D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mellored]

Well if we are quoting statistics, the very fact that is not statistically significant means....none of the options are in the lead. We cannot draw any conclusions

Can you get more votes?

 

[Charlaquin]

The condition (Invisible) ends on making a sound louder than a whisper, the enemy find you, you make an attack roll or cast a spell with a verbal component.
I believe your claim is that the only way to find the invisible character is by a search action but the sentence saying why the condition end does not say that, it says "then enemy finds you".
If it was restricting this to the search action why not say so?

It does say so. “Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.” So the rules for the hide action clearly define how you gain the invisible condition, how a creature can find you once you have the invisible condition, and the ways the invisible condition can end after you gain it from this action, one of which is for a creature to find you.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. DM fiat is always available. But I wouldn't count on it.

The rules say you should only call for a roll if the outcome is in doubt, and it's the DM who decides that. The DMG offers up a bit more advice saying that you should also not call for a roll unless the outcome is meaningful.

So... it ends immediately it they no longer have obscurement or cover...

Seems like a great sentence to add to the rules.

I agree. As I said in another post, they should really have made a hidden condition, rather than trying to jury rig the invisible condition to work with hiding.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It does say so. “Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.” So the rules for the hide action clearly define how you gain the invisible condition, how a creature can find you once you have the invisible condition, and the ways the invisible condition can end after you gain it from this action, one of which is for a creature to find you.

Yes! but in the interest of making this somewhat narratively sane, I would suggest that "A creature find you" includes but is not limited to the Search Action.

 

[Argyle King]

Technically correct but the claim is that the Hide action confers invisible of the "cannot be seen type" and thus the character can walk past the guard. Now if the guard can break the invisible condition with a search (perception), that is, a good look se with the mark one eyeball then clearly the invisible condition is not of the " cannot be seen " variety.
Which would imply that other methods of direct observation should be also effective.
Which would be a big nerf to the invisibility spells.

That's a good point. Though, oddly, some contemporary D&D rulings have suggested that being invisible doesn't necessarily mean that you are not hidden. Which in and of itself is weird, but that's pre-5e24, so...

Maybe the guard is a dwarf and has tremorsense.

You raise a good point though. The way this rule is written appeats to raise a lot of questions about how the rules are currently intended to work and how the rules interact with each other.

Edit: Is invisibility an illusion spell in 5e24?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The rules say you should only call for a roll if the outcome is in doubt, and it's the DM who decides that. The DMG offers up a bit more advice saying that you should also not call for a roll unless the outcome is meaningful.

I agree. As I said in another post, they should really have made a hidden condition, rather than trying to jury rig the invisible condition to work with hiding.

In one of teh earlier UAs they did have a hidden condition which was (if memory serves ) nearly identical to the current Invisible condition.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That's a good point. Though, oddly, some contemporary D&D rulings have suggested that being invisible doesn't necessarily mean that you are not hidden. Which in and of itself is weird, but that's pre-5e24, so...

Not sure what you mean here, it appears to have a double negative. Do you mean that there are ruling that invisible is not the same as hidden? What is the source?

 

[MarkB]

Then you are stuck playing whatever rules your DM uses. So it still doesn't matter what the rules are.

It does if those are the rules the DM is using. In my experience, most DMs I play with don't have extensive lists of house rules.

 

[mamba]

They didn't care because no one should ever think that is the intention of the rules or how it works

then they should not insist that we should use the rules as written all the time...

 

[Argyle King]

Not sure what you mean here, it appears to have a double negative. Do you mean that there are ruling that invisible is not the same as hidden? What is the source?

I do have a double negative there.

What I meant to say is that contemporary D&D hasn't always counted being invisible as being hidden.

I could be mistaken, but I vaguely recall invisible creatures still needing to make stealth checks to still not be noticed.

I'm away from books at the moment. I'll come back to this when I'm able to look through and have what I'm thinking about available to be.

If Invisibility is an illusion in 5e24, perhaps a good enough perception check is seeing through the illusion. While stealth and hiding shouldn't rely on a spell's description to understanding, looking at how other areas of the game adjucate invisibility might give insight into the intent of the rules.