D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Charlaquin]

Do we know for sure the Invisible condition grants (natural language) concealment?

I shouldn't have to ask a question as ridiculous as what I'm about to type, yet here it is: Does "Concealed" (capitalized) mean the same as "concealed" (not capitalized)? The Invisible condition mentions a "Concealed" (capitalized) effect. I can't tell if "Concealed" is capitalized because it's a section header, because it's a rules keyword, or both. If it's a rules keyword, I'm no longer confident it means what the natural language word "concealment" means.

It’s not a rules keyword in the same way that “cover” and “obscured” are, if that’s what you mean. At least not in the 2014 rules, and if they added such a concept to the 2024 rules they never playtested it and haven’t talked about it at all. It seems to just describe the benefit of the Invisible condition that prevents creatures who can’t see you from targeting you with effects that require them to see you - a statement I still find to be completely tautological and therefore unnecessary to state, unless it’s meant to imply that only creatures with special senses like blindsight or truesight can see you. And if it is supposed to mean that, it could have been worded much more clearly.

 

[FrogReaver]

I honestly can't tell anymore. That's how confused I'm getting by this slow trickle of information about the rules.

lol. I think that makes 99 of us.

 

[FrogReaver]

It’s not a rules keyword in the same way that “cover” and “obscured” are, if that’s what you mean. At least not in the 2014 rules, and if they added such a concept to the 2024 rules they never playtested it and haven’t talked about it at all. It seems to just describe the benefit of the Invisible condition that prevents creatures who can’t see you from targeting you with effects that require them to see you - a statement I still find to be completely tautological and therefore unnecessary to state, unless it’s meant to imply that only creatures with special senses like blindsight or truesight can see you. And if it is supposed to mean that, it could have been worded much more clearly.

I think it was intended for 2 situations which is why it’s so vague. 1) special vision types and 2) allow the dm to override default hiding rules by letting him say the enemies somehow see you.

RAW it obviously doesn’t do 2 but I think that was the intent.

 

[FrogReaver]

this kind of 'natural reading' lead to the most fun 5e game we had... and many on here told me the rules didn't allow any of it.

Great! And I have no issue with natural language rules.

 

[Weiley31]

I liked the 2014 lightfoot halfling’s naturally stealthy feature explicitly allowing this. I’ll probably continue to allow it at my own table, but I’ll miss it being a clear in-print rule.

Adventures in Middle-Earth 5E did something similar where it allowed Hobbit characters to get a Virtue(feat) or spend an Inspiration to like legit hide behind things, INCLUDING creatures, races, and what not that were taller than em. And then they could pop out somewhere random later.

 

[Weiley31]

Crazy scenario thinking, what if, despite all the arguing, back and frothing, and whatever, these gencon books were rushed out versions of the 2024 and they realize "Wait, you sent WHICH VERSION TO PRINT FOR THE GENCON COPIES!?!?"

And we get the clarified version for the September 17th copies? Impossible, probably. Fun to think about, oh yes!

 

[Kinematics]

Things I would add to the rules to clarify what I believe is either the intent, or the expectation of how things work:

1) Add an "Unseeable" clause to Invisible:

Unseeable: If you gain the Invisible condition via a magic action, or via a feature which grants "magical" invisibility, you cannot be seen with normal vision.

This would be similar to breaking Invisible into Invisible/Hidden, and giving Invisible the Unseeable trait + Hidden condition. I just think the trait in the condition is better streamlined than multiple conditions. It also avoids having to include the verbiage in every single location where magical invisibility is granted.

2) Better define "enemy", and when a creature qualifies as an enemy. This can get complicated, though, so at best it would be something in the DMG, and not in the PHB. This may also help define "find".

2a) When elaborating on "find", note that a creature can only find you on its turn. This gives the implicit result that you only have to end your turn behind cover to help prevent you from being found.

3) Have additional actions that can grant the Invisibility condition. The "make a sound louder than a whisper" only really works as an end condition when you're trying to be quiet and not seen, where being noticed at all is a failure state. (Also, someone has to be close enough to hear for it to matter.) While conceptually the rules support a much broader scope, the specifics don't always match the expected narrative.

So, for example:

Disguise: Make a Dexterity or Charisma (Disguise Kit) check, and if you beat a DC of 15 you have the Invisible condition. (A suitable, already-prepared disguise may substitute for the Disguise Kit.) The condition ends if an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or if someone sees you act in a way inconsistent with the creature or person you are attempting to impersonate.

- Example: Luke and Han in stormtrooper outfits.

Blend In: You blend in with a crowd. Make a Charisma (Stealth) check, and if you beat a DC of 15 you have the Invisible condition. The condition ends if an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, you behave in a way that causes the crowd to reject you, or you leave the crowd you blended in with.

- Example: Imhotep! Imhotep!

 

[Remathilis]

Crazy scenario thinking, what if, despite all the arguing, back and frothing, and whatever, these gencon books were rushed out versions of the 2024 and they realize "Wait, you sent WHICH VERSION TO PRINT FOR THE GENCON COPIES!?!?"

And we get the clarified version for the September 17th copies? Impossible, probably. Fun to think about, oh yes!

There are known differences between the review copies (the ones with the watermark on them) and the finals, but I doubt the Gen Con ones are part of the same batch. I wouldn't get my hopes up on that.

 

[mamba]

There are known differences between the review copies (the ones with the watermark on them) and the finals, but I doubt the Gen Con ones are part of the same batch. I wouldn't get my hopes up on that.

I thought the watermark meant it was the PDF and all print copies are identical

 

[Remathilis]

I thought the watermark meant it was the PDF and all print copies are identical

Physical books with watermarks showed up on camera.