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.

[WanderingMystic]

1: As you attempt to hide you notice that the level of light is just too much to conceal you, you think that unless you were to have some outside assistance like a spell or device there is no way you are going to be able to hide. (Every table I have played in has not let a pc attempt a failed check unless something has changed, or significant time has passed. Someone causes a distraction is the most common I have seen for a hide check
2: yes, and why is that a problem.
3: After spending a few moments assessing the area you can't seem to find the right conditions to hide in.

the dc 15 is to gain the invisible condition which I do believe allows the rogue to move out from cover and not begin seen.

I also believe that the dm should/will give bonuses to the guard's passive perception if the rogue is not trying to be sneaky at all (dancing in front of the guard) but if they are like "im moving out from cover and sneak attacking the guard or i am moving out of cover but sticking to what little shadows there are to sneak around the guards" is perfectly reasonable and why they give them the invisible condition.

 

[Soulknife_Infiltrator]

1). The dm has ruled the pc can hide. PC rolls a 1. PC says okay I go over there and try to hide again. I’m not sure what fictional basis I have to generally deny the second attempt.

2). Even if he does deny the second attempt the player still knows he’s not hidden, so he just doesnt play stealthily.

3). And maybe most importantly, what the heck does a failed hide check look like in the fiction doing it this way. PC is already out of sight of enemies, so what happens?

Let's change an example. Will you allow your players to repeatedly take Study action to remember something they didn't until they rolled a N20?

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's change an example. Will you allow your players to repeatedly take Study action to remember something they didn't until they rolled a N20?

that’s quite a bit different. Once they’ve failed there we establish that the PC cannot personally remember, meaning the fiction has changed.

With the hide action it’s all external to the pc and being that the only listed requirements to hide action are extremely trivial to meet then failing the check changing the situation to that degree everytime they fail a hide check isn’t going to work. Not to mention oftentimes 1 pc can fail while another succeeds.

 

[FrogReaver]

1: As you attempt to hide you notice that the level of light is just too much to conceal you, you think that unless you were to have some outside assistance like a spell or device there is no way you are going to be able to hide

1. So when your rogue ally passed his hide check right before this it makes it really hard to go with something environmentally problematic for hiding.

2. As we start establishing what environmental conditions don’t allow stealth the players are just going to ask about them before attempting the check. ‘Hey DM’ is to too light out to hide? Telling them that depends on their stealth check isn’t going to fly IMO, because it’s something they should be able to tell.

. (Every table I have played in has not let a pc attempt a failed check unless something has changed, or significant time has passed. Someone causes a distraction is the most common I have seen for a hide check

For us that’s typically the case but depends on the fiction. Like a PC searches for mcguffin. He can spend another Y mins searching for the mcguffin and gets another chance. I don’t typically run search checks that where the mcguffin is changes based on pc success or failure.

2: yes, and why is that a problem.

It further limits what fiction makes sense around a failed stealth check.

3: After spending a few moments assessing the area you can't seem to find the right conditions to hide in.

Okay DM. What’s missing? The hide action only requires I be out of sight of enemies.

the dc 15 is to gain the invisible condition

Yes

which I do believe allows the rogue to move out from cover and not begin seen.

debatable

I also believe that the dm should/will give bonuses to the guard's passive perception if the rogue is not trying to be sneaky at all (dancing in front of the guard)

that can be done but rather highlights the problem imo. It shouldn’t have to be.

 

[Xeviat]

The fact that we've already argued about this for hundreds of pages shows the rules were written poorly, because these arguments will happen at the table.

The increase of discrete actions (like influence) makes it harder to keep saying "the DM calls for the check". When the standard was "player says what they're gonna do, DM calls for a check", rerolls being restricted makes sense. That's why other editions had secret rolls, so the player didn't know they got a 1.

I go behind a pillar and hide, I roll a modified 10, I immediately know I'm not hidden. So I'm not gonna pop out, I'm gonna try to hide again.

 

[mellored]

what the heck does a failed hide check look like in the fiction doing it this way. PC is already out of sight of enemies, so what happens?

She makes noise.

If you try to hide and your sword clatters off a branch, or the floor board cracks, you probably know you failed that.

 

[FrogReaver]

She makes noise.

If you try to hide and your sword clatters off a branch, or the floor board cracks, you probably know you failed that.

But there’s no enemies there when the check is made. So why does making noise matter?

 

[Xeviat]

But there’s no enemies there when the check is made. So why does making noise matter?

And why does making noise in that round matter to the next round?

All of this discussion is strengthening my resolve to run stealth as "you make a dexterity (stealth) check when you attempt to perform an action stealthily." I'll impose disadvantage on inherently noisy or ostentatious actions (like dashing), or just say no if it's too much.

 

[FrogReaver]

And why does making noise in that round matter to the next round?

All of this discussion is strengthening my resolve to run stealth as "you make a dexterity (stealth) check when you attempt to perform an action stealthily." I'll impose disadvantage on inherently noisy or ostentatious actions (like dashing), or just say no if it's too much.

I’m not a fan of that way either. It has its own set of issues. Most notably the repeated stealth checks meaning inevitable failure.

I don’t have a solution yet.

 

[Kinematics]

The fact that we've already argued about this for hundreds of pages shows the rules were written poorly, because these arguments will happen at the table.

No, it shows that stealth is actually a rather complicated subject, and some people aren't satisfied with a simple solution when a more complicated solution can be had.