They call it out specifically for Hide because the DM has to provide arbitration --- because the rules that would be necessary for vision arcs and independant hearing checks and cover relative to facing and allies alerting each other to danger and...are all more finicky than D&D wants in a rulebook, but relatively easy for a DM to hand-wave in the moment.
2024 reworked stealth and hiding, so we should assume they were trying to do something different from 2014. Given that they talked about the problem of "mother may I" mechanics, I'm guessing they were trying to make the rules less fuzzy.
There are a few changes, but the biggest is that made it explicit that being hidden is mechanically identical to being invisible, just with some different ways of losing the condition. That's less fuzzy.
They also removed the idea that "approaching" a target from hidden revealed you. In 2014, you could come out of cover and stay hidden if you didn't approach; now you're invisible which kinda puts a foot down on saying that yes, you can move around. The condition makes that way easier to rule.
The abstraction is a little funny --- when I've snuck up on people in real life, I haven't needed to find cover first --- but provides a nice mostly-strict mechanic for becoming hidden, at least, with a static minimum stealth DC to represent it being non-trivial.
There are a few changes, but the biggest is that made it explicit that being hidden is mechanically identical to being invisible, just with some different ways of losing the condition.
That wasn't "make explicit", that was "change the rules to nerf stealth". Stealth in 2014 wasn't automatically defeated by a second level spell. Stealth used the 'unseen attackers and targets' rule in 2014, there's no reason it couldn't have used that rule in 2024.
There are a few changes, but the biggest is that made it explicit that being hidden is mechanically identical to being invisible, just with some different ways of losing the condition.
That wasn't "make explicit", that was "change the rules to nerf stealth". Stealth in 2014 wasn't automatically defeated by a second level spell. Stealth used the 'unseen attackers and targets' rule in 2014, there's no reason it couldn't have used that rule in 2024.
Even a 1st evel spell does the trick if you know roughly where they are Faerie Fire
Correction: see invisibility doesn't let a creature see through an effect that blocks vision -- but invisibility if useless if you're in or behind an effect that blocks vision. Three-quarters cover does not block vision (in fact, it does not even penalize vision, unless the DM rules that it's also lightly or heavily obscured), and therefore trying to use stealth behind 3/4 cover automatically fails if the enemy has see invisibility.
Correction: see invisibility doesn't let a creature see through an effect that blocks vision
Well, this is why See Invisibility doesn't actually overcome hiding. A creature that is hiding only has the Invisible condition while hidden. See Invisibility is better at overcoming a situation where a creature has cast Invisibility on themselves and then walks around out in the open. Such a creature does not only have the condition while hidden -- they have it all of the time for the duration.
Correction: see invisibility doesn't let a creature see through an effect that blocks vision -- but invisibility if useless if you're in or behind an effect that blocks vision. Three-quarters cover does not block vision (in fact, it does not even penalize vision, unless the DM rules that it's also lightly or heavily obscured), and therefore trying to use stealth behind 3/4 cover automatically fails if the enemy has see invisibility.
If you can Hide, then you must be out of any enemy's line of sight. See Invisibility is a nonissue.
Neither See Invisibility (nor any other effect like Blindsight or Truesight) has any impact on whether a player can Hide any more than normal vision prevents Hide with 3/4 cover (or 1/2 cover with Halfling).
See Invisibility/Blindsight/Truesight will enable an enemy to see through the Invisible effect and perceive the player once they move out into the open.
If you can Hide, then you must be out of any enemy's line of sight. See Invisibility is a nonissue.
3/4 cover does not block line of sight. Also, the Invisible condition is meaningless if it would be impossible to see you even if you weren't invisible.
If you can Hide, then you must be out of any enemy's line of sight. See Invisibility is a nonissue.
3/4 cover does not block line of sight. Also, the Invisible condition is meaningless if it would be impossible to see you even if you weren't invisible.
The Hide action specifically makes mention of it, so it must be possible.
The line of sight in hide says if you can see them you can discern if they can see you. I think some people are reading that as if you can see them they can see you. I think it is saying if you can see them you can determine if they can see you, in other words are they looking your direction, are they looking your direction but seem oblivious to you due to your cover/concealment being distracted etc. So now you have an opportunity or not to try and hide from them in 3/4 cover. It is generally irrelevant in 100% cover/concealment.
The rules say the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding though.
For hiding yes. But not after you have already hidden. We would all agree that going behind a tree to hide is an acceptable place to hide. The problem is the rules don't (didn't) state that walking out from the tree breaks the invisible condition. The rules indicate someone must roll a perception check against your Stealth check to notice you. So if you stealth check was like a 30, no one would ever notice you.
I interpret it to be the case while hiding.... otherwise the sentence would say the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for taking the Hide action.
I do not consider walking out in the open and waving pom-poms to be circumstances appropriate for hiding. Other DMs are free to interpret differently.
I agree it is not appropriate. But that isn't what the original text says.
The rules say the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding though.
For hiding yes. But not after you have already hidden. We would all agree that going behind a tree to hide is an acceptable place to hide. The problem is the rules don't (didn't) state that walking out from the tree breaks the invisible condition. The rules indicate someone must roll a perception check against your Stealth check to notice you. So if you stealth check was like a 30, no one would ever notice you.
I interpret it to be the case while hiding.... otherwise the sentence would say the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for taking the Hide action.
I do not consider walking out in the open and waving pom-poms to be circumstances appropriate for hiding. Other DMs are free to interpret differently.
I agree it is not appropriate. But that isn't what the original text says.
Because the original text days the MD decides when circumstances are appropriate.
Breaking cover doesn't mean a character is automatically seen, since backs can be turned. Miniatures on a map don't really deal with "facing" as a mechanic, and I don't think they need to. So long as one enemy on a battlefield has line of sight, you cannot effectively Hide. This means, for example, a reflection in a Mirror needn't give away your position. And it's consistent with a Rogue using Cunning Action to Hide and then Attack.
The Hide action specifically makes mention of it, so it must be possible.
The rules for the hide action being internally inconsistent is one of the problems with the stealth rules.
I keep seeing people say that, but I can't see it for myself. Personally, I think some of you are either too hung up on the 2014 rules or intentionally looking for absurdities because you want a game to be idiot-proof. And, to that, I say "come on." The rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets were too limiting, because they only applied during combat, whereas the 2024 rules are more broadly applicable. And pom-poms, seriously?
Personally, I think setting and genre conventions matter a great deal. In that regard, D&D isn't only one thing. If it's flexible enough to emulate The Breakfast Club (Dimension 20's Fantasy High is, apparently, now a webcomic), then you should learn to accept a little silliness in a game where Gust of Wind is a literal fart joke.
Breaking cover doesn't mean a character is automatically seen, since backs can be turned. Miniatures on a map don't really deal with "facing" as a mechanic, and I don't think they need to. So long as one enemy on a battlefield has line of sight, you cannot effectively Hide.
The problem is that line of sight does not mean "someone can currently see you", it means "you can draw a line that does not intersect any opaque object or effect between the two creatures". Since 3/4 cover means 1/4 not covered, 3/4 cover does not block line of sight.
I keep seeing people say that, but I can't see it for myself. Personally, I think some of you are either too hung up on the 2014 rules or intentionally looking for absurdities because you want a game to be idiot-proof. And, to that, I say "come on." The rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets were too limiting, because they only applied during combat, whereas the 2024 rules are more broadly applicable. And pom-poms, seriously?
The rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets only apply when attacking or being attacked, which is only possible in combat, so I'm not sure what your point is. As for pom-poms, the point of examples like that is to make the absurdity more obvious. There are three basic options for how stopping hiding works in 2024
You are considered to stop hiding when you lose the prerequisites for the hide action. As written, this is completely useless as you can only hide when no-one can see you. If we toss or modify the 'no enemy has line of sight' rule so people can actually hide behind 3/4 cover" (I assume the intent is "3/4 cover, total cover, or heavy obscurement, from all enemies"), it's merely extremely marginal.
You only lose the hiding condition under the specific conditions listed in the hide, in which case, yes, pom-poms do not cause you to stop hiding.
Somewhere in between, and we have absolutely no indications of where that line is intended to be.
My guess is that RAI is (3)... but they don't say, and it's not really a usable rule without more detail.
You are considered to stop hiding when you lose the prerequisites for the hide action. As written, this is completely useless as you can only hide when no-one can see you. If we toss or modify the 'no enemy has line of sight' rule so people can actually hide behind 3/4 cover" (I assume the intent is "3/4 cover, total cover, or heavy obscurement, from all enemies"), it's merely extremely marginal.
Wrong! Because "Unseen Attacker" rules are from 2014, and we are talking about 2024. The Invisible condition in 2024 is a replacement for "Unseen Attacker" rules.
In 2024: being "unseen" doesn't have any mechanical definition or mechanical effects. Instead, all situations where a character would previously have been treated as "unseen" are either described as the character being "invisible" or the opposing creature being "blind" to the character.
Obscurement mostly provides this "blind" effect. While Heavily Obscured enemies have Disadvantage on attacks against you, and you have Advantage on attacks against them. BUT the Blind condition does not affect Initiative, you only get Adv on initiative if you are Hidden while heavily obscured.
Cover only affects AC, you do not get Advantage on attacking and enemies do not get Disadvantage on attacking if you are behind cover, unless you are also Hidden (same for initiative). Cover also does not make you Obscured. Also note that no where in the rules does it state that you having total cover from creature X also requires that creature X has total cover from you.
Being invisible by itself do not provide any mechanical benefits, it only gains mechanical benefits via the Invisible condition.
This means the following examples are all RAW by 2024 rules:
Case 1: Character A is standing in a castle, next to a very narrow arrow slit. They keep themselves flat against the wall next to the slit - impossible to see or target, and only on their turn duck over to release an arrow at an army milling below. The DM rules that Character A has full cover from the army below, but the army below doesn't have full cover from Character A.
Case 2: Character B has climbed into an empty mead barrel on a pier with a hole drilled into it so they can peak out to spy on a bunch of smugglers. They attempt to Hide within the barrel and succeed their check. While the smugglers are working one notices the barrel and suggests to their friends to take that with them as well, they approach and lift up the lid of the barrel and look inside to see what's inside, and immediately see Character B breaking their Hiding - or Character B leaps out of the barrel as the smugglers approach gaining Adv on initiative and attempt to run away, but the smugglers see Character B and give chase - or Character B sneakily gets out of the barrel as soon as they hear the smugglers talking about the barrel and manages to slip away unnoticed.
Case 3: The entire party is taking advantage of some thick fog to sneak into a bandit's camp, they all attempt to Hide and the Paladin in heavy armour fails. The bandits are immediately alerted to danger. Initiative is rolled with everyone else in the party having Adv, while the Paladin does not. The bandits who beat the party in initiative take out bows and all fire arrows into the fog at the party (including the Paladin but also other members) at disadvantage.
Case 4: The entire party is taking advantage of some thick fog to sneak into a bandit's camp, they all attempt to Hide and the Paladin in heavy armour fails. The bandits are immediately alerted to danger. Initiative is rolled with everyone else in the party having Adv, while the Paladin does not. The bandits who beat the party take out bows and all fire arrows into the fog at the party (including the Paladin but also other members) at disadvantage.
Case 5: The part is assaulting a small fortress, infested with bandits. There are multiple sentries atop the crenellated wall. The rogue finds a spot with thick vegetation up to the wall and uses the Hide action to beat the sentry's active Perception check, they sneak over to the wall via the vegetation and keep themselves pressed up against the wall to continue to hide from the sentries by staying out of their line of sight, while they skirt around to a door. They pick the lock to break in and climb back up onto the wall behind the nearest sentry and kill him instantly with one strike to the back, enabling the rest of the party to slip in unnoticed.
Again, the rules in 5e are deliberately vague, because they are intended to be read and interpreted by a human being - the DM - not by a computer. Because that enables much more situational flexibility that would be onerous for all involved to explicitly codify into the rules.
The problem is that line of sight does not mean "someone can currently see you", it means "you can draw a line that does not intersect any opaque object or effect between the two creatures". Since 3/4 cover means 1/4 not covered, 3/4 cover does not block line of sight.
The "definition" you are quoting is from the Areas of Effect rules in the DMG, not from the PHB's glossary or anywhere else binding. They absolutely are using it as "someone can currently see you" in the Hide action.
3. Somewhere in between, and we have absolutely no indications of where that line is intended to be My guess is that RAI is (3)... but they don't say, and it's not really a usable rule without more detail.
They do say. "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." It's a judgement call on the part of the DM. Plenty of people in this thread consider it usable.
Also, in 3/4 cover, you can crouch/duck/etc. Which is an excellent example of DM judgement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are a few changes, but the biggest is that made it explicit that being hidden is mechanically identical to being invisible, just with some different ways of losing the condition. That's less fuzzy.
They also removed the idea that "approaching" a target from hidden revealed you. In 2014, you could come out of cover and stay hidden if you didn't approach; now you're invisible which kinda puts a foot down on saying that yes, you can move around. The condition makes that way easier to rule.
The abstraction is a little funny --- when I've snuck up on people in real life, I haven't needed to find cover first --- but provides a nice mostly-strict mechanic for becoming hidden, at least, with a static minimum stealth DC to represent it being non-trivial.
That wasn't "make explicit", that was "change the rules to nerf stealth". Stealth in 2014 wasn't automatically defeated by a second level spell. Stealth used the 'unseen attackers and targets' rule in 2014, there's no reason it couldn't have used that rule in 2024.
Is there any dev who actually said that?
Doesn't matter if a dev said that. In 2024, see invisibility overcomes hiding. In 2014, it didn't.
Even a first level spell
Even a 1st evel spell does the trick if you know roughly where they are Faerie Fire
Meh, faerie fire tends to be garbage against things that actually use stealth, due to being a dex save.
See Invisibility doesn't let a creature through a Heavily Obscured area, Three-Quarters Cover, or Total Cover.
Correction: see invisibility doesn't let a creature see through an effect that blocks vision -- but invisibility if useless if you're in or behind an effect that blocks vision. Three-quarters cover does not block vision (in fact, it does not even penalize vision, unless the DM rules that it's also lightly or heavily obscured), and therefore trying to use stealth behind 3/4 cover automatically fails if the enemy has see invisibility.
Well, this is why See Invisibility doesn't actually overcome hiding. A creature that is hiding only has the Invisible condition while hidden. See Invisibility is better at overcoming a situation where a creature has cast Invisibility on themselves and then walks around out in the open. Such a creature does not only have the condition while hidden -- they have it all of the time for the duration.
If you can Hide, then you must be out of any enemy's line of sight. See Invisibility is a nonissue.
Neither See Invisibility (nor any other effect like Blindsight or Truesight) has any impact on whether a player can Hide any more than normal vision prevents Hide with 3/4 cover (or 1/2 cover with Halfling).
See Invisibility/Blindsight/Truesight will enable an enemy to see through the Invisible effect and perceive the player once they move out into the open.
3/4 cover does not block line of sight. Also, the Invisible condition is meaningless if it would be impossible to see you even if you weren't invisible.
The Hide action specifically makes mention of it, so it must be possible.
The line of sight in hide says if you can see them you can discern if they can see you. I think some people are reading that as if you can see them they can see you. I think it is saying if you can see them you can determine if they can see you, in other words are they looking your direction, are they looking your direction but seem oblivious to you due to your cover/concealment being distracted etc. So now you have an opportunity or not to try and hide from them in 3/4 cover. It is generally irrelevant in 100% cover/concealment.
The rules for the hide action being internally inconsistent is one of the problems with the stealth rules.
I agree it is not appropriate. But that isn't what the original text says.
Because the original text days the MD decides when circumstances are appropriate.
Breaking cover doesn't mean a character is automatically seen, since backs can be turned. Miniatures on a map don't really deal with "facing" as a mechanic, and I don't think they need to. So long as one enemy on a battlefield has line of sight, you cannot effectively Hide. This means, for example, a reflection in a Mirror needn't give away your position. And it's consistent with a Rogue using Cunning Action to Hide and then Attack.
I keep seeing people say that, but I can't see it for myself. Personally, I think some of you are either too hung up on the 2014 rules or intentionally looking for absurdities because you want a game to be idiot-proof. And, to that, I say "come on." The rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets were too limiting, because they only applied during combat, whereas the 2024 rules are more broadly applicable. And pom-poms, seriously?
Personally, I think setting and genre conventions matter a great deal. In that regard, D&D isn't only one thing. If it's flexible enough to emulate The Breakfast Club (Dimension 20's Fantasy High is, apparently, now a webcomic), then you should learn to accept a little silliness in a game where Gust of Wind is a literal fart joke.
The problem is that line of sight does not mean "someone can currently see you", it means "you can draw a line that does not intersect any opaque object or effect between the two creatures". Since 3/4 cover means 1/4 not covered, 3/4 cover does not block line of sight.
The rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets only apply when attacking or being attacked, which is only possible in combat, so I'm not sure what your point is. As for pom-poms, the point of examples like that is to make the absurdity more obvious. There are three basic options for how stopping hiding works in 2024
My guess is that RAI is (3)... but they don't say, and it's not really a usable rule without more detail.
Wrong! Because "Unseen Attacker" rules are from 2014, and we are talking about 2024. The Invisible condition in 2024 is a replacement for "Unseen Attacker" rules.
In 2024: being "unseen" doesn't have any mechanical definition or mechanical effects. Instead, all situations where a character would previously have been treated as "unseen" are either described as the character being "invisible" or the opposing creature being "blind" to the character.
Obscurement mostly provides this "blind" effect. While Heavily Obscured enemies have Disadvantage on attacks against you, and you have Advantage on attacks against them. BUT the Blind condition does not affect Initiative, you only get Adv on initiative if you are Hidden while heavily obscured.
Cover only affects AC, you do not get Advantage on attacking and enemies do not get Disadvantage on attacking if you are behind cover, unless you are also Hidden (same for initiative). Cover also does not make you Obscured. Also note that no where in the rules does it state that you having total cover from creature X also requires that creature X has total cover from you.
Being invisible by itself do not provide any mechanical benefits, it only gains mechanical benefits via the Invisible condition.
This means the following examples are all RAW by 2024 rules:
Case 1: Character A is standing in a castle, next to a very narrow arrow slit. They keep themselves flat against the wall next to the slit - impossible to see or target, and only on their turn duck over to release an arrow at an army milling below. The DM rules that Character A has full cover from the army below, but the army below doesn't have full cover from Character A.
Case 2: Character B has climbed into an empty mead barrel on a pier with a hole drilled into it so they can peak out to spy on a bunch of smugglers. They attempt to Hide within the barrel and succeed their check. While the smugglers are working one notices the barrel and suggests to their friends to take that with them as well, they approach and lift up the lid of the barrel and look inside to see what's inside, and immediately see Character B breaking their Hiding - or Character B leaps out of the barrel as the smugglers approach gaining Adv on initiative and attempt to run away, but the smugglers see Character B and give chase - or Character B sneakily gets out of the barrel as soon as they hear the smugglers talking about the barrel and manages to slip away unnoticed.
Case 3: The entire party is taking advantage of some thick fog to sneak into a bandit's camp, they all attempt to Hide and the Paladin in heavy armour fails. The bandits are immediately alerted to danger. Initiative is rolled with everyone else in the party having Adv, while the Paladin does not. The bandits who beat the party in initiative take out bows and all fire arrows into the fog at the party (including the Paladin but also other members) at disadvantage.
Case 4: The entire party is taking advantage of some thick fog to sneak into a bandit's camp, they all attempt to Hide and the Paladin in heavy armour fails. The bandits are immediately alerted to danger. Initiative is rolled with everyone else in the party having Adv, while the Paladin does not. The bandits who beat the party take out bows and all fire arrows into the fog at the party (including the Paladin but also other members) at disadvantage.
Case 5: The part is assaulting a small fortress, infested with bandits. There are multiple sentries atop the crenellated wall. The rogue finds a spot with thick vegetation up to the wall and uses the Hide action to beat the sentry's active Perception check, they sneak over to the wall via the vegetation and keep themselves pressed up against the wall to continue to hide from the sentries by staying out of their line of sight, while they skirt around to a door. They pick the lock to break in and climb back up onto the wall behind the nearest sentry and kill him instantly with one strike to the back, enabling the rest of the party to slip in unnoticed.
Again, the rules in 5e are deliberately vague, because they are intended to be read and interpreted by a human being - the DM - not by a computer. Because that enables much more situational flexibility that would be onerous for all involved to explicitly codify into the rules.
The "definition" you are quoting is from the Areas of Effect rules in the DMG, not from the PHB's glossary or anywhere else binding. They absolutely are using it as "someone can currently see you" in the Hide action.
They do say. "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." It's a judgement call on the part of the DM. Plenty of people in this thread consider it usable.
Also, in 3/4 cover, you can crouch/duck/etc. Which is an excellent example of DM judgement.