually-limited range, and Tremorsense does, within its range and same-surface limitation.
In combat, See Invisible would not grant auto-success on Search actions, nor would it grant a bonus (or auto-success) to Passive Perception. It would not let you auto-find hidden people. It would let you qualify as seeing invisible-but-not-hidden people, which negates most-but-not-all of the invisible condition.
If the DM rule a creature Invisible via Hide or Invisibility is not in your line of sight, then See Invisibility will will not help see it in any way. An hidden creature could still be found with other senses of perception though.
For grid play, rules for Line of Sightare easy to adjudicate for DM but arbitrarily determined when playing in theather of the mind.
Invisible (only when people can't see you anyway) is worthless. If hiding doesn't allow you to remain unseen when you would otherwise be seen, it has no purpose. And with any ability that sees invisible, that's what hiding does.
Yes, I can see that you are certain of this. Others are less certain.
The order of items here makes it easy to assume that the Hide action text is describing the means by which a creature may be found, and then the consequences of being found.
Saying that the requirements for "found" are not described ignores this intuitive link. Asserting that the omission of a clarification in the very next sentence is a deliberate choice by the designers assumes both that the text is without error and that you are knowledgeable of the designers' intentions.
I'm not saying that you are incorrect, only that your interpretation is one of many. The intent is widely disagreed on and as such it cannot be stated that "The intention of the designers is clear", but only that "The intention of the designers is clear to you".
The Panther or Tiger's Prowl action doesn't make Hide any easier to try to conceal yourself though.
Ugh.. if they had made one change, it would work fine. Just have the free movement be part of the Pounce, it's a G--D---- pounce after all, it should be able to jump as part of the attack. I don't get why WotC are so against jump-attacks.
Rogue's Cunning Action is cheaper Action economy wise using only a Bonus Action to take the Hide action.
And 2014 Goblin's Nimble Escape, but i've yet to see revised version of it.
This is categorically incorrect. The following is from the Combat section of Chapter one of the 2024 PHB:
Yes, but they have increased damage on attacks with advantage, and no obvious sources of advantage other than being hidden.
While Pounce benefit from Hide, it can be be used with any source of Advantage and wouldn't say it's the biggest reason to think melee stealth is supposed to be possible in 2024.
I'd also look at Rogue and Sneak Attack, especially when to keep mobility.
Maybe, that is why I phrased it as, I'd say implication. There is no express language for it. But needing to be found would normally indicate they don't know where you are. Invisibility on its own does not state you need to be found.
Edit to add as a total aside the hide rules really buffed see invisibility as a spell.
To be implied, there would have to be language that at least suggested that interpretation, and there isn't.
For the most part, 2024 made hiding worse -- it no longer conceals your location, it no longer works against blindsight, see invisibility, or truesight, and "3/4 cover, full cover, or heavily obscured, and no line of sight" is a worse set of requirements than "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly", which at least makes hiding when lightly obscured or in half cover an option. The fixed DC of 15 makes hiding worse at low levels, and probably also at high levels, since most of the creatures with a passive perception of more than 15 also have enhanced senses of some sort (sure, you no longer need to beat that ancient red dragon's passive perception of 26... but since it has 60' of blindsight, there's a good chance hiding doesn't actually do anything).
Yes, hiding being completely useless against anything that can see invisible (through blindsight, see invisibility, truesight, or other abilities) is... not good.
Don't confuse Blindsight/Truesight/etc. for Tremorsense. Tremorsense makes it way easier (automatic under the right circumstances) to find people. The others don't counter hiding directly; by the time you know where to look they no longer have the invisible condition.
That's actually relevant to the invisibility spell et al, as well. Being able to see someone who is invisible doesn't remove the condition; it just allows you to qualify for sight-based mechanics, but some parts (well, one part) of the condition would still hold (they still get advantage on initiative, basically).
Basically, when hidden, being found is a prerequisite for being seen, but if you're "only" hidden, it's the only prerequisite for being seen. Whereas if someone is only invisible, you know where they are but can't see them --- being magically invisible doesn't mean you are automatically hidden. (And those right there are concepts I wish the book actually covered directly. But "rulings, not rules" amiright?)
Agree with the first sentence.
The second sentence I don't feel is truly accurate. There are several ways to get the Invisible condition in the game, it is not limited to only taking the Hide [Action]. A creature can have the Invisible condition without attempting to hide; and just because there is a scenario where a creature could achieve a goal because they were invisible doesn't mean it is guaranteed to be repeated if they take the Hide [Action] because there could be other considerations or requirements that need to be met. There are examples and questions brought up in this thread discussing how and when the Invisible condition ends when granted by the Hide [Action]; in several of those examples, if the Invisible condition was granted by a different game effect, it would not end in the situation because the character would still meet the requirements to have the condition. This is what I meant, that we do not consider that the Hide [Action] is always a requirement when discussing a character attempting activities while being invisible.
No. Absolutely not. I was listing the in game benefits that a character gains from being unseen. One of them literally states the creature is immune to effects that require them to be seen. This is because they are unseen. What about my statement implies "being unseen grants benefits that do not actually include literally being unseen". Again, the first benefit listed is an immunity to effects that requires the creature to be seen; this is because the creature cannot be seen.
Detection is not limited to just being seen. It is possible that a character can know if the presence of, even know the location of, another creature but cannot see the creature. Being unseen (the Invisible condition) does not impose any penalties to the perception checks. Taking the Hide [Action] is a straight up stealth check; which is common throughout the game. "The Invisible condition doesn't aid in avoiding detection" is in references tot he fact that the condition doesn't apply something like +X bonus the characters DC to be found or requires a creature to first succeed on a perception check prior to attempting an attack roll agains the invisible creature.
So the first reference you provide states:
1) For a creature to hide it must take the Hide [Action] (which is logical; and no arguments here)
2) It states that it is common for creatures to hide and provides narrative examples when a creature would attempt to hide. The statement does not change how the Hide [Action] works in the game. The action doesn't increase you perception on ability checks when attempting to spy. The action doesn't increase your stealth check when trying to move past a guard. The action does help with attempting an ambush. This statement also doesn't say that hiding is required to attempt these actions. It just lists narrative examples in the game when a creature may opt to attempt to hide. I am discussing how the mechanics of the action work in game.
The second citation makes sense, and no challenge here and I don't think any posts have said otherwise.
I think there is language that suggests it which is why I listed it. Feel free to disagree, its a free country.
Again, you don't have to be found if people know where you are.
You are quite correct; I should have specified that I meant specifically that Hide and the Invisible(hidden) condition -that is, invisibility with the Hide [Action] specific riders- are linked, not necessarily other instances of the Invisible condition.
I see, I took "doesn't aid in avoiding detection" as being an assertion that it does not prevent you from being seen and therefore does not reasonably confer any narrative aid in going undetected. I have encountered that particular argument before and apparently allowed my anticipation of it to color my reading of your statement.
I had the same misinterpretation here, where I assumed you meant it was not reasonable to take the Hide action while attempting to avoid detection, because the benefits it confers are purely combat related.
I apologize for the misunderstanding; I'll take care to read a bit better next time!
I was just about to say something along these lines. See Invisibility allows you to see an Invisible creature "as if they were visible", and even visible creatures can't be seen through full cover or heavy obscurement. (3/4 cover is potentially a different story, but hey, what are ya gonna do?)
Even with Truesight, you cannot see an Invisible creature behind Total Cover. This isn't explicitly stated in that Special Sense (it's mentioned in Blindsight, tough), but it makes sense because you don't have line of sight with the hidden creature.
If they are behind total cover you can't see them. It is not about them being invisible or visible. But as soon as they pop out of cover to do something they would not be invisible. Even if you fall on the you need a search check to find them side of this discussion, the invisibility is broken as soon as they break cover with see invisible. I assume even the most stringent reading of hiding would normally allow them to pop out to 3/4 cover and fire off a shot before invisibility/hide is broken, well with see invisible their invisible condition would break as soon as they popped out and before the shot was fired. That is a solid buff to a 2nd level spell as hidden/invisible enemies imo are a lot more common than magically invisible enemies.
I don't think that's a good interpretation. See Invisible doesn't tell you where to look. "Hidden" means they don't know where you are; if you just ducked behind cover and they know damn well where you are, you aren't hidden (so "there's only one tree to hide behind and everyone is watching" is a fine example for "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding").
If you believe you can maintain the hidden-invisible condition after leaving cover (as I do), it's because you are using your Stealth skills to stay out of the "view arc" of all the bad guys. The reason you are "invisible" is because they aren't looking at you (ever seen Mystery Men?). See Invisible (and Truesight) do not extend your view arc. Blindsight does, within its usually-limited range, and Tremorsense does, within its range and same-surface limitation.
In combat, See Invisible would not grant auto-success on Search actions, nor would it grant a bonus (or auto-success) to Passive Perception. It would not let you auto-find hidden people. It would let you qualify as seeing invisible-but-not-hidden people, which negates most-but-not-all of the invisible condition.
If the DM rule a creature Invisible via Hide or Invisibility is not in your line of sight, then See Invisibility will will not help see it in any way. An hidden creature could still be found with other senses of perception though.
For grid play, rules for Line of Sight are easy to adjudicate for DM but arbitrarily determined when playing in theather of the mind.
Invisible (only when people can't see you anyway) is worthless. If hiding doesn't allow you to remain unseen when you would otherwise be seen, it has no purpose. And with any ability that sees invisible, that's what hiding does.
Being able to see an Invisible creature somehow only counter part of the condition but otherwise doesn't end it.
Unless you have the condition after you successfully Hide, then the condition ends on you immediately when found this way.