D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[FrogReaver]

Those are changes to the hide action, not invisible.

Hide makes you invisible, as long as you have concealment or cover.

Instead of the nebulous "found by" an enemy.

Hide doesn’t depend on concealment at all. It’s 3/4 cover total cover or heavy obscurement to hide.

 

[TiQuinn]

It seems like hiding grants magical invisibility in these rules.

And one is free to interpret it that way if they really want their game to play like that. But I expect most people won't want it to play like that.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem is with hiding making people invisible. Invisibility doesn't end when you are found. It ends if they can somehow see you, which searching doesn't grant. Searching can find something hidden or even something invisible, but it doesn't mean that you can see that which you found.

Now it can be argued that the specific hide rules override the invisible condition rules, but that still means that the hidden person is completely invisible unless searched for, even if standing right in front of you.

Pretty sure you just said the same thing I did.

 

[Maxperson]

Honestly, I think one of the big issues people are having here is that the word "invisible" has a load of baggage from fantasy fiction, superheroes, etc. You hear invisible, you think Invisible Man, you think magical powers. But invisible also just means "not visible" and I believe that's the sense in which the condition uses it. Ideally we'd have some other word that didn't carry all those connotations, like "unvisible" or something, but we don't.

Yes, but the invisible condition makes you "not visible" even when standing right in front of someone. The only way you can really justify that is if they are invisible like Invisible Man.

 

[FrogReaver]

And one is free to interpret it that way if they really want their game to play like that. But I expect most people won't want it to play like that.

Please provide an interpretation where it’s not and doesn’t break the invisibility or greater invisibility spell.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, but the invisible condition makes you "not visible" even when standing right in front of someone. The only way you can really justify that is if they are invisible like Invisible Man.

Or, ‘somehow can see you’ includes standing in front of someone that can see you

 

[TiQuinn]

Please provide an interpretation where it’s not and doesn’t break the invisibility or greater invisibility spell.

I don't care about not breaking the invisibility or greater invisibility spell. They wrote it the way they wrote it. I'll play it the way I want to play it.

 

[Stormonu]

This. Stealth is not magical. Invisibility is magical.

I don't have a problem with stealth being equivalent to magic, that's good for the martials. I do have a problem that being hidden is MORE than being invisible. In many ways it's a combination of Invisibility and Silence, but you can willingly end both.

Because D&D doesn't using facing and breaks movement up into choppy rounds, I can somewhat envision that being out in the open and not losing stealth could be feasible (ye olde "sneak past the guards while they're talking to each other and/or distracted" or "sneak up behind someone"). But I think it should be noted in the rules that if you don't have some kind of obstruction in the way your stealth should be at disadvantage at the least (Passive gaining a +5 bonus). It assumes your still trying to be sneaky, passing by when the observer is distracted or looking elsewhere. If the PC does something blatantly stupid or irrational, the DM should treat it as the PC willingly dropping the stealthed condition, regardless what the rules say.

One thing I find unusual - in 2014 5E, if move more than half your movement rate is there any penalty to stealth? How about if you dash? I don't remember seeing any rules against this other than you can't stealth on overland movement if you're using quick pace.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't care about not breaking the invisibility or greater invisibility spell. They wrote it the way they wrote it. I'll play it the way I want to play it.

you made a comment about interpreting the rule. If you don’t want to discuss rule interpretation that’s fine, but it’s a bit odd to act like theres a better way to interpret the rule and then not share it. So I’m a bit puzzled.

 

[Maxperson]

Those are changes to the hide action, not invisible.

Hide makes you invisible, as long as you have concealment or cover.

Instead of the nebulous "found by" an enemy.

That isn't what it says. It says you have to have that before you turn invisible. Once you are out of sight and make the successful check, you become invisible(gain the invisible condition) at which point the ways to find you are as follows.

1) you make a sound louder than a whisper.
2) an enemy finds you.
3) you make an attack roll.
4) you cast a spell with a verbal component.

Number 2 is the issue here. The rule that provides the invisible condition also provides for how you are found. "Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom(Perception) check. Even if you move out of concealment or cover, it still requires a perception check with a DC equal to your hide check to see you. I disagree with the OP that it would require an active search, but it still means that if that perception check fails, you won't be seen even if you are out in the open.