D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

 

[Seramus]

I’m not sure what you think that difference in wording does. Sounds exactly the same to me.

I think it tells the players that a DM can decide your circumstances are no longer appropriate for hiding, so the player is suitably forewarned that it can happen.

I mean, it's common sense to us that the DM can always arbitrate this kind of thing, but it's nice to put it in text for new players or players who might disagree.

 

[Argyle King]

Interestingly, the phrasing doesn't specify "trying to hide" but "circumstances appropriate to hiding." So I can see different DMs coming to different conclusions on either end of the spectrum - such as the circumstances no longer being appropriate to hiding meaning you are no longer hidden.

But I do think it's unnecessarily vague, leaving open huge ambiguity.

As currently written, it doesn't particularly matter if the conditions for hiding have changed if you've already achieved invisibility.

Edit: The easiest fix is to add a "hidden" condition to the game. Hidden would be a conditionally lesser version of Invisible, similar to how grappled and restrained have overlap.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m not sure what you think that difference in wording does. Sounds exactly the same to me.

“Hiding” is being used as a present participle here (an action that the subject is currently engaged in performing), as opposed to “to hide” which describes an action to be taken in the future. So, one could interpret “the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate to hide” to mean they determine what you need to take the hide action and “the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding” to mean that when you are actively engaged in hiding, the DM determines if it’s appropriate for you to continue doing so. I’d call it a pretty tortured interpretation, but it does technically work to say that the phrasing suggests the DM could say “circumstances have changed such that it’s no longer appropriate for you to be hiding, therefore you lose the invisible condition.

This would technically fix my problem, but I don’t think it’s nearly explicit enough if this is the intent. Also, it doesn’t address the pure silliness of these hide rules making everyone the invisible boy from Mystery Men (“I can turn invisible, but only when no one is looking at me”)

 

[Xetheral]

1. It says DM decides when you can try to hide
2. It says when you try to hide you use the hide action
3. The hide action itself has its own requirements for when it can be used. And all it does on success is apply the invisible condition.

Thus, I don’t think it particularly helps out the predicament, because no one has an issue for the requirements listed in the hide action to take the hide action. It’s what can happen after you’ve obtained the invisible condition that’s the problem.

There are still some issues with the requirements to try to hide, they just haven't been the focus of the conversation. In particular, the fact that hiding is now binary (one now has the Invisible condition or doesn't have the condition, rather than potentially being hidden from some people but not others) means that the requirement to be out of all enemies' lines of sight creates weird edges cases.

For instance, what does the DM tell a PC who tries to hide while in LOS of an enemy they don't know about? How do you tell them they can't try to hide (or tell them they failed even if they rolled high enough) without giving away the enemy's presence? The obvious method would be to not inform them whether or not they have the Invisible condition, but that has two flaws: (1) it doesn't work if the Invisible condition provides transparent invisibility; and (2) the rest of the party can test whether or not the PC has the invisible condition by trying to cast a cantrip requiring a visible target on the PC.

 

[Seramus]

but I don’t think it’s nearly explicit enough if this is the intent. Also, it doesn’t address the pure silliness of these hide rules making everyone the invisible boy from Mystery Men (“I can turn invisible, but only when no one is looking at me”)

Yeah, I see the multiple interpretations, but it's just unnecessarily vague. They could have phrased the whole thing much better one way or the other.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it tells the players that a DM can decide your circumstances are no longer appropriate for hiding, so the player is suitably forewarned that it can happen.

1. There is no ongoing hiding in 2024 5e rules. You hide once and gain the invisible condition. One can colloquially call having the invisible condition hiding, but if that’s what was meant they would have specified ‘the dm can determine the circumstances appropriate for invisible condition.’

2. The immediate context in this rule tells you exactly what hiding means in the last sentence. ‘When you try to hide you take the hide action’.

I mean, it's common sense to us that the DM can always arbitrate this kind of thing, but it's nice to put it in text for new players or players who might disagree.

Nothing in those rules allows for the invisible condition to be DM arbitrated.

 

[Xetheral]

@DavyGreenwind was kind enough to give us a screen shot of the Hiding rules in the Exploration section.

View attachment 375266

Thanks! I think this excerpt conclusively shows that the rules for taking the Hide action apply both in and out of combat. Thus the tensions with out-of-combat applications of the Hide action rules identified earlier in this thread remain pertinent. In particular, the question of whether or not the Invisible condition provides transparency is now absolutely critical to resolve, since the two interpretations produce wildly different utility out-of-combat. I think we're right back to the Hide action out-of-combat either being overpowered (by providing transparency) or useless (by only mattering if the PC has exactly 3/4 cover).

 

[Chaosmancer]

I would have thought though that trying to locate someone who is invisible and silent should be harder than finding someone who is invisible and talking?

I mean, that is the same as it ever was. In 2014 being invisible didn't make you hidden, and so people still knew where you were, per RAW.

Now hiding and invisible do basically the same thing, and not being aware of where you are isn't really part of that. Which, to a degree, actually helps things. Take a scene from John Wick 2 or 3, where both people know the other person is in the room, but don't know exactly where. Then a sound is made and they orient on it.

Invisible and silent isn't much different than hidden in a room, but they know you are somewhere in the room. The only "trick" is the concept of someone being completely unaware of your prescence, but that is a narrative function, not a rules function. And looked at from this angle, these rules are even better.

Everyone in the room knows Batman is here. They don't know where he is, because he is hidden, technically invisible to them. Mechanically, he is getting the same benefits as if he came upon them in an alley and they were not aware of his presence, so there is no need to have a mechanic for them being completely unaware of his existence in the space.

 

[FrogReaver]

“Hiding” is being used as a present participle here (an action that the subject is currently engaged in performing), as opposed to “to hide” which describes an action to be taken in the future. So, one could interpret “the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate to hide” to mean they determine what you need to take the hide action and “the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding” to mean that when you are actively engaged in hiding, the DM determines if it’s appropriate for you to continue doing so. I’d call it a pretty tortured interpretation, but it does technically work to say that the phrasing suggests the DM could say “circumstances have changed such that it’s no longer appropriate for you to be hiding, therefore you lose the invisible condition.

in 2024 hiding does not equal invisible condition. Hiding = the action you take to gain the invisible condition.

This would technically fix my problem, but I don’t think it’s nearly explicit enough if this is the intent. Also, it doesn’t address the pure silliness of these hide rules making everyone the invisible boy from Mystery Men (“I can turn invisible, but only when no one is looking at me”)

It would require a major leap that just isn’t present in the RAW.