D&D (2024) Current Stealth Rule Actually Works As Is. If Moving Out of Cover After Hiding Makes Enemies Immediately "Finds You", Hide Would Be Totally UNUSABLE.

The DM is already deciding when you make the stealth roll. Why is it so wrong for the DM to then decide 'if they can somehow see you'? 2014 said that they could automatically see you. 2024 says DM Decides if they can see you. A DM may decide that an alert guard staring down that corridor automatically sees someone who otherwise was invisible. But a guard distracted by polishing his weapon (not a euphemism) might need to rely on passive perception.
Then give me a rule that says I do that. Don't give me a rule that gives the two ways to do it and then make me fix your broken mess.
Yes, isn't this just the help action? If time isn't a factor it's not unrealistic for those trained to help others to hide better.
If it's a group thing, sure. In my experience 19 times out of 20 it's one party member scouting or in combat or robbing a place or...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Presumably the pc is aware of th conditions affecting himself? So should know if he has the invisible condition.
Invisibility is an illusion and if you know it's an illusion, you can see through it like it doesn't exist. They should have thought the invisibility condition and hiding allowing you to stand in front of someone's face unseen through a bit more. ;)

In practical terms of hiding, you generally don't know that you didn't get it exactly right and your butt is sticking out a bit too far.
 


Not by RAW though. I agree that’s how it should be. But it is not.
Well, not exactly true.

"Hiding
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, speak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action."

That rule allows you to determine the circumstances are only appropriate for the first attempt due to the PC not knowing how well he is hidden with the first roll. The second roll is a different set of circumstances.
 

Well, not exactly true.

"Hiding
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, speak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action."
There’s a bit of a contradiction there. The hide action specifies the circumstances required to take it. So if the dm is being told to ignore the hide action specifications and make up his own that would be a contradiction in the rules.
That rule allows you to determine the circumstances are only appropriate for the first attempt due to the PC not knowing how well he is hidden with the first roll.
Not following this part at all.
The second roll is a different set of circumstances.
Or this.
 

There’s a bit of a contradiction there. The hide action specifies the circumstances required to take it. So if the dm is being told to ignore the hide action specifications and make up his own that would be a contradiction in the rules.
Being hidden already adds a new circumstance which alters the first set. The first time you weren't hidden. The second set of circumstances now needs to be ruled on by the DM. Nothing is in contradiction.

What the DM takes into account on when making the determination on whether or not to allow hiding is primarily the narrative, not rules. In the narrative is there a spot that allows you to hide. In the narrative are the circumstances such that you could hide.

A second set of conditions that involves the PC already being hidden and only knowing that he is hidden, is enough to decline the second attempt to hide. The new set of narrative circumstances doesn't allow it according to the DM ruling.
 

With the caveat that I may change my mind after I get both the PHB and DMG in my hands, my sense now is that the rules for Hiding and the Invisible condition work quite well without errata or house rules, thanks in large part to the thoughts in this thread of @Kinematics @Maxperson and @Soulknife_Infiltrator.

The only question I have in my own mind is how I would rule on someone coming out of cover in Bright Light as to whether they would automatically be found (ie no uncertainty) or if I would instead give all enemies (or PCs if the circumstances were reversed) advantage (and thus a +5 to their passive perception) to find someone coming out of cover or a heavily obscured area.

I'm leaning towards the latter, as I think it's fine that a rouge who got a 21 Stealth check could slip by a typical guard (15 passive upped to 20 due to advantage) in bright light (waiting for them to turn their head before sneaking by) or sneak up behind an enemy in battle to melee attack them. In Dim Light coming out of cover would be against the regular passive perception roll, and I'd probably give disadvantage to the enemy if they were in Darkness (making it consistant with the advantage for Bright Light).
 

I let players try to hide whenever they want. How good is their hiding spot/strategy gives them bonus/penalties in the stealth roll (only I know the adjusted stealth result). If the strategy is absurd, like trying to hide in plain sight, others will auto-succeed their Perception against them. But I don't tell them the final result of the hiding test.
A player trying to hide can't automatically know if they failed until someone sees him and do something that gives him this info, like attacking him. It is meta gaming. You can't always tell a creature saw you just looking at it, the creature can deceive, or be blind, or whatever. This rule removes a lot of possibilities.
Furthermore, if a player can't hide when an enemy has line of sight to him, this rule can be used by players to detect the presence of enemies. Just try to hide and if you failed then there's an enemy somewhere who has line of sight to you.
The mechanical issue with this, is that makes it impossible to use features designed to help with skill checks on stealth. You can't activate an ability that states "when you fail a check" if you never let the players know whether or not they failed.

You ca be fine with that, but the designers wanted to give players the ability to use psionic knack, bardic inspiration, tactical mind, ect on these checks. Hence the DC 15 standard.
 

  • Barbarian uses Primal Knowledge to use Strength for stealth check to Hide.
  • Barbarian rips tree out of the ground to carry with him so he'll always have cover.
  • Guards carefully edge around the tree in the middle of the castle hallway. "Nope, didn't see anything."
 

The mechanical issue with this, is that makes it impossible to use features designed to help with skill checks on stealth. You can't activate an ability that states "when you fail a check" if you never let the players know whether or not they failed.
You are correct. You pointed what I consider one more problem. In this case what I do is not letting players use these abilities, because they could be used for metagaming to know success/failure when they couldn't figure it out by themselves.
Besides 5e rulling, technically you never fail a stealth test, because it is not binary, it is just a measurement of how good you were in your attempt to hide. Even if you take it as a binary, you should consider that in a stealth check you may succed regarding to the guard in the corner but fail regarding to the orc right beside you.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top