HIDE [ACTION] With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component
INVISIBLE [CONDITION] While Invisible, you experience the following effects: Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen. Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll. Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Hiding in 5e has been a mess. How do you think this will affect play patterns, in and outside of combat?
It's really disappointing to see how their attempts to simplify hiding have not improved since the first (second?) OneD&D UA; leveraging invisibility is a mistake, and completely misses the point of what hiding is supposed to represent (being unheard), or what the downsides of invisibility are supposed to be (remaining audible).
Being invisible alone should usually not be enough, but hiding alone can be. The 5e rules sort of work for this, but the main problem with them is that they're scattered all over the place and the wording isn't always the clearest. They need to just move all the hiding/visibility related stuff to the same page and clarify the wording.
They could maybe use a "Hidden" condition, which they tried to do initially but for some reason decided to make it confusing rather than useful.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
i don't think these are new to UA8, but they're better than 5E simply for all being under one "Hide Action" heading rather than a hide action, stealth skill, a "hiding" section (no link!) further down after initiative under Dexterity Ability Scores, and a combat section for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
even so, it's back to the bad old days of some players assuming high rolls turn one functionally invisible. it even uses the word 'invisible'!! the way it's written in the playtest seems to suggest obscurement and line of sight are only important during the initial check. everything after the semicolon needs to be moved to after the next sentence: "On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you." and then maybe add something like "Concealment is necessary to remain unnoticed" to hammer home that you can't critical hide in the middle of an empty well-lit room by standing really still.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure these rules were in previous UAs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
i don't think these are new to UA8, but they're better than 5E simply for all being under one "Hide Action" heading rather than a hide action, stealth skill, a "hiding" section (no link!) further down after initiative under Dexterity Ability Scores, and a combat section for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
even so, it's back to the bad old days of some players assuming high rolls turn one functionally invisible. it even uses the word 'invisible'!! the way it's written in the playtest seems to suggest obscurement and line of sight are only important during the initial check. everything after the semicolon needs to be moved to after the next sentence: "On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you." and then maybe add something like "Concealment is necessary to remain unnoticed" to hammer home that you can't critical hide in the middle of an empty well-lit room by standing really still.
Yeah, I've been wondering about the initial requirement and the interpretation that you are just invisible afterwards unless you are "found" via a perception check, make a sound or attack. RAW you are invisible even when coming out of obscurement, right?
i don't think these are new to UA8, but they're better than 5E simply for all being under one "Hide Action" heading rather than a hide action, stealth skill, a "hiding" section (no link!) further down after initiative under Dexterity Ability Scores, and a combat section for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
even so, it's back to the bad old days of some players assuming high rolls turn one functionally invisible. it even uses the word 'invisible'!! the way it's written in the playtest seems to suggest obscurement and line of sight are only important during the initial check. everything after the semicolon needs to be moved to after the next sentence: "On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you." and then maybe add something like "Concealment is necessary to remain unnoticed" to hammer home that you can't critical hide in the middle of an empty well-lit room by standing really still.
Yeah, I've been wondering about the initial requirement and the interpretation that you are just invisible afterwards unless you are "found" via a perception check, make a sound or attack. RAW you are invisible even when coming out of obscurement, right?
i want to say you're invisible during the process of coming out of obscurement. but i need to find written words to back that up because i hate that. i don't like this schrodinger's rogue paradox of Achilles and the tortoise ambiguity about where hiding ends. assuming invisibility assumes you can hide, leave obscurement, become stymied by an invisible wall, and use the rest of your movement to just go back to obscurement. didn't attack, make a noise, or run across anyone with a high passive perception? still hidden, chum.
it would be so much simpler to say that when one leaves obscurement then they are no longer hidden. BUT! having begun their turn hidden they gain Surprise or something.
...and then i'd like some fluff talk about hiding in a crowd to give DMs some leeway for hiding in plain sight. but that's probably a separate concern.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
HIDE [ACTION] With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while you remain obscured. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component. An enemy may be said to have found you when they are successful in an active Perception check or if you enter enemy line of sight while not obscured. Use to your advantage the knowledge that Perception checks in light obscurement (e.g. dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage) are at disadvantage!
...that last line might be a bit much since we know that the PHB will be much more fleshed out and wordy than what little succinct bits we've been given to chew over. Similarly, i'm not entirely married to the second to last line. even just the "...while you remain obscured. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you..." would do a lot for this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
The rules were dumb and they still are. you can attempt to hide when you are already hidden is such a failure in concept it hurts my soul. Look, make hide tiered with multiple degrees of success or something if the on off nature of it is too good. But no if you are heavily obscured people should not just automatically know where you are like everyone has freaking radar. Oh you can hear them, blah blah, yes at like 10 feet you can hear them to know their square, but no you are not hearing most people walking 40 feet out unless its hard soles on stone in the right conditions etc, you are not hearing a dude in armor, with jangly crap on him 20 feet out in a bustling marketplace. If 50 year old fat man me can hide in real life better than your rules you are failing at creating a class fantasy. I am not a ninja, I do not have special training and I can hide and sneak up on people with far less than 3/4 cover or full concealment. Your rules should make the PCs cooler than we are in real life not lamer.
i don't think these are new to UA8, but they're better than 5E simply for all being under one "Hide Action" heading rather than a hide action, stealth skill, a "hiding" section (no link!) further down after initiative under Dexterity Ability Scores, and a combat section for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
even so, it's back to the bad old days of some players assuming high rolls turn one functionally invisible. it even uses the word 'invisible'!! the way it's written in the playtest seems to suggest obscurement and line of sight are only important during the initial check. everything after the semicolon needs to be moved to after the next sentence: "On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you." and then maybe add something like "Concealment is necessary to remain unnoticed" to hammer home that you can't critical hide in the middle of an empty well-lit room by standing really still.
Yeah, I've been wondering about the initial requirement and the interpretation that you are just invisible afterwards unless you are "found" via a perception check, make a sound or attack. RAW you are invisible even when coming out of obscurement, right?
raw and rai, you are invisible until found. stealth is now versus perception, not position. (note creatures have passive perception)
HIDE [ACTION] With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while you remain obscured. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component. An enemy may be said to have found you when they are successful in an active Perception check or if you enter enemy line of sight while not obscured. Use to your advantage the knowledge that Perception checks in light obscurement (e.g. dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage) are at disadvantage!
...that last line might be a bit much since we know that the PHB will be much more fleshed out and wordy than what little succinct bits we've been given to chew over. Similarly, i'm not entirely married to the second to last line. even just the "...while you remain obscured. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you..." would do a lot for this.
the game does not have line of sight, creatures see in all directions at all times. so this basically makes hiding nearly useless, as you already have the benefits of being invisible when you are obscured.
you will never sneak up on anyone, and there is no reason to use hide over just staying behind an object.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
these are the four I need to look more closely at. I really want a fifth in there, but that’s mostly my preference for fives…
Smelled?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Nah, that’s a separate sensory-perceptual group (stench/smell/scent/odorless).
unseen is a “no see me”, unnoticed is like “camouflaged”, seen is really “visible and noticeable”, invisible is not seen. All visual-perceptual
loud/silent/whispered/ is The auditory-perceptual, feathery/soft/firm/hard is the tactile-perceptual.
still muddling through it —- working towards some way of clearing all five of them.
still haven’t figured out my sixth sense -feel-perceptual bit, but also kinda leaning into including that in the perceptual aspect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The game does have line of sight (and facing, for that matter) so why do people say it doesn’t?
weird.
stealth, as a whole, is all kinds of screwy in 5e.
invisible
unseen
unnoticed
seen
these are the four I need to look more closely at. I really want a fifth in there, but that’s mostly my preference for fives…
there is no facing rules in 5e.
its assumed that everyone can see 360 degrees in all directions, for 2 miles, or the limit of their dark vision.
there is "line of sight" within that concept, being people cant see things if you are in front of them, but that isnt what line of sight represents in other contexts, because it would include a cone of vision.
people can use optional rules or homebrew, but the baseline system 5e, hiding is 90% useless.
and via the facing rules, you are already gaining the advantage of being invisible when behind them, so hiding still serves almost no purpose.
The game does have line of sight (and facing, for that matter) so why do people say it doesn’t?
weird.
stealth, as a whole, is all kinds of screwy in 5e.
invisible
unseen
unnoticed
seen
these are the four I need to look more closely at. I really want a fifth in there, but that’s mostly my preference for fives…
there is no facing rules in 5e.
its assumed that everyone can see 360 degrees in all directions, for 2 miles, or the limit of their dark vision.
there is "line of sight" within that concept, being people cant see things if you are in front of them, but that isn't what line of sight represents in other contexts, because it would include a cone of vision.
Except there are, factually, facing rules in 5e. In the book, no less. There's even flanking rules. for both hex and grid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The game does have line of sight (and facing, for that matter) so why do people say it doesn’t?
weird.
stealth, as a whole, is all kinds of screwy in 5e.
invisible
unseen
unnoticed
seen
these are the four I need to look more closely at. I really want a fifth in there, but that’s mostly my preference for fives…
there is no facing rules in 5e.
its assumed that everyone can see 360 degrees in all directions, for 2 miles, or the limit of their dark vision.
there is "line of sight" within that concept, being people cant see things if you are in front of them, but that isn't what line of sight represents in other contexts, because it would include a cone of vision.
Except there are, factually, facing rules in 5e. In the book, no less. There's even flanking rules. for both hex and grid.
those are, factually, optional rules, the system should be functional with baseline rules, and as i edited, they still make hiding mostly useless, as you already gain the advantages of hiding/stealth by just being outside of their vision.
the only valid usecase for hiding in combat, is to obscure yourself from other senses, or lose someone. However, losing someone can only work if you can hide, and then move far enough away while still obscured that they cant obviously guess your location. The times where this will be the case are almost nil, and the cost of hiding is one action or BA if you are a thief. Its almost never going to be a good idea to hide with either set of rules.
The game does have line of sight (and facing, for that matter) so why do people say it doesn’t?
weird.
stealth, as a whole, is all kinds of screwy in 5e.
invisible
unseen
unnoticed
seen
these are the four I need to look more closely at. I really want a fifth in there, but that’s mostly my preference for fives…
there is no facing rules in 5e.
its assumed that everyone can see 360 degrees in all directions, for 2 miles, or the limit of their dark vision.
there is "line of sight" within that concept, being people cant see things if you are in front of them, but that isn't what line of sight represents in other contexts, because it would include a cone of vision.
Except there are, factually, facing rules in 5e. In the book, no less. There's even flanking rules. for both hex and grid.
those are, factually, optional rules, the system should be functional with baseline rules, and as i edited, they still make hiding mostly useless, as you already gain the advantages of hiding/stealth by just being outside of their vision.
the only valid usecase for hiding in combat, is to obscure yourself from other senses, or lose someone. However, losing someone can only work if you can hide, and then move far enough away while still obscured that they cant obviously guess your location. The times where this will be the case are almost nil, and the cost of hiding is one action or BA if you are a thief. Its almost never going to be a good idea to hide with either set of rules.
Well, odd thing there...
The rules being optional doesn't make them less baseline. That's an opinion call that is determined on a table by table basis, not as a general rule. You edited to correct while I responded, but it still doesn't change the reality that there are, as a fact, facing rules in 5e.
Or that those facing rules are built into every major VTT that is in use, and so having a considerable impact and broad adoption (de facto, but still). SO to argue there is no facing is inaccurate, incorrect, and disingenuous.
While I have zero doubt that there are folks out there who operate in the manner that you describe (you can see behind you), I sure as hell haven't ever played with any of them in the last 40 plus years, and
SACRED PLANTS AND WOOD
A Shaman holds certain plants to be sacred, particularly alder, ash, birch, elder, hazel, holly, juniper, mistletoe, oak, rowan, willow, and yew. Shamans often use such plants as part of a spellcasting focus, incorporating lengths of oak or yew or sprigs of mistletoe.
Similarly, a Shaman uses such woods to make other objects, such as weapons and shields. Yew is associated with death and rebirth, so weapon handles for scimitars or sickles might be fashioned from it. Ash is associated with life and oak with strength. These woods make excellent hafts or whole weapons, such as clubs or quarterstaffs, as well as shields. Alder is associated with air, and it might be used for thrown weapons, such as darts or javelins.
Shamans from regions that lack the plants described here have chosen other plants to take on similar uses. For instance, a Shaman of a desert region might value the yucca tree and cactus plants. suspect the argument is predicated on an abstract absis that essentially is little more than a mental exercise for most people, rather than actual play issues. And that's despite the fact a lot of folks don't intentionally use the facing rules -- they just don't think people can see behind them.
Taking an aspect that is perceived to be a lack of clarity and making an argument with it is a weakness, especially when one has to rely on denial of an actual element to do so.
Your example, in actual play, has never once happened to me throughout the 5e lifecycle. And I don't use facing. I just don't think people have eyes in the back of their head because I'm not trying to create a problem where there isn't really one.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The game does have line of sight (and facing, for that matter) so why do people say it doesn’t?
weird.
stealth, as a whole, is all kinds of screwy in 5e.
invisible
unseen
unnoticed
seen
these are the four I need to look more closely at. I really want a fifth in there, but that’s mostly my preference for fives…
there is no facing rules in 5e.
its assumed that everyone can see 360 degrees in all directions, for 2 miles, or the limit of their dark vision.
there is "line of sight" within that concept, being people cant see things if you are in front of them, but that isn't what line of sight represents in other contexts, because it would include a cone of vision.
Except there are, factually, facing rules in 5e. In the book, no less. There's even flanking rules. for both hex and grid.
those are, factually, optional rules, the system should be functional with baseline rules, and as i edited, they still make hiding mostly useless, as you already gain the advantages of hiding/stealth by just being outside of their vision.
the only valid usecase for hiding in combat, is to obscure yourself from other senses, or lose someone. However, losing someone can only work if you can hide, and then move far enough away while still obscured that they cant obviously guess your location. The times where this will be the case are almost nil, and the cost of hiding is one action or BA if you are a thief. Its almost never going to be a good idea to hide with either set of rules.
Well, odd thing there...
The rules being optional doesn't make them less baseline. That's an opinion call that is determined on a table by table basis, not as a general rule. You edited to correct while I responded, but it still doesn't change the reality that there are, as a fact, facing rules in 5e.
Or that those facing rules are built into every major VTT that is in use, and so having a considerable impact and broad adoption (de facto, but still). SO to argue there is no facing is inaccurate, incorrect, and disingenuous.
While I have zero doubt that there are folks out there who operate in the manner that you describe (you can see behind you), I sure as hell haven't ever played with any of them in the last 40 plus years, and
SACRED PLANTS AND WOOD
A Shaman holds certain plants to be sacred, particularly alder, ash, birch, elder, hazel, holly, juniper, mistletoe, oak, rowan, willow, and yew. Shamans often use such plants as part of a spellcasting focus, incorporating lengths of oak or yew or sprigs of mistletoe.
Similarly, a Shaman uses such woods to make other objects, such as weapons and shields. Yew is associated with death and rebirth, so weapon handles for scimitars or sickles might be fashioned from it. Ash is associated with life and oak with strength. These woods make excellent hafts or whole weapons, such as clubs or quarterstaffs, as well as shields. Alder is associated with air, and it might be used for thrown weapons, such as darts or javelins.
Shamans from regions that lack the plants described here have chosen other plants to take on similar uses. For instance, a Shaman of a desert region might value the yucca tree and cactus plants. suspect the argument is predicated on an abstract absis that essentially is little more than a mental exercise for most people, rather than actual play issues. And that's despite the fact a lot of folks don't intentionally use the facing rules -- they just don't think people can see behind them.
Taking an aspect that is perceived to be a lack of clarity and making an argument with it is a weakness, especially when one has to rely on denial of an actual element to do so.
Your example, in actual play, has never once happened to me throughout the 5e lifecycle. And I don't use facing. I just don't think people have eyes in the back of their head because I'm not trying to create a problem where there isn't really one.
You have also said you have rarely ever played by 5e rules, and almost always use some combination of all the versions you have played and your own homebrew.
So in order to get what people are talking about, place yourself in a position of not being a GM who has played for 40 years. If you are a player, you have limited control over what the GM chooses, and probably are not even aware of the optional rules in the DMG. If you are a new DM, you are likely not use optional rules, and rules that require more book keeping as you are new and inexperienced, and tracking a lot of things at one time.
I specifically remember the beginning times of playing 5e, and the high difficulty of piecing together the stealth/hiding rules (which takes place over 3 or 4 different places, not all labeled) And incredulousness once after much debate with the DM, came to the conclusion that rules make it impossible for my rogue to melee sneak up on someone and attack. And i am not alone, there are many records of people trying to understand and debate the hiding rules in early 5e days. Multiple blog posts with different takes, and different ways to fix it.
What people are talking about are the 5e baseline rules. A rule being optional means there is no strong chance that it will be in play, at the tables you play. Regardless, the baseline rules shouldnt be flawed.
you say you have not used facing rules, but then talk about eyes in the back of their head.. that means whether formally or not, you have facing as a concept built into your conception of the game, at least some of the time.
and yes line of sight is not optional, however it is not what is normally meant by line of sight in other context. Line of sight in 5e means whether you are behind objects or not behind objects. When people outside of the game say the car was out of my line of sight, it includes the concept of facing. IE something behind me, is out of my line of sight, that is not the case in 5e
Hiding isn't just being unseen, it's also masking your own sound, being generally silent and stealthy and trying to be unnoticed. In combat, I feel we absolutely need some very crude vision cones. Maybe 180° facing would be enough, so once you break vision (i.e. being obscured or behind cover) you can hide and then can actually sneak up to somebody from behind.
Nah, that’s a separate sensory-perceptual group (stench/smell/scent/odorless).
unseen is a “no see me”, unnoticed is like “camouflaged”, seen is really “visible and noticeable”, invisible is not seen. All visual-perceptual
loud/silent/whispered/ is The auditory-perceptual, feathery/soft/firm/hard is the tactile-perceptual.
still muddling through it —- working towards some way of clearing all five of them.
still haven’t figured out my sixth sense -feel-perceptual bit, but also kinda leaning into including that in the perceptual aspect.
"unease" or similar? the sense that you're being watched. the feeling that pattern recognition in your animal brain registered something your conscious mind hasn't caught up to yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
HIDE [ACTION]
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component
INVISIBLE [CONDITION]
While Invisible, you experience the following effects:
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Hiding in 5e has been a mess. How do you think this will affect play patterns, in and outside of combat?
It's really disappointing to see how their attempts to simplify hiding have not improved since the first (second?) OneD&D UA; leveraging invisibility is a mistake, and completely misses the point of what hiding is supposed to represent (being unheard), or what the downsides of invisibility are supposed to be (remaining audible).
Being invisible alone should usually not be enough, but hiding alone can be. The 5e rules sort of work for this, but the main problem with them is that they're scattered all over the place and the wording isn't always the clearest. They need to just move all the hiding/visibility related stuff to the same page and clarify the wording.
They could maybe use a "Hidden" condition, which they tried to do initially but for some reason decided to make it confusing rather than useful.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
i don't think these are new to UA8, but they're better than 5E simply for all being under one "Hide Action" heading rather than a hide action, stealth skill, a "hiding" section (no link!) further down after initiative under Dexterity Ability Scores, and a combat section for Unseen Attackers and Targets.
even so, it's back to the bad old days of some players assuming high rolls turn one functionally invisible. it even uses the word 'invisible'!! the way it's written in the playtest seems to suggest obscurement and line of sight are only important during the initial check. everything after the semicolon needs to be moved to after the next sentence: "On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you." and then maybe add something like "Concealment is necessary to remain unnoticed" to hammer home that you can't critical hide in the middle of an empty well-lit room by standing really still.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Yeah, I'm pretty sure these rules were in previous UAs.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yeah, I've been wondering about the initial requirement and the interpretation that you are just invisible afterwards unless you are "found" via a perception check, make a sound or attack. RAW you are invisible even when coming out of obscurement, right?
i want to say you're invisible during the process of coming out of obscurement. but i need to find written words to back that up because i hate that. i don't like this schrodinger's rogue paradox of Achilles and the tortoise ambiguity about where hiding ends. assuming invisibility assumes you can hide, leave obscurement, become stymied by an invisible wall, and use the rest of your movement to just go back to obscurement. didn't attack, make a noise, or run across anyone with a high passive perception? still hidden, chum.
it would be so much simpler to say that when one leaves obscurement then they are no longer hidden. BUT! having begun their turn hidden they gain Surprise or something.
...and then i'd like some fluff talk about hiding in a crowd to give DMs some leeway for hiding in plain sight. but that's probably a separate concern.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
proposed, changes in bold:
HIDE [ACTION]
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while you remain obscured. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component. An enemy may be said to have found you when they are successful in an active Perception check or if you enter enemy line of sight while not obscured. Use to your advantage the knowledge that Perception checks in light obscurement (e.g. dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage) are at disadvantage!
...that last line might be a bit much since we know that the PHB will be much more fleshed out and wordy than what little succinct bits we've been given to chew over. Similarly, i'm not entirely married to the second to last line. even just the "...while you remain obscured. If you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you..." would do a lot for this.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
The rules were dumb and they still are. you can attempt to hide when you are already hidden is such a failure in concept it hurts my soul. Look, make hide tiered with multiple degrees of success or something if the on off nature of it is too good. But no if you are heavily obscured people should not just automatically know where you are like everyone has freaking radar. Oh you can hear them, blah blah, yes at like 10 feet you can hear them to know their square, but no you are not hearing most people walking 40 feet out unless its hard soles on stone in the right conditions etc, you are not hearing a dude in armor, with jangly crap on him 20 feet out in a bustling marketplace. If 50 year old fat man me can hide in real life better than your rules you are failing at creating a class fantasy. I am not a ninja, I do not have special training and I can hide and sneak up on people with far less than 3/4 cover or full concealment. Your rules should make the PCs cooler than we are in real life not lamer.
raw and rai, you are invisible until found. stealth is now versus perception, not position. (note creatures have passive perception)
the game does not have line of sight, creatures see in all directions at all times. so this basically makes hiding nearly useless, as you already have the benefits of being invisible when you are obscured.
you will never sneak up on anyone, and there is no reason to use hide over just staying behind an object.
The game does have line of sight (and facing, for that matter) so why do people say it doesn’t?
weird.
stealth, as a whole, is all kinds of screwy in 5e.
these are the four I need to look more closely at. I really want a fifth in there, but that’s mostly my preference for fives…
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Smelled?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Nah, that’s a separate sensory-perceptual group (stench/smell/scent/odorless).
unseen is a “no see me”, unnoticed is like “camouflaged”, seen is really “visible and noticeable”, invisible is not seen. All visual-perceptual
loud/silent/whispered/ is The auditory-perceptual, feathery/soft/firm/hard is the tactile-perceptual.
still muddling through it —- working towards some way of clearing all five of them.
still haven’t figured out my sixth sense -feel-perceptual bit, but also kinda leaning into including that in the perceptual aspect.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
there is no facing rules in 5e.
its assumed that everyone can see 360 degrees in all directions, for 2 miles, or the limit of their dark vision.
there is "line of sight" within that concept, being people cant see things if you are in front of them, but that isnt what line of sight represents in other contexts, because it would include a cone of vision.
people can use optional rules or homebrew, but the baseline system 5e, hiding is 90% useless.
and via the facing rules, you are already gaining the advantage of being invisible when behind them, so hiding still serves almost no purpose.
Except there are, factually, facing rules in 5e. In the book, no less. There's even flanking rules. for both hex and grid.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
those are, factually, optional rules, the system should be functional with baseline rules, and as i edited, they still make hiding mostly useless, as you already gain the advantages of hiding/stealth by just being outside of their vision.
the only valid usecase for hiding in combat, is to obscure yourself from other senses, or lose someone. However, losing someone can only work if you can hide, and then move far enough away while still obscured that they cant obviously guess your location. The times where this will be the case are almost nil, and the cost of hiding is one action or BA if you are a thief. Its almost never going to be a good idea to hide with either set of rules.
Well, odd thing there...
The rules being optional doesn't make them less baseline. That's an opinion call that is determined on a table by table basis, not as a general rule. You edited to correct while I responded, but it still doesn't change the reality that there are, as a fact, facing rules in 5e.
Or that those facing rules are built into every major VTT that is in use, and so having a considerable impact and broad adoption (de facto, but still). SO to argue there is no facing is inaccurate, incorrect, and disingenuous.
While I have zero doubt that there are folks out there who operate in the manner that you describe (you can see behind you), I sure as hell haven't ever played with any of them in the last 40 plus years, and
SACRED PLANTS AND WOOD
A Shaman holds certain plants to be sacred, particularly alder, ash, birch, elder, hazel, holly, juniper, mistletoe, oak, rowan, willow, and yew. Shamans often use such plants as part of a spellcasting focus, incorporating lengths of oak or yew or sprigs of mistletoe.
Similarly, a Shaman uses such woods to make other objects, such as weapons and shields. Yew is associated with death and rebirth, so weapon handles for scimitars or sickles might be fashioned from it. Ash is associated with life and oak with strength. These woods make excellent hafts or whole weapons, such as clubs or quarterstaffs, as well as shields. Alder is associated with air, and it might be used for thrown weapons, such as darts or javelins.
Shamans from regions that lack the plants described here have chosen other plants to take on similar uses. For instance, a Shaman of a desert region might value the yucca tree and cactus plants. suspect the argument is predicated on an abstract absis that essentially is little more than a mental exercise for most people, rather than actual play issues. And that's despite the fact a lot of folks don't intentionally use the facing rules -- they just don't think people can see behind them.
Taking an aspect that is perceived to be a lack of clarity and making an argument with it is a weakness, especially when one has to rely on denial of an actual element to do so.
Your example, in actual play, has never once happened to me throughout the 5e lifecycle. And I don't use facing. I just don't think people have eyes in the back of their head because I'm not trying to create a problem where there isn't really one.
Edit: Line Of Sight is not an optional rule.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You have also said you have rarely ever played by 5e rules, and almost always use some combination of all the versions you have played and your own homebrew.
So in order to get what people are talking about, place yourself in a position of not being a GM who has played for 40 years. If you are a player, you have limited control over what the GM chooses, and probably are not even aware of the optional rules in the DMG. If you are a new DM, you are likely not use optional rules, and rules that require more book keeping as you are new and inexperienced, and tracking a lot of things at one time.
I specifically remember the beginning times of playing 5e, and the high difficulty of piecing together the stealth/hiding rules (which takes place over 3 or 4 different places, not all labeled) And incredulousness once after much debate with the DM, came to the conclusion that rules make it impossible for my rogue to melee sneak up on someone and attack. And i am not alone, there are many records of people trying to understand and debate the hiding rules in early 5e days. Multiple blog posts with different takes, and different ways to fix it.
What people are talking about are the 5e baseline rules. A rule being optional means there is no strong chance that it will be in play, at the tables you play. Regardless, the baseline rules shouldnt be flawed.
you say you have not used facing rules, but then talk about eyes in the back of their head.. that means whether formally or not, you have facing as a concept built into your conception of the game, at least some of the time.
and yes line of sight is not optional, however it is not what is normally meant by line of sight in other context. Line of sight in 5e means whether you are behind objects or not behind objects. When people outside of the game say the car was out of my line of sight, it includes the concept of facing. IE something behind me, is out of my line of sight, that is not the case in 5e
Hiding isn't just being unseen, it's also masking your own sound, being generally silent and stealthy and trying to be unnoticed. In combat, I feel we absolutely need some very crude vision cones. Maybe 180° facing would be enough, so once you break vision (i.e. being obscured or behind cover) you can hide and then can actually sneak up to somebody from behind.
"unease" or similar? the sense that you're being watched. the feeling that pattern recognition in your animal brain registered something your conscious mind hasn't caught up to yet.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!