D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Chaosmancer]

First, by making Hiding dependent on the presence of absence of a condition, it is inherently binary. If you're going to houserule at your table that it's possible to both have the Invisible condition and not have the Invisible condition at the same time, great. But if you plan to make a change that big, I don't understand why you are happy with the rules in the book.

Second, if you're playing at a table where (1) the invisible condition is binary, and (2) the DM insists that neither you or your allies can immediately tell whether or not you actually have the Invisible condition, then, in such a world, verifying whether or not the hiding character has the Invisible condition before trying to use it in a noncombat situation would not only be perfectly reasonable, it would be a basic precaution before embarking on something dangerous. (And obviously one wouldn't use a damaging cantrip. One would either use a non-damaging cantrip that requires sight--if 5e 2024 has any--or some other ability that requires a visible target.) Is trying to use character abilities to test whether or not someone is invisible ridiculous? Yes. But it's no more ridiculous than the combination of conditions (1) and (2) that would make it necessary.

No, it is absolutely more ridiculous. Because if you wanted to take this to that level of binary extreme, then hiding is utterly impossible because Gods exist in DnD, and can perceive you. The fact that the book only talks about the situation from a 1v1 perspective says nothing at all about how that operates at other extremes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And how is that not possible with the invisible condition being allowed to operate when the target is unaware of you? Do you think a different condition being in the book would somehow make this more a situation where humans make decisions, instead of this situation where humans are making decisions?

The issue here is treating two pretending to be pedestrians engaging in a little PDA (for example) as invisible, as if they were physically hidden or had cast a spell making them invisible. Those are different things and should be adjudication differently (all three scenarios, actually). Just because it's not a big deal to you doesn't mean others have no right to feel differently.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't that depend on what finding means?

In the 4e rules that I quoted upthread, it is clearly state that the invisibility gained from successfully hiding is lost if the character doesn't have cover or concealment. The 4e rules also state that invisibility grants total concealment. So there is (for some sense of "is") an argument (for some sense of "argument") that, as per the 4e rules, the invisibility that results from successfully hiding itself grants the concealment sufficient to retain the benefit of being invisible.

But I never saw that argument actually advanced. It was always taken as obvious that it has to be some sort of "external" cover/concealment.

Whereas, and conversely, I always saw it as taken for granted that the Invisibility spell does confer total concealment, without the need for any other source of concealment or cover, until it comes to an end.

The logic of these new 5e rules seems the same to me. The only issue with the hiding rules is, when is the GM supposed to determine that someone has found the hiding person? Presumably this is a function of the vision and perception rules.

The problem is that unlike 4e, the new 5e rules do not state the bolded and so are not RAW. Reasonable, but not RAW.

 

[seebs]

It seems to me like the big difference is that if you're using hide to "become invisible", then when you are found you lose the invisible trait, so, you're no-longer-invisible. If you're using invisibility to become invisible, the spell doesn't say you lose the condition when you're found, so someone can find you, and know where you are... but you're still invisible, so if you move, they have to try to find you again, because the condition isn't lost.

 

[Maxperson]

In the OP, there is no "finding as defined in an earlier paragraph" - there's interpolation by a youtuber. (At least that's my understanding.)

Has the rules text on finding and on vision more generally been posted yet?

I haven't seen those rules yet. I'm not sure there will even be general rules on "finding" and vision doesn't seem as likely to tell us how to find a hidden creature as the general stealth rules. The general stealth rules are what I'm most interested in seeing.

 

[Maxperson]

So having listened to more info on the matter:

I'm thoroughly convinced that hiding will be covered in greater detail in the DMG. Mostly due to how little exploration is addressed. I am going to wager that rules that should be handled by the DM are going to be covered there and that a lot of holes we are seeing in the PHB so far (stealth, influencing NPCs, search, and skill use in general) are going to get covered in greater detail there.

They are pulling out a lot of information that players need to play the game and sticking it in the DMG. These are more instances that show the PHB to be an incomplete book. Players shouldn't have to go outside of the PHB to have basic knowledge of how things like stealth, social skills, searching, etc. work.

Those things will influence what kind of characters people will create.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They are pulling out a lot of information that players need to play the game and sticking it in the DMG. These are more instances that show the PHB to be an incomplete book. Players shouldn't have to go outside of the PHB to have basic knowledge of how things like stealth, social skills, searching, etc. work.

Those things will influence what kind of characters people will create.

I don't have as much of a problem with it as you do, because so far it seems that most of the "missing" things seem okay to me to consider them DM-facing, but I think that the phenomenon that you are lamenting is likely the fault of the idea that Crawford put forth: The new books are all (to him) one big book split into three sections.

Previous Core books often had some of the same information presented in both the PHB and DMG, but from different perspectives. I think we might not see much of that this time.

 

[Xetheral]

The problem is that unlike 4e, the new 5e rules do not state the bolded and so are not RAW. Reasonable, but not RAW.

It's reasonable in the abstract that someone hiding stops being hidden if they leave cover or concealment. But I'm not sure it's a reasonable interpretation of the new rules, since it makes the Hide action practically useless.

Out-of-combat, a creature in 3/4 cover might (depending on how the requirements are interpreted) be able to become unseen by taking the Hide Action. But creatures in total cover or heavy obscurement gain literally nothing by taking the Hide action. It doesn't help them become unseen (because they already are); stay unseen (because under this interpretation one loses the Invisible condition if one leaves cover or concealment); or become or remain unheard (because the 2024 Hide action rules don't provide any such benefit). And the same is true in-combat if the 2024 rules still provide the "Attacks Affected" benefit of the Invisible condition to anyone who is unseen, the way the Unseen Attackers rule does in the 2014 rules.

 

[pukunui]

I don't have as much of a problem with it as you do, because so far it seems that most of the "missing" things seem okay to me to consider them DM-facing, but I think that the phenomenon that you are lamenting is likely the fault of the idea that Crawford put forth: The new books are all (to him) one big book split into three sections.

This just makes the staggered release all the more annoying. If they're one big book split into three sections, then I reckon they should have released the three together in a boxed set (like they did with Spelljammer and Planescape).

 

[mamba]

They are pulling out a lot of information that players need to play the game and sticking it in the DMG.

isn’t this just speculation at this point? Do we know that there will be further details in it? Let alone how relevant that information is for the player as opposed to the DM…