D&D (2024) Stealth Errata

[Kinematics]

Really? Seeing thousands of different people all of whom have thousands of different interpretations and uses of a rule is useful?

Yes.

 

[plecostomus]

If a monster attacks while hidden but doesn't beat player initiative despite advantage, what do you say to the players who have a turn before the monster?

There are multiple monsters in QFtIS that will try to ambush players, for instance.

B34: Master Thief’s Burial Room​

[An elaborate jeweled coffin rests in the center of this otherwise bare room.]

A carrion crawler clings to the ceiling in this room, waiting to ambush entrants. Characters who have a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 13 or higher notice the carrion crawler before it attacks.

So, assuming a case where no player has 13 passive Perception, but one or more players beat the Carrion Crawler's initiative roll while having no idea the Carrion Crawler is there. I'm going to assume this is pretty rare, but still possible.

-

The reverse is a player Hides and starts battle with a monster, but the monster beats their advantaged initiative. I think I'd just have the monster do nothing on their turn unless the player has given them a reason to make an active Perception check?

 

[darjr]

It would also be to one's benefit to have a group that doesn't argue at the table like folks argue on messageboards....

That’s an interesting take. I dint think he said nor implied any level or type of argument.

But I do see a value in talking about rules in a forum. Besides the benefits stated already It might even lead me to change my mind about another players point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes.

I guess if "It's doesn't matter what I do, cause everyone's going to screw it up anyway" is useful knowledge to a person, then I'll concede the point. Of course... most of us already know this already anyway so there's not too much of a point in bothering to ask the question, LOL.

 

[Epic Meepo]

If a monster attacks while hidden but doesn't beat player initiative despite advantage, what do you say to the players who have a turn before the monster?

There are multiple monsters in QFtIS that will try to ambush players, for instance.

So, assuming a case where no player has 13 passive Perception, but one or more players beat the Carrion Crawler's initiative roll while having no idea the Carrion Crawler is there. I'm going to assume this is pretty rare, but still possible.

-

The reverse is a player Hides and starts battle with a monster, but the monster beats their advantaged initiative. I think I'd just have the monster do nothing on their turn unless the player has given them a reason to make an active Perception check?

Since the game now has these situations where players make initiative rolls before the they know why they're being placed in initiative order (which wasn't necessary when the game had surprise rounds), the only thing I can figure is the characters being placed in initiative order have some vague sense that something is wrong, but they don't know exactly what it is. This lets them use their first turns to make Perception checks or to brace themselves for some unknown danger they haven't consciously identified yet.

 

[billd91]

I think this is a result of some core design decision to not invent a new "Hidden" condition, and someone really confident they could just fold it into the Invisible condition.

And, ultimately, I have no problem with that. But what's really needed here is some handling of invisibility by way of stealth vs invisibility by way of magical (or for invisible stalker, natural) means. Because while their effects on combat may be the same and worthy of being handled by one condition, how you get there and how that works is still important and, significantly, may differ depending on individual observers (depending on truesight, see invisible, or even a sufficiently high perception check).

 

[Umbran]

I dint think he said nor implied any level or type of argument.

Merals' words: "I like arguing about rules on forums so that I don't have to argue about them at the table."

This implies argument at the table is in the offing.

I merely questioned the causality there, given the lack of overlap in audiences.

But I do see a value in talking about rules in a forum.

Sure.

There should also value in noting when folks have been trying, for months, to dissect the details of wording to a degree out of alignment with the ethos of the game's approach to its own rules vs rulings.

Especially when the OP asks for our opinions on the thing. Heaven forefend my position is, "Maybe this isn't all that complicated."

 

[Epic Meepo]

Hiding and remaining hidden are not strictly synonymous. Yours is a possible interpretation of the text, but it is not an unambiguous interpretation, hence the failure of this as a pice of game rules text.

I guess I'm just not seeing the ambiguity in the updated rules, probably because I'm not seeing where it says anything about "remaining hidden." The Hide action says you gain a condition "while hidden" (which is just the phrase "while hiding" written in passive form). The DM determines when hiding is allowed.

The main problem I have with the new rule is that the wording is still split between two parts of the rulebook instead of being collected in one place. To me, the actual wording itself seems pretty straightforward.

 

[darjr]

An argument doesn’t have to be vitriolic or tense. Which is what I thought you intimated he meant.

 

[Charlaquin]

It would also be to one's benefit to have a group that doesn't argue at the table like folks argue on messageboards....

Sure, and maybe in a perfect world everyone would have a non-argumentative group.