D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Xetheral]

No, we have an 85 page thread because instead of going "okay, weirdly worded, but I see what the goal was" we have people going "Well, actually, the rules technically allow... and therefore this is the real intent, because why write it that way if you weren't intended this to be a video game"

I think you're overlooking that a substantial number of posters are trying to discuss the weird wording in particular. That's a worthwhile topic for discussion in brand new rules that are ostensibly an upgrade over the 2014 rules. And when discussing weird wording, evaluating edge cases potentially created by that wording is a fundamental part of the analysis.

Also, even if, as you suggest, we dismiss out of hand the interpretations that lead to being able to be unseeable while actively doing things that should make one seen, that still leaves several competing interpretations of how the rules work, with some posters expressing dissatisfaction with one or more of those interpretations, all of which are independently worthy of discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only from toxic players who want to show off their "Well, actually..." skills while chuckling and pushing up their glasses.

Anyone playing in good faith will not attempt things that are clearly not intended like this. And if I ever run into someone who wants to argue and insist on that, they will quickly find that they don't like that rule, and would rather use something that makes sense.

So you're set to punish if your players try to use RAW here?

 

[mamba]

Yeah, everyone is bouncing off that "you have the Invisible condition" bit in the Hide action, and struggling to come back from that. Look back at my posts in this thread: I've had to reiterate that, in rules terms, "Invisible" doesn't mean "invisible" time and time again. It all works, it just requires that you get past "hiding makes you invisible" as a concept.

eh, it does not truly work, either Hide or the Invisibility spell get the short end of the stick, but you certainly can handwave the issues away

The problem is the backwards compatibility tbh, because Invisible already existed in the 2014 rules as a condition, and is referenced in various stat blocks etc. so they couldn't (or didn't feel they could) just replace it with Concealed, or Unseen, or something like that which would probably cause less furrowing of brows.

they could just have two conditions, that way they are compatible and can avoid all this nonsense

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, everyone is bouncing off that "you have the Invisible condition" bit in the Hide action, and struggling to come back from that. Look back at my posts in this thread: I've had to reiterate that, in rules terms, "Invisible" doesn't mean "invisible" time and time again. It all works, it just requires that you get past "hiding makes you invisible" as a concept.

You keep saying that, but you exactly as much in the way of a citation saying that as I do. Nothing. The difference is that RAW currently backs me up, not this idea.

That doesn't mean by the way that I don't agree with you in concept. I agree that there are different ways to become unseen. It's just not in the rules so far, which is the issue. Of course we can all house rule the 2024 rules to make more sense. The issue we are pointing out is that the rules as they are written are horribly borked. At least as we currently see them.

Currently we only see the hide action and the invisible condition. We do not see the general stealth rules. All this might be cleared up there.

 

[mamba]

And both of those work fine. I prefer the cover to cover, because that fits better with what the players want to do.

same

But note, NEITHER of you consensuses are "can disco dance naked in the town square, because I took the hide action in my room and therefore I am permanently invisible from everyone" which is the interpretation that keeps getting pushed forward as "well the rules say...."

they are not consensus about what the rules say, but what would be a reasonable fix for the broken rules that we do have instead

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is Crawford. Going by his tweets, rules producing counterintuitive nonsense is no problem for him. And obviously the intent is not clear to many. We shouldn't need do be doing this sort of guessing of intent or rely on people not exploiting blatant and obvious issues in the rules. Rules should be clear, and should produce RAI when played RAW. These designers have ten years of experience with the system, as well as extensive playtest that identified the exact issue. We should demand better.

We should, but people keep buying, so they have no motivation to write better rules.

 

[Argyle King]

No, the intent is clear.

These rules are not meant for a PC to stand in an empty room, and roll stealth twenty-five times until they get over a 15 and then stroll out of the room, completely invisible to everyone in the entire city. Firstly, the rules of the game do not allow the PC to declare a check, the DM determines when a check is warranted due to uncertainty in the situation. Additionally, the game has NEVER really supported "just keep re-rolling until you succeed"

So that scenario is not the intent of the rules.

What about if you are in the woods, and you hide behind a bush, and sneak up to a bandit camp? Well, no player, ever, without specifically trying to make a point about this thread in particular, would ever say "okay, I want to step out of the bush, and disco dance in front of the scout, since I'm invisible and the scout can't see me". No one would think that is a reasonable action, if they were not insisting that that is exactly how they interpret these rules. Everyone agrees that is absurd.

The reason that the rules do not say that breaking cover doesn't break the condition granted from hiding, is because that was how things used to work, which meant that if a character run from the bush to a tree, then the rules technically meant they were automatically spotted. Also, it meant that the player couldn't say "I wait until he turns around, then rush out and stab him" because the second they moved from their cover, they lost all benefits of being hidden. Now, they can do this clearly obvious thing that hiding should allow them to do.

So, when we stop saying "well, what is actually written allows..." and instead look at "what would a player, in good faith, attempt to do?" then the rules intent is crystal clear, and these rules work. They actually work really well. Better than the old rules. The designers just made the stupid decision to only consider good faith play.

I've played in enough Adventurer’s League sessions to not be surprised by what a player might attempt to do based on the rules.

In addition, as I've said already, there are D&D rules which violate what would make sense in real life, yet they are both RAW and RAI.

Absurd? Sure

Clear intent? Not necessarily

Better than 2014? Maybe, but I don't think either version of the stealth rules particularly make sense because a lot of basic real-world concepts such as the difference between cover & concealment don't exist in D&D.

 

[mamba]

Sorry, this is unclear. Can you restate what you mean, here?

you had two examples, the second one was a guard somehow knowing that a thief is in the house but not where, so has to go room to room. At that point it has not found the thief yet, despite being aware of its existence

 

[mamba]

So you're set to punish if your players try to use RAW here?

punish is a strong word, I won’t let them use the RAW interpretation but that is it

 

[mellored]

Like, if this is our biggest bone to pick?

This or the ranger relying on Hunter's Mark too much.

And this can be fixed with a sentence that every DM is going to play with anyways.

Those are the only real complaints I've seen.