D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Yaarel]

The thing is the hide action and invisibility spell both specify how one maintains the condition by explicitly stating what ends the invisibility condition applies by then. They just don’t do it in a way that makes sense when taken all together.

I think the Hide action makes sense. The only part that I need more explicit is what happens when moving around after gaining the Invisible condition.

Of course, DMs can adjudicate it narratively, but I prefer clear mechanics for typical situations. Obviously, sneaking past a guard or whatever is typical.

The total darkness or 3/4 cover is only to gain the Invisible condition. It seems less necessary afterward. Requiring total darkness to sneak past guards makes less sense.

The main idea is the Stealth check "score" remain in effect versus Passive Perception or Search action. But I want the presence of light and absence of cover to be clear.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I don't consider it to need fixing when the rule is perfectly clear.

 

[Yaarel]

OK. So two last bullet points of invisibily condition do nothing? You cast invisibility spell on you, but enemies can target you with spells and attack you without disadvantage as they actually can see you?

Because yes, I agree that this is technically what's written in the rules, but is also is an absurd result thus the rules are still terrible.

When the Invisible condition means "unseen" − not visible − enemies cannot see you. So the rules here are consistent for the Invisibility spell.

The complication is because some creatures have Truesight that ignores the Invisible condition.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't consider it to need fixing when the rule is perfectly clear.

Cool. Then end this 120 pages of confusion and explain to us how it works.

 

[Yaarel]

Cool. Then end this 120 pages of confusion and explain to us how it works.

Heh, I said the Invisibility spell works, when the Invisible condition means "unseen" (unnoticed).

I feel the Hide action needs more explicit clarification about what happens when exiting the total darkness or 3/4 cover while still Invisible.

 

[Incenjucar]

I cannot wait to see 5E24s take on the invisible stalker.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

See, this annoys me. Because the rule is only "broken" because you insist on breaking it by having a single, specific, narrow interpretation that you agree is unreasonable, and then refusing any other possible interpretation.

This isn't "the rules are broken but the DM can fix them" this is smashing the rules with a hammer over and over, while screaming that it was broken when you got here and that other people shouldn't have left this such a mess.

Your interpretation isn't RAI, it is unreasonable, and you admit it. It isn't a fallacy to tell you that you can have a different, reasonable interpretation.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

See, I've always used spells outside of the box to accomplish interesting things. Spells are more than the narrow visions that are in the descriptions. Skills aren't as powerful as a spell, but they are along the same lines.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Well, you are the first person I've ever met who would have someone roll a clearly impossible check for no other reason than to win an argument on the internet.

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.

And one of those things that it has established, not for invisibility, but for stealth, that ends the condition of invisibility is perfectly capable of handling this interactions. The intended solution is obvious, you just want it to be broken so you can say it is broken.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Ah yes, all the incredibly hard work of checks notes not allowing a person who hid behind the couch to step out from behind the couch and dance in front of someone, and claim to be transparent, because the rules technically state that they are and they can't find any other possible way those rules can be interpreted.

Literally, someone added like three words to a sentence in one of the posts that explicitly fixes what you keep insisting is broken. So much work, I'm sure.