Search results

I kept meaning to respond to this, and figured I better do so before the 4e discussion takes over the thread. I see the check as being more for the benefits of the Invisible condition than for literally being required to hide. At least as I would run it, if you're behind a cover, and a monster...

Sure, but there's a whole bunch of people who played 4e, and liked 4e, and who really have no interest in wading into yet another 4e discussion with people who didn't like it.

Well, a more vocal group.

I suspect that WotC would normally be very happy to have you flip through the book in the course of a deep dive. Which is why there were initially no restrictions. Unfortunately, there was a someone acting with either an abundance of bad faith, or the worst understanding of fair use, that ruined...

It wasn’t a VTT, but a suite of online tools very much in line with what D&D Beyond later successfully launched.

Because it doesn’t have to be sight. It might be that, or it might be one of various varieties of Blindsight, or abilities like Tremorsense. All that and Perception checks. “Find you” covers a wide variety of situations. I hardly think it is the fault of the designers for not writing, “You lose...

I’ve never seen end of session = long rest, but calling the session quits at a long rest because it’s a good stopping point I’ve seen a lot of, across 3 or 4 different groups.

RAW, a Perception check is a sufficient condition to find a Hiding character. No where is it stated to be a necessary condition. I mean this quite clear. It says, “On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of the check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you...

Rules as written is that the Invisible condition from the Hide Action ends when “an enemy finds you.” It is yours (and others’) interpretation that this requires a Perception check even when the Hiding character steps out in front of the guards. I’m not the one making assumptions about RAI here.

Just click on the quote you included on your post.

Please quote the rest of the sentence, so we can see just what a non-sequitur this response is.

The Hide action rule is written with the assumption that the hiding character will remain hidden, thus requiring a search check, not that they will say, “Yay, now by the rules my successful Hide action means I have magical invisibility!” and walk out in full view of the guards. Ditto the use of...

No where in the PHB, that is. Based on other things I’ve heard, like the list of possible skill DCs not being in the PHB, I’m assuming that all adjudication tools, such as passive checks, are going to be in the DMG.

Well, yes, that's the point of guards. The whole point of sneaking past a guard is staying out of their line of sight. There's a lot of room for DM adjudicating here, and there should be. Not least because each table is going to have different tolerances when it comes to stealth. One table...

I've come to the conclusion that I don't see any reason to have mechanics attached to species. Attach special abilities to heritages, separate species from that, and have species only govern your height and age. Human raised by dwarves? You get all their special abilities, including tremorsense...

What does the book say about the Stealth skill? In all the talk about the Stealth rules, that seems to be missing. It seems possible that the much debated Hide Action covers even non-combat stealth, but I'm still not sure if that is the case.

PC: So I'm completely behind the wall, total cover? DM: Yes. PC: And I'm not in anyone's line of sight? DM: Yes. PC: But I can see the dragon's toe. Can it see me? DM: No. PC: Okay, I Hide. DM: Roll. PC: Okay! Aw, crap. 14. DM: As you secure your position, you step on a twig, which...

Under the current rules, you're not always prone when you have the Prone condition.

It does not say you cannot be seen. The Invisible condition has three effects: 1) Advantage on initiative 2) Not affected by effects that require their target to be seen, unless you are seen 3) Advantage on attacks, Disadvantage to attacks against you, unless you are seen That's it. Nothing...

I’ll just repeat what I said when we had this same discussion last year. On the whole, I prefer natural language and dislike a preponderance of conditions, so I am not in favor of the rule as it’s currently written. BUT, it strikes me a wee bit disingenuous to take what are obviously game...