If you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight to hide behind Three-Quarters Cover, it severly limit it to be only usable when it's heavily distracted or not facing you.
Applying it also to HalflingNaturally Stealthy trait limit it's utility considerably though.
If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you at least means you know if you can try to hide or not.
Except the logic breaks down when a character can then stand in the open and be “invisible” so long as an enemy doesn’t beat their stealth roll. It rather defeats the point of the Invisibility spell if its effect can be substantially replicated by a skill check.
It's really a shame that this seems to be such a common interpretation -- it really speaks to the failure of the authors to convey their intent with clarity.
This really isn't what the Hide action is saying. You only have the Invisible Condition when successfully hidden. You never permanently "gain" or "acquire" the Condition. You have it for a duration that corresponds to the successful Stealth check. There are a series of events that are listed which explicitly cause you to be no longer hidden (because your location is given away) and that is why you lose the Condition immediately in those circumstances. But it is implied that simply choosing to be no longer hidden by virtue of the fact that you are now standing in the open will also cause you to be no longer hidden and that will also cause you to lose the Condition.
The Stealth check represents being successfully hidden on an ongoing basis. This check value is explicitly saved and persists through time until it is eventually invalidated by becoming found or by no longer hiding. Having the Invisible Condition is tied to that successful check. Once that check value is invalidated you can no longer have the Invisible Condition since the "On a successful check" prerequisite for currently having the Condition no longer exists.
If they were trying to change that, they would have just changed "when a creature can't see you" to "when a creature can't or hasn't seen you". In any case, it isn't fixed or even changed by the 2024 rules, because the moment you pop out of cover your enemy has line of sight on you, as (absent obscurement that only one side can see through) line of sight is reciprocal.
I agree that they should not have used the phrase "line of sight" in the prerequisites for becoming unseen since there is a rule about how to determine line of sight in the DMG which contradicts what they are trying to do here. That phrase should be changed via errata. What they were going for here was to eliminate the 2014 assumption of constant 360-degree awareness and replace that with an idea that you might be able to spy on an enemy or generally conceal your own location from an enemy from a "mostly" obscured or covered position and maybe that enemy wasn't able to spot you right away (as determined by the value of the Stealth check). You make a determination for yourself (approved by the DM) if that enemy can see you or has seen you yet and then you confirm whether or not that determination was correct with the Stealth roll. But such things are not even possible when out in the open or "only" behind half-cover.
Under that concept, if you are careful to "only" pop out to three-quarters cover just before making a ranged attack, then you are supposed to be able to make that attack as an Unseen Attacker since it's already been confirmed via the Stealth roll that an enemy isn't going to be able to spot you fast enough when doing this since they are beginning from a place of not knowing where you are at all (as opposed to tracking you audibly like when you didn't bother to attempt to Hide first).
In any case, the effect of hiding is not that your position is concealed. The effect of hiding is that you gain the invisible condition.
No, that's incorrect for multiple reasons.
First, you never "gain" the Invisible Condition. You simply "have" the Condition on a successful check. If there is no successful check in play, then there is no Condition. The Condition is used simply as a description of part of what it means to be concealed, which is basically that you are confirmed to be unseen while you have the Condition. The other part of what it means to be concealed in the context of the Hide action is that you are also confirmed to be unheard while you have the Condition. This is implied by the explicit ways that are given which cause you to immediately lose the Condition which involve making enough noise that you've revealed your location, and thus your location is no longer concealed.
Second, the purpose of the Hide action is not to gain the Invisible Condition. The action is all about becoming concealed:
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must . . .
The word "so" in the above statement refers to the act of successfully becoming concealed. The method for accomplishing that is given in the text as passing a DC 15 Stealth check while certain other prerequisites are currently being met. When the text later says, "On a successful check", the "check" that it refers to is that same Stealth check which is being used to try to conceal yourself. If the check was indeed successful, then that MEANS that you have successfully concealed yourself. That's what the entire Hide action is all about.
Think of it this way: The Hide action is 3 paragraphs long. Suppose that only the first paragraph existed, and the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were completely erased. So, our new Hide action begins with "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself" and ends with "you can discern whether it can see you". In such a scenario would you still be saying that the effect of the Hide action is that you gain the Invisible Condition? Probably not. In such a case, the Hide action would quite clearly be describing a check to determine whether or not you can successfully conceal yourself.
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are just describing some of the things that happen when you are concealed. The "unseen" portion of being concealed is summarized by having the Invisible Condition, because the Condition itself details all of the advantages of being unseen. But you are not always unseen in the same way that you are if you were to cast the Invisibility spell. Instead, you are "unseen" in more of a "hidden" connotation, as evidenced by all of the additional ways that you can lose the Condition. The "unheard" portion of being concealed is not explicitly restated since there aren't really many additional mechanical benefits to being unheard beyond just helping you to become concealed and therefore untargetable. So, there are no such benefits of being unheard to be listed here alongside the state of having the Invisible Condition. But the subsequent information about losing your Stealth by making noise is enough evidence to imply that becoming concealed involves becoming unheard. Also, the common english definition of "concealed" has to do with making something "unknown", so an attempt to "conceal yourself" is an attempt to make your own location unknown. For most enemies, it is enough to become unseen and unheard to accomplish this, so that's what the Hide action is attempting to do.
Should some of this be more explicitly spelled out? Absolutely. We desperately need more words here to alleviate all of this constant confusion and misinterpretation of such an important core mechanic. Who knows if we'll ever get that.
Isn't it? I literally cannot tell what the hide action is saying. People keep asserting that they know what the hide action does in D&D 2024 by reading stuff into the text that isn't there.
Yes, Hide says that 'you attempt to conceal yourself'. However, it does not say that on success you conceal yourself, it says on success you gain the invisible condition. Thus, "conceal yourself" and "gain the invisible condition" must be the same thing.
Isn't it? I literally cannot tell what the hide action is saying. People keep asserting that they know what the hide action does in D&D 2024 by reading stuff into the text that isn't there.
Yes, Hide says that 'you attempt to conceal yourself'. However, it does not say that on success you conceal yourself, it says on success you gain the invisible condition. Thus, "conceal yourself" and "gain the invisible condition" must be the same thing.
Well, it does say that "To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check". The "to do so" is referring to the attempt to conceal yourself. So, if the roll is successful, this result is already baked in.
The common english definition of "conceal" is to make something unknown:
keep from sight; hide:
"a line of sand dunes concealed the distant sea"
keep (something) secret; prevent from being known or noticed:
"love that they had to conceal from others"
The concept that they are going for here is that this is an attempt to Hide your location. That involves confirming that you are unseen as well as unheard. Once the first paragraph finishes explaining that, we then get some additional information about what the benefits are to being unseen and unheard. But they only really explicitly list the benefits of being unseen, which are summarized in the Invisible Condition, which you have when you are successfully concealed. They do not list any explicit benefit to becoming unheard, but we can make the assumption that becoming unheard is part of what it means to become concealed because of the explicit list of ways that you immediately lose your Condition that includes making noise to give away your location.
In the 2024 rules, the only general rule which seems to mention any benefit of being unheard appears in the section on Unseen Attackers and Targets:
When you make an attack roll against a target you can’t see, you have Disadvantage on the roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss.
Yes, I agree that the Hide action should be written with more words that more explicitly connect these dots, but all of the pieces are there.
The common english definition of "conceal" is to make something unknown:
keep from sight; hide:
"a line of sand dunes concealed the distant sea"
keep (something) secret; prevent from being known or noticed:
"love that they had to conceal from others"
Um... you skipped the first definition. "Keep from sight". "Make unseen" is common usage of the term, and that is directly compatible with calling something invisible... so there's no reason to think it has any broader meaning when the larger sentence structure says that the effect of success is to gain the invisible condition.
Now, in 2014 it did explicitly make you unheard... but that's nowhere in the 2024 text.
Yes, Hide says that 'you attempt to conceal yourself'. However, it does not say that on success you conceal yourself, it says on success you gain the invisible condition. Thus, "conceal yourself" and "gain the invisible condition" must be the same thing.
Let's break your argument down. If you attempt to conceal yourself, and you are successful, but you have not concealed yourself, then you either were not actually successful, or what you were successful at was not actually concealing yourself. Thus, if you attempt to conceal yourself, and you are successful, you have concealed yourself. Gaining a limited form of the invisible condition is explicitly a part of the result of a successful attempt to conceal yourself, along with (implicitly) becoming "not found" by your target. I think your syllogism is incomplete in its conclusion.
Now, in 2014 it did explicitly make you unheard... but that's nowhere in the 2024 text.
I don't know that it made you unheard. I read being unseen and unheard as requirements for attempting to hide, rather than them being a result of becoming hidden. After all, you can still be unseen and unheard and roll a 1 on your stealth check, and you might not successfully hide. Being unseen and (pretty much) unheard are still requirements for taking the hide action and remaining hidden. To me, it's a lot more like the 2014 version than it is different.
Let's break your argument down. If you attempt to conceal yourself, and you are successful, but you have not concealed yourself, then you either were not actually successful, or what you were successful at was not actually concealing yourself.
That's not my argument at all. My argument is that "gain the invisible condition" and "conceal yourself" are the same thing.
Anyone having the Invisible condition is concealed, wether its from the Hide Action or the Invisibility spell since its an effect they both experience.
But the Hide action’s Invisible condition ends on you immediately after you make a sound louder than a whisper whereas with the spell it doesn't.
But the Hide action’s Invisible condition ends on you immediately after you make a sound louder than a whisper whereas with the spell it doesn't.
Well, yes, but the original point of this thread was that the spell has a V component, so casting it makes noise that gives away your position.
Probably not a big deal, though: if they could watch you cast it, they saw you disappear and know where you are, anyway. You can, then, do some stealthy movement to get somewhere else. Or, if you were in another room, casting the spell probably doesn't "draw aggro" from a different room (circumstances may vary).
So the problem is when you are already in an unknown location, perhaps behind total cover, with an enemy nearby: casting the spell would, ironically, alert them to your presence. At least, until you get elsewhere, quietly.
Let's break your argument down. If you attempt to conceal yourself, and you are successful, but you have not concealed yourself, then you either were not actually successful, or what you were successful at was not actually concealing yourself.
That's not my argument at all. My argument is that "gain the invisible condition" and "conceal yourself" are the same thing.
Anyone having the Invisible condition is concealed, wether its from the Hide Action or the Invisibility spell since its an effect they both experience.
I disagree extremely strongly with the notion that the word "conceal" means the same thing when used within the text of the Invisible Condition and when used within the text of the Hide action.
In the case of the Invisible Condition, the word is literally just the title of one of the features that is conveyed by the Condition. Titles of features have no mechanical meaning at all. They could have titled that clause anything. The actual feature that is described by the "Concealed" clause within the Invisible Condition doesn't even have anything to do with actually concealing anything. It has to do with the creature and his equipment having a sort of immunity against certain effects when some specific conditions are met. That's not at all related to "concealing" or "hiding" or "obscuring" or any of those other words which might portray a meaning of actually preventing something from being "seen" or "heard" or "known". It's just a totally inappropriate title for that feature.
The word conceal which begins the Hide action, on the other hand, corresponds exactly to common English language connotations of the word. At the very least it means actually being "Unseen" (unlike what the Invisible Condition actually does). And most likely it is probably actually supposed to mean "unknown location" (due to being "Unseen" and "Unheard").
These are two totally different uses and meanings for the word.
There's no difference how it affects its recipient having the Invisible condition from the Hide Action or the Invisibility spell. The difference is how each source can end it.
While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Condition
The definition of a condition specifies what happens to its recipient while affected by it, and some conditions apply other conditions.A condition is a temporary game state. The definition of a condition says how it affects its recipient, and various rules define how to end a condition. This glossary defines these conditions: Invisible
There's no difference how it affects its recipient having the Invisible condition from the Hide Action or the Invisibility spell. The difference is how each source can end it.
While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Condition
The definition of a condition specifies what happens to its recipient while affected by it, and some conditions apply other conditions.A condition is a temporary game state. The definition of a condition says how it affects its recipient, and various rules define how to end a condition. This glossary defines these conditions: Invisible
Well, as has been discussed previously, until we see some errata, the Invisible Condition does not actually cause you to become Unseen in either case. Not in the case of having it due to the Invisibility spell, nor in the case of having it due to the Hide action.
However, having the Condition DOES confer other specific benefits such as advantage/disadvantage in certain cases and immunity to certain effects. These benefits apply in both cases.
But the important point is that the Hide action itself (NOT due to causing a hidden creature to have the Invisible Condition) creates a confirmation that the hidden player is now Unseen due to successfully concealing himself -- he has done this by meeting the prerequisites of locating himself in a heavily obscured space or behind cover.
This means that the Hide action causes him to be "concealed" (in an Unseen sort of way), but the Invisibility spell causes him to be "concealed" (in a totally different sort of way which is unrelated to being Unseen).
The result is that a successful Hide action causes a character to become Unseen and Unheard (and as a result, location unknown) . . . and THEN it ALSO provides some immunities and advantage/disadvantage benefits due to having the Invisible Condition.
While not clearly written, i require taking the Hide Action to make your location unknown so that it's still relevant to do so even when already unseen due to Heavily Obscured, Invisible, opaque Total Cover, Blinded etc... This represent an effort to act in a way to remain silent and mask your presence somehow by trying to avoid detection.
Some might view it as not RAW kosher or some houserule but that's a ruling i think make sense which produce a DC for enemy to find you.
The result is that a successful Hide action causes a character to become Unseen and Unheard (and as a result, location unknown) . . . and THEN it ALSO provides some immunities and advantage/disadvantage benefits due to having the Invisible Condition.
The result is that a successful Hide action causes the character to become Invisible, which does absolutely nothing since you're already out of sight. Is that stupid? Yes. Is it what they intended? I very much doubt it. There just isn't any evidence to indicate what they actually meant for it to do.
The most obvious answer is that-despite many attempts to frame it otherwise- this is not meant to be the setup of an offensive buff. Hide could be intended primarily as a defensive option- if you're in a heavily obscured position such as darkness or thick foliage your position would typically be known, whereas with Hide it requires a Perception check. It's a niche pick, but then again so is Dodge, or the rest of the skill check actions in a combat context.
It defines what mechanical effects you are under. How is that "absolutely nothing"? Let's say you Hide, and then enter combat. If you are out of line-of-sight, do you normally get Advantage on your initiative roll? Unless I am mistaken, no you don't. So that's something.
It defines what mechanical effects you are under. How is that "absolutely nothing"? Let's say you Hide, and then enter combat. If you are out of line-of-sight, do you normally get Advantage on your initiative roll? Unless I am mistaken, no you don't. So that's something.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why not?
On a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check, you have the Invisible condition:
Invisible [Condition] While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects. Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll. [...]
I'm not sure as the first part is bringing up hidden, but I think they are asking if you are out of line of sight but have not taken the hide action do you get advantage on init. Which is no.
Which is something to think about in what the invisibility spell does in 2024. Realistically fully obscured and invisible should be the same thing. Either way you are not visible, though you might be heard etc. Though if the obscurement goes both ways it cancels advantage/disadvantage where invis wouldn't. Stealth usually covered the other senses as well. But for some reason now invisible and hidden are the same thing and give additional perks past being fully obscured. So is invisible effectively covering all senses now. Does stealth no longer cover more than sight. If the latter why do they provide more benefits than just being fully obscured, namely advantage on init.
Edit to add, I kind of agree with a earlier posters point about V components on some of these spells and how if played straight kind of defeat the purpose of that spell for that function of that spell. Having to yell looks it s a distraction before a bong noise appears behind a enemy to distract them seems counter productive. More light hearted parody style games it can work on. So, yeah I suspect they should have designed a few more spells without the V component. Or if you are the DM, let them game it a bit so it does not defeat the purpose of the spell.
The most obvious answer is that-despite many attempts to frame it otherwise- this is not meant to be the setup of an offensive buff. Hide could be intended primarily as a defensive option- if you're in a heavily obscured position such as darkness or thick foliage your position would typically be known, whereas with Hide it requires a Perception check.
I'm not sure I can split the hair that fine between what counts as using it on 'offense' versus 'defense', especially once you factor in something like the Skulker feat. Are these buffing the offensive potential of the Hide action, or the defensive potential?
Fog of War. You exploit the distractions of battle, gaining Advantage on any Dexterity (Stealth) check you make as part of the Hide action during combat.
Sniper. If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn't reveal your location.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight to hide behind Three-Quarters Cover, it severly limit it to be only usable when it's heavily distracted or not facing you.
Applying it also to Halfling Naturally Stealthy trait limit it's utility considerably though.
If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you at least means you know if you can try to hide or not.
It's really a shame that this seems to be such a common interpretation -- it really speaks to the failure of the authors to convey their intent with clarity.
This really isn't what the Hide action is saying. You only have the Invisible Condition when successfully hidden. You never permanently "gain" or "acquire" the Condition. You have it for a duration that corresponds to the successful Stealth check. There are a series of events that are listed which explicitly cause you to be no longer hidden (because your location is given away) and that is why you lose the Condition immediately in those circumstances. But it is implied that simply choosing to be no longer hidden by virtue of the fact that you are now standing in the open will also cause you to be no longer hidden and that will also cause you to lose the Condition.
The Stealth check represents being successfully hidden on an ongoing basis. This check value is explicitly saved and persists through time until it is eventually invalidated by becoming found or by no longer hiding. Having the Invisible Condition is tied to that successful check. Once that check value is invalidated you can no longer have the Invisible Condition since the "On a successful check" prerequisite for currently having the Condition no longer exists.
That is an extraordinarily bad assumption.
I agree that they should not have used the phrase "line of sight" in the prerequisites for becoming unseen since there is a rule about how to determine line of sight in the DMG which contradicts what they are trying to do here. That phrase should be changed via errata. What they were going for here was to eliminate the 2014 assumption of constant 360-degree awareness and replace that with an idea that you might be able to spy on an enemy or generally conceal your own location from an enemy from a "mostly" obscured or covered position and maybe that enemy wasn't able to spot you right away (as determined by the value of the Stealth check). You make a determination for yourself (approved by the DM) if that enemy can see you or has seen you yet and then you confirm whether or not that determination was correct with the Stealth roll. But such things are not even possible when out in the open or "only" behind half-cover.
Under that concept, if you are careful to "only" pop out to three-quarters cover just before making a ranged attack, then you are supposed to be able to make that attack as an Unseen Attacker since it's already been confirmed via the Stealth roll that an enemy isn't going to be able to spot you fast enough when doing this since they are beginning from a place of not knowing where you are at all (as opposed to tracking you audibly like when you didn't bother to attempt to Hide first).
No, that's incorrect for multiple reasons.
First, you never "gain" the Invisible Condition. You simply "have" the Condition on a successful check. If there is no successful check in play, then there is no Condition. The Condition is used simply as a description of part of what it means to be concealed, which is basically that you are confirmed to be unseen while you have the Condition. The other part of what it means to be concealed in the context of the Hide action is that you are also confirmed to be unheard while you have the Condition. This is implied by the explicit ways that are given which cause you to immediately lose the Condition which involve making enough noise that you've revealed your location, and thus your location is no longer concealed.
Second, the purpose of the Hide action is not to gain the Invisible Condition. The action is all about becoming concealed:
The word "so" in the above statement refers to the act of successfully becoming concealed. The method for accomplishing that is given in the text as passing a DC 15 Stealth check while certain other prerequisites are currently being met. When the text later says, "On a successful check", the "check" that it refers to is that same Stealth check which is being used to try to conceal yourself. If the check was indeed successful, then that MEANS that you have successfully concealed yourself. That's what the entire Hide action is all about.
Think of it this way: The Hide action is 3 paragraphs long. Suppose that only the first paragraph existed, and the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were completely erased. So, our new Hide action begins with "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself" and ends with "you can discern whether it can see you". In such a scenario would you still be saying that the effect of the Hide action is that you gain the Invisible Condition? Probably not. In such a case, the Hide action would quite clearly be describing a check to determine whether or not you can successfully conceal yourself.
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are just describing some of the things that happen when you are concealed. The "unseen" portion of being concealed is summarized by having the Invisible Condition, because the Condition itself details all of the advantages of being unseen. But you are not always unseen in the same way that you are if you were to cast the Invisibility spell. Instead, you are "unseen" in more of a "hidden" connotation, as evidenced by all of the additional ways that you can lose the Condition. The "unheard" portion of being concealed is not explicitly restated since there aren't really many additional mechanical benefits to being unheard beyond just helping you to become concealed and therefore untargetable. So, there are no such benefits of being unheard to be listed here alongside the state of having the Invisible Condition. But the subsequent information about losing your Stealth by making noise is enough evidence to imply that becoming concealed involves becoming unheard. Also, the common english definition of "concealed" has to do with making something "unknown", so an attempt to "conceal yourself" is an attempt to make your own location unknown. For most enemies, it is enough to become unseen and unheard to accomplish this, so that's what the Hide action is attempting to do.
Should some of this be more explicitly spelled out? Absolutely. We desperately need more words here to alleviate all of this constant confusion and misinterpretation of such an important core mechanic. Who knows if we'll ever get that.
Isn't it? I literally cannot tell what the hide action is saying. People keep asserting that they know what the hide action does in D&D 2024 by reading stuff into the text that isn't there.
Yes, Hide says that 'you attempt to conceal yourself'. However, it does not say that on success you conceal yourself, it says on success you gain the invisible condition. Thus, "conceal yourself" and "gain the invisible condition" must be the same thing.
Well, it does say that "To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check". The "to do so" is referring to the attempt to conceal yourself. So, if the roll is successful, this result is already baked in.
The common english definition of "conceal" is to make something unknown:
The concept that they are going for here is that this is an attempt to Hide your location. That involves confirming that you are unseen as well as unheard. Once the first paragraph finishes explaining that, we then get some additional information about what the benefits are to being unseen and unheard. But they only really explicitly list the benefits of being unseen, which are summarized in the Invisible Condition, which you have when you are successfully concealed. They do not list any explicit benefit to becoming unheard, but we can make the assumption that becoming unheard is part of what it means to become concealed because of the explicit list of ways that you immediately lose your Condition that includes making noise to give away your location.
In the 2024 rules, the only general rule which seems to mention any benefit of being unheard appears in the section on Unseen Attackers and Targets:
Yes, I agree that the Hide action should be written with more words that more explicitly connect these dots, but all of the pieces are there.
Um... you skipped the first definition. "Keep from sight". "Make unseen" is common usage of the term, and that is directly compatible with calling something invisible... so there's no reason to think it has any broader meaning when the larger sentence structure says that the effect of success is to gain the invisible condition.
Now, in 2014 it did explicitly make you unheard... but that's nowhere in the 2024 text.
Let's break your argument down. If you attempt to conceal yourself, and you are successful, but you have not concealed yourself, then you either were not actually successful, or what you were successful at was not actually concealing yourself. Thus, if you attempt to conceal yourself, and you are successful, you have concealed yourself. Gaining a limited form of the invisible condition is explicitly a part of the result of a successful attempt to conceal yourself, along with (implicitly) becoming "not found" by your target. I think your syllogism is incomplete in its conclusion.
I don't know that it made you unheard. I read being unseen and unheard as requirements for attempting to hide, rather than them being a result of becoming hidden. After all, you can still be unseen and unheard and roll a 1 on your stealth check, and you might not successfully hide. Being unseen and (pretty much) unheard are still requirements for taking the hide action and remaining hidden. To me, it's a lot more like the 2014 version than it is different.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's not my argument at all. My argument is that "gain the invisible condition" and "conceal yourself" are the same thing.
Anyone having the Invisible condition is concealed, wether its from the Hide Action or the Invisibility spell since its an effect they both experience.
But the Hide action’s Invisible condition ends on you immediately after you make a sound louder than a whisper whereas with the spell it doesn't.
Well, yes, but the original point of this thread was that the spell has a V component, so casting it makes noise that gives away your position.
Probably not a big deal, though: if they could watch you cast it, they saw you disappear and know where you are, anyway. You can, then, do some stealthy movement to get somewhere else. Or, if you were in another room, casting the spell probably doesn't "draw aggro" from a different room (circumstances may vary).
So the problem is when you are already in an unknown location, perhaps behind total cover, with an enemy nearby: casting the spell would, ironically, alert them to your presence. At least, until you get elsewhere, quietly.
The Invisible condition immediately ends when casting a spell with Verbal component wether its from the Hide Action or the Invisibility spell.
and also
I disagree extremely strongly with the notion that the word "conceal" means the same thing when used within the text of the Invisible Condition and when used within the text of the Hide action.
In the case of the Invisible Condition, the word is literally just the title of one of the features that is conveyed by the Condition. Titles of features have no mechanical meaning at all. They could have titled that clause anything. The actual feature that is described by the "Concealed" clause within the Invisible Condition doesn't even have anything to do with actually concealing anything. It has to do with the creature and his equipment having a sort of immunity against certain effects when some specific conditions are met. That's not at all related to "concealing" or "hiding" or "obscuring" or any of those other words which might portray a meaning of actually preventing something from being "seen" or "heard" or "known". It's just a totally inappropriate title for that feature.
The word conceal which begins the Hide action, on the other hand, corresponds exactly to common English language connotations of the word. At the very least it means actually being "Unseen" (unlike what the Invisible Condition actually does). And most likely it is probably actually supposed to mean "unknown location" (due to being "Unseen" and "Unheard").
These are two totally different uses and meanings for the word.
There's no difference how it affects its recipient having the Invisible condition from the Hide Action or the Invisibility spell. The difference is how each source can end it.
While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Well, as has been discussed previously, until we see some errata, the Invisible Condition does not actually cause you to become Unseen in either case. Not in the case of having it due to the Invisibility spell, nor in the case of having it due to the Hide action.
However, having the Condition DOES confer other specific benefits such as advantage/disadvantage in certain cases and immunity to certain effects. These benefits apply in both cases.
But the important point is that the Hide action itself (NOT due to causing a hidden creature to have the Invisible Condition) creates a confirmation that the hidden player is now Unseen due to successfully concealing himself -- he has done this by meeting the prerequisites of locating himself in a heavily obscured space or behind cover.
This means that the Hide action causes him to be "concealed" (in an Unseen sort of way), but the Invisibility spell causes him to be "concealed" (in a totally different sort of way which is unrelated to being Unseen).
The result is that a successful Hide action causes a character to become Unseen and Unheard (and as a result, location unknown) . . . and THEN it ALSO provides some immunities and advantage/disadvantage benefits due to having the Invisible Condition.
While not clearly written, i require taking the Hide Action to make your location unknown so that it's still relevant to do so even when already unseen due to Heavily Obscured, Invisible, opaque Total Cover, Blinded etc... This represent an effort to act in a way to remain silent and mask your presence somehow by trying to avoid detection.
Some might view it as not RAW kosher or some houserule but that's a ruling i think make sense which produce a DC for enemy to find you.
The result is that a successful Hide action causes the character to become Invisible, which does absolutely nothing since you're already out of sight. Is that stupid? Yes. Is it what they intended? I very much doubt it. There just isn't any evidence to indicate what they actually meant for it to do.
The most obvious answer is that-despite many attempts to frame it otherwise- this is not meant to be the setup of an offensive buff. Hide could be intended primarily as a defensive option- if you're in a heavily obscured position such as darkness or thick foliage your position would typically be known, whereas with Hide it requires a Perception check. It's a niche pick, but then again so is Dodge, or the rest of the skill check actions in a combat context.
It defines what mechanical effects you are under. How is that "absolutely nothing"? Let's say you Hide, and then enter combat. If you are out of line-of-sight, do you normally get Advantage on your initiative roll? Unless I am mistaken, no you don't. So that's something.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why not?
On a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check, you have the Invisible condition:
I'm not sure as the first part is bringing up hidden, but I think they are asking if you are out of line of sight but have not taken the hide action do you get advantage on init. Which is no.
Which is something to think about in what the invisibility spell does in 2024. Realistically fully obscured and invisible should be the same thing. Either way you are not visible, though you might be heard etc. Though if the obscurement goes both ways it cancels advantage/disadvantage where invis wouldn't. Stealth usually covered the other senses as well. But for some reason now invisible and hidden are the same thing and give additional perks past being fully obscured. So is invisible effectively covering all senses now. Does stealth no longer cover more than sight. If the latter why do they provide more benefits than just being fully obscured, namely advantage on init.
Edit to add, I kind of agree with a earlier posters point about V components on some of these spells and how if played straight kind of defeat the purpose of that spell for that function of that spell. Having to yell looks it s a distraction before a bong noise appears behind a enemy to distract them seems counter productive. More light hearted parody style games it can work on. So, yeah I suspect they should have designed a few more spells without the V component. Or if you are the DM, let them game it a bit so it does not defeat the purpose of the spell.
I'm not sure I can split the hair that fine between what counts as using it on 'offense' versus 'defense', especially once you factor in something like the Skulker feat. Are these buffing the offensive potential of the Hide action, or the defensive potential?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)