D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[WanderingMystic]

@Maxperson The PHB give you enough information to make an informed choice on what character you want to play. The game is a collaboration between players and the DM so yes if you are playing in a game the DM should then tell you what gods you can choose from. The idea that you should have all of those gods listed in a PHB is ridiculous. That information is setting information and has no place in a setting neutral book. Even if they put some gods in there it would not be complete and would end up being more confusing for players when they told their DM that they have already chosen their God only to be told that that God doesn't exist in the game they are playing

As far as what bonuses or penalties you may or may not have in a given situation the DM has always had the ability to give out situational modifiers and those are usually left to be determined by the DM so once again not something that needs to or should be in the player section of the rules.

Rpgs in general are a collaboration between the DM and the players so you need to talk with each other. Are you thinking about playing a rogue who sneaks up in front of people so they can stab them and look them in the eyes well when you let your DM know about your character they will say yeah I don't want hide to work like that (regardless of the actual rules the DM can always say that that is not how it will work in their games.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Why do you think being in line of sight of person means they find you? Cite a rule to back this up instead of making up rules.

I think it’s logical to believe that if you see someone you’ve found someone. Not just in line of sight but actually seeing them with any kind of vision.

But a similar question still applies, what is the rules basis for thinking they can be seen or cannot be seen.

 

[Argyle King]

Does someone automatically fail an athletics roll to jump to the moon?

If the answer is yes, what is the rules basis for this decision? What rule would you cite?

If the answer is that you would cite the rule in the beginning of the book, which determines that the DM only calls for a check when the outcome is uncertain, and the outcome is not uncertain that a character cannot jump to the moon... then why can we not declare that the outcome is not uncertain that an enemy can find someone who stops hiding and stands directly in front of them?

What about the invisibility spell? The invisibility spell is not broken by an enemy finding you. Therefore the circumstance does not apply. The invisibility spell gives you the condition regardless of line of sight, or other effects. The Hide action invisibility is broken when an enemy finds you.

You can try to jump to the moon. It would take a sufficiently high athletics check to cover such a distance. Less than that and the character jumps as high as they can and then the DM asks them to roll for fall damage.

There is some uncertainty in the invisibility/finding example because the game establishes oddly specific rules about how hiding turns a person invisible and under what criteria said invisibility is lost.

If D&D invisibility functions like Halo, I would posit that it's not quite invisibility. If you know to look for the shape of a person and their outline, it's possible to reliably snipe cloaked characters in Halo. Training your eyes to do so isn't all that different from learning to pick out targets through a scope at night or learning to look for the shape of a deer against a backdrop of wilderness.

 

[Chaosmancer]

(I'm still not sure if picking a lock is a tool use or a sleight of hand check, I've seen support for both).

As I understand the intent, you can do it with either, but if you have proficiency in both, you get advantage on the check.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Expanding on this now that I have a bit more time. Let’s walk through a few possibilities.

1a. PC walks around the corner and see the enemy with the invisible condition that was gained by hiding.
2a. Since he sees him then assume that means he found him.
3a. Since he found him that ends the invisible condition when gained by hiding.

I would say yes, but with caveats.

2a. is simplifying a LOT here. IF you mean an enemy had the invisible condition from hiding, and is now standing in the center of a well-lit, blank and featureless hallway, then we are good. If there are other situations, then the PC might not see the enemy. After all, if they are human and the hallway is dark, they do not see the enemy. If the enemy is in the rafters, and the PC is just casually walking through the hall, they may not see the enemy.If the enemy has hidden amongst a group of four mads who are walking down the hall, then the PC may not see the enemy.

1b. PC walks around the corner and see the enemy with the invisible condition that was gained by the invisible spell.
2b. Since he sees him then assume that means he found him.
3b. But finding him doesnt end the invisible condition when applied by the invisibiliy spell.
4b. But seeing the enemy does end most of the benefits of the invisible condition (the ‘somehow can see you clause’).

Some people I think are trying to reverse steps 1 and 2, but if you don’t see the enemy in the fiction then there’s no basis for saying you found him. A cart before horse problem.

Not quite. The hide option assumes that breaking line of sight is part of the action. But the invisibility spell, does not. So, we cannot just assume that the PC "Sees" the enemy, because the invisibility spell essentially acts as permanent full cover. This is why the clause is "somehow see" not "you see" to indicate that there must be something which allows it.

The hide action always seeing the target with normal eyes, hence why the find them clause ends the condition.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not quite the same condition. An evil enemy can still target the 'innocent ' couple in frustration because they can still be seen.

Then they have been found, and the rules for stealth indicate the condition ends.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why do you think being in line of sight of a person means they find you? Cite a rule to back this up instead of making up rules.

Because you have to be out of their line of sight to initiate the condition. It is reasonable to read that as the condition automatically ends if you are in their line of sight, hence why it cannot be initiated. If you are going to tell me "but it doesn't say that" then explain why I need to break line of sight to hide, since a DC 15 stealth check allows me to fade into transparency per your interpretation.

That is still being invisible. The person doesn't see you. But last two bullet points of invisible condition do nothing if you can "somehow" be seen. If normal vision is sufficient to "somehow" see you (and nothing in the rules say it isn't) then these two bullet points effectively do nothing.

It is not invisibility in the terms of transparency. The eyeball can see you, but the mind cannot register you. I see nothing in the invisible condition which prevents this, as someone able to detect minds (like an elder brain) would still somehow see you due to their other senses.

No, they don't see you. Whether the light enters their eye or not is completely immaterial.

That is what seeing means, so it is relevant. unless you want to have another definition of seeing somewhere in the book?

Indeed. So why the hell you think the invisibility gained by hiding ends when you enter someone's field of vision?

Because if you are not hiding, then you can be seen. Closing your eyes and saying "you can't see me" isn't enough to fade into transparency.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You can try to jump to the moon. It would take a sufficiently high athletics check to cover such a distance. Less than that and the character jumps as high as they can and then the DM asks them to roll for fall damage.

And the rules do not support you on this.

There is some uncertainty in the invisibility/finding example because the game establishes oddly specific rules about how hiding turns a person invisible and under what criteria said invisibility is lost.

If D&D invisibility functions like Halo, I would posit that it's not quite invisibility. If you know to look for the shape of a person and their outline, it's possible to reliably snipe cloaked characters in Halo. Training your eyes to do so isn't all that different from learning to pick out targets through a scope at night or learning to look for the shape of a deer against a backdrop of wilderness.

Sure, if you want to think of it that way. That could be easily represented by having a high attack bonus or advantage on your attacks, and attacking someone despite their invisibility.

 

[Asisreo]

I still can't believe stealth rules are so ambiguous that there's a thread 100 pages long of people who know D&D arguing over what they mean...before the rules have actually come out!

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson The PHB give you enough information to make an informed choice on what character you want to play. The game is a collaboration between players and the DM so yes if you are playing in a game the DM should then tell you what gods you can choose from. The idea that you should have all of those gods listed in a PHB is ridiculous. That information is setting information and has no place in a setting neutral book. Even if they put some gods in there it would not be complete and would end up being more confusing for players when they told their DM that they have already chosen their God only to be told that that God doesn't exist in the game they are playing

As far as what bonuses or penalties you may or may not have in a given situation the DM has always had the ability to give out situational modifiers and those are usually left to be determined by the DM so once again not something that needs to or should be in the player section of the rules.

Rpgs in general are a collaboration between the DM and the players so you need to talk with each other. Are you thinking about playing a rogue who sneaks up in front of people so they can stab them and look them in the eyes well when you let your DM know about your character they will say yeah I don't want hide to work like that (regardless of the actual rules the DM can always say that that is not how it will work in their games.)

Literally none of that was what I was asking for or opposing.

I never said all gods should be in the PHB. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying that the big four settings, which a ton of people play, should have a curated list of the biggest gods in the PHB. Look at the 2014 listing of Eberron, FR, Greyhawk and Dragonlance. It takes just a few pages to include those 4. For the more obscure settings and for homebrew, you would of course have to go to your DM.

As for bonuses and penalties, that is not what I was talking about needing to be in the PHB. I do need to know what sort of cover will work, whether half cover is worse than 3/4 cover and/or full cover, exactly how my character can be found out(the rules we see are missing this), how the hiding works outside of combat(I expect to see this in the 5.5e PHB), etc. Things players would need to know about hiding and stealth.

Lastly, none of us are arguing that the rogue should actually be invisible and be able to walk up and stab someone in the face. We are discussing what the rules as written say, which of course are missing the general stealth rules. We only see the combat Hide Action and the Invisible Condition.