D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[MarkB]

Passive perception isn't confirmed but seems likely. Search seems obvious as well.

But what obscurement rules?

The ones we haven't seen yet, because this entire discussion is predicated purely on two specific rules extracts.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, despite Treantmonk's red annotation, that whole "the enemy finds you" bit is still terribly nebulous, and might swing these rules back to sane.

Like, the example being touted in this thread is the hiding character stepping out into plain sight, but what if it's the other way around - the hiding creature is around a corner, but the enemy moves past that corner so that they're in plain sight. Does the enemy still need to take an action to Search, or do they automatically find the hiding character?

Here’s my interpretation of that case, completely setting aside any assumptions based on the condition being called “invisible” and going purely based on the effects it describes.

A rogue is behind total cover from the perspective of a guard with passive perception 16. The rogue uses hee action to hide, and gets a total of 18 on the check, so she gains the “invisible” condition, and 18 becomes the target number on perception checks to end the condition. She gains the following benefits while the condition lasts:

1. Advantage on initiative rolls
2. She is unaffected by anything that requires her to be seen, unless the source of the effect can see her (a bit tautological in this instance, but ok.)
3. She has advantage on attack rolls against targets that can’t see her, and targets that can’t see her have disadvantage on attack rolls against her.

While she and the guard remain in place, all of these benefits are relevant. If the guard moves to a position from which she does not have total cover, he will be able to see her. He will therefore be able to affect her with effects that require him to see her (again, tautological but fine), and he will not have disadvantage on attacks against her, nor will she have advantage on attacks against him. However, if he initiates combat, she will still have advantage on her initiative roll. He could, however, use his action to “search” and make a perception check, and if he got an 18 or higher, the condition would end and she would no longer have advantage on her initiative roll.

 

[MarkB]

Here’s my interpretation of that case, completely setting aside any assumptions based on the condition being called “invisible” and going purely based on the effects it describes.

A rogue is behind total cover from the perspective of a guard with passive perception 16. The rogue uses hee action to hide, and gets a total of 18 on the check, so she gains the “invisible” condition, and 18 becomes the target number on perception checks to end the condition. She gains the following benefits while the condition lasts:

1. Advantage on initiative rolls
2. She is unaffected by anything that requires her to be seen, unless the source of the effect can see her (a bit tautological in this instance, but ok.)
3. She has advantage on attack rolls against targets that can’t see her, and targets that can’t see her have disadvantage on attack rolls against her.

While she and the guard remain in place, all of these benefits are relevant. If the guard moves to a position from which she does not have total cover, he will be able to see her. He will therefore be able to affect her with effects that require him to see her (again, tautological but fine), and he will not have disadvantage on attacks against her, nor will she have advantage on attacks against him. However, if he initiates combat, she will still have advantage on her initiative roll. He could, however, use his action to “search” and make a perception check, and if he got an 18 or higher, the condition would end and she would no longer have advantage on her initiative roll.

I'd go along with that, except for the "total cover" part. I expect (or at least hope) it to still require a check to find the hiding person so long as they have at least some amount of cover or obscurement.

 

[Mistwell]

The ones we haven't seen yet, because this entire discussion is predicated purely on two specific rules extracts.

Passive perception is confirmed, I posted a screenshot of it and then also typed out the text from it, earlier in this thread.

 

[Stalker0]

here's hoping the DMG spends some time covering these very common scenarios. Things like stealth, or using illusions, etc

I respect that not everything out of combat you wantt o make a rules guide for, but there are some very bread and butter dnd things that do deserve a really solid and comprehensive look. Stealth is one of those, its such a staple of the game, and its power level is either through the roof or not worth doing it depending on interpretation.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd go along with that, except for the "total cover" part. I expect (or at least hope) it to still require a check to find the hiding person so long as they have at least some amount of cover or obscurement.

Well, I used total cover in the example because that explicitly prevents the covered creature from being seen by creatures it has cover from. This created a clear contrast between the initial state, where the guard could not see the rogue (so she would have advantage on attacks against him and he would have disadvantage on attacks against her) and the later state where the guard had moved to a position from which she no longer had cover from him, in which case he could then see her (and he could therefore attack her without disadvantage and she could not attack him with advantage). But by my reading he would still need to make a Perception check to end the condition even if she didn’t have any cover from him. He might want to do this to prevent her from having advantage on initiative, or from moving to a position where he once again can’t see her on her turn, and therefore being able to attack him with advantage, without having to use another action or bonus action to hide again first.

Interestingly, 3/4 cover does not prevent the covered creature from being seen. So, if we look at this example again assuming 3/4 cover instead of total cover, the rogue can still hide to gain the condition, but doing so will really only grant her advantage on initiative checks, since the guard would be able to see her from any position, so she would never be able to benefit from advantage on attacks against him or impose disadvantage on his attacks against her.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I haven't had a chance to watch any videos yet (hellacious day at work) and obviously don't have the PHB, but is there a stated rationale for having a fixed DC 15 for Stealth to "activate?" What is that adding to the game that Perception didn't already cover?

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven't had a chance to watch any videos yet (hellacious day at work) and obviously don't have the PHB, but is there a stated rationale for having a fixed DC 15 for Stealth to "activate?" What is that adding to the game that Perception didn't already cover?

The intent appears to be to give a floor to the difficulty of becoming hidden. Since passive perception still exists, a creature with higher than passive perception than your stealth check can still automatically detect you, ending the invisible condition, at least according to my interpretation. It’s just that, if you’re trying to hide from a bunch of creatures with below 15 passive perception, you still need to hit that minimum of 15 to become hidden. I suppose this could represent the difficulty of remaining still and quiet enough to even require perception (even passive) to detect.

 

[mellored]

Interestingly, 3/4 cover does not prevent the covered creature from being seen. So, if we look at this example again assuming 3/4 cover instead of total cover, the rogue can still hide to gain the condition, but doing so will really only grant her advantage on initiative checks, since the guard would be able to see her from any position, so she would never be able to benefit from advantage on attacks against him or impose disadvantage on his attacks against her.

Might be worse than that.

Level 20 Rogue gets greater invisibility cast on them, tries to sneak past an old blind drunk man with 6 Wis.

The man still "sees" them.

 

[Stalker0]

The intent appears to be to give a floor to the difficulty of becoming hidden. Since passive perception still exists, a creature with higher than passive perception than your stealth check can still automatically detect you, ending the invisible condition, at least according to my interpretation. It’s just that, if you’re trying to hide from a bunch of creatures with below 15 passive perception, you still need to hit that minimum of 15 to become hidden. I suppose this could represent the difficulty of remaining still and quiet enough to even require perception (even passive) to detect.

It likely also means the DM doesn't have to come up with custom passive perceptions for general stealth checks. If the party is going through an area with just general people and no "sharp eyed guards", a simple DC 15 gets teh job done. you only need something else if there is a hawk-eye in the area that actually could spot them.