D&D (2024) Current Stealth Rule Actually Works As Is. If Moving Out of Cover After Hiding Makes Enemies Immediately "Finds You", Hide Would Be Totally UNUSABLE.

[Crimson Longinus]

The other is to call for a roll for each "action". Hide behind a wall, that's an action. Sneaking from cover to another bit of cover, that's an action. Trying to move silently down a hall, that's an action.

Sure, and I think that is very logical. It has the drawback of these many rolls meaning that you will eventually fail one and with stealth this often means that whole thing is bust and those previous successful rolls end up not mattering that much.

 

[Xeviat]

Sure, and I think that is very logical. It has the drawback of these many rolls meaning that you will eventually fail one and with stealth this often means that whole thing is bust and those previous successful rolls end up not mattering that much.

Eh, I think in an exploration scene, if the stealth mission is an actual encounter and not just a little thing, a failed stealth check is going to be a complication. Think of Metal Gear and other stealth games. You get spotted, someone comes to investigate, you have to respond and do something else.

It's not binary success and failure.

In combat, yes a failed stealth check means you're going to be spotted, but that's a different dynamic.

 

[deadman1204]

I don't see how ruling that cloud giants can be seen automatically after breaking cover in broad daylight should be deemed a whim of the DM. You admit that it is ridiculous to rule otherwise and therefore common sense, not a whim, that this should not be the case. A huge chunk of the game is already at the whim of the DM from setting DCs to deciding monster hp.

Those same cloud giants doing that same thing under cover of darkness in a human settlement on the other hand - they would just have to beat the passive perception of the guards - likely a roll of 7 or more would suffice since humans cannot see in the dark (-5) so the cloud giants win as long as they stay out of torchlight. If the town is alert to giant attacks then the guards would be rolling perception checks and readying their interact with object to sound an alarm bell.

The issue is your doing RAI now instead of RAW. The moment a rogue moves it has "left cover". That makes hiding and sneaking impossible in combat. Thus you are using rai to make the exact same situation ok in one case and not ok in another.

 

[Belen]

The issue is your doing RAI now instead of RAW. The moment a rogue moves it has "left cover". That makes hiding and sneaking impossible in combat. Thus you are using rai to make the exact same situation ok in one case and not ok in another.

Agreed. I never see rogues hide in combat unless some real special circumstances or spells.

 

[deadman1204]

Agreed. I never see rogues hide in combat unless some real special circumstances or spells.

but rogues can and often "hide" so they can get advantage or move around and such. Stealth is functionly impossible once your not being the wall or in the bushes if we go with this rai.
Thats the enormous problem with stealth rules, they are broken and require the dm to pick and choose how they work.

 

[Belen]

but rogues can and often "hide" so they can get advantage or move around and such. Stealth is functionly impossible once your not being the wall or in the bushes if we go with this rai.
Thats the enormous problem with stealth rules, they are broken and require the dm to pick and choose how they work.

They get advantage by being near an ally in combat.

I would never allow a rogue to hide in the middle of combat without some aid like structures or magic etc.

 

[Pauln6]

The issue is your doing RAI now instead of RAW. The moment a rogue moves it has "left cover". That makes hiding and sneaking impossible in combat. Thus you are using rai to make the exact same situation ok in one case and not ok in another.

But that isn't what I said. The wording is that you remain invisible 'unless they can somehow see you." If you are saying it's silly that I remain invisible because it's obvious that they should be able to see me, then you are accepting that they can somehow see you. If, in the heart of battle, you are asking, can they spot me in the chaos, the answer is no, because you haven't otherwise broken the invisible condition and they might not be able to see you.

 

[Mistwell]

123 page on stealth, and we had to make another thread on stealth?

Look, everyone thinks they know 100% exactly how it's supposed to work. They can't help it if everyone else thinks it works differently.

 

[Mistwell]

No, I’m saying one should not skip paragraphs when interacting with someone on forums. It’s clear you either did not read the third paragraph of my post, or you did read it and decided to respond with something you were well aware I would find offensive. Either way you’re being extremely rude in how you’re choosing to engage with me. If I was the type to block people I’d definitely have done it by now.

To be fair, it's possible your argument is a lot easier to refute it people just skip the most informative and persuasive portions of your argument.

 

[Charlaquin]

To be fair, it's possible your argument is a lot easier to refute it people just skip the most informative and persuasive portions of your argument.

I’m not clear what point you’re trying to express here.