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
We've added that you can't remain hidden while taking Dash as an action. Moving without cover while hidden requires you to time out the movement and pick your spot. But you can remain hidden while taking dash as a bonus action, which rogues can do. This allows rogues to hide behind cover, and dash out to make a melee attack while hidden to maintain advantage for the sneak attack. But, because the rogue burned the bonus action to pull it off, they can't use the bonus action to disengage or hide again that turn. So it becomes more of a desperation move for the rogue. It's worked out well.
That one is hotly debated. The definition of "found" in the Hide rules requires beating the stealth roll with a perception check. But it's not clear if that definition is inclusive or exclusive. This one has come up at our table when our Druid was wildshaped into something with tremorsense. (For the life of me, I can't remember what it was.) Our DM has ruled that a creature with tremorsense gets advantage on their perception check to find the hidden character. (They know where to look.) But it's not automatic. They still must spend the action on searching for the hidden creature, and hit the roll. A creature with truesight or blindsight with an unobstructed view finds automatically without acting and without rolling anything. However, even if the creature with tremorsense fails to find the hidden creature, it can still attack it at disadvantage since it knows the location of the target. It just can't see it.
This is based on the invisibility condition stating that the invisible creature is concealed unless it can be "seen." And the description for tremorsense stating that it does not provide "sight." So something with the invisibility condition is, by definition, concealed from a creature with tremorsense. And if something is still concealed from me, I can't reasonably state that I found it.
"There is a difference between finding and seeing." Thus, you had stipulated that the hider was "found". Once found, the creature is no longer hiding and does not have the invisible condition.
I agree that the limits and conditions to "find" a hidden creature are hotly debated. I do not agree that, once found, there is any grey area for a creature to still be invisible, as Stabbey stated.
I just don't think "knows the location of the target" is justifiably different from "found the target". And all of this just backs up Pantagruel's point. The RAW is unclear so we look for intent. But the rules don't even give us an idea of what the intent is, so we are left to bicker about it amongst ourselves.
EDIT: sorry, I was getting confused as to who was saying what. Should be cleaned up now.
It's clear that a creature that is 'found' as intended by the hide action is no longer invisible, because the hide action outright tells you that. The problem is that it's not clear whether hide is talking about natural language use of 'found' or some more specific definition, and even if it's natural language, there are ways the word is found is used that don't really make sense for defeating stealth (for example, you might say you've found something if you've merely located it with reasonable accuracy, even if you cannot see it).
What this rapidly winds up turning into is just the 2014 "the DM decides if the situation is appropriate for hiding". Which was a perfectly workable rule, it just sometimes meant that players wound up being surprised by being unable to hide when they thought that hiding would be possible.
"The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" is right there in the 2024 PHB, too (in Chapter 1). So someone with even a min Stealth roll of 27 doesn't try to walk invisibly across the entirety of Faerun.
"Find" is meant to be open-ended (but explicitly includes a successful Search action), because there are thousands of ways it could come up...you know, like you draw attention to yourself by cartwheeling around or sitting in your target's lap.
An easy, supported by the rules in the book, variation is "you move out of cover to stab someone but their Passive Perception beats your Stealth." Meaning they hear you, most likely. Thus all the "move silently" discussion that actually spawned this thread. Roll Stealth to move silenty (also directly from the rules, and supported by at least one published adventure). My house rule would be that, in combat, you just use the Hide's value for the first movement.
Every single piece of this lines up perfectly with the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" box in chapter 1, as well.
And yet there are a number of people that argue it isn't; that the Search Action is the only way to "find" a hidden creature. And it's not like they don't have support in the rules. The DMG states that "Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so." This is strong (not-definitive) evidence for their argument. That's two places in the rules for hiding where the only given way to "find" a creature is with a perception check. Then again, the DM determining whether the conditions exist to be able to hide is strong (not-definitive) evidence that there are other ways to "find" a hidden creature.
The problem is... we don't know. One side says "this is obviously the way". The other says, "No, this is clearly the way." And round and round we go. We don't even know if the conditions for taking the Hide Action are supposed to be conditions for remaining hidden. There is no text on it one way or the other. We simply have inference, and, due to that, we have argument when inferences from one person don't align with inferences from another.
This isn't the case where clearly the intent was for magic users to be able to cast cantrips, even though the RAW prohibit it (cantrips are "known", spellcasters can only cast spells that are "prepared"). We easily hand-wave that as a mistake in the written rules and everyone is in agreement on what they should say. In contrast, the hide rules are convoluted, imprecise, and it's impossible to tell what the designers even intended a hidden creature to be able to do with they way they were written. On top of that, the errata didn't actually change either argument and they are both as strong as ever.
The Hide action requires you to make an active Stealth check. That's the only active part of the Hide action. If the Hide action isn't supposed to make you unheard as well as unseen, then how does one become unheard? Do you think that the intent is for you to make a Stealth check as part of the Hide action, and then make a second Stealth check to also be quiet?
Whenever your DM calls for a Stealth check, do they always ask for two separate rolls, one for visual and one for auditory? I can't imagine they do, therefore, I can't imagine saying that the Stealth check as part of the Hide action does not count for both visual and auditory.
Blindness/deafness and silence? DM fiat? There is no actual rule that allows you to become unheard in 2014.
Those are both pretty ridiculous extremes.
- There are at least three explicit "finding" mechanics covered already in this thread: a Search Action, Passive Perception, and Tremorsense. All are pretty explicit.
- And the rules are covered in invocations of the DM making a judgement call (it's literally 1/3rd of the actual Hiding section of Chapter 1).
This all sounds like competing strawmen, and I chose to ignore both.
The first third of that Hiding section is a list of applications: "whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush." So I don't buy that they haven't stated intent of the rule, either.
My assumption is that they rewrote the stealth rules in 2024 for some reason, which means there must be something about the 2014 rules they didn't like. The usual paragraph people point to is
and that they viewed this as a "mother may I" mechanic that they wanted to make more consistent... but I don't know what they wanted to make it more consistent to.
Have you ever been a player or DM in a game where it was required to make separate Stealth checks for both sight and sound? Yes or no.
Also, you're incorrect about there being no actual rule which allows you to become unheard. Right there in the definition of the Stealth skill (same in both 5e and 5.e):
The DM can always make an exception to the rules at their discretion.
Let's say your Halfling with Tavern Brawler hits a Tarrasque with an Unarmed Attack. Can you push it back 5'? RAW, the answer is an unequivocal yes. However, many DMs would be skeptical about a small size creature throwing a Gargantuan Monstrosity around the map by punching it.
When a DM decides to make an exception to the rules to forbid you from tossing that Tarrasque off a cliff, he isn't changing RAW. He's reaffirming RAW by making an exception to it.
This is no different than a DM overruling RAW with regards to Hide. If the DM determines that situation doesn't justify remaining hidden, they are not following the rules but making an exception to them - and that exception proves the rule.
In terms of the rest of it, it's not a matter of "one way or another". RAW involves the rules as written. It does not involve speculating about rules that do not exist. We know that you do not need to remain out of line-of-sight or behind cover to remain Hidden for the simple reason that there is no rule ending the condition based on cover/line-of-sight - only rules for entering the condition. Likewise, we know there are only four ways to stop being Hidden because we only have four situations that end Hidden.
Any other interpretation involves inventing rules that don't exist and is thus not RAW.
Not to mention that if you're trying to introduce the unwritten rules many players seem to want, they make features like Skulker, Supreme Sneak or Naturally Stealthy completely non-sensical because they all confer abilities dependent on those unwritten limitations on Hide not existing.
Not normally (though it was a thing in 3e), but they're separate effects.
I rest my case...
In all seriousness, though, there is a difference between a codified DM discretion inserted in a rule (the DM determines...) and Rule 0. The former is not the DM ignoring or changing the rules to suit their whims, it's the DM enacting the rules as written. It is also fair game in this subforum where we try to ascertain what the Rules As Written are actually trying to tell us. The latter, which you are referring to in your post, is not only different, it is not productive to any discussion here.
The purpose of a stealth check is for one to elude detection or otherwise not be noticed. I cannot fathom interpreting the rules to mean that making a stealth check only represents trying to not be noticed by either sight OR hearing, but NOT both. Nor can I fathom interpreting the rules to mean that a stealth check never represents trying to be quiet and also that the only ways to be quiet are if there's a silence spell or the listener is deaf. 3e did have multiple checks, and there's a reason they changed it.
I interpret the Dungeon Master Guide below as guidelines for when a creature is hidden. Walking in plain sight of enemies after taking the Hide action to me means you don't try to conceal yourself and being stealthy anymore. As DM i don't consider such circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Stealth for example is used to escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things.
The thing to do when you want to be stealthy while you encounter enemies is to hide behind something out of view. The other way around where you hide then walking around freely never felt right to me.
Overruling RAW in this fashion fundamentally breaks the game. Those features like Skulker, Naturally Stealthy and Supreme Sneak just stop working unless you can enter line-of-sight and remain hidden. Indeed, I suspect a major part of the reason that Hide was changed to give the "Invisible" condition and clearly separating the requirements for entering and breaking hidden was forestall precisely the sort of argument you're trying to make - they wanted to make it clear that if you could do it with the magical Invisibility spell, you could do it with Stealth.
I can't speak for others, but it didn't fundamentally break the game for us is all i can say. At my table:
- Naturally Stealthy Halfling remain hidden while obscured by larger creature just like others remain hidden behind Three-Quarters.
- With the Skulker feat you still 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.
- Rogue Supreme Sneak Attack normally you stop being hidden immediately after you make an attack roll but instead the attack doesn't end the Hide action’s Invisible condition on you if you end the turn behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover. If you move out in plain sight or remain obscured by Heavily Obscured area or a larger creature though you don't remain hidden.
5.5E Hide is one of the most debated subject like i said, so any interpretation will have it's disagreement one way or another. :)
Naturally Stealthy only gives you the benefit when you take the Hide Action. After the Hide Action, the benefit ceases. If you're ruling that you need to maintain the cover/line-of-sight condition to remain Hidden, this would instantly reveal you after the Hide Action behind 1/2 Cover.
With both Supreme Sneak and Skulker, you need to enter line-of-sight to make the attack in the first place. As a result, it doesn't really matter that the attack might not reveal you because you've already ruled that the character is immediately revealed when they stepped out to attempt the attack.
As I indicated, these features simply don't make any sense if you're going to create a rule that stepping out from cover/into line-of-sight instantly reveals a hidden character.
There are legitimately confusing, poorly written rules in 5.5e. The rules on Hide are not amongst them. They are very clear and simple - the 'controversy' is entirely about how some players don't like what those rules are.