Hiding and Blindness (updated)

[clearstream]

Possible second pass -

Hiding and Blindness

Unseen but not Unheard
Being unseen has offensive and defensive benefits, giving advantage against targets that can’t see you and imposing disadvantage on attackers that can’t see you. When you can’t see your target, you still know its location from the noise it makes, allowing you to target it with ranged and melee attacks. You stop being unseen if you show yourself, such as to aim a ranged attack at a target, unless you are concealed by magic or that target is distracted.

Unseen and Unheard: Hiding
Being hidden has a defensive benefit, forcing attackers to choose the square they think you are in when they attack you: automatically missing if incorrect. You become hidden, i.e. unseen and unheard, by taking the Hide action: you can try to hide if you are—
• Heavily obscured by such things as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage;
• Concealed by an object that blocks vision entirely such as a creature two sizes larger than you;
• Unobserved such as when a creature is distracted;
• Unseen such as through an invisibility spell or a class ability.
You stop being hidden when you are in a creature’s field of vision under circumstances that would prevent you attempting to hide from it, or make sounds that it can hear, or attack it.

Blinded
Attackers have advantage on their attack rolls against blinded creatures that they can see. Each foot of movement while blinded costs 1 extra foot of speed. To Dash you must make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (DC 12) or fall prone, unless you are in contact with a sighted guide.

These are intended to supplement, not overwrite, existing RAW. I've cut elements that seem confusing or contentious. Under these terms, while a halfling could hide when they duck behind a larger creature, they can't benefit much from it unless the creature is large enough that the square they are in could be in doubt. In particular, they would need to show themselves to make an attack... even a ranged attack.

EDIT - prevaricating on blind creatures attacking blind creatures, I think it is worth keeping my proposal. Otherwise, fighting in dense fog feels exactly the same as fighting in clear daylight... which doesn't sell the narrative. Having that mechanical difference provides a simple tool for a DM to use to vary the feel of different encounters, and how they play out.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Looking over comments, which have been helpful! I think its worth restating what the mechanical consequences of vision and hidden circumstances are:

Unseen
This is offensive and defensive. You gain advantage on attacks against creatures who can't see you, and they have disadvantage on their attacks against you. They know your location, so they can target you with melee and ranged attacks, but they can't target you with spells that require that the caster can see the target. Per RAW, making an attack gives away your position but does not automatically make you seen, e.g. if you are outside a creature's Darkvision range you can stay unseen.

The bolded above belongs to Hidden, not Unseen. If you are Unseen but not Hidden then there is never a position to give away -- it's already known. It's only if you make an attack while Hidden that you give away your position and lose Hidden.

Hidden
Hidden does nothing offensively, it is purely defensive. Attackers have to guess your square. If they choose wrong, their attack misses regardless of what they roll. You can only become hidden by taking the Hide action. Per RAW, you can do that even if hostile creatures know your location... just so long as they cannot see you, e.g. invisible creatures are "always" allowed to try to hide.

If you are Hidden, you gain Unseen as above, so there is most definitely an offensive angle to being Hidden. The most common use of Hidden is to gain Unseen in situations where you would not ordinarily have it.

Secondly, the bolded is wrong. Take the example of invisible creatures -- they are Unseen, but you know their location, yet they can try to hide. Unless the creature you are hiding from is unaware of your existence before you Hide, then they will always know your location when you try to Hide.

Personally, I don't turn Hidden into a case where the opponent cannot know anything about where the creature is. Take this example: I see you clearly in my living room, and then you hide behind my couch where I cannot see you. I still can reason where you are, but you are still hiding. This is important because if you were a magician (stage, not spells) who had replaced my couch with a prop and ducked behind it to activate a secret internal compartment I did not know about, then my not seeing you after you duck behind the couch means that you can truly 'disappear' for when I round the couch to find you. In other words, the Hidden condition just allows new options to the Hider, it doesn't mean the watcher has lost all reasoning and cannot reason where you may be. It creates opportunity, just like when my friend who I saw duck behind the couch can still surprise me by popping up with their Nerf gun and firing before I can react -- even though I knew he we behind the couch.

Blinded
Blinded only has consequences for targeting some spells or similar effects, attacks, and ability checks reliant on sight. Per RAW, it has no consequences on movement.

Eh... while it's true Blinded doesn't have specific mechanical consequences, it does feed into the normal play loop: DM describes scene; player describes actions; DM determines if action is uncertain and, if so, resolves it with a check; DM describes outcomes, repeat. In the case of blindness, you telling me your character runs down the uneven cave passage in good light doesn't seem uncertain, so I narrate that it happens. If you're blind, that same action seems pretty uncertain to me, so I'll call for either a WIS or DEX check depending on how you describe your approach, and set the DC based on approach and goal as well (usually between 10 and 20, though and rarely 20).

In other words, the normal play loop already addresses issues like blindness. If you want to codify them more tightly for your table, absolutely welcome to -- whatever works for you and your group is great.

 

[clearstream]

If you are Hidden, you gain Unseen as above, so there is most definitely an offensive angle to being Hidden. The most common use of Hidden is to gain Unseen in situations where you would not ordinarily have it.

Given you need to be unseen to take a Hide action, I think this ends up being incorrect. What happens is that you are unseen (but your location is knowable) and then you can make a check to become hidden (your location becomes unknown).

Secondly, the bolded is wrong. Take the example of invisible creatures -- they are Unseen, but you know their location, yet they can try to hide. Unless the creature you are hiding from is unaware of your existence before you Hide, then they will always know your location when you try to Hide.

Indeed, the RAW on invisibility acts to demonstrate the veracity of the above. You are unseen - that alone is sufficient to try and hide. If you hide, your position becomes unknown.

Personally, I don't turn Hidden into a case where the opponent cannot know anything about where the creature is. Take this example: I see you clearly in my living room, and then you hide behind my couch where I cannot see you. I still can reason where you are, but you are still hiding. This is important because if you were a magician (stage, not spells) who had replaced my couch with a prop and ducked behind it to activate a secret internal compartment I did not know about, then my not seeing you after you duck behind the couch means that you can truly 'disappear' for when I round the couch to find you. In other words, the Hidden condition just allows new options to the Hider, it doesn't mean the watcher has lost all reasoning and cannot reason where you may be. It creates opportunity, just like when my friend who I saw duck behind the couch can still surprise me by popping up with their Nerf gun and firing before I can react -- even though I knew he we behind the couch.

Indeed, and if you are not unseen, or become not unseen such as when you pop up to fire from a direction a foe is conscious of, you can't get advantage when you make your attack. At least, not from being unseen. That is because while being unseen is a mechanical prereq. for hiding, being hidden doesn't make you unseen. Crawford suggests that firing a ranged weapon might be done while maintaining unseen... possibly supposing that you can pop-up to fire at a moment when you are not observed.

Eh... while it's true Blinded doesn't have specific mechanical consequences, it does feed into the normal play loop: DM describes scene; player describes actions; DM determines if action is uncertain and, if so, resolves it with a check; DM describes outcomes, repeat. In the case of blindness, you telling me your character runs down the uneven cave passage in good light doesn't seem uncertain, so I narrate that it happens. If you're blind, that same action seems pretty uncertain to me, so I'll call for either a WIS or DEX check depending on how you describe your approach, and set the DC based on approach and goal as well (usually between 10 and 20, though and rarely 20).

In other words, the normal play loop already addresses issues like blindness. If you want to codify them more tightly for your table, absolutely welcome to -- whatever works for you and your group is great.

Sure, each DM should do what they want. However, we can as a community work out effective methods that are fair, robust in a wide variety of situations, and produce a reasonable narrative. And then we can share them!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Given you need to be unseen to take a Hide action, I think this ends up being incorrect. What happens is that you are unseen (but your location is knowable) and then you can make a check to become hidden (your location becomes unknown).

No.  Hide doesn't require Unseen by RAW, it requires "not seen clearly." Further, Lightfoit halfling hide diesn't require unseen, nor dies ranger hide in plain sight.  I'll grant many (most) hides are while already unseen, but it's not a requirement.

Indeed, the RAW on invisibility acts to demonstrate the veracity of the above. You are unseen - that alone is sufficient to try and hide. If you hide, your position becomes unknown.

You're arguing from the specific to the general.  Also, yrivially countered by Lightfoot halfling hide trait.

Indeed, and if you are not unseen, or become not unseen such as when you pop up to fire from a direction a foe is conscious of, you can't get advantage when you make your attack. At least, not from being unseen. That is because while being unseen is a mechanical prereq. for hiding, being hidden doesn't make you unseen. Crawford suggests that firing a ranged weapon might be done while maintaining unseen... possibly supposing that you can pop-up to fire at a moment when you are not observed.

Again, unseen is not a requirement.  Hidden grants unseen if not already in place.  A Ranger using hide in plain sight can make a weapon attack while hidden and get unseen even if normal conditions for unseen do not prevail.  Skulker can hide and attack from hidden while unseen with dim lighting being the only condition.  This is avoiding a discussion about normally attacking while hidden as tgat's ruling prone (and it appears we'd disagree anyway).

Sure, each DM should do what they want. However, we can as a community work out effective methods that are fair, robust in a wide variety of situations, and produce a reasonable narrative. And then we can share them!

As a member of this community, I've pointed out where the rules of the  game already cover blindness adequetely.   You're free to want more if tgat doesn't suffice, but you seemed unaware you already had that alternative by focusing on how blindness doesn't explicitly provide you specifics.  I offered an alternative and recognozed you might still want more.

Now that we're done being pedantic and patronizing, what's your issue with addressing blindness within the normal play loop?

 

[clearstream]

No.  Hide doesn't require Unseen by RAW, it requires "not seen clearly." Further, Lightfoit halfling hide diesn't require unseen, nor dies ranger hide in plain sight.  I'll grant many (most) hides are while already unseen, but it's not a requirement.

I'm sorry if I came across as facetious. Seriously, I think there are two important things to keep in mind here. One is specific trumps general: a class could have a feature that said "You can try to hide whenever you feel like it" and that would trump any general rule about that. In the case of the halfling though, you must be "obscured" which seems to reference heavily obscured: it seems to say - being small and quick, a halfling can become unseen by ducking behind a larger creature. Rather than saying - a halfling can hide even when it is in plain sight. Ranger "Hide in Plain Sight" is a misnomer, when you consider the terms of the feature. They have to spend 1 minute camouflaging themselves, then they can try and hide only if there is a surface to press themselves against. It seems to say - a ranger can make themselves unseen by using camouflage. Again, it doesn't seem to say that a ranger in unmitigated plain sight can hide, notwithstanding the misleading title.

You're arguing from the specific to the general.  Also, yrivially countered by Lightfoot halfling hide trait.

All I'm saying here is that the strong wording for invisibility - "always" - and its inclusion as a concrete example in the call-out text on hiding, makes it plausibly considered a strong hint about what is expected to happen.

Hidden grants unseen if not already in place.

I think we do disagree about this, because I can't find anywhere in RAW where being hidden produces being unseen. Only the converse, where being obscured allows becoming hidden. And where being hidden ends as soon as not obscured, if anyone looks your way (5e D&D doesn't use facings so this is a matter of being otherwise distracted per the text).

what's your issue with addressing blindness within the normal play loop?

From experience, I believe the rules have two key shortfalls for play at the table, that can be helped by working out and playtesting some house rules. One is that a DM can't use dense fog or whatever to create a fight that feels different from fighting in broad daylight (because of advantage and disadvantage cancelling). Another is that running blindly is exactly the same under RAW's mechanics as having full sight. A third is that although the reasoning for unseen and hiding are stitched through the system and emerge in several places, they're not spelled out crisply so that players can feel certain what to expect.

In each case, a DM can certainly make stuff up. Absolutely, the goal shouldn't be to make rules for every little detail. Yet darkness, fog, vision and hiding are common parts of the narrative that players ask to leverage. So this isn't a case of the flight speed of a swallow, European or African, loaded or unloaded. It's something I find my players are always looking to me for clear guidance on, and anecdotally read other people in the community with similar concerns.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm sorry if I came across as facetious. Seriously, I think there are two important things to keep in mind here. One is specific trumps general: a class could have a feature that said "You can try to hide whenever you feel like it" and that would trump any general rule about that. In the case of the halfling though, you must be "obscured" which seems to reference heavily obscured: it seems to say - being small and quick, a halfling can become unseen by ducking behind a larger creature. Rather than saying - a halfling can hide even when it is in plain sight. Ranger "Hide in Plain Sight" is a misnomer, when you consider the terms of the feature. They have to spend 1 minute camouflaging themselves, then they can try and hide only if there is a surface to press themselves against. It seems to say - a ranger can make themselves unseen by using camouflage. Again, it doesn't seem to say that a ranger in unmitigated plain sight can hide, notwithstanding the misleading title.

Obscured does not reference heavily obscured. It's quite clear 'even obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you." If this causes heavy obscurement, I 1) can't find that anywhere in the rules and 2) have been doing it wrong by not having things be heavily obscured by merely being behind a larger creature.

Regardless, the rules of the game state that, in order to hide, you must be "not clearly seen." This is not the same as Unseen.

All I'm saying here is that the strong wording for invisibility - "always" - and its inclusion as a concrete example in the call-out text on hiding, makes it plausibly considered a strong hint about what is expected to happen.

Right after you said that specific trumps general you're here saying that the specific rule for invisibility is a general rule? The strong hint here is that you need be 'not seen clearly' to hide, not that you must be unseen to be able to hide.

I think we do disagree about this, because I can't find anywhere in RAW where being hidden produces being unseen. Only the converse, where being obscured allows becoming hidden. And where being hidden ends as soon as not obscured, if anyone looks your way (5e D&D doesn't use facings so this is a matter of being otherwise distracted per the text).

Basic rules, under "Hide":

"When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this section."

Unseen Attackers has the following:

"Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

Emphasis is mine.

From experience, I believe the rules have two key shortfalls for play at the table, that can be helped by working out and playtesting some house rules. One is that a DM can't use dense fog or whatever to create a fight that feels different from fighting in broad daylight (because of advantage and disadvantage cancelling). Another is that running blindly is exactly the same under RAW's mechanics as having full sight. A third is that although the reasoning for unseen and hiding are stitched through the system and emerge in several places, they're not spelled out crisply so that players can feel certain what to expect.

Well, I can agree on the fog thing due to the cancelling of advantage and disadvantage, but, again, the basic play loop adds lots of opportunity for uncertainty. Further, spells are really hard hit by not being able to see the target, even if there's no disadvantage.

However, I can see adding 'that you can see' to the text above such that it reads:
"When a creature that you can see can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.".

In each case, a DM can certainly make stuff up. Absolutely, the goal shouldn't be to make rules for every little detail. Yet darkness, fog, vision and hiding are common parts of the narrative that players ask to leverage. So this isn't a case of the flight speed of a swallow, European or African, loaded or unloaded. It's something I find my players are always looking to me for clear guidance on, and anecdotally read other people in the community with similar concerns.

Again, I find following the play loop in 5e handles this well. If players are describing their actions according to the scene framing I provided, with a clear goal and approach, it makes it easy to determine if the approach is automatic success, automatic failure, or uncertain. If uncertain, use an ability check (or other, if appropriate) to resolve the uncertainty. Then narrate the results. I dislike your hard ruling about movement speeds because it doesn't take into account a good approach -- it limits possibilities. Normally, if a player announces their PC is moving across a room while blind and doesn't have an approach to take their time and feel the way, I have no problem determining that's an automatic failure due to impact with furnishings and calling for a DEX check to remain standing. That's what happens normally. But, if they describe an approach that says they're slowly moving and feeling ahead with a weapon, then they make it across the room at a slow speed without a check. If they want to move quickly but are feeling ahead, I'm uncertain and will call for a WIS check (the approach involves detecting obstacles through probing) DC 15 for success, failure means they get tripped up (go prone, can continue moving).

But, the best part of the above is if it's the PC's house and they've made it a thing where they practice moving through it in the dark. Then it's not check, high speed, no chance of failure. Your rule doesn't allow for this kind of accommodation, it locks in environmental effects and it less prone to adjudication due to good approach.

Now, all that said, I recognize that people play different ways, so if the play cycle doesn't suit you because you prefer a different play method, cool, the more the merrier.

 

[clearstream]

Regardless, the rules of the game state that, in order to hide, you must be "not clearly seen." This is not the same as Unseen.

I think you'll probably agree that being unseen gives you advantage on attack rolls against creatures that can't see you. And that being hidden adds nothing to that, offensively. Possibly you'll also agree that being hidden is not only being unseen, it is being both unseen and unheard.

"What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured" / "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." So one reason I can try to hide is that vision of me is blocked entirely, right? We agree characters can usually try to hide when unseen.

"In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight." / Skulker Feat "You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding". For that text in the Skulker to have meaning, it seems plausible to suppose that the baseline is that creatures can't try to hide when they are (only) lightly obscured. Wood Elf has similar text, seeming to require in addition some natural element such as "falling snow".

Thus I believe that for characters who are not wood elves, lightfoot halflings, rangers or skulkers, it ends up being necessary to be unseen to try to hide. Because if it does not, wood elves and skulkers have elements with meaningless text, and I follow a principle that readings of a ruleset that let all text have meaning should be preferred over others that do not.

Can you suggest a reading that allows that element of Skulker to matter, while at the same time not amounting to saying that without Skulker (or a similar trait, such as Mask of the Wild) one must be unseen to attempt to hide?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you'll probably agree that being unseen gives you advantage on attack rolls against creatures that can't see you.

As I quoted the rules text to that effect above, yes, you can think that.

And that being hidden adds nothing to that, offensively. Possibly you'll also agree that being hidden is not only being unseen, it is being both unseen and unheard.

Circular, as you're assuming that you already have Unseen to have Hidden, which is opposite to the case I'm making -- becoming Hidden grants Unseen if not already had. In which case, Hidden does add to the case as it grants the benefit of being Unseen. You may have forgotten my argument, but I have not.

"What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured" / "A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." So one reason I can try to hide is that vision of me is blocked entirely, right? We agree characters can usually try to hide when unseen.

Yes.

"In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight." / Skulker Feat "You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding". For that text in the Skulker to have meaning, it seems plausible to suppose that the baseline is that creatures can't try to hide when they are (only) lightly obscured. Wood Elf has similar text, seeming to require in addition some natural element such as "falling snow".

No. In this case, it's a judgement call by the DM as to whether or not a creature is "clearly seen". I, personally, do not usually allow lightly obscured by itself to be sufficient, but a good approach to an action declaration could move it to uncertain for me. It would have to be good, though.

Thus I believe that for characters who are not wood elves, lightfoot halflings, rangers or skulkers, it ends up being necessary to be unseen to try to hide. Because if it does not, wood elves and skulkers have elements with meaningless text, and I follow a principle that readings of a ruleset that let all text have meaning should be preferred over others that do not.

Circular again. You've stated a case where being fully obscured is normally sufficient to hide, and a case where being lightly obscured is usually insufficient to hide, but this doesn't mean that unseen is required to hide. Unseen is sufficient but not necessary by your arguments. You have not made a case where it's never normally permissible to try to hide absent being unseen.

A case mentioned in the basic rules where it's permissible to allow a hiding character to approach a distracted foe in the open. This isn't mechanically unseen, but situationally based on a DM call.

The rules clearly state "not clearly seen." You're trying to take this clear RAW statement and turn it into meaning "must be unseen." You can make this a ruling for your game, but it's not RAW. I'm 100% fine with you making is a ruling in your game -- plenty of others have done so -- but, again, it's very much not what the rules actually say.

Can you suggest a reading that allows that element of Skulker to matter, while at the same time not amounting to saying that without Skulker (or a similar trait, such as Mask of the Wild) one must be unseen to attempt to hide?

Absolutely. skulker can ALWAYS try to hide in light obscurement. Someone else may only be allow to hide in light obscurement due to specific actions or circumstances, like dressing in flowing, dull white robes to take advantage of a fog cloud spell. That someone would not be able to hide in dim light but may be able to hide in a fog cloud due to the specific preparations and actions taken to do so. The skulker could try in both with no special preparations.

Light obscurement and hiding is "usually no, but maybe" for everyone else. For the skulker, it's just "yes." Skulker is really a very under-appreciated feat. It's very strong for rogues.

 

[clearstream]

You have not made a case where it's never normally permissible to try to hide absent being unseen.

I'm not trying to make a case for "never". Such cases are not pragmatic for human-moderated RPG. What my house rule is intended to lay out is what is "usually sufficient". Players can rely upon their character's ability to do or not do it, simpliciter.

You've stated a case where being fully obscured is normally sufficient to hide, and a case where being lightly obscured is usually insufficient to hide, but this doesn't mean that unseen is required to hide. Unseen is sufficient but not necessary by your arguments.

Exactly! So my house rule is intended to tell players what they can always rely on. It should be rare - maybe never in our experience - that being unseen is not sufficient to hide.

The rules clearly state "not clearly seen." You're trying to take this clear RAW statement and turn it into meaning "must be unseen." ...it's very much not what the rules actually say.

I certainly agree that sometimes a character can hide when "not clearly seen" - sustaining the literal truthiness of that statement. Examples include the racial traits "Naturally Stealthy" and "Mask of the Wild", the class feature "Hide in Plain Sight", and the feat "Skulker". For characters that don't have those traits, they should know that they usually cannot try to hide if they are seen to any extent.

Our positions could be nearer than our debate belies. Say I am playing a character with Skulker and am in a dimly-lit environment. I can expect that usually I can take a Hide action, while Billy, not having Skulker or anything like it, cannot. Having taken that action, I am now unseen so far as creatures whose passive Wisdom (perception) is lower than my Dexterity (stealth) check result. A case where hiding indeed bestows unseen on a character. For me this sort of case falls under "exception-not-the-rule". If my permit to hide is that creatures around me are distracted... then as soon as they look my way I am not unseen. In such a case, I was unseen not because of what I did, but because of what they did. Hiding did not then bestow unseen.

I want to make sense of this for my players. I want them to understand that if they start out unseen, they can hide. If they have something - a feat, a spell, whatever - that forms an exception: great! They can't rely on being hidden making them unseen: the two are not invariably connected.

 

[Hriston]

Basically what I was going to say.


Technically, both the PC and the creature being attacked are blinded so the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out.

Right, that's why the disadvantage isn't "suffered". It has no effect due to being negated by advantage.

Hazards should definitely include children's toys left out even though you told them a hundred times to put them away or that d4 that you lost last game and could never find. And cats that will wake up the entire house when you step on them because they insist on sleeping in the middle of the walkway instead of their bed that your wife convinced you to buy that they never use.

Kidding aside, adventurers generally wear boots (even halflings, if you read Tolkien's letters), and peripheral vision is great for getting around in the dark at night. I don't think any of those things would slow down the average party.