D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[borringman]

Also I think it's a reasonable assumption that an enemy will call you out

OK, but calling someone out doesn't make them visible.

. . . not that every situation is like this, but there's a big difference between "I know you're there" and "I see you". And that can make for some incredible suspense. It's giving up a lot for the sake of simplicity.

 

[Stalker0]

The new PHB, regarding Hiding, says "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." They kept it loose. I believe they are using the word "invisible" as a synonym for "not visible," rather than "you turn translucent."

And I could have respected tbst…during the plsytest. The problem is every single thing we are complaining about right now was noted in the playtest, with not a single change to make it clearer. That’s the part that’s frustrating. Stealth is complicated…we get that, but that had like 8 chances to get it right in the playtest…and it’s still the same unclear mess we had before

 

[OB1]

great, so the only difference is the DC, and in either case I get the Invisibility condition. Now tell me what causes that condition to end according to the rules. It is not me stepping out of cover…

There are two steps here.

The Invisible condition features don't function if you can be seen by a creature (stepping out of cover if they are looking in your direction) and ends if you make a noise louder than a whisper, attack or cast a spell. So let's say you pop out of cover, see that the enemy is looking in your direction, and go back into cover. You would retain the invisible condition from your hide action and could try again next round. I guess you could use that to escape the combat, in which case combat is over and now the enemy is searching for you in the direction you went, which would be resolved with ability checks, not combat action resolution.

Can you describe a specific scenario where there would be an issue?

 

[FrogReaver]

great, so the only difference is the DC, and in either case I get the Invisibility condition. Now tell me what causes that condition to end according to the rules. It is not me stepping out of cover…

One caveat, If you didn’t get it from the hide action then nothing! The ending of the invisible condition is only spelled out in the rules that grant it.

 

[FrogReaver]

And I could have respected tbst…during the plsytest. The problem is every single thing we are complaining about right now was noted in the playtest, with not a single change to make it clearer. That’s the part that’s frustrating. Stealth is complicated…we get that, but that had like 8 chances to get it right in the playtest…and it’s still the same unclear mess we had before

Arguably worse than before.

 

[mellored]

OK, but calling someone out doesn't make them visible.

. . . not that every situation is like this, but there's a big difference between "I know you're there" and "I see you". And that can make for some incredible suspense. It's giving up a lot for the sake of simplicity.

Want to play a mock battle where I control 4 rogues and you DM 8 guards?

And you need to track which rogue each guard can see at any given moment?

Sure, it would be more realistic. But i expect you won't want to do a second battle.

 

[mamba]

Making noise louder than a whisper, being found by an enemy's Search action, or casting a spell with a verbal component.

correct

Stepping out of cover would make noise louder than a whisper. (This is conjecture.)

I doubt it always would, and if it does not…

 

[OB1]

Want to play a mock battle where I control 4 rogues and you DM 8 guards?

And you need to track which rogue each guard can see at any given moment?

Sure, it would be more realistic. But i expect you won't want to do a second battle.

I would likely roll a d4 each time a rouge targets a guard to see if they are looking their way (on a 1 they are). Simple and fast.

 

[mamba]

The Invisible condition features don't function if you can be seen by a creature (stepping out of cover if they are looking in your direction)

that only applies for two of the three cases mentioned in the condition

Can you describe a specific scenario where there would be an issue?

we had some upthread, hide behind a bush, gain the invisible condition, step out and walk past the guards

 

[borringman]

Want to play a mock battle where I control 4 rogues and you DM 8 guards?

And you need to track which rogue each guard can see at any given moment?

Sure, it would be more realistic. But i expect you won't want to do a second battle.

I don't find that intimidating at all, even despite the disingenuous condition that everyone in the party is a rogue.

I find it far more unlikely that a group would be all rogues. Not impossible, but I've personally never witnessed such a thing.

I suppose the next step of this conversation would be "maybe you but not anyone else", but it's not much more complicated than what a DM already has to track. D&D is a pretty darn bureaucratic system. Maybe they're trying to improve that, fine, but that doesn't mean this is the best way to go about it.