D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Argyle King]

The Invisible condition is the correct approach, and simplifies many variables.

Probably it is the Hide action and the Invisibility spell that need to clarify how one maintains the condition.

I still think (as I said earlier in the thread) that the simplest solution would have been to include a "Hidden" condition.

It could function similar to Invisible but it would also be a lesser version and have other criteria for how it is gained or lost.

It would have overlap with Invisible, like how grappled and restrained have some overlap but are two different conditions.

Taking extra time for clearer writing upfront saves a lot of work to spell out various conditions and exception-based design later.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

Would you mind sharing what you consider to be the clear meaning of the rules regarding the contested aspects of the skill? Specifically:

1. Can a character with the Invisible condition be automatically seen by an observer with normal senses who gains line of sight to the Invisible character? (Thus ending the Invisible condition if the observer is an enemy and the condition was provided by the Hide action, but not ending the condition if the observer is not an enemy or the condition was provided by the Invisibility spell.) If yes, what benefits do you see a hiding character as gaining from the Invisible condition that they didn't already have by being unseen by enemies (as required to be able to take the Hide action in the first place)? If no, what is required for an enemy to count as "finding" the hidden character? If your answer depends on the source of the Invisible condition, is there particular rules text that leads you to conclude that the visual appearance of the Invisible condition varies based on the source of the effect?
2. Do you allow characters to have the Invisible condition with respect to some creatures but not with respect to other creatures? If yes, is there particular rules text that leads you to conclude that it's possible to both have a condition and not have a condition simultaneously? If no, how do you adjudicate a situation where an enemy finds a character who gained the Invisible condition by taking the Hide action (which would normally end the Invisible condition), but who cannot (or chooses not to) communicate that they found the hiding character to anyone else?
3. Does a character who takes the Hide action know if they have successfully obtained the Invisible condition? If yes, what (if anything) prevents a character who fails to obtain the Invisible condition from continuing to take the Hide action until they succeed, and what (if anything) prevents a character from learning that they are in line of sight to an enemy if they fail to obtain the Invisible condition despite succeeding the DC 15 check? If no, what (if anything) prevents a character from learning (whether intentionally or via happenstance) via non-enemies whether they have obtained the Invisible condition?
4. What (if anything) do you do to make hiding a viable part of gameplay for low-level characters and/or parties who can't consistently make the DC 15 check required to succeed at the Hide action?
5. How do you handle situations where an unseen character wants to become or remain unheard by an enemy? If you view becoming/remaining unheard as part of the Hide action, what rules text leads you to this result?

Personally, I don't see any way to clearly resolve these questions from the rules text we've seen so far. In particular, I see #1, #2, and #3 as leading to absurd results in ordinary gameplay no matter which way I answer the questions, even when everyone is playing entirely in good faith.

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.

As a DM, I am not going to permit absurd results in play. If there is an interpretation of a rule that avoids absurd results, I'm going to go with that one. If all interpretations of a rule lead to absurd results, as appears to be the case here, I'm not going to use that rule. If you've got an interpretation that doesn't lead to absurd results, I want to hear it. (But if you're going beyond the text and simple inferences to do so, I'll probably just stick with my houserule to the 2014 hiding rules-- there's no need for me to switch if I'd just have to make new houserules anyway.)

 

[borringman]

I mean, if it

As a DM, I am not going to permit absurd results in play. If there is an interpretation of a rule that avoids absurd results, I'm going to go with that one. If all interpretations of a rule lead to absurd results, as appears to be the case here, I'm not going to use that rule. If you've got an interpretation that doesn't lead to absurd results, I want to hear it.

This is, of course, the right answer.

What rankles is, if you bought the rulebook, you paid for the rule that you're doing all this work to fix.

My take is that a TTRPG making the GM fix its rules to avoid nonsensical outcomes is not a "feature" any more than self-checkout is just making your customers do your employees' work. OK, there's a sliding scale here, players can do unexpected things, but 116 pages of this thread is enough evidence for me that this stealth rule is way too easily broken.

 

[Yaarel]

I still think (as I said earlier in the thread) that the simplest solution would have been to include a "Hidden" condition.

It could function similar to Invisible but it would also be a lesser version and have other criteria for how it is gained or lost.

It would have overlap with Invisible, like how grappled and restrained have some overlap but are two different conditions.

Taking extra time for clearer writing upfront saves a lot of work to spell out various conditions and exception-based design later.

In context, the term "invisible" seems in the wider sense of "reduced visibility from the perspective of observers" rather than magically vanished.

The term could have been "unseen", but once we get used to it as a technical jargon, "Invisible" is fine.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Why are people assuming that the new Search action is the only way for an enemy to "find you?" It's not. It's one way, but there are plenty of others. The rule only says "Make a note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (perception) check." An enemy could find you with tremorsense, truesight, or any number of things not involving the Search action. Or they could find you by seeing you as you move out of darkness into their line of sight. "Find" is not defined. The Search action only applies to things that are not "obvious." No one requires the Search action to see. You and the guard can see just fine without Searching. Treantmonk's statement, "This requires the Search action," is wrong.

This issue is a mountain out of a molehill if I ever did see one. The mole-iest of hills.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why are people assuming that the new Search action is the only way for an enemy to "find you?" It's not. It's one way, but there are plenty of others. The rule only says "Make a note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (perception) check." An enemy could find you with tremorsense, truesight, or any number of things not involving the Search action. Or they could find you by seeing you as you move out of darkness into their line of sight. "Find" is not defined.

How do they see you if you're invisible?

 

[Argyle King]

In context, the term "invisible" seems in the wider sense of "reduced visibility from the perspective of observers" rather than magically vanished.

The term could have been "unseen", but once we get used to it as a technical jargon, "Invisible" is fine.

The rules (from what very little I've heard thus far) specify that you gain the " invisible condition," and that is defined in a specific way.

I'm not sure that makes the use of "invisible" easily understood.

 

[Argyle King]

Why are people assuming that the new Search action is the only way for an enemy to "find you?" It's not. It's one way, but there are plenty of others. The rule only says "Make a note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (perception) check." An enemy could find you with tremorsense, truesight, or any number of things not involving the Search action. Or they could find you by seeing you as you move out of darkness into their line of sight. "Find" is not defined. The Search action only applies to things that are not "obvious." No one requires the Search action to see. You and the guard can see just fine without Searching. Treantmonk's statement, "This requires the Search action," is wrong.

This issue is a mountain out of a molehill if I ever did see one. The mole-iest of hills.

Tremorsense (and other special senses) aren't in question.

How do you see something that has the "Invisible condition" with normal sight?

 

[DavyGreenwind]

How do they see you if you're invisible?

This is a reversal of cause and effect. New D&D "Invisible" does not mean "cannot be seen." It only means "unseen." Too see something invisible means it is no longer invisible. In fact, the text of the Invisible condition even contemplates something with the Invisible condition being seen.

 

[Yaarel]

The rules (from what very little I've heard thus far) specify that you gain the " invisible condition," and that is defined in a specific way.

I'm not sure that makes the use of "invisible" easily understood.

The Invisible condition is simply the mechanical benefits from being unseen.

How one gains and maintains the condition is explained elsewhere.