As a DM, I pretty much just use the 2014 rules, and since the only characters who have ever tried to use stealth in combat (outside of ambushes) were archers, I didn't have to worry about whether you can 'approach' someone. However, I really do wonder what the devs were trying to do.
I actually think it is pretty straight forward. They were trying to head off questions like 'how do we handle initiative if a hidden character starts combat', 'the character dived into those bushes and I want to cast a spell on them since they didn't have any more movement', and 'the character dived into those bushes and I want to shoot them with an arrow since they didn't have any more movement'.
As a DM, I pretty much just use the 2014 rules, and since the only characters who have ever tried to use stealth in combat (outside of ambushes) were archers, I didn't have to worry about whether you can 'approach' someone. However, I really do wonder what the devs were trying to do.
I actually think it is pretty straight forward. They were trying to head off questions like 'how do we handle initiative if a hidden character starts combat', 'the character dived into those bushes and I want to cast a spell on them since they didn't have any more movement', and 'the character dived into those bushes and I want to shoot them with an arrow since they didn't have any more movement'.
With respect, since I can't even follow what you're aiming for with those scenarios, I wouldn't call working out how to apply the current rules "straightforward".
The Perception check to locate a creature Invisible to a Hide check must be an active check - it is explicitly laid out in the rules. At best, a Passive Perception check might be used to notice something is amiss and justify (without metagaming) that an active Search is necessary.
"Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature’s general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something WITTHOUT consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check."
passive perception isn't a perception check
This does not disagree with what I've said -- it supports what I've said. Passive Perception is used whenever a Perception check might be called for in order to determine whether a creature notices something without actively searching. Unless the text explicitly requires an active search, this passive ability is "always on".
No, it isn't, Passive Perception is used exactly went a perception check will NOT be called.
Your entire premise is based precisely on this misinterpretation of the rule.
Incorrect. The rules for Passive Perception are explicitly spelled out in the Rules Glossary and have already been quoted.
Whenever a situation arises where a Perception Check could be called for (because the result of a search is uncertain) but IS NOT (because the creature in question is not actively performing a search) THEN the rules for Passive Perception automatically kick in to determine whether or not the creature notices something without actively searching for it.
The only thing hide specifically does is grant you the invisible;
It's really unfortunate that people keep saying this in these threads.
People say that because it's true. The only specific effect given in hide is the invisible condition. There are other effects that can be read by implication, but they're just that: by implication. Being 'hidden' has no defined meaning within the game system separate from the text of the hide action.
The questions I asked, that you confidently answered, do not have answers within the game rules.
This is false on both counts.
The Hide action explicitly causes a creature to become hidden by concealing itself.
Being hidden does in fact have meaning in the game rules. The general rules for what it means to be hidden are given in the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar. Once the Hide action causes a creature to become hidden these general rules apply.
The Perception check to locate a creature Invisible to a Hide check must be an active check - it is explicitly laid out in the rules. At best, a Passive Perception check might be used to notice something is amiss and justify (without metagaming) that an active Search is necessary.
Can you provide the reference that says that it much be an active check (i.e., a Search action is required)?
Just to head off fruitless arguments, please do not argue that asking for a Perception Check means the check must be active (since the description for Passive Perception says it can be made to notice things without an active check). While you may disagree with my interpretation, at that point we are dealing with arguments of interpretation, not black and white rules as written. While I will respect your right to take the position that asking for a Perception Check implies that the roll must be active, I ask that you respect my position that the wording of Passive Perception implies that it doesn't have to be (i.e., both of us recognize that we are trying to decipher an implication rather than something written in clear black and white).
On the other hand, if you have can point to something that definitively says a roll must be made or that calls for a Search action to spot someone hidden, I would happily concede the point and accept that Passive Perception is not capable of spotting someone hidden.
The Perception check to locate a creature Invisible to a Hide check must be an active check - it is explicitly laid out in the rules. At best, a Passive Perception check might be used to notice something is amiss and justify (without metagaming) that an active Search is necessary.
This is false. You stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you.
It is NOT "you stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you with an active Perception Check".
The Perception check to locate a creature Invisible to a Hide check must be an active check - it is explicitly laid out in the rules. At best, a Passive Perception check might be used to notice something is amiss and justify (without metagaming) that an active Search is necessary.
This is false. You stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you.
It is NOT "you stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you with an active Perception Check".
Ordinarily, you can't use Perception at all to find an Invisible character (which is what they are once they Hide). However, there is a special exception: if you take an Action to Search. There is no such special exception for passive Perception checks.
Being hidden does in fact have meaning in the game rules. The general rules for what it means to be hidden are given in the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar.
No, that sidebar does not state what it means. It states that your position becomes known when you attack, but it never specifies that being hidden made your position unknown to start with. In 2014 all of my questions had modestly clear answers:
Hiding ends if any creature can see you 'clearly'. This was undefined, but it's likely that a character who has no cover and is not obscured is in clear sight.
Hiding makes you both unseen and unheard.
Passive perception is the DC for stealth.
See invisibility overrides stealth if invisibility is what's keeping you out of clear view.
It's plausible that 2024 did not intend to change (1) and (2); the rules neither support nor contradict that assumption. (3) was changed to only be a target for non-combat stealth (for example, still used in the chase rules). I'm not sure they intended to change (4), but as written they did -- if a character is in view but not in clear view, see invisibility would reveal them.
Ordinarily, you can't use Perception at all to find an Invisible character (which is what they are once they Hide). However, there is a special exception: if you take an Action to Search. There is no such special exception for passive Perception checks.
Yes you can. You can't use perception to see an invisible character, but you can still use any other sense you might have to find them.
The Perception check to locate a creature Invisible to a Hide check must be an active check - it is explicitly laid out in the rules. At best, a Passive Perception check might be used to notice something is amiss and justify (without metagaming) that an active Search is necessary.
This is false. You stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you.
It is NOT "you stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you with an active Perception Check".
Ordinarily, you can't use Perception at all to find an Invisible character (which is what they are once they Hide). However, there is a special exception: if you take an Action to Search. There is no such special exception for passive Perception checks.
That is not correct. There is nothing that says you cannot use a Perception Check to find an Invisible character. However, succeeding in a Perception check does not remove the Invisible condition (unlike someone who has the Invisible condition due to utilizing the Hide action). This means the invisible target would still have multiple benefits (such as attackers having Disadvantage to attack them). That is one of the strengths of Invisibility over mere Stealth.
Examples of this would be making a hearing Perception Check to hear where the invisible paladin in plate armor is since he is clanking around. At that point the person who made the check could try and attack the paladin, though they would have Disadvantage to do so (and they would still be unable to use a spell that requires them to actually see the target).
This requires a lot of flexibility on the part of the DM to figure out situational modifiers to the Perception Check. Usually you are probably looking at a hearing check. Depending on how much the character is moving around the DM probably should modify the roll (even the paladin in our earlier example won't be making too much noise if he is standing in place, though he probably won't be completely silent).
In general a visual check probably wouldn't be allowed at all, but if there's stuff in the air it might be possible, with the amount of stuff providing modifications (e.g.; a little fog could mean the check is made with Disadvantage, heavy fog might be a straight roll, and if the invisible person is standing in a waterfall then the roll is made with Advantage).
You cannot use a Perception check to see an Invisible character ordinarily. There is a special exception for the Invisible from Hide, where you can use the Search Action. Since various forms of 'sight' are the only ways to target characters, you cannot find a character with a non-sight sense. All you can do is be alerted to the fact that there's something amiss.
If your clanking Paladin used the Invisibility spell, this would likely be fairly easy. If they used the Hide action, it is assumed the Paladin isn't making detectable noise since this would end the Invisible condition. The difficulty of doing so in plate mail is covered by Disadvantage on the Stealth roll.
In terms of Advantage/Disadvantage on the rolls, Stealth is different from Invisibility in that Stealth allows you to know with certainty whether an enemy can see you - and thus you'd know before any such Advantage/Disadvantage was applied. It's also a generally bad idea to invent these sorts of modifiers without any support in the rules. In most cases, it's akin to saying "you have Disadvantage on your attacks because it's Difficult Terrain and hard to stand". While this may make sense to someone, it's not an actual part of the rules.
What was the intention behind making a successful Hide Action grant the Invisible Condition, in the 2024 Player's Handbook?
Given the new glossary and set of capital-C Conditions...
They probably had a "Hidden Condition" (my writer instincts would name this the "Unnoticed Condition"), and someone on the team (designer, editor, whatever) realized it was a nigh-perfect mechanical superset of the Invisible Condition, and after some discussion they decided to merge the two and put the difference (how it ends) entirely in the Hide Action.
Agreed. You cannot use a Perception Check to see an invisible character ordinarily. There would need to be mitigating situations.
Your original statement, however, was that you could not use a Perception Check to find an invisible character, which is why I brought up hearing. I mentioned mitigating situations for seeing an invisible character because I did not wish it to sound as though I was saying that people could just try and make visual Perception Checks to spot them all the time while also saying that yes, there are situations in which such a thing would be possible.
As for 'inventing modifiers', this is part and parcel of being a DM. it literally says in the DMG "In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance would merit Advantage or Disadvantage."
(Incidentally, in the DMG Passive Checks are under the subheading of 'Ability Checks', so it is very arguable that Passive Perception is a Perception Check.)
Ordinarily, you can't use Perception at all to find an Invisible character (which is what they are once they Hide). However, there is a special exception: if you take an Action to Search. There is no such special exception for passive Perception checks.
A hidden creature is not invisible. A hidden creature simply has the invisible condition (which is just a list of benefits) while hidden.
Nothing about what you're saying here is written in the text for the Hide action.
The Hide action explicitly says that you stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you. It also says that IF you use a method that uses a Perception Check then the DC for that check is a certain number. Absolutely nothing about that means that an active check must be used to find someone.
Someone dove into the bushes and hid. They have only 3/4 cover and I know they haven't moved out. Can I hit them with an arrow? What's the penalty?
Uh, that's the cover rules, which is mostly separate from Hide, especially when you establish they only have 3/4 cover. Not really helping me see your point.
Someone dove into the bushes and hid. They have only 3/4 cover and I know they haven't moved out. Can I hit them with an arrow? What's the penalty?
Uh, that's the cover rules, which is mostly separate from Hide, especially when you establish they only have 3/4 cover. Not really helping me see your point.
It is not the cover rules. The cover rules are one set (they add +5 to their AC) and the Invisibility condition is another (attacks against them have Disadvantage).
So shooting at a character who has hidden in the bushes is harder than shooting at someone who has not hidden in the bushes (in both cases they get cover, but in one case you can still see them and so your odds of hitting them are better).
No, that sidebar does not state what it means. It states that your position becomes known when you attack, but it never specifies that being hidden made your position unknown to start with.
This makes no sense. The reason why the hidden creature's position becomes known after attacking is precisely because its position is unknown before attacking.
The sidebar is explaining the rules for two different scenarios at the same time. One scenario is when a creature can be heard but it is unseen. The other scenario is when the creature is both unseen and unheard which forces an enemy to have to guess the square because this creature's location is unknown. In that scenario (otherwise known as being hidden), making an attack gives away the position. It's a bit tricky to parse because of the unnecessary amount of brevity that was used in the writing, but that's what those rules are saying.
[ Passive perception is the DC for stealth. ] was changed to only be a target for non-combat stealth (for example, still used in the chase rules).
This just absolutely positively is not true at all according to the general rules that are given in the Glossary Entry for Passive Perception. Those rules have been quoted in this thread a couple of times already.
Examples of this would be making a hearing Perception Check to hear where the invisible paladin in plate armor is since he is clanking around. At that point the person who made the check could try and attack the paladin, though they would have Disadvantage to do so (and they would still be unable to use a spell that requires them to actually see the target).
This requires a lot of flexibility on the part of the DM to figure out situational modifiers to the Perception Check. Usually you are probably looking at a hearing check. Depending on how much the character is moving around the DM probably should modify the roll (even the paladin in our earlier example won't be making too much noise if he is standing in place, though he probably won't be completely silent).
The mechanics in this game are not really meant to work this way. Instead, the Paladin might have had to make the initial Stealth roll at disadvantage due to the type of armor he is wearing. If he is able to overcome this disadvantage by making a good roll anyway, this is meant to model how well he is able to stay quiet during this period of stealth. As such, a Perception check should not have any modifier here -- the ability to perceive this Paladin was already mathematically baked into the Stealth roll -- that's the point of the variable DC mechanic which is based on the value of the Stealth roll.
In this example, we are assuming that the Paladin managed to roll at least a 15 on the Stealth check and that the value of the roll exceeds our Passive Perception score. So, that Passive Perception becomes the floor for any active check. If we then decide to actively search for the Paladin then we would make an active Perception check and any result that is equal to or lower than our Passive Perception score is just meaningless (an automatic failure).
In general a visual check probably wouldn't be allowed at all, but if there's stuff in the air it might be possible, with the amount of stuff providing modifications (e.g.; a little fog could mean the check is made with Disadvantage, heavy fog might be a straight roll, and if the invisible person is standing in a waterfall then the roll is made with Advantage).
Again, you are really never just making a "hearing check" or a "visual check". Instead, you are taking a Search action which calls for a "Perception check" which is: "Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss".
Since various forms of 'sight' are the only ways to target characters, you cannot find a character with a non-sight sense. All you can do is be alerted to the fact that there's something amiss.
This is 100% totally incorrect. Perception checks always use a combination of senses and in this game hearing a creature is enough to pinpoint its exact location such that you do not have to guess the square (See the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar for the exact details on this).
So shooting at a character who has hidden in the bushes is harder than shooting at someone who has not hidden in the bushes (in both cases they get cover, but in one case you can still see them and so your odds of hitting them are better).
Since bushes don't actually grant cover (cover is something that can actually stop attacks), they are either lightly obscuring (in which case you can't take the hide action) or heavily obscuring (in which case they have disadvantage whether or not you hide).
This makes no sense. The reason why the hidden creature's position becomes known after attacking is precisely because its position is unknown before attacking.
Fallacy of the converse. The reason why the hidden creature's position becomes known after attacking is because it might have been unknown before attacking.
Examples of this would be making a hearing Perception Check to hear where the invisible paladin in plate armor is since he is clanking around. At that point the person who made the check could try and attack the paladin, though they would have Disadvantage to do so (and they would still be unable to use a spell that requires them to actually see the target).
This requires a lot of flexibility on the part of the DM to figure out situational modifiers to the Perception Check. Usually you are probably looking at a hearing check. Depending on how much the character is moving around the DM probably should modify the roll (even the paladin in our earlier example won't be making too much noise if he is standing in place, though he probably won't be completely silent).
The mechanics in this game are not really meant to work this way. Instead, the Paladin might have had to make the initial Stealth roll at disadvantage due to the type of armor he is wearing. If he is able to overcome this disadvantage by making a good roll anyway, this is meant to model how well he is able to stay quiet during this period of stealth. As such, a Perception check should not have any modifier here -- the ability to perceive this Paladin was already mathematically baked into the Stealth roll -- that's the point of the variable DC mechanic which is based on the value of the Stealth roll.
In this example, we are assuming that the Paladin managed to roll at least a 15 on the Stealth check and that the value of the roll exceeds our Passive Perception score. So, that Passive Perception becomes the floor for any active check. If we then decide to actively search for the Paladin then we would make an active Perception check and any result that is equal to or lower than our Passive Perception score is just meaningless (an automatic failure).
Re-reading I do realize I made a hash of the statements because it seems as though I was saying the DM should just assign those difficulties, but that wasn't really my intention.
When I said that the clanking paladin could be heard, yes, I was assuming a Stealth check with Disadvantage would be called for on the part of the paladin. When I said that the DM should modify the roll if if the paladin was not moving, that was because the paladin could gain Advantage (offsetting the Disadvantage for their armor). This advantage would come from the statement 'In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance would merit Advantage or Disadvantage.' in the DMG.
So, I think we are pretty much in agreement with the mechanics in such a situation. I just explained it very badly.
This is 100% totally incorrect. Perception checks always use a combination of senses and in this game hearing a creature is enough to pinpoint its exact location such that you do not have to guess the square (See the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar for the exact details on this).
There is nothing in the Unseen Attackers and Targets section that supports your interpretation. Essentially you're trying to argue that all characters have an improved version of Tremorsense and Tremorsense itself is useless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I actually think it is pretty straight forward. They were trying to head off questions like 'how do we handle initiative if a hidden character starts combat', 'the character dived into those bushes and I want to cast a spell on them since they didn't have any more movement', and 'the character dived into those bushes and I want to shoot them with an arrow since they didn't have any more movement'.
With respect, since I can't even follow what you're aiming for with those scenarios, I wouldn't call working out how to apply the current rules "straightforward".
The Perception check to locate a creature Invisible to a Hide check must be an active check - it is explicitly laid out in the rules. At best, a Passive Perception check might be used to notice something is amiss and justify (without metagaming) that an active Search is necessary.
Someone dove into the bushes and hid. They have only 3/4 cover and I know they haven't moved out. Can I hit them with an arrow? What's the penalty?
Incorrect. The rules for Passive Perception are explicitly spelled out in the Rules Glossary and have already been quoted.
Whenever a situation arises where a Perception Check could be called for (because the result of a search is uncertain) but IS NOT (because the creature in question is not actively performing a search) THEN the rules for Passive Perception automatically kick in to determine whether or not the creature notices something without actively searching for it.
This is false on both counts.
The Hide action explicitly causes a creature to become hidden by concealing itself.
Being hidden does in fact have meaning in the game rules. The general rules for what it means to be hidden are given in the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar. Once the Hide action causes a creature to become hidden these general rules apply.
Can you provide the reference that says that it much be an active check (i.e., a Search action is required)?
Just to head off fruitless arguments, please do not argue that asking for a Perception Check means the check must be active (since the description for Passive Perception says it can be made to notice things without an active check). While you may disagree with my interpretation, at that point we are dealing with arguments of interpretation, not black and white rules as written. While I will respect your right to take the position that asking for a Perception Check implies that the roll must be active, I ask that you respect my position that the wording of Passive Perception implies that it doesn't have to be (i.e., both of us recognize that we are trying to decipher an implication rather than something written in clear black and white).
On the other hand, if you have can point to something that definitively says a roll must be made or that calls for a Search action to spot someone hidden, I would happily concede the point and accept that Passive Perception is not capable of spotting someone hidden.
This is false. You stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you.
It is NOT "you stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you with an active Perception Check".
Ordinarily, you can't use Perception at all to find an Invisible character (which is what they are once they Hide). However, there is a special exception: if you take an Action to Search. There is no such special exception for passive Perception checks.
No, that sidebar does not state what it means. It states that your position becomes known when you attack, but it never specifies that being hidden made your position unknown to start with. In 2014 all of my questions had modestly clear answers:
It's plausible that 2024 did not intend to change (1) and (2); the rules neither support nor contradict that assumption. (3) was changed to only be a target for non-combat stealth (for example, still used in the chase rules). I'm not sure they intended to change (4), but as written they did -- if a character is in view but not in clear view, see invisibility would reveal them.
Yes you can. You can't use perception to see an invisible character, but you can still use any other sense you might have to find them.
That is not correct. There is nothing that says you cannot use a Perception Check to find an Invisible character. However, succeeding in a Perception check does not remove the Invisible condition (unlike someone who has the Invisible condition due to utilizing the Hide action). This means the invisible target would still have multiple benefits (such as attackers having Disadvantage to attack them). That is one of the strengths of Invisibility over mere Stealth.
Examples of this would be making a hearing Perception Check to hear where the invisible paladin in plate armor is since he is clanking around. At that point the person who made the check could try and attack the paladin, though they would have Disadvantage to do so (and they would still be unable to use a spell that requires them to actually see the target).
This requires a lot of flexibility on the part of the DM to figure out situational modifiers to the Perception Check. Usually you are probably looking at a hearing check. Depending on how much the character is moving around the DM probably should modify the roll (even the paladin in our earlier example won't be making too much noise if he is standing in place, though he probably won't be completely silent).
In general a visual check probably wouldn't be allowed at all, but if there's stuff in the air it might be possible, with the amount of stuff providing modifications (e.g.; a little fog could mean the check is made with Disadvantage, heavy fog might be a straight roll, and if the invisible person is standing in a waterfall then the roll is made with Advantage).
You cannot use a Perception check to see an Invisible character ordinarily. There is a special exception for the Invisible from Hide, where you can use the Search Action. Since various forms of 'sight' are the only ways to target characters, you cannot find a character with a non-sight sense. All you can do is be alerted to the fact that there's something amiss.
If your clanking Paladin used the Invisibility spell, this would likely be fairly easy. If they used the Hide action, it is assumed the Paladin isn't making detectable noise since this would end the Invisible condition. The difficulty of doing so in plate mail is covered by Disadvantage on the Stealth roll.
In terms of Advantage/Disadvantage on the rolls, Stealth is different from Invisibility in that Stealth allows you to know with certainty whether an enemy can see you - and thus you'd know before any such Advantage/Disadvantage was applied. It's also a generally bad idea to invent these sorts of modifiers without any support in the rules. In most cases, it's akin to saying "you have Disadvantage on your attacks because it's Difficult Terrain and hard to stand". While this may make sense to someone, it's not an actual part of the rules.
to actually address the OP:
Given the new glossary and set of capital-C Conditions...
They probably had a "Hidden Condition" (my writer instincts would name this the "Unnoticed Condition"), and someone on the team (designer, editor, whatever) realized it was a nigh-perfect mechanical superset of the Invisible Condition, and after some discussion they decided to merge the two and put the difference (how it ends) entirely in the Hide Action.
Agreed. You cannot use a Perception Check to see an invisible character ordinarily. There would need to be mitigating situations.
Your original statement, however, was that you could not use a Perception Check to find an invisible character, which is why I brought up hearing. I mentioned mitigating situations for seeing an invisible character because I did not wish it to sound as though I was saying that people could just try and make visual Perception Checks to spot them all the time while also saying that yes, there are situations in which such a thing would be possible.
As for 'inventing modifiers', this is part and parcel of being a DM. it literally says in the DMG "In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance would merit Advantage or Disadvantage."
(Incidentally, in the DMG Passive Checks are under the subheading of 'Ability Checks', so it is very arguable that Passive Perception is a Perception Check.)
A hidden creature is not invisible. A hidden creature simply has the invisible condition (which is just a list of benefits) while hidden.
Nothing about what you're saying here is written in the text for the Hide action.
The Hide action explicitly says that you stop being hidden immediately after an enemy finds you. It also says that IF you use a method that uses a Perception Check then the DC for that check is a certain number. Absolutely nothing about that means that an active check must be used to find someone.
Uh, that's the cover rules, which is mostly separate from Hide, especially when you establish they only have 3/4 cover. Not really helping me see your point.
It is not the cover rules. The cover rules are one set (they add +5 to their AC) and the Invisibility condition is another (attacks against them have Disadvantage).
So shooting at a character who has hidden in the bushes is harder than shooting at someone who has not hidden in the bushes (in both cases they get cover, but in one case you can still see them and so your odds of hitting them are better).
This makes no sense. The reason why the hidden creature's position becomes known after attacking is precisely because its position is unknown before attacking.
The sidebar is explaining the rules for two different scenarios at the same time. One scenario is when a creature can be heard but it is unseen. The other scenario is when the creature is both unseen and unheard which forces an enemy to have to guess the square because this creature's location is unknown. In that scenario (otherwise known as being hidden), making an attack gives away the position. It's a bit tricky to parse because of the unnecessary amount of brevity that was used in the writing, but that's what those rules are saying.
This just absolutely positively is not true at all according to the general rules that are given in the Glossary Entry for Passive Perception. Those rules have been quoted in this thread a couple of times already.
Multiple people in this thread seem to be equating Perception to sight for some reason.
In fact, a Perception Check is an ability check which factors in proficiency in the Perception skill, which is:
See above.
The mechanics in this game are not really meant to work this way. Instead, the Paladin might have had to make the initial Stealth roll at disadvantage due to the type of armor he is wearing. If he is able to overcome this disadvantage by making a good roll anyway, this is meant to model how well he is able to stay quiet during this period of stealth. As such, a Perception check should not have any modifier here -- the ability to perceive this Paladin was already mathematically baked into the Stealth roll -- that's the point of the variable DC mechanic which is based on the value of the Stealth roll.
In this example, we are assuming that the Paladin managed to roll at least a 15 on the Stealth check and that the value of the roll exceeds our Passive Perception score. So, that Passive Perception becomes the floor for any active check. If we then decide to actively search for the Paladin then we would make an active Perception check and any result that is equal to or lower than our Passive Perception score is just meaningless (an automatic failure).
Again, you are really never just making a "hearing check" or a "visual check". Instead, you are taking a Search action which calls for a "Perception check" which is: "Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss".
This is 100% totally incorrect. Perception checks always use a combination of senses and in this game hearing a creature is enough to pinpoint its exact location such that you do not have to guess the square (See the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar for the exact details on this).
Since bushes don't actually grant cover (cover is something that can actually stop attacks), they are either lightly obscuring (in which case you can't take the hide action) or heavily obscuring (in which case they have disadvantage whether or not you hide).
Fallacy of the converse. The reason why the hidden creature's position becomes known after attacking is because it might have been unknown before attacking.
Re-reading I do realize I made a hash of the statements because it seems as though I was saying the DM should just assign those difficulties, but that wasn't really my intention.
When I said that the clanking paladin could be heard, yes, I was assuming a Stealth check with Disadvantage would be called for on the part of the paladin. When I said that the DM should modify the roll if if the paladin was not moving, that was because the paladin could gain Advantage (offsetting the Disadvantage for their armor). This advantage would come from the statement 'In other cases, you decide whether a circumstance would merit Advantage or Disadvantage.' in the DMG.
So, I think we are pretty much in agreement with the mechanics in such a situation. I just explained it very badly.
There is nothing in the Unseen Attackers and Targets section that supports your interpretation. Essentially you're trying to argue that all characters have an improved version of Tremorsense and Tremorsense itself is useless.