D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Charlaquin]

You have to have cover or concealment to hide. Period. You are not invisible in plain sight.

The rule doesn’t say that. It says you have to have cover or obscuration to take the hide action. Once you’ve taken the action, passed your check, and gained the condition, leaving cover or obscuration is not among the list of things that causes you to lose the condition.

 

[Thommy H-H]

But they can't see you. And if you are quiet, they can't know you are there without a successful perception check, See Invisible, True Seeing or the like.

Citation needed. Invisible grants you advantage on your attack rolls, disadvantage on attack rolls that target you, and you're not eligible to be targeted by effects requiring line of sight. That's it. It's a general set of rules that covers all kinds of situations where you aren't visible.

 

[mamba]

I did explain why I'd rule it in a way consistent with the RAW in the rest of the post. Invisibility only grants combat-based effects; it's not so much that you'd lose the condition, it's that the condition doesn't matter if all you're doing is wandering around not fighting anyone.

so you are saying it makes no difference whether someone casts invisibility before attempting to sneak past some guards or not?

 

[Belen]

the invisibility spell seems to disagree with that

The thread is about stealth and says you need to have cover of concealment to hide and gain the invisible condition. You lose the condition if you no longer meet the conditions to hide. I would just say that the spell grants you the full cover condition.

Honestly, it is things like this that mean we will stick with 2014.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You mean on the part of the folks who wrote the rule? Maybe, but this has been pointed out in three rounds of UA survey feedback, so at this point it feels less like a brain fart and more like an intentional choice.

Not sure which is worse...

 

[Pauln6]

I do not care about what you as the DM rule. It may come as a surprise, but we are not discussing how you would be ruling

We are discussing what the rules are

The rules are that the DM decides how to apply the rules, but you knew that already

 

[mamba]

The thread is about stealth and says you need to have cover of concealment to hide and gain the invisible condition.

in part, it is about everything related to that condition as well

You lose the condition if you no longer meet the conditions to hide.

not according to the Hide action or the Invisible condition, that is the point

I would just say that the spell grants you the full cover condition.

so not invisibility then… you can rule however you want, but this is not in agreement with the actual rules

 

[Thommy H-H]

I can repeat myself too.

‘Good luck telling the player he can’t use the hide rules in the book outside combat’

D&D switches game modes all the time. Lots of actions work differently when they're taken in different modes of play. That's not new, nor does it contradict any rules being discussed here.

 

[mamba]

The rules are that the DM decides how to apply the rules, but you knew that already

doesn’t change that it is about what the rules say, not about how you personally intend to violate them

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Someone at Gencon get Jeremy Crawford to sit down and outline a turn by burn description of how this would play out in practise.