There are many interesting changes. Yesterday, I was reading about one that is quite similar to what was written in Unearthed Arcana, I think.
Hide: There is now a base DC of 15 to successfully hide.
And in this post on EN World, there are a couple of screenshots from a Treantmonk video:
What's your opinion? The current Stealth and Hide rules have generated a lot of questions and doubts worldwide for 10 years...
Personally, I like the current/old way because it's more flexible, like a toolset to adapt to your table. Now it's more straighforward and simple to apply.
Maybe the fixed DC is a little bit weird to me because not all scenarios should have the same difficulty to hide.
Also, and I know this is something very personal and just a thought about how sound works in the real world, but if a whistle can end the condition, wouldn't moving and making noise with your clothes and equipment make even more noise?
But let's acknowledge the real garbage here: the fact that being Invisible via Hide doesn't break when casting spells with no attack roll or verbal component. Which is bad enough before you consider the existence of Subtle Spell, with which Sorcerers can cast any spell without verbal components. Meaning a Sorcerer can spam Fireball and other nukes while under an Invisible effect that never ends. (Funny how a lot of this nonsensical stuff really benefits Sorcerers the most...)
I don't know, i think this is awesome. Sure for sorcerers, but especially for Arcane Trickster Rogues, but also for Rangers who are good at hiding and have spellcasting. I just hope they have enough spells without verbal components. This would give them a niche that no other caster can really have. The stealth spell slinger
There are many interesting changes. Yesterday, I was reading about one that is quite similar to what was written in Unearthed Arcana, I think.
Hide: There is now a base DC of 15 to successfully hide.
And in this post on EN World, there are a couple of screenshots from a Treantmonk video:
What's your opinion? The current Stealth and Hide rules have generated a lot of questions and doubts worldwide for 10 years...
Personally, I like the current/old way because it's more flexible, like a toolset to adapt to your table. Now it's more straighforward and simple to apply.
Maybe the fixed DC is a little bit weird to me because not all scenarios should have the same difficulty to hide.
Also, and I know this is something very personal and just a thought about how sound works in the real world, but if a whistle can end the condition, wouldn't moving and making noise with your clothes and equipment make even more noise?
The fixed DC is weird. On the one hand, a rogue worth their weight in salt will have expertise in stealth. On the other... what?
Yeah, if you're fighting with a tree in the middle of the battlefield, apparently you can hide, then walk right out into line of sight and still be invisible. It's magical invisibility.
There is this clause though about the invisibility condition ending if you make a sound louder than a whisper. Which raises the question of moving silently. Was moving silently clarified?
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
Hide doesn't break when casting spells with no attack roll or verbal component.
Which spells are those? I guess we don’t know until the books are out, but are there many? Or really any? Honest question. I don’t love what I’ve seen of the hide rules, but I’m wondering how much of a problem this part will be.
Side note, I do like them specifically saying a verbal component breaks your hide. No more debating if you can whisper the V component or how far away you can be heard. Much clearer and simpler this way.
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
But if all the enemy has to do is walk into line of sight of you to break your Hide invisibility, what is the point of the Search action?
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
You need to be out of sight to hide and gain the invisible condition, but you don't lose this condition unless you make noise louder than a whisper, an enemy succeeds at a search action (perception check) against your hide check result, or cast a spell with a verbal component.
We need to see the text for the Stealth skill to understand options for moving silently.
There's about 40 pages on the ENWorld thread linked above.
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
But if all the enemy has to do is walk into line of sight of you to break your Hide invisibility, what is the point of the Search action?
To find you while you're behind cover or obscured.
If you abandon those defenses and saunter into full view, you don't magically stay hidden.
You need to be out of sight to hide and gain the invisible condition, but you don't lose this condition unless you make noise louder than a whisper, an enemy succeeds at a search action (perception check) against your hide check result, or cast a spell with a verbal component.
Not technically. The actual wording is
On a success, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a wisdom (perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: 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.
There's a significant hole here: the rules state that a wisdom (perception) roll is a way of finding a hidden creature, but they don't state that it's the only way. That said, I expect hiding to immediately be the subject of a lot of house rules, because there are at least two classes of ways that would be expected to end hiding that either don't, or have to be driven through that wording hole. Those are
A creature can see you clearly (I would rule this means "has no level of cover or obscurement")
You take any other action that (DMs discretion) would reveal your position, typically because it generates a visible manifestation (for example, a dragon can breathe fire from stealth, and apparently a gigantic cone of fire coming from its mouth does not allow anyone to see it).
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
But if all the enemy has to do is walk into line of sight of you to break your Hide invisibility, what is the point of the Search action?
To find you while you're behind cover or obscured.
If you abandon those defenses and saunter into full view, you don't magically stay hidden.
Yes, but since Hide now gives you invisibility, the enemy needs to do the search action to remove the invisibility. It doesnt make sense, but thats what the rules posted in this thread are saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
But if all the enemy has to do is walk into line of sight of you to break your Hide invisibility, what is the point of the Search action?
To find you while you're behind cover or obscured.
If you abandon those defenses and saunter into full view, you don't magically stay hidden.
Yes, but since Hide now gives you invisibility, the enemy needs to do the search action to remove the invisibility. It doesnt make sense, but thats what the rules posted in this thread are saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reread the Invisible Condition in post #15. You don't gain the benefits if you're out in the open.
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
Then the same applies to the Invisibility spell, because there is no mechanical difference in function between receiving the Invisible condition from hiding and from a spell. The Invisibility spell gives you the Invisible condition, just like Hide does.
You are making excuses for a blatant logical shortcoming in the rules-as-written.
The logic also means that See Invisibility and truesight are an absolute counter to hiding.
There is a very marked difference: The Invisibility spell specifically says:
"A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell."
Per the spell RAW, those are the only things that break the Invisible condition on the spell. If it was intended to follow the Invisible condition, then the bolded line was unnecessary.
This means the Hide Action has more ways to break to reflect its non-magical nature.
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
But if all the enemy has to do is walk into line of sight of you to break your Hide invisibility, what is the point of the Search action?
To find you while you're behind cover or obscured.
If you abandon those defenses and saunter into full view, you don't magically stay hidden.
Yes, but since Hide now gives you invisibility, the enemy needs to do the search action to remove the invisibility. It doesnt make sense, but thats what the rules posted in this thread are saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reread the Invisible Condition in post #15. You don't gain the benefits if you're out in the open.
Yes, to gain it you need to be obscured or hidden behind something to gain the invisibility, but it doesnt end until you make a sound louder than a whisper, enemy finds you(this must mean the Search action, right?), you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component. That sounds like you can hide behind something, then walk into the open and the enemy wont see you until they do the searvh action.
Honestly, the more I look at the Hide Action, the more I'm reminded of 4E Stealth rules and the Hide in Plain Sight Encounter power. It also reminds me of fantasy Rogue hiding abilities that are able to turn them Invisible as a pseudo-magic
There are many interesting changes. Yesterday, I was reading about one that is quite similar to what was written in Unearthed Arcana, I think.
Hide: There is now a base DC of 15 to successfully hide.
And in this post on EN World, there are a couple of screenshots from a Treantmonk video:
What's your opinion? The current Stealth and Hide rules have generated a lot of questions and doubts worldwide for 10 years...
Personally, I like the current/old way because it's more flexible, like a toolset to adapt to your table. Now it's more straighforward and simple to apply.
Maybe the fixed DC is a little bit weird to me because not all scenarios should have the same difficulty to hide.
Also, and I know this is something very personal and just a thought about how sound works in the real world, but if a whistle can end the condition, wouldn't moving and making noise with your clothes and equipment make even more noise?
I like this rule. Successfully hidden doesn't necessarily mean impossible to detect. I didn't care for it in the UA but maybe I had misread it, because I had assumed that a simple 15 stealth check meant exactly that you were impossible to detect. I do like this change because your actual roll total matters when someone is actively looking for you.
I sometimes wonder whether some people apply any common sense to these kind of situations. In the sessions I run, we have a "bleeding obvious" rule: if something is bleeding obvious, it doesn't have to be specified in a rulebook.
To take one of the previously mentioned situations as an example: if someone hides behind a tree and then steps out into the open, then on my tables they would no longer have the Invisible condition. Sure, the rules don't mention this as one of the specific parameters for ending the condition, but it's bleeding obvious that if someone is in direct line of sight with respect to someone else, they can be seen.
I think we all need to remember that no rulebook can cover every conceivable situation and that some should simply taken as given. I'm sure that when they were revising the PHB they didn't think that they had to specify that someone Hiding who steps out into the open would not retain the Invisible condition. It would clearly make no sense.
I think we all need to remember that no rulebook can cover every conceivable situation and that some should simply taken as given. I'm sure that when they were revising the PHB they didn't think that they had to specify that someone Hiding who steps out into the open would not retain the Invisible condition. It would clearly make no sense.
That's not an inconceivable situation. It's not even a rare situation. Yes, it should be covered by the rules. For example, one of the bullet points in 4th edition rules for hiding is
Cover or Concealment: Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check. You have to maintain cover or concealment to remain unnoticed. If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you (no Perception check required).
Yes, to gain it you need to be obscured or hidden behind something to gain the invisibility, but it doesnt end until you make a sound louder than a whisper, enemy finds you(this must mean the Search action, right?), you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component. That sounds like you can hide behind something, then walk into the open and the enemy wont see you until they do the searvh action.
"To {Hide}, 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 an enemy's line of sight."
If you lose the above conditions, you're no longer Hiding, simple. Walking into an enemy's line of sight while no longer being obscured = not hiding.
I think the issue that they keep referencing is that once you successfully hide, you gain the Invisible condition, which per the rules say you need to make a Perception check with the Search Action to detect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are many interesting changes. Yesterday, I was reading about one that is quite similar to what was written in Unearthed Arcana, I think.
And in this post on EN World, there are a couple of screenshots from a Treantmonk video:
What's your opinion? The current Stealth and Hide rules have generated a lot of questions and doubts worldwide for 10 years...
Personally, I like the current/old way because it's more flexible, like a toolset to adapt to your table. Now it's more straighforward and simple to apply.
Maybe the fixed DC is a little bit weird to me because not all scenarios should have the same difficulty to hide.
Also, and I know this is something very personal and just a thought about how sound works in the real world, but if a whistle can end the condition, wouldn't moving and making noise with your clothes and equipment make even more noise?
I don't know, i think this is awesome. Sure for sorcerers, but especially for Arcane Trickster Rogues, but also for Rangers who are good at hiding and have spellcasting. I just hope they have enough spells without verbal components. This would give them a niche that no other caster can really have. The stealth spell slinger
The fixed DC is weird. On the one hand, a rogue worth their weight in salt will have expertise in stealth. On the other... what?
Yeah, if you're fighting with a tree in the middle of the battlefield, apparently you can hide, then walk right out into line of sight and still be invisible. It's magical invisibility.
There is this clause though about the invisibility condition ending if you make a sound louder than a whisper. Which raises the question of moving silently. Was moving silently clarified?
Lmao those of you claiming you can walk out in the open once you are hidden are funny. It clearly states multiple times in the description of the “invisible condition” if the enemy can see you then the effects don’t work. It also states in the description of “hide action” you must be out of ANY enemies sight.
It seems pretty clear that the “invisible condition” does not give you true invisibility, but rather refers to you being invisible while hidden. Sure seems like all the enemy has to do is see you to end it.
Which spells are those? I guess we don’t know until the books are out, but are there many? Or really any? Honest question.
I don’t love what I’ve seen of the hide rules, but I’m wondering how much of a problem this part will be.
Side note, I do like them specifically saying a verbal component breaks your hide. No more debating if you can whisper the V component or how far away you can be heard. Much clearer and simpler this way.
But if all the enemy has to do is walk into line of sight of you to break your Hide invisibility, what is the point of the Search action?
You need to be out of sight to hide and gain the invisible condition, but you don't lose this condition unless you make noise louder than a whisper, an enemy succeeds at a search action (perception check) against your hide check result, or cast a spell with a verbal component.
We need to see the text for the Stealth skill to understand options for moving silently.
There's about 40 pages on the ENWorld thread linked above.
To find you while you're behind cover or obscured.
If you abandon those defenses and saunter into full view, you don't magically stay hidden.
Not technically. The actual wording is
There's a significant hole here: the rules state that a wisdom (perception) roll is a way of finding a hidden creature, but they don't state that it's the only way. That said, I expect hiding to immediately be the subject of a lot of house rules, because there are at least two classes of ways that would be expected to end hiding that either don't, or have to be driven through that wording hole. Those are
Yes, but since Hide now gives you invisibility, the enemy needs to do the search action to remove the invisibility. It doesnt make sense, but thats what the rules posted in this thread are saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reread the Invisible Condition in post #15. You don't gain the benefits if you're out in the open.
There is a very marked difference: The Invisibility spell specifically says:
"A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell."
Per the spell RAW, those are the only things that break the Invisible condition on the spell. If it was intended to follow the Invisible condition, then the bolded line was unnecessary.
This means the Hide Action has more ways to break to reflect its non-magical nature.
Yes, to gain it you need to be obscured or hidden behind something to gain the invisibility, but it doesnt end until you make a sound louder than a whisper, enemy finds you(this must mean the Search action, right?), you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component. That sounds like you can hide behind something, then walk into the open and the enemy wont see you until they do the searvh action.
Honestly, the more I look at the Hide Action, the more I'm reminded of 4E Stealth rules and the Hide in Plain Sight Encounter power. It also reminds me of fantasy Rogue hiding abilities that are able to turn them Invisible as a pseudo-magic
I like this rule. Successfully hidden doesn't necessarily mean impossible to detect. I didn't care for it in the UA but maybe I had misread it, because I had assumed that a simple 15 stealth check meant exactly that you were impossible to detect. I do like this change because your actual roll total matters when someone is actively looking for you.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I sometimes wonder whether some people apply any common sense to these kind of situations. In the sessions I run, we have a "bleeding obvious" rule: if something is bleeding obvious, it doesn't have to be specified in a rulebook.
To take one of the previously mentioned situations as an example: if someone hides behind a tree and then steps out into the open, then on my tables they would no longer have the Invisible condition. Sure, the rules don't mention this as one of the specific parameters for ending the condition, but it's bleeding obvious that if someone is in direct line of sight with respect to someone else, they can be seen.
I think we all need to remember that no rulebook can cover every conceivable situation and that some should simply taken as given. I'm sure that when they were revising the PHB they didn't think that they had to specify that someone Hiding who steps out into the open would not retain the Invisible condition. It would clearly make no sense.
Rules discussions are about rules. Yes, you can fix the rule by ignoring it, but that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
That's not an inconceivable situation. It's not even a rare situation. Yes, it should be covered by the rules. For example, one of the bullet points in 4th edition rules for hiding is
"To {Hide}, 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 an enemy's line of sight."
If you lose the above conditions, you're no longer Hiding, simple. Walking into an enemy's line of sight while no longer being obscured = not hiding.
I think the issue that they keep referencing is that once you successfully hide, you gain the Invisible condition, which per the rules say you need to make a Perception check with the Search Action to detect.