D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Argyle King]

And the rules cap strength at 30. So the rules do not support you in this.

And yet they do.

A character could still attempt to do it. I used the rules to determine what their strength modifier would need to be to succeed.

If a player insisted upon attempting it by jumping off of an airship or jumping from the top of a mountain peak or whatever, I would advise against it but would -if they insisted- allow them to attempt it.

After that, hopefully they have feather fall.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Responding as the person pemerton quoted, let me put it this way.

I believe that when the designers wrote "find you" in the last paragraph, they no doubt were thinking primarily of the Perception check mentioned earlier. Because, as I've mentioned elsewhere, they were assuming that any Hiding character would be trying to stay hidden, and therefore would require a Perception check. They no doubt assumed that any character coming out in the open from their hiding spot would be no longer attempting to hide. And sure, it's my speculation, but I'm 1000% certain they did not expect people to seriously entertain the notion that a character's successful attempt to hide behind cover or concealment would confer on them literal invisibility that would allow them to walk right up in plain view of some guards. They wanted to streamline the rules, so they removed such extraneous verbiage as "You lose the benefits of hiding when you stop hiding."

That said, the rule was not written so that "find you" is exclusive to a Perception check. The first paragraph is simply describing how a DC for a Perception check is determined. The second paragraph doesn't say, "...find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check." It doesn't say, "...find you as explained above." It doesn't say, "if the enemy's Wisdom (Perception) check exceeds your Stealth check". It just says "find you," and leaves the interpretation to the DM.

If a DM wants to interpret that "find you" as referring only to a Perception check (and therefore, in combat, only to a Search action, as Treantmonk inferred), and then get angry when that ruling forces them to let successfully Hiding PCs walk right up to guards, that's their prerogative. But RAW, "find you" includes but is not limited to a successful Perception check. So I know how I'll be ruling.

But why, Iosue? one might ask. Why would WotC write a rule that leaves so much to interpretation? Because, like many things in D&D, the quality of stealth will vary from table to table, from genre to genre. They want to allow situations where Hiding characters can run from one hiding spot to another without being seen. They want to allow Stealthy PCs to Hide in unique and fun ways (e.g., hiding in a crowd of people). Heck, some may even want to let characters take advantage of the guards looking another way to move straight from their hiding spot to right in front the guard, a la the docks scene in Batman Begins.

Not every table will want to do this. Some may want to make stealth super "realistic" (for certain definitions of realism), and so may interpret the rules more strictly. So, Hiding gives you the Invisible condition (which only gives you advantage on Initiative and attacks, makes you unaffected by anything that requires the enemy to see you, and gives enemies Disadvantage on attacks against you; it mentions nothing about being transparent), and this only ends when you make some noise, make an attack, cast a Verbal spell, or an enemy finds you. And that's all. How that works on the ground will be up to the DM.

Exactly, and to add some mechanical teeth to this. The designers also had to consider temporary senses like Tremorsense or Divine Sense.

PC Dwarves can activate Tremorsense for a short duration, and from the wording of Tremorsense, it would allow them to "find" an enemy who was hiding behind a door. This isn't a Bonus Action Search action, but it seems clear to me that the intent would be that a hidden enemy would be revealed by this. Same with the Paladin's Divine Sense. If there were a ghoul hiding in the rafters within 60 ft, and the paladin activated Divine Sense, they would detect and know the location of that ghoul, they would "find them". This is why they didn't specify that it had to be with a Search Action Perception Check, because there are other ways the condition could be broken, based on specific abilities.

 

[Iosue]

That tells me next to nothing about how the skills work.

What else do you need to know?

 

[Chaosmancer]

And yet they do.

A character could still attempt to do it. I used the rules to determine what their strength modifier would need to be to succeed.

If a player insisted upon attempting it by jumping off of an airship or jumping from the top of a mountain peak or whatever, I would advise against it but would -if they insisted- allow them to attempt it.

After that, hopefully they have feather fall.

So, you would have them automatically fail without the roll on this. But you would allow them to automatically succeed on hiding from someone they are staring in the eyes?

The rules clearly allow and intend for automatic successes and failures. That covers plenty on "I step out from behind the bush and moon the guards, since I'm invisible from hiding and they can't see me even when I stop hiding."

 

[Nefermandias]

If we want them to just focus on doing things and not burden them with rules, that would be good, wouldn't it? Skills are in the same class as spells. You need to know how skills work just as much as you do spells.

See? That's why we will never agree on this topic. As I see it, spells and skills are not the same at all.

Spells are self contained, limited use powers that allow the player to perform a specific effect and temporarily seize control of the narrative.

Ability checks (including Skills) on the other hand, are tools for the DM to call upon whenever they need to adjudicate an action which has a chance of failure and meaningful consequences.

Heck, the 2014 DMG even has guidelines for the DM who prefers to almost never touch the dice and just adjudicate actions based on the current fiction. Skills should never ever be treated as buttons to push. I will die on this hill gladly.

 

[Nefermandias]

Nope.
And it doesn't need to be an enemy.
And you can stow a weapon with each attack.
And you can push or shove as part of an Unarmed Attack.
And allies can choose to fail saving throw.

Sooo...
When an ally leaves your space, you can reaction shove them 5' for a little speed extra boost.

Not sure it's the best use of your reaction, but it's there.

It's even worse than that. If you have War Caster, you can cast a spell on an ally as a reaction whenever they leave your reach.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ve read and re-read the rule for stealth and it seems very clear to me. I will have no problem adjudicating it in game. Do people actually play by carefully parsing every word and seeing how far they can stretch the interpretation to come up with absurd results? Do any DMs engage with them? It seems exhausting and the antithesis of why I play games.

If a player tried to claim that stealth now makes them into the Invisible Man I would just say, “No, obviously not,” and move on. Expecting everyone to be playing in good faith is the baseline for any group I’m interested in joining.

People obviously do not play with absurd results (well some might,) but this is Oberoni Fallacy stuff. I can fix the rules.
I shouldn't need to. Especially as the whole bloody selling point of this book is that it is updated and fixed version of 5e.

 

[Argyle King]

So, you would have them automatically fail without the roll on this. But you would allow them to automatically succeed on hiding from someone they are staring in the eyes?

The rules clearly allow and intend for automatic successes and failures. That covers plenty on "I step out from behind the bush and moon the guards, since I'm invisible from hiding and they can't see me even when I stop hiding."

I would have them roll for the jump. As they wouldn't achieve the results necessary to make that jump height, they wouldn't.

The issue with the invisibility is that, much like the established formula for jumping, the game establishes specific criteria that Invisibility is gained and specific criteria for how the condition is lost.

Hiding isn't -as currently defined- an ongoing action. Rather, the game specifies criteria for taking the hide action; if successful, the character gains a specifically defined Invisible condition (which has established criteria for losing said condition).

Would I rule that differently in a home game and/or have house rules? Yes, I probably would. But that doesn't change that how I would likely rule it isn't how the coding language of the game says it functions.

 

[Yaarel]

Hiding isn't -as currently defined- an ongoing action. Rather, the game specifies criteria for taking the hide action; if successful, the character gains a specifically defined Invisible condition (which has established criteria for losing said condition).

Hiding isnt an ongoing action.

However, if a character successfully hides in one location, but then moves to a different location, it makes sense to need to try hide again.

 

[mamba]

But why, Iosue? one might ask. Why would WotC write a rule that leaves so much to interpretation? Because, like many things in D&D, the quality of stealth will vary from table to table, from genre to genre. They want to allow situations where Hiding characters can run from one hiding spot to another without being seen. They want to allow Stealthy PCs to Hide in unique and fun ways (e.g., hiding in a crowd of people). Heck, some may even want to let characters take advantage of the guards looking another way to move straight from their hiding spot to right in front the guard, a la the docks scene in Batman Begins.

they still should provide solid, sensible, and clear rules. If I have to create my own rules that are similar to WotC’s but actually work, why am I buying their product