What does Hide do? And how to read and understand the rules.

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.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

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.

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.

Quote from kenclary >>

If you read the rules as a DM looking for tools to use and make rulings about, the intentions are pretty clear.

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.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from kenclary >>

If you read the rules as a DM looking for tools to use and make rulings about, the intentions are pretty clear.

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.

Quote from kenclary >>

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.

 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.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from kenclary >>

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.

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.

Quote from kenclary >>

You are literally asking for RAI (in a nominally RAW-only forum, but that's a dumb rule).

 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.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

Quote from Jayce_Danathar >>

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?

 

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.

 

 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.

Quote from Sperril >>

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.

Once you know where they are, you have found them ("pinpoint the location" "detecting" etc.). Therefore they are no longer hidden, and lose the invisibility condition.

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from Sperril >>

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.

Once you know where they are, you have found them ("pinpoint the location" "detecting" etc.). Therefore they are no longer hidden, and lose the invisibility condition.

There is a difference between finding and seeing. Someone can cast Invisibility in front of you and make no attempt to hide or move, thus you know where they are. You're still attacking at disadvantage even though you know where they are because they're invisible.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

 

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

Sure, but the invisible condition from hiding doesnt turn off from damage. If you cast a subtle spell that uses a saving throw, youre still hidden. Even if it creates a beam of energy that goes directly from you to the target, youre still hidden.

Yeah, it's a cool trick for the right kind of sorcerer, with proficiency in stealth...

I think it's fine. It also worked in 2014.

 

But an archer can never do the same thing. If they take the skulker feat it says :"Sniper. If you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, making the attack roll doesn’t reveal your location."

So you stay hidden if you miss with an arrow, but the caster can throw a fireball, which causes a beam of energy from caster to target, does damage, and the caster  stays hidden? 

Its just yet another example of where martials get shortchanged and casters get a free pass.

 

Except it costs a fairly valuable and at most tiers limited Sorcerer resource for their trick. Thus again the "casters get special privileges" argument breaks down once we stop white rooming if something is possible and consider the logistics of doing it during an active adventuring day.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

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.

 There is no evidence that the requirements for taking the hide action are also requirements for remaining hidden. It's a plausible interpretation, but in no way forced, and winds up making the hide action mostly useless (being invisible while behind total cover, heavily obscured, or outside of an enemy's line of sight doesn't do anything). There are plenty of people who have argued for the 2024 rules meaning that you can, for example, hide and then leap out from hiding to get the benefit of being invisible on your first attack.

Quote from Stabbey_TC >>

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from Sperril >>

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.

Once you know where they are, you have found them ("pinpoint the location" "detecting" etc.). Therefore they are no longer hidden, and lose the invisibility condition.

 

There is a difference between finding and seeing. Someone can cast Invisibility in front of you and make no attempt to hide or move, thus you know where they are. You're still attacking at disadvantage even though you know where they are because they're invisible.

Except that for Hide, specifically, the invisible condition drops if you are found. That's the point of the comment.

To me the difference between being in certain place while you're hidden or not is handled this way;

If you don't Hide while you benefit from;

Heavily Obscured: Others have the Blinded condition while trying to see you.

Three-Quarters Cover: You have +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Total Cover: You can’t be targeted directly.

If you Hide while you benefit from;

Heavily Obscured: Others have the Blinded condition while trying to see you. Your location is unknown and you have the Invisible condition while hidden.

Three-Quarters Cover: You have +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. Your location is unknown and you have the Invisible condition while hidden.

Total Cover: You can’t be targeted directly. Your location is unknown and you have the Invisible condition while hidden.

My rule of thumb for hidden creature in enemy's line of sight is;

While Heavily Obscured, behind Three-Quarters or Total Cover: Wisdom (Perception) check to find you.

While not Heavily Obscured, behind Three-Quarters or Total Cover: Enemy find you. (auto-success)

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

To me the difference between being in certain place while you're hidden or not is handled this way;

If you Hide while you benefit from;

Heavily Obscured: Others have the Blinded condition while trying to see you. Your location is unknown and you have the Invisible condition while hidden.

Three-Quarters Cover: You have +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. Your location is unknown and you have the Invisible condition while hidden.

Total Cover: You can’t be targeted directly. Your location is unknown and you have the Invisible condition while hidden.

There is no evidence for location being unknown. Thus the difference is:

• Heavily Obscured: you cannot be targeted with abilities that require seeing the target, and attacks have disadvantage. If you are hidden: no change.
• Three-Quarters Cover: +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. If you are hidden: well, you can't hide because 3/4 cover doesn't block line of sight, but if we ignore that, you get the benefits of being invisible.
• Total Cover: you cannot be targeted. If you are hidden: no change.

There is some reason to think that Hide was meant to make you unheard as well as unseen, but I'm reluctant to read in a benefit that is completely absent from the rules text.

This is how i have been using Stealth at my table so far and it has worked for us. 

The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, so YMMV

I base my ruling on the possibility of guessing the target’s location as one the side benefit of Hide vs Invisible alone as described in the rules below. 

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.

Skulker

You gain Advantage on any Dexterity (Stealth) check you make as part of the Hide action during combat and if you make an attack roll while hidden and the roll misses, it doesn't reveal your location.

One of my other ruling you can take the Hide action when you have the Invisible condition or the enemy has the Blinded condition.

I've also been toying with the idea of also taking the Hide action when you have the Prone condition behind Half-Cover obstacle other than creature.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

One of my other ruling you can take the Hide action when you have the Invisible condition or the enemy has the Blinded condition.

I've also been toying with the idea of also taking the Hide action when you have the Prone condition behind Half-Cover obstacle other than creature.

I see where you are going with this, but I think the idea is that half-cover is simply not enough to hide behind, even if you are prone. However, if you are under half-cover and then drop prone, there could be many situations where that actually upgrades your cover to be able to hide behind.

I also don't want to put words in Pantagruel's mouth, but I think their main problem is that a lot of what you are doing leans very heavily on inference and the "the DM determines..." clause. It is simply not clear what the designers intended for you to actually be able to do once hidden and on that point, I agree.

I do, and i also encourage everyone to use Stealth in a way that works best for them. At my table we've used many different take on Stealth since 2024 to find an approach that worked for us. I've seen varying ways how Hide has been used with different tables handling it based on personnal inference. 

The Half Cover houserule worked better in distance (30+ feet) than at proximity (5-10 feet) as we tested some versions to allow more possibility to use Hide and rely less on deep foliage and large tree or rock during roadside ambush for example etc... But we aren't over with playtesting.