D&D (2024) Am I crazy, or did they just turn Stealth into full Ninja mode?

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Being invisible stops them from seeing you.

Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.

Being spotted isn't an "effect"

 

[Iosue]

On the whole, I prefer natural language and dislike a preponderance of conditions, so I am not in favor of the rule as it’s currently written.

BUT, it strikes me a wee bit disingenuous to take what obviously game mechanics terms and treat them like natural language. The invisible condition is not invisibility, it is mechanical heuristic to simplify various situations in which a character cannot be seen by visual means. A character that walks right by the guards is no longer hiding, thus no longer benefiting from the Hide Action, thus no longer under the Invisible condition, thus is seen by the guards. I would adjudicate it this way every day of the week, twice on Sundays, and lose nary a wink of sleep over it.

Of course, that’s assuming this is all happening during combat, where Actions have meaning. If we’re out of combat, and the Rogue wants to sneak in the castle, he or she would have to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and beat the guards’ passive Perception, the same as they always have.

 

[mellored]

Being spotted isn't an "effect"

So invisible people can't walk past others without being spotted?

A character that walks right by the guards is no longer hiding, thus no longer benefiting from the Hide Action, thus no longer under the Invisible condition, thus is seen by the guards.

There is no hide condition anymore.
You're invisible until seen, and not seen because your invisible.

I would adjudicate it this way every day of the week, twice on Sundays, and lose nary a wink of sleep over it.

Oh, I am certainly not suggesting anyone play that way.

This is obviously an attempt to take 2 very similar conditions and combine them. It just failed.⁰

 

[Charlaquin]

So invisible people can't walk past others without being spotted?

In the 2014 rules, no, because creatures can still determine the location of an invisible creature by secondary signs of its presence, unless it’s also hidden. Not sure in these rules, since being invisible is now the effect of being hidden.

I get that they’re trying to consolidate the number of conditions here, but this is not a good change. I doubt it will do well in the survey though.

 

[Stalker0]

On the whole, I prefer natural language and dislike a preponderance of conditions, so I am not in favor of the rule as it’s currently written.

BUT, it strikes me a wee bit disingenuous to take what obviously game mechanics terms and treat them like natural language. The invisible condition is not invisibility, it is mechanical heuristic to simplify various situations in which a character cannot be seen by visual means. A character that walks right by the guards is no longer hiding, thus no longer benefiting from the Hide Action, thus no longer under the Invisible condition, thus is seen by the guards. I would adjudicate it this way every day of the week, twice on Sundays, and lose nary a wink of sleep over it.

Of course, that’s assuming this is all happening during combat, where Actions have meaning. If we’re out of combat, and the Rogue wants to sneak in the castle, he or she would have to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and beat the guards’ passive Perception, the same as they always have.

If we didn’t have a long history of terribly vague stealth rules, I might agree with this.

Ultimately stealth is one of the most powerful abilities in the game, and if you have a stealth character in your party, one of the most common.

So stealth really needs to be crystal clear on what it can do and what it can not do…and this new version isn’t it. Stealth needs the rules weight that is appropriate for an ability of its power and frequency, and we are yet to get that in 5e

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It really shouldn't be that hard to write stealth rules that both make intuitive sense and work reasonably well in play. Sure, there will always be edge cases that need DM adjucation to deal with, but that's no excuse for having rules that need adjucation even in basic situations.

 

[Oofta]

If the currently suggested version becomes official, I know what one of my first house rules will be. A static number + condition = awful rule. Yes, the old rule is a bit mother may I. Just like the preponderance of rules outside of combat, and many actions in combat that elevate the game above video game combat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They did not turn it into full ninja mode... so...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It really shouldn't be that hard to write stealth rules that both make intuitive sense and work reasonably well in play. Sure, there will always be edge cases that need DM adjucation to deal with, but that's no excuse for having rules that need adjucation even in basic situations.

Please: I am listening... (looks at the 3.x and 4e stealth revisions).

 

[Clint_L]

The new wording is just going to cause confusion and potentially arguments. The fact that we are parsing it so carefully to determine the exact intent indicates that it is not well written, especially given that most folks on this forum have a lot more knowledge than a typical player (flex, but it's true).