D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Iosue]

It's literally RAW that it takes a perception check. Unless you take it out of context. The context of "an enemy finds you" is that it is related to "...which is the DC to find you with a Wisdom (perception) check."

RAW, a Perception check is a sufficient condition to find a Hiding character. No where is it stated to be a necessary condition.

I mean this quite clear. It says, “On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of the check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.” This section is not describing the only way you can be found. It’s merely saying the total of your Dexterity (Stealth) check is the DC for a Perception check to do so.

It then goes into how the Invisible condition ends in an entirely new paragraph: "The condition ends on you immediately if any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."

There is no reason to read "an enemy finds you" as referring exclusively to a Perception check, just because the words "find you" appear in both sentences. "Find you" is not a special term of use that will be in the Rules glossary. There will be many ways for an enemy to find you: Tremorsense, Blindsight, removal of concealment, divination spells and magic items. And popping out in front of them without even bothering to hide anymore.

 

[Charlaquin]

The Invisibility spell may have a secondary effect in addition to the Invisible condition, in the sense that you can have a ball of fire that is different than the Fireball spell.

It does not. Someone posted a screenshot of the full text of the spell earlier in the thread, and it has no other effect than granting the invisible condition for the duration, and defining what can end the duration early.

But this is the invisible condition regardless, per the first post:
"Invisible Condition:

While you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.

Surprise. If you're invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.

Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effects creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.

Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against the creature."

Right. So, given that we know that the above text is the only effect of the Invisibility spell, and the above text is also granted by a successful hide action, one of the following must be true:

1. A creature requires special senses (e.g. see invisibility) to “somehow see” another creature that has gained the invisible condition by taking the hide action

2. A creature does not require special senses (e.g. see invisibility) to “somehow see” another creature that has gained the invisible condition by having the invisibility spell cast on it

3. The invisible condition affects creatures differently depending on whether it was gained by use of the hide action or the casting of the invisibility spell, despite the text not stating this anywhere.

None of those things are acceptable to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

It does not. Someone posted a screenshot of the full text of the spell earlier in the thread, and it has no other effect than granting the invisible condition for the duration, and defining what can end the duration early.

Right. So, given that we know that the above text is the only effect of the Invisibility spell, and the above text is also granted by a successful hide action, one of the following must be true:

1. A creature requires special senses (e.g. see invisibility) to “somehow see” another creature that has gained the invisible condition by taking the hide action

2. A creature does not require special senses (e.g. see invisibility) to “somehow see” another creature that has gained the invisible condition by having the invisibility spell cast on it

3. The invisible condition affects creatures differently depending on whether it was gained by use of the hide action or the casting of the invisibility spell, despite the text not stating this anywhere.

None of those things are acceptable to me.

Here’s that screenshot again, by the way.

 

[MarkB]

I think the issue comes from A specifically relying on her sense of sight. A knows that B is somewhere nearby and can be more dynamic with how she approaches combat.

Scenario 1: On her turn, A walks to the bend of the corridor and turns right, looking southward directly at B. While she cannot see B directly, she still knows where B is based on sound, smell, dust markings on the ground, etc. A can attack B, but she has Disadvantage (due to the Invisible condition). B remains unseen by A. If B attacks A later, then B loses the Invisible condition.

But why can she not see B directly? He's crouching ten feet from her in an otherwise-empty corridor. Did hiding really make him literally invisible?

Scenario 2: On her turn, A readies an action to shoot B as soon as she can perceive him. Then, on his turn, B quietly walks 10 feet northward and is perceivable but still unseen by A. A makes a reaction attack with Disadvantage due to the Invisible condition. B remains unseen by A, continues his movement around the turn and up to the square adjacent to A, makes an attack with Advantage (due to the Invisible condition) against A, and then loses the Invisible condition.

How is he unseen? She's got her crossbow trained on that corner ready to shoot him the moment he turns it. How does he get right in her face before she notices him?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

No, in practice, only toxic tables that lack respect between player and DM will ever have a player attempt to argue this absurdity.

It will be a meme, just like the Peasant Railgun.

It's absurd yes, but it's also the only rules for stealth and invisibility in the PBH. It's not a joke like the Peasant Railgun, it's something that's going to come up at pretty much every 5.5 table. Every DM will have to either use the absurd rule or come up with their own houserule for stealth, possibly on the spot. That's not a big problem for experienced gamers like you and I, but D&D 5.5 will presumably be many people's very first RPG.

WotC should print rules that are good and can be used straight out of the book, not nonsense like this. Houserules should be for tweaking the game, not 'fixing' core functionality.

 

[Incenjucar]

Interesting that they don't specify "willing"...

 

[MarkB]

I likw #2 because even though I know we don't have facing rules, if a guard is staring across the valley and not checking their six (like they should be trained to do) then I want my stealth characters to be able to creep up behind them and murderize them with every advantage they can get.

I get the idea, but at the moment it's very binary. A guard who's not paying attention on duty has the same level of awareness as a character in combat who knows exactly which pillar the rogue is hiding behind and has readied an action to shoot him once he emerges.

 

[Charlaquin]

But why can she not see B directly? He's crouching ten feet from her in an otherwise-empty corridor. Did hiding really make him literally invisible?

The rules we’re discussing certainly say it did.

How is he unseen?

Because that’s what the invisible condition does.

She's got her crossbow trained on that corner ready to shoot him the moment he turns it. How does he get right in her face before she notices him?

Yep, it’s dumb. WotC should probably have written the rule in a less dumb way.

 

[Thommy H-H]

Here's another thing I realised last night, btw: the Invisible condition says nothing about awareness. Everyone's arguing about people magically turning invisible because they crouched behind a bush once, but all Invisible actually does is make you ineligible to be directly targeted by certain spells and causes attacks against you to have disadvantage. The guard you're dancing in front of still knows you're there, they just have a harder time hitting you (for, like, one round).

The Invisible condition is a replacement for the general vision rules, not magical invisibility. It's literally "not visible", that's all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, in practice, only toxic tables that lack respect between player and DM will ever have a player attempt to argue this absurdity.

It will be a meme, just like the Peasant Railgun.

I wish I shared your confidence. Or your constantly positive outlook. Do you have any issues at all with 5.5, or is all of it great or doesn't matter to you?