Why do you leave the part that cleary say "On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to FIND you with a Wisdom (Perception) CHECK."?
The purpose of this statement is to establish the mechanic whereby a higher roll on the stealth check means that you are being stealthier than when that roll is lower and as a consequence that means that you are harder to perceive -- it's a sliding scale of degrees of success on performing stealthy activities.
There is a common logical fallacy when interpreting the text for the Hide action. The text for the Hide action makes two statements:
1. There is a DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
2. You stop being hidden immediately after . . . an enemy finds you.
From this, logically, you CANNOT make the assumption that this means that this is the ONLY way to find you. That requires a leap in logic that simply is not supported by the text. The above statements ONLY establish that IF a creature attempts to find you by making an active Wisdom (Perception) check, then you use a particular DC for that check. But again, nothing is making any restrictions about HOW a creature can attempt to find you.
In fact, the game provides at least two methods of finding things:
1. Actively -- you take an action to actively search for something, which is resolved by making a Wisdom (Perception) check (a die roll mechanic).
2. Passively -- Without taking any action, the DM uses a creature's Passive Perception score to determine whether a creature notices something without consciously searching for it (not a die roll mechanic).
According to the general rules that are established for the Passive Perception mechanic, this method is used in any and every situation where an active check would apply (passive features and mechanics are "always on"):
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 without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
A creature’s Passive Perception equals 10 plus the creature’s Wisdom (Perception) check bonus.
You simply use the same DC when applying these rules. The DC establishes how difficult something is to perceive. Therefore, you would use this same threshold regardless of the actual method of perception being used. Because of this, no text which dictates a DC for a perception-based challenge has to explicitly specify that the DC is for active checks as well as for passive checks -- there are already general rules in place which establish this concept.
For example, a published adventure might simply provide a DC for a Wisdom (Perception) check to find a secret door or an environmental trap. Passive Perception would also automatically apply in such cases unless explicitly stated otherwise.
So, to make a long story short . . .
No . . .
You are not automatically hidden when you "successfully" roll a 15 for your stealth check. If you are in a fight with a monster and try to duck behind something and you take the Hide action and roll a 15 for your stealth check . . . the DM DOES still have to compare this against the Passive Perception scores for the nearby monsters just like they did under the 2014 rules. If you are fighting a monster that happens to have a high Passive Perception score that can meet or exceed that 15 then it instantly and automatically finds you and therefore you are no longer hidden. A successful roll for your Hide action only confers the benefits of hiding "while hidden". In this case, your roll was successful, but you are instantly no longer hidden.
"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."
The Hide action generally doesn't care about anyone's Passive Perception, in 2024. Your DM might invoke it in special circumstances (trying to hide when there's a watchman in a watchtower?) but there's no strict RAW requirement.
However, whenever you move (when hidden/invisible, at least), you should probably roll Stealth to move silently, and the Passive Perception of nearby enemies would be your target number. If you fail that roll, they notice/find you, and you are no longer hidden (thus lose the conditional Invisible condition). - And if you were Invisible-via-the-spell-or-similar, then they'd know where you are and could attack you with Disadvantage (etc), but you'd still be Invisible.
The biggest issues with the hide action in 2024 are
If you hide and then lose the prerequisites for that action, are you revealed? If the answer is yes, hiding really doesn't do very much. If the answer is no, you can stand in plain sight and still remain unseen as long as no-one can make their roll.
Does hiding actually do something beyond granting the invisible condition, such as making you unheard? If so, what? If not, why do you have things like stealth on an invisible stalker?
1. if lose the prerequisites lead to "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 yes, you lose, if not, no
2. unheard, no, the text is cleary that any sound break the hide, "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."
3. against hide, nothing
4. yes, but see invisibility doesn't counter total cover, so even with the spell someone hide behing total cover would still be invisible
However, whenever you move (when hidden/invisible, at least), you should probably roll Stealth to move silently, and the Passive Perception of nearby enemies would be your target number. If you fail that roll, they notice/find you, and you are no longer hidden (thus lose the conditional Invisible condition).
Wait... I actually like this a lot. If you take the hide action, you must be obscured in some way (as per the rules for hide), but remaining hiddenwhile moving around can/should call for a stealth check with it's own DC. This seems pretty clean, to me. You can stealth up to someone unawares from a hidden position to hit that sneak attack, even out in the open, as long as the conditions exist (per the DM) that a stealth check has a chance to succeed.
4. yes, but see invisibility doesn't counter total cover, so even with the spell someone hide behing total cover would still be invisible
1) See Invisibility does not grant 360 degree vision, and can't pierce cover, so doesn't interact with the Hide rules. It won't help you find a hidden person; once you've found them, they are no longer invisible, so it won't make a difference.
2) Truesight is the same, in regards to hiding.
3) Blindsight does give you, effectively, 360 degree senses. It can totally help you find hidden people, but not behind cover. It's sorta like a weaker version of Daredevil's senses.
4) Tremorsense also gives you 360 degree senses (of things on the same surface as you), which does sense through cover. Quite hard (or impossible) to Hide from that within range. It doesn't count as "sight" so doesn't actually defeat Invisibility, but it's essentially an instant "finding" which completely negates Hide and would let you attack magically-Invisible targets at Disadvantage (etc.). It's sorta like Toph from the Avatar series (plural).
However, whenever you move (when hidden/invisible, at least), you should probably roll Stealth to move silently, and the Passive Perception of nearby enemies would be your target number. If you fail that roll, they notice/find you, and you are no longer hidden (thus lose the conditional Invisible condition).
Wait... I actually like this a lot. If you take the hide action, you must be obscured in some way (as per the rules for hide), but remaining hiddenwhile moving around can/should call for a stealth check with it's own DC. This seems pretty clean, to me. You can stealth up to someone unawares from a hidden position to hit that sneak attack, even out in the open, as long as the conditions exist (per the DM) that a stealth check has a chance to succeed.
Are there any problems with this I'm not seeing?
In 2014, the rules for moving-out-of-cover-while-hidden were a hard to find, and involved ~everyone having 360-degree battlefield vision under most circumstances. This was actually pretty obscure, but plenty of deep-diving rules lawyers found it. "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you."
In 2024, that has been changed, by which I mean omitted. This has also been pretty obscure, because like no attention was drawn to it by the designers or publicity people. Some of the rules lawyers are still doing their deep dives, and others do not want Stealth to work for melee rogues, so there is drama.
Well, there’s the tedium of the extra rolls and the fact that even Rogues would have trouble getting efficient action economy out of it and largely making the whole rigamarole close to pointless when they have Vex and Steady Aim.
At the end of the day Stealth in combat simply seems to exist for a degree of verisimilitude- for most classes the action economy alone is prohibitive and even for Rogues the juice is hardly worth the squeeze when Sneak Attack is very easily procced and advantage is only slightly less accessible in 2024. I’m sure people can give a few special occasions where they made it work, but everything about action economy, combat pacing, and other rules I’ve read or experienced says this was never intended to be a mainstay or even secondary component of combat. It very much reads like a tertiary “in case of special circumstances” feature.
And frankly I would never touch the mess that is the Hide Action for out of combat stealth- the game isn’t designed to emulate a stealth RPG video game with characters moving past lines of sight in real time all throughout play. Your player(s) come to a point where they want to move stealthily and you run a check the same way you would for other skills. Simple and effective.
1) See Invisibility does not grant 360 degree vision, and can't pierce cover, so doesn't interact with the Hide rules. It won't help you find a hidden person; once you've found them, they are no longer invisible, so it won't make a difference.
The only thing hide specifically does is grant you the invisible; having it do anything else is extending into DM fiat territory. See invisibility negates the invisible condition. Now, in practice most prerequisites for hiding mean you can't be seen whether or not you're hiding, so if you follow the theory of "you cease to be hidden if you lose the prerequisites for hide" see invisibility isn't needed (because in any situations where being invisible would be relevant stealth ends anyway), but if you assume that hiding is intended to allow you to actually remain unseen in situations where you would otherwise be seen (which seems reasonable to me), see invisibility defeats it.
Well, there’s the tedium of the extra rolls and the fact that even Rogues would have trouble getting efficient action economy out of it and largely making the whole rigamarole close to pointless when they have Vex and Steady Aim.
At the end of the day Stealth in combat simply seems to exist for a degree of verisimilitude- for most classes the action economy alone is prohibitive and even for Rogues the juice is hardly worth the squeeze when Sneak Attack is very easily procced and advantage is only slightly less accessible in 2024. I’m sure people can give a few special occasions where they made it work, but everything about action economy, combat pacing, and other rules I’ve read or experienced says this was never intended to be a mainstay or even secondary component of combat. It very much reads like a tertiary “in case of special circumstances” feature.
And frankly I would never touch the mess that is the Hide Action for out of combat stealth- the game isn’t designed to emulate a stealth RPG video game with characters moving past lines of sight in real time all throughout play. Your player(s) come to a point where they want to move stealthily and you run a check the same way you would for other skills. Simple and effective.
Would it mess with the action economy, though? Do you have to declare a "Stealth Action" in order to move towards your unsuspecting target? Or can you just do it as part of your movement? I had assumed the latter.
Well, there’s the tedium of the extra rolls and the fact that even Rogues would have trouble getting efficient action economy out of it and largely making the whole rigamarole close to pointless when they have Vex and Steady Aim.
That's kinda true. I think the most compelling use-case for it is when you can start hidden --- so, Hide pre-combat, or spend a turn attacking-without-hidden then hiding. That way, you can do the sequence: Move ~15ft from cover -> Sneak Attack in melee range -> Move ~15ft to new(?) cover (maybe take AoO) -> Cunning Action Hide. The point of this is to keep you relatively safe outside of your turn.
And that tactic is way simpler and even safer with a ranged weapon; basically, doing the sniper thing. Which worked fine in 2014 (since you weren't "approaching" the enemy). That you can now do it "reliably" with melee is mostly just a nice option for melee rogues --- who may still be better off with a pair of Light Vex/Nick weapons (and maybe the Dual Wielder feat) if they just want to do damage.
Well, there’s the tedium of the extra rolls and the fact that even Rogues would have trouble getting efficient action economy out of it and largely making the whole rigamarole close to pointless when they have Vex and Steady Aim.
At the end of the day Stealth in combat simply seems to exist for a degree of verisimilitude- for most classes the action economy alone is prohibitive and even for Rogues the juice is hardly worth the squeeze when Sneak Attack is very easily procced and advantage is only slightly less accessible in 2024. I’m sure people can give a few special occasions where they made it work, but everything about action economy, combat pacing, and other rules I’ve read or experienced says this was never intended to be a mainstay or even secondary component of combat. It very much reads like a tertiary “in case of special circumstances” feature.
And frankly I would never touch the mess that is the Hide Action for out of combat stealth- the game isn’t designed to emulate a stealth RPG video game with characters moving past lines of sight in real time all throughout play. Your player(s) come to a point where they want to move stealthily and you run a check the same way you would for other skills. Simple and effective.
Would it mess with the action economy, though? Do you have to declare a "Stealth Action" in order to move towards your unsuspecting target? Or can you just do it as part of your movement? I had assumed the latter.
As a rule in 5e, skill checks don't just happen in combat- you typically need to take an Action to use one, although occasionally one crops up under a Bonus Action or Reaction for a specific feature. Added to that, I don't see how a "roll to remain unseen as you move" feature tied to taking movement actually improves play- if we take the interpretation that Hide is supposed to functionally be the equivalent to an Invisibility spell (I don't, but for argument's sake), then the practical effect is that Rogues will commonly be taking one or two extra rolls every round as they try to bounce between cover and an enemy invisibly. This makes combat drag on in early play and once you get into mid tier 2 when a Rogue can easily have a functional minimum of 20 on a Stealth check via Reliable Talent means a Rogue is going to have close to at-will invisibility. The latter of which then presents a case where DM's might feel forced to actively build encounters to negate Hide as an option, which then creates a negative experience for the Rogue because they're specifically being blocked from using a class feature.
Bottom line, as I've previously said; Hide is not specced to be a viable primary or secondary combat option. If we assume the Invisibility is supposed to persist indefinitely unless a narrow list of active options are taken, then Hide is close to broken on Rogues. If we assume tables are allowed to run on the prevailing trend of characters not having to justify their awareness of every other character on the board- keeping in mind that while the 2024 rules don't explicitly say characters have 360 vision, they also don't explicitly say how character awareness can be determined at all, and thus by a RAW only interpretation one could argue that you need to use Perception checks (rolled or passive) to be aware of anything because the rules don't explicitly say your character's senses work passively- then we're back in the familiar space of 2014 where it has situational uses but those situations are too specific to be relied upon. The idea of calling for two rolls sounds like it should require two Actions, and even if it doesn't it just creates additional bookkeeping early on and is overshadowed by all the other reasons Hide doesn't function as a balanced mechanic if it allows plain sight concealment.
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 believe there's a distinction between the Hide action and moving quietly, which is different accomplishment not necessarily needing an action or being out of sight to attempt. That you can be seen moving has nothing to do with wether you move quietly or not. #visible-vs-audible
In my experience it's very rare moving quietly needs to be check when seen meaning not blinded, heavily obscured, hidden or invisible etc. to determine if you're being heard moving. Personally, i don't ask for check to move quietly when successfully hidden unless extraordinary circumstances need it ex. walking on squiky floor or broken glass which creature in another room could hear.
"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".
As an aside, in the 2014 rules some exceptions were made whereby if a character decided to turn his entire focus and attention onto a specific task such as foraging or map making then that character would be "turning off" his passive perception as it relates to noticing threats. That is no longer the case in 2024. Now, passive perception is always on so that you can always automatically detect or find nearby traps or secret doors or hidden enemies without having to explicitly state that you are looking out for such things and without having to burn your action to do so.
The Hide action generally doesn't care about anyone's Passive Perception, in 2024.
This is more or less true at the first Tier of play since most monsters that the party would be facing during that time typically have passive perception scores lower than 15. But it's not generally true overall. Some PCs might have a passive perception score of 15 or more and in later Tiers many monsters have higher passive perception scores.
If you hide and then lose the prerequisites for that action, are you revealed? If the answer is yes, hiding really doesn't do very much. If the answer is no, you can stand in plain sight and still remain unseen as long as no-one can make their roll.
Does hiding actually do something beyond granting the invisible condition, such as making you unheard? If so, what? If not, why do you have things like stealth on an invisible stalker?
1. Yes, you are revealed. You only have the benefits of hiding "while hidden". Hiding does have benefits. You become more difficult to target, and you can remain unseen while making an attack until your attack hits or misses.
2. Yes. Beyond granting the invisible condition, hiding causes you to become hidden by concealing yourself. This means that you cannot be seen or heard (your location is unknown).
3. 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 without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
4. See Invisibility allows a creature to see another creature that has the Invisible condition as if that creature were visible. In some ways this does defeat stealth in the sense that it's not possible to remain stealthy when making an attack from a hidden position (from three-quarters cover) without having an effective invisible condition to conceal your position until after your attack hits or misses. On the other hand, if you remain behind total cover or in total Darkness, the creature with See Invisibility still cannot see you (whether you have the Invisible condition or not). So, the hidden creature is only found (for the purpose of adjudicating the "stop being hidden immediately" clause) if it is actually seen by the creature with the See Invisibility ability.
However, whenever you move (when hidden/invisible, at least), you should probably roll Stealth to move silently, and the Passive Perception of nearby enemies would be your target number. If you fail that roll, they notice/find you, and you are no longer hidden (thus lose the conditional Invisible condition).
Wait... I actually like this a lot. If you take the hide action, you must be obscured in some way (as per the rules for hide), but remaining hiddenwhile moving around can/should call for a stealth check with it's own DC. This seems pretty clean, to me. You can stealth up to someone unawares from a hidden position to hit that sneak attack, even out in the open, as long as the conditions exist (per the DM) that a stealth check has a chance to succeed.
Are there any problems with this I'm not seeing?
DMs and game groups can play however they want, but it just doesn't work like this according to the rules. In the 2024 rules, it's the Stealth check that sets the DC for the Perception check, not the other way around. In 2014 it was a "contest" and the status quo determined which one was the DC. If a creature was already hidden, then the Perception score was the DC because a tie went to the hidden creature but if a creature was already looking at you as you attempted to hide, then the Stealth result was the DC because a tie went to the observing creature in that case. But in 2024 this mechanic was eliminated in favor of the more simplified mechanic of the Stealth roll setting the DC.
The only thing hide specifically does is grant you the invisible;
It's really unfortunate that people keep saying this in these threads. It speaks to the fact that these concepts should have been written more clearly.
In fact, the Hide action does more than grant the invisible condition. It causes you to become hidden by concealing yourself. The general rules for what it means to be hidden are found elsewhere so they are not repeated within the text for the Hide action.
In Playing the Game --> Combat --> Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
When you make an attack roll against a target you can’t see, you have Disadvantage on the roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss.
When a creature can’t see you, you have Advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
No, it doesn't. In general, a creature with the Invisible condition still has the Invisible condition even if seen. In the case of a hidden creature, the condition would be lost due to being "found" when seen. But See Invisible only helps to see a creature that could be seen without having the condition. A creature behind total cover or in total Darkness cannot be seen merely by See Invisibility alone.
That way, you can do the sequence: Move ~15ft from cover -> Sneak Attack in melee range -> Move ~15ft to new(?) cover (maybe take AoO) -> Cunning Action Hide. The point of this is to keep you relatively safe outside of your turn.
. . .
That you can now do it "reliably" with melee is mostly just a nice option for melee rogues
This is not supported by the rules.
For a melee Rogue to attack from a hidden position, he would have to reach out from three-quarters cover and stab someone that is within melee range of his hidden position. If he is not in a hidden position then he is not hiding, and the benefits of hiding only confer "while hidden".
"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.
"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
PHB2024
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 without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
So while you can be pedantic and argue that Passive Perception is not a Perception Check since no dice are rolled, the same level of pedantry would apply to Passive Perception removing the need to make the Perception Roll, meaning that Passive Perception can spot a creature who is hidden.
I would also note that, in the case of situations where a Search action must be performed rather than mere Passive Perception (such as the Hat of Disguise), that is typically spelled out.
Lastly, characters (including NPCs) can be given situational moifiers. This is why Invisibility remains more valuable than mere Stealth (even Stealth boosted through magical means such as Cloak of Elvenkind or Pass without Trace). In some cases the situational modifier could be so high that the Passive Perception beats even a really good Stealth roll (the person hidden needs to walk down a 60' long completely bare and fully lit corridor while two guards stand at the other end looking in the direction of the person's approach).
To be clear, good Stealth is extremely useful and valuable. I use it all the time on my assassin who has a Cloak of Elvenkind. It simply requires tactical usage and the knowledge that it is not full on Invisibility.
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.
The purpose of this statement is to establish the mechanic whereby a higher roll on the stealth check means that you are being stealthier than when that roll is lower and as a consequence that means that you are harder to perceive -- it's a sliding scale of degrees of success on performing stealthy activities.
There is a common logical fallacy when interpreting the text for the Hide action. The text for the Hide action makes two statements:
1. There is a DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
2. You stop being hidden immediately after . . . an enemy finds you.
From this, logically, you CANNOT make the assumption that this means that this is the ONLY way to find you. That requires a leap in logic that simply is not supported by the text. The above statements ONLY establish that IF a creature attempts to find you by making an active Wisdom (Perception) check, then you use a particular DC for that check. But again, nothing is making any restrictions about HOW a creature can attempt to find you.
In fact, the game provides at least two methods of finding things:
1. Actively -- you take an action to actively search for something, which is resolved by making a Wisdom (Perception) check (a die roll mechanic).
2. Passively -- Without taking any action, the DM uses a creature's Passive Perception score to determine whether a creature notices something without consciously searching for it (not a die roll mechanic).
According to the general rules that are established for the Passive Perception mechanic, this method is used in any and every situation where an active check would apply (passive features and mechanics are "always on"):
You simply use the same DC when applying these rules. The DC establishes how difficult something is to perceive. Therefore, you would use this same threshold regardless of the actual method of perception being used. Because of this, no text which dictates a DC for a perception-based challenge has to explicitly specify that the DC is for active checks as well as for passive checks -- there are already general rules in place which establish this concept.
For example, a published adventure might simply provide a DC for a Wisdom (Perception) check to find a secret door or an environmental trap. Passive Perception would also automatically apply in such cases unless explicitly stated otherwise.
So, to make a long story short . . .
No . . .
You are not automatically hidden when you "successfully" roll a 15 for your stealth check. If you are in a fight with a monster and try to duck behind something and you take the Hide action and roll a 15 for your stealth check . . . the DM DOES still have to compare this against the Passive Perception scores for the nearby monsters just like they did under the 2014 rules. If you are fighting a monster that happens to have a high Passive Perception score that can meet or exceed that 15 then it instantly and automatically finds you and therefore you are no longer hidden. A successful roll for your Hide action only confers the benefits of hiding "while hidden". In this case, your roll was successful, but you are instantly no longer hidden.
Your text disagree witht you
"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
The Hide action generally doesn't care about anyone's Passive Perception, in 2024. Your DM might invoke it in special circumstances (trying to hide when there's a watchman in a watchtower?) but there's no strict RAW requirement.
However, whenever you move (when hidden/invisible, at least), you should probably roll Stealth to move silently, and the Passive Perception of nearby enemies would be your target number. If you fail that roll, they notice/find you, and you are no longer hidden (thus lose the conditional Invisible condition).
- And if you were Invisible-via-the-spell-or-similar, then they'd know where you are and could attack you with Disadvantage (etc), but you'd still be Invisible.
The biggest issues with the hide action in 2024 are
1. if lose the prerequisites lead to "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 yes, you lose, if not, no
2. unheard, no, the text is cleary that any sound break the hide, "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."
3. against hide, nothing
4. yes, but see invisibility doesn't counter total cover, so even with the spell someone hide behing total cover would still be invisible
Wait... I actually like this a lot. If you take the hide action, you must be obscured in some way (as per the rules for hide), but remaining hidden while moving around can/should call for a stealth check with it's own DC. This seems pretty clean, to me. You can stealth up to someone unawares from a hidden position to hit that sneak attack, even out in the open, as long as the conditions exist (per the DM) that a stealth check has a chance to succeed.
Are there any problems with this I'm not seeing?
1) See Invisibility does not grant 360 degree vision, and can't pierce cover, so doesn't interact with the Hide rules. It won't help you find a hidden person; once you've found them, they are no longer invisible, so it won't make a difference.
2) Truesight is the same, in regards to hiding.
3) Blindsight does give you, effectively, 360 degree senses. It can totally help you find hidden people, but not behind cover.
It's sorta like a weaker version of Daredevil's senses.
4) Tremorsense also gives you 360 degree senses (of things on the same surface as you), which does sense through cover. Quite hard (or impossible) to Hide from that within range. It doesn't count as "sight" so doesn't actually defeat Invisibility, but it's essentially an instant "finding" which completely negates Hide and would let you attack magically-Invisible targets at Disadvantage (etc.).
It's sorta like Toph from the Avatar series (plural).
In 2014, the rules for moving-out-of-cover-while-hidden were a hard to find, and involved ~everyone having 360-degree battlefield vision under most circumstances. This was actually pretty obscure, but plenty of deep-diving rules lawyers found it. "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you."
In 2024, that has been changed, by which I mean omitted. This has also been pretty obscure, because like no attention was drawn to it by the designers or publicity people. Some of the rules lawyers are still doing their deep dives, and others do not want Stealth to work for melee rogues, so there is drama.
Well, there’s the tedium of the extra rolls and the fact that even Rogues would have trouble getting efficient action economy out of it and largely making the whole rigamarole close to pointless when they have Vex and Steady Aim.
At the end of the day Stealth in combat simply seems to exist for a degree of verisimilitude- for most classes the action economy alone is prohibitive and even for Rogues the juice is hardly worth the squeeze when Sneak Attack is very easily procced and advantage is only slightly less accessible in 2024. I’m sure people can give a few special occasions where they made it work, but everything about action economy, combat pacing, and other rules I’ve read or experienced says this was never intended to be a mainstay or even secondary component of combat. It very much reads like a tertiary “in case of special circumstances” feature.
And frankly I would never touch the mess that is the Hide Action for out of combat stealth- the game isn’t designed to emulate a stealth RPG video game with characters moving past lines of sight in real time all throughout play. Your player(s) come to a point where they want to move stealthily and you run a check the same way you would for other skills. Simple and effective.
The only thing hide specifically does is grant you the invisible; having it do anything else is extending into DM fiat territory. See invisibility negates the invisible condition. Now, in practice most prerequisites for hiding mean you can't be seen whether or not you're hiding, so if you follow the theory of "you cease to be hidden if you lose the prerequisites for hide" see invisibility isn't needed (because in any situations where being invisible would be relevant stealth ends anyway), but if you assume that hiding is intended to allow you to actually remain unseen in situations where you would otherwise be seen (which seems reasonable to me), see invisibility defeats it.
Would it mess with the action economy, though? Do you have to declare a "Stealth Action" in order to move towards your unsuspecting target? Or can you just do it as part of your movement? I had assumed the latter.
That's kinda true. I think the most compelling use-case for it is when you can start hidden --- so, Hide pre-combat, or spend a turn attacking-without-hidden then hiding. That way, you can do the sequence: Move ~15ft from cover -> Sneak Attack in melee range -> Move ~15ft to new(?) cover (maybe take AoO) -> Cunning Action Hide. The point of this is to keep you relatively safe outside of your turn.
And that tactic is way simpler and even safer with a ranged weapon; basically, doing the sniper thing. Which worked fine in 2014 (since you weren't "approaching" the enemy). That you can now do it "reliably" with melee is mostly just a nice option for melee rogues --- who may still be better off with a pair of Light Vex/Nick weapons (and maybe the Dual Wielder feat) if they just want to do damage.
As a rule in 5e, skill checks don't just happen in combat- you typically need to take an Action to use one, although occasionally one crops up under a Bonus Action or Reaction for a specific feature. Added to that, I don't see how a "roll to remain unseen as you move" feature tied to taking movement actually improves play- if we take the interpretation that Hide is supposed to functionally be the equivalent to an Invisibility spell (I don't, but for argument's sake), then the practical effect is that Rogues will commonly be taking one or two extra rolls every round as they try to bounce between cover and an enemy invisibly. This makes combat drag on in early play and once you get into mid tier 2 when a Rogue can easily have a functional minimum of 20 on a Stealth check via Reliable Talent means a Rogue is going to have close to at-will invisibility. The latter of which then presents a case where DM's might feel forced to actively build encounters to negate Hide as an option, which then creates a negative experience for the Rogue because they're specifically being blocked from using a class feature.
Bottom line, as I've previously said; Hide is not specced to be a viable primary or secondary combat option. If we assume the Invisibility is supposed to persist indefinitely unless a narrow list of active options are taken, then Hide is close to broken on Rogues. If we assume tables are allowed to run on the prevailing trend of characters not having to justify their awareness of every other character on the board- keeping in mind that while the 2024 rules don't explicitly say characters have 360 vision, they also don't explicitly say how character awareness can be determined at all, and thus by a RAW only interpretation one could argue that you need to use Perception checks (rolled or passive) to be aware of anything because the rules don't explicitly say your character's senses work passively- then we're back in the familiar space of 2014 where it has situational uses but those situations are too specific to be relied upon. The idea of calling for two rolls sounds like it should require two Actions, and even if it doesn't it just creates additional bookkeeping early on and is overshadowed by all the other reasons Hide doesn't function as a balanced mechanic if it allows plain sight concealment.
Nah, it's just movement. "Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things." Those are the nominal two things you use Stealth for.
Edit: it's even an example Abilty Check for Dexterity: "Move nimbly, quickly, or quietly".
Another Edit: there's not much point to "moving quietly" (which is clearly supported in RAW) if it's trivially defeated by being in line-of-sight.
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 believe there's a distinction between the Hide action and moving quietly, which is different accomplishment not necessarily needing an action or being out of sight to attempt. That you can be seen moving has nothing to do with wether you move quietly or not. #visible-vs-audible
In my experience it's very rare moving quietly needs to be check when seen meaning not blinded, heavily obscured, hidden or invisible etc. to determine if you're being heard moving. Personally, i don't ask for check to move quietly when successfully hidden unless extraordinary circumstances need it ex. walking on squiky floor or broken glass which creature in another room could hear.
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".
As an aside, in the 2014 rules some exceptions were made whereby if a character decided to turn his entire focus and attention onto a specific task such as foraging or map making then that character would be "turning off" his passive perception as it relates to noticing threats. That is no longer the case in 2024. Now, passive perception is always on so that you can always automatically detect or find nearby traps or secret doors or hidden enemies without having to explicitly state that you are looking out for such things and without having to burn your action to do so.
This is more or less true at the first Tier of play since most monsters that the party would be facing during that time typically have passive perception scores lower than 15. But it's not generally true overall. Some PCs might have a passive perception score of 15 or more and in later Tiers many monsters have higher passive perception scores.
1. Yes, you are revealed. You only have the benefits of hiding "while hidden". Hiding does have benefits. You become more difficult to target, and you can remain unseen while making an attack until your attack hits or misses.
2. Yes. Beyond granting the invisible condition, hiding causes you to become hidden by concealing yourself. This means that you cannot be seen or heard (your location is unknown).
3. 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 without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
4. See Invisibility allows a creature to see another creature that has the Invisible condition as if that creature were visible. In some ways this does defeat stealth in the sense that it's not possible to remain stealthy when making an attack from a hidden position (from three-quarters cover) without having an effective invisible condition to conceal your position until after your attack hits or misses. On the other hand, if you remain behind total cover or in total Darkness, the creature with See Invisibility still cannot see you (whether you have the Invisible condition or not). So, the hidden creature is only found (for the purpose of adjudicating the "stop being hidden immediately" clause) if it is actually seen by the creature with the See Invisibility ability.
DMs and game groups can play however they want, but it just doesn't work like this according to the rules. In the 2024 rules, it's the Stealth check that sets the DC for the Perception check, not the other way around. In 2014 it was a "contest" and the status quo determined which one was the DC. If a creature was already hidden, then the Perception score was the DC because a tie went to the hidden creature but if a creature was already looking at you as you attempted to hide, then the Stealth result was the DC because a tie went to the observing creature in that case. But in 2024 this mechanic was eliminated in favor of the more simplified mechanic of the Stealth roll setting the DC.
It's really unfortunate that people keep saying this in these threads. It speaks to the fact that these concepts should have been written more clearly.
In fact, the Hide action does more than grant the invisible condition. It causes you to become hidden by concealing yourself. The general rules for what it means to be hidden are found elsewhere so they are not repeated within the text for the Hide action.
In Playing the Game --> Combat --> Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar:
No, it doesn't. In general, a creature with the Invisible condition still has the Invisible condition even if seen. In the case of a hidden creature, the condition would be lost due to being "found" when seen. But See Invisible only helps to see a creature that could be seen without having the condition. A creature behind total cover or in total Darkness cannot be seen merely by See Invisibility alone.
This is not supported by the rules.
For a melee Rogue to attack from a hidden position, he would have to reach out from three-quarters cover and stab someone that is within melee range of his hidden position. If he is not in a hidden position then he is not hiding, and the benefits of hiding only confer "while hidden".
This makes no sense. The point is to be able to move quietly while NOT in sight so that you are not heard by an enemy.
The best way to parse "Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things" is:
Escape notice by: (moving quietly and hiding) (behind things)
As opposed to:
Escape notice by: (moving quietly [in front of things]) and (hiding [noisily] behind things)
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.
So while you can be pedantic and argue that Passive Perception is not a Perception Check since no dice are rolled, the same level of pedantry would apply to Passive Perception removing the need to make the Perception Roll, meaning that Passive Perception can spot a creature who is hidden.
I would also note that, in the case of situations where a Search action must be performed rather than mere Passive Perception (such as the Hat of Disguise), that is typically spelled out.
Lastly, characters (including NPCs) can be given situational moifiers. This is why Invisibility remains more valuable than mere Stealth (even Stealth boosted through magical means such as Cloak of Elvenkind or Pass without Trace). In some cases the situational modifier could be so high that the Passive Perception beats even a really good Stealth roll (the person hidden needs to walk down a 60' long completely bare and fully lit corridor while two guards stand at the other end looking in the direction of the person's approach).
To be clear, good Stealth is extremely useful and valuable. I use it all the time on my assassin who has a Cloak of Elvenkind. It simply requires tactical usage and the knowledge that it is not full on Invisibility.
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.