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
That's a terrible summary of what I wrote. I think the 2024 Hide rules are a good improvement in gameplay (and merely an incremental improvement in clarity) over the 2014 hide rules.
Also, I mean...
...yeah. Stealth is "magic," the same way Hit Points are "magic," or long rests are "magic," or Second Wind is "magic," or barbarian Rage is "magic," or weapon masteries are "magic," or... Every one of those is a bonkers gameplay mechanic with thin paint applied to make them look "mundane."
Nope. Not playing that game. If I give examples, you will start arguing the examples, even though disproving a single example to your own satisfaction means nothing about the general statement.
As the rules say:
If the result is not uncertain, then you do not roll.
Anyway, here's a useless example:
In my current game, when the PCs had finally made their way to the heart of the orcish kingdom and discovered the entity/force/whatever immediately responsible for the death of its population, they first had to bring it fully into this plane. They did this with a magical ritual involving a spear that returns to its owner's hand. There was no roll to stab the thing with the spear, because that's not the point of the exercise. "You missed" would not improve the experience in the slightest.
Then, when it was aligned with the plane, if one of them had decided to hack away at the thing, there would be no attack rolls, because it's not something you can kill or disrupt that way.
(In fact, there were no rolls to succeed in the entire process. The only rolls made were about costs and consequences. The only way they could fail was not to try.)
That is the point of the DM. You have an arbiter.
The point of the dice is to have uncertainty. You can have an RPG with no randomizers at all. (Though it's unusual.) You can have a session of D&D where the dice never hit the table, and still have interesting things happen, that neither the players nor the DM knew would happen.
This is a viable paradigm for an RPG. But it's not the one that D&D presents. It's really much more modernist.
Definition of the invisible condition. (Clarified in sage advice that this does indeed count as finding you, but there's no other sensible interpretation.)
The expectation of game mechanics isn't realism, it's cinematic verisimilitude. It should absolutely be possible to implausible things with stealth -- with appropriate descriptions of what you're doing and why it seems like a thing that should be possible, and at an appropriate DC.
I enjoyed reading this, thank you!
I have played the Hide Action as written (RAW no rulings), and it works just fine, even narratively. The narrative simply adjusts so the dice make sense.
Even the brightly lit corridor, applying disadvantage to stealth and advantage to perception - if the guard still doesn't notice you, the guard is half asleep or distracted by his magic iphone or etc...
Indeed, the problems I have with it are not with the Hide Action itself, but with things that interact with the Hide Action - eg, See Invisible/True Sight shouldn't help you find someone who is Hidden (because they should see through magic, not effectively improve your normal perception), or 'given there are almost no rules on sound, what counts as louder than a whisper, and where do you measure that from?' Or that being invisible from the spell does nothing to help you Hide better.
So much this. Players shouldn't ask DM permission for normal activities (and stealth is a normal activity), they should say what they're doing and roll. 'Mother may I' adds something like 20 minutes to every hour of play time, and discourages players from being active participants in the game.
And I am saying that in every situation I have ever seen at a table, it is always reasonable for the potential observer to be distracted, tired, tunnel-visioned, or simply looking the wrong way or at the wrong thing.
Everyone else isn't talking about some exceptional circumstance. Many people are literally saying that, like 2014, leaving cover causes you to be automatically found. No check. Creatures really do have 360 degree vision with perfect attention spans no matter what is going on. Where in anything you wrote beforehand was I supposed to notice you meant that?
The 'modern prison entrance' is an incredibly contrived scenario (that does amount to being locked in a featureless room with multiple people doing a methodical search) that I have never seen in 35 years of D+D play. It's not even reasonable for the typical D+D world. (The modern prison entrance you describe is largely a latter-half 20th century phenomenon). You might as well say the area has blindsight from motion sensors, so Hide simply doesn't work because blindsight automatically finds a Hidden character. This is not a scenario someone in a medieval or renaissance (or even steampunk) setting is going to encounter. (And if a wizard did it, there are going to be magical wards involved, and Hidden won't help).
(And if you are playing in a modern setting, D+D is one of the last systems I'd choose).
I think your scenario is well outside anything the rules reasonably describe in the first place.
No, the player should say what they're trying to do and the DM will tell them what, if anything, to roll. In practice, you can also handle this as "you're free to roll, but the DM decides whether it actually works". The "DC 15" rule is one of the stupider ideas in 2024.
The problem is that there is no middle ground solution with any level of rules support.
RAW, if they have line of sight unbroken by cover/concealment, the formerly hidden creature is seen.
Personally, I wish they hadn't gotten rid of facing, but they did. As for how I, or any other DM, rules at the table is up to the individual DM (and they are free to say the guard is distracted or facing the other way). However, this is the Rules and Mechanics forum, and RAW, without cover or concealment the formerly hidden creature is seen.
I'm not saying that's how I do it. I'm not saying that's how you have to do it. I'm simply saying that RAW, they are seen.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
They are not. That is never written, and thus cannot be RAW.
RAW, they have the Invisible condition, they literally cannot be seen. (By sight which doesn't ignore Invisible).
Please point to the explicit text that says that the 2024 Invisible condition makes the subject completely undetectable to the naked eye. And no, one effect being labeled "Concealed" isn't explicit- a) as people commonly point out, titles/labels are not rules and b) the dictionary definition of "concealed" is not "transparent" and the effect included open-ended qualifiers.
No one said they were transparent.
"You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you." The underlined means they can't see you normally. The why isn't given. It could be you're transparent (the invisible spell). It could just be you're unnoticed - their eyes passed right over you without registering your presence, or they simply didn't look at you, or you're standing behind them. Whatever the reason, they can't see you. You don't even have to be completely undetectable, you just aren't detected. (Indeed, the Hide Action makes it clear you aren't completely undetectable - they can find you with a sufficient perception check, and you stop being Invisible).
I don't need "Concealed", the title of that rule. I just need that sentence fragment, which makes it abundantly clear you are not seen by normal vision, because the use of 'somehow' used in such a way always implies the thing is normally impossible, without special assistance. This is standard colloquial English phrasing.
The rules just give you the brute fact that you're unseen. The narrative explanation is left to the player or the DM to come up with, so long as it complies with that brute fact.
Alternatively, the underlined part means any reasonable circumstance where they could see you- such as standing in the open in bright light conditions- allows them to see you. It doesn't say "unless they use the Search Action to see you", it simply says "somehow". That's open-ended language, not an explicit criteria. Nowhere does the condition say you are immune to detection, only that a reason must be given for why someone can perceive you.
TLDR: There is no explicit language despite the claims of some, just an open-ended statement that the effect persists until you are perceived.
That's not how that phrasing is generally used in English. "Somehow" in that phrasing implies extraordinary circumstances (in this case, almost certainly intended to mean a type of sight which ignores invisible).
That's an RAI argument. RAW, there are no qualifiers on somehow, so "I looked in his direction" qualifies as "somehow"
No, that's a RAW argument about the meaning of an idiomatic, colloquial English expression. Exactly how WotC has said the rules are written.
And if "I looked in his direction" counts, it also applies to the Invisibility spell.