D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mamba]

It doesn't specify it because it is obvious. I'm sorry, yes, that turns out to have been a terrible mistake on their part, but it is true. They assumed the players were functional people who could understand nuance.

well, they trained them for 10 years not to be and instead follow the RAW

 

[Clint_L]

For example, if a PC sneaks up to a sleeping nobel and slits their throat, I wouldn't have them roll an attack, I'd set a DC for them to do so without waking them up. If they succeed, the target is dead, if the fail, roll initiative.

That's incredibly abusable.

 

[Charlaquin]

But when they step out in front of you and wave, they are obvious

Not if they’re invisible they aren’t.

 

[Stalker0]

It doesn't specify it because it is obvious. I'm sorry, yes, that turns out to have been a terrible mistake on their part, but it is true. They assumed the players were functional people who could understand nuance.

and they learned better the second they got the playtest feedback, which is why this is SO damn frustrating.

If these had been brand new stealth rules that we had gotten for the first time, ok they missed it. Shame on them but hey mistakes happen.

but its not, this is basically the same rules we had in the playtest. We have already been through this. We have already highlighted the endless debates and the confusion, adn the fact that see invis no auto finds stealthed creatures. Literally months ago we were having these same arguments and brought them up in the comments on the platyest.


So if they had made the assumption it was a terribly poor one to make.

 

[Imaro]

Hide Action: DC 15 stealth check while heavily obscured or behind 3/4 cover, and out of enemy line of sight. On a successful check, you have the invisible condition.

My reading of these rules is that in order to take the Hide Action" a PC must...
1. Be heavily obscured or behind 3/4 cover...
2. Out of enemy line of sight.
3. Make a DC 15 Stealth check

It is taking (and maintaining this action) that bestows the invisibility condition so the moment you are no longer hiding... you also no longer have the invisible condition.

Edit: in other words if you break any of the hide action conditions you are no longer successfuly hidden and thus no longer have the invisibility condition.

 

[OB1]

That's incredibly abusable.

Well thats why Nobels pay good money for bodyguards and wizards to cast Alarm around their room every night It sounds easy but the reality is a whole adventure worth of planning and making checks to actually pull it off in that manner

 

[occam]

Does this solve things? Paraphrased description of the Invisibility condition from the new PHB:

You have ADV on initiative rolls, you aren't affected by any effect that requires a target to be seen, unless they can somehow see you, and attack rolls against you have disadvantage, while your attack rolls have ADV, unless the creature can see you somehow.

Specifically, the inclusion of some language that if you can be seen (you're dancing in front of a guard in broad daylight, you're standing in front of a creature with darkvision or blindsight, etc.), then obviously you don't get the benefits of being invisible; would that fix the problems?

 

[Demetrios1453]

Does this solve things? Paraphrased description of the Invisibility condition from the new PHB:

Specifically, the inclusion of some language that if you can be seen (you're dancing in front of a guard in broad daylight, you're standing in front of a creature with darkvision or blindsight, etc.), then obviously you don't get the benefits of being invisible; would that fix the problems?

That "unless they somehow can see you" basically closes the door on the arguments on this.

"I charge towards the guards"

"They start shooting you with their bows"

"But how, I'm invisible because i successfully hid!"

"The guards can see you, thus, by RAW, you aren't invisible any more."

I'm sure some will try to rules lawyer their way around the wording, but it very much seems that if a foe can see you, you lose the Invisble status.

 

[Charlaquin]

Blindsight from echolocation (bats) or tremorsense (something IRL spiders have) are not magical.

Fine, a special sense then. My point is, invisibility is definitionally the inability to see something with normal vision, even when it’s right in front of you.

Maybe it did slip through. It seems so glaringly obvious that I would wonder why it was included, if not for this thread and people insisting on absurdities.

There are no secret rules. The rules do what they say they do, and don’t do things they don’t say they do. If the intent is for leaving cover or concealment to end the invisible condition gained by use of the hide action, the rules for the hide action should say that. They don’t. The fact that it made it to print this way suggests to me that it is, in fact, the intent, but if it isn’t there should be errata issued as soon as possible.

How else would you define "finding" someone if it isn't seeing them? And remember, there is NOTHING in the rules that state that it takes an action to see someone who is not attempting to hide.

I define it as the rule defines it: with a successful wisdom (perception) check against a DC equal to the result of the hiding creature’s dexterity (stealth) check. By the general rules, this is done with either passive perception, or the search action. So yes, there is something in the rules that says it takes an action.

No, it absolutely should work that way. If I am hidden in a dark room, and an enemy with no light source or darkvision enters the room... then I am effectively invisible. IF I am hidden in the woods and no one sees me... then I am effectively invisible.

Effectively invisible, sure. Not literally invisible. Your body still reflects light, there’s just currently either no light hitting you or some other opaque object(s) in the way. Now, it would not be unreasonable for the rules to represent this “effective invisibility” with the invisibility condition, but then those rules would need to specify that said “effective invisiblity” ends as soon as there is light reflecting off of you and no opaque objects blocking the view of you.

We literally see this all the time in movies. You just keep insisting that the condition persists when the player stops acting like a rational, reasonable person, and starts abusing the wording.

Because the flaw in the wording that enables this is so glaringly obvious, it leads me to believe it’s more likely to have been intentional than a mistake. Especially because they allegedly read every comment in the playtest surveys and I pointed out this “mistake” in every survey since UA6, and I know I’m not the only respondent to have done so. So, either they were aware of this mistake and forgot to fix it, or it isn’t a mistake.

Yes, it is situational. So insisting you continue to get the benefits after losing the situation that grants those benefits is nonsense.

The cover or obscuration isn’t what grants the benefits. The condition grants the benefits, and the rule defines the initial conditions required to use the action that grants the conditions, and separately lists the events that can end the condition. Leaving cover or concealment is not listed among these events, and I believe that to be intentional. Because they want to enable you to come out of cover to attack someone without being seen, and seemingly just don’t care that this approach also enables you to come out of cover to simply walk past the enemy without being seen, and remain unseen indefinitely. Which is what I take issue with. They should care about that.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think this is correct. You can still hide from enemies that can see invisible no problem, like high-level demons, in more than one edition. It is true that functionally there is a substantial overlap, and at certain level intervals invisibility comes on top, but they are not the same thing, nor should they be, and one cannot assume one is always better than the other.

Specific counterplay does not negate the obvious. In most editions, invisibility has a 100% chance of making you unseen in any conditions. Stealth has required dozens of hoops to jump through, plenty of rolls and a much higher chance of failure. There are very few examples where regular stealth is better than magic, and those exceptions prove the rule.