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.
I have a rule of "the rule of cool only applies to actions that are actually cool".
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.
Congrats you solved the problem on the 1% of the player base that visits forums.
The best example I have is on these forums where like a month before the 2024 books came out, someone posted about scrolls using information form before the changes were made in an errata to change the text. If we took a walk into multiple FLGS and asked players where the errata was, I guarantee you that the majority of them don't even know errata exists for the game.
If you go back and read like 80% of the posts in this thread, the majority of them are using the original wording printed in the book. You and others have constantly mentioned that the rules say "while hidden" for the response to your comment to argue that the text doesn't say while hidden or for someone to post three comments later ignoring the change "while hidden" being added.
I've had a player mention they were just going to rely on me for the rules because of how often they keep changing. I think most people who don't use D&D Beyond are never going to go look at the errata.
Even then who says Errata must be implemented? From the text on the page the OP is right. The rules as written don't require you to remain hidden and allow you to go walk around town invisible. There is nothing that says just because WotC decided to change that at a specific date that anyone must adopt those rules. A large portion of the player base, that first printing is the official rules and are never going to look elsewhere.
I don't think it is fair to argue with the OP about stealth being overpowered with text that was changed by WotC. Its fair to say it was errata and changed/clarified, but that really doesn't change what the book says, especially since currently there are no updated printings.
The "while hidden" errata really didn't change anything. I've never seen anyone take the position that you could stop Hiding and remain Invisible, even before the errata. Certainly no one here has been arguing that, so regardless of whether someone has read the errata, it isn't relevant here.
The "while hidden" errata really didn't change anything. I've never seen anyone take the position that you could stop Hiding and remain Invisible, even before the errata. Certainly no one here has been arguing that, so regardless of whether someone has read the errata, it isn't relevant here.
I've seen plenty of people argue that the text as written allows you to stop hiding and remain invisible. (Beyond the OP). I haven't seen anyone besides the OP, who believes that was RAI, but I have seen several people argue that RAW implies you can leave hiding and remain invisible because the text doesn't specify leaving hiding removes the invisible condition and if you are invisible you can't be seen.
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.
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.
What do you mean by coming into view? Like dance in front of them as some have said or leave cover. As one sure you stopped hiding, the other I don't think you can say they are making no effort to remain undetected.
Yes if you are literally just dancing in front of them, or pom poms as people used i think it would be reasonable to say you are no longer trying to hide. You can always intentionally break hiding. Sort of like if you are trying to persuade a guard, get irritated then insult his mom, I think the DM might say I know you made a persuasion attempt, but it sounds to me like you are giving up on charming him with witty banter.
It is a turn based game, played both on game mats real or virtual and in theater of the mind. What and where a creature is currently looking at is sort of up in the air. And how people hide is never described. It can include things like distractions like the classic video game thrown rock to get their attention shifted. The basic idea that no one has 360 degree vision etc. So leaving cover on its own does not seem to be something that would mean you are trying to stop hiding.
It would be reasonable for a DM to say certain actions like dancing in front of someone is counter to trying to remain hidden, and doing an action that obvious is the same as saying i am no longer trying to remain hidden. But if just leaving cover meant that I kind of think they would have put that in the rules.
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.
in itself no. As i think the assumption is if you rolled a 30 you know how to move when others are not looking, can subtly distract people to look another way etc. At the same time I think the rules would include that there are circumstances where you can not remain hidden, and actions you can do that indicate you are no longer trying to hide. If an entire army is looking at that tree waiting for you to come out from behind it even if their highest roll possible is a 22, lets just say they'd likely get a high enough circumstance bonus that some of them would spot you whenever you tried to step out of cover.
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.
This is simply incorrect in D&D 5e, sorry. If I do not currently see or hear the watch, then I do not currently know where it is. There are all sorts of reasons why it might not actually be in the chest.
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.
Again, all of this is simply incorrect. It's just not how it works. You do not and you can not know where someone or something is unless you actually currently see it or hear it. You are free to "guess the square", but that's different than actually knowing something's location. In fact, this is the entire point of attempting to Hide in this game. You are making a deliberate effort to avoid being seen or heard by any enemies so that they do not know your location.
Thus, if you can be seen or heard then you just are not hidden. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that something specific happened that caused you to "stop being hidden immediately". But it does mean that you are not currently hidden since being concealed / hidden means that you've taken some active steps to prevent enemies from seeing or hearing you. You only have the benefits of hiding "while hidden".
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.
The "DM decides" line is no different than any other rule in the game - and isn't relevant to a discussion of RAW. My Fairy Monk can knock an Ancient Red Dragon prone with just his fists. A DM could decide that's unreasonable and forbid it. Doesn't change the fact that, as written, the rules allow it.
I don't know of any rules specifically saying the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for knocking prone as it does for hiding tough.
The rules do say you stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds, you which as DM i may rule an enemy finds you walking out in the open and waving pom-poms.
The "DM decides" line is no different than any other rule in the game - and isn't relevant to a discussion of RAW. My Fairy Monk can knock an Ancient Red Dragon prone with just his fists. A DM could decide that's unreasonable and forbid it. Doesn't change the fact that, as written, the rules allow it.
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.
The "DM decides" line is no different than any other rule in the game - and isn't relevant to a discussion of RAW. My Fairy Monk can knock an Ancient Red Dragon prone with just his fists. A DM could decide that's unreasonable and forbid it. Doesn't change the fact that, as written, the rules allow it.
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.
Yes, this is a very good way to look at it. The Hide action provides a non-exhaustive list which explicitly cause you to stop being hidden immediately. Then, in addition to that, the game also explicitly declares that the DM is going to have to arbitrate a lot of corner cases surrounding the concept of hiding.
The way that I see it, I don't really understand the insistence that a creature should be classified as "hiding" in many of the various scenarios that have been discussed when the DM has other tools available that can benefit the player in a similar way, such as to use the Unseen Attacker rule when appropriate, or to simply use this more general rule:
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.
That's the rule that can easily be used to cover cases such as "the enemy is distracted" or "the enemy is looking the other way" or "it's all happening quickly in the confusing heat of combat" or dozens of other case-by-case specific scenarios in which it might be reasonable to grant advantage on a D20 Test.
Playing it this way also allows the DM to have better control over which player ideas are good or fun ideas that might have a chance to work and which ideas are just ridiculous and definitely won't work and it gives the players a more exciting sense of uncertainty with their actions rather than being guaranteed to succeed in an activity that normally might be considered to be a bit silly and/or risky.
I don't know of any rules specifically saying the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for knocking prone as it does for hiding tough.
Knocking prone is much less situation dependent than hiding, and is completely ambiguous some of the time and requires DM ruling.
E.g. (1) can a creature that is hovering, levitating, or held aloft by Reverse Gravity be "knocked prone", what does it even means to be prone in that situation? (2) Similarly in an underwater combat situation what happens if a shark is "knocked prone" does it sink? does it float to the surface? (3) If a creature is stuck in a web that is attached to the wall, can it be "knocked prone"? If it is, then is it released from the webs? Do the webs create any additional resistance to being knocked prone? (4) Do you have to be on the ground to be "knocked prone"? What the area is under a Reverse Gravity spell? Can a creature be prone on the ceiling? (5) What if a creature is being dangled from a rope, can it be "knocked prone"? (6) What if a creature has been swallowed by another creature and that second creature is knocked prone? Is the creature in the monster's stomach also considered prone? (7) What if a creature is grappling another creature, and the grappler is knocked prone? Do they drag the grapplee prone as well? (8) What if a creature is mounted on a horse, and the horse is knocked prone, what happens to the rider? What if the rider is knocked prone, do they fall off the horse?
There's also plenty of exceptions to being able to knock a creature prone hidden in the condition immunities of various monsters.
The "DM decides" line is no different than any other rule in the game - and isn't relevant to a discussion of RAW. My Fairy Monk can knock an Ancient Red Dragon prone with just his fists. A DM could decide that's unreasonable and forbid it. Doesn't change the fact that, as written, the rules allow it.
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.
Yes, this is a very good way to look at it. The Hide action provides a non-exhaustive list which explicitly cause you to stop being hidden immediately. Then, in addition to that, the game also explicitly declares that the DM is going to have to arbitrate a lot of corner cases surrounding the concept of hiding.
The way that I see it, I don't really understand the insistence that a creature should be classified as "hiding" in many of the various scenarios that have been discussed when the DM has other tools available that can benefit the player in a similar way, such as to use the Unseen Attacker rule when appropriate, or to simply use this more general rule:
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.
That's the rule that can easily be used to cover cases such as "the enemy is distracted" or "the enemy is looking the other way" or "it's all happening quickly in the confusing heat of combat" or dozens of other case-by-case specific scenarios in which it might be reasonable to grant advantage on a D20 Test.
Playing it this way also allows the DM to have better control over which player ideas are good or fun ideas that might have a chance to work and which ideas are just ridiculous and definitely won't work and it gives the players a more exciting sense of uncertainty with their actions rather than being guaranteed to succeed in an activity that normally might be considered to be a bit silly and/or risky.
But hide handles those situations as well. Saying its impossible to hide or remain hidden outside of cover/concealment is just as logically absurd as the pom pom examples.
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.
The way that I see it, I don't really understand the insistence that a creature should be classified as "hiding" in many of the various scenarios that have been discussed when the DM has other tools available that can benefit the player in a similar way, such as to use the Unseen Attacker rule when appropriate <snip>
Hide is the primary way a character can proactively become unseen. That's the point, I think. (The unseen attacker box even references being hidden.)
If you start in a situation where your opponents know where you are, you can duck out of line of sight (behind cover, etc.) and roll stealth (DC 15), and now they don't know where you are. (This is so mechanically similar to being invisible that they folded it into the same rules condition.) Having achieved this state, you can now move around, probably rolling stealth to remain unheard, until you end the condition, likely by making an attack, but maybe by getting found by someone's perception, or by some piece of DM arbitration ("uh, they automatically find you when you wave the pom poms...").
I have a rule of "the rule of cool only applies to actions that are actually cool".
Congrats you solved the problem on the 1% of the player base that visits forums.
The best example I have is on these forums where like a month before the 2024 books came out, someone posted about scrolls using information form before the changes were made in an errata to change the text. If we took a walk into multiple FLGS and asked players where the errata was, I guarantee you that the majority of them don't even know errata exists for the game.
If you go back and read like 80% of the posts in this thread, the majority of them are using the original wording printed in the book. You and others have constantly mentioned that the rules say "while hidden" for the response to your comment to argue that the text doesn't say while hidden or for someone to post three comments later ignoring the change "while hidden" being added.
I've had a player mention they were just going to rely on me for the rules because of how often they keep changing. I think most people who don't use D&D Beyond are never going to go look at the errata.
Even then who says Errata must be implemented? From the text on the page the OP is right. The rules as written don't require you to remain hidden and allow you to go walk around town invisible. There is nothing that says just because WotC decided to change that at a specific date that anyone must adopt those rules. A large portion of the player base, that first printing is the official rules and are never going to look elsewhere.
I don't think it is fair to argue with the OP about stealth being overpowered with text that was changed by WotC. Its fair to say it was errata and changed/clarified, but that really doesn't change what the book says, especially since currently there are no updated printings.
The "while hidden" errata really didn't change anything. I've never seen anyone take the position that you could stop Hiding and remain Invisible, even before the errata. Certainly no one here has been arguing that, so regardless of whether someone has read the errata, it isn't relevant here.
I've seen plenty of people argue that the text as written allows you to stop hiding and remain invisible. (Beyond the OP). I haven't seen anyone besides the OP, who believes that was RAI, but I have seen several people argue that RAW implies you can leave hiding and remain invisible because the text doesn't specify leaving hiding removes the invisible condition and if you are invisible you can't be seen.
The text as written does not say walking out in the open and waving pom-poms causes you to stop hiding.
The rules say the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding though.
I would agree. Technically you are still hiding while waving pom poms
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.
What do you mean by coming into view? Like dance in front of them as some have said or leave cover. As one sure you stopped hiding, the other I don't think you can say they are making no effort to remain undetected.
Yes if you are literally just dancing in front of them, or pom poms as people used i think it would be reasonable to say you are no longer trying to hide. You can always intentionally break hiding. Sort of like if you are trying to persuade a guard, get irritated then insult his mom, I think the DM might say I know you made a persuasion attempt, but it sounds to me like you are giving up on charming him with witty banter.
It is a turn based game, played both on game mats real or virtual and in theater of the mind. What and where a creature is currently looking at is sort of up in the air. And how people hide is never described. It can include things like distractions like the classic video game thrown rock to get their attention shifted. The basic idea that no one has 360 degree vision etc. So leaving cover on its own does not seem to be something that would mean you are trying to stop hiding.
It would be reasonable for a DM to say certain actions like dancing in front of someone is counter to trying to remain hidden, and doing an action that obvious is the same as saying i am no longer trying to remain hidden. But if just leaving cover meant that I kind of think they would have put that in the rules.
in itself no. As i think the assumption is if you rolled a 30 you know how to move when others are not looking, can subtly distract people to look another way etc. At the same time I think the rules would include that there are circumstances where you can not remain hidden, and actions you can do that indicate you are no longer trying to hide. If an entire army is looking at that tree waiting for you to come out from behind it even if their highest roll possible is a 22, lets just say they'd likely get a high enough circumstance bonus that some of them would spot you whenever you tried to step out of cover.
This is simply incorrect in D&D 5e, sorry. If I do not currently see or hear the watch, then I do not currently know where it is. There are all sorts of reasons why it might not actually be in the chest.
Again, all of this is simply incorrect. It's just not how it works. You do not and you can not know where someone or something is unless you actually currently see it or hear it. You are free to "guess the square", but that's different than actually knowing something's location. In fact, this is the entire point of attempting to Hide in this game. You are making a deliberate effort to avoid being seen or heard by any enemies so that they do not know your location.
Thus, if you can be seen or heard then you just are not hidden. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that something specific happened that caused you to "stop being hidden immediately". But it does mean that you are not currently hidden since being concealed / hidden means that you've taken some active steps to prevent enemies from seeing or hearing you. You only have the benefits of hiding "while hidden".
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.
The "DM decides" line is no different than any other rule in the game - and isn't relevant to a discussion of RAW. My Fairy Monk can knock an Ancient Red Dragon prone with just his fists. A DM could decide that's unreasonable and forbid it. Doesn't change the fact that, as written, the rules allow it.
I don't know of any rules specifically saying the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for knocking prone as it does for hiding tough.
The rules do say you stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds, you which as DM i may rule an enemy finds you walking out in the open and waving pom-poms.
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.
Yes, this is a very good way to look at it. The Hide action provides a non-exhaustive list which explicitly cause you to stop being hidden immediately. Then, in addition to that, the game also explicitly declares that the DM is going to have to arbitrate a lot of corner cases surrounding the concept of hiding.
The way that I see it, I don't really understand the insistence that a creature should be classified as "hiding" in many of the various scenarios that have been discussed when the DM has other tools available that can benefit the player in a similar way, such as to use the Unseen Attacker rule when appropriate, or to simply use this more general rule:
That's the rule that can easily be used to cover cases such as "the enemy is distracted" or "the enemy is looking the other way" or "it's all happening quickly in the confusing heat of combat" or dozens of other case-by-case specific scenarios in which it might be reasonable to grant advantage on a D20 Test.
Playing it this way also allows the DM to have better control over which player ideas are good or fun ideas that might have a chance to work and which ideas are just ridiculous and definitely won't work and it gives the players a more exciting sense of uncertainty with their actions rather than being guaranteed to succeed in an activity that normally might be considered to be a bit silly and/or risky.
Knocking prone is much less situation dependent than hiding, and is completely ambiguous some of the time and requires DM ruling.
E.g.
(1) can a creature that is hovering, levitating, or held aloft by Reverse Gravity be "knocked prone", what does it even means to be prone in that situation?
(2) Similarly in an underwater combat situation what happens if a shark is "knocked prone" does it sink? does it float to the surface?
(3) If a creature is stuck in a web that is attached to the wall, can it be "knocked prone"? If it is, then is it released from the webs? Do the webs create any additional resistance to being knocked prone?
(4) Do you have to be on the ground to be "knocked prone"? What the area is under a Reverse Gravity spell? Can a creature be prone on the ceiling?
(5) What if a creature is being dangled from a rope, can it be "knocked prone"?
(6) What if a creature has been swallowed by another creature and that second creature is knocked prone? Is the creature in the monster's stomach also considered prone?
(7) What if a creature is grappling another creature, and the grappler is knocked prone? Do they drag the grapplee prone as well?
(8) What if a creature is mounted on a horse, and the horse is knocked prone, what happens to the rider? What if the rider is knocked prone, do they fall off the horse?
There's also plenty of exceptions to being able to knock a creature prone hidden in the condition immunities of various monsters.
But hide handles those situations as well. Saying its impossible to hide or remain hidden outside of cover/concealment is just as logically absurd as the pom pom examples.
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.
Hide is the primary way a character can proactively become unseen. That's the point, I think. (The unseen attacker box even references being hidden.)
If you start in a situation where your opponents know where you are, you can duck out of line of sight (behind cover, etc.) and roll stealth (DC 15), and now they don't know where you are. (This is so mechanically similar to being invisible that they folded it into the same rules condition.) Having achieved this state, you can now move around, probably rolling stealth to remain unheard, until you end the condition, likely by making an attack, but maybe by getting found by someone's perception, or by some piece of DM arbitration ("uh, they automatically find you when you wave the pom poms...").