D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Charlaquin]

No, I was not arguing against that rule. I was saying that while I like that as a general rule, I would want to make sure specific scenarios (which could be argued to still fit within that rule, via "cover") are still allowable.

Something like clinging to the ceiling as a patrol passes under you should still be good enough, in the right circumstances, even though you technically have no cover.

The poster then commented on how all of my examples involved only quick breaks from cover, and I wanted to emphasize that the time out of cover isn't necessarily important, because being alone in an area but without cover within that area shouldn't necessarily break stealth. You would argue that is not being without cover, and that is fine, I won't disagree with you on that, but I wanted to make that point more explicit rather than rely on shared understanding.

Ok, now I get you, thanks for clarifying. I think your example of a character in the rafters gets your point across a bit better than the empty hall, at least for me. I think that illuminates the importance, in any version of the stealth rules, for it to be made explicitly clear that the DM ultimately decides when it’s possible to hide, and can make exceptions to the normal rules for cases like this, where the letter of the rule might say a character wouldn’t stay hidden, but the in-universe logic says they would. I just prefer that the rules be written in such a way that the DM is being more permissive when making such a call, rather than more restrictive.

 

[OB1]

So for this example, I'd approach it from the opposite direction.

Your rogue is trying to get to the Altar of Doom, and a couple turns in the head priest realizes that there are only three people fighting, when there are supposed to be four.

"Where's the fourth interloper? Everyone! Some little rat is trying to stop the ritual! Find him!"

And now the enemy are making Search checks to try to find you. They are trying to beat your Stealth check, though you might get a bonus if you manage to stay behind cover.

That, to me, feels better than a constant series of Hide checks. The threat is the enemies actions, and how much they can dedicate to Searching vs remaining engaged with the fight. If they Search, it's harder for you, but easier for the rest of the party. Likewise, the rest of your party can do things to keep the cultists' attention on them, and unable to dedicate time to Searching.

Essentially, it's a dynamic that involves everyone, not just one person rolling over and over. The Hide roll is just the start of the action, not the action in and of itself.


And this is indeed a good question.

I would say that if you are clearly visible, then you are found if you are identified as an enemy or target (as I described in a previous post). If you are not clearly visible, then it takes an active Search check. If you are not identifiable, then it takes an active Search check.

That said, there are lots of things I can see affecting that. For example, what about someone affected by an ability that causes them to have disadvantage if they attack anyone by the source of that effect? (For example, the barbarian's Lion totem.) In other words, it forces a near-exclusive focus on the source of that effect. Would that not also apply disadvantage to their general awareness?

What about people who are getting knocked around in combat? The Push mastery, or the barbarian's Forceful Blow from Brutal Strike, or a warlock's Repelling Blast? Or even just being grappled? Those all seem like things that would make it much more difficult to see what's going on around you clearly enough to identify a skulking individual.

Basically, there are lots of things that can impact an enemy's ability to Search or find, and that increases the involvement of everyone at the table. There are not so many things that impact the basic Hide, and that check is largely isolated to the person hiding.

So I feel like it's a worse choice all around in terms of rules.

We've done a lot of white room discussion in the thread, but not a lot of thinking about how the players' actions interact with the rest of the group, and what leads to more interesting play.


Well, sort of, but not entirely? You're using the Hide action to gain the Invisible condition, not merely to "hide". The direct benefits of that condition are that you gain advantage on attack, and enemies have disadvantage on attacks against you. The implied benefit is that the enemy is not aware of where you are, or hasn't identified you as a threat, and thus isn't able to defend itself as well, or react in time, or bring force to bear in a proper manner.

Thus the Hide action is to put you in a state where the enemy is not sure of where you are, or doesn't recognize you as a threat, allowing you to get the jump on him in the event of combat. This is primarily done by not being seen or heard, since doing things that draw attention to you (making noise, casting spells) end the condition. Being out in the open also tends to end the condition, since that makes it easy to "find" you in most circumstances.

However nothing implies that movement will end the condition. As long as you remain out of sight and don't make noise, you can remain hidden from the warehouse guard all day, following him around the shelves.

On the one with the guards coming down the hallway, that would work mostly the same in either interpretation. You duck into a side room to Hide, hoping they don't notice you. After that you can let them pass and continue on your way, or attack them. But you could also slip out of the room after they pass and follow them. The continued movement wouldn't end the state of them not being aware of you.

I'd certainly be good with all of these rulings as a player, it's all reasonable. And I don't think that the rule 'needs' to be changed. There are plenty of DM tools to resolve the kinds of edge cases we're talking about without falling into absurdity. I'm only suggesting this as a potential 'fix' for those who think the current rule doesn't work as written while also thinking thru how I would rule at my table.

For me, Hiding suggests staying in one place, because the circumstance that led to you being invisible changes once you leave the hiding spot. I'm choosing to resolve that for my players by saying that the Invisible condition ends at the end of your turn to ensure that you can get the benefit of it when coming out of hiding. So at the end of the your example, if I want to keep following the guards without them noticing, that would be a new check based on the changing scene. In other words, the basic play loop has reset at that point, and the players are describing doing something else, so if there is uncertainty, a new check is needed.

And in the combat scene we are discussing, I agree, someone might call out to start Searching for the missing PC sneaking to the Alter, and to me, the tension is increased because the PC has to roll each round, just as the monsters do to Search each round, which could work in either side's favor (PC could roll a higher check next round, etc). The PC also has to keep using their Action (or likely bonus action as it's probably the Rogue or Monk doing this) preventing them from doing other things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I guess they technically could, but as there is no actual benefit for doing so (you'd move way farther if you just moved all those turns you spent there hitting the wall and fishing for a crit,) it is not a situation that would actually come up. This is unlike hiding, where the benefit is obvious.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, but the danger in the hallway I meant something like an aura that damages someone who ends their turn inside it. So, if the player just... dashes down the hall, they take damage (only 60 ft of movement) but if they attack the wall for a few minutes first, then they can move 75 feet on a turn, and avoid the damage.

So, you would allow this?

Also, in basic 5e grappling uses athletics. If people use their action to grapple, but fail, do you as a GM tell them that they cannot try again next turn, because they already had a go?

Grapples are part of the attack action, and attacks are obviously meant to be repeatable. Hiding is not meant to be repeatable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm only saying that there is no need to specifically provide the Invisible condition when sneaking past guards. DM says "You approach the gate to the interior of the Bandit Camp, two guards are busy playing Three Dragon Ante by the oppening, what do you do?" PCs "Let's sneak past them while they're deep in a hand", DM "Great, make a DC20 Dex (Stealth) check, because you'll have to both be quite and time your movement well."

No need for anyone to take the Hide action, no need for the Invisible condition. It's just an ability check to resolve the situation.

If instead, the player's say, "That DC sounds difficult with our heavily armored Paladin. Let's Hide out here instead and watch for a while, and see if there is a better opportunity." Then the players all gain the Invisible condition while they remain in their hiding spot (if they make the check, probably with someone helping the Paladin). They watch for a while, and the DM says "One of the guards thows his cards down, leaps over the table and begins wrestling on the ground with the other guard, obviously angry."

PCs "Great, let's sneak in now."

DM "Okay, that will be a DC10 Dex (Stealth) check."

PCs "Let's go!"

This reads to me like declaring that you don't need to take the study action, if the players just say they are reading books in the library and you have them roll an investigation check. You are just ignoring the action involved to make yourself feel like it is different, rather than there being any actual difference in execution.

The fact you changed a DC 20 check into a DC 15 and then a DC 10 check, doesn't change that.

 

[Xetheral]

To address this:

The Invisible condition does not concern itself with noise at all. I think this makes sense. The Invisibility spell, granting magical invisibility (ie: One Ring-style invisibility), gives you the Invisible condition without any other strings attached. You can make as much noise as you want, and you're not losing the Invisible condition it grants.

The Hide action does care about noise. It also grants the Invisible condition, but it's not the Invisible condition which determines if you can be heard; it's the conditions attached to the Hide action which do. To Hide, and retain the Invisible condition, you have to not make noise.

As such, you are as quiet as your Stealth check managed to make you, at a baseline. If you yell out a warning to a friend about to step into a trap, that was your choice, and not part of the baseline noise of your Hide action. But if you want to know how noisy you are being in general, just look at the Stealth check you made.

I entirely agree that to Hide and retain the Invisible condition you are required to not make noise. But I can't agree that taking the Hide action is how one satisfies the lack-of-noise requirement for benefiting from the Hide action. You're basically saying that one needs to be unheard to benefit from the Hide action, and that one becomes unheard by taking the Hide action. How can an ability satisfy its own requirements? (This old xkcd comes to mind: Dependencies.)

 

[Xetheral]

The Hide action is one way to apply the Stealth skill, not the only way.

There may be other ways to apply the Stealth skill, but not for hiding. The excerpt in the post quoted below is explicit that hiding (which includes "sneak[ing] past a guardian") means taking the Hide action.

@DavyGreenwind was kind enough to give us a screen shot of the Hiding rules in the Exploration section.

View attachment 375266

 

[Kinematics]

I entirely agree that to Hide and retain the Invisible condition you are required to not make noise. But I can't agree that taking the Hide action is how one satisfies the lack-of-noise requirement for benefiting from the Hide action. You're basically saying that one needs to be unheard to benefit from the Hide action, and that one becomes unheard by taking the Hide action. How can an ability satisfy its own requirements? (This old xkcd comes to mind: Dependencies.)

My argument is that the Stealth check to Hide satisfies the incidental noise requirement for remaining hidden, but not the voluntary actions of the player/character.

Incidental noise is the footsteps of you walking, the clanking of your armor, the jostling of your backpack, your breathing, etc — things that are going to be there no matter what. The Stealth check is getting all that to an acceptably low level.

On the other hand, just like Hiding does not mean that casting spells will always be done quietly and not be heard, hiding does not mean that if you speak loudly, or beat a drum, or deliberately drop your backpack full of healing potions, or whatever other source of noise you may choose to make, is automatically below the noise threshold.

Basically, the "making noise" part that causes you to lose the Invisible condition is something the player has agency over. It's not incidental background stuff.

If you accidentally knock a vase off a table, you manage to catch it before it shatters on the floor. (Maybe a little dramatic flair, but not mechanically significant.) If you deliberately drop it, it will make enough noise to end the Invisible condition.

 

[Incenjucar]

To conceal yourself, you must be out of any enemy's line of sight among other things.

Is there something that says the invisible condition allows line of sight? The point of asking the question is that being invisible doesn't seem to alter the passage of light.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, but the danger in the hallway I meant something like an aura that damages someone who ends their turn inside it. So, if the player just... dashes down the hall, they take damage (only 60 ft of movement) but if they attack the wall for a few minutes first, then they can move 75 feet on a turn, and avoid the damage.

So, you would allow this?

I see. I mean this is a super niche corner case situation that is unlikely come up at all, so not at all comparable to the basic functionality of the hide rule. But if you insist, we could interpret the rule representing some sort of an adrenaline rush, and the fighter could psych themselves up by hitting the wall. Though it would also be a reasonable houserule that this sort of adrenaline rush requires an actual enemy in actual combat to occur, and such ruling would not affect the normal functionality of the rule. '

Grapples are part of the attack action, and attacks are obviously meant to be repeatable. Hiding is not meant to be repeatable.

Perhaps they could just write some of these "obvious things" into the rulebooks which are supposed to tell us how to play the game, no?

Also, in a combat lasting for several rounds, you would not let a character attempt to hide again if they failed a hide roll on an earlier round? Because to me such a ruling is far from obvious.

 

[Remathilis]

"I take the Hide action"

"Make a Dexterity (stealth) check to sneak up on the guard.

Which is why I think we aren't quite looking at all the stealth rules quite yet.