D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[FrogReaver]

It's not really a thread about coming up with the best stealth rules - it's a thread to discuss the ones that the forthcoming edition of D&D has, and how to interpret them. Some people consider them a total mess, others think they're merely ambiguous, and some think they work fine. In amongst these arguments, of course, are implied improvements or refinements to what we currently have.

But, given that 123 pages haven't resulted in any kind of consensus about the rules that already exist, I doubt anyone could come up with another set that would please everyone.

IMO. There’s a difference in being pleased that there’s a well written rule even if you don’t like what it does and being pleased with what the rule itself does. I doubt you’ll get consensus on the later, but being pleased that there’s a well written rule seems achievable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If it is, could you instead of giving your interpretation, quote each step from the new PHB (with page number)?

If you send me your copy, I can give you plenty of page numbers. Do you have a particular reason to believe that perception and search are not in the PHB?

I've strung the separate rules together and that leaves a LOT of interpretation and making pretty big leaps between each rule.
For example the Hide Action talks about 'finding', that isn't a game term. Why talk about a Hide Action and then not about a Find/Detect/Search Action?

Because finding can mean different things. The Paladin Divine Sense is a magic action using their channel divinity, yet it also explicitly finds the exact location of any undead within 60 ft regardless of cover. Dwarven tremorsense does not explicitly say it "finds hidden creatures" but it would allow you to "see" and therefore find any creature that is touching the same stone surface, rendering invisibility and hiding behind a door equally pointless. It is a bonus action, and not any particular kind of action.

So, it doesn't make sense to limit "finding" to only a specific action type, because that will naturally exclude other ways of finding people or objects.

Also a DC 15 base for hiding means that an average human with no stealth skill has only a 30% chance of hiding, and that would mean that an average human would never detect a hidden person with a passive perception... You either need to be super human or have a very high level and have the perception skill... Or actively searching for something.

That doesn't sound like a question. Yes, that is math. Will you be needing PHB quotes with page numbers for where they break down percentage chances of passing DCs for human commoners as well?

Let's just accept that the 'invisible' condition is just a status name and not the actual effect. But you get the same condition when you cast the Invisible spell... You only use different conditions for it to end...

Yes, that is what you should do.

Sure, I understand that DM rules for running monsters should be in the DMG OR the MM. Except that WotC decided to not release the DMG til 2 months later or the MM 5 months later. How the heck are you supposed to run a smooth game like that?

Feel free to open a US based printing company that can handle the overwhelming volume of a WoTC core rule book trio printing. Or feel free to open a storage facility that doesn't charge WoTC for storing likely millions of books for a few months. Otherwise, complaining about the realities of their print production is a bit silly. As is somehow expecting that this will be any different than when we had the literal exact same scenario in 2014.

Especially when the 2014 PHB was quite clear in how that worked for the DM:



That is crystal clear! Where can I find that one paragraph in the 2024 PHB that explains the surprise mechanics this concise and this clear?

With the surprise rules. These are not the surprise rules being discussed.

Also, if that is the rules you want to use, then since that one paragraph doesn't specify anything about cover, if my PC is attempting to be stealthy in a brightly lit, featureless white-room, then I would roll my stealthy and get surprise against any enemies which.. well in a separate paragraph tells me that I just took away their entire turn because I was trying to be stealthy. And since those are the rules, that would be the absurdist RAW correct?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry, didn't realize you had missed all of my earlier posts on this.

If a PC hides, then quickly moves from cover to cover on their turn, they continue to benefit from the hide action.
If a PC hides, then slips out from an empty room, behind a guard patrol, and down a different hallway, they continue to benefit from the hide action.
If a PC hides, then scrambles up to cling to the ceiling as a guard patrol rounds the corner and passes under them, they continue to benefit from the hide action.
If a PC hides, then rushes out of cover to stab a guard in the back, then they lose the benefits of the hide action after their attack.

If a PC hides, then bursts out of cover in front of a guard, makes funny faces at them, flips them the double bird, then darts down a hallway... they do not continue to have the benefits of the hide action unless they make a new stealth check.

OK. Most of your interpretations seem to assume that the PC should only briefly leave the cover in order to maintain the condition. And it would be nice if rules required such, but they don't.

And we don't need to assume intentional bad faith play from the player for weirdness and ambiguity to arise. By the rules the character could move around in a room full of people as long as they like, and remain undetected, especially if the people there had no reason to suspect anyone would be there and would not take search action. Now at what point this becomes absurd? How many people there need to be, how long must the PC move around in the room?

I think clause that hidden character must end their turn in cover if they wish to remain hidden would at least significantly lessen absurdities whilst maintaining usefulness of the action.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think that's easy to say for someone experienced with the game.

It also assumes that D&D often follows what would be intuitive.

Questions I've had from new players have ranged from "why can't I target the giant eye of the [Beholder]" to "there aren't any rules that my deity can take away my powers, so why is cutting the hamstrings of these children and using them as a distraction so we can get away something I wouldn't do?"

The second one was at an Adventurer’s League event.

The first one is a legitimate question, which is easily answered for a new player. (ie, because it adds a layer of complexity to the system which overall makes the game worse)

The second is toxic trolling from someone who knows better, and knows the rules of the game, and likely knows the rules from previous editions.

These are not the same types of players.

 

[Charlaquin]

Has a single person in this 123-page thread actually written up what their preferred Stealth rules are, or is this thread only to repeat again and again that the current rules are mid?

Many people have given their interpretations, many of which rely on assuming things the rules don’t actually state. Far from repeating over and over again that the current rules are mid, the thread is mostly arguing about what the current rules actually say, how they were intended to function, whether or not those things line up with each other, and if either of those things makes for actually good rules at the table. Opinions on each of those four points vary greatly, and seem to be held very strongly in most cases.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Has a single person in this 123-page thread actually written up what their preferred Stealth rules are, or is this thread only to repeat again and again that the current rules are mid?

Multiple people did earlier. One poster added about three words to the rules to fix them (mostly dealing with the idea of breaking cover). Charlaquin posted two or three different reworks.

Many people dismissed them because that is "Adding rules" and didn't let them continue to rake WoTC over the coals. But yeah, that was around pages 15 to 25 I think?

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry, didn't realize you had missed all of my earlier posts on this.

If a PC hides, then quickly moves from cover to cover on their turn, they continue to benefit from the hide action.
If a PC hides, then slips out from an empty room, behind a guard patrol, and down a different hallway, they continue to benefit from the hide action.
If a PC hides, then scrambles up to cling to the ceiling as a guard patrol rounds the corner and passes under them, they continue to benefit from the hide action.
If a PC hides, then rushes out of cover to stab a guard in the back, then they lose the benefits of the hide action after their attack.

If a PC hides, then bursts out of cover in front of a guard, makes funny faces at them, flips them the double bird, then darts down a hallway... they do not continue to have the benefits of the hide action unless they make a new stealth check.

Sure would be nice if the rules actually said that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Multiple people did earlier. One poster added about three words to the rules to fix them (mostly dealing with the idea of breaking cover). Charlaquin posted two or three different reworks.

Many people dismissed them because that is "Adding rules" and didn't let them continue to rake WoTC over the coals. But yeah, that was around pages 15 to 25 I think?

No. "Adding rules" thing was about people like you defending the RAW and WotC by inventing stuff that is not actually there and not admitting doing so.

@Charlaquin has been perfectly consistent in critiquing the rules and offering houserules to improve them.

 

[mellored]

So....

Does everyone agree that it should break at the end of your turn without cover? (In addition to attacking and making noise?)

You also lose the condition if you end your turn with no cover and no obscurement

 

[Charlaquin]

Multiple people did earlier. One poster added about three words to the rules to fix them (mostly dealing with the idea of breaking cover). Charlaquin posted two or three different reworks.

Many people dismissed them because that is "Adding rules" and didn't let them continue to rake WoTC over the coals. But yeah, that was around pages 15 to 25 I think?

I mean, there’s a difference between “these rules are broken, here’s a suggestion for a house rule you could use to fix them” and “the rules are fine because obviously you’re supposed to [thing the rules don’t actually say], and anyone who thinks otherwise must be acting in bad faith.”