In this context, "while hidden" means "while you continue to hide".
Not at all. Hide is an captial-A Action, that calls for a roll. You do not do it continuously. Just like how you do not continually do VSM components over the duration of a spell.
The issue here is what you quoted is not in the print version of the book. It is now in the online version of the book. The print version lacks the "while hidden" statement
The online version includes recent errata that appear in more recent printing per Changelog - - D&D Beyond so future PHB will include while hidden text.
Player’s Handbook (2024)
This update corrects and clarifies some text in the Player’s Handbook (2024). The changes appear in recent printings of the book. These changes have been applied across D&D Beyond and can also be found via downloadable PDF.
It will. But in my experience with talking to people online it will seldom matter. Most people don’t look at the errata or the online versions or the reprinted book.
So I would expect this topic is going to keep coming up because the original print run excluded the information.
This is true for any errata subject matter, people who keep using their actual book without ever looking up errata will not simply seldom matter since they're using previous unupdated version, the issue will be them not using errata and play most current version, not that errata is being online and in future printing. It's up to people to ensure their content align with the most up-to-date version of the rules.
Everytime a topic to which an errata was issued come up from experience it's generally short discussion thread because it was updated & corrected and it's rapidly posted.
What is Errata?
Sometimes we release updates to our rulesets. When this happens, we provide record of it here on D&D Beyond in the form of “errata”. You can reference these updates to play the most current version of the game, or ensure that your content aligns with the most up-to-date version of the rules.
As DM i don't consider walking openly in enemy’s line of sight without any cover or obscured fashion to be circumstances appropriate for hiding.
As a DM, I would consider sneaking out of cover to backstab someone in pitched combat to be quite appopriate for hiding. (See? We both win, and the rule works better for it.)
Be it distraction or other circumstances, when a target don't see the attacker there's a rule called Unseen Attackers & Targets to cover this already, regardless if hidden or not the attack has Advantage.
As a DM, I would consider sneaking out of cover to backstab someone in pitched combat to be quite appopriate for hiding. (See? We both win, and the rule works better for it.)
The rule would work better if it didn't result in arguments like this. Regardless of what the intent is, the rule is clearly poorly written.
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so...
"To do so" refers to "you try". Therefore, the conditions mentioned next apply to the attempt at hiding, not the ongoing activity of the "hidden" state.
It could be interpreted that way, but that amounts to the same thing. In order to Hide, you must be successful at meeting the requirements that are specified after "To do so". These things are describing what it means to be concealed in the context of the Hide action. The word "hidden" that is used later on is just a synonym for this meaning of concealed which is defined by those requirements. Later on, the text makes it clear that being hidden is ongoing -- it's not a snapshot die roll which has no effect on the future. On the contrary, the value of the die roll is explicitly saved for later ("Make note") for an indeterminate amount of time which might be eventually used as a DC for a future enemy Perception check if you are still hidden when that happens. The benefits that are conferred to the hidden creature explicitly only apply while hidden. If you aren't hidden then you don't have those benefits, including the ability to set a DC for that Perception check.
In this context, "while hidden" means "while you continue to hide".
Not at all. Hide is an captial-A Action, that calls for a roll. You do not do it continuously. Just like how you do not continually do VSM components over the duration of a spell.
"round and round we go"
That's incorrect. The fact that the Hide action is a listed standard action and the fact that its mechanic involves a die roll has nothing to do with the continuous nature of the state of being hidden.
The die roll determines whether or not you are ever concealed in the first place and therefore it determines whether or not you can even have the Invisible condition applied to you at all. But the duration of a condition that is put on a creature is generally defined by the effect which caused that condition. In this case, "while hidden" is essentially the duration of the condition that is applied to the creature. The creature very explicitly only has the condition "while hidden". It is not a permanent game state.
Many effects impose a condition, a temporary state that alters the recipient’s capabilities.
A condition lasts either for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition or until the condition is countered
Be it distraction or other circumstances, when a target don't see the attacker there's a rule called Unseen Attackers & Targets to cover this already, regardless if hidden or not the attack has Advantage.
Yes, this is a good way to rule it. There's no reason why such a situation has to involve a "hidden" creature at all. The most accurate way for a DM to rule a situation where a creature is "sneaking out of cover to backstab someone in pitched combat" is that the creature is no longer a hidden creature as soon as they move out of cover and then, depending on the particular situation and at the DM's discretion, advantage could be applied to the attack by using the above rule for Unseen Attackers.
Alternatively, it's also very important to remember that we can always use this other rule:
Advantage/Disadvantage
Sometimes a D20 Test is modified by Advantage or Disadvantage. Advantage reflects the positive circumstances surrounding a d20 roll, while Disadvantage reflects negative circumstances.
You usually acquire Advantage or Disadvantage through the use of special abilities and actions. The DM can also decide that circumstances grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage.
I wonder if it would have been better written (i.e. more tight) and more aligned with everyone's idea of how it should work it the advantage part was conferred as long as you began your turn hidden? This is how I intend to use it, anyway.
I wonder if it would have been better written (i.e. more tight) and more aligned with everyone's idea of how it should work it the advantage part was conferred as long as you began your turn hidden? This is how I intend to use it, anyway.
That would mean you can't use the Invisible condition, and if you have multiple attacks, all of them are at advantage.
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so...
"To do so" refers to "you try". Therefore, the conditions mentioned next apply to the attempt at hiding, not the ongoing activity of the "hidden" state.
It could be interpreted that way, but that amounts to the same thing. In order to Hide, you must be successful at meeting the requirements that are specified after "To do so". These things are describing what it means to be concealed in the context of the Hide action.
No, they describe what's needed to enter the hidden state. Once hidden, these conditions don't apply anymore.
See it this way: if I hide my watch inside a chest in front of you, you know that the watch is in the chest. But if I hide it inside the chest without you seeing me, then it doesn't matter if you later see the chest. You still won't know what's inside unless you take a look (which in the game is a Perception check against the initial Stealth roll), because it's hidden.
So after successfully hiding, it doesn't matter if the player comes into view. What ends the invisible condition is being found, not being seen. So the enemies need to succeed a Perception check. The requirements of cover and line of sight are only ever mentioned in the rules when describing the player's attempt to hide. Nowhere else.
I wonder if it would have been better written (i.e. more tight) and more aligned with everyone's idea of how it should work it the advantage part was conferred as long as you began your turn hidden? This is how I intend to use it, anyway.
That would mean you can't use the Invisible condition, and if you have multiple attacks, all of them are at advantage.
Well, just the first one, since it's very explicitly mentioned that making an attack reveals your position.
Hide [Action]
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
You stop being hidden immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
So there are only 4 events that can end your hiding. And none of them mention line of sight. Here, "an enemy finds you" refers to the check mentioned above: "the DC for a creature to find you". Same word: "find". Same Perception check. Nothing else can reveal your position.
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so...
"To do so" refers to "you try". Therefore, the conditions mentioned next apply to the attempt at hiding, not the ongoing activity of the "hidden" state.
It could be interpreted that way, but that amounts to the same thing. In order to Hide, you must be successful at meeting the requirements that are specified after "To do so". These things are describing what it means to be concealed in the context of the Hide action.
No, they describe what's needed to enter the hidden state. Once hidden, these conditions don't apply anymore.
See it this way: if I hide my watch inside a chest in front of you, you know that the watch is in the chest. But if I hide it inside the chest without you seeing me, then it doesn't matter if you later see the chest. You still won't know what's inside unless you take a look (which in the game is a Perception check against the initial Stealth roll), because it's hidden.
So after successfully hiding, it doesn't matter if the player comes into view. What ends the invisible condition is being found, not being seen. So the enemies need to succeed a Perception check. The requirements of cover and line of sight are only ever mentioned in the rules when describing the player's attempt to hide. Nowhere else.
I disagree.
First, if I see you put the watch inside the chest, I do NOT know that the watch is in the chest because I cannot currently see it and it is not making any noise. It would be a pretty good place for me to start looking, but until I find it there, I don't currently know the watch's location. In the real world, if I am watching a standard "magician" performing tricks then there's a pretty decent chance that the watch is not actually inside the chest. In a world of actual magic there are all sorts of reasons why the watch might not be in the chest.
The fact that I do not know where the watch is located is only true and only remains true while the watch is hidden. This is not permanent by virtue of your action to place the watch into the chest. On the contrary, if a subsequent wind storm blows through the area and knocks the chest over, popping open the lid and causing the watch to slide onto the floor out in the open, then guess what? It's no longer hidden. At that point, I do not have to look for it, I can automatically see it. Any benefit that the watch might have while hidden from me no longer applies because the watch is no longer hiding. It has come out into the open. Either intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't matter. Circumstances are no longer appropriate for hiding since it's laying on the floor in plain sight.
While hidden, the watch's location is only revealed to me if I find it. When it's not hidden, finding it is unnecessary. This has been clarified in the recent errata.
You didn't see a magician performing a parlor trick. You saw someone put a watch in a chest. That's why my attempt at hiding the watch failed. You saw me try it, you saw the watch enter the chest before it was closed. You know it's there.
Yes, while the watch is hidden. That's not a problem because the watch will stay hidden until you make a Perception check for it.
When you successfully hide, you STAY hidden until an enemy finds you with a perception check. Being seen is NOT one of the 4 conditions listed that can end the hidden state. Therefore, if you come into view, you are STILL hidden.
While hidden, the watch's location is only revealed to me if I find it. When it's not hidden, finding it is unnecessary. This has been clarified in the recent errata.
Yes, I 100% agree with you on this. But it's fine because when you come into view, you are still considered hidden, because none of the 4 conditions that can end the hidden state have been met yet. Which are, again: "you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
And for an enemy to find the hidden player, they need a Perception check. So long as none of these conditions are met, the player is STILL hidden. But you're right: when not hidden, finding is unnecessary. But it's okay, because the player is still considered hidden until 1 of the 4 conditions are met. Moving is not one of these conditions, and coming into line of sight is not one of these conditions either, so the player is still considered hidden, and therefore still has the invisible condition, and remains unseen.
Circumstances are no longer appropriate for hiding since it's laying on the floor in plain sight.
This is up to the DM to decide on a case by case basis. But if the circumstances don't allow for hiding, you wouldn't even be able to make a Stealth check in the first place. This mention is not there to allow any DM who doesn't like the player hiding to say "stop, I decide you're not hidden anymore because I say so" despite the rules allowing it. It's there because having total cover and out of sight doesn't always necessary means that nobody know where you are. For example, if your in the middle of the fight, everybody sees you go behind a tree, and you try to hide there, the DM could rule that the circumstances don't allow for that, because everybody saw you go behind that tree, so everybody knows you're there.
Taking the watch example again, it's like you watching me go into a room with an open small chest in 1 and and my watch in the other, then I come out without my watch and you go into the room seeing nothing but the chest on the table. The circumstances are just too obvious for you not to be able to deduce that I put my watch in there. It's not the only possibility, but it's the most obvious one.
You are not hidden anymore if you walk around in plain sight without cover or obscured somehow, meaning you do not have the Invisible condition.
Sure. Unless you're also avoiding everyone's attention/gaze. By being sneaky. Which is really easy to do in combat when everyone else is engaged in a swordfight with someone else while fireballs go off all around.
Outside of combat, an alert guard is probably checking all around them and being wary. Hard to sneak up on someone like that; maybe they automatically find you, or maybe they get advantage on searching... If it's a crowd of people milling about, they might not be paying you much attention, but that's too many eyes to evade.
In combat, when you are acting turn-by-turn and action-by-action, that kind of attentiveness is represented by the Search Action. If they're not taking the Search Action, it's because they're taking a different combat action, meaning they are too busy and distracted to look around. "Tunnel vision" is real.
And everything I wrote up ^there? Way too much nuance for an objective ruleset, at least by WotC's D&D standards. Exactly the sort of heady detail that turns off many players. So they leave it for DM rulings and judgement calls.
When you successfully hide, you STAY hidden until an enemy finds you with a perception check. Being seen is NOT one of the 4 conditions listed that can end the hidden state.
Literally the first thing they say in the PHB talking about d20 tests:
When the outcome of an action is uncertain, the game uses a d20 roll to determine success or failure
This is the flaw in your argument -- it assumes that the question of whether you can be sensed with a perception check is always uncertain, just because you took the hide action in the past.
Therefore, if you come into view, you are STILL hidden.
If you are making no effort to remain undetected, in what way are you hidden?
I mean, you can play it this way if you want, but the argument that this is RAW, much less RAI, is ...rather weak, and it definitely leads to significant breaks in verisimilitude, as described in the thread starter.
Therefore, if you come into view, you are STILL hidden.
If you are making no effort to remain undetected, in what way are you hidden?
I'm hidden in the way that none of the 4 events that end the hidden state have happened. I made a Stealth check that allowed me to enter the "hidden" state and be invisible as a result while I'm in that state. As long as none of the 4 things that can end that happens, I stay in that state. That's what the rules say, there's nothing ambiguous or uncertain about it. That's RAW. You may have a hard time picturing it in your mind, but this is a fantasy game, in which carrying double my own weight on my shoulders doesn't affect my movement in any way... It's not supposed to be realistic.
If the rules of Stealth say that I can conceal my presence so well that I can walk around without being detected like a ninja, then so be it. It's nothing compared to all the other unrealistic things this game allows us to do. Not to mention magic...
The things that can make you not be hidden anymore are very clearly and exhaustively written down in the rules. If you add another thing that end the hidden state (like coming into line of sight), then that's a house rule.
No DM I've ever played with (and there's been a lot) has ever done that, so no. Truth be told I've only played with DMs who stick to the 2024 rules, as they're written... Maybe you have a "rule of uncool" at your table, but not at the ones I play.
Not at all. Hide is an captial-A Action, that calls for a roll. You do not do it continuously. Just like how you do not continually do VSM components over the duration of a spell.
"round and round we go"
This is true for any errata subject matter, people who keep using their actual book without ever looking up errata will not simply seldom matter since they're using previous unupdated version, the issue will be them not using errata and play most current version, not that errata is being online and in future printing. It's up to people to ensure their content align with the most up-to-date version of the rules.
Everytime a topic to which an errata was issued come up from experience it's generally short discussion thread because it was updated & corrected and it's rapidly posted.
As DM i don't consider walking openly in enemy’s line of sight without any cover or obscured fashion to be circumstances appropriate for hiding.
As a DM, I would consider sneaking out of cover to backstab someone in pitched combat to be quite appopriate for hiding. (See? We both win, and the rule works better for it.)
Be it distraction or other circumstances, when a target don't see the attacker there's a rule called Unseen Attackers & Targets to cover this already, regardless if hidden or not the attack has Advantage.
The rule would work better if it didn't result in arguments like this. Regardless of what the intent is, the rule is clearly poorly written.
It could be interpreted that way, but that amounts to the same thing. In order to Hide, you must be successful at meeting the requirements that are specified after "To do so". These things are describing what it means to be concealed in the context of the Hide action. The word "hidden" that is used later on is just a synonym for this meaning of concealed which is defined by those requirements. Later on, the text makes it clear that being hidden is ongoing -- it's not a snapshot die roll which has no effect on the future. On the contrary, the value of the die roll is explicitly saved for later ("Make note") for an indeterminate amount of time which might be eventually used as a DC for a future enemy Perception check if you are still hidden when that happens. The benefits that are conferred to the hidden creature explicitly only apply while hidden. If you aren't hidden then you don't have those benefits, including the ability to set a DC for that Perception check.
That's incorrect. The fact that the Hide action is a listed standard action and the fact that its mechanic involves a die roll has nothing to do with the continuous nature of the state of being hidden.
The die roll determines whether or not you are ever concealed in the first place and therefore it determines whether or not you can even have the Invisible condition applied to you at all. But the duration of a condition that is put on a creature is generally defined by the effect which caused that condition. In this case, "while hidden" is essentially the duration of the condition that is applied to the creature. The creature very explicitly only has the condition "while hidden". It is not a permanent game state.
Yes, this is a good way to rule it. There's no reason why such a situation has to involve a "hidden" creature at all. The most accurate way for a DM to rule a situation where a creature is "sneaking out of cover to backstab someone in pitched combat" is that the creature is no longer a hidden creature as soon as they move out of cover and then, depending on the particular situation and at the DM's discretion, advantage could be applied to the attack by using the above rule for Unseen Attackers.
Alternatively, it's also very important to remember that we can always use this other rule:
I wonder if it would have been better written (i.e. more tight) and more aligned with everyone's idea of how it should work it the advantage part was conferred as long as you began your turn hidden? This is how I intend to use it, anyway.
That would mean you can't use the Invisible condition, and if you have multiple attacks, all of them are at advantage.
No, they describe what's needed to enter the hidden state. Once hidden, these conditions don't apply anymore.
See it this way: if I hide my watch inside a chest in front of you, you know that the watch is in the chest. But if I hide it inside the chest without you seeing me, then it doesn't matter if you later see the chest. You still won't know what's inside unless you take a look (which in the game is a Perception check against the initial Stealth roll), because it's hidden.
So after successfully hiding, it doesn't matter if the player comes into view. What ends the invisible condition is being found, not being seen. So the enemies need to succeed a Perception check. The requirements of cover and line of sight are only ever mentioned in the rules when describing the player's attempt to hide. Nowhere else.
Well, just the first one, since it's very explicitly mentioned that making an attack reveals your position.
So there are only 4 events that can end your hiding. And none of them mention line of sight.
Here, "an enemy finds you" refers to the check mentioned above: "the DC for a creature to find you".
Same word: "find". Same Perception check.
Nothing else can reveal your position.
I disagree.
First, if I see you put the watch inside the chest, I do NOT know that the watch is in the chest because I cannot currently see it and it is not making any noise. It would be a pretty good place for me to start looking, but until I find it there, I don't currently know the watch's location. In the real world, if I am watching a standard "magician" performing tricks then there's a pretty decent chance that the watch is not actually inside the chest. In a world of actual magic there are all sorts of reasons why the watch might not be in the chest.
The fact that I do not know where the watch is located is only true and only remains true while the watch is hidden. This is not permanent by virtue of your action to place the watch into the chest. On the contrary, if a subsequent wind storm blows through the area and knocks the chest over, popping open the lid and causing the watch to slide onto the floor out in the open, then guess what? It's no longer hidden. At that point, I do not have to look for it, I can automatically see it. Any benefit that the watch might have while hidden from me no longer applies because the watch is no longer hiding. It has come out into the open. Either intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't matter. Circumstances are no longer appropriate for hiding since it's laying on the floor in plain sight.
While hidden, the watch's location is only revealed to me if I find it. When it's not hidden, finding it is unnecessary. This has been clarified in the recent errata.
You didn't see a magician performing a parlor trick. You saw someone put a watch in a chest. That's why my attempt at hiding the watch failed. You saw me try it, you saw the watch enter the chest before it was closed. You know it's there.
Yes, while the watch is hidden. That's not a problem because the watch will stay hidden until you make a Perception check for it.
When you successfully hide, you STAY hidden until an enemy finds you with a perception check. Being seen is NOT one of the 4 conditions listed that can end the hidden state. Therefore, if you come into view, you are STILL hidden.
Yes, I 100% agree with you on this. But it's fine because when you come into view, you are still considered hidden, because none of the 4 conditions that can end the hidden state have been met yet. Which are, again: "you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
And for an enemy to find the hidden player, they need a Perception check. So long as none of these conditions are met, the player is STILL hidden. But you're right: when not hidden, finding is unnecessary. But it's okay, because the player is still considered hidden until 1 of the 4 conditions are met. Moving is not one of these conditions, and coming into line of sight is not one of these conditions either, so the player is still considered hidden, and therefore still has the invisible condition, and remains unseen.
This is up to the DM to decide on a case by case basis. But if the circumstances don't allow for hiding, you wouldn't even be able to make a Stealth check in the first place. This mention is not there to allow any DM who doesn't like the player hiding to say "stop, I decide you're not hidden anymore because I say so" despite the rules allowing it. It's there because having total cover and out of sight doesn't always necessary means that nobody know where you are. For example, if your in the middle of the fight, everybody sees you go behind a tree, and you try to hide there, the DM could rule that the circumstances don't allow for that, because everybody saw you go behind that tree, so everybody knows you're there.
Taking the watch example again, it's like you watching me go into a room with an open small chest in 1 and and my watch in the other, then I come out without my watch and you go into the room seeing nothing but the chest on the table. The circumstances are just too obvious for you not to be able to deduce that I put my watch in there. It's not the only possibility, but it's the most obvious one.
You have the Invisible condition while hidden.
You are not hidden anymore if you walk around in plain sight without cover or obscured somehow, meaning you do not have the Invisible condition.
To do this and still have the Invisible condition, you need Invisibility or something similar.
Sure. Unless you're also avoiding everyone's attention/gaze. By being sneaky. Which is really easy to do in combat when everyone else is engaged in a swordfight with someone else while fireballs go off all around.
Outside of combat, an alert guard is probably checking all around them and being wary. Hard to sneak up on someone like that; maybe they automatically find you, or maybe they get advantage on searching... If it's a crowd of people milling about, they might not be paying you much attention, but that's too many eyes to evade.
In combat, when you are acting turn-by-turn and action-by-action, that kind of attentiveness is represented by the Search Action. If they're not taking the Search Action, it's because they're taking a different combat action, meaning they are too busy and distracted to look around. "Tunnel vision" is real.
And everything I wrote up ^there? Way too much nuance for an objective ruleset, at least by WotC's D&D standards. Exactly the sort of heady detail that turns off many players. So they leave it for DM rulings and judgement calls.
Literally the first thing they say in the PHB talking about d20 tests:
This is the flaw in your argument -- it assumes that the question of whether you can be sensed with a perception check is always uncertain, just because you took the hide action in the past.
If you are making no effort to remain undetected, in what way are you hidden?
I mean, you can play it this way if you want, but the argument that this is RAW, much less RAI, is ...rather weak, and it definitely leads to significant breaks in verisimilitude, as described in the thread starter.
I'm hidden in the way that none of the 4 events that end the hidden state have happened. I made a Stealth check that allowed me to enter the "hidden" state and be invisible as a result while I'm in that state. As long as none of the 4 things that can end that happens, I stay in that state. That's what the rules say, there's nothing ambiguous or uncertain about it. That's RAW. You may have a hard time picturing it in your mind, but this is a fantasy game, in which carrying double my own weight on my shoulders doesn't affect my movement in any way... It's not supposed to be realistic.
If the rules of Stealth say that I can conceal my presence so well that I can walk around without being detected like a ninja, then so be it. It's nothing compared to all the other unrealistic things this game allows us to do. Not to mention magic...
The things that can make you not be hidden anymore are very clearly and exhaustively written down in the rules. If you add another thing that end the hidden state (like coming into line of sight), then that's a house rule.
Would you accept a DM stating that they are simply giving the NPC you are dancing in front of a +20 on their passive perception check to "find you"?
You were 'found' because the DM ruled that rolls to find you automatically succeed and your opponents have a passive perception score.
No DM I've ever played with (and there's been a lot) has ever done that, so no.
Truth be told I've only played with DMs who stick to the 2024 rules, as they're written...
Maybe you have a "rule of uncool" at your table, but not at the ones I play.
If a Rogue hides in the forest, does anybody hear them?