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
To make matters far worse. First, go to youtube and search for "Simons Selective Attention Test" or watch this if the link acutally works then come back.
Now, when interpreting the hide action and having the invisible action while hidden for players, I disagree that a hidden player who enters line of sight is automatically found, because that interpretation doesn't quite capture what a very stealthy expert at hiding does. In this case, given the right distractions, a player could well walk in plain sight and simply not be noticed, especially in a distracting situation like combat, which the above video mimics (the opponents are tracking the actions of the people trying to lop their head off, not the gorilla). Similiarly, a stealthy player hiding in a crowd and so forth would be in the plain video, but unnnoticed. Even in far less distracting circumstances, a player could create distrtions, or wait for the creatures they're hiding from to turn their attention elsewhere as they move through the space in plain view. Finally, there are the inevitable examples, say from movies, where the person hiding is simply in a place the other creature does not think to look, say, up in a tree. For additional examples, watch any video of a magician explaining a trick, many of which rely on distraction to hide things in plain sight. Rewatching the magic trick once you know where to look for the ball makes you wonder how you missed it the first time.
This is to say, staying hidden isn't a matter of staying out of sight, but rather staying unnoticed, quite often by staying out of the selective attention of the creature you're staying hidden from, because this is the way perception and attention work in brains.
For my table, if a rogue with stealth expertise is sneaking around, once hidden, I find it entirely plausible that they can break cover and enter plain sight while remaining unnoticed because the expert stealther knows how to take advantage of how attention works to be within the line of sight, but unnoticed. A stealthy hidden player in combat of course comes into view when attacking, but I rule they still have advantage, because they know how to time their strike for the exact moment when the target's attention is somewhere else.
Similarly, this gets much harder when the target is actively aware of them and looking for them (taking the search action), which is why the odds of success go down when the stealth is opposed. (and if they're not taking a "search" action in combat, its because they're doing something else, like trying to hit someone else and therefore clearly distracted)
So, this language of "you have the invisible condition while hidden" does not mean "you have the invisible condition while behind three quarters cover or heavily obscured" as some interpret it, but rather "you have invisible condition until something breaks your hidden condition"
I'd be curious what your thoughts are about this real world/narrative interpretation of continuing to be hidden after coming into the line of sight.
I don't think this really adds anything new to the discussion, sorry. Stuff like this has been brought up before, multiple times. The counter-argument is that this rationale for the chosen interpretation bleeds over into situations where it really doesn't make sense... like a rogue breaking cover to walk down a 100' well-lit hallway with no objects, and with two guards posted at the other end whose only job is to make sure they see people coming down the hallway.
I don't think a hidden creature Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover is automatically found, it may or may not be successfully perceived, just like the gorilla in this video, which some people see while others don't.
But if there was no players passing the basketball to conceal the gorilla, it would be easily perceived.
"While hidden" it is reasonable for a DM to impose Disadvantage onto active or passive Perception checks situationally (distractions, etc). But if you are not hiding then you do not enjoy any of the benefits of being hidden.
The point is that the interpretation that you’re seen the instant you break cover is pretty silly, because for one thing it negates any ability to gain advantage on any attack while hidden, because as soon as you move to see a target from a hidden position, their panopticon awareness sees you and you’re not hidden and lose the invisible condition.
that interpretation is the one I am reacting to. Of course, this also makes seeing the hidden character considerably more situational.
The thing is, there's really two arguments about stealth: what do the rules actually say, and what should the rules say. The realistic answer to "can you hide from someone who can see you reasonably clearly" is "maybe", but since as far as I can tell the whole point of updating stealth in 2024 was to get rid of "mother may I" mechanics, that's not very useful.
I was actually thinking about when you break hiding, which I should have said. If the list of conditions is exclusive, coming out of cover doesn’t end the hiding condition. If it’s not, the either there is potential to escape notice (stay hidden) or every creature has a perception of 30 and 360 degree panopticon vision of perfect situational awareness. I find the latter interpretation implausible
but You’re spot on: This is about what the rules should be. The RAW are ambiguous about what breaks hidden condition.
This issue was solved by the update to the 2024 rules. The main way to achieve this advantage on an attack now is by just leaning out to three-quarters cover while hidden. In this case your attack does not give away your position until the attack hits or misses so advantage is preserved. Contrast this with not hiding and then leaning out to three-quarters cover, in which case you are spotted before the attack is made and so you would not be an Unseen Attacker in that case.
If the list of conditions (to break Hide) is exclusive, then you literally cannot simply stop hiding... which I find just as implausible.
If nothing else, Hide really shouldn't be used outside of Initiative. That is not to say that Stealth cannot be used outside of Initiative, but at that point it functions like any other skill check- player describes their desired course of action, DM calls for a roll and then adjudicates the outcome based on that roll. Definitely agree that "the Invisible condition persists until the character attacks, uses a V component, or an enemy successfully makes a Search Action" is taking the RAW to an illogical extreme.
Of course, the idea that your stealthy hiding ends immediately when you step out from behind cover is equally an illogical extreme. For one thing, getting advantage from being hidden becomes impossible under such an interpretation, since you have to have a line of sight on the target to attack them, and thus they would also have it on you as well. That would mean that hiding is no different from full cover.
This issue was solved by the update to the 2024 rules. The main way to achieve this advantage on an attack now is by just leaning out to three-quarters cover while hidden. In this case your attack does not give away your position until the attack hits or misses so advantage is preserved. Contrast this with not hiding and then leaning out to three-quarters cover, in which case you are spotted before the attack is made and so you would not be an Unseen Attacker in that case.
Not only is this illogical, but it is also just incorrect.
The text does not say "until . . . an enemy successfully makes a Search action".
Instead, the text does say "until . . . an enemy finds you".
Very interesting. i'd missed that nuance. Many thanks!
Everyone who did NOT see the gorrilla is shocked when it is pointed out to them. They assume, incorrectly, that they have a good baseline of perception all the time, but they dont.
This is the current rules of dnd. Passive paerception is a fixed calculated value based on the average roll one gets while taking the Search Action. And then it applies to all things all the time.
I guarantee if you showed the gorilla video to people without telling them anything before hand, they would immediately have spotted the gorilla. Its the focus on counting basketball passes that reduced perception.
For dnd rules, this points to perception being much, much lower when the players are not searching, especially when in combat.
But the other issue in.the rules is that passive perception being an average 10 on the d20 means that half the time actively searching rolls a result worse than doing nothing and relying on passive. Which has the weird effect that no one takes the Search action during combat, doing nothing and relying on passive is safer.
What i seem to be settling on is a bit complicated:
In combat, if you take any action besides Search for a perception check, then your passive perception should have a penalty until start of your next turn. Maybe a -5 for disadvantage.
Fighters, barbarians, rogues, rangers and monks (not pallys, theyre op as it is) at level 5 get advantage on passive perception, which cancels the combat penalty. They also get to Search as a BonusAction. This will allow them to roll a d20 and apply things like heroic inspiration, luck, bardic inspiration, etc if they really want to find something in combat. At level 10, the martial classes do not get disadvantage on passive perceptiin during combat, meaning they can apply advantage from things like sentinel shield.
The idea being combat is extremely distracting but martial builds should eventually get so much training in it that they can overcome the distractions.
Also, concentrating on a spell causes a -5 penalty on perception (flat penalty, not a form of disadvantage). Because mental concentration on something is like concentrating on counting the basketball.passes and missing the gorilla.
I think this is not too complicated, but still gives a better set of rules for passive perception besides "your passive perception is this calculated value and is always this calculated value, no matter what you do".
I think its also a good way to help martials compared to casters. If you spent a lifetime training as a martial, combat wont impose as big a disadvantage on perception as it will for civilians, or people who spend much od their life studying books, gods, or other non-combat classes.