You're applying things to concealed that by your own words, are not there and yes this literally does matter because that means you aren't dealing with RAW, you're dealing with a house rule.
I am referencing the plain english definition of "concealed" which the rules do not override. Modern D&D uses natural language, regularly.
You're applying things to concealed that by your own words, are not there and yes this literally does matter because that means you aren't dealing with RAW, you're dealing with a house rule.
I am referencing the plain english definition of "concealed" which the rules do not override. Modern D&D uses natural language, regularly.
That isn't how features in D&D works, Concealed is merely the name of the trait that is then explained in the following line.
So Concealed is the name of the trait, the effect then follows as such:
You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you.
This is the effect of the concealed trait, this means you can not be targeted by something that requires sight, it does nothing beyond this. So you can not be targeted by the Levitate spell for example but you can be targeted by Eldritch Blast.
Following this then we have this section:
Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed
This means your weapon and equipment gains the same effect from this trait. As such you can not have your sword targeted by the heat metal spell but it can be effected by the Dispel Magic spell.
Anything beyond this is not apart of the Concealed Trait, thus no. The "English Definition" does not apply, it is simply a naming of a trait and that trait is already explained.
Whatever. Even when a description of a spell or item make it clear that creatures under the invisible condition are literally not visible (I mentioned See Invisibility and Ring of Invisibility, but there are many others), you just ignore it.
I am referencing the plain english definition of "concealed" which the rules do not override. Modern D&D uses natural language, regularly.
That isn't how features in D&D works, Concealed is merely the name of the trait that is then explained in the following line.
"Concealed" isn't a glossary entry, nor a tooltip, nor a spell or anything like that. It's just a word. ("Invisible Condition" is in the glossary, and it uses the word "concealed" in its defition.)
You can repeat, ad nauseum, that "concealed" has been redefined. It hasn't, and redefining it would serve no purpose, other than some hamfisted attempt to prove the rules are incoherent or otherwise try to win internet points. Meanwhile, my "side" will continue to understand plain language and thus be able to use the rules in a constructive manner.
Whatever. Even when a description of a spell or item make it clear that creatures under the invisible condition are literally not visible (I mentioned See Invisibility and Ring of Invisibility, but there are many others), you just ignore it.
it doesn't say that a creature can not be seen, it says the creature has the invisible condition which supplies concealed but concealed at no point say it makes things not visible, nor is visible described, one definition of visible is in public view (I.E. the painting was placed visibly on display).
Do not lie, more so when it's blatantly obvious on a quick check that I in fact did address this.
You could further infer that visible here then means that you can be targeted by anything that requires sight, even if you're hiding behind three-quarters cover actively.
As such, I throw that back at you, you're only seeing what you want to see and dismiss what I say out of hand because you do not agree with it.
I am referencing the plain english definition of "concealed" which the rules do not override. Modern D&D uses natural language, regularly.
That isn't how features in D&D works, Concealed is merely the name of the trait that is then explained in the following line.
"Concealed" isn't a glossary entry, nor a tooltip, nor a spell or anything like that. It's just a word. ("Invisible Condition" is in the glossary, and it uses the word "concealed" in its defition.)
You can repeat, ad nauseum, that "concealed" has been redefined. It hasn't, and redefining it would serve no purpose, other than some hamfisted attempt to prove the rules are incoherent or otherwise try to win internet points. Meanwhile, my "side" will continue to understand plain language and thus be able to use the rules in a constructive manner.
I'm not responding to you anymore, Literally anybody that has read the player's handbook knows how abhorrently false this is in how features, conditions and the such are written. If you see anything like:
Thing. It does something
That "it does something" is the thing that it in fact does. It's pointless to argue against you if you're just straight up ignoring the conventions of how the rules are written.
While wearing this ring, you can take a Magic action to give yourself the Invisible condition. You remain Invisible until the ring is removed or until you take a Bonus Actionto become visible again.
For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Creatures and objects there appear ghostly.
While wearing this ring, you can take a Magic action to give yourself the Invisible condition. You remain Invisible until the ring is removed or until you take a Bonus Actionto become visible again.
For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Creatures and objects there appear ghostly.
Whatever. Even when a description of a spell or item make it clear that creatures under the invisible condition are literally not visible (I mentioned See Invisibility and Ring of Invisibility, but there are many others), you just ignore it.
it doesn't say that a creature can not be seen, it says the creature has the invisible condition which supplies concealed but concealed at no point say it makes things not visible, nor is visible described, one definition of visible is in public view (I.E. the painting was placed visibly on display).
Do not lie, more so when it's blatantly obvious on a quick check that I in fact did address this.
You could further infer that visible here then means that you can be targeted by anything that requires sight, even if you're hiding behind three-quarters cover actively.
As such, I throw that back at you, you're only seeing what you want to see and dismiss what I say out of hand because you do not agree with it.
I can make things bigger too, it does nothing to prove your point, again. Visible can simply mean that something is in public view to you.
No. Visible means "that can be seen". That's the definition of "visible". That's what visible means, whether you like it or not.
Again, Visible can also mean being in public view, ultimately the rules make no definition of visible. You're just inferring a particular meaning from a vague definition of one dictionary which is probably not the only definition of that word in that dictionary. Ultimately again, you're just trying to infer how you believe it works and grasping on to any straw you can find to back that up, it isn't however what is written in RAW.
Your bad faith is just appalling at this point. I don't know why you're being like that, maybe a Rogue ruined your campaign or something, but that's your problem. I haven't met a single DM who so egregiously ruined Stealth by ruling it like that, even the most strictly RAW DMs I've met never made the arguments you're making. You might as well just ban the Rogue class from your table entirely, or be prepare to argue with them all the time (which I bet you do). Stealth is part of the game. It's meant to be used in combat, to get past enemies and attack them by surprise (ref. the Skulker feat). Get over it already, and let people enjoy things.
No. Visible means "that can be seen". That's the definition of "visible". That's what visible means, whether you like it or not.
Again, Visible can also mean being in public view, ultimately the rules make no definition of visible. You're just inferring a particular meaning from a vague definition of one dictionary which is probably not the only definition of that word in that dictionary. Ultimately again, you're just trying to infer how you believe it works and grasping on to any straw you can find to back that up, it isn't however what is written in RAW.
We get it. You do not use common sense when interpreting the rules and require absolutely everything spelled out for you in excruciating detail. Might I suggest you not play D&D 5e or later in this case because the designers deliberately do not design the rules this way since the inception of 5e. There are plenty of older versions of D&D that do attempt to spell everything out in excruciating detail, which I'm sure you would enjoy much more than 5e.
Your bad faith is just appalling at this point. I don't know why you're being like that, maybe a Rogue ruined your campaign or something, but that's your problem. I haven't met a single DM who so egregiously ruined Stealth by ruling it like that, even the most strictly RAW DMs I've met never made the arguments you're making. You might as well just ban the Rogue class from your table entirely, or be prepare to argue with them all the time (which I bet you do). Stealth is part of the game. It's meant to be used in combat, to get past enemies and attack them by surprise (ref. the Skulker feat). Get over it already, and let people enjoy things.
There is no bad faith in what I say, I am saying stick to what is actually written. It's quiet simple, I have asked time and again 1 simple question and nobody can conclusive give an answer to it, where in the 2024 version of the Invisible Condition does it state, does it say, does it explicitly confirm that you can not be seen.
And no, I'd never play the game like this, as I have said previously the game needs house rules to be functional in multiple areas, I would not go to a rogue in play and be like "Ummm Actually" but at the same time, as a DM I wouldn't say that a Rogue passes two guards at a guard house without being seen because 2 hours ago they walked past a box and were technically behind three-quarters cover either, that is 100% bad faith. Stealth by the hide action is terrible and I'll continue to operate it like it worked in 2014: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2014/using-ability-scores#Hiding
You know, where it made sense, not the 2024 rules that basically removed most of it and left only tidbits of what was there, in a way that literally in nonsensical and unbalanced in the rules.
No. Visible means "that can be seen". That's the definition of "visible". That's what visible means, whether you like it or not.
Again, Visible can also mean being in public view, ultimately the rules make no definition of visible. You're just inferring a particular meaning from a vague definition of one dictionary which is probably not the only definition of that word in that dictionary. Ultimately again, you're just trying to infer how you believe it works and grasping on to any straw you can find to back that up, it isn't however what is written in RAW.
We get it. You do not use common sense when interpreting the rules and require absolutely everything spelled out for you in excruciating detail. Might I suggest you not play D&D 5e or later in this case because the designers deliberately do not design the rules this way since the inception of 5e. There are plenty of older versions of D&D that do attempt to spell everything out in excruciating detail, which I'm sure you would enjoy much more than 5e.
You know I am not wrong tho, so what's the point in responding to this? It's just people saying the rules do things that they in fact do not and me saying stick to what's written. If we want to participate in a discussion of RULES AND GAME MECHANICS, I do not believe it is at all bad faith to be calling out where things are in fact poorly written or people are using things that simply are not in the rules.
Personally I am getting too invested in this and it had almost be put to sleep Natrel is the one that had to respond to what was a topic that by that point everybody else had stopped responding to it, perhaps I have some blame in then responding to THAT, I shall admit, that however does not mean anything I have said is in anyway incorrect or that you should come out here and basically attack my position which has been and remains to be that the rules of Stealth in 2024 are appalling bad and vastly too open to interpretation.
Perhaps we should just put this topic to bed or even ask for this topic to be locked (I honestly wouldn't be against that) as such I have made a report against this very post just asking for this topic to be closed and I shall no longer respond to it personally.
It's a shame that R3sistance is the only one speaking the truth in this thread as future readers are going to be led astray by much of what has been said along the way. I have not had the time to properly contribute to this thread this time around but R3sistance has been correct every step of the way here.
Hiding is an ongoing activity. You continue to have the benefits of hiding "while hidden". If you stop hiding, then you are no longer hidden. Just like if you stop moving then you are no longer moving or if you stop resting then you are no longer resting or if you stop concentrating then you are no longer concentrating and so on. The text doesn't have to constantly put such things into print, nor would we want it to do so.
When we play this game, we are all participating in shared storytelling. We all agree in advance on some sort of fantasy setting where the world works basically like our own world except where it's explicitly stated otherwise. If we don't begin with such a framework then the game becomes unplayable. If we all want to try to play as microbes floating around in space in some alien star system near a black hole where there is no atmosphere and extreme gravitational effects and we could take actions such as "diffuse substance" or "decompose matter" or "activate flagella-based movement" or something, then at some point we aren't really playing D&D anymore. Instead, we begin with a more-or-less "earthlike" setting, assume the roles of more-or-less "human-like" creatures and begin the story where things happen within the setting that are at least recognizable in our shared imaginations.
Concepts such as "hiding" and "sneaking" and "stealth" should conjure up similar images in all of our minds about what those words actually mean in our world and we can use that as a framework to try to understand the specifics of what the rules are telling us since we know that the rules begin with the assumption that we are all operating somewhere within this framework.
As such, in our world, If I am standing on the sidewalk of a wide-open street and I watch someone walk along the sidewalk that is on the other side of the street, and my view of that person is blocked for 1/10th of a second while they walk past a telephone pole -- that person does not vanish and become totally invisible to me while they continue to walk down that sidewalk. They cannot then change course, run across the street and dance in front of me before punching me in the face without me being able to see them. That is simply not what "hiding" or "sneaking" or "stealth" means in our world. So, if someone's interpretation of this game's rules that discuss the concepts of "hiding" or "sneaking" or "stealth" allow for such an activity then the best thing to do is to ask yourself if perhaps you are not reading the rules correctly. Because it's unlikely that the written rules or the intention of the rules would allow for something like this. It's simply not aligned with the fundamentals of what any of those concepts actually mean.
R3sistance has done a fine job of explaining all of this. And then every step of the way he is met with something like: "But, but, but, but . . . the rule says that hiding makes you invisible!" Honestly, that's just a huge facepalm at this point and it becomes exhausting.
Thank you for your words but I just want to drop this and I think we all should at this point, it won't lead any where meaningful! I might not be wrong in my arguments but I (and others in here) definitely did make mistakes in how we talked to each other and bickered else wise, it got too heated and when a debate goes like that, it'll just continue to cause tensions. I think it's best off to let this die, it's a topic that continually gets recycled (see Tarodnet's post on page 1) and really there should be enough evidence that stealth in 2024 needs more clarity on RAI from WotC.
I think this particular argument (and most of this thread) stems from a misapprehension of how conditions work in 5e: (And, of course, some rather bad rules writing on WotC's part.)
Conditions are just a standard baseline of bonuses/penalties that are applied to you due to some external cause.*
In other words, you are not concealed because you have the invisible condition.
You have the invisible condition because you are concealed.
Whether this is because you're hiding, or because you are literally invisible, the condition establishes the baseline of what it means, mechanically, to be so.
(They did, I reiterate, screw up by having the condition called "invisible", because that word has connotations. If they'd asked me, I'd've added a new condition "Unseen", with the package of benefits, and make the "Invisible" condition, which they need to have due to back-compatibility, give you "Unseen" and also actually specify that you are literally invisible. Hiding would just grant "Unseen".)
Now, I'm not going to say this change of perspective solves all the questions around hiding. (Though it does resolve the thread starter, since, if you're making no attempt to remain hidden, the condition obviously lapses.) It's inherently a complex situation that requires DM discretion, since it includes:
Being behind stuff
Old-school-D&D hiding in shadows, where they could see you, but it's too dark
Being behind stuff, darting from cover to cover when the guard's back is turned
Hiding in a crowd, where they may theoretically see you, but there's too many people milling around to let them single you out
Hiding in the middle of a fight, darting out to make an attack, then retreating to concealment before your foes can get a bead on you
Etc.
All of these should be possible, and the rules do allow for them, but there's no purely mechanistic interpretation that does so, except for "once you hide, you're hidden regardless of circumstances until a perception check tags you", which, while simple, fails the reality test of "does this describe how hiding actually works?
* OK, it's a bit more complicated than that, because some abilities add a rider that lasts as long as the condition does, but it's true enough.
The Invisible condition literally conceals you. It explicitly says so.
It also explicitly says “unless the [viewer] can somehow see you”. Unless we’re prepared to allow rolling a 15 on Stealth to perfectly simulate the effect of a Legendary magic item, then clearly having unobstructed sight does “somehow” allow one creature to see another, at least insofar as combat- which is the only part of the game run strictly by the printed Actions- is concerned.
I am referencing the plain english definition of "concealed" which the rules do not override. Modern D&D uses natural language, regularly.
That isn't how features in D&D works, Concealed is merely the name of the trait that is then explained in the following line.
So Concealed is the name of the trait, the effect then follows as such:
This is the effect of the concealed trait, this means you can not be targeted by something that requires sight, it does nothing beyond this. So you can not be targeted by the Levitate spell for example but you can be targeted by Eldritch Blast.
Following this then we have this section:
This means your weapon and equipment gains the same effect from this trait. As such you can not have your sword targeted by the heat metal spell but it can be effected by the Dispel Magic spell.
Anything beyond this is not apart of the Concealed Trait, thus no. The "English Definition" does not apply, it is simply a naming of a trait and that trait is already explained.
Whatever. Even when a description of a spell or item make it clear that creatures under the invisible condition are literally not visible (I mentioned See Invisibility and Ring of Invisibility, but there are many others), you just ignore it.
You see only what you want to see.
"Concealed" isn't a glossary entry, nor a tooltip, nor a spell or anything like that. It's just a word. ("Invisible Condition" is in the glossary, and it uses the word "concealed" in its defition.)
You can repeat, ad nauseum, that "concealed" has been redefined. It hasn't, and redefining it would serve no purpose, other than some hamfisted attempt to prove the rules are incoherent or otherwise try to win internet points. Meanwhile, my "side" will continue to understand plain language and thus be able to use the rules in a constructive manner.
no I address this already
Do not lie, more so when it's blatantly obvious on a quick check that I in fact did address this.
I also further said:
As such, I throw that back at you, you're only seeing what you want to see and dismiss what I say out of hand because you do not agree with it.
I'm not responding to you anymore, Literally anybody that has read the player's handbook knows how abhorrently false this is in how features, conditions and the such are written. If you see anything like:
Thing. It does something
That "it does something" is the thing that it in fact does. It's pointless to argue against you if you're just straight up ignoring the conventions of how the rules are written.
Are you serious right now?
Do you see it now or do you need more visual aid?
I can make things bigger too, it does nothing to prove your point, again. Visible can simply mean that something is in public view to you.
No. Visible means "that can be seen". That's the definition of "visible". That's what visible means, whether you like it or not.
Again, Visible can also mean being in public view, ultimately the rules make no definition of visible. You're just inferring a particular meaning from a vague definition of one dictionary which is probably not the only definition of that word in that dictionary. Ultimately again, you're just trying to infer how you believe it works and grasping on to any straw you can find to back that up, it isn't however what is written in RAW.
Your bad faith is just appalling at this point. I don't know why you're being like that, maybe a Rogue ruined your campaign or something, but that's your problem.
I haven't met a single DM who so egregiously ruined Stealth by ruling it like that, even the most strictly RAW DMs I've met never made the arguments you're making.
You might as well just ban the Rogue class from your table entirely, or be prepare to argue with them all the time (which I bet you do).
Stealth is part of the game. It's meant to be used in combat, to get past enemies and attack them by surprise (ref. the Skulker feat). Get over it already, and let people enjoy things.
We get it. You do not use common sense when interpreting the rules and require absolutely everything spelled out for you in excruciating detail. Might I suggest you not play D&D 5e or later in this case because the designers deliberately do not design the rules this way since the inception of 5e. There are plenty of older versions of D&D that do attempt to spell everything out in excruciating detail, which I'm sure you would enjoy much more than 5e.
There is no bad faith in what I say, I am saying stick to what is actually written. It's quiet simple, I have asked time and again 1 simple question and nobody can conclusive give an answer to it, where in the 2024 version of the Invisible Condition does it state, does it say, does it explicitly confirm that you can not be seen.
And no, I'd never play the game like this, as I have said previously the game needs house rules to be functional in multiple areas, I would not go to a rogue in play and be like "Ummm Actually" but at the same time, as a DM I wouldn't say that a Rogue passes two guards at a guard house without being seen because 2 hours ago they walked past a box and were technically behind three-quarters cover either, that is 100% bad faith. Stealth by the hide action is terrible and I'll continue to operate it like it worked in 2014: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2014/using-ability-scores#Hiding
You know, where it made sense, not the 2024 rules that basically removed most of it and left only tidbits of what was there, in a way that literally in nonsensical and unbalanced in the rules.
You know I am not wrong tho, so what's the point in responding to this? It's just people saying the rules do things that they in fact do not and me saying stick to what's written. If we want to participate in a discussion of RULES AND GAME MECHANICS, I do not believe it is at all bad faith to be calling out where things are in fact poorly written or people are using things that simply are not in the rules.
Personally I am getting too invested in this and it had almost be put to sleep Natrel is the one that had to respond to what was a topic that by that point everybody else had stopped responding to it, perhaps I have some blame in then responding to THAT, I shall admit, that however does not mean anything I have said is in anyway incorrect or that you should come out here and basically attack my position which has been and remains to be that the rules of Stealth in 2024 are appalling bad and vastly too open to interpretation.
Perhaps we should just put this topic to bed or even ask for this topic to be locked (I honestly wouldn't be against that) as such I have made a report against this very post just asking for this topic to be closed and I shall no longer respond to it personally.
It's a shame that R3sistance is the only one speaking the truth in this thread as future readers are going to be led astray by much of what has been said along the way. I have not had the time to properly contribute to this thread this time around but R3sistance has been correct every step of the way here.
Hiding is an ongoing activity. You continue to have the benefits of hiding "while hidden". If you stop hiding, then you are no longer hidden. Just like if you stop moving then you are no longer moving or if you stop resting then you are no longer resting or if you stop concentrating then you are no longer concentrating and so on. The text doesn't have to constantly put such things into print, nor would we want it to do so.
When we play this game, we are all participating in shared storytelling. We all agree in advance on some sort of fantasy setting where the world works basically like our own world except where it's explicitly stated otherwise. If we don't begin with such a framework then the game becomes unplayable. If we all want to try to play as microbes floating around in space in some alien star system near a black hole where there is no atmosphere and extreme gravitational effects and we could take actions such as "diffuse substance" or "decompose matter" or "activate flagella-based movement" or something, then at some point we aren't really playing D&D anymore. Instead, we begin with a more-or-less "earthlike" setting, assume the roles of more-or-less "human-like" creatures and begin the story where things happen within the setting that are at least recognizable in our shared imaginations.
Concepts such as "hiding" and "sneaking" and "stealth" should conjure up similar images in all of our minds about what those words actually mean in our world and we can use that as a framework to try to understand the specifics of what the rules are telling us since we know that the rules begin with the assumption that we are all operating somewhere within this framework.
As such, in our world, If I am standing on the sidewalk of a wide-open street and I watch someone walk along the sidewalk that is on the other side of the street, and my view of that person is blocked for 1/10th of a second while they walk past a telephone pole -- that person does not vanish and become totally invisible to me while they continue to walk down that sidewalk. They cannot then change course, run across the street and dance in front of me before punching me in the face without me being able to see them. That is simply not what "hiding" or "sneaking" or "stealth" means in our world. So, if someone's interpretation of this game's rules that discuss the concepts of "hiding" or "sneaking" or "stealth" allow for such an activity then the best thing to do is to ask yourself if perhaps you are not reading the rules correctly. Because it's unlikely that the written rules or the intention of the rules would allow for something like this. It's simply not aligned with the fundamentals of what any of those concepts actually mean.
R3sistance has done a fine job of explaining all of this. And then every step of the way he is met with something like: "But, but, but, but . . . the rule says that hiding makes you invisible!" Honestly, that's just a huge facepalm at this point and it becomes exhausting.
Thank you for your words but I just want to drop this and I think we all should at this point, it won't lead any where meaningful! I might not be wrong in my arguments but I (and others in here) definitely did make mistakes in how we talked to each other and bickered else wise, it got too heated and when a debate goes like that, it'll just continue to cause tensions. I think it's best off to let this die, it's a topic that continually gets recycled (see Tarodnet's post on page 1) and really there should be enough evidence that stealth in 2024 needs more clarity on RAI from WotC.
I think this particular argument (and most of this thread) stems from a misapprehension of how conditions work in 5e: (And, of course, some rather bad rules writing on WotC's part.)
Conditions are just a standard baseline of bonuses/penalties that are applied to you due to some external cause.*
In other words, you are not concealed because you have the invisible condition.
You have the invisible condition because you are concealed.
Whether this is because you're hiding, or because you are literally invisible, the condition establishes the baseline of what it means, mechanically, to be so.
(They did, I reiterate, screw up by having the condition called "invisible", because that word has connotations. If they'd asked me, I'd've added a new condition "Unseen", with the package of benefits, and make the "Invisible" condition, which they need to have due to back-compatibility, give you "Unseen" and also actually specify that you are literally invisible. Hiding would just grant "Unseen".)
Now, I'm not going to say this change of perspective solves all the questions around hiding. (Though it does resolve the thread starter, since, if you're making no attempt to remain hidden, the condition obviously lapses.) It's inherently a complex situation that requires DM discretion, since it includes:
All of these should be possible, and the rules do allow for them, but there's no purely mechanistic interpretation that does so, except for "once you hide, you're hidden regardless of circumstances until a perception check tags you", which, while simple, fails the reality test of "does this describe how hiding actually works?
* OK, it's a bit more complicated than that, because some abilities add a rider that lasts as long as the condition does, but it's true enough.
The Invisible condition literally conceals you. It explicitly says so.
It also explicitly says “unless the [viewer] can somehow see you”. Unless we’re prepared to allow rolling a 15 on Stealth to perfectly simulate the effect of a Legendary magic item, then clearly having unobstructed sight does “somehow” allow one creature to see another, at least insofar as combat- which is the only part of the game run strictly by the printed Actions- is concerned.
No, it doesn't. The invisibility spell conceals you. Hiding conceals you.
What the invisible condition does is it tells you the mechanical effects of being concealed.