D&D (2024) Stealth Errata

[bedir than]

I think "finding you" would include situations where you are hidden but it's bloody obvious where the hidden person is. I don't know if 5.5 dealt with this, but in 5.0 a rogue* could be hidden behind a boulder or something, pop up and shoot someone, and then hide again. At that point it's obvious that the rogue is behind the boulder, but you can't see them so they get the benefit of hiding. But there's nothing (other than distance) that prevents the target from just moving to a location where the boulder no longer provides heavy obscurement and thereby breaking the rogue's stealth.

*)Not necessarily a rogue other than the need to attack and hide on the same turn, which is enabled by Cunning Action, but I think there are monsters with similar abilities.

Yeah, the guidance about not rolling if there's no chance of failure/success means walking around in the open doesn't require a check

 

[Staffan]

I would too, but since the rules don’t actually say that anywhere even after getting errata’d, I can only assume that is not actually the intended functionality. WotC has had no shortage of opportunities now to just write into the rules that you can stop being hidden if the DM decides your position is obvious, and they still haven’t done it.

In my example, the stealth is not removed by the obviousness of the hiding place. It is removed when the condition that the hider is heavily obscured is no longer satisfied. The hiding place being obvious just tells the onlooker where to go to break that stealth.

 

[Reynard]

You mean like the one on reddit?

No,I was thinking about the last stealth thread we had here, and every one prior.

 

[cbwjm]

I think "finding you" would include situations where you are hidden but it's bloody obvious where the hidden person is. I don't know if 5.5 dealt with this, but in 5.0 a rogue* could be hidden behind a boulder or something, pop up and shoot someone, and then hide again. At that point it's obvious that the rogue is behind the boulder, but you can't see them so they get the benefit of hiding. But there's nothing (other than distance) that prevents the target from just moving to a location where the boulder no longer provides heavy obscurement and thereby breaking the rogue's stealth.

*)Not necessarily a rogue other than the need to attack and hide on the same turn, which is enabled by Cunning Action, but I think there are monsters with similar abilities.

In that situation, I didn't allow rogues (or anyone who tries to stealth) to become hidden again, once they know that you're behind that boulder you can no longer pop up and keep surprising people. If it was a wall or something similar that allowed you to reposition unseen, then they could get the benefit of being hidden, but even then it might be limited.

 

[Stalker0]

So you can hide behind 3/4ths cover. But if someone casts see invisible (even if you're just a rogue using the ordinary hide action), they can see you behind 3/4ths cover?

Yep that's the raw. The act of hiding makes you invisible, that is what hiding does. Hiding does not apply some special hidden condition (which is why so many people wish they had done so).

See invisibility negates the invisibility condition....and so yes it negates hiding. Is it silly and stupid....100%. Is it raw?....100%.

 

[Charlaquin]

In my example, the stealth is not removed by the obviousness of the hiding place. It is removed when the condition that the hider is heavily obscured is no longer satisfied.

Nowhere is that condition stated to be required to remain hidden, only to make the initial Dexterity (Stealth) check to become hidden.

 

[Mistwell]

Yep that's the raw. The act of hiding makes you invisible, that is what hiding does. Hiding does not apply some special hidden condition (which is why so many people wish they had done so).

See invisibility negates the invisibility condition....and so yes it negates hiding. Is it silly and stupid....100%. Is it raw?....100%.

All see invisibility does is "you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible". It does not say it negates the invisible condition. You still retain the invisible condition, you just can be seen "as if they were visible" by the creature that has See Invisibility (but not by others). If you still meet the conditions for hiding, can you be seen despite your body being "visible"?

 

[MerricB]

In the new errata, the stealth rules get the following update:

• Hide [Action] (p. 368) In the second paragraph, “you have the Invisible condition” is now “you have the Invisible condition while hidden”. In the third paragraph, “The condition ends on you” is now “You stop being hidden”.

I think this cleans up some of the wonkiness around using Invisible for hidden creatures, but also introduces hidden as a pseudo-condition. There still might be some tension within the rules. Can a creature that has the ability to see invisible automatically find you?

Reading the rules, I think the answer is yes. The Hide action specifies that you stop being hidden if an enemy finds you. However, if you still fulfilled the conditions for attempting to hide, my sense is that you should remain hidden.

Is that take crazy or am I on to something? I think the new errata is pretty elegant, but it doesn't quite go far enough. On the other hand, I imagine we'll see the rules evolve over time.

It doesn't help, sadly.

There are several areas where the rules are sadly deficient:

* the rules are very vague about what "an enemy finds" you means. If I'm hidden, can I walk around in the open and can't be found until an enemy actually takes the Search action? It sounds ridiculous, but under one reading of the rules, it's valid. Both the 2014 and 2024 rules were unclear of what steps you needed to take to maintain being hidden.

* you can't hide if an enemy has line-of-sight to you, but by definition, if you have 3/4 cover, an enemy has line-of-sight to you.

* the invisibility spell doesn't say that you can't be seen by normal vision. That used to be part of the invisible condition, but got removed in 2024.

 

[Reynard]

They had an opportunity to "invisibility" out of it completely and flubbed it. Sad.

 

[Maxperson]

All see invisibility does is "you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible". It does not say it negates the invisible condition. You still retain the invisible condition, you just can be seen "as if they were visible" by the creature that has See Invisibility (but not by others). If you still meet the conditions for hiding, can you be seen despite your body being "visible"?

I would think so. If you couldn't be seen while being "visible," they wouldn't have needed to include the invisible condition portion.