I know that when you choose to hide you have to make a Stealth check against the creature(s) you're trying to hide from's passive perception, but what is my Stealth check being compared to if we are say in active combat and my rogue uses his cunning action to hide?
EG.
sneaking past a bunch of Kobolds who are just sitting around a fire, not really expecting anyone, Kobold's passive is 8 so my Stealth check has to beat an 8
fighting a Kobold, I shoot an arrow at it, run behind a tree/rock and cunning action to hide, what does my Stealth check have to beat?
am I even using hide right?
Also is this the same number for pickpocketing?
Eg. Trying to steal from someone unaware vs trying to steal from them mid battle
In general, you can only hide against something that doesn't have line-of-sight against you, and you only stay hidden while they don't have line-of-sight against you. In other words, if you pop behind a rock to hide, congrats, you hide - but the moment you pop back out in order to attack you are no longer considered Hidden and thus you don't get advantage on your attack.
There are some things that can get around this, like making it so you only need to be lightly obscured for one of the racial options out there, but that's it in general.
Some DMs allow you to pop out of hiding in order to fire and then pop back into hiding, but it's not explicitly supported by the rules.
In any case, the Kobolds still use their passive perception to try to find you while you are hidden, but on their turn they can take their action to try to roll an active perception check to find you, and this active perception check effectively can't roll below their passive perception score.
When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this section.
Hiding in combat uses up your action, but otherwise follows all of the other rules for hiding: you can't hide if anyone can see you clearly, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check against the passive Perception score of anyone that might notice you, you have to stay quiet, you can't move out into the open, etc. You remain hidden until you reveal yourself or someone finds you.
If you hide successfully, enemies can still take the Search action to roll a Perception check and find you.
Search
When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
In any case, the Kobolds still use their passive perception to try to find you while you are hidden, but on their turn they can take their action to try to roll an active perception check to find you, and this active perception check effectively can't roll below their passive perception score.
Would it be correct in this case to say that the kobold could ready its attack action for when it can see the hidden target? And then if/when the hidden target becomes visible (for instance by attacking) the kobold could then use its reaction to initiate the readied attack?
Seems reasonable; attacking causes invisibility to drop, no reason it wouldn't cause hiding to drop as well. If the hiding player complains about being singled out by readied actions, just point out that they are singlehandedly causing all of those kobolds to give up their round if they just keep hiding and don't attack next round.
But realize, the kobolds can also just straight up attack the rogue while they're hiding, all it really does is impart disadvantage and force them to guess which square to target, same as if they were invisible. I'd suggest maybe picking a small handful of squares around the hider's true location and rolling either a d4 or a d6 or something to randomly determine which square they think they're in, if they're hiding in something like a fog bank. If hiding behind a rock or tree, they probably know exactly which square the rogue is hiding in, but depending on whether the obstacle is giving full- or three-quarters- or half-cover, they may or may not be able to target that space.
In my game I allow players to Hide if they can meet the requirements linked by Inquisitive above. If the enemy is aware of them I would not use their passive skill, that is a contested skill. Your rolled stealth would need to beat their rolled Perception or Investigation. You would then need to roll stealth again any each round you wish to remain hidden beyond the end of your turn against the enemy's passive. And you would be revealed on your first attack or on casting a spell with Verbal components.
I would say that the kobold can certainly ready its attack for when it sees its target. BUT if the hidden target attacks, it will not simply trigger the kobold's readied attack (unless the target jumps out into the open). Attacking while hidden gives away its location, but it doesn't make it visible.
Unseen Attackers and Targets When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
The kobold would therefore still have to use an action to make a perception check in order to see its target, thereby rendering its readied attack moot. The kobold could however ready its attack for when it knows the location of the hidden target (e.g. when it attacks) and then make an attack at disadvantage (because it still doesn't have vision, but does know the location).
EDIT: It's also important to point out that the hidden attacker's location is only revealed after it attacks, not before.
Your DM's interpretation may very, but be warned, if you argue that you remain unseen when attacking, then your DM should apply the same mechanic to your enemy. Giving the thugs hiding in the bush advantage on every attack they make against your allies, and giving everyone disadvantage to hit them regardless of if they've attacked... Meaning the rogue gets to continue his adventure alone thanks to his awkward interpretation of a rule.
I simply quoted the rules. Personally I think the rules in this area make perfect sense as it is very unrealistic that you will instantaneously have sight of someone despite him being completely hidden and camouflaged with only the tip of his crossbow barely visible among the various brown and green stuff in the forest 120 feet away, without even actively looking for him/her.
The normal reaction when being attacked by someone you cannot see, but whose location you know, would probably be to find some cover, or close the distance as soon as possible while looking for the enemy. So even if the rogue decided to adventure alone he would quickly be overrun. Practically I would have NPCs either take cover while looking for the rogue, or approach his last known location while holding an action to shoot/charge at the rogue when they get another clue as to where he is located. If it helps, think Skyrim or most other video games where stealth has a function.
If you want to modify the rules that is totally up to you. But if you follow RAW, don't confuse a stealthy attack with a flashy entrance.
EDIT: Personally I would encourage GMs at whose table I am a player to apply the same mechanics to both players and NPCs
Hiding is left ambiguous to allow more freedom for the DM to make the call based on the situation. As others have said, it's important not to confuse hiding with being invisible, and perhaps more importantly, not to confuse it with stealth in video games, such as Skyrim.
In the OPs example, sneaking past some kobolds sitting around a fire not paying attention, keeping to the shadows along the tree line where the pool of light from the flames can't reach, is one thing. Trying to sneak past that same group in a well lit room, with no cover, is another thing entirely.
In combat, it gets more situational. You fire from a hiding place - and then dive behind a rock to try and hide. How big is the rock? How dark is it? Where is the rock? What else is happening that could distract the foes? Jumping behind a rock doesn't mean all of the creatures suddenly forget about you. Step out from behind that rock and (without mitigating circumstances) they'll see you - whether you're trying to hide or not.
Switch the example to trees on the edge of the forest. You fire, then retreat back into the thickets and trees. Sure, they know you're there, but with a decent hide skill, they can loose you in the overgrowth. You could relocate and fire again, and in this instance, they might not know where you were.
In my game I allow players to Hide if they can meet the requirements linked by Inquisitive above. If the enemy is aware of them I would not use their passive skill, that is a contested skill. Your rolled stealth would need to beat their rolled Perception or Investigation. You would then need to roll stealth again any each round you wish to remain hidden beyond the end of your turn against the enemy's passive. And you would be revealed on your first attack or on casting a spell with Verbal components.
This is a really bad idea for multiple reasons. If you roll Perception for every enemy the chances of hiding successfully quickly approach 0. Imagine if disadvantage stacked and you had to keep the lowest of N dice; that's roughly what that house rule does. Rerolling every round screws the hider even further; even if they get really lucky, they probably won't next turn. You're also slowing down the game by rolling Nd20 every round, which is a bad idea when there's a class that can hide every round.
The official rules give you a reasonable chance of success and are quick at the table. You make one roll against the highest passive Perception and remain hidden until you're found or you reveal yourself (by making noise, attacking, or moving into the open.) Enemies can still follow you around obstacles and see you if you don't pick a good hiding spot. Enemies can still spend their turns on the Search action to roll Perception and try to hear you, and it only takes 1 success to discover you and force you to hide again. But even if you're found, you cost a few of them their action.
As for readying actions, it depends on what the trigger is. If a Rogue is trying to snipe from behind a tree or low wall, enemies could ready an action to attack the Rogue when they poke out to shoot. If the Rogue is attacking from a heavily obscured area they're not going to be seen, but enemies could ready an action to attack the Rogue's space if they hear an attack from that area, so they can attack the Rogue before they hide again and move somewhere else.
At the table I only roll one perception roll for a group of monsters as is recommended in published campaigns I've run.
In the PvP PbP arena, all opponents (usually 2 or 3) get to contest. The ones that fail suffer their opponent being unseen. But that's a whole different bear. Even with multiple players rolling to spot the rogues, players rarely do. With Expertice, Cloaks of Elvenkind, and Pass without Trace in play. If anything I'm being too gentle on the stealth builds.
At the table you want your players to have a chance to fail. When their rolling +10 or more with advantage... That chance gets very slim.
... You fire, then retreat back into the thickets and trees. Sure, they know you're there, but with a decent hide skill, they can loose you in the overgrowth. ...
Right. Attacking reveals you, and you are no longer hidden, but you may remain unseen for being Heavily Obscured by the bushes. However, the enemy is going to continue to know where you are until you use another action to hide again. Fortunately for those who rely most on stealth the Rogue's Cunning Action allows you to hide again on the same turn you attack. (A Goblin's Nimble Escape allows them to do the same.)
As for readying actions, it depends on what the trigger is. If a Rogue is trying to snipe from behind a tree or low wall, enemies could ready an action to attack the Rogue when they poke out to shoot. If the Rogue is attacking from a heavily obscured area they're not going to be seen, but enemies could ready an action to attack the Rogue's space if they hear an attack from that area, so they can attack the Rogue before they hide again and move somewhere else.
I have a question. In the example you gave, if the Rogue were attacking from a heavily obscured area without exposing themself, would they do so both at advantage since they are attacking while hidden and also at disadvantage since they are effectively blinded by the heavily obscured square they are in? And likewise, would attacks against the Rogue be both at disadvantage since the Rogue is heavily obscured and also at advantage since the Rogue is effectively blinded?
Seems like heavily obscured takes things to a weird place. Or maybe it's just my poor understanding of the situation or of the rules or of both.
Well, houseruling to fix 'heavily obscured' effects like Fog Cloud is an entirely separate discussion for a separate thread... but yeah, as written there are some pretty weird effects where shooting into or out of a fog cloud doesn't actually hand out advantage or disadvantage, because both attacker and target simultaneously have advantage and disadvantage due to not seeing each other. All obscurement is really "useful" for is a) satisfying the hard requirement for taking a hide action that there actually be something to hide in, and b) breaking line of sight for spells that require line of sight to a space or target.
At the table you want your players to have a chance to fail. When their rolling +10 or more with advantage... That chance gets very slim.
If I have a player with +10 or advantage they're supposed to succeed regularly. Having a +10 means you're really good at that thing. Artificially raising the difficulty both negates the resources they've dumped into getting good at it and screws over everyone else who's merely average.
There's nothing gamebreaking about consistently hiding. In combat a Rogue is trading a bonus action for the possibility of having advantage on one attack. That's strictly worse than getting a guaranteed second attack with two-weapon fighting or Crossbow Expert (unless they have Elven Accuracy to roll 3 dice on advantage.) While traveling, the group is only as stealthy as the weakest link; if there's N people in the group, all N have to roll high enough to avoid detection. If 1-2 sneaky people break off to scout ahead, they're less likely to get caught but they're also in much more danger if something goes wrong.
I have a question. In the example you gave, if the Rogue were attacking from a heavily obscured area without exposing themself, would they do so both at advantage since they are attacking while hidden and also at disadvantage since they are effectively blinded by the heavily obscured square they are in? And likewise, would attacks against the Rogue be both at disadvantage since the Rogue is heavily obscured and also at advantage since the Rogue is effectively blinded?
Seems like heavily obscured takes things to a weird place. Or maybe it's just my poor understanding of the situation or of the rules or of both.
If the situation is symmetrical and neither the attacker nor the target can see the other, yes, advantage and disadvantage cancel out. Game features like the Alert feat, Devil's Sight, Umbral Sight, Eyes of the Dark and different Darkvision ranges can create asymmetrical situations. The nature of the heavily obscured area might create asymmetry too. Some illusion spells become see-through once you realize they're fake. Someone standing in darkness can see someone holding a light source but not vice-versa. Someone might be hiding in dense foliage where it's easy to look out, but hard for someone on the outside to notice what's within.
I only allow opponents to contest stealth when they are already aware of the player. However, there seems to be some confusion. Rolling 1d20ad+10 against 1d20+3 is not removing the players effectiveness in stealth compared to rolling against DC 13. It only makes the outcome less predictable and more interesting.
When traveling in a group consider using Group Checks for Stealth rather than making Stealth useless for the party that opted to bring along a Paladin. Don't let one character's weakness result in the whole party failing. Of course application is situational. When your sneaking through the narrow halls of a Kobold infested tunnel, letting the stealthiest players scout ahead makes sense, but when you're traveling across the countryside trying to avoid notice from the king's guard, a group check is probably the way to go.
Right. Attacking reveals you, and you are no longer hidden, but you may remain unseen for being Heavily Obscured by the bushes.
If by "reveals you" you mean "reveals your location, but you remain unseen" then we seem to be agreeing after all. But I am very confused as for your position on this topic as you seemed to be arguing the opposite in the post prior to the one I quoted.
I am not entirely sure what you, BDaddLy, and Chequers mean when you state that being hidden doesn't equal invisibility. I am assuming there is some reflection going on behind the statement, besides the literal difference, that I am not getting. Can you elaborate? Likewise can you (Chequers) elaborate on why you don't believe it makes sense to compare the situation of NPCs spotting a hidden target in Skyrim as I did?
I have a question. In the example you gave, if the Rogue were attacking from a heavily obscured area without exposing themself, would they do so both at advantage since they are attacking while hidden and also at disadvantage since they are effectively blinded by the heavily obscured square they are in? And likewise, would attacks against the Rogue be both at disadvantage since the Rogue is heavily obscured and also at advantage since the Rogue is effectively blinded?
Even if both creatures have advantage/disadvantage, the attacker will always have the most difficult time as he has to choose the right square to attack, which will never be 100% accurate without Blindsense, Blindsight or the like.
I am not entirely sure how light obscurement works according to RAW as I feel "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area" can be interpreted both as "when your target is in the obscured area" and "when you are in the obscured area". I am not sure which interpretation is the correct one, or if both are correct, by RAW.
Rolling 1d20ad+10 against 1d20+3 is not removing the players effectiveness in stealth compared to rolling against DC 13. It only makes the outcome less predictable and more interesting.
That isn't any more random or unpredictable than rolling against a fixed number though.
When traveling in a group consider using Group Checks for Stealth rather than making Stealth useless for the party that opted to bring along a Paladin. Don't let one character's weakness result in the whole party failing.
Pass Without Trace is designed for situations like that. Even if everyone rolls low, you'll still get numbers in the teens. Moving as a big group stealthily is supposed to be hard.
Even if both creatures have advantage/disadvantage, the attacker will always have the most difficult time as he has to choose the right square to attack, which will never be 100% accurate without Blindsense, Blindsight or the like.
Not necessarily. The rules assume you're being noisy unless you successfully hide.
I am not entirely sure how light obscurement works according to RAW as I feel "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area" can be interpreted both as "when your target is in the obscured area" and "when you are in the obscured area". I am not sure which interpretation is the correct one, or if both are correct, by RAW.
Pretty sure the intended interpretation is that you can't see anything that's inside a heavily obscured area, not that you can't see anything at all while you're in an obscured area. Being in a pitch black corner of a room doesn't stop you from seeing into nearby brightly lit areas in the real world.
I know that when you choose to hide you have to make a Stealth check against the creature(s) you're trying to hide from's passive perception, but what is my Stealth check being compared to if we are say in active combat and my rogue uses his cunning action to hide?
EG.
sneaking past a bunch of Kobolds who are just sitting around a fire, not really expecting anyone, Kobold's passive is 8 so my Stealth check has to beat an 8
fighting a Kobold, I shoot an arrow at it, run behind a tree/rock and cunning action to hide, what does my Stealth check have to beat?
am I even using hide right?
Also is this the same number for pickpocketing?
Eg. Trying to steal from someone unaware vs trying to steal from them mid battle
In general, you can only hide against something that doesn't have line-of-sight against you, and you only stay hidden while they don't have line-of-sight against you. In other words, if you pop behind a rock to hide, congrats, you hide - but the moment you pop back out in order to attack you are no longer considered Hidden and thus you don't get advantage on your attack.
There are some things that can get around this, like making it so you only need to be lightly obscured for one of the racial options out there, but that's it in general.
Some DMs allow you to pop out of hiding in order to fire and then pop back into hiding, but it's not explicitly supported by the rules.
In any case, the Kobolds still use their passive perception to try to find you while you are hidden, but on their turn they can take their action to try to roll an active perception check to find you, and this active perception check effectively can't roll below their passive perception score.
Here's the rules for the Hide action:
Hiding in combat uses up your action, but otherwise follows all of the other rules for hiding: you can't hide if anyone can see you clearly, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check against the passive Perception score of anyone that might notice you, you have to stay quiet, you can't move out into the open, etc. You remain hidden until you reveal yourself or someone finds you.
If you hide successfully, enemies can still take the Search action to roll a Perception check and find you.
I recommend you listen to the Dragon Talk podcast's Sage Advice segment on stealth and hiding. Jeremy Crawford (the game's lead rules designer) talks at length about how hiding works and why the rules for hiding are the way they are.
Would it be correct in this case to say that the kobold could ready its attack action for when it can see the hidden target? And then if/when the hidden target becomes visible (for instance by attacking) the kobold could then use its reaction to initiate the readied attack?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Seems reasonable; attacking causes invisibility to drop, no reason it wouldn't cause hiding to drop as well. If the hiding player complains about being singled out by readied actions, just point out that they are singlehandedly causing all of those kobolds to give up their round if they just keep hiding and don't attack next round.
But realize, the kobolds can also just straight up attack the rogue while they're hiding, all it really does is impart disadvantage and force them to guess which square to target, same as if they were invisible. I'd suggest maybe picking a small handful of squares around the hider's true location and rolling either a d4 or a d6 or something to randomly determine which square they think they're in, if they're hiding in something like a fog bank. If hiding behind a rock or tree, they probably know exactly which square the rogue is hiding in, but depending on whether the obstacle is giving full- or three-quarters- or half-cover, they may or may not be able to target that space.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
In my game I allow players to Hide if they can meet the requirements linked by Inquisitive above. If the enemy is aware of them I would not use their passive skill, that is a contested skill. Your rolled stealth would need to beat their rolled Perception or Investigation. You would then need to roll stealth again any each round you wish to remain hidden beyond the end of your turn against the enemy's passive. And you would be revealed on your first attack or on casting a spell with Verbal components.
Extended Signature
I would say that the kobold can certainly ready its attack for when it sees its target. BUT if the hidden target attacks, it will not simply trigger the kobold's readied attack (unless the target jumps out into the open). Attacking while hidden gives away its location, but it doesn't make it visible.
The kobold would therefore still have to use an action to make a perception check in order to see its target, thereby rendering its readied attack moot. The kobold could however ready its attack for when it knows the location of the hidden target (e.g. when it attacks) and then make an attack at disadvantage (because it still doesn't have vision, but does know the location).
EDIT: It's also important to point out that the hidden attacker's location is only revealed after it attacks, not before.
The above is fairly semantic.
Your DM's interpretation may very, but be warned, if you argue that you remain unseen when attacking, then your DM should apply the same mechanic to your enemy. Giving the thugs hiding in the bush advantage on every attack they make against your allies, and giving everyone disadvantage to hit them regardless of if they've attacked... Meaning the rogue gets to continue his adventure alone thanks to his awkward interpretation of a rule.
Don't confuse stealth with invisibility.
Extended Signature
I simply quoted the rules. Personally I think the rules in this area make perfect sense as it is very unrealistic that you will instantaneously have sight of someone despite him being completely hidden and camouflaged with only the tip of his crossbow barely visible among the various brown and green stuff in the forest 120 feet away, without even actively looking for him/her.
The normal reaction when being attacked by someone you cannot see, but whose location you know, would probably be to find some cover, or close the distance as soon as possible while looking for the enemy. So even if the rogue decided to adventure alone he would quickly be overrun. Practically I would have NPCs either take cover while looking for the rogue, or approach his last known location while holding an action to shoot/charge at the rogue when they get another clue as to where he is located. If it helps, think Skyrim or most other video games where stealth has a function.
If you want to modify the rules that is totally up to you. But if you follow RAW, don't confuse a stealthy attack with a flashy entrance.
EDIT: Personally I would encourage GMs at whose table I am a player to apply the same mechanics to both players and NPCs
Hiding is left ambiguous to allow more freedom for the DM to make the call based on the situation. As others have said, it's important not to confuse hiding with being invisible, and perhaps more importantly, not to confuse it with stealth in video games, such as Skyrim.
In the OPs example, sneaking past some kobolds sitting around a fire not paying attention, keeping to the shadows along the tree line where the pool of light from the flames can't reach, is one thing. Trying to sneak past that same group in a well lit room, with no cover, is another thing entirely.
In combat, it gets more situational. You fire from a hiding place - and then dive behind a rock to try and hide. How big is the rock? How dark is it? Where is the rock? What else is happening that could distract the foes? Jumping behind a rock doesn't mean all of the creatures suddenly forget about you. Step out from behind that rock and (without mitigating circumstances) they'll see you - whether you're trying to hide or not.
Switch the example to trees on the edge of the forest. You fire, then retreat back into the thickets and trees. Sure, they know you're there, but with a decent hide skill, they can loose you in the overgrowth. You could relocate and fire again, and in this instance, they might not know where you were.
This is a really bad idea for multiple reasons. If you roll Perception for every enemy the chances of hiding successfully quickly approach 0. Imagine if disadvantage stacked and you had to keep the lowest of N dice; that's roughly what that house rule does. Rerolling every round screws the hider even further; even if they get really lucky, they probably won't next turn. You're also slowing down the game by rolling Nd20 every round, which is a bad idea when there's a class that can hide every round.
The official rules give you a reasonable chance of success and are quick at the table. You make one roll against the highest passive Perception and remain hidden until you're found or you reveal yourself (by making noise, attacking, or moving into the open.) Enemies can still follow you around obstacles and see you if you don't pick a good hiding spot. Enemies can still spend their turns on the Search action to roll Perception and try to hear you, and it only takes 1 success to discover you and force you to hide again. But even if you're found, you cost a few of them their action.
As for readying actions, it depends on what the trigger is. If a Rogue is trying to snipe from behind a tree or low wall, enemies could ready an action to attack the Rogue when they poke out to shoot. If the Rogue is attacking from a heavily obscured area they're not going to be seen, but enemies could ready an action to attack the Rogue's space if they hear an attack from that area, so they can attack the Rogue before they hide again and move somewhere else.
At the table I only roll one perception roll for a group of monsters as is recommended in published campaigns I've run.
In the PvP PbP arena, all opponents (usually 2 or 3) get to contest. The ones that fail suffer their opponent being unseen. But that's a whole different bear. Even with multiple players rolling to spot the rogues, players rarely do. With Expertice, Cloaks of Elvenkind, and Pass without Trace in play. If anything I'm being too gentle on the stealth builds.
At the table you want your players to have a chance to fail. When their rolling +10 or more with advantage... That chance gets very slim.
Extended Signature
Right. Attacking reveals you, and you are no longer hidden, but you may remain unseen for being Heavily Obscured by the bushes. However, the enemy is going to continue to know where you are until you use another action to hide again. Fortunately for those who rely most on stealth the Rogue's Cunning Action allows you to hide again on the same turn you attack. (A Goblin's Nimble Escape allows them to do the same.)
Extended Signature
I have a question. In the example you gave, if the Rogue were attacking from a heavily obscured area without exposing themself, would they do so both at advantage since they are attacking while hidden and also at disadvantage since they are effectively blinded by the heavily obscured square they are in? And likewise, would attacks against the Rogue be both at disadvantage since the Rogue is heavily obscured and also at advantage since the Rogue is effectively blinded?
Seems like heavily obscured takes things to a weird place. Or maybe it's just my poor understanding of the situation or of the rules or of both.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well, houseruling to fix 'heavily obscured' effects like Fog Cloud is an entirely separate discussion for a separate thread... but yeah, as written there are some pretty weird effects where shooting into or out of a fog cloud doesn't actually hand out advantage or disadvantage, because both attacker and target simultaneously have advantage and disadvantage due to not seeing each other. All obscurement is really "useful" for is a) satisfying the hard requirement for taking a hide action that there actually be something to hide in, and b) breaking line of sight for spells that require line of sight to a space or target.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If I have a player with +10 or advantage they're supposed to succeed regularly. Having a +10 means you're really good at that thing. Artificially raising the difficulty both negates the resources they've dumped into getting good at it and screws over everyone else who's merely average.
There's nothing gamebreaking about consistently hiding. In combat a Rogue is trading a bonus action for the possibility of having advantage on one attack. That's strictly worse than getting a guaranteed second attack with two-weapon fighting or Crossbow Expert (unless they have Elven Accuracy to roll 3 dice on advantage.) While traveling, the group is only as stealthy as the weakest link; if there's N people in the group, all N have to roll high enough to avoid detection. If 1-2 sneaky people break off to scout ahead, they're less likely to get caught but they're also in much more danger if something goes wrong.
If the situation is symmetrical and neither the attacker nor the target can see the other, yes, advantage and disadvantage cancel out. Game features like the Alert feat, Devil's Sight, Umbral Sight, Eyes of the Dark and different Darkvision ranges can create asymmetrical situations. The nature of the heavily obscured area might create asymmetry too. Some illusion spells become see-through once you realize they're fake. Someone standing in darkness can see someone holding a light source but not vice-versa. Someone might be hiding in dense foliage where it's easy to look out, but hard for someone on the outside to notice what's within.
I only allow opponents to contest stealth when they are already aware of the player. However, there seems to be some confusion. Rolling 1d20ad+10 against 1d20+3 is not removing the players effectiveness in stealth compared to rolling against DC 13. It only makes the outcome less predictable and more interesting.
When traveling in a group consider using Group Checks for Stealth rather than making Stealth useless for the party that opted to bring along a Paladin. Don't let one character's weakness result in the whole party failing. Of course application is situational. When your sneaking through the narrow halls of a Kobold infested tunnel, letting the stealthiest players scout ahead makes sense, but when you're traveling across the countryside trying to avoid notice from the king's guard, a group check is probably the way to go.
Extended Signature
If by "reveals you" you mean "reveals your location, but you remain unseen" then we seem to be agreeing after all. But I am very confused as for your position on this topic as you seemed to be arguing the opposite in the post prior to the one I quoted.
I am not entirely sure what you, BDaddLy, and Chequers mean when you state that being hidden doesn't equal invisibility. I am assuming there is some reflection going on behind the statement, besides the literal difference, that I am not getting. Can you elaborate?
Likewise can you (Chequers) elaborate on why you don't believe it makes sense to compare the situation of NPCs spotting a hidden target in Skyrim as I did?
Even if both creatures have advantage/disadvantage, the attacker will always have the most difficult time as he has to choose the right square to attack, which will never be 100% accurate without Blindsense, Blindsight or the like.
I am not entirely sure how light obscurement works according to RAW as I feel "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area" can be interpreted both as "when your target is in the obscured area" and "when you are in the obscured area". I am not sure which interpretation is the correct one, or if both are correct, by RAW.
That isn't any more random or unpredictable than rolling against a fixed number though.
Pass Without Trace is designed for situations like that. Even if everyone rolls low, you'll still get numbers in the teens. Moving as a big group stealthily is supposed to be hard.
Not necessarily. The rules assume you're being noisy unless you successfully hide.
Pretty sure the intended interpretation is that you can't see anything that's inside a heavily obscured area, not that you can't see anything at all while you're in an obscured area. Being in a pitch black corner of a room doesn't stop you from seeing into nearby brightly lit areas in the real world.