Search results

While under the 2014 it was indeed impossible (without a special feature or DM ruling on distraction) to become or remain unseen by use of the Hide action, successfully hiding made one unheard, thus preventing enemies from detecting one's location. That's a pretty major benefit, and one it is...

There may be other ways to apply the Stealth skill, but not for hiding. The excerpt in the post quoted below is explicit that hiding (which includes "sneak[ing] past a guardian") means taking the Hide action.

I entirely agree that to Hide and retain the Invisible condition you are required to not make noise. But I can't agree that taking the Hide action is how one satisfies the lack-of-noise requirement for benefiting from the Hide action. You're basically saying that one needs to be unheard to...

Indeed. In the 2014 rules being heard (and thus located by sound) was the default for anyone in hearing range and becoming unheard required taking an action. If they intended to change that in the 2024 rules so that being unheard (and not locatable by sound) is the default, they really really...

I'm not saying that the 2024 rules require two checks. I'm saying that becoming or remaining unheard (i.e. preventing creatures from locating you by sound) doesn't appear to be supported in the 2024 rules at all. I agree that it's supposed to be, as indicated by the description of the Stealth...

In the 2014 rules that's true, but it's unclear in the 2024 rules whether taking the Hide action provides any benefit to moving quietly. Some posters have been inferring such a benefit exists from the requirement to stay quiet in order to avoid losing the Invisible condition (and there's...

Good to know about unseen attacker rules, thanks! While that removal means that the Attacks Affected benefit of the Invisibile condition now has utility, I would note that the Concealed benefit still does nothing. And I'm not particularly pleased to learn that shooting into heavy obscurement can...

But if you're already unseen by virtue of being behind cover or darkness, then aren't the Concealed and Attacks Affected features of the Invisible condition entirely redundant? Or are the 2014 Unseen Attacker rules no longer in the book? And even if the Unseen Attacker rules were removed from...

So what benefit do you think taking the Hide action provides? It doesn't make you unseen by enemies (you are already unseen by enemies to be able to take the Hide action), under your reading the Invisible condition doesn't help you remain unseen, and the Hide action does nothing about being...

Would you mind sharing what you consider to be the clear meaning of the rules regarding the contested aspects of the skill? Specifically: Can a character with the Invisible condition be automatically seen by an observer with normal senses who gains line of sight to the Invisible character...

Which is particularly noteworthy since, under many interpretations, becoming/staying unheard was the only benefit of hiding in the 2014 stealth rules (absent special features allowing hiding in light obscurement).

It's possible that there is indeed text located elsewhere in the book that indicates that successfully hiding makes one unheard. Indeed, that was more-or-less the case with the 2014 rules, where the text defining being hidden as "unseen and unheard" was in the combat chapter. If so, that would...

It's reasonable in the abstract that someone hiding stops being hidden if they leave cover or concealment. But I'm not sure it's a reasonable interpretation of the new rules, since it makes the Hide action practically useless. Out-of-combat, a creature in 3/4 cover might (depending on how the...

First, by making Hiding dependent on the presence of absence of a condition, it is inherently binary. If you're going to houserule at your table that it's possible to both have the Invisible condition and not have the Invisible condition at the same time, great. But if you plan to make a change...

Thanks! I think this excerpt conclusively shows that the rules for taking the Hide action apply both in and out of combat. Thus the tensions with out-of-combat applications of the Hide action rules identified earlier in this thread remain pertinent. In particular, the question of whether or not...

There are still some issues with the requirements to try to hide, they just haven't been the focus of the conversation. In particular, the fact that hiding is now binary (one now has the Invisible condition or doesn't have the condition, rather than potentially being hidden from some people but...

I think you're overlooking that a substantial number of posters are trying to discuss the weird wording in particular. That's a worthwhile topic for discussion in brand new rules that are ostensibly an upgrade over the 2014 rules. And when discussing weird wording, evaluating edge cases...

Do we know if 5e 2024 still has generic rules for unseen attackers? Or has the invisible condition supplanted them?

Perhaps it was the best available option. But while I'm fine with the general rule of leaving it up to the DM, the sheer number of loose ends it left are frustrating to have to clean up for my own campaigns, and to have preemptively clarify with the DM prior to being a player. For an example...

I agree they were substantively better, but I think the 2014 Hiding rules were one of 5e's glaring weak points due to their ambiguity. My campaign documentation spends more time on clarifying/houseruling how I run the 2014 hiding rules than any other topic, by far.