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.

[Seramus]

then just narrate it luckily

It is certainly easy to narrate an explanation, but it would be even better if the rules clearly state what happens, without such ambiguous phrasing. It's something a sentence, or even just a few words could clear up.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

What's interesting is that they've changed the meaning of Passive Perception substantially. Now, many people were already running it that way, but that's because the actual 2014 description wasn't terribly clear (and the designers weren't terribly consistent about it).

Personally I prefer the original 2014 version, where it represented conscious ongoing effort--ie, everyone has it "turned on" when exploring a dungeon, and guards are supposed to have it on the time (but might not if they are slacking off or worn out), but by default the average person doesn't walk around with it turned on, and if you are performing most other exploration tasks your attention is too involved to also keep your Passive Perception on.

Other than that, the rules sound like in practice they should work exactly like the 2014 rules, again, when correctly understood. It was never the intent that it had to already be impossible to draw a line from someone's eyes to any part of your body as a prequisite for hiding. Whether you can remain unnoticed when you might possibly be noticed is a part of Stealth, and it covers your skills at visual Stealth as well as auditory Stealth. That misconception was changed in errata by the addition of the word "clearly". It also said that you were normally noticed if you came out in the open, but the DM might allow you to not be based on the situation.

So in effect, other than Passive Perception officially and unambiguously being always on, Stealth run the way 2024 says should be virtually identical to Stealth run the way (errataed) 2014 says.

 

[Weiley31]

So, the argument in the opening post mostly comes down to “you can’t just walk right in front of a creature after taking the hide action without being spotted because passive perception exists,” but that doesn’t actually fix the problem because a high enough roll on the stealth check can still exceed the passive perceptions of any enemies present. Consider a 1st level rogue with 16 dexterity and stealth expertise. A 15 is required for a successful stealth check, so at bare minimum monsters would need a passive perception of 15 to see the rogue (10 if the DM decides to arbitrarily give them advantage on the check, if they feel like making the rogue player feel cheated, I guess.) There’s also nothing in the RAW stopping the rogue from repeatedly taking the Hide action in a safe location until they roll a natural 20, which means it actually takes a 27 passive perception to find this rogue (or 22 with the arbitrary “screw-you” advantage.) And that’s at 1st level. It only gets more absurd from there.

Now, I do understand the complaint that, if a hidden character can’t remain hidden outside cover or obscuration, it’s impossible to sneak attack in melee or to move from one hiding spot to another in combat. This is why, in the 2014 rules, the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding and can rule that an enemy is sufficiently distracted not to notice a hidden character who isn’t obscured or behind cover. More importantly, if they wanted to provide a solution to this “problem” that wasn’t reliant on DM fiat, they could have done so without also enabling hidden characters to stand out in the open completely unseen for as long as they want with a high enough stealth check. They could easily have said in the rules for the hide action that ending your turn without sufficient cover or concealment to take the hide action ends the “invisible” condition. That alone would have fixed the problem.

Also, can we please stop saying that calling the condition “hidden” instead of “invisible” would have fixed the problem? Obviously I can’t speak for everyone who dislikes these stealth rules, but I know I’m far from the only one who has very clearly stated that the issue I take is with the mechanics of the condition and the features that grant it. If they made any of a number of changes I have suggested without changing the name of the condition, that would be perfectly fine. If they changed the name of the condition and left everything else the same, I would have exactly the same complaints about it that I do now. It’s frankly mildly offensive that defenders of the new stealth rules keep saying “this wouldn’t have even been a problem if they had just called the condition ‘unseen’ or something” because it shows that they’re not really listening to what critics of the stealth rules are actually saying. It’s one thing to disagree with our critiques; that’s fine and a normal part of these sorts of rules discussions. But to completely ignore our critiques and dismiss us as just not being able to look past the name of the condition is extremely rude. Please try to engage with our actual critiques instead of continuing to ignore them in favor of this extremely stupid strawman.

Having the condition go from Hidden to Invisible, name wise, was the first mistake/step. Because the mental image/expectation one has of something, while both achieving the same "goal in the end," can differ significantly. Hidden at least doesn't fall into the weird situation that the Spell Invisibility and the Invisibility Condition seems to be having with each other, as pointed out by DavyGreenwind.

Mental image wise, Hidden seems more "mundane," like something an actual non magical thief/stealth expert would be able to do. Hiding in the crowd, Assassins Creed/Hitman(Agent 47) style.

Invisible makes it sound like you video game "blipped" in front of a person. Which seems to be the major critique that other people seem to be having a problem with how the rules are made. They can go both fully hand in hand.

 

[Weiley31]

This is not impossible both in the narration or in reality. It could be the enemies were distracted by a bird or simply having a yawn

"Oh look a penny, my lucky day!"

Guard bends down to grab it as rogue moonwalks passes em from behind.

 

[Charlaquin]

Having the condition go from Hidden to Invisible, name wise, was the first mistake/step. Because the mental image/expectation one has of something, while both achieving the same "goal in the end," can differ significantly. Hidden at least doesn't fall into the weird situation that the Spell Invisibility and the Invisibility Condition seems to be having with each other, as pointed out by DavyGreenwind.

Mental image wise, Hidden seems more "mundane," like something an actual non magical thief/stealth expert would be able to do. Hiding in the crowd, Assassins Creed/Hitman(Agent 47) style.

Invisible makes it sound like you video game "blipped" in front of a person. Which seems to be the major critique that other people seem to be having a problem with how the rules are made. They can go both fully hand in hand.

Just going to skip the third paragraph in my post, then?

 

[Weiley31]

Just going to skip the third paragraph in my post, then?

That's like saying one should skip paragraphs when reading a novel.

 

[Stalker0]

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

 

[Weiley31]

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

The party must make sure ALL bases are covered.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's like saying one should skip paragraphs when reading a novel.

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.

 

[Weiley31]

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.

No I read your paragraphs. You called me rude when I wasn't trying to be rude.