D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Plaguescarred]

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.

The Invisible condition has a benefit called Concealed. So you're likely not concealed if you're not out of any enemy's line of sight who can see you somehow.

 

[OB1]

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.

Wow! That is a very interesting change to the rules of 5e. Gonna have to think through the implications of this.

 

[OB1]

@Kinematics so I think I've come around to how you are thinking on this. Was thinking about how Hiding is handled in BG3, which is very similar to the 2024 rule set. In BG3, once you've hidden, your character can move around as far and as long as you want, until one of the following happens.

1. You make an attack or cast a spell
2. You enter an enemy's visual range while in dim light or darkness and their Passive Perception is higher than your original Dex (Stealth) check.
3. The enemies take the Search action to find you, making a perception check that beats your Dex (Stealth) roll.
4. You enter an enemy's visual range while in bright light.

That fourth one is the big one, that you are automatically 'found' when an enemy is looking your way in bright light, regardless of what you rolled and what their passive perception is.

Now, I will say, BG3, because it's run by a computer, can instantly track where everyone is looking and it even shows the player where those visual fields are so that you can possibly maneuver around them, even in bright light. How I'd probably rule in a 2024 game is that once you leave your hiding spot, if you're in bright light you're found automatically and you no longer have the invisible condition. If in Dim light, it would go against the passive perception of the enemies and it would only take 1 to see you to end the invisible condition.

So in the middle of the day, if you are hidden behind a boulder, you could attack from that position, but if you move, you're found.

Have I missed anything here?

 

[Kinematics]

@OB1

I would consider that mostly reasonable, except the auto-find in bright light.

Simple example: A monster is in the center of a field, and you're hidden behind a rock. You want to make it to a nearby tree. If the monster if facing away, this should be doable, even in bright light. If the monster is facing your way, you're going to be spotted instantly, no matter what.

Basically, it's the facing issue. The computer game can track that easily, and it's obvious if you can make the run, or if doing so is an instant reveal. At the table, that facing isn't obvious, and there are no concrete rules for it. Maybe if you're using minis you can manage something, but even that's not always reliable.

This is basically a situation where I'd ask the GM, or just declare that I'm waiting for the right opportunity to move when the monster is facing away. Maybe even create a distraction by throwing a rock towards an area on the far side of the monster. But while that's fine for an on-the-spot ruling, it isn't sufficient for a fixed interpretation of the rules.

This may be part of why the "find" clause doesn't have details attached. It's easy to have a specific scenario and be able to determine what's OK and what's not, but it's much harder (if possible at all) to have a specific rule that can handle what it means.

I would say that if you're in the open in bright light, you're automatically found, unless you or your party do something to specifically prevent being spotted. That might be the rock distraction, or a loud noise elsewhere, or maybe the fighter on the other side attacks. There are a lot of things that can give you a small window of opportunity, but they're not going to last more than that one action.

How does this interact with wanting to make that melee attack with advantage? Hmm. Not sure yet.

 

[Kinematics]

A slight diversion examining the Invisible condition.

Types of Invisible:

• Unseen. Magical invisibility from spells or other features can make it so that you can't be seen with normal vision.
  • Can be lost if you make an attack roll.
  • Can be lost if you cast a spell.
  • NB: Can be bypassed with alternative senses (See Invisible, Blindsight, etc).
  • NB: Stronger magic (Greater Invisibility) may prevent the condition from being lost.
• Unnoticed. Hiding keeps you from being seen or heard.
  • Can be lost if you make an attack roll.
  • Can be lost if you make a noise louder than a whisper.
  • Can be lost if you cast a spell that has a verbal component.
  • Can be lost if you are found.
  • NB: Making noise or moving in the open tends to lead to you being found.
• Unrecognizable. A disguise can keep others from knowing who you are.
  • Can be lost if you make an attack roll.
  • Can be lost if you are found.
  • Can be lost if you act inconsistently with the disguise.
  • NB: Acting inconsistently with the disguise tends to lead to you being found.
  • NB: Only functions as a form of invisibility if an enemy does not identify you as a threat or person of interest.
• Indistinguishable. Blending in with the crowd can make it so that you can't be pinpointed.
  • Can be lost if you make an attack roll.
  • Can be lost if you are found.
  • Can be lost if you leave the crowd.
  • NB: Not acting in sync with the crowd may lead to you being found.

Each of these provides you benefits in Initiative checks. If an enemy can't see you — either physically or because of other factors — you can get the jump on him before he's ready.

Each of these provides you advantage on attack checks, as long as you aren't seen. If you aren't seen — either physically, or because the enemy doesn't know you're there or what direction to be prepared from an attack from — your attack can bypass an enemy's defenses.

Each of these provides the enemy disadvantage on attacking you. If the enemy can't see you — either physically or because he can't determine where you are — his attacks become ineffective. Note that Unrecognizable is unlikely to provide this benefit, as the purpose of that is largely to remain seen.

Magical invisibility blocks the senses, but not knowledge of your existence. Finding you doesn't matter. All other types of invisibility block knowledge of your existence, but not necessarily the senses. Being found ends the condition.

Being seen or heard ends the effect of hiding, but has no effect on disguises or blending in with the crowd, and only suppresses the effects of magical invisibility.

Some of the alternate forms of invisibility may be achieved using magic. For example, Disguise Self or Shapeshift can make you unrecognizable, and illusions may give you cover to hide, or the illusion of a crowd.


Anyone have any ideas for any other types of invisibility?

 

[OB1]

@OB1

I would consider that mostly reasonable, except the auto-find in bright light.

Simple example: A monster is in the center of a field, and you're hidden behind a rock. You want to make it to a nearby tree. If the monster if facing away, this should be doable, even in bright light. If the monster is facing your way, you're going to be spotted instantly, no matter what.

Basically, it's the facing issue. The computer game can track that easily, and it's obvious if you can make the run, or if doing so is an instant reveal. At the table, that facing isn't obvious, and there are no concrete rules for it. Maybe if you're using minis you can manage something, but even that's not always reliable.

This is basically a situation where I'd ask the GM, or just declare that I'm waiting for the right opportunity to move when the monster is facing away. Maybe even create a distraction by throwing a rock towards an area on the far side of the monster. But while that's fine for an on-the-spot ruling, it isn't sufficient for a fixed interpretation of the rules.

This may be part of why the "find" clause doesn't have details attached. It's easy to have a specific scenario and be able to determine what's OK and what's not, but it's much harder (if possible at all) to have a specific rule that can handle what it means.

I would say that if you're in the open in bright light, you're automatically found, unless you or your party do something to specifically prevent being spotted. That might be the rock distraction, or a loud noise elsewhere, or maybe the fighter on the other side attacks. There are a lot of things that can give you a small window of opportunity, but they're not going to last more than that one action.

How does this interact with wanting to make that melee attack with advantage? Hmm. Not sure yet.

I think the 2014 PHB sidebar on hiding might provide insight here. Will be interesting to see if there is a similar sidebar in either the 2024 PHB or DMG.

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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. '

It is the exact same mechanical representation of your argument. And you are specifically hedging because you know you would never allow this. Because it isn't a reasonable idea.

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?

Do they really need to? Do we need a 2K long rulebook that explicitly explains every single possible thing and every corner case, just so someone doesn't do something incredibly unreasonable?

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.

In combat yes, just like you would allow them to roll a perception check to find a hidden creature again, because unlike outside of combat where they have infinite time to do whatever they please, an active threat makes repeating the attempt a risky choice.

At this point, I truly hope the DMG is profoundly robust, because it is starting to seem like even DMs with decades of experience can't run a game without the rules holding their hands.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Basically, it's the facing issue. The computer game can track that easily, and it's obvious if you can make the run, or if doing so is an instant reveal. At the table, that facing isn't obvious, and there are no concrete rules for it. Maybe if you're using minis you can manage something, but even that's not always reliable.

This is basically a situation where I'd ask the GM, or just declare that I'm waiting for the right opportunity to move when the monster is facing away. Maybe even create a distraction by throwing a rock towards an area on the far side of the monster. But while that's fine for an on-the-spot ruling, it isn't sufficient for a fixed interpretation of the rules.

This sounds like an excellent place to use Passive Perception, unless the monster is actively looking for you, then their perception roll would represent this.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A slight diversion examining the Invisible condition.

Types of Invisible:

• Unseen. Magical invisibility from spells or other features can make it so that you can't be seen with normal vision.
  • Can be lost if you make an attack roll.
  • Can be lost if you cast a spell.
  • NB: Can be bypassed with alternative senses (See Invisible, Blindsight, etc).
  • NB: Stronger magic (Greater Invisibility) may prevent the condition from being lost.
• Unnoticed. Hiding keeps you from being seen or heard.
  • Can be lost if you make an attack roll.
  • Can be lost if you make a noise louder than a whisper.
  • Can be lost if you cast a spell that has a verbal component.
  • Can be lost if you are found.
  • NB: Making noise or moving in the open tends to lead to you being found.
• Unrecognizable. A disguise can keep others from knowing who you are.
  • Can be lost if you make an attack roll.
  • Can be lost if you are found.
  • Can be lost if you act inconsistently with the disguise.
  • NB: Acting inconsistently with the disguise tends to lead to you being found.
  • NB: Only functions as a form of invisibility if an enemy does not identify you as a threat or person of interest.
• Indistinguishable. Blending in with the crowd can make it so that you can't be pinpointed.
  • Can be lost if you make an attack roll.
  • Can be lost if you are found.
  • Can be lost if you leave the crowd.
  • NB: Not acting in sync with the crowd may lead to you being found.

Each of these provides you benefits in Initiative checks. If an enemy can't see you — either physically or because of other factors — you can get the jump on him before he's ready.

Each of these provides you advantage on attack checks, as long as you aren't seen. If you aren't seen — either physically, or because the enemy doesn't know you're there or what direction to be prepared from an attack from — your attack can bypass an enemy's defenses.

Each of these provides the enemy disadvantage on attacking you. If the enemy can't see you — either physically or because he can't determine where you are — his attacks become ineffective. Note that Unrecognizable is unlikely to provide this benefit, as the purpose of that is largely to remain seen.

Magical invisibility blocks the senses, but not knowledge of your existence. Finding you doesn't matter. All other types of invisibility block knowledge of your existence, but not necessarily the senses. Being found ends the condition.

Being seen or heard ends the effect of hiding, but has no effect on disguises or blending in with the crowd, and only suppresses the effects of magical invisibility.

Some of the alternate forms of invisibility may be achieved using magic. For example, Disguise Self or Shapeshift can make you unrecognizable, and illusions may give you cover to hide, or the illusion of a crowd.


Anyone have any ideas for any other types of invisibility?

This looks good to me. Can't think of any others quickly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is the exact same mechanical representation of your argument.

But it is not the same situation. An unlikely edge case being weird is not the same than the basic functionality of the rule being weird.

And you are specifically hedging because you know you would never allow this. Because it isn't a reasonable idea.

Nah.

Do they really need to? Do we need a 2K long rulebook that explicitly explains every single possible thing and every corner case, just so someone doesn't do something incredibly unreasonable?

No. Like we don't actually need them to explain your weird fighter power question, as it is highly unlikely to come up in most games even once. But we actually need them to explain how basic rule that will be used time and time again is supposed to be employed.

In combat yes, just like you would allow them to roll a perception check to find a hidden creature again, because unlike outside of combat where they have infinite time to do whatever they please, an active threat makes repeating the attempt a risky choice.

But again, if this is how it is supposed to work, why not just write it in the bloody book? Like I am a GM with literal decades of experience, and you might be as well. We can handle rules with big holes in them, and substitute best practices learned over the years. But not everyone is like that. To many people this will be the first RPG book they ever read. And it should actually tell them how to play the game they paid for!

I really do not understand why you feel the need to defend sloppy work from the world's biggest RPG publisher, in a book that is supposed to be an update for a system the designer's have ten years experience of and have conducted extensive playtest for. Like if this was some lone indie publishers first draft, then sure, mistakes happen, and you cannot always think of everything, but no such excuses can be made here.

At this point, I truly hope the DMG is profoundly robust, because it is starting to seem like even DMs with decades of experience can't run a game without the rules holding their hands.

I can. I can write my own RPG from scratch if need to be; I have done it a few times. But not everyone has such experience, and even I don't feel particularly enthusiastic paying for opportunity to fix someone else's mistakes.