D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Rules Oddities (Kibbles’ Collected Complaints)

[tetrasodium]

I disagree with that last one (I mean, you can rule however you like) but I think that one of the intents of the (clearly messy) new stealth rules is worth preserving: The idea that you can leave the cover, and sneak up on a guard, or move to a different position (crossing line-of-sight without anyone seeing you do it. I think these things are a good thing, and intended. YMMV, but I think that it's fine that "stealth breaks when you leave cover" MOST of the time, but it depends on what's happening in the story.

If you're dancing in front of them thumbing your nose, yeah, you just broke stealth. If you're creeping up on an unaware target, then no. But of course, you do what you like.

That would have been a reasonable way of wording the rules in question in order to proactively avoid obvious problems that would cause the gameplay to breakdown... Of course that would require wotc to approach design a different set of priorities.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

whenever someone is hiding...

Surely it wouldn't work when they're behind total cover? Or does the spell see through obstacles?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

whenever someone is hiding...

But what makes that undesirable?

 

[mellored]

Surely it wouldn't work when they're behind total cover? Or does the spell see through obstacles?

It does not let you see though total cover, no matter if they are hidden or not.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It does not let you see though total cover, no matter if they are hidden or not.

So it would only detect a hidden creature who is creeping up on you. Sounds fine to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is definitely an actual mistake. Per the official weapon mastery article.

"It still functions the same way: When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding."

I suspect it’s not written that way to enable you to draw and attack with the different Light weapon, just as you can draw and and attack with the first, so that dual-wielder a don’t get stuck with a turn of only being able to attack with one of their weapons on the first turn of combat.

 

[Lanefan]

On its face with a quick read, I don’t find much of a problem with See Invisible revealing hidden creatures in addition to invisible creatures.

Can someone breakdown where this could be an undesirable mixing?

If I'm hidden behind a door or wall with total cover and you can still see me with See Invisible, the spell is in effect giving you X-ray vision.

That somehow seems a bit over the top.

Another question, not yet hit I don't think, is how this'll interact with camouflage effects and items e.g. Cloak of Elvenkind, Robe of Blending, Blur, etc. that don't in fact make you invisible but still make you hard to see.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

If I'm hidden behind a door or wall with total cover and you can still see me with See Invisible, the spell is in effect giving you X-ray vision.

That somehow seems a bit over the top.

Is that a problem with See Invisible revealing hidden creatures though?

By that explanation is seems to me that See Invisible would reveal magically invisible creatures with total cover just as well, so if that is the case it isn’t a broken ruling that hidden creatures are likewise seen as well as invisible.

Is there a convincing case See Invisible sees through total cover?

 

[mellored]

I suspect it’s not written that way to enable you to draw and attack with the different Light weapon, just as you can draw and and attack with the first, so that dual-wielder a don’t get stuck with a turn of only being able to attack with one of their weapons on the first turn of combat.

Very possible.

Perhaps it would be better to write it as "attacked with a Light weapon in a different hand".

 

[tetrasodium]

If the goal is to allow a PC to draw both light weapons needed for dual wielding as part of the attack then the solution should be placed on either the light weapon property or the dual wielding rules themselves to limit unintentional extras like the way having it before --or-- after any attack made as part of the attack action. Some of the spaghetti coded rules revisions being suggested by a few posters only continue to invite problems down the line (or immediately).