D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mamba]

But if an enemy can see you, it has found you too. It doesn’t have to make a Search action.

not if I am invisible...

 

[TiQuinn]

not if I am invisible...

You’re not invisible, you have the Invisible condition.

Why couldn’t they have just had a Hidden condition?

 

[ezo]

Introducing the NEW STEALTH RULES...

Sorry, they made a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check so they are invisible... Sorry, have the "invisible condition."


Worse than ever.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because "See Invisible" exists. As mentioned by Treantmonk, technically being invisible vs a creature with See Invisible still allowed you to have the benefits of being invisible (advantage to hit, disadvantage to being hit), despite being seen. This closes that loophole.


Personal view on some of this:

Say we're in a forest, and a rogue slips behind a tree and tries to hide. He has total cover at the moment, so he can attempt the Stealth check. He makes the roll, making him invisible. What impact does that have?

Well, if he loses the status as soon as he's in line of sight again, and there's nothing providing additional obscurement other than the trees, he's basically stuck staying behind that one tree.

However, by making him "invisible", we can now use the trope of him moving from tree to tree, carefully avoiding any enemy's sight, until he can sneak up behind the shaman that is directing the battle, or whatever.

This, to me, feels like the old Eagle Totem flight shtick: You can fly, but have to land at the end of your turn. In this case, you remain invisible, as long as you end up out of direct sight at the end of your turn. You can move in the open by taking advantage of lapses in attention — the chaos of battle, the guards talking to each other at the gate, the flow of the dance at the ball, etc — and be "invisible" because you aren't being "seen".

That’d be great if the rule’s actually said any of that, but they don’t.

You lose the invisible status when you attack or do something else to draw attention to yourself.

Right, but you don’t lose it if you enter another creature’s line of sight, which is a problem.

In another situation, if a guard is guarding a warehouse door, standing like 10' in front of it, and you walk straight up to him, you can't possibly remain invisible.

Why not? What part of the rule prevents that, in your interpretation?

But if you carefully edged along the wall behind him, you might be able to avoid his attention and slip through the warehouse door, even though you're technically within range of his sight, given the usual, "Anything within 360° is fair game"-approach to visibility.

Under the 2014 rules, this would be where it would be appropriate to actually call for a stealth check: when the player describes an action that could succeed, could fail, has stakes, and involves trying to move without being detected. I think the fundamental problem with these new stealth rules is that they’re trying to make stealth work as a mode you activate ahead of time that other creatures’ attention can force you out of, instead of just working within the game’s normal action resolution system as it should. I don’t think there’s a clean way to make this “activate stealth mode” approach work within D&D’s rules structure, and their attempt to make it work is doomed to fail in similar ways to this one.

And while it might not be part of the rules, I personally would say that a passive perception that beats the stealth roll of the rogue does not automatically reveal him; rather, I would instead say that a passive perception beating the stealth roll indicates to the creatures that something is amiss, and thus given them a reason to use the Search action.

That’s a reasonable interpretation. Not sure if it’s RAW or RAI, but I do like it a lot, and might use it.

In addition, there's a difference between giving up stealth entirely and just walking up, and trying to move stealthily towards a creature that happens to be looking your direction. If you're trying to maintain stealth, even taking advantage of lapses in attention to move towards someone who's looking your way, I'd still expect you to end your movement in a position where you can't readily be seen (ie: at least partial cover, dim lighting, light obscurement, etc). Being in direct view, completely out of cover and in bright light, when the creature's turn starts, I can't imagine not leading to the rogue being spotted.

I can’t imagine that either, yet these rules don’t prevent it, which is a real problem.

A stupidly high stealth roll may let the rogue slip from potted plant to trophy pillar to tapestry as he sneaks up to the guards watching the king's bedroom door, but thematically, I'm OK with that. Sometimes players get to do crazy, over-the-top stuff. And I think treating being hidden as "invisibility" allows for that sort of thematic play.

Overall, it seems to be written to let you do cool stuff, as long as the GM keeps a handle on people trying to do stupid stuff.

That would be fine, if the stealth rolls said that you remain hidden during your movement if you start and end that movement under conditions appropriate to hide. That’s a great basis for solid stealth rule. Unfortunately, these rules do not say that.

 

[mamba]

Note that the only thing Invisible gives you unconditionally is advantage on Initiative checks. The other two benefits only occur unless "the creature can somehow see you".

not entirely sure why the first would not also be negated by the person somehow seeing you (in reality, I know that the text does not mention it)

 

[mamba]

You left off the rest of that sentence: “unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you.” If the Paladin is not under the effects of something like the invisibility spell, the effect’s creator will easily be able to see him, so he won’t have this benefit.

so you are saying the invisibility spell does something more than apply the invisible condition to someone?

 

[TiQuinn]

Introducing the NEW STEALTH RULES...

Sorry, they made a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check so they are invisible... Sorry, have the "invisible condition."


Worse than ever.

Jeremy Crawford…still wanting to write like a lawyer and yet still not a lawyer.

 

[mellored]

According to my reading, no. Since stealth doesn’t make you literally invisible (despite the name of the condition), the guards are “somehow able to see you,” negating most of the benefits of the condition as it relates to them.

except you can't be affected by things that requires you to be seen.

Such as guards seeing you...

 

[mamba]

I assume the invisibility and greater invisibility spells will have the effect of making the creature impossible to see without see invisibility or truesight, in addition to granting the invisible condition.

so basically what you are saying is that the 'invisible' condition really should be named 'hidden' for clarity

 

[ezo]

Jeremy Crawford…still wanting to write like a lawyer and yet still not a lawyer.

It just amuses me that they continue to complicate a game that is supposed to be, and can be, very simple. The fact that as soon as we have this information, dozens of posts erupt about interpretation, use, etc. I just skimmed the thread but I don't recall a single person saying, "Finally, stealth rules that make sense and are easy to use! Thank you, WotC!"