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.

[Kinematics]

Also: I think, IIRC, the "current version" of the Invisible condition for 5E2024 was originally called Hidden in the third UA Playtest.

Yep, it was in the Expert Classes playtest (not sure which number it counts as), and then changed in UA5.

In the EC playtest, the Hidden condition was basically identical to the current Invisible condition, except it also included the conditions for losing it that are now incorporated into the Hide action.

In the EC playtest, the Invisible condition was mostly identical to the current Invisible condition, except it explicitly said that you cannot be seen. It has an Unseeable clause instead of a Concealed clause.

UA5 changed it to almost the same as the PHB version, except it added details about how you might be seen:

If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.

Since that language was removed in the PHB (it was in the playtests all the way to UA8), it makes the "can somehow see you" condition more flexible, and less explicitly tied to particular features.

 

[Charlaquin]

Uh, should I post my voluminous rebuttal in its own thread, as well? Just asking.

Please do. The opening post is lengthy, but the interpretation it presents is flawed in a lot of ways, and I don’t think it should be left unchallenged.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also: I think, IIRC, the "current version" of the Invisible condition for 5E2024 was originally called Hidden in the third UA Playtest. I have to compare the two, but I think there would be less confusion about how to view the hiding rules and "Invisible" in this context if they just kept with calling it Hidden.

It was called invisible from UA6 on, and the current complaints about it were made then too, they just didn’t get as much attention because fewer people were as invested in discussing the UAs as are in discussing the finalized rules. It also seems to have flown under a number of people’s radars.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, the argument in the opening post mostly comes down to “you can’t just walk right in front of a creature after taking the hide action without being spotted because passive perception exists,” but that doesn’t actually fix the problem because a high enough roll on the stealth check can still exceed the passive perceptions of any enemies present. Consider a 1st level rogue with 16 dexterity and stealth expertise. A 15 is required for a successful stealth check, so at bare minimum monsters would need a passive perception of 15 to see the rogue (10 if the DM decides to arbitrarily give them advantage on the check, if they feel like making the rogue player feel cheated, I guess.) There’s also nothing in the RAW stopping the rogue from repeatedly taking the Hide action in a safe location until they roll a natural 20, which means it actually takes a 27 passive perception to find this rogue (or 22 with the arbitrary “screw-you” advantage.) And that’s at 1st level. It only gets more absurd from there.

Now, I do understand the complaint that, if a hidden character can’t remain hidden outside cover or obscuration, it’s impossible to sneak attack in melee or to move from one hiding spot to another in combat. This is why, in the 2014 rules, the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding and can rule that an enemy is sufficiently distracted not to notice a hidden character who isn’t obscured or behind cover. More importantly, if they wanted to provide a solution to this “problem” that wasn’t reliant on DM fiat, they could have done so without also enabling hidden characters to stand out in the open completely unseen for as long as they want with a high enough stealth check. They could easily have said in the rules for the hide action that ending your turn without sufficient cover or concealment to take the hide action ends the “invisible” condition. That alone would have fixed the problem.

Also, can we please stop saying that calling the condition “hidden” instead of “invisible” would have fixed the problem? Obviously I can’t speak for everyone who dislikes these stealth rules, but I know I’m far from the only one who has very clearly stated that the issue I take is with the mechanics of the condition and the features that grant it. If they made any of a number of changes I have suggested without changing the name of the condition, that would be perfectly fine. If they changed the name of the condition and left everything else the same, I would have exactly the same complaints about it that I do now. It’s frankly mildly offensive that defenders of the new stealth rules keep saying “this wouldn’t have even been a problem if they had just called the condition ‘unseen’ or something” because it shows that they’re not really listening to what critics of the stealth rules are actually saying. It’s one thing to disagree with our critiques; that’s fine and a normal part of these sorts of rules discussions. But to completely ignore our critiques and dismiss us as just not being able to look past the name of the condition is extremely rude. Please try to engage with our actual critiques instead of continuing to ignore them in favor of this extremely stupid strawman.

 

[FarBeyondC]

I just find it hilarious that:

1. If anyone hostile to you anywhere has you in their line of sight, you can't attempt to Hide from anyone.
2. If anyone hostile to you anywhere manages to find you, you lose the invisible condition against everyone.

 

[Seramus]

Please do. The opening post is lengthy, but the interpretation it presents is flawed in a lot of ways, and I don’t think it should be left unchallenged.

Agreed. A DM is probably going to have no problem making a ruling that will keep things flowing smoothly at their table. But there is value in sitting down and trying to hammer out what the rules actually say/mean, and the OP has made several "rulings" that are not necessarily supported or are leaps.

Was an enjoyable post, though! And it's nice to have someone post everything in the book about stealth and hiding (or at least a good faith effort).

 

[Nijay]

Chaosmancer posted this thief rogue ability, Supreme Sneak. If being in line of sight (without a high enough passive perception) was sufficient to reveal you, this ability wouldn't work.

 

[Soulknife_Infiltrator]

So, the argument in the opening post mostly comes down to “you can’t just walk right in front of a creature after taking the hide action without being spotted because passive perception exists,” but that doesn’t actually fix the problem because a high enough roll on the stealth check can still exceed the passive perceptions of any enemies present. Consider a 1st level rogue with 16 dexterity and stealth expertise. A 15 is required for a successful stealth check, so at bare minimum monsters would need a passive perception of 15 to see the rogue (10 if the DM decides to arbitrarily give them advantage on the check, if they feel like making the rogue player feel cheated, I guess.) There’s also nothing in the RAW stopping the rogue from repeatedly taking the Hide action in a safe location until they roll a natural 20, which means it actually takes a 27 passive perception to find this rogue (or 22 with the arbitrary “screw-you” disadvantage.) And that’s at 1st level. It only gets more absurd from there.

About this, my point is that if the character passsed both of the DC and beating every monster's Passive Perception with their PP potentially raise up 5, at lower levels or lower Stealth, but somehow luckily passed it, then just narrate it luckily, as it actually happened in the reality (since DM didn't consider players can't Hide). This is not impossible both in the narration or in reality. It could be the enemies were distracted by a bird or simply having a yawn. On the other hand, I always think 5e made it impossible which was more...too gamey?

 

[Soulknife_Infiltrator]

Chaosmancer posted this thief rogue ability, Supreme Sneak. If being in line of sight (without a high enough passive perception) was sufficient to reveal you, this ability wouldn't work.

Good one! I'll add it to my post.

 

[Charlaquin]

About this, my point is that if the character passsed both of the DC and beating every monster's Passive Perception with their PP potentially raise up 5, at lower levels or lower Stealth, but somehow luckily passed it, then just narrate it luckily, as it actually happened in the reality (since DM didn't consider players can't Hide). This is not impossible both in the narration or in reality. It could be the enemies were distracted by a bird or simply having a yawn.

No. Sorry, but I’m not going to do that. I don’t think that’s an acceptable narrative restriction to force on DMs. And any rule that allows a character to remain unseen while completely out in the open for an indefinite amount of time is, in my opinion, a terrible rule. I understand that since D&D doesn’t have rules for facing, there needs to be a way for characters to move from one hiding spot to another without being seen, or to remain hidden long enough to make a melee attack. But that can be done without also enabling characters to spend several turns, minutes, or even hours completely out in the open doing whatever they please short of attacking and still not be seen. Simply saying that you stop being hidden from a creature if you end your turn without cover or obscuration from that creature and both problems are solved.

On the other hand, I always think 5e made it impossible which was more...too gamey?

The pre-revision 5e did not always make it impossible. It was impossible by default, and the DM could rule that it was possible depending on circumstances, such as the target being distracted. That worked fine for me, but I understand it didn’t work for some folks, especially because some DMs would just never rule that it was possible. I understand the desire for a way to move between hiding places or run up and make a sneak attack without relying on DM fiat, and agree that would be a positive change. But you’re proposing the opposite: that it’s always possible to remain unseen without cover by default, and the DM must use fiat to ever rule that it isn’t, and that’s not any better. It is, in my opinion, far worse, because it requires the DM to make a ruling that is more restrictive than the default rather than less, which always carries the risk of being a controversial ruling. There needs to be a middle ground, and I think that being able to remain hidden as long as you end your turn with the criteria to hide met is a solution that would satisfy all parties.