Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
"I'm objecting to the interpretation put forward that if you take the Hide action, which - as part of the action - has you make a Stealth check, that you're still loud unless you immediately make a second Stealth check."
Thats not how the 2024 rules work.
You make a stealth check. If greater than 15, you are hidden. For someone to spot you, they must make a perception check with a dc of whatever you rolled on yoir stealth check.
Unless you do one of the things in the list that stops you from being hidden, you keep the invisible condition..
Id probably say if you move at half speed, youre being careful and simply remain hidden.
If you do something not on the list, but has a good chance of getting you spotted, like dashing through the woods, then maybe you make another Hide check (assuming you havent used all your actions)
That caster is spending resources to cast quietly, as part of a significant class feature.
Compare to a Thief Rogue sniping from cover with Supreme Sneak:
"Stealth Attack (Cost: 1d6). If you have the Hide action’s Invisible condition, this attack doesn’t end that condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover."
Question about having blindsight or see invisibility. Both allow you to see objects that have the invisible condition.
But what happen when an enemy is hidden?
A- you are able to instantaneously spot an enemy who has taken the Hide Action successfully, as the benefit of the invisible condition is negated in the range.
B - you are able to instantaneously spot an enemy who has the invisible condition due to magic but not an enemy who is invisible because they have taken the Hide Action successfully, because they are also moving stealthily, so they might have taken advantage of your distractions (like you are literally looking in a different direction).
I am in doubt about this because while blindsight seem to logically lead to option A, as you use other senses to perceive what your eyes can not, see invisibility is not an alarm bell that tells you there is someone behind you. Wherever you are looking you can see creatures who are invisible but I can imagine someone sneaking behind you.
On another hand, someone who is moving very stealthily could maybe fool even a creature with blindsight maybe?
Option A is only a valid reading if you consider the Hide action as only giving you the Invisible condition where the rest of the language is narrative fluff.
If you consider the Hide action as more than that, then it's reasonable to be able to hide from someone with Blindsight or See Invisibility, though an argument for Blindsight seeing a hidden creature unless they are also behind total cover could be made, I guess.
I think there's mulitple ways to rule this, but this is my way:
For Truesight, Blindsight, and See Invisibility, they don't really make much of a difference. They don't help you find someone, they just mean you can see invisible things. So, once you know to look, they'd no longer be invisible, but you don't know where to look. EDIT: these don't give you "eyes in the back of your head."
Tremorsense, on the other hand, lets you find them out outright, because you can "pinpoint the location of creatures and moving objects within a specific range."
I tend to agree with Sabin76 that there is an argument to be made that blindsight, like tremorsense, should be able to immediately spot someone hidden, because all your other senses are doing the work. Like Daredevil, kinda.. You perceive the movement in the air, the smell, the change in air temperature and even the vibration in the ground. Being stealthy against something like this sounds really really hard.
Huh. Ive played three different characters with the 2024 rules so far. Havent gotten around to rogue yet.
I like it, but feel like it could be a feat available to ranger4, fighter4. But better than nothing i suppose.
Blindsight, truesight are "line of sight" types of seeing. Truesight and blind sight cant see through cover, they cant see through thick foilage. They cant see through fogcloud.
Tremorsense is more of an omniscient sense. You can see through walls and see whats on the other side. Total cover doesnt block tremorsense. The thing that looks like a wall to tremorsense is any kind of an air gap.
Tremorsense could see through walls into the next room of a dungeon, but it probably wouldnt detect the beholder floating in the middle of the room.
Haven't we already agreed that the rules are poorly written? The real problem with hide isn't that the rules can be rules lawyered (lots of rules can be), the real problem is that it's not even possible to determine what they intended it to do.
Once you have hidden, can you leave your hiding place and remain invisible? I'm pretty sure "prance through the middle of the room waving pom-poms without anyone seeing you" is not intended, but I also doubt that it's the intent that it's never possible to remain hidden without 3/4 cover, total cover, or heavy concealment (particularly since being invisible while behind total cover or in heavy concealment doesn't do anything).
Does hiding conceal your position? Nothing about the invisible condition actually does so, as concealing your position requires being unheard as well as unseen, but that seems like an odd option to be missing from the rules.
Can see invisibility automatically detect a hidden creature, assuming they are not impossible to see for other reasons? It seems like an odd expansion of the spell, but it's the obvious reading of the spell.
Things like "the invisible condition doesn't actually prevent anyone from seeing you", while a badly written rule, don't have that problem, as it's pretty clearly intended that being invisible makes it so people cannot normally see you.
If you read the rules as a DM looking for tools to use and make rulings about, the intentions are pretty clear. The books just weren't written for people intent on tying themselves in knots to pre-answer every situation.
I've read the rules as a DM looking for tools to use and make rulings about, and I've concluded that I'll use the 2014 rules, because the intentions are not clear.
I don't really see a point to this conversation.
I could literally answer every question you raised in your first post, and the answers would be (to me) consistent with themselves and the book, but you would just reject my answers and argue. I know this because we've had this conversation in like 5 threads before.
Hell, I'm pretty sure you could answer all of those questions in a reasonable manner, if you were so inclined. I can only really conclude that you're trying to spread doubt, or really annoyed by having the questions in the first place.
There's a difference between "you can interpret the rules consistently in this way" and "it's actually clear what the rules meant to say". There are multiple ways of interpreting the rules that are internally consistent, but that doesn't tell me what they were trying to say.
You are literally asking for RAI (in a nominally RAW-only forum, but that's a dumb rule). Language is interpretive, the author is metaphorically dead, RAW is fundamentally interpretive, etc etc.
But I really do mean that I'm pretty confident that I understand the RAI, despite WotC never publshing RAI about this, from just reading and interpretting the RAW. I'm also very confident that the writers want everyone to interpret things, because they are convinced (for good or ill) that that is what the majority of the audience wants to do.
I am saying that the reason this rule is particularly problematic isn't that RAW is unclear or bad (that's not rare), it's that RAI is unclear. A stated goal of the 2024 rules was to cut down on "mother may I" mechanics, and the rules for hiding have entirely failed at that. The simple solution as a DM is "Okay, I'll ignore the rules; you can hide if I say you can hide", which is the exact opposite of the goal.
"Once you have hidden, can you leave your hiding place and remain invisible?"
The rules seem pretty clear: you make a stealth check to hide " while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight;'
So you can move and remain hidden as long as you remain heavily obscured, or behind 3/4 or 4/4 cover, and remain out of enemy's line of sight.
Also you stop being hidden if "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."
"I'm pretty sure "prance through the middle of the room waving pom-poms without anyone seeing you" is not intended, but I also doubt that it's the intent that it's never possible to remain hidden without 3/4 cover, total cover, or heavy concealment (particularly since being invisible while behind total cover or in heavy concealment doesn't do anything)."
the rules are soooooo straightforward and easy, and you're saying they are difficult to understand because you are certain that while the requirements to achieve hidden status are clear, you dont think those same requirements are needed to maintain the hidden status.
Because why?
Whatever you answer is NOT coming from the book.
:Does hiding conceal your position? Nothing about the invisible condition actually does so, as concealing your position requires being unheard as well as unseen, but that seems like an odd option to be missing from the rules."
Hiding gives you the invisible condition. Thats it. End of story.
Dnd rules dont have the term "concealed" anywhere as a defined term. They use "obscured" wbich comes in the light and heavy options. And to tey to hide, you must be heavily obscured or be behind 3/4 or 4/4 cover.
"Can see invisibility automatically detect a hidden creature, assuming they are not impossible to see for other reasons? It seems like an odd expansion of the spell, but it's the obvious reading of the spell."
The spell says "you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible,"
Seems pretty straightforward. If you hide and someone casts Detect Invisibility, they see you as if you were visible. So attacks between you and that caster are rolled @ normally.
Tremorsense does not allow you to "see through walls into the next room." This is because tremorsense is not sight. Detecting a hidden character using tremorsense will allow you to know where they are and attack them, but does not break their invisibility. The attacker using tremorsense will still attack at disadvantage for attacking a target they can't see. And the hidden character will still attack at advantage against a defender using tremorsense, because they are still invisible to the defender.