This came up in another thread and it's worth noting as really the new hide is a bit of a trainwreck. It has a few issues
Fixed DC is a problem. It's just as easy to hide from a zombie with a perception of -2 and beholder with a +12. Or a PC with a -1 and a PC with a +15. This is somewhat mitigated by other problems below.
What does 'find' actually mean? Is this a successful search? If so, there are action economy problems where it's impossible to actually find and interact with someone trying to hide, because they can run away and hide again before you can take advantage of having found them. If it's not, what does it mean? Moving so they aren't obscured or don't have required cover might be too easy.
It no longer causes your location to be unknown. The main reason in 2014 you might use hide while already invisible is because it meant your location was unknown, thus requiring foes to find you or guess at your location. Now, they can just decide to attack you at disadvantage, or bombard your location with area effects.
It doesn't actually do anything if you're heavily obscured or behind total cover. People already can't see you if either of those conditions apply.
It gets countered by anything that counters invisible -- including see invisibility. Probably not what was intended.
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 [1] while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover [4], 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 [5]. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC [1] for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check [2]. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you [2], 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 [3], and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight[5], you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
BLINDSIGHT If you have Blindsight, you can see within a specific range without relying on physical sight. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind Total Cover [4], even if you have the Blinded condition or are in Darkness. Moreover, in that range, you can effectively see a creature that has the Invisible condition [5].
Last I checked the GM asks for a roll. The players don't demand one. "I hide behind a tree where there is no chance of being detected" is not a place where I roll a relevant stealth check. "I sneak up to the pot and try to put poison in it", if the prerequisite for stealth are met go for it, if not then you don't get to roll. Maybe need to create a diversion of some kind first with a deception check of some kind or an illusion spell.
Keep in mind that Hide is an Action; that gives the player agency to attempt it at will, within the conditions specifically described for the Action. Technically they do have the right to say they attempt it at any time they can take an Action and meet the conditions on cover or being obscured, at which point the argument can sorta-kinda be made that the condition exists indefinitely. It’s clearly a munchkin argument that runs counter to RAI, but the language is unfortunately vague enough there’s no line to conclusively disprove it short of Rule 0.
maybe the list of ways to end the condition just needs a self-initiated item. something like "no longer masking their own presence" or similar? so, walking across an open field or waving a hand in the guard's face could be taken as an obvious lack of effort at being stealthy.
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!
Last I checked the GM asks for a roll. The players don't demand one. "I hide behind a tree where there is no chance of being detected" is not a place where I roll a relevant stealth check. "I sneak up to the pot and try to put poison in it", if the prerequisite for stealth are met go for it, if not then you don't get to roll. Maybe need to create a diversion of some kind first with a deception check of some kind or an illusion spell.
Keep in mind that Hide is an Action; that gives the player agency to attempt it at will, within the conditions specifically described for the Action. Technically they do have the right to say they attempt it at any time they can take an Action and meet the conditions on cover or being obscured, at which point the argument can sorta-kinda be made that the condition exists indefinitely. It’s clearly a munchkin argument that runs counter to RAI, but the language is unfortunately vague enough there’s no line to conclusively disprove it short of Rule 0.
maybe the list of ways to end the condition just needs a self-initiated item. something like "no longer masking their own presence" or similar? so, walking across an open field or waving a hand in the guard's face could be taken as an obvious lack of effort at being stealthy.
I’d say just reaffirm that the DM has the ultimate say on what conditions allow Hiding, and it ends if the conditions are no longer met.
Trying to use the invisible condition with hide to lower total word count was a bad choice. Hidden and Invisible need to be two different conditions.
hmm, it was certainly either a bold or lazy playtest effort. hard to guess which. even so, i'm not sure how a 'hidden' condition would even be different than 'invisible' since invisible's three main points (concealed, surprise, attacks affected) are pretty succinct. what wouldn't be fixed by changing 'invisible' to 'hidden' and adding more robust end conditions in the hide action? anything?
then the invisible spell gives you the hidden condition. and see invisible spell can see things using the invisible spell, not things using the hide action.
a branching of 'hidden [sight],' 'hidden [sound],' 'hidden [smell],' could lead to something but i'm not sure it's worth it.
Trying to use the invisible condition with hide to lower total word count was a bad choice. Hidden and Invisible need to be two different conditions.
hmm, it was certainly either a bold or lazy playtest effort. hard to guess which. even so, i'm not sure how a 'hidden' condition would even be different than 'invisible' since invisible's three main points (concealed, surprise, attacks affected) are pretty succinct. what wouldn't be fixed by changing 'invisible' to 'hidden' and adding more robust end conditions in the hide action? anything?
then the invisible spell gives you the hidden condition. and see invisible spell can see things using the invisible spell, not things using the hide action.
a branching of 'hidden [sight],' 'hidden [sound],' 'hidden [smell],' could lead to something but i'm not sure it's worth it.
Keen hearing/smell/senses already addresses different mundane means of finding a creature.
Trying to use the invisible condition with hide to lower total word count was a bad choice. Hidden and Invisible need to be two different conditions.
hmm, it was certainly either a bold or lazy playtest effort. hard to guess which. even so, i'm not sure how a 'hidden' condition would even be different than 'invisible' since invisible's three main points (concealed, surprise, attacks affected) are pretty succinct. what wouldn't be fixed by changing 'invisible' to 'hidden' and adding more robust end conditions in the hide action? anything?
then the invisible spell gives you the hidden condition. and see invisible spell can see things using the invisible spell, not things using the hide action.
a branching of 'hidden [sight],' 'hidden [sound],' 'hidden [smell],' could lead to something but i'm not sure it's worth it.
Besides the absurdity that was mentioned in the other thread of not really having a specific situation (besides being found by a perception check) for when the "invisibility" provided by the Hide action ends, point 3 the OP makes is that it provides no opportunity to really conceal the square the hidden person is in (i.e. they cannot hide, and sneak to a different location while still concealed so that the opponents do not know exactly where they are).
I’d say just reaffirm that the DM has the ultimate say on what conditions allow Hiding, and it ends if the conditions are no longer met.
Honestly, having 'condition required to hide' and 'condition required to remain hidden' shouldn't be the same.
My main point was just reaffirm that the conditions that allow you to attempt to hide or maintain the condition are ultimately a matter of DM discretion
This came up in another thread and it's worth noting as really the new hide is a bit of a trainwreck. It has a few issues
Fixed DC is a problem. It's just as easy to hide from a zombie with a perception of -2 and beholder with a +12. Or a PC with a -1 and a PC with a +15. This is somewhat mitigated by other problems below.
What does 'find' actually mean? Is this a successful search? If so, there are action economy problems where it's impossible to actually find and interact with someone trying to hide, because they can run away and hide again before you can take advantage of having found them. If it's not, what does it mean? Moving so they aren't obscured or don't have required cover might be too easy.
It no longer causes your location to be unknown. The main reason in 2014 you might use hide while already invisible is because it meant your location was unknown, thus requiring foes to find you or guess at your location. Now, they can just decide to attack you at disadvantage, or bombard your location with area effects.
It doesn't actually do anything if you're heavily obscured or behind total cover. People already can't see you if either of those conditions apply.
It gets countered by anything that counters invisible -- including see invisibility. Probably not what was intended.
its not as easy to hide from a -1 and a +15. passive perception is still a check. a person with +15 has a passive check of 25, without having to actively roll. The only difference between a passive check and an active roll, is your roll is predetermines to be a 10, and it doesnt require any special action. And its not as easy to hide from a +4 perception guy, as a -1 perception guy, if they are actively searching, it is as easy to be unnoticed if they are passively perceiving.
Also note the DM is free to give players or npcs situational bonuses. If you feel Pete is super focused on guarding the cage you might decide he has +5 perception. Note though, doing so all the time is negating your players stealth investment.
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
Here's how to determine a character's total for a passive check:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
For example, if a 1st-level character has a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 14. The rules on hiding in the “Dexterity” section below rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules.
find is determined in the rule, its says a creatures can find you with a perception check, note a passive check is still,a check.
they could always bombard you with effects, they just are guessing. If the question is do they know your location, the answer would be a perception vs stealth roll, but you already rolled stealth versus perception, why ask for another? note the rules for being unnoticed unheard are part of the description of the skills.
"..perception let's you spot hear or otherwise detect something"
"... stealth... lets you slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard"
phb. page 177
unless overwritten the old phb stands, they already told you that unheard versus heard is stealth versus perception, the hide rule is just showing you how to use this properly.
note someone could always perceive an invisible target through perception. Hiding is saying I am actively trying not to be heard, its a preemptive stealth roll.
this answers your other points, the point of hiding while obscurred is to set the DC to to be heard. As is, the DC to be heard is zero (according to crawford people can hear you if invisible unstealthed) if you aren't actively trying. The invisibility detection spelks/feats counters the effects of invisibility, namely spells, and advantage disadvantage, it doesnt counter whether they can hear or not hear you, that is listed as effects of perception and stealth. Yes, it does mean they have returned to 360 degree vision power, and hiding only becomes useful behind obscurement.
is it intended? probably, or we should assume it is for testing.
its not as easy to hide from a -1 and a +15. passive perception is still a check. a person with +15 has a passive check of 25, without having to actively roll.
There's reason to believe that passive checks won't exist in 1D&D, and even if they do exist... it still takes an action. The reason passive score made it harder to hide is because passive score was the target number for hide.
Trying to use the invisible condition with hide to lower total word count was a bad choice. Hidden and Invisible need to be two different conditions.
hmm, it was certainly either a bold or lazy playtest effort. hard to guess which. even so, i'm not sure how a 'hidden' condition would even be different than 'invisible' since invisible's three main points (concealed, surprise, attacks affected) are pretty succinct. what wouldn't be fixed by changing 'invisible' to 'hidden' and adding more robust end conditions in the hide action? anything?
then the invisible spell gives you the hidden condition. and see invisible spell can see things using the invisible spell, not things using the hide action.
a branching of 'hidden [sight],' 'hidden [sound],' 'hidden [smell],' could lead to something but i'm not sure it's worth it.
Besides the absurdity that was mentioned in the other thread of not really having a specific situation (besides being found by a perception check) for when the "invisibility" provided by the Hide action ends, point 3 the OP makes is that it provides no opportunity to really conceal the square the hidden person is in (i.e. they cannot hide, and sneak to a different location while still concealed so that the opponents do not know exactly where they are).
that absurdity is entirely up to the dm whether it's spelled out or not. but, spelled out would be my preference.
regarding hide being (or beginning as) a stationary thing, would you say this require breaking up a stealth (hide) roll and a stealth (move silently) roll? even while revised, 5e remains moored to a more loose system of checks. one check to span a whole evening of sneaking. hmm, but if the loose system wants to rely on passive perception then maybe there should be a passive stealth for when hidden. more on the sound side of things, i'd think, since you can choose strategically to navigate through dim light, fog, obscuring bushes, etc.
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!
its not as easy to hide from a -1 and a +15. passive perception is still a check. a person with +15 has a passive check of 25, without having to actively roll.
There's reason to believe that passive checks won't exist in 1D&D, and even if they do exist... it still takes an action. The reason passive score made it harder to hide is because passive score was the target number for hide.
the reason to believe it exists, is because they instruct you in the playtest that everything that isnt over written, or explicitly said to be changed or removed, is assumed to be valid. Thats part of every UA.
. The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted.
there is no reason to believe it won't be there unless they say so, its in the phb now.
passive checks don't take an action, one of the main reasons they exist is so players and dms arent constantly rolling, and can have a passive assumed ability to perceive things. You have eyes, and you are observant, you shouldn't have to actively declare a search at all times. Its tedious.
this is why most monster blocks contain a passive perceptions, the DM can simply say he notices you, or you notice the goblin looking for enemies.
passive checks don't take an action, one of the main reasons they exist is so players and dms arent constantly rolling, and can have a passive assumed ability to perceive things.
If you want to find something in combat, you have to take the search action; there is no passive check option. However, the reason I think passive checks are going away is because there's no coherent reason to use a DC of 15 for hide if passive checks still exist.
passive checks don't take an action, one of the main reasons they exist is so players and dms arent constantly rolling, and can have a passive assumed ability to perceive things.
If you want to find something in combat, you have to take the search action; there is no passive check option. However, the reason I think passive checks are going away is because there's no coherent reason to use a DC of 15 for hide if passive checks still exist.
search action is for active searches, they can succeed where passive perception fails. They literally have a feat for passive perception checks. observant.
passive perception is 10+your mod, search allows you to beat that number. if a treasure is a 17 perception to find, but you have 15 passive, you won't notice it unless you roll. you could roll a 20 for 25 perception.
Now a more perceptive player walk in the room, they may already notice it. The dm might say Sarah seems like she can just smell treasure from her years as a rogue, she seems magnetically attracted to the false wall. lets say she has expertise and 3 wisdom, for a +11 and a 21 passive perception. She notices the treasure without having to search or roll. This is designed to be a benefit for some skills, your character will notice things others wouldn't just by being near. Otherwise, players have to constantly declare, I'm searching this room, I'm searching this hallway, I'm searching this other room. Its really tedious and a time waster.
likewise a monster with a +4 perception has a 14 passive perception. But if he actively searches, he might roll an 11 and get a 15, thus finding you.
A perceptive monster, like a dragon, has a +12 perception, and a 22 passive perception. your 17 isnt enough, and he is aware of your presence. Dm may describe it as smelling you, or tasting the air, or just pure instinct.
passive perception doesnt replace active rolls, its used for when you have repeated tasks you are trying to speed a long, or the DM decides the skill has a baseline use case. Without particularly trying, I can expect this result type situations. An active roll has a higher cap, and represents the monster/player actively trying.
what does passive perception have to do with stealth 15? I don't see the connection you are making
the point of a DC 15 check, is it saves time of bad checks that were going to fail anyway, and it sets a bar for gaining the utility of invisible condition at 15. Some characters cannot realistically achieve 15 often. Other characters will always be able to stealth (rogue)
what does passive perception have to do with stealth 15? I don't see the connection you are making
The reason passive perception was the target number for hide checks in 2014 is because rolling less than passive perception meant you were automatically spotted so you effectively were never hidden in the first place. Thus, if 15 is considered to actually be a success in 2024, it has to be because passive perception no longer works that way.
I don't know exactly how Invisibility is supposed to work RAW, but imo: if a creature has the Invisible condition, I don't think they should be able to be directly targeted with attacks (many spells already are negated by being unseen), even if the attacks are made at disadvantage. How I would adjudicate it as a DM would be for a player (or creature) to target a space where they think the invisible creature might be, then ask them for a disadvantaged attack roll. If the creature is there & they hit, cool. If they miss- whether the creature is there or not, simply inform them that the attack did not hit. I'd probably allow either an action to make a Perception check to listen for the invisible creature's location, or possibly a bonus action Perception check at disadvantage.
This could get tricky on the DM'S part to not metagame against invisible players.
As for the Hidden condition: I think how it should work, is that a creature needs to be out of line-of-sight (or at least partially obscured, depending on features, etc) to become hidden and Sneak. I think the Hidden condition should only be broken if the creature looking for the hidden creature makes a successful Perception check (passive or rolled) based upon hearing (or maybe scent), or if the Hidden creature breaks cover within the Perceiving creature's line-of-sight. This would be harder to do in "theatre of the mind" than on a grid, but still doable I think. On a grid, line-of-sight could be determined by the perceiving creature's orientation (which way they are facing) and other factors like lighting conditions. I'd probably make it a cone, with a disadvantaged roll if it's in a wider cone (the peripheral). Of course, this will all vary, depending on the creatures involved and their respective senses & abilities.
Again, not sure if any of this is even close to RAW or RAI, but it seems to make sense?
what does passive perception have to do with stealth 15? I don't see the connection you are making
The reason passive perception was the target number for hide checks in 2014 is because rolling less than passive perception meant you were automatically spotted so you effectively were never hidden in the first place. Thus, if 15 is considered to actually be a success in 2024, it has to be because passive perception no longer works that way.
you can extrapolate you are auto spotted, but it doesn't mean you were never hidden, it means you were noticed. for example you rolled a 13 stealth outside the castle. you go in the castle, past a sleeping stable boy (passive perception 9) Eventually you find a room but there's a guard in it, (passive 14) he notices you. It didn't mean you failed because there was a guard in the castle somewhere with perception of 14.
Its basically the same now, rolling a 15 doesnt mean the dragon doesnt notice you, IF, the dm is using passive perception.. note the dm decides when to use passives, and when they apply.
The DM is generally never supposed to tell players when their stealth isn't goid enough until actions happen. (in 5e)
its not, oh your stealth failed, its you rolled a 13, cool. ..... you turn the corner and see a hound snarling at you.
likewise now, you tail to stealth under 15, but a success doesnt mean you can't be spotted, and the DM shouldn't tell you, your stealth fails, a dragon sees you somewhere though you don't see him.
if the dm doesnt want to use passives, you can get by creatures who aren't actively looking, but that was always the case.
Its just, cool you rolled a 17, then later you find out a guy noticed you from the tower and alerted the guards.
passive isnt that deep it just represents baseline values when the DM decides that is the best way to deal with situation.
I don't know exactly how Invisibility is supposed to work RAW, but imo: if a creature has the Invisible condition, I don't think they should be able to be directly targeted with attacks (many spells already are negated by being unseen), even if the attacks are made at disadvantage. How I would adjudicate it as a DM would be for a player (or creature) to target a space where they think the invisible creature might be, then ask them for a disadvantaged attack roll. If the creature is there & they hit, cool. If they miss- whether the creature is there or not, simply inform them that the attack did not hit. I'd probably allow either an action to make a Perception check to listen for the invisible creature's location, or possibly a bonus action Perception check at disadvantage.
This could get tricky on the DM'S part to not metagame against invisible players.
As for the Hidden condition: I think how it should work, is that a creature needs to be out of line-of-sight (or at least partially obscured, depending on features, etc) to become hidden and Sneak. I think the Hidden condition should only be broken if the creature looking for the hidden creature makes a successful Perception check (passive or rolled) based upon hearing (or maybe scent), or if the Hidden creature breaks cover within the Perceiving creature's line-of-sight. This would be harder to do in "theatre of the mind" than on a grid, but still doable I think. On a grid, line-of-sight could be determined by the perceiving creature's orientation (which way they are facing) and other factors like lighting conditions. I'd probably make it a cone, with a disadvantaged roll if it's in a wider cone (the peripheral). Of course, this will all vary, depending on the creatures involved and their respective senses & abilities.
Again, not sure if any of this is even close to RAW or RAI, but it seems to make sense?
the thing is, in 5e, basic rules don't have creatures having orientation. The assumption is they might be looking around themselves in general, mostly because time isnt explicit in 5e. each round represents 6 seconds of action, and outside if combat, people are doing whatever the narrative/situation/rolls suggest
if you are playing with facing rules, you would probably alter stealth rules, as well as advantage rules, and casters would have to face to target creatures, it even notice them. Which can be fun, if the table doesnt mind the extra tracking and its effects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This came up in another thread and it's worth noting as really the new hide is a bit of a trainwreck. It has a few issues
for reference, from UA8:
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 [1] while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover [4], 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 [5]. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC [1] for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check [2].
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you [2], 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 [3], and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight [5], you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
BLINDSIGHT
If you have Blindsight, you can see within a specific range without relying on physical sight. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind Total Cover [4], even if you have the Blinded condition or are in Darkness. Moreover, in that range, you can effectively see a creature that has the Invisible condition [5].
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!
if no one minds, i'd like to pull a comment from the monk thread and continue that here...
maybe the list of ways to end the condition just needs a self-initiated item. something like "no longer masking their own presence" or similar? so, walking across an open field or waving a hand in the guard's face could be taken as an obvious lack of effort at being stealthy.
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!
Trying to use the invisible condition with hide to lower total word count was a bad choice. Hidden and Invisible need to be two different conditions.
I’d say just reaffirm that the DM has the ultimate say on what conditions allow Hiding, and it ends if the conditions are no longer met.
hmm, it was certainly either a bold or lazy playtest effort. hard to guess which. even so, i'm not sure how a 'hidden' condition would even be different than 'invisible' since invisible's three main points (concealed, surprise, attacks affected) are pretty succinct. what wouldn't be fixed by changing 'invisible' to 'hidden' and adding more robust end conditions in the hide action? anything?
then the invisible spell gives you the hidden condition. and see invisible spell can see things using the invisible spell, not things using the hide action.
a branching of 'hidden [sight],' 'hidden [sound],' 'hidden [smell],' could lead to something but i'm not sure it's worth it.
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!
Keen hearing/smell/senses already addresses different mundane means of finding a creature.
Honestly, having 'condition required to hide' and 'condition required to remain hidden' shouldn't be the same.
Besides the absurdity that was mentioned in the other thread of not really having a specific situation (besides being found by a perception check) for when the "invisibility" provided by the Hide action ends, point 3 the OP makes is that it provides no opportunity to really conceal the square the hidden person is in (i.e. they cannot hide, and sneak to a different location while still concealed so that the opponents do not know exactly where they are).
My main point was just reaffirm that the conditions that allow you to attempt to hide or maintain the condition are ultimately a matter of DM discretion
its not as easy to hide from a -1 and a +15. passive perception is still a check. a person with +15 has a passive check of 25, without having to actively roll. The only difference between a passive check and an active roll, is your roll is predetermines to be a 10, and it doesnt require any special action. And its not as easy to hide from a +4 perception guy, as a -1 perception guy, if they are actively searching, it is as easy to be unnoticed if they are passively perceiving.
Also note the DM is free to give players or npcs situational bonuses. If you feel Pete is super focused on guarding the cage you might decide he has +5 perception. Note though, doing so all the time is negating your players stealth investment.
find is determined in the rule, its says a creatures can find you with a perception check, note a passive check is still,a check.
they could always bombard you with effects, they just are guessing. If the question is do they know your location, the answer would be a perception vs stealth roll, but you already rolled stealth versus perception, why ask for another? note the rules for being unnoticed unheard are part of the description of the skills.
unless overwritten the old phb stands, they already told you that unheard versus heard is stealth versus perception, the hide rule is just showing you how to use this properly.
note someone could always perceive an invisible target through perception. Hiding is saying I am actively trying not to be heard, its a preemptive stealth roll.
this answers your other points, the point of hiding while obscurred is to set the DC to to be heard. As is, the DC to be heard is zero (according to crawford people can hear you if invisible unstealthed) if you aren't actively trying. The invisibility detection spelks/feats counters the effects of invisibility, namely spells, and advantage disadvantage, it doesnt counter whether they can hear or not hear you, that is listed as effects of perception and stealth. Yes, it does mean they have returned to 360 degree vision power, and hiding only becomes useful behind obscurement.
is it intended? probably, or we should assume it is for testing.
There's reason to believe that passive checks won't exist in 1D&D, and even if they do exist... it still takes an action. The reason passive score made it harder to hide is because passive score was the target number for hide.
that absurdity is entirely up to the dm whether it's spelled out or not. but, spelled out would be my preference.
regarding hide being (or beginning as) a stationary thing, would you say this require breaking up a stealth (hide) roll and a stealth (move silently) roll? even while revised, 5e remains moored to a more loose system of checks. one check to span a whole evening of sneaking. hmm, but if the loose system wants to rely on passive perception then maybe there should be a passive stealth for when hidden. more on the sound side of things, i'd think, since you can choose strategically to navigate through dim light, fog, obscuring bushes, etc.
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 reason to believe it exists, is because they instruct you in the playtest that everything that isnt over written, or explicitly said to be changed or removed, is assumed to be valid. Thats part of every UA.
there is no reason to believe it won't be there unless they say so, its in the phb now.
passive checks don't take an action, one of the main reasons they exist is so players and dms arent constantly rolling, and can have a passive assumed ability to perceive things. You have eyes, and you are observant, you shouldn't have to actively declare a search at all times. Its tedious.
this is why most monster blocks contain a passive perceptions, the DM can simply say he notices you, or you notice the goblin looking for enemies.
If you want to find something in combat, you have to take the search action; there is no passive check option. However, the reason I think passive checks are going away is because there's no coherent reason to use a DC of 15 for hide if passive checks still exist.
search action is for active searches, they can succeed where passive perception fails. They literally have a feat for passive perception checks. observant.
passive perception is 10+your mod, search allows you to beat that number. if a treasure is a 17 perception to find, but you have 15 passive, you won't notice it unless you roll. you could roll a 20 for 25 perception.
Now a more perceptive player walk in the room, they may already notice it. The dm might say Sarah seems like she can just smell treasure from her years as a rogue, she seems magnetically attracted to the false wall. lets say she has expertise and 3 wisdom, for a +11 and a 21 passive perception. She notices the treasure without having to search or roll. This is designed to be a benefit for some skills, your character will notice things others wouldn't just by being near. Otherwise, players have to constantly declare, I'm searching this room, I'm searching this hallway, I'm searching this other room. Its really tedious and a time waster.
likewise a monster with a +4 perception has a 14 passive perception. But if he actively searches, he might roll an 11 and get a 15, thus finding you.
A perceptive monster, like a dragon, has a +12 perception, and a 22 passive perception. your 17 isnt enough, and he is aware of your presence. Dm may describe it as smelling you, or tasting the air, or just pure instinct.
passive perception doesnt replace active rolls, its used for when you have repeated tasks you are trying to speed a long, or the DM decides the skill has a baseline use case. Without particularly trying, I can expect this result type situations. An active roll has a higher cap, and represents the monster/player actively trying.
what does passive perception have to do with stealth 15? I don't see the connection you are making
the point of a DC 15 check, is it saves time of bad checks that were going to fail anyway, and it sets a bar for gaining the utility of invisible condition at 15. Some characters cannot realistically achieve 15 often. Other characters will always be able to stealth (rogue)
The reason passive perception was the target number for hide checks in 2014 is because rolling less than passive perception meant you were automatically spotted so you effectively were never hidden in the first place. Thus, if 15 is considered to actually be a success in 2024, it has to be because passive perception no longer works that way.
I don't know exactly how Invisibility is supposed to work RAW, but imo: if a creature has the Invisible condition, I don't think they should be able to be directly targeted with attacks (many spells already are negated by being unseen), even if the attacks are made at disadvantage. How I would adjudicate it as a DM would be for a player (or creature) to target a space where they think the invisible creature might be, then ask them for a disadvantaged attack roll. If the creature is there & they hit, cool. If they miss- whether the creature is there or not, simply inform them that the attack did not hit. I'd probably allow either an action to make a Perception check to listen for the invisible creature's location, or possibly a bonus action Perception check at disadvantage.
This could get tricky on the DM'S part to not metagame against invisible players.
As for the Hidden condition: I think how it should work, is that a creature needs to be out of line-of-sight (or at least partially obscured, depending on features, etc) to become hidden and Sneak. I think the Hidden condition should only be broken if the creature looking for the hidden creature makes a successful Perception check (passive or rolled) based upon hearing (or maybe scent), or if the Hidden creature breaks cover within the Perceiving creature's line-of-sight. This would be harder to do in "theatre of the mind" than on a grid, but still doable I think. On a grid, line-of-sight could be determined by the perceiving creature's orientation (which way they are facing) and other factors like lighting conditions. I'd probably make it a cone, with a disadvantaged roll if it's in a wider cone (the peripheral). Of course, this will all vary, depending on the creatures involved and their respective senses & abilities.
Again, not sure if any of this is even close to RAW or RAI, but it seems to make sense?
you can extrapolate you are auto spotted, but it doesn't mean you were never hidden, it means you were noticed. for example you rolled a 13 stealth outside the castle. you go in the castle, past a sleeping stable boy (passive perception 9) Eventually you find a room but there's a guard in it, (passive 14) he notices you. It didn't mean you failed because there was a guard in the castle somewhere with perception of 14.
Its basically the same now, rolling a 15 doesnt mean the dragon doesnt notice you, IF, the dm is using passive perception.. note the dm decides when to use passives, and when they apply.
The DM is generally never supposed to tell players when their stealth isn't goid enough until actions happen. (in 5e)
its not, oh your stealth failed, its you rolled a 13, cool. ..... you turn the corner and see a hound snarling at you.
likewise now, you tail to stealth under 15, but a success doesnt mean you can't be spotted, and the DM shouldn't tell you, your stealth fails, a dragon sees you somewhere though you don't see him.
if the dm doesnt want to use passives, you can get by creatures who aren't actively looking, but that was always the case.
Its just, cool you rolled a 17, then later you find out a guy noticed you from the tower and alerted the guards.
passive isnt that deep it just represents baseline values when the DM decides that is the best way to deal with situation.
the thing is, in 5e, basic rules don't have creatures having orientation. The assumption is they might be looking around themselves in general, mostly because time isnt explicit in 5e. each round represents 6 seconds of action, and outside if combat, people are doing whatever the narrative/situation/rolls suggest
if you are playing with facing rules, you would probably alter stealth rules, as well as advantage rules, and casters would have to face to target creatures, it even notice them. Which can be fun, if the table doesnt mind the extra tracking and its effects.