D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Kinematics]

So, going back to the guard at the gate scenario: If you walk up to him while having the Invisible condition, you are still physically visible, which means he can "somehow see you". That means you do not get the benefits on attack rolls or being targeted by spells, though you retain the advantage on initiative.

And what if you're under the effects of the invisibility spell?

Honestly, that depends on how the Invisibility spell causes its effect, though in most interpretations the guard won't see you. That could be because you are physically invisible (invisible man style), or because it creates a "do not notice" field that makes it impossible for someone else to register your presence, or it creates a miniature portal between the two of you so that he sees what's on the other side of you instead of your physical self.

Regardless, he is not able to "somehow see you", so those elements of the Invisible condition still apply.

Of relevance is that the Invisibility does not specify how it grants the Invisibility condition. We only know that there are not circumstantial conditions that must be met before you gain the condition (other than casting the spell itself), and that you only lose the condition based on your own actions, not others'. It doesn't have to be physical invisibility, though most tables will probably play it that way. But it doesn't have to not be physical invisibility either just because Hiding isn't physical invisibility.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Honestly, that depends on how the Invisibility spell causes its effect, though in most interpretations the guard won't see you. That could be because you are physically invisible (invisible man style), or because it creates a "do not notice" field that makes it impossible for someone else to register your presence, or it creates a miniature portal between the two of you so that he sees what's on the other side of you instead of your physical self.

What is the rule basis for this difference? It grants the exacts same condition than hiding.

Regardless, he is not able to "somehow see you", so those elements of the Invisible condition still apply.

Why? Why in this case he is not somehow able to see you, but in the case of walking in plain sight from hiding he is? What is the rule basis for this?

Of relevance is that the Invisibility does not specify how it grants the Invisibility condition. We only know that there are not circumstantial conditions that must be met before you gain the condition (other than casting the spell itself), and that you only lose the condition based on your own actions, not others'. It doesn't have to be physical invisibility, though most tables will probably play it that way. But it doesn't have to not be physical invisibility either just because Hiding isn't physical invisibility.

Invisibility gained by hiding specified conditions needed to gain it, and conditions for losing it. Walking in the wield of vision of a person is not among the conditions that cause you to lose it.

 

[pemerton]

Invisibility gained by hiding specified conditions needed to gain it, and conditions for losing it. Walking in the wield of vision of a person is not among the conditions that cause you to lose it.

Doesn't that depend on what finding means?

In the 4e rules that I quoted upthread, it is clearly state that the invisibility gained from successfully hiding is lost if the character doesn't have cover or concealment. The 4e rules also state that invisibility grants total concealment. So there is (for some sense of "is") an argument (for some sense of "argument") that, as per the 4e rules, the invisibility that results from successfully hiding itself grants the concealment sufficient to retain the benefit of being invisible.

But I never saw that argument actually advanced. It was always taken as obvious that it has to be some sort of "external" cover/concealment.

Whereas, and conversely, I always saw it as taken for granted that the Invisibility spell does confer total concealment, without the need for any other source of concealment or cover, until it comes to an end.

The logic of these new 5e rules seems the same to me. The only issue with the hiding rules is, when is the GM supposed to determine that someone has found the hiding person? Presumably this is a function of the vision and perception rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Doesn't that depend on what finding means?

Yes. And apparently it means taking a successful search action.

In the 4e rules that I quoted upthread, it is clearly state that the invisibility gained from successfully hiding is lost if the character doesn't have cover or concealment. The 4e rules also state that invisibility grants total concealment. So there is (for some sense of "is") an argument (for some sense of "argument") that, as per the 4e rules, the invisibility that results from successfully hiding itself grants the concealment sufficient to retain the benefit of being invisible.

But I never saw that argument actually advanced. It was always taken as obvious that it has to be some sort of "external" cover/concealment.

Whereas, and conversely, I always saw it as taken for granted that the Invisibility spell does confer total concealment, without the need for any other source of concealment or cover, until it comes to an end.

The logic of these new 5e rules seems the same to me. The only issue with the hiding rules is, when is the GM supposed to determine that someone has found the hiding person? Presumably this is a function of the vision and perception rules.

I am not particularly interested in relitigating 4e rules that I no longer remember, if I ever did.

 

[pemerton]

Yes. And apparently it means taking a successful search action.

I thought it had been established that that is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition of finding someone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I thought it had been established that that is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition of finding someone.

I don't recall. If you have a rule citation I'd like to see it.

 

[pemerton]

I don't recall. If you have a rule citation I'd like to see it.

It was in a post somewhere upthread. Maybe more than one, but here's one of them:

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 with a Wisdom (Perception) check.” This section is not describing the only way you can be found. It’s merely saying the total of your Dexterity (Stealth) check is the DC for a Perception check to do so.

It then goes into how the Invisible condition ends in an entirely new paragraph: "The condition ends on you immediately if any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."

There is no reason to read "an enemy finds you" as referring exclusively to a Perception check, just because the words "find you" appear in both sentences. "Find you" is not a special term of use that will be in the Rules glossary. There will be many ways for an enemy to find you: Tremorsense, Blindsight, removal of concealment, divination spells and magic items. And popping out in front of them without even bothering to hide anymore.

 

[Kinematics]

Going further on the "somehow be seen" and "find" rabbit trails.

A pair of burglars — a man and a woman — break into a rich manor and escape with some jewels, but unfortunately not without setting off the alarm. Security is chasing after them, though they haven't seen the actual burglars yet.

The burglars run, round a corner in a park, and are desperately trying to find a way to hide. A little scenario seen in fiction pops into one of their heads, and they start making out on a bench, pretending to be a couple on a date.

Security rounds the corner looking for the burglars, but only see a couple making out on a park bench. Their Search (Perception) check fails to beat the burglars' Hide (Stealth) check, so the guards fail to "find" them (even though they can clearly "see" them), and continue running down the road.

Their Hide attempt gave them the Invisible status. They could still be physically seen, and thus did not gain any of the benefits that don't work if you can "somehow be seen", but since the guards didn't succeed on the Perception check, they were not "found". They could be physically seen, but were not "seen" as the people the guards were looking for.

-

I also want to consider the Search action vs passive perception. Going back to the combat scenario, when can an enemy "find" you? What happens when you break cover after Hiding?

If the enemy must Search, then obviously that can only be an option on the enemy's turn, and you therefore cannot be found during movement on your turn, only when the enemy takes its turn. This leads to the idea that ending your turn in cover preserves your hidden status, even if you broke cover during your turn.

But what about passive perception? Well, we don't have the new rules on that, so I have to speculate a bit here. We basically have two scenarios:

1. "Finding" someone must be done on your turn, regardless, so even if you use passive perception, the rogue won't be found by breaking cover and then finding cover.
2. Passive perception can function off-turn, as general awareness of what's going on around you.

In either case, you have to consider whether passive perception is sufficient for finding someone who used Hide. We know the DC is based on the Stealth check, and we know that that check had to be at least 15. At low levels most creatures are not going to beat that.

But that brings back the issue of, if you Hide, and none of the creatures around you have a passive perception high enough to beat your Stealth check, and they do not actively Search for you, does that mean you can just walk around the battlefield without a care? That seems counterintuitive for most common scenarios.

I would argue that in this scenario, the enemy creatures' passive perception is not for finding "you" in particular, but for recognizing "an enemy" in the combat space. Are you still wearing armor? Still have a weapon readied? Clearly visible? I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that as an enemy.

At the very least I would give advantage on their passive perception (+5 to the score) if you were not making any effort to hide your status as an enemy. Even the most basic low-level enemies should be breaking a 15 for spotting you then. Might even just make it automatic pass in that scenario. (Now if you shucked your armor and hid your weapons, it might be a different matter. Consider a thief showing up as a bystander near a fight he had previously been a part of.)

That still doesn't address whether it happens off-turn (when the Invisible person moves out of cover), or on the creature's turn. And after some thought, I don't think that's possible to judge without the DMG rules.

Until we get those rules, though, I'd personally consider it something that happens on the creature's turn, and thus breaking cover does not invalidate being Invisible as long as you return to cover by the end of your turn. I could easily see someone running it as happening off-turn, though, and I don't think either option is really "wrong".

-

But... That bit about being found as an enemy does bring up another idea. What happens if the druid hides, then Wild Shapes into a squirrel, and just sits up in a tree before following the goblins back to their camp when they retreat?

The druid is no longer clearly identifiable as an enemy, so would remain Invisible to the goblins for however long the scouting took, even if the squirrel is still physically visible. Again, seen, but not found. In fact, even harder to find because of the druid's new form.

This in turn leads to an obvious connection to the disguise skill. I touched on it a bit in earlier posts, but using a disguise seems like an obvious way to build in better results on the Hide check. As long as you're not trying to impersonate someone in particular, everything about the Invisible condition would seem to still apply just as well.

Disguise, Performance Deception (the burglar's makeout session), Stealth, Invisibility — they all lead to this condition that seems to encompass them in a broadly similar way. Don't notice me, don't recognize me, don't see me, don't find me. The methodology is different for all of them, but the end result can all be wrapped up in this one common mechanic, and thus one condition — Invisible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Going further on the "somehow be seen" and "find" rabbit trails.

A pair of burglars — a man and a woman — break into a rich manor and escape with some jewels, but unfortunately not without setting off the alarm. Security is chasing after them, though they haven't seen the actual burglars yet.

The burglars run, round a corner in a park, and are desperately trying to find a way to hide. A little scenario seen in fiction pops into one of their heads, and they start making out on a bench, pretending to be a couple on a date.

Security rounds the corner looking for the burglars, but only see a couple making out on a park bench. Their Search (Perception) check fails to beat the burglars' Hide (Stealth) check, so the guards fail to "find" them (even though they can clearly "see" them), and continue running down the road.

Their Hide attempt gave them the Invisible status. They could still be physically seen, and thus did not gain any of the benefits that don't work if you can "somehow be seen", but since the guards didn't succeed on the Perception check, they were not "found". They could be physically seen, but were not "seen" as the people the guards were looking for.

-

I also want to consider the Search action vs passive perception. Going back to the combat scenario, when can an enemy "find" you? What happens when you break cover after Hiding?

If the enemy must Search, then obviously that can only be an option on the enemy's turn, and you therefore cannot be found during movement on your turn, only when the enemy takes its turn. This leads to the idea that ending your turn in cover preserves your hidden status, even if you broke cover during your turn.

But what about passive perception? Well, we don't have the new rules on that, so I have to speculate a bit here. We basically have two scenarios:

1. "Finding" someone must be done on your turn, regardless, so even if you use passive perception, the rogue won't be found by breaking cover and then finding cover.
2. Passive perception can function off-turn, as general awareness of what's going on around you.

In either case, you have to consider whether passive perception is sufficient for finding someone who used Hide. We know the DC is based on the Stealth check, and we know that that check had to be at least 15. At low levels most creatures are not going to beat that.

But that brings back the issue of, if you Hide, and none of the creatures around you have a passive perception high enough to beat your Stealth check, and they do not actively Search for you, does that mean you can just walk around the battlefield without a care? That seems counterintuitive for most common scenarios.

I would argue that in this scenario, the enemy creatures' passive perception is not for finding "you" in particular, but for recognizing "an enemy" in the combat space. Are you still wearing armor? Still have a weapon readied? Clearly visible? I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that as an enemy.

At the very least I would give advantage on their passive perception (+5 to the score) if you were not making any effort to hide your status as an enemy. Even the most basic low-level enemies should be breaking a 15 for spotting you then. Might even just make it automatic pass in that scenario. (Now if you shucked your armor and hid your weapons, it might be a different matter. Consider a thief showing up as a bystander near a fight he had previously been a part of.)

That still doesn't address whether it happens off-turn (when the Invisible person moves out of cover), or on the creature's turn. And after some thought, I don't think that's possible to judge without the DMG rules.

Until we get those rules, though, I'd personally consider it something that happens on the creature's turn, and thus breaking cover does not invalidate being Invisible as long as you return to cover by the end of your turn. I could easily see someone running it as happening off-turn, though, and I don't think either option is really "wrong".

-

But... That bit about being found as an enemy does bring up another idea. What happens if the druid hides, then Wild Shapes into a squirrel, and just sits up in a tree before following the goblins back to their camp when they retreat?

The druid is no longer clearly identifiable as an enemy, so would remain Invisible to the goblins for however long the scouting took, even if the squirrel is still physically visible. Again, seen, but not found. In fact, even harder to find because of the druid's new form.

This in turn leads to an obvious connection to the disguise skill. I touched on it a bit in earlier posts, but using a disguise seems like an obvious way to build in better results on the Hide check. As long as you're not trying to impersonate someone in particular, everything about the Invisible condition would seem to still apply just as well.

Disguise, Performance (the burglar's makeout session), Stealth, Invisibility — they all lead to this condition that seems to encompass them in a broadly similar way. Don't notice me, don't recognize me, don't see me, don't find me. The methodology is different for all of them, but the end result can all be wrapped up in this one common mechanic, and thus one condition — Invisible.

Your scenario sounds more like a Deception check than a Hide check to me. They are trying to present themselves as something other than they are.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It was in a post somewhere upthread. Maybe more than one, but here's one of them:

That is absolutely wild reading. Of course "finding" refers to finding as defined earlier paragraph on the same topic. And these other hypothetical ways of "finding" are not defined at all. This is basically just inventing a rule that is not there.