D&D 5E (2024) Group Checks?

[Crimson Longinus]

You are neglecting the condition of the hide action.

I didn’t. Those are for establishing the invisibility, not for maintaining it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I didn’t. Those are for establishing the invisibility, not for maintaining it.

Straight from the book:

The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you....

So. They probably find you if you show yourself willingly.

Of course you can rule differently. Her I use the DMG guideline of good faith interpretation. You can do differently if you want.

 

[Retros_x]

If a hidden person then starts to roam freely while staying out of where others are looking, I require rerolling the attempt to hide each round that one is out in the open.

But how do they attempt to hide in line of sight of the enemy? What does a good roll mean here? The come out behind their cover, walk on their toes directly in front of the enemy and they just look through them? The designer really did not do us a favor with the use of invisible condition here.

I didn’t. Those are for establishing the invisibility, not for maintaining it.

No there are clear conditions for maintaining it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Straight from the book:

The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you....

So. They probably find you if you show yourself willingly.

I mean I’m sure you can end the condition willingly. But they cannot find you by sight because you’re invisible!

 

[Voadam]

The narrative image of a knight taking off their armor and carrying it in a giant bundle to stealth into a place then put it on inside seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Everyone in the party following the lead of the rogue who looks stealthily around the corner and waits for the patrol to fully pass before continuing seems a more natural narrative to me for a group game. Even if say half the party is still wearing awkward full stormtrooper armor as they are trying to sneak around the Death Star.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I mean I’m sure you can end the condition willingly. But they cannot find you by sight because you’re invisible!

You can repeat it as often as you like. You are not translucent. You are once again mixing up things. You just have the invisible condition.

If you move into line of sight and don't try to be sneaky, you are found.

What I do agree though is that the spell could state that you are translucent while the spell is in place. Would safe us a lot of discussions.

 

[Yaarel]

But how do they attempt to hide in line of sight of the enemy? What does a good roll mean here? The come out behind their cover, walk on their toes directly in front of the enemy and they just look through them?

No there are clear conditions for maintaining it.

This is where DM adjudication is necessary. For example, a person Spider Climb-ing a ceiling can sometimes hide because people dont look up. But one is still out in the open.

A person who is transparently invisible, is analogous to perpetually hiding behind something.

 

[Voadam]

So it looks like being hidden is only broken by making noise, being found by an enemy (which seems to be defined as perception beating the hide check), attacking, or casting a spell.

So the invisible condition is a mechanical condition and does not mention being transparent. It is like a 4e condition, essentially some mechanics that can be reskinned and applied to different situations like when you are hiding and not seen but are not transparent.

So the big question is once you are hidden and have the invisible condition what happens when you come out of the cover you needed to establish the invisible condition.

A DM could rule that finding is as RAW defined in the hide action itself, a perception check to find the hidden person.

A more narrative interpretation could be that stepping out means anyone can find you and that the perception check is just one way to find you even in your concealment. A DM can also lean on the first sentence of the hide action to say that hide means you are concealed where you hid and leaving the concealment is leaving the concealment.

The specific conditions for breaking the hide invisible condition though and the mechanical non invisible invisibility condition is a decent argument for non-magical distraction and not being observed or noticed as you move until you attack or make a noise.

In D&D on a grid there is no facing, you sort of see 360 degrees around you and you sort of don't, it is a bit abstract and leaves narrative room for walking straight up to someone unnoticed to get advantage on an initial attack.

So like in 14 it is up to an individual DM interpretation.

 

[Retros_x]

This is where DM adjudication is necessary. For example, a person Spider Climb-ing a ceiling can sometimes hide because people dont look up. But one is still out in the open.

A person who is transparently invisible, is analogous to perpetually hiding behind something.

I agree with you here, but why is then a re-roll necessary in your game? I would rule that climbing at the ceiling might be (depending on the context) not in line of sight and the hidden condition is still up. No additional role, because they already succeeded in hiding before that. But in general yes hiding is always a bit dependent on DM adjudication and I think is a perfectly solvable situation with a bit of common sense and good faith interpretation.

 

[Retros_x]

A DM could rule that finding is as RAW defined in the hide action itself, a perception check to find the hidden person.

You could also argue that RAW you only ask for checks if there is a possibility to fail. If somebody leves concealment and steps in line of sight there is no need to roll on perception its auto-success and the enemy spots you, stopping the hidden condition according to the rules.