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
The fear spell, as written, still denies the target a save if you're invisible. This may indicate incompetence rather than intent.
As incompetence. The 'no line of sight' requirement also means that it's impossible to hide behind three-quarters cover, since three-quarters cover does not block line of sight.
This is my general answer to the hide rules (and other problems with perception, such as darkness being opaque): the authors were bad at writing rules. You more or less have to house rule if you want results that aren't blatant nonsense.
In a more general sense, when they were building 2024 rules they talked about reducing "mother may I" mechanics. This is not an inherently bad goal (it depends on what style of play you're interested in), but if you want it to actually work, you need to write rules like a technical writer or lawyer, which is incompatible with the goal of "natural language". Having two incompatible goals naturally leads to problems, and tends to result in rules that fail at both objectives.
A D20 Test include an Attack Roll. You can't hit the moon even if you roll a 20 !😃
That's just out of range.
A normal attack roll against a monster with a defined AC. Would you accept the DM going 'you miss' or 'the monster hit' without rolling a die?
Yes, there is a RAW definition. You are claiming it is the exclusive method, however, and that is not stated.
As an analogy, if a Condition were to end 'when an opponent catches a fish' and it then gave you a DC for using a fishing pole would that mean that there are no other ways for a fish to be caught? You are arguing that what they have provided as an option is the only option.
What are those attack rolls you think should hit or miss automatically? (I can only think of one case the rules permit missing automatically, and that's when they attack a square and there is nothing to hit - the analog would be searching for a Hidden creature when there is no Hidden creature. I can think of no automatic hits in the game).
I disagree entirely. The most the DM can do (assuming there is actually something there) is say 'it has advantage' or 'it has disadvantage'. Even a paralyzed creature isn't hit automatically.
We're talking about a well-defined target number (creature's stealth roll). The perception roll is an "attack" roll against their stealth. It might have advantage or disadvantage, but it should never hit automatically.
And I disagree about the paradigm. The whole point of dice in a TTRPG is to solve the cops and robbers problem. ("I hit." "Nuh-uh, you missed." "No, I hit.") It refers contested events to arbitration by dice roll. Once a contested event is invoked, the dice decide. They dictate the narrative, and are not subject to being overruled. And who contests the outcome doesn't matter - if someone contests the outcome, or if the mechanics mandate the outcome is contested, the dice get rolled.
So the DM determines when dice are in play sometimes - if the player describes a course of action, and the DM thinks it works, no one is contesting it, and no dice are rolled. If the DM thinks it might not work, he's contesting the outcome, and the dice get rolled. If the DM describes a course of action, and a player contests it, the dice get rolled. Many of these latter are formalized (attack rolls, saving throws, Hide and perception to find a Hidden creature, picking a lock, etc...), because it is assumed the player contests the outcome.
Dice are mandatory whenever players and DMs disagree or would disagree on the outcome.
The DM is not dictating a story. He is refereeing the players' interactions with a fictional world, and a story emerges organically from that interaction. Everyone shares narrative control, and the dice decide when they disagree on outcomes.
If the rules provide no other option, then there is no other option in the rules. That makes it the exclusive option in the rules. That necessarily makes anything else a houserule, because it is not in the rules.
This is how a ruleset works. if it doesn't provide another method of doing something, then the method it does provide is the only method to do so. The rules don't have to say 'this is the only method to do this', because they haven't provided any other way.
I don't get how this is so hard to understand. Anything not in the rules is not in the rules. It's tautological.
You're seriously down to arguing the equivalent of 'Feather Fall can automatically block magic missile, because the rules never says it can't.' The rules only allow Shield to automatically block magic missile - that's the only way to accomplish that, because its the only thing which is defined to do that. The rules say what you can do, and generally not what you can't do. The only way the rules give you permission to find a Hidden character is with a perception check, just like the only way the rules give you permission to negate damage from Magic Missile is with a Shield Spell.
You probably didn't get the reference, it was an example cited in the 5E DMG.
Yes i would accept the DM's call to follow this guideline if it felt there were appropriate circumstances for such outcome.
There's a difference between a "houserule" and a "ruling." Rulings only become houserules when they get written down, used repeatedly, and actually meaningfully contradict the normal rules. "Hey, you get found if your 'move silently' Stealth check doesn't beat their Passive Perception" or "hey, you get found automatically in a brightly lit, empty field" are both rulings because neither actually contradicts anything in the rules.
This is extra important for D&D (for good or ill) because of the "rulings not rules" tilt of most versions of D&D.
Oh! My mistake. I thought that when you said 'no other way is provided' that you only meant 'in that relative section'. If you mean 'no other way is provided in any of the rules anywhere period full stop' then you are so very mistaken that I was reflexively giving you credit and assuming you weren't taking such a position.
So, right there is a rule that a DM can decide that the character (an NPC is a character) doesn't need to make a D20 Test based on what they are trying to do (or more to the point, that they automatically succeed said test).
There's another rule for you. It is an actual rule that while something may (and I am not saying that in this case it is) be technically correct, it is suppose to be ignored if it will cause non-sensical results and interfere with other people's enjoyment.
I don't see a difference. A ruling is not a one-off thing. Your players will expect you to be consistent. You better be writing that ruling down, or they will ask why it doesn't apply to another situation later. (And this has been true since original D+D back in the 70s - players have always expected DMs to be consistent in how the world works.)
To me, a "houserule" is anything not in the rulebook. And there's nothing wrong with houserules, but they're not RAW.
(Even if you think 'rulings' and 'houserules' are somehow different, neither are Rules As Written, because they're not written in the rulebook).
1/ I await your quote that explicitly gives another way to find someone.
2/ This is effectively a contested check. There should almost always be a roll, because creatures are not perfectly attentive. They could simply be looking in the wrong place. (Thinking about humans for a moment, the field of good visual acuity is a cone described by the sweep of a line 15 degrees around a centerline, pointed slightly downward. If something isn't in that cone, no matter how well lit, there's a good chance they don't notice it. And if that cone is moving around rapidly, that reduces their chance to notice something in the brief moments it is in that cone. Creatures with wider fields of vision tend lack depth perception, and generally worse ability to notice most things - normally they respond specifically to rapid movements.) And creatures can be distracted, tunnel visioned, focused on the wrong things, etc... Have you never gone looking for something that was right in front of you the whole time, and yet you spent 30 minutes doing a deep search of the room to find it? Yeah, just because it was obvious doesn't mean you saw it. And creatures are frequently going to be contesting stealth at times when they are not perfectly attentive. The guard has been there 5 hours already and nothing has happened - he is not fully paying attention. The person in combat is far more concerned about the fighter trying to stab him than looking all around himself. There's more reasons to fail the perception check than just 'they were behind something', and the dice simply determine if they notice or not.
Now, leaving aside passive perception (which is in the rules and is capable of finding Hidden creatures...)
I also do not think the scope of that rule is as broad as people make out. It should come up when the players try to do something that was already going to happen or would inevitably happen. For example, the players try to persuade the king to send soldiers to protect the road, but the king was already going to do so, or wanted to do so but needed an excuse. There's no need to persuade him. The other time it comes up is if the outcome is a foregone conclusion - there's no point in rolling for something that is inevitable. Neither of those describe finding a hiding character unless maybe they're in a sealed room hiding from several creatures that know he's there and are doing nothing but looking for him in a thorough and methodical way for an extended period of time - something which I have never seen come up in 35 years of playing TTRPGs.
(The other time there should never be a roll is if the stealth check is so high the searching character could never beat it, or the perception is so high they can't fail to beat the stealth roll. But that's just shortcutting the roll, because the result really is a foregone conclusion).
3/ This normally gets invoked incorrectly, although you're attempting to invoke it in a proper manner. It's just improper for an obvious reason: we do have examples from the real world of people sneaking up behind people, of not noticing things because they're distracted or tunnel visioned. In fact, that's the entire fantasy of the rogue - sneaking up behind someone and stabbing them in the back. (Sneak Attack used to be called 'backstab' in some earlier editions). And we have plenty of stories where a character hides in someone's blindspot, or sneaks up right behind them. So it is neither inconsistent with how we see things work in reality or in stories for a creature to remain hidden despite not being behind anything, nor does it interfere with enjoyment. Indeed, not allowing a character to do so will probably ruin their enjoyment if they invested in stealth, because what you're disallowing is exactly the fantasy they were hoping to play. There's no good argument that allowing characters to use Hidden as written is ruining their enjoyment.
The reality is that creatures have facing, and that facing is narrow. (Narrower than the square immediately in front of their facing, in fact - a 30 degree cone covers less than that full square). The proper invocation of 'rules are not physics' here is on the fiction that creatures have 360 degree 'vision'. They don't. At any point in time, they can adequately see 1/12th that. And they aren't perfectly attentive to what's in that narrow cone, and less so the more they move that cone about. Forcing them to roll perception is acknowledging they do have facing and varying focus, and the dice determines the outcome.
So when a creature fails to notice a Hidden character that's "out in the open", they simply are too distracted, tunnel-visioned, tired, or whatever to notice them, or simply aren't looking that direction. My interpretation of what is happening corresponds to what we see in both the real world and in fiction. Your interpretation is treating 360 degree line of sight as physics, and improperly so, because we know that's wrong.
Edit: I will also point out that none of these rules say anything specifically about 'finding' a Hidden character. So they aren't rules in the text of the game for finding someone -- the Hide Action's rule is still the only rule that specifically covers that.
What happens if someone casts Scrying on a creature that is Hidden and has the Invisible Condition? Does the scrying person need to make the Wisdom (Perception) check to be able to find the person they targeted with the spell (assuming of course the target fails the Saving Throw)?
The need for rulings is absolutely written in the books. In the PHB:
"One person takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee."
"When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the Dungeon Master tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of D20 Test you need to make, if any."
In the DMG:
"Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules."
"...but when you need to act as referee, try to make decisions that ensure everyone is having fun."
In the SAC:
"The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
The guidelines of this very forum even includes the "rulings" of the SAC as RAW.
Rulings and the making thereof are RAW. In a game like D&D, the notion of "RAW, but no rulings" is so dysfunctional as to not be worth discussion.
Except the list isn't just "way(s) to find someone", it's how a creature "stop[s] being hidden." And this is my problem with the hyper-restrictive reading of the list that stops a creature from being hidden: choosing to not be hidden isn't on that list. You cannot say that those are the only ways to stop being hidden as a defense of your position and then turn around and add another when it's convenient for you. By adding it, you have tacitly agreed that the list is non-exhaustive. Alternatively, you can choose to read the "find" list as non-exhaustive as well (as most here seem to be doing). Because you don't need "chooses to not be hidden" as a way to stop being hidden if it is a way someone can "find you."
Indeed since you can see and hear through the Scrying sensor as if you were there, i'd adjudicate it the same as if you were where there to determine what you effectively perceive.
Keep waiting. I didn't claim another explicit way. I claimed implicit ways.
Implicit ways aren't part of the rules?
Then you are saying that exeryone who kills a dragon isn't following the rules because there is not an explicit rule about killing dragons?
And I'm going to stop you right here and clip everything else because this is the crux of the issue.
Players are not guaranteed a contested check. If a DM decides something is too far outside the ability of the circumstances, there is no contested check. You simply fail.
That's the rules.
Ok. Again, going to clip this because you are immediately running off in a direction I am not talking about. There is zero point to continuing that thread of thought because it is a Strawman Argument.
To be clear, I am not accusing you of deliberately utilizing a Strawman Argument. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that you are failing to understand my position. None the less, there is no point to addressing what you have said since it is not what I'm talking about.
I am not saying that Hide/Stealth should automatically fail in situation were it might reasonably succeed. I am saying that it does not break the rules for a DM to rule that it fails in a situation where it is unreasonable for it to succeed (e.g., the hypothetical long, well lit corridor with no cover).
We aren't talking about sneaking up behind someone. We are talking about someone approaching from the front without the benefit of any kind of cover, and if you want to talk about 'real life examples' I assure you that there are far more real life examples of people deploying resources in a method that makes stealth at particular points impossible than there are of people using Stealth to get through those points.
The front door of your average prison is a pretty good example. They are set up so someone can't just hide and slip through without anyone seeing them. There is literally nowhere for a person to be hidden when passing through.
Now, that doesn't mean someone couldn't wear a disguise, bribe a guard, or get smuggled through by someone else, but just straight up pure 'skulk in the shadows and slip out behind someone else before the door closes'? Not going to happen.
And, again for clarity, I am not saying that you, as a DM, must be constantly invoking this rule. You can absolutely decide that in your setting people of great skill are capable of comitting such 'impossible' feats. If it enhances the enjoyment of you are your players to play that way then you should be avoiding this rule.
Just please stop acting like other people are ignoring the rules or making up their own when they decide they don't want to play that way.
Just to be super clear: I agree with you entirely on this. Of course Hide works such that a melee rogue can Hide -> Sneak Attack or Sneak Attack -> Hide ~every round, given a battlefield with sufficient cover/concealment options. I think they used the Invisible Condition for Hide to really drive that point home.
I, just, also think that DMs are supposed to be reasonable in making rulings, and Hide gives plenty of room for that, without the need for "houserules," and thus the rule isn't nearly as "broken" or unplayable as some people would argue.
In other words, all you have to do to make the 2024 rules work is use the 2014 rules. That's how the 2014 rules worked: you could hide if the DM said it was appropriate for you to be able to hide. 2024 did away with that, apparently with the intent of making rules that were less dependent on DM rulings. Thus, a successful rework has two features:
If you interpret the rules in a way that allows (1), it immediately fails (2), because the only ways to read it that match (1) make stealth either magic or useless. People who defend it on the grounds that the DM can solve any problems by applying a reasonableness standard are just going back to 2014 rules ("The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.") and if you're going to do that... why did they change the rule in 2024 to start with?
And the hide action immediately contradicts that text, because the text for hide tells you how hiding and detection work, no DM involved.
IMO, all those rules are complementary.
But tbh, the debate about Hide is similar to True Strike to me: a trap written by WotC to have adventurers arguing for eternity.