so invisibility is pretty crap for hiding in 5e. you dont get +4 to hide, or advantage on hide checks, or anything. all it does is make you heavily obscured, foes get disad to attack you. which is also what blur does, and blur doesnt end when you attack.
mmmm, being invisible should definitely make it easier for you to hide from someone, coz it sure as hell aint mostly about being quiet.
anyways, i predict a houserule incoming, invisibility gives you adv on hide checks.
According to the stealth rules, you can't hide from enemies that can see you. If you are invisible, they can't see you, giving an option to hide when you usually wouldn't have one. So you do gain some help in that regard.
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you
make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a
vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can’t
be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage
might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.
so invisibility gives you somthing simular to Hide in plain sight from earlyer editions.
I think circumstances would allow a DM to grant advantage on rolls here. For example, invisibility gives you basically hide in plain sight now. If you were invisible and trying to hide behind barrels in the shadowy corner of the room, you have advantage on the roll!
Being invisible makes it just as easy (or hard) to hide as any other method that prevents your opponent from seeing you. That seems about right to me.
Psikerlord wrote:
Neejix wrote:
What everyone else has said.
Well imo that is a pretty poor spell, all it does is let you try to hide in plain sight.
The lightfoot halfing rogue can hide behind any other creature bigger than it (adn halflings are small), so lightfoot halflings have a kind of at will invisibility as a racial/class ability. Ummmm yeeaaahhhh that sounds balanced. Good one devs!
Unless the movement rules fix that if by walking around the blocking creature, the halfling no longer has obscurement, which would end the hiding condition. If that is so, well fine. But invisibility is still a pretty poor spell in 5e. I suppose if you build your caster to be stealthy it's viable (which is probably not a bad idea, anyway). Still I think I'll be houseruling adv (or double prof, or prof) bonus when using invisibility to hide.
Psikerlord wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I don't really have anything pertinent to add to the discussion at hand (although I do share Cyber-Dave's views on the topic). I just want to say that I am pleased with how polite the discussion in this thread has been. Keep up the good work, guys! 
Psikerlord wrote:
I wouldnt mind seeing invisibility give you advantage on a stealth check. That said hiding is about a lot more then just not being seen, its making sure your foot-steps are very quiet as well, and you dont do anything else to alert the person to your presence (ie opening the door at the wrong time...). Also even if they do know you are there, because they cant see you so they have disadvantage on any attacks they make against you.
Why would being invisible make it any easier to hide than being in the dark, or being totally obscurred by fog?
Its not about it being easy to start hiding its about after you start. For instance if I hide behind a wall or in total darkness, etc. And then I move to half cover, I can still hide with that same check. To me at least it would seem harder to see someone that was totally invisible behind half cover or even totally invisible in the middle of the room then it would be a person hiding behind cover (because they need to worry about not only being heard behind that rock that covers half thier body, but also being seen).
I mean its possible to visualize the current version, but you have to assume its not perfect invisibility (its like a blurred edge that if you looked at hard enough that you would see), that would be at least closer to what the current rules are.
I now think of 5e invisibility as 13th Age invisibility: "you're invisible, more or less" I think is the quote from 13A. So you might leave a shimmering, or be ghostlike but not completely invisible, or fade in and out or whatever. That at least gels with the hiding rules. So yeah you can try to hide when you normally couldnt, but if you're not good a hiding, it doesnt help you a whole lot.
obsid wrote:
obsid wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
obsid wrote:
Seems like we ought to frame the discussion in terms of the basic rules, since that's what we have now. As far as I know, they just say you can't hide from someone who can see you (barring some special ability). If that's right, then the way they treat invisibility seems pretty straightforward.
Actually looking back over the rules I'm not so sure about lightly obscured in the playtest. it may only require heavy obscured even in the playtest rules to stay hidden. So at least for lightly obscured, we dont quite know under the final rules.
The "you need to only be in half cover to hide" is not in the basic rules, in fact the hide rules say nothing at all about requriing cover to hide (it refrences a chapter 7, but that chapter says nothing about how much cover is required). There is a part under stealth that is were almots all the rules in the basic rules around stealth are. It says "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you" but what does "can see you mean"? no cover? half-cover? 3/4 cover? or more? What about heavy obscured/light obscured? The only hint about this is the part at the bottom where it says "What can you see? One of the main factors in determining wheather you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured..." That says only "one factor" and it doesnt say if even lightly obscured allows you to see them, so it doesnt really help.
And then it mentions "if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." So what does "come out of hiding" mean? I think that suggests at least no-cover = "come out of hiding." (It goes on about how "However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen" but this doesnt seem to apply).
So we dont really know for sure what it requires from the text of the basic rules. But it seems unlikely that they made it much more difficult then the playtest rules, and given the parts about "if you come out of hiding" I would say suggests half cover to stay hidden (maybe not to hide though), at least to me (no reason to think 3/4 more then 1/2 and while total cover may make sense from the words it would be absolutly silly in practice)
That makes sense. I suppose one way to look at it is through the cover rules:
Page 74 wrote:
One thing to note against the half-cover option is that you clearly cant start hiding behind other characters (becuase the halfling lightfoot gets this as a special ability therefor its not normal to have this), this suggets its either half cover (not including characters), or you need at least 3/4 or total cover to start hiding. However none of this really tells us what is required to stay hidden. It seems insane to require total cover to stay hidden (as you would never be able to use stealth to attack without DM permission for distraction), and I have seen no reason why 3/4 cover should be the furthest someone should be able to go without "being seen" rather then 1/2 cover.
Yes. It also seems a little insane that you can't hide behind a wall that has only an arrow slit in it. I mean, wouldn't it be pretty easy to position yourself such that someone on the other side of the wall couldn't see you, if the only break in the wall was an arrow slit?
DEX investment and stealth proficiency is possible on a wizard to make better use of the spell too. It turns into more of a build consideration for self vs other buffing.
I don't think that "cover" interacts with hidden/hiding" at all, it only interacts with "attacking". Obscuration doesn't directly interact with "hidden/hiding" either. However, total cover does allow hiding, since the target is "completely concealed by an obstacle" and, therefore, can't be seen.
Obscuration only affects Wisdom (Perception) checks requiring sight, while the detecting creature is within a lightly obscured area, by imposing Disadvantage to those checks.
So, cover doesn't affect "hidden/hiding", except to allow a hide check with total cover. Also, obscuration doesn't affect "hidden/hiding", except in relation to the Wisdom (Perception) checks to detect/notice something "hidden/hiding"; and then, only when the detecting creature is the one in the lightly obscured area.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
If you have half cover behind a wall it is because half your body is exposed. If you crouch down or go prone and none of your body is exposed you have full cover. The cover doesn't stay at half cover because it started out that way. A half wall isn't half cover always, it is just assumed you are normally standing and you are of medium height.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Can you move while hiding and stay hidden?
Rules for stealth say "While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they're not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter. See the rules for hiding in chapter 7."
So you can sneak by someone if you are moving stealthily and not in the open. Does "not in the open" equate to not seen? Referring to chapter 7 gives us the rules on hiding that tells us about making a stealth check that is contested by a perception check, and about remaining hidden until you are discovered or stop hiding, but does not define what it means to be either. Does failing the contest mean you are discovered? I assume so, but it does not say so. Does stopping hiding mean when you stop being stealthy, or does it mean explicitly when you come out of hiding? What does it mean to come out of hiding? Does this mean to be seen or heard? I assume so but it does not say so.
If you are crouched behind a low wall and hidden, can you crawl stealthily and remain hidden? The mechanics for stealth and moving stealthily are identical to being hidden, and both definitions are intertwined. If so, then how can your opponent know your location?
So if you are invisible and take an action to become hidden you should be able to move stealthily and remain hidden. If so, then your opponent will not know your location and must either guess or attempt an active perception check to perceive you.
xtianstone wrote:
obsid wrote:
Full cover doesn't necessarily let you hide either. It must prevent you from being seen to do so. A transparent wall of force would certainly grant total cover while not allowing you to hide behind.
Saelorn wrote:
Here's comprehensive list of all the references to being hidden or invisible in the D&D Basic Rules (or things that may relate to it) so far;
BR15 Mask of the Wild. You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.
From combining the conditions of blinded and obscured I get the following interpretation:
invisible condition: 1: attack rolls hve advantage and attack rolls against the invisible creature have disatvantage.
2: for the purpose of hiding the character counts as heavily obscured, which means the observer counts as blinded according to the rules on pg. 65.
3. Blinded condition: checks regarding sight automatically fail
4. attacks have advantage and attacks made by the blinded person have disatvantage.
So, being invisible makes it impossible for others to see you but you still need to make stealth checks to go undetected. If your presence is detected it might be possible for some one to attack you albeit with disatvantage. But it does sound like, assuming yiu are using greater invisibility, that attacking automatically reveals your location and gives a chance for others to attack back with disatvantage. A bit scary since a hit will force a concentration check and possibly lose your invisibility though, since you are invisible, I guess you could attempt another hide attempt with your action on to the following turn.
That makes sense but I get confused with hiding without being invisible. Is lightly obscured enough or does it need to be total concealment? if it's total concealment that means the observer is treated as being blind, which means sight based checks automatically fail. (I.e. Your perception check auto fails and the best you can do is detect presence, similar to detecting an invisible creature). For that reason I want to say that as long as you have something to hid behind you can make a stealth check. But if it's foggy or it's night time with only dim moonlight, then the perception check has disatvantage. Total darkness (or being invisible ) means auto fail to spot the target, but not auto fail to locate its presence through listining and attacks with disatvantage are possible. But if your vision is not worse than lightly obscured then your perception check might let you actually spot and see the hidden target and attack it with no penalties.
The other thing I wonder is how all this stuff might stack. For instance, if I shoot my now at a creature that I think is hiding behind a tree with 3/4 cover, does it get the +5 ac and I have disatvantage? I would think that is how it goes.
One thing I take away from this is the deadlyness of night time ambushes. Disatvantage to spot the hidden creatures at night assuming a full moon and no night vision. If no moon and total darkness than it's about impossible to spot the ambushing Orc archers and they will count as invisible for the fight unless fairefire or something can be used. Traveling at night seems to be more dangerous now.
But I wish the rules said what kind of cover or concealment you need specifically to be able to hide.
1 take an action to turn invisible
2 take an action to hide (using Dex and Stealth).
3 move around however you like
4???
5 profit!
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Again, the problem is that you are still using a priori assumptions to calculate what you can and should attempt as opposed to the actual network and architecture that informs this edition of the game. Most creatures are not trained in perception. That means that your stealth check is a flat Dex check vs. their passive Perception. So, you are going to be trying to make a DC 12-13 Dex check much of the time. Even if you only have a tertiary Dex score, which you should have as a Wizard, you will have a reasonable chance of success unless you are going up against a particularly perceptive foe. Meanwhile, if you are something like a wizard with the "criminal" background, you will have a reasonable chance of success even when going up against particularly perceptive foes. So, you don't need the rogue. It is just that, if you are in a group with a rogue, you can't replace the rogue. In that case, you are better off using your magic to buff the rogue and letting the rogue be the stealthy one. That is how this edition approaches balance.
Meanwhile, if you are just using the spell as a defensive buff, you need to remember that a) you are not necessarily buffing yourself and b) if you are buffing yourself, and if your foe can cast magic, he could have bypassed your invisibility anyway. Area effects are a great way to bypass invisibility. Otherwise, if he is attacking you, the invisibility gives you a very good chance of turning his hits into misses via the invisibility spell. If you don't think that disadvantage against all attacks and advantage for all of your attacks is a potent ability, you are out to lunch.
The problem seems to be that you wanted your wizard to be able to replace other classes a limited number of times per day despite the fact that the narrative only gives out the chance to shine via a specific type of challenge a limited number of times per day. To many of us, that approach is a HUGE problem. For that reason, the game avoided that approach this time around. Thank god! That is the reason I will be playing (and loving) this edition.
If you stop approaching the game with the assumption that the wizard should be able to replace other classes, then you will stop being disappointed. The wizard can do LOTS of stuff that no other class can do. And, if you do want to play a stealthy wizard who uses invisibility to stay out of sight even in situations where no other class can, you can. You just can't play a wizard who uses magic to trump everyone at everything.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Speaking as someone who loves playing wizards more than any other class, I'm happy with the class in the new edition. I think they're very well balanced and fun to play. Invisibility is only a 2nd level spell. It's not supposed to be an "I win" spell against everyone without blindsense or true seeing. In the past, that's basically what it was.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Concentration spells wont be used much in combat in 5e. That is my prediction. Too unreliable, especially at higher levels when the DC will exceed 20 - at those levels concentration is just broken. Better off using your spells for other things or out of combat, like sneaking around invisible (and all pure wizards will want stealth, I'd imagine). If you want fly, stoneskin, etc... just use a potion, in fact this works better in many ways coz fighters will resist the concentration check with their con prof. Just dont fly too high (well,falling damage caps at 20d6, so you can if you're a rogue or high level anything!)
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Being invisible does NOT make you not stink, or make noise.
The quieter you try to be, the louder the sound you actually make. Try scraping ice off your car at 3 am, and not wake anyone.
So, there is one way in which invisibility does help you. If a creature is fully obscured from you, for all intents and purposes, you are considered to be blind when you are interacting with it. When you are blind, you automatically fail any skill checks which rely on sight. If a creature can find a way to make no noise, and it is not giving off any other sensual output which might alert people to its presence (such as a strong smell), then a DM can rule that all attempts to find it automatically fail. Generally speaking, a DM is in his right to rule that a creature is not giving off any noise unless it is performing some sort of action or is moving. So, if an invisible creature stands stock still and performs no actions, it cannot be found. Other creatures, however, could be found by a) suddenly being in a lighted area b) being viewed by someone who can see through the thing that grants them obscurity c) suddenly losing their cover due to the movement of the creatures they are hiding from. That is a pretty hefty benefit... to put this in perspective, the last time we saw a ranger he got a hide in plain sight ability at level 10. That ability does not allow him to, while standing still, be undetectable. It only allows the ranger to, while standing still, take a +10 bonus to their hide check.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
So here's where we are running into a problem. When not hiding, but totally obscured (invisible, in darkness), the rules indicate that making a noise will reveal your location, and it lists examples like breaking a vase and shouting (I assume "smelling really bad" also counts). We have no clear way of determing what is "enough" of a noise to go from, "cannot make a check at all" to "automatically pinpoints your square."
Our DM last night was basically saying, no hide check, automatically know there is a creature in your square, even if you have made no attacks, not moved, not spoken. Sort of "they hear your breathing." To me that seems extreme.
On the other hand, a dude in plate armor walking at a normal pace in a dark room is pretty easy to get a general location on (the clank of armor). Allowing him to go "completely undetected" becuase he didnt bump into a table and knock over a lamp seems just as extreme.
The proposed rule after the session was a "passive stealth" for non-hiding but completely obscure creatures. Any thoughts?
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
My only thought on this is that Invisibility can be different than being in darkness or fog. In the latter cases, I am aware that something COULD be in there I can't see. I am wary. With Invis, I can plainly see that there is NOT a creature/person here. I have no reason to be wary and searching for the tell-tale signs of someone. My main info gathering sense (sight) has already given me a green light. Obviously, I am speaking about situations where combat has not been joined, the invis person was not seen to vanish, etc. In this situation, as the DM, I would give the invisible person advantage on checks.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Timborama wrote:
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Hide is much better than "invisible (but not easily pinpointed)". Pathfinder has some pretty clear rules about it (and is not mechanically very different than 5e) so we may just use those rules. For example, if you are hidden, it costs each enemy an action to find you. If you arent hidden, one bad guy can pinpoint you by wandering up to your general area and using an action to feel out your location, and then all his friends can target you as well. If you are not taking an action to hide, but there are three perfectly reasonable places where you can be (its a zone of darkness and there are lots of fake magic sounds indicating your voice is in different spots), the bad guys shouldnt just automatically know which one is real just because you didnt make a hide check
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
I admit, I get a little annoyed by any answer to any question on the boards that basically says, "DM call." I get that certain things are DM calls because there is literally no rule. For sure. In which drafting a proposed rule to fill the gap is fine. But I play Organized Play games exclusively. It is essential in such games that a consistent play experience be created through the application of the same rule each and every time. Magic the Gathering makes this pretty clear - there are official rules errata, official lists of banned things, very clear stuff. And rules, by the nature, are supposed to be clarified by the people who made them - non-rules things are the perview of the DM (attitudes, motivations etc of NPCs). But the rules should be set out and evenly applied, otherwise Im playing Texas Hold-em and everyone else at my table is playing 5 card draw.
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
If you're a wizard who is invisible, I suppose I should ask--are you TRYING to not be noticed? If the answer's yes, then do the Stealth thing, as usual. If you're NOT trying not to be noticed, then why are you complaining that you're not being stealthy?
I see this as a 'wizard wants his cake and eat it too', as in he just wants to cast invisibility and not actually have to do anything to be quiet or sneaky. You're invisible, I'm pretty sure you're giving disadvantage to some things and advantage to others, so it's not like it's wasting your time.
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
It seems to me that if you are invisible, and you make a check to hide, and you aren't making any noise or doing anything that, given the situation, would give your position away (and btw, there is no way to design a rule that can identify these situations that works better than 'let the DM consider that situation and decide'), then you won't be noticed. If you were lightly obscured, it would be your stealth check+5 vs. passive perception. But you are heavily obscured, so if you aren't making noise etc., and no one is looking for you or expects you to be there (and thus no one is making an active perception check), you would just be hidden, full stop. The scenario is different if you are moving around, taking actions, talking, grabbing spell components, etc. But as far as being able to hide, if that is all you want to do, the invisibilty spell is money.
I don't understand any sort of suggestion that invisibility should give you a bonus on making a hide check. Hiding presumes you are un-seeable. If you can be seen, you can't hide. If you can't be seen, being invisible doesn't make you less seeable.
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
Passive stealth is a bad idea, many rogues would love to rely on it to just about always succeed, without risking rolling.
Psikerlord wrote:
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
I keep seeing this "I stand still and not make any noise" argument on posts about Stealth. The simple fact remains, you are TRYING to stand still and not make any noise, it's not a given. Were you standing there the whole time? You didn't walk in here? There's no other way possibly anyone could detect your presence, even if they bumped right into you? Just make your check and the DM will adjucate accordingly. If they don't, that's of no fault of the system.
The biggest problem I see is that DMs are calling for Stealth checks only when the PCs can get detected instead of when the PC says they're trying to be stealthy. This is to avoid the "I rolled a 2, I'm not trying to be stealthy anymore, but then I'm gonna try again" players. Again, that's of no fault of the system.
A key fact for me, is that when you're invisible, you're invisible.
... bare with me here!
If you're trying to hide behind a plant pot from a hobgoblin guard, then if you fail your hide check... then they heard you and are very likely to go and look behind the plant pot, at which point they'll find you, trying to hide behind a plant pot.
If you fail your hide check whilst invisible... well... the hobgoblin gaurd heard *something* that may have sounded like someone trying to move quiety... but there is nothing to see.
If they're aware of invisibility being a thing that might happen in the world, then they might raise the alarm or the might poke around, or they might flail their weapons (perhaps a flail!) in the general direction of where they thought they heard some noise...
But your options for *continuing to try and hide* even after you fail a hide roll are vastly more.
Illithidbix wrote:
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
The DC will be all over the place because it depends on who is trying to detect the invisible creature and whether their primary sense is sight, hearing, smell, touch, etc. That would be interesting overall to add to the hiding rules in general, but it is going to be a challenge to keep it consistent.
Uchawi wrote:
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
slaughterj wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
JohnnyBlaise wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Being invisible is functionally no different than hiding behind a wall, tapestry, or otherwise fully covered or obscured, etc., the foe can't see you, but that doesn't make you a god of stealth nigh undetectable, but rather enables you to make a stealth check to determine how well-hidden you are. A DM may rule that being invisible and lurking in a good location in advance of a foe entering a room may enable you to have advantage on that check, thus more likely to beat the entering foe's passive perception, but a check is warranted nonetheless, just as it would be if you were behind a wall, tapestry, etc. with full cover or fully obscured.