D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Remathilis]

Yeah, that part is poorly worded. There should be an additional "losing Hidden" clause of not being at least X level cover / obscurement against a foe whose line of sight you're within.

I think this is to avoid the classic rules interaction that you are automatically spotted once you leave cover, so you can never actually sneak up a guard and attack unless that guard is also in concealment which negated sneak attack.

 

[Mistwell]

This is the first problem. It means it’s never any easier or harder to hide from any creature than from another. A deaf, blind toddler and an ancient dragon are exactly the same difficulty to hide from.

This is the second problem. You’re invisible, so an enemy can never spot you unless they use their action to search. By these rules, you can come out from behind cover, walk right up in front of an enemy, dance a jig, flip it the bird, and moon it, and as long as you do those things quietly, it will never know you’re there. That’s stupid.

This part is incorrect. First if you're in line of sight, you lose invisibility. Second, there is still passive perception. I posted it. Here it is again:

Passive perception
Passive perception is a score that reflects a creature's general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a wisdom perception check.

A creature's passive perception equals 10 plus the creature's wisdom perception check bonus. If the creature has advantage on such checks, increase the score by five. If the creature has disadvantage on them, decrease the score by five. For example, a level 1 character with a wisdom of 15 and proficiency in perception has a passive perception of 14 (10 + 2 + 2). If that character has advantage on wisdom perception checks, the score becomes 19.

All of that is fine, except for the must be a 15 part, and the part where you become literally invisible, so if the guard doesn’t have truesight or see invisibility, he needs to coincidentally guess that he needs to take the search action at exactly the right time.

No, that's passive perception.

 

[Xeviat]

I'll still be using my version inspired by Pathfinder 2's stealth rules

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

View attachment 374877
WHILE you're meeting those situations.
If you are no longer in those situations the while is no longer valid.

No, your only have to meet those criteria to ENTER the invisible condition. You remain as such until you do one of the listed actions which breaks it: Making a sound, being found by an enemy (by them taking the Search action), making an attack roll, or casting a spell with a verbal component. There is nothing in the rules text indicating that breaking the criteria required to enter stealth ALSO removes you from stealth.

You can, as this is written, enter cover, Hide, then walk out of cover to approach someone.

 

[Charlaquin]

View attachment 374877
WHILE you're meeting those situations.
If you are no longer in those situations the while is no longer valid.

You left off the words “to do so you must.” That’s describing the conditions required to take the hide action, not the conditions required to remain hidden. Indeed, leaving cover or concealment or entering an enemy’s line of sight is not listed among the things that cause the invisible condition to end. Probably very intentionally, as I get the distinct impression that these rules were written pretty specifically to enable melee rogues to reliably be able to get behind cover, take the hide action, leave cover, move into melee range of target, and sneak attack it, every turn, without any ambiguity.

 

[Amrûnril]

I really don't like invisibility being used in this case. "Hidden" as a condition is the perfect solution. You can be invisible without being hidden, and you can be hidden without being invisible.

I'd also argue that "hidden" should describe the state of one creature relative to another creature. Being detected by one enemy may make it easier for others to detect you, but this shouldn't be automatic, at least on a short term tactical basis.

As for the Search action, I think that increasing its importance is a good idea, in that it means an otherwise occupied creature will have a harder time detecting hidden foes. At the same time, though, a high perception character should be more likely to detect hidden foes than a low perception character, even if neither is actively searching. And, of course, no action should be necessary to detect a creature who leaves the conditions that allowed them to hide.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I'd also argue that "hidden" should describe the state of one creature relative to another creature. Being detected by one enemy may make it easier for others to detect you, but this shouldn't be automatic, at least on a short term tactical basis.

As for the Search action, I think that increasing its importance is a good idea, in that it means an otherwise occupied creature will have a harder time detecting hidden foes. At the same time, though, a high perception character should be more likely to detect hidden foes than a low perception character, even if neither is actively searching. And, of course, no action should be necessary to detect a creature who leaves the conditions that allowed them to hide.

As Mistwell pointed out, Passive perception still exists and can still detect someone who's taken the hide action, requiring no action. What the DC 15 thing effectively does is give a Floor to passive perception for all creatures of at least 15.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think this is to avoid the classic rules interaction that you are automatically spotted once you leave cover, so you can never actually sneak up a guard and attack unless that guard is also in concealment which negated sneak attack.

I think so too, I just think this is a bad way to accomplish that. Just allow hidden characters to remain hidden during their movement as long as they start and end their movement sufficiently covered or concealed, and have sneak attack work as long as you were hidden from the target on your turn before you attacked.

 

[bedir than]

You left off the words “to do so you must.” That’s describing the conditions required to take the hide action, not the conditions required to remain hidden. Indeed, leaving cover or concealment or entering an enemy’s line of sight is not listed among the things that cause the invisible condition to end. Probably very intentionally, as I get the distinct impression that these rules were written pretty specifically to enable melee rogues to reliably be able to get behind cover, take the hide action, leave cover, move into melee range of target, and sneak attack it, every turn, without any ambiguity.

This position requires redefining the word "while"

a period of time especially when short and marked by the occurrence of an action or a condition

Definition of WHILE

a period of time especially when short and marked by the occurrence of an action or a condition : time; the time and effort used (as in the performance of an action) : trouble… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The occurrence of the condition is no longer true if you choose to end that occurrence, say by walking directly towards someone who can clearly see you

 

[Xeviat]

I'd also argue that "hidden" should describe the state of one creature relative to another creature. Being detected by one enemy may make it easier for others to detect you, but this shouldn't be automatic, at least on a short term tactical basis.

As for the Search action, I think that increasing its importance is a good idea, in that it means an otherwise occupied creature will have a harder time detecting hidden foes. At the same time, though, a high perception character should be more likely to detect hidden foes than a low perception character, even if neither is actively searching. And, of course, no action should be necessary to detect a creature who leaves the conditions that allowed them to hide.

A distracted creature should definitely have disadvantage on perception, including passive perception. Passive defenses are just a really good idea.