As a DM the tag line I would reference most is “the invisibility condition ends when an enemy finds you”. Sure if you’re in a haybale, they won’t find you but if you walk out from behind a wall and into open view they immediately “find you” and the invisibility condition is lost. This is how I would rule it.
Leaning into the “the dm decides” is where I’ll be, too, but the removal of the old rule about needing concealment or cover makes it much more table dependent than it used to be. Kinda annoying!
We used stealth last night and: We went with a simple Rule of the Stealth 15 to hide and you are hidden until someone tries to look for you. Then your Stealth Roll was the DC to spot you. It worked well.
I've always considered that all hidden creatures are Invisible but not all Invisible creatures are hidden. Like, if you enter a zone of darkness, you're Invisible, but still making noises as you move, so the enemy can shoot you at disadvantage. But if you're hidden you make no noise and the enemy has to look for you or guess your location. But then again hiding is one of those skills that require good level design to work. There's not much you can do if all your encounters happen in a soccer stadium at noon.
A separate condition for hidden would have been an excellent inclusion. Using invisible while codifying loss states was close, but not as good as having a separate condition I figure.
I think the "DC 15 to Hide, but use your result to be found" is so sneaky characters or monsters can still use their stealth-reliant abilities without totally invalidating creatures with a high Perception. Sounds like it'll enable more "cat and mouse" play at the table.
The 2014 hiding rules were perfectly fine; albeit inconviently scattered throughout the book, but worked great. The invisibility condition was a problem where neither the condition itself nor the spells/senses that could see you during it removed the benefit of being unseen. They just needed to tweak this, which they did, and just make it so all the mechanics for hiding were in a single place, unchanged, maybe with examples to further clarify.
About maintaining hiding: you lose invisibility if the enemy if the enemy finds you. So if you're hiding behind a cover, you maintain invisibility. If you step into direct line of sight, invisibility breaks (because the enemy found you, even without actively looking for you). As such the hide action is perfect for that short term invisibility, that would allow you to gain advantage on an attack roll, but still makes it VERY hard to just walk around the enemy camp without being detected.
Except that the mechanism for an enemy finding you is also given. They must make a perception check against the DC you set with your stealth check. Being in plain sight would at least grant advantage on the role (which probably still gives that +5 on passive), but if you have something like pass without trace going, it is quite possible even a 20 wouldn't do it for them. This would be an obvious time for the DM to break out numerical bonuses, as much as 5e tries to just use advantage and disadvantage for circumstances. A guard focused only on watching the forward approach could easily be given a +10 vs anyone trying to walk up _that_ in exchange for a -10 vs people sneaking up behind him. But there we are back in the realm of different tables running it differently.
I think the dc 15 is just the skill floor to successfully hide. A lot of common monsters had passives of 8-11. Passive perception only comes into account to raise the skill floor of hiding from that particular monster.
The ability to hide in three-quarters cover is you attempting to contort yourself enough to break your line of sight with an enemy. EX: You crouching behind a bush with a few holes in it vs. standing up with your chest and shoulders above said bush.
I would generally concur, it just doesn’t match the rules as written, one must both have three quarters cover and be out of line of sight, and when one is out of line of sight, one has total cover, or else heavy obscurement, which should render the cover unnecessary.
@@DM-Timothy I think this might well be a RAI vs RAW issue then. Because I could well contend that you can argue being partially out of line of sight once your reach 3/4ths cover, and using the Hide action gets you fully there, and is more a matter of determining which one comes first as you roll to Hide.
Great video! I'll just chime in and say that Passive Perception specifically says that the DM can decide to use that score in place of a roll of Wisdom (Perception) to determine whether a creature notices something without having to ask them to make the check. So under that description, yes, Passive Perception still interacts with the Hide action. (source: I have the book) The 2014 rules requiring you to maintain cover in order to continue hiding was detrimental to anyone trying to gain advantage from Hiding and sneaking up to a target for a takedown, for instance. Another thing I have to mention, is that the Hide action is an abstraction of the narrative. Your character is doing whatever they can to keep themselves out of notice. The videogame logic here is not in the text but in the assumptions people are making. The following scenarion is completely logical: • Rogue is hiding behind a huge oak tree (Total Cover) at dusk (Dim Light) and is trying to figure out a way to approach the keep entrance without alerting the scouts on top of the wall. However, there's no cover between where they are and the entrance, but they have to try it still. • Rogue rolls their Dexterity (Stealth) check. A success at a 19 total, so they attain the Invisible condition. • Making sure they find an opening, they rush to the gate entrance, avoiding notice as best as they can and get to the gate, by luck or competence. The scouts' Passive Perception was 15 (20 - 5 because of Disadvantage from Dim Light) so the rogue managed to succesfully avoid being spotted. Maybe there were torches lighting the whole entrance, which would then negate the scouts' Disadvantage on their Wisdom (Perception) checks (Passive Perception included), in which case the rogue is spotted as soon as they enter the illuminated area (their 19 roll was not enough to beat their Passive Perception). Perhaps they're in a corridor instead of the exterior of a keep. The DM can say that the guard at the end of the corridor is distracted, giving them Disadvantage, or consider them alert, and give them Advantage. The rogue moving down that corridor is then abstracted by simply taking the Hide action. How that looks in the narrative is not important for the rules, and the player is not required to come up with the specific steps they take in order to maintain that condition. We see things like that all the time. Aang mimicing the moves of a person in order to stay hidden, for instance, the protagonist clinging to the ceiling in the last minute, the friend who disappears from the group and jumpscares them seconds later. We don't even have to turn to media since real life is full of such examples where line of sight differs from actually seeing anything. We all at one point have failed to see someone coming up behind us, or failed to spot the open door of the cabinet before it was to late. These rules are fine. They might not be what people wanted, or how they expect Stealth to be handled, but it is very much in line with the streamlining approach of 5e (and the revised rules) at large. Perhaps the choice of using the word Invisible was not the most elegant, perhaps the See Invisibility was not intentional, but all in all it's a simple way of adjudicating Stealth without slowing down play or being too cumbersome (I'm looking at you, Pathfinder 2e e.e).
Those are great examples. Personally, I preferred the old way of needing cover and then making exceptions for when the guards were distracted away instead of the reverse. Arguing for an exception in those cases is simpler than asking for an exception in super common cases like no longer having 3/4 cover.
@@DM-Timothy Yeah, but just losing cover should have never been a metric to stop hiding alltogether. In 2014, just moving from cover to cover would have revealed you instantly, which is an insanely common depiction of Stealth in media. Worse yet it killed some common archetypes like the assassin or infiltrator. We don't have facing rules in the base system, so we need abstraction to deal with that. Passive Perception and the Search action can handle that portion, while Hiding handles whatever you're doing to keep hidden. I rather have a rule that is concise across the scenarios as a base line for most DMs and then tweak as necessary. The 2024 version has a lot less DMs fiat, and when broken down is quite simple to arbitrate: • Find cover or concealment from enemies. • Roll to Hide and record the total. • If successful gain the Invisible condition that ends whenever an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, cast a spell with verbal components, or make a sound louder than a whisper. • If the PC moves out of cover while Hiding, check their total against all the Passive Perception scores of enemies, or have the enemies take the Search action, if he's found by even a single one, the condition ends. As a PC, that's easy to understand and simple to plan ahead with those conditions in mind. Then, as a DM I can adjudicate as necessary, if necessary. Did the situation change enough to warrant another check? I might consider giving Advantage to the enemies, bumping their Passive Perception, as well as their active Search actions. Did the PC choose to do something that contradicts the efforts of Hiding, like moving a heavy object? I may call for a new attempt at Hiding. What's important is that now, new DMs and players are better supported by the rules, not really requiring any major interventions to work properly, whereas before it would necessitate interventions to make sure some archetypical playstyles were not hindered needlessly. An experienced DM can still introduce more nuance and complexity as desired, but it's not needed. I understand that people may not like it, or have preferences. I for one think this is good for the health of the game, specially when it comes to new players.
@@jkpsimplicio great write up and explanation. I will agree that best for the game and especially for newcomers is ideal. I’ll consider the rest of your words carefully! :)
In the Hide the glossary says "[...] Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check" while under Passive Perception it says "[...] The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check" As it implies it's a Wisdom (Perception) anyway - albeit not totally conscious - I definitely think Passive Perception is intended to be used in order to defeat hiding characters, at least if the observer is not "actively" keeping watch, looking for intruders, etc.
That first transition worked really well! With the slight close up and then switch cameras was appealing, not distracting. What if the Stealth walk between two guards isn't that the PC can't seen, but rather they're easy to overlook? They have a gait and manner of holding themselves that says "I'm not the droids you're looking for."
I have literally walked right past someone that was looking for me in a crowded area. I just acted like I was everyone else. They personally knew me too. This is probably because the person had tunnel vision in the area they were looking. I could see the guards toing that as well.
@@bradleyhurley6755 I don't have the new PhB yet to tell you what it exactly states about the situation. If a player presented that to me, I would ask them to make some type of check instead of following whatever rule gives them automatic success (if that exists). There may be no tunnel vision in the rules, but I am pretty sure there are perception and investigation checks which is basically mimicking it. As the DM you would have to think of the reason why the NPC/PC didn't see the person (i.e. tunnel vision). I won't have to worry about it, since I am nearly always the DM for decades. So far every edition (that I know of) has stated the DM has the final say over the rules as written. As a player if the DM said no, I would just go with their decision. In the end it doesn't matter to me that much as a player. That is one thing I like about the game, it allows for judgement calls to be made when necessary. Now if people have a DM that is just an ass, I suggest finding another one. I can find AI that can run a module and stick strictly to the rules without the capability of making human creative decisions. Crap DMs are easily replaceable now by computers, for better or worse.
@@bigH101 using 2014 rules I would say tunnel vision is accounted for within passive perception or a failed perception check. If you were trying to blend in id go with either a disguise check or deception check depending on the situation.
I feel like a proper description of see invisibility should include something like: “you can see an invisible creature or object that isn’t obscured or behind cover”. Other than that I just wish they would’ve left hiding checks as they were, without a flat baseline DC to potentially fail before you even try. Passive checks were already a well oiled mechanic for this, at least in my opinion.
Yeah, the only reason I can see for a flat DC is so that people know whether or not they have succeeded in hiding themselves, so the dm doesn’t have to hide the rolls to maintain tension. Tho I’m not sure how effective adjusting it to knowing when you have failed will be, honestly.
Without reading the book I think that is likely how it functions. See invisibility technically breaks the invisible condition, though I assume total cover probably states you can't be seen. (Or the rules end up there) Thus, total cover functions differently than the invisible condition. The Hide Action assumes you are trying to be quiet in addition to being unseen. Thus I would assume total cover keeps an enemy from seeing you.
@@DM-Timothy You technically don't know when you failed, you only know when you didn't succeed. (Yeah that makes no sense, allow me to explain) If you don't reach DC 15 you automatically fail to hide (Doesn't matter if the guard's perception is a 2, you still fail). If you reach DC 15 you have conditionally succeeded to hide, but the enemy's Perception Check can prevent you from being hidden. So if Passive Scores count, you only know that under normal circumstances you succeed, as most enemies don't have a passive perception higher than 15 (there are a few that get above 15, but not usually). If passive scores don't count, you are probably fine during combat, but turn order, and needing an action for a perception check doesn't really apply outside of combat. So if you hide Roll a 16, you have succeeded at hiding conditionally. But if you aren't in combat, usually the DM is going to immediately roll for the guards to see if they notice you. (Assuming passive scores don't count) If the guard rolls say a 17, he has realized you are there. Presumably if you are in total cover, you don't know that you have been found.
I think it is important that the Invisible condition doesn't make someone invisible. Being Heavily obscured, etc. woud. So See invisibility would work, but not while you are behind total cover, but thats my point of view.
Is it still an action to make an active perception check? That's going to make a big difference. A DC 15 check to go invisible is raising the bar for creatures with bad perception, but for NPCs or monsters with very high perception, a 15 is much easier to get than what you would probably need otherwise. Since it's almost never worthwhile to use your entire action to search for a hidden creature when you're in combat, this could DRAMATICALLY impact how well rogues can hide in mid-combat to get their sneak strikes.
I feel Stealth should be a pretty easy rule. 1. Can you move out of sight, or have the ability to be out of sight? 2. Was your Stealth roll higher than the creatures Passive Perception score? 3. Is the creature making an active rol (and beat your Stealth roll) to find hidden creatures? Or have other means to counter such as blindsight? If you managed to succeed at these point of contention you are hidden. Stealth is broke and your location found by... 1. Your Stealth score being lower than a Passive or Active Perception check. 2. Attacking, Making too much noise (talking etc). 3. Moving out in to open space. You are now visible. And as a bonus, you should move to a new location in order to attempt to hide again.
I think the issue here is the Hiding rules basically indicate you need to hide to start hiding, but not that you need to do so to continue hiding (as moving away from cover is not listed as one of the things that break it). The book states a Perception Check can break it, but it seems passive scores may have gone the way of optional rules? At any point, you can easily imagine a Rogue with expertise and Pass without a Trace having like a 30-40+ on the stealth check and no one's passive score is going to notice them. I'm on team if you leave cover your stealth gets broken unless there is a reason it doesn't (I.e. guard distracted)
@@DM-Timothy Yes, I did try replying to Bradley to say I 'agreed' with him. But UA-cam failed to post my reply.🤷♂ However, I would like to add that my point was focused on the fact that people see the rules as compulsory, as something that must be followed verbatim.🤔 I disagree with that line of thinking. The DM can and should also make decisions based on logic and the situation (not what the rulebook says). i.e. Is it logical that a creature can hide in the middle of the room? Is it logical that they can remain hidden if they walk across the room? Is there something happening that could stop the condition of being hidden? So yes, I completely agree with your video and Bradley's message. 👍 I guess I just feel the rules are a set of soft guides foremost. And the books should clearly state that in a full page spread or something.😂 I know the video was talking about the rules from the new books, and comparing to the 2014 rules. And I kind of wish some how the video had made mention to how actually it all doesn't really matter if you can accomplish the goal of 'Hiding' another way logically to the situation.
@@Gabriel-vl2ft fair enough! I tend to view rules a little differently from you, I suspect, because I feel like solid rules help players make decisions where fuzzy rules leave players uncertain, but that’s very much a table-specific and dm-specific line to walk!
@@DM-Timothy Yes, and if you'll allow me to slightly contradict myself 😊... I agree with you about rules and mechanics. "You can't complain if everyone knows." If I could ask you a question... "To what degree should the rules (from one book) supersede the idea of logic and realism?" If a player asks to chop down a wooden door or a tree, do you always ask them to roll for an attack, Wood AC15? Probably not, you might just ask for a damage roll or allow them to succeed at the task. (and work out any consequences as the game plays out).
I think in regards to being invisible after you manage to hide, just allows the rogue to sneak up and get his/her attack in. So if he/she doesn't manage it on their turn then they get spotted and lose the condition (if in plain sight) Clears up the when do they spot me scenario of the 360° vision everyone used to have that way ^^
I personally don't think the 3/4 cover contradicts the "out of line of sight" rule. It's more like telling you that you have to be out of line of sight to a certain specification. Obviously, if you're not in front of someone, then you're out of line of sight. If you are in front of someone, however, then you need to be behind at least 3/4 cover for it to count as being out of line of sight.
In many cases, very true. It’s explicitly not “sight” in the updated edition, so while it tells you where someone is, it doesn’t preclude them hiding for advantage/disadvantage mechanics.
The rule you quoted in your video explicitly says the DC of your hide = the DC to find you "with a wisdom (perception) check." It does not state "with an active wisdom (perception) check." Basic grammar makes it plainly clear that either an active or a passive wisdom check would defeat the hide/invisible condition. "Wisdom (perception)" includes both sub-categories of "active" and "passive."
I'm not a fan of these rules, honestly. The condition should've been "Unseen" not invisible, and you're obviously revealed if you're in line of sight with any enemy (I'd allow SOME movement before completely breaking stealth tho), like, you wouldn't need to spend an action searching for something that is plain sight
I don't thing an Unseen condition makes sense. It is an "Unseen BY", the whole hiding mechanic needs to incorporate the creatures you are hiding from. If the party is behind a wall hiding from some guards, they are not all of a sudden invisible to each other.
I’d have liked “hidden” but I can understand why they avoided it for publishing reasons, worrying about using a word and accidentally referencing rules.
@@DM-Timothy I’d like a “Hidden Condition” if only to differentiate it from having the “Invisible Condition” from a spell or other magic. A “Hidden Condition” could still have overlapping properties/abilities/traits as the “Invisible Condition”. Much like Blinded and Restrained both have “Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage”
@@toddgrx I would have liked it too. I can only guess that they were worried about natural language in adventure modules running into odd interpretations.
1)DC 15 to make a succesful stealth and get invisible condition. Invisibility provides same effects, not check needed. This means either if you hide by action or by spell, youre undetected and unseen till... 2) any passive perception can *discern* you, effectively wearing off your concealing for just that creature. The condition doesnt ends, but your benefits does for that specific creature. A creature must use the search action to actually make everyone aware of you at plain bright light sight. How to rule this? In exploration, DM rules when the conditions are meet to hide, to use the hide action. In combat, you must be in ¾ or total cover. ¾ is true as because you wanna be sneaky, you try to duck effectively blocking total sight of enemies (tho that means your total cover, it wouldnt allow you to do so if it wasnt written), or be heavy obscured, or out of anyones sight (as now you need to care morr about enemies line of vision). When you hide, youre trying to conceal yourself. This means, your character is trying to exploit blind spots, shadows casted, enemies movement or distractions, and enemies unawareness to stay concealed. If a creature spots you, youre no longer concealed for that creature, but youre yet hiding and concealing for every other unaware. How would i rule this? Make DC15 check, failed means failed, if you pass this, every enemy cant target you with spells that require sight unless they can discern you. Attacks at disadvantage as theyre trying to guess your location, which could be the shadowy/blurry figure that is sneaking around the field. Passive Perception check, any enemy whose PP is higher than your stealth actually discerns you, but they can see you and are aware of you, but from the others point of view, youre yet concealed. To wear off your concealing the creature must use the Search action, as theyre now doing things that would end your concealing. Examples would be someone sees a shadowy form means someone is aware of you, but they need to do the search action. If none can see a shadowy or blurry from in middle on combat is simply because the rogue did a very good stealth that none is being able to spot him at first sight in a heat of a battle
I use passive perception as a noticing that something is off or that something has changed and then the creature doing the perceiving would need to make an "active" check to identify whether they really saw something and what it was or if they decide they must not have really noticed whatever it was. So, how I would use it for the new hide rule is as follows: The elf rolls a 16 to hide behind some crates. The guard has a 17 passive perception and notices "something"...but was it actually something or has he been on guard duty too long and it's just his imagination? He doesn't want to leave his post without good reason, so he tries to look harder from there, making an active perception check. If the guard rolls a 16 (the new DC since that's what the elf rolled, right?), he notices one of the barrels is slightly out of place and assumes someone is hiding there. If he rolls a 14, he decides the something was just his imagination. This is basically identical to how I use it now with the exception of the hide/stealth DC being 15 instead of a contest. Also, this was the best way I could figure to use passive scores while not giving anyway every trap and ambush to PCs with ridiculously high passive perception scores and keeping regular, rolled checks relevant.
I am not a fan at all of a static, unchanging DC to be able to hide. A person's ability to hide is not just reliant on how quiet and stealthy they are but also about how much the other person is paying attention. These rules are made with video game logic rather than common sense to support Hasbro and WotC trying to make D&D players into more highly monetized video game players using things like their vtt, etc.
Finding someone is still reliant on people’s attentiveness, this just sets a base requirement. I think it’s an odd inclusion, but it doesn’t invalidate perception checks to oppose stealth ones.
The problem is that WotC tries to make Hiding a condition only on the person hiding, but it is as much if not more a condition on the creatures you are hiding from. This is why you get the weird DC 15 rule.
I haven't seen if the wording of the Rogue's Reliable Talent has changed other than shuffling when it comes online, but if the 5.5 version is the same as the 5e version that'll mean with even low DEX for a Rogue they'll just automatically succeed on the initial Stealth check even with just Proficiency and not Expertise? Which is thematically fitting I suppose, and 5e reliable talent+Stealth was probably going to beat most Passive Perceptions anyway, but it's an interesting note.
Dude you totally can be "out of sight" while in 3/4 cover. Your square just is an abstract representation of the zone that you immediately occupy and control, it does NOT mean you take up all that space. Just notice that a small or medium creature both take up a 1"x1" square. So when you have 3/4 cover you choose what zone within that square you occupy, and the act of attempting to hide literally is defined as you attempting to vacate the 1/4 of your square that is visible. This is similar to the rule that a medium rider on a large mount can always decide which of the 4 squares within the large mount they current occupy as the rider. Squares are abstract zones of occupation and control.
A plausible interpretation, except that then you would be able to decide to be in Total cover when in 3/4 cover, which has other consequences from a rules standpoint. As an abstraction, it is best to stick to the abstraction, rather than assuming that we can make it explicit when we wish and not when we do not.
Nice vid! Not sure I love the boost to initiative because just realistically not sure how that would benefit how quickly you react to a developing combat situation. Still I like that they have left stealth rules less "fuzzy"
The fact that you don't lose being hidden by walking out of cover into the open is silly. You can be standing right in front of someone with broad daylight and they can't see you unless you attack them or they use their whole action to make a perception check.
@@CorrosiveCitrus No they didn't. It confers the invisible status, which doesn't go away when you lose cover. There is no line of sight because you can't see the person when they're hiding until they're revealed. The "creature finds you" specifically relates to the perception check.
I concur. I don’t think there will be many DMs that let it slide that way, which is the beauty of having a DM in the first place, but still seems a silly miss in the rules.
Trying to maintain an objective view of the revision as quite honestly, the vitriol has only served to "prove them right" in the minds of sycophants and create a Disney effect of any objective analysis is simply "hate" spewing forth. That said, I view it as two years worth of half measures in the name of "looks it's fresh, give money". Most players have a very loose understanding of the rules. They'll see "invisible" and try to add intuitive connotation to it. And as DMs, we'll say no and provide context. But the player still feels cheated. They were simply set up to feel that way. Others will see "you attacks have advantage"... thinking ALL their attacks that round have advantage. But after your first attack, you've effectively broken the "invisible" condition; so no, the rest will be straight rolls. Let's not even bring up that in a grand melee, positioning matters. You're hiding from a specific enemy, looking to gain advantage on them. That doesn't necessarily involve any other enemy in the room. They can see you, but they aren't your target; thus, does it matter if they could've seen you or not? Only if they have a reaction to use when you leave position to sneak up on your target. And there is just no way I am going to allow the "invisible" condition to be swappable with the invisibility spell. No one can justify to me that leaving a position of hiding to cross a well lit room of enemies locked in combat still allows you to have the "invisible" condition. IMHO, their attempt to codify a fairly "open to interpretation" rule from 2014 has done more damage than good. First, they've left it ambiguous enough that it impacts all three pillars of play. Sure codifying it the way they did for Combat is fine (if ambiguous), but it flat out makes Social/Exploration design looking absolutely ridiculous and a caricature at best. Second, they've tried to make it impactful when it comes to Action Economy. Now, my monster must make a Search Action in the midst of combat to locate them (vs their Stealth Check). So the design intent was for monsters to use their Action to search for this invisible character instead of actually making an attack (bare in mind, Multiattack is generally All or Nothing; meaning you can't take a Search Action, and then make two attacks instead of 3). In a system where Action Economy is everything, and it's already heavily tilted in the players favor; why try to further dilute monster agency? What DM would actually waste their Action Economy on such a thing unless the rogue was the only one left alive? In the end, it all feels a bit contrived. To have that much time to make the revision, if 395 pages weren't enough, they should've upped it to 400 just to make sure the changes were fully explained. We shouldn't pay this type of money and then wait for an Errata to come out afterwards; which is crappy for those who only deal in physical products. The spells should've been more comprehensively balanced (most of us DMs could have done all 400+ in about a months time by ourselves; unpaid). Instead of causing more strife between the pillars of play, they should've stated the "invisible" conditions effects in both combat AND social/exploration. Hell, they could've gone just a bit further and actually developed better social/exploration pillars that are separate from the over focused Combat pillar. And perhaps put a lot more effort into designing Tiers 3 & 4 of play. Rebalancing those spells and spreading out the frontloaded (first 10 levels) of player power gains would've gone a LONG way towards creating a product that lasts, fills a void in their own design, AND would've been more worthy of a revision.
Totally fair standpoint, by and large. I'm overall quite happy with the product, there's just lots of new things to learn and always new problems with any RPG that need ironing out. This one included. :)
It was on my list too. Seems not fixed at all and a bit worse. See invisibility should only counter the magical invisibility. Hiding should not make you invisible, it should make you hidden. You can still be seen, but overlooked as nothing, like cammoflauged in a bush. 3.5 and PF did it right. Invisibility made it very difficult to spot you, as it should be.
Bad. Way too many and complex rules. That's why I don't play DnD. I didn't even know DnD can make a simple thing that complicates! I prefer RPGs where i can actually enjoy playing and the story instead of becoming a calculator machine processing the rules.
Sort of. The rules are what they are, we just have the option to change them as table rules if we want. Doesn’t change the RAW in that case though, which is what I primarily speak to.
@DM-Timothy I see what you mean, and advocate that if you aren't using most of the rules for dnd, are you playing dnd? But at the end of any debate or discussion. The "game" anyone is playing is the one their dm is running. So it is what the dm makes it. Edit - the comment was most likely sparked by you saying "what your dm thinks is reasonable" or something like it. (Forgot the video and exact wording now). Which called to mind the fact that everything about every game is "what your dm thinks is reasonable".
@AndrusPr8 if you mean to say the rules aren't up to the dm to decide to use or not... you couldn't be more wrong. As a matter of fact, and the entire spirit of dnd. If you're dm doesn't use a rule, then that's it lol. There are no laws forcing people to play the most modern version of the game. It's still dnd if it's 5.5, 5.0, 4.0, 3.5...etc. No wizard police will arrest you for not using "new rules". I promise.
@@ericnull3470 What I am saying is that there are games designed under the premise that "The GM will determine what's the most reasonable thing to do". As a result, the rules are written in a way that's purposefuly open to interpretation, because the GM is the one who determines what's most suitable to apply in a particular scenario. Almost as if they were guidelines and not rules.
🥳🫂👍🏿 Great work, Tim - It’s so frustrating that they went half in on backwards compatibility - now we have a situation where they’re trying to fix some 5.5 systems while maintaining the framework of 5.0 whereas in other places they’ve replaced entire sections that make the old and new rules “grind against each other” as stated by Crawford in the PHB interviews - see invisibility as a perfect counter to rogues? I guess 🤷🏿♀️ - time & money seem to have gotten in the way of an intelligible final product - 07:21 😉
I don't know why we act like 5e is this perfectly written system that has been flowing smoothly for the past ten years. There is a reason 5e has a bustling homebrew community and it isn't just because it is popular. Pathfinder 2e is the second largest TTRPG and I can count on one hand how many people do homebrew for it. DM fiat has been a staple of 5e for as long as it has existed.
@@XanderHarris1023 yeah, it’s all wobbly - 5e was pretty revolutionary for pulling together 40 years of TTRPG innovations into a coherent system that gave more weight to rulings than the previous 20 years while simplifying math with advantage, but it was never perfect - no game is - I went to PF after 3.5 and loved it - PF2 isn’t my thing, so to each their own - I will say I’m on a quest to collect every house rule on UA-cam, and I agree it’s a more locked in/interdependent system with tighter tolerances, which is great, but it makes house ruling a bit more fraught; however, if you search, you’ll find lots of PF2 house rules and homebrew to experiment with at your table if your interested - every table is different with different goals - my table has been looking for faster progressing thru procedural parts of the game, especially combat, so house rules around that have been fun to toy with - it actually led us to trying out Nimble, which we liked enough to try the full system: Nimble 5e (late pledges are still open on the website 🔌) - anyway, yeah, 5e was clearly imperfect (else there would be nothing to address in 5.5), and 5.5 is shipped unfinished, failing to address those issues - it’s got a lot of merit, but perfect? By no means
@@XanderHarris1023 saying pathfinder is the second largest ttrpg is a bit misleading. The gap between number 2 and number 1 is enormous. There would probably be more homebrew for it if it was profitable to make them.
As a DM the tag line I would reference most is “the invisibility condition ends when an enemy finds you”. Sure if you’re in a haybale, they won’t find you but if you walk out from behind a wall and into open view they immediately “find you” and the invisibility condition is lost. This is how I would rule it.
Leaning into the “the dm decides” is where I’ll be, too, but the removal of the old rule about needing concealment or cover makes it much more table dependent than it used to be. Kinda annoying!
We used stealth last night and:
We went with a simple Rule of the Stealth 15 to hide and you are hidden until someone tries to look for you. Then your Stealth Roll was the DC to spot you.
It worked well.
I've always considered that all hidden creatures are Invisible but not all Invisible creatures are hidden.
Like, if you enter a zone of darkness, you're Invisible, but still making noises as you move, so the enemy can shoot you at disadvantage.
But if you're hidden you make no noise and the enemy has to look for you or guess your location.
But then again hiding is one of those skills that require good level design to work. There's not much you can do if all your encounters happen in a soccer stadium at noon.
A separate condition for hidden would have been an excellent inclusion. Using invisible while codifying loss states was close, but not as good as having a separate condition I figure.
I think the "DC 15 to Hide, but use your result to be found" is so sneaky characters or monsters can still use their stealth-reliant abilities without totally invalidating creatures with a high Perception. Sounds like it'll enable more "cat and mouse" play at the table.
The 2014 hiding rules were perfectly fine; albeit inconviently scattered throughout the book, but worked great.
The invisibility condition was a problem where neither the condition itself nor the spells/senses that could see you during it removed the benefit of being unseen. They just needed to tweak this, which they did, and just make it so all the mechanics for hiding were in a single place, unchanged, maybe with examples to further clarify.
I generally agree with you. I think I preferred the old version, but would definitely have liked the rules laid out together instead of scattered!
About maintaining hiding: you lose invisibility if the enemy if the enemy finds you. So if you're hiding behind a cover, you maintain invisibility. If you step into direct line of sight, invisibility breaks (because the enemy found you, even without actively looking for you). As such the hide action is perfect for that short term invisibility, that would allow you to gain advantage on an attack roll, but still makes it VERY hard to just walk around the enemy camp without being detected.
Except that the mechanism for an enemy finding you is also given. They must make a perception check against the DC you set with your stealth check. Being in plain sight would at least grant advantage on the role (which probably still gives that +5 on passive), but if you have something like pass without trace going, it is quite possible even a 20 wouldn't do it for them.
This would be an obvious time for the DM to break out numerical bonuses, as much as 5e tries to just use advantage and disadvantage for circumstances. A guard focused only on watching the forward approach could easily be given a +10 vs anyone trying to walk up _that_ in exchange for a -10 vs people sneaking up behind him. But there we are back in the realm of different tables running it differently.
It WOULD be great, if they had kept wording that allowed you to be found by stepping out of cover… that’s where the problem lies.
I think the dc 15 is just the skill floor to successfully hide. A lot of common monsters had passives of 8-11.
Passive perception only comes into account to raise the skill floor of hiding from that particular monster.
The ability to hide in three-quarters cover is you attempting to contort yourself enough to break your line of sight with an enemy.
EX: You crouching behind a bush with a few holes in it vs. standing up with your chest and shoulders above said bush.
I would generally concur, it just doesn’t match the rules as written, one must both have three quarters cover and be out of line of sight, and when one is out of line of sight, one has total cover, or else heavy obscurement, which should render the cover unnecessary.
@@DM-Timothy I think this might well be a RAI vs RAW issue then. Because I could well contend that you can argue being partially out of line of sight once your reach 3/4ths cover, and using the Hide action gets you fully there, and is more a matter of determining which one comes first as you roll to Hide.
Great video! I'll just chime in and say that Passive Perception specifically says that the DM can decide to use that score in place of a roll of Wisdom (Perception) to determine whether a creature notices something without having to ask them to make the check. So under that description, yes, Passive Perception still interacts with the Hide action. (source: I have the book)
The 2014 rules requiring you to maintain cover in order to continue hiding was detrimental to anyone trying to gain advantage from Hiding and sneaking up to a target for a takedown, for instance.
Another thing I have to mention, is that the Hide action is an abstraction of the narrative. Your character is doing whatever they can to keep themselves out of notice. The videogame logic here is not in the text but in the assumptions people are making. The following scenarion is completely logical:
• Rogue is hiding behind a huge oak tree (Total Cover) at dusk (Dim Light) and is trying to figure out a way to approach the keep entrance without alerting the scouts on top of the wall. However, there's no cover between where they are and the entrance, but they have to try it still.
• Rogue rolls their Dexterity (Stealth) check. A success at a 19 total, so they attain the Invisible condition.
• Making sure they find an opening, they rush to the gate entrance, avoiding notice as best as they can and get to the gate, by luck or competence. The scouts' Passive Perception was 15 (20 - 5 because of Disadvantage from Dim Light) so the rogue managed to succesfully avoid being spotted.
Maybe there were torches lighting the whole entrance, which would then negate the scouts' Disadvantage on their Wisdom (Perception) checks (Passive Perception included), in which case the rogue is spotted as soon as they enter the illuminated area (their 19 roll was not enough to beat their Passive Perception).
Perhaps they're in a corridor instead of the exterior of a keep. The DM can say that the guard at the end of the corridor is distracted, giving them Disadvantage, or consider them alert, and give them Advantage. The rogue moving down that corridor is then abstracted by simply taking the Hide action. How that looks in the narrative is not important for the rules, and the player is not required to come up with the specific steps they take in order to maintain that condition.
We see things like that all the time. Aang mimicing the moves of a person in order to stay hidden, for instance, the protagonist clinging to the ceiling in the last minute, the friend who disappears from the group and jumpscares them seconds later. We don't even have to turn to media since real life is full of such examples where line of sight differs from actually seeing anything. We all at one point have failed to see someone coming up behind us, or failed to spot the open door of the cabinet before it was to late.
These rules are fine. They might not be what people wanted, or how they expect Stealth to be handled, but it is very much in line with the streamlining approach of 5e (and the revised rules) at large. Perhaps the choice of using the word Invisible was not the most elegant, perhaps the See Invisibility was not intentional, but all in all it's a simple way of adjudicating Stealth without slowing down play or being too cumbersome (I'm looking at you, Pathfinder 2e e.e).
Those are great examples. Personally, I preferred the old way of needing cover and then making exceptions for when the guards were distracted away instead of the reverse. Arguing for an exception in those cases is simpler than asking for an exception in super common cases like no longer having 3/4 cover.
@@DM-Timothy Yeah, but just losing cover should have never been a metric to stop hiding alltogether. In 2014, just moving from cover to cover would have revealed you instantly, which is an insanely common depiction of Stealth in media. Worse yet it killed some common archetypes like the assassin or infiltrator. We don't have facing rules in the base system, so we need abstraction to deal with that. Passive Perception and the Search action can handle that portion, while Hiding handles whatever you're doing to keep hidden.
I rather have a rule that is concise across the scenarios as a base line for most DMs and then tweak as necessary. The 2024 version has a lot less DMs fiat, and when broken down is quite simple to arbitrate:
• Find cover or concealment from enemies.
• Roll to Hide and record the total.
• If successful gain the Invisible condition that ends whenever an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, cast a spell with verbal components, or make a sound louder than a whisper.
• If the PC moves out of cover while Hiding, check their total against all the Passive Perception scores of enemies, or have the enemies take the Search action, if he's found by even a single one, the condition ends.
As a PC, that's easy to understand and simple to plan ahead with those conditions in mind.
Then, as a DM I can adjudicate as necessary, if necessary. Did the situation change enough to warrant another check? I might consider giving Advantage to the enemies, bumping their Passive Perception, as well as their active Search actions. Did the PC choose to do something that contradicts the efforts of Hiding, like moving a heavy object? I may call for a new attempt at Hiding.
What's important is that now, new DMs and players are better supported by the rules, not really requiring any major interventions to work properly, whereas before it would necessitate interventions to make sure some archetypical playstyles were not hindered needlessly. An experienced DM can still introduce more nuance and complexity as desired, but it's not needed.
I understand that people may not like it, or have preferences. I for one think this is good for the health of the game, specially when it comes to new players.
@@jkpsimplicio great write up and explanation. I will agree that best for the game and especially for newcomers is ideal. I’ll consider the rest of your words carefully! :)
In the Hide the glossary says "[...] Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check" while under Passive Perception it says "[...] The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously
making a Wisdom (Perception) check"
As it implies it's a Wisdom (Perception) anyway - albeit not totally conscious - I definitely think Passive Perception is intended to be used in order to defeat hiding characters, at least if the observer is not "actively" keeping watch, looking for intruders, etc.
Definitely a fair stance.
That first transition worked really well! With the slight close up and then switch cameras was appealing, not distracting.
What if the Stealth walk between two guards isn't that the PC can't seen, but rather they're easy to overlook? They have a gait and manner of holding themselves that says "I'm not the droids you're looking for."
That would be more deception rather than Stealth. Stealth regards not being seen or heard. To be over looked should likely be deception.
I have literally walked right past someone that was looking for me in a crowded area. I just acted like I was everyone else. They personally knew me too. This is probably because the person had tunnel vision in the area they were looking. I could see the guards toing that as well.
@@bigH101 while possible I don't think the rules as written allow for it. (I.e. there is no tunnel vision in the rules.)
@@bradleyhurley6755 I don't have the new PhB yet to tell you what it exactly states about the situation. If a player presented that to me, I would ask them to make some type of check instead of following whatever rule gives them automatic success (if that exists). There may be no tunnel vision in the rules, but I am pretty sure there are perception and investigation checks which is basically mimicking it. As the DM you would have to think of the reason why the NPC/PC didn't see the person (i.e. tunnel vision). I won't have to worry about it, since I am nearly always the DM for decades. So far every edition (that I know of) has stated the DM has the final say over the rules as written. As a player if the DM said no, I would just go with their decision. In the end it doesn't matter to me that much as a player.
That is one thing I like about the game, it allows for judgement calls to be made when necessary. Now if people have a DM that is just an ass, I suggest finding another one. I can find AI that can run a module and stick strictly to the rules without the capability of making human creative decisions. Crap DMs are easily replaceable now by computers, for better or worse.
@@bigH101 using 2014 rules I would say tunnel vision is accounted for within passive perception or a failed perception check. If you were trying to blend in id go with either a disguise check or deception check depending on the situation.
I feel like a proper description of see invisibility should include something like: “you can see an invisible creature or object that isn’t obscured or behind cover”. Other than that I just wish they would’ve left hiding checks as they were, without a flat baseline DC to potentially fail before you even try. Passive checks were already a well oiled mechanic for this, at least in my opinion.
Yeah, the only reason I can see for a flat DC is so that people know whether or not they have succeeded in hiding themselves, so the dm doesn’t have to hide the rolls to maintain tension. Tho I’m not sure how effective adjusting it to knowing when you have failed will be, honestly.
Without reading the book I think that is likely how it functions. See invisibility technically breaks the invisible condition, though I assume total cover probably states you can't be seen. (Or the rules end up there) Thus, total cover functions differently than the invisible condition. The Hide Action assumes you are trying to be quiet in addition to being unseen. Thus I would assume total cover keeps an enemy from seeing you.
@@DM-Timothy You technically don't know when you failed, you only know when you didn't succeed. (Yeah that makes no sense, allow me to explain) If you don't reach DC 15 you automatically fail to hide (Doesn't matter if the guard's perception is a 2, you still fail). If you reach DC 15 you have conditionally succeeded to hide, but the enemy's Perception Check can prevent you from being hidden. So if Passive Scores count, you only know that under normal circumstances you succeed, as most enemies don't have a passive perception higher than 15 (there are a few that get above 15, but not usually). If passive scores don't count, you are probably fine during combat, but turn order, and needing an action for a perception check doesn't really apply outside of combat. So if you hide Roll a 16, you have succeeded at hiding conditionally. But if you aren't in combat, usually the DM is going to immediately roll for the guards to see if they notice you. (Assuming passive scores don't count) If the guard rolls say a 17, he has realized you are there. Presumably if you are in total cover, you don't know that you have been found.
AID 5e have made heavy details on using stealth rules for combat.
I think it is important that the Invisible condition doesn't make someone invisible. Being Heavily obscured, etc. woud. So See invisibility would work, but not while you are behind total cover, but thats my point of view.
I definitely agree that see invisibility won’t negate total cover.
Is it still an action to make an active perception check? That's going to make a big difference. A DC 15 check to go invisible is raising the bar for creatures with bad perception, but for NPCs or monsters with very high perception, a 15 is much easier to get than what you would probably need otherwise. Since it's almost never worthwhile to use your entire action to search for a hidden creature when you're in combat, this could DRAMATICALLY impact how well rogues can hide in mid-combat to get their sneak strikes.
yes. Though on a technical level I'm not sure the action economy comes into play outside of combat.
It is indeed still an action, though a feat turns it into a bonus action which is pretty cool.
@1:57 the DM still decides under what circumstances its possible for you to hide (per page 19 of the new PHB)
For sure. I’ll be leaning heavily on that, but not including some basics was painful.
I feel Stealth should be a pretty easy rule.
1. Can you move out of sight, or have the ability to be out of sight?
2. Was your Stealth roll higher than the creatures Passive Perception score?
3. Is the creature making an active rol (and beat your Stealth roll) to find hidden creatures? Or have other means to counter such as blindsight?
If you managed to succeed at these point of contention you are hidden.
Stealth is broke and your location found by...
1. Your Stealth score being lower than a Passive or Active Perception check.
2. Attacking, Making too much noise (talking etc).
3. Moving out in to open space. You are now visible.
And as a bonus, you should move to a new location in order to attempt to hide again.
I think the issue here is the Hiding rules basically indicate you need to hide to start hiding, but not that you need to do so to continue hiding (as moving away from cover is not listed as one of the things that break it). The book states a Perception Check can break it, but it seems passive scores may have gone the way of optional rules? At any point, you can easily imagine a Rogue with expertise and Pass without a Trace having like a 30-40+ on the stealth check and no one's passive score is going to notice them.
I'm on team if you leave cover your stealth gets broken unless there is a reason it doesn't (I.e. guard distracted)
Bradley covered my stance well on this comment. :)
@@DM-Timothy Yes, I did try replying to Bradley to say I 'agreed' with him. But UA-cam failed to post my reply.🤷♂
However, I would like to add that my point was focused on the fact that people see the rules as compulsory, as something that must be followed verbatim.🤔
I disagree with that line of thinking. The DM can and should also make decisions based on logic and the situation (not what the rulebook says). i.e. Is it logical that a creature can hide in the middle of the room? Is it logical that they can remain hidden if they walk across the room? Is there something happening that could stop the condition of being hidden?
So yes, I completely agree with your video and Bradley's message. 👍
I guess I just feel the rules are a set of soft guides foremost. And the books should clearly state that in a full page spread or something.😂
I know the video was talking about the rules from the new books, and comparing to the 2014 rules. And I kind of wish some how the video had made mention to how actually it all doesn't really matter if you can accomplish the goal of 'Hiding' another way logically to the situation.
@@Gabriel-vl2ft fair enough! I tend to view rules a little differently from you, I suspect, because I feel like solid rules help players make decisions where fuzzy rules leave players uncertain, but that’s very much a table-specific and dm-specific line to walk!
@@DM-Timothy Yes, and if you'll allow me to slightly contradict myself 😊... I agree with you about rules and mechanics. "You can't complain if everyone knows."
If I could ask you a question... "To what degree should the rules (from one book) supersede the idea of logic and realism?"
If a player asks to chop down a wooden door or a tree, do you always ask them to roll for an attack, Wood AC15? Probably not, you might just ask for a damage roll or allow them to succeed at the task. (and work out any consequences as the game plays out).
Thank you Tim. Nat20 on your Insight on the topic of Stealth. Great video as always!
Much appreciated!
I think in regards to being invisible after you manage to hide, just allows the rogue to sneak up and get his/her attack in. So if he/she doesn't manage it on their turn then they get spotted and lose the condition (if in plain sight)
Clears up the when do they spot me scenario of the 360° vision everyone used to have that way ^^
I agree with the intention there, I just wish the wording matched that, too!!
I personally don't think the 3/4 cover contradicts the "out of line of sight" rule. It's more like telling you that you have to be out of line of sight to a certain specification. Obviously, if you're not in front of someone, then you're out of line of sight. If you are in front of someone, however, then you need to be behind at least 3/4 cover for it to count as being out of line of sight.
I wish it was worded that way, but the “and” negates it as an option. It was a very strange word choice.
@@DM-Timothy Maybe this is a rules as written vs. as intended thing?
@@genostellar Definitely plausible! Hard to know until they clarify, which is always a challenge, lol
I believe tremorsense ignores cover
In many cases, very true. It’s explicitly not “sight” in the updated edition, so while it tells you where someone is, it doesn’t preclude them hiding for advantage/disadvantage mechanics.
The rule you quoted in your video explicitly says the DC of your hide = the DC to find you "with a wisdom (perception) check." It does not state "with an active wisdom (perception) check." Basic grammar makes it plainly clear that either an active or a passive wisdom check would defeat the hide/invisible condition. "Wisdom (perception)" includes both sub-categories of "active" and "passive."
It's possible. However a passive perception does not make a check, nor have a check. Passive Perception is a score.
I'm not a fan of these rules, honestly. The condition should've been "Unseen" not invisible, and you're obviously revealed if you're in line of sight with any enemy (I'd allow SOME movement before completely breaking stealth tho), like, you wouldn't need to spend an action searching for something that is plain sight
I don't thing an Unseen condition makes sense.
It is an "Unseen BY", the whole hiding mechanic needs to incorporate the creatures you are hiding from.
If the party is behind a wall hiding from some guards, they are not all of a sudden invisible to each other.
I’d have liked “hidden” but I can understand why they avoided it for publishing reasons, worrying about using a word and accidentally referencing rules.
@@DM-Timothy I’d like a “Hidden Condition” if only to differentiate it from having the “Invisible Condition” from a spell or other magic. A “Hidden Condition” could still have overlapping properties/abilities/traits as the “Invisible Condition”. Much like Blinded and Restrained both have “Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage”
@@toddgrx I would have liked it too. I can only guess that they were worried about natural language in adventure modules running into odd interpretations.
1)DC 15 to make a succesful stealth and get invisible condition. Invisibility provides same effects, not check needed.
This means either if you hide by action or by spell, youre undetected and unseen till...
2) any passive perception can *discern* you, effectively wearing off your concealing for just that creature. The condition doesnt ends, but your benefits does for that specific creature. A creature must use the search action to actually make everyone aware of you at plain bright light sight. How to rule this?
In exploration, DM rules when the conditions are meet to hide, to use the hide action.
In combat, you must be in ¾ or total cover. ¾ is true as because you wanna be sneaky, you try to duck effectively blocking total sight of enemies (tho that means your total cover, it wouldnt allow you to do so if it wasnt written), or be heavy obscured, or out of anyones sight (as now you need to care morr about enemies line of vision).
When you hide, youre trying to conceal yourself. This means, your character is trying to exploit blind spots, shadows casted, enemies movement or distractions, and enemies unawareness to stay concealed. If a creature spots you, youre no longer concealed for that creature, but youre yet hiding and concealing for every other unaware.
How would i rule this?
Make DC15 check, failed means failed, if you pass this, every enemy cant target you with spells that require sight unless they can discern you. Attacks at disadvantage as theyre trying to guess your location, which could be the shadowy/blurry figure that is sneaking around the field.
Passive Perception check, any enemy whose PP is higher than your stealth actually discerns you, but they can see you and are aware of you, but from the others point of view, youre yet concealed. To wear off your concealing the creature must use the Search action, as theyre now doing things that would end your concealing. Examples would be someone sees a shadowy form means someone is aware of you, but they need to do the search action. If none can see a shadowy or blurry from in middle on combat is simply because the rogue did a very good stealth that none is being able to spot him at first sight in a heat of a battle
Thanks for sharing your interpretation! :)
I use passive perception as a noticing that something is off or that something has changed and then the creature doing the perceiving would need to make an "active" check to identify whether they really saw something and what it was or if they decide they must not have really noticed whatever it was. So, how I would use it for the new hide rule is as follows:
The elf rolls a 16 to hide behind some crates. The guard has a 17 passive perception and notices "something"...but was it actually something or has he been on guard duty too long and it's just his imagination? He doesn't want to leave his post without good reason, so he tries to look harder from there, making an active perception check. If the guard rolls a 16 (the new DC since that's what the elf rolled, right?), he notices one of the barrels is slightly out of place and assumes someone is hiding there. If he rolls a 14, he decides the something was just his imagination.
This is basically identical to how I use it now with the exception of the hide/stealth DC being 15 instead of a contest. Also, this was the best way I could figure to use passive scores while not giving anyway every trap and ambush to PCs with ridiculously high passive perception scores and keeping regular, rolled checks relevant.
We are in total agreement as to what a passive check should be used for. Great example.
I am not a fan at all of a static, unchanging DC to be able to hide. A person's ability to hide is not just reliant on how quiet and stealthy they are but also about how much the other person is paying attention. These rules are made with video game logic rather than common sense to support Hasbro and WotC trying to make D&D players into more highly monetized video game players using things like their vtt, etc.
Finding someone is still reliant on people’s attentiveness, this just sets a base requirement. I think it’s an odd inclusion, but it doesn’t invalidate perception checks to oppose stealth ones.
The problem is that WotC tries to make Hiding a condition only on the person hiding, but it is as much if not more a condition on the creatures you are hiding from.
This is why you get the weird DC 15 rule.
I haven't seen if the wording of the Rogue's Reliable Talent has changed other than shuffling when it comes online, but if the 5.5 version is the same as the 5e version that'll mean with even low DEX for a Rogue they'll just automatically succeed on the initial Stealth check even with just Proficiency and not Expertise? Which is thematically fitting I suppose, and 5e reliable talent+Stealth was probably going to beat most Passive Perceptions anyway, but it's an interesting note.
It functionally reads the same and I’d agree, rogues will be pulling off stealth checks without any hassles.
Dude you totally can be "out of sight" while in 3/4 cover. Your square just is an abstract representation of the zone that you immediately occupy and control, it does NOT mean you take up all that space. Just notice that a small or medium creature both take up a 1"x1" square. So when you have 3/4 cover you choose what zone within that square you occupy, and the act of attempting to hide literally is defined as you attempting to vacate the 1/4 of your square that is visible. This is similar to the rule that a medium rider on a large mount can always decide which of the 4 squares within the large mount they current occupy as the rider. Squares are abstract zones of occupation and control.
A plausible interpretation, except that then you would be able to decide to be in Total cover when in 3/4 cover, which has other consequences from a rules standpoint. As an abstraction, it is best to stick to the abstraction, rather than assuming that we can make it explicit when we wish and not when we do not.
Nice vid! Not sure I love the boost to initiative because just realistically not sure how that would benefit how quickly you react to a developing combat situation. Still I like that they have left stealth rules less "fuzzy"
Thanks for your comment, great to hear from you! I like the new rules for the most part but would hand preferred even LESS fuzz, lol
See Invisibility is now X-ray vision.
Not QUITE, but by golly it’s strong.
I keep wondering how they had a decade to improve things and this is the best they were able to come up with?
I’m reserving total judgement till I play with it for a bit, but it does seem clunky in a few places.
The fact that you don't lose being hidden by walking out of cover into the open is silly. You can be standing right in front of someone with broad daylight and they can't see you unless you attack them or they use their whole action to make a perception check.
It also says it ends if they find you, not just with an active check. If you walk into their LoS, they found you, clearly
@@CorrosiveCitrus No they didn't. It confers the invisible status, which doesn't go away when you lose cover. There is no line of sight because you can't see the person when they're hiding until they're revealed. The "creature finds you" specifically relates to the perception check.
I concur. I don’t think there will be many DMs that let it slide that way, which is the beauty of having a DM in the first place, but still seems a silly miss in the rules.
Trying to maintain an objective view of the revision as quite honestly, the vitriol has only served to "prove them right" in the minds of sycophants and create a Disney effect of any objective analysis is simply "hate" spewing forth. That said, I view it as two years worth of half measures in the name of "looks it's fresh, give money".
Most players have a very loose understanding of the rules. They'll see "invisible" and try to add intuitive connotation to it. And as DMs, we'll say no and provide context. But the player still feels cheated. They were simply set up to feel that way.
Others will see "you attacks have advantage"... thinking ALL their attacks that round have advantage. But after your first attack, you've effectively broken the "invisible" condition; so no, the rest will be straight rolls.
Let's not even bring up that in a grand melee, positioning matters. You're hiding from a specific enemy, looking to gain advantage on them. That doesn't necessarily involve any other enemy in the room. They can see you, but they aren't your target; thus, does it matter if they could've seen you or not? Only if they have a reaction to use when you leave position to sneak up on your target.
And there is just no way I am going to allow the "invisible" condition to be swappable with the invisibility spell. No one can justify to me that leaving a position of hiding to cross a well lit room of enemies locked in combat still allows you to have the "invisible" condition.
IMHO, their attempt to codify a fairly "open to interpretation" rule from 2014 has done more damage than good. First, they've left it ambiguous enough that it impacts all three pillars of play. Sure codifying it the way they did for Combat is fine (if ambiguous), but it flat out makes Social/Exploration design looking absolutely ridiculous and a caricature at best.
Second, they've tried to make it impactful when it comes to Action Economy. Now, my monster must make a Search Action in the midst of combat to locate them (vs their Stealth Check). So the design intent was for monsters to use their Action to search for this invisible character instead of actually making an attack (bare in mind, Multiattack is generally All or Nothing; meaning you can't take a Search Action, and then make two attacks instead of 3). In a system where Action Economy is everything, and it's already heavily tilted in the players favor; why try to further dilute monster agency? What DM would actually waste their Action Economy on such a thing unless the rogue was the only one left alive?
In the end, it all feels a bit contrived. To have that much time to make the revision, if 395 pages weren't enough, they should've upped it to 400 just to make sure the changes were fully explained. We shouldn't pay this type of money and then wait for an Errata to come out afterwards; which is crappy for those who only deal in physical products. The spells should've been more comprehensively balanced (most of us DMs could have done all 400+ in about a months time by ourselves; unpaid). Instead of causing more strife between the pillars of play, they should've stated the "invisible" conditions effects in both combat AND social/exploration.
Hell, they could've gone just a bit further and actually developed better social/exploration pillars that are separate from the over focused Combat pillar. And perhaps put a lot more effort into designing Tiers 3 & 4 of play. Rebalancing those spells and spreading out the frontloaded (first 10 levels) of player power gains would've gone a LONG way towards creating a product that lasts, fills a void in their own design, AND would've been more worthy of a revision.
Totally fair standpoint, by and large. I'm overall quite happy with the product, there's just lots of new things to learn and always new problems with any RPG that need ironing out. This one included. :)
It was on my list too. Seems not fixed at all and a bit worse.
See invisibility should only counter the magical invisibility. Hiding should not make you invisible, it should make you hidden. You can still be seen, but overlooked as nothing, like cammoflauged in a bush.
3.5 and PF did it right. Invisibility made it very difficult to spot you, as it should be.
Bad. Way too many and complex rules. That's why I don't play DnD. I didn't even know DnD can make a simple thing that complicates! I prefer RPGs where i can actually enjoy playing and the story instead of becoming a calculator machine processing the rules.
Fair enough! Everyone has their own complexity limit. :)
hate to break it to you, whole game is based on what the dm thinks is reasonable. Including any new rules.
There are games that use this concept as the core of the game, and design around it.
DnD is not one of those games.
Sort of. The rules are what they are, we just have the option to change them as table rules if we want. Doesn’t change the RAW in that case though, which is what I primarily speak to.
@DM-Timothy I see what you mean, and advocate that if you aren't using most of the rules for dnd, are you playing dnd? But at the end of any debate or discussion. The "game" anyone is playing is the one their dm is running. So it is what the dm makes it.
Edit - the comment was most likely sparked by you saying "what your dm thinks is reasonable" or something like it. (Forgot the video and exact wording now). Which called to mind the fact that everything about every game is "what your dm thinks is reasonable".
@AndrusPr8 if you mean to say the rules aren't up to the dm to decide to use or not... you couldn't be more wrong. As a matter of fact, and the entire spirit of dnd.
If you're dm doesn't use a rule, then that's it lol. There are no laws forcing people to play the most modern version of the game.
It's still dnd if it's 5.5, 5.0, 4.0, 3.5...etc.
No wizard police will arrest you for not using "new rules". I promise.
@@ericnull3470 What I am saying is that there are games designed under the premise that "The GM will determine what's the most reasonable thing to do".
As a result, the rules are written in a way that's purposefuly open to interpretation, because the GM is the one who determines what's most suitable to apply in a particular scenario. Almost as if they were guidelines and not rules.
🥳🫂👍🏿
Great work, Tim - It’s so frustrating that they went half in on backwards compatibility - now we have a situation where they’re trying to fix some 5.5 systems while maintaining the framework of 5.0 whereas in other places they’ve replaced entire sections that make the old and new rules “grind against each other” as stated by Crawford in the PHB interviews - see invisibility as a perfect counter to rogues? I guess 🤷🏿♀️ - time & money seem to have gotten in the way of an intelligible final product - 07:21 😉
I don't know why we act like 5e is this perfectly written system that has been flowing smoothly for the past ten years. There is a reason 5e has a bustling homebrew community and it isn't just because it is popular. Pathfinder 2e is the second largest TTRPG and I can count on one hand how many people do homebrew for it. DM fiat has been a staple of 5e for as long as it has existed.
@@XanderHarris1023 yeah, it’s all wobbly - 5e was pretty revolutionary for pulling together 40 years of TTRPG innovations into a coherent system that gave more weight to rulings than the previous 20 years while simplifying math with advantage, but it was never perfect - no game is - I went to PF after 3.5 and loved it - PF2 isn’t my thing, so to each their own - I will say I’m on a quest to collect every house rule on UA-cam, and I agree it’s a more locked in/interdependent system with tighter tolerances, which is great, but it makes house ruling a bit more fraught; however, if you search, you’ll find lots of PF2 house rules and homebrew to experiment with at your table if your interested - every table is different with different goals - my table has been looking for faster progressing thru procedural parts of the game, especially combat, so house rules around that have been fun to toy with - it actually led us to trying out Nimble, which we liked enough to try the full system: Nimble 5e (late pledges are still open on the website 🔌) - anyway, yeah, 5e was clearly imperfect (else there would be nothing to address in 5.5), and 5.5 is shipped unfinished, failing to address those issues - it’s got a lot of merit, but perfect? By no means
@@XanderHarris1023 saying pathfinder is the second largest ttrpg is a bit misleading.
The gap between number 2 and number 1 is enormous. There would probably be more homebrew for it if it was profitable to make them.