D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Except the "basic functionality" of the hide action is not that you can stand in your tent at 7 in the morning and spam click the hide button until you roll a nat 20 and have perfect invisibility for the rest of the day. You are making that up when it is clearly not how the action is supposed to function.

Nah.

Yes, you spend half the paragraph talking in terms of "we could interpret" and "it is possible to" whereas with the stealth rules you are locked in "this is how it works". Then with the fighter stuff, you declare that you could easily houserule it not to work, without affecting the core functionality, but you seem to insist that spamming hide until you get the result you want is core functionality of the hide action, instead of, you know... hiding from an enemy.

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.


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.

Why not write that hiding doesn't make you transparent? Why not write that breaking from your cover and standing in front of an enemy allows that enemy to see you? Why not write that you can't hide from nothing 42 times in a row until you roll a natural 20? Why should they have to?

Why am I defending these rules? Because I don't think they are sloppy. I don't think they are poorly put together. I think they are actually very good rules that have a lot of flexibility, and answer questions for me about how specific scenes I could never figure out mechanically would work. The idea of mixing hidden and invisible into a single condition to represent being unseen has opened up an entire branch of stealth in social situations, a type of stealth I could never get a mechanical grip on in 2014, completely viable and accounted for under these rules.

The problem? The problem is people approaching these rules in bad faith. Creating absurd scenarios, ignoring alternative explanations. All you need to do to "fix" these rules, is accept that "finds you" is broader than a perception check as an action, and they are 100% fixed. Because despite your constant "but they don't SAY that" you know what it means to find something. Then, to fix the invisibility spell, you just have to accept that the invisibility spell works like an invisibility spell. That's it.

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.

And what do you think is more helpful for new DMs and players who go online looking for advice? Do you think it will be helpful to a new DM for a player to say "Well, this guy is a DM of twenty years, and he says the rules are terrible because I am totally allowed to keep re-rolling my stealth checks every morning until I crit, and you can't stop me." or "Well, I went online to check these rules because I was slightly confused, and I guess this is a massive issue because there is a hundred page thread where people keep insisting that hiding makes you unseeable, so you can never be seen by a perception check, so if you hide once I guess you are invisible forever? I'm so confused by this game"

Or do you think it is FAR more helpful and FAR better if a new DM came to you slightly confused to say "Yeah, the condition says invisible, but for hiding it just means unseen, while the spell makes you invisible like you were thinking. The wording is a little rough, but some common sense makes it obvious."

Which one leads to better games in the future? Or do you want option 3 "Invent a reality warping machine and go to an alternative reality where the rules are written to my exact specifications", because I think that one isn't going to happen.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except the "basic functionality" of the hide action is not that you can stand in your tent at 7 in the morning and spam click the hide button until you roll a nat 20 and have perfect invisibility for the rest of the day. You are making that up when it is clearly not how the action is supposed to function.

Base functionality of hide is that you can take action to become invisible and remain so, until conditions for ending it are met. The rules are actually pretty clear, they just produce weird results. You're inventing all sort of caveats about when and how many times the action can be sued, and how the invisible person can be found, that are not actually in the rules, whilst denying that you're doing so.

Yes, you spend half the paragraph talking in terms of "we could interpret" and "it is possible to" whereas with the stealth rules you are locked in "this is how it works".

I was not doubting that RAW allows the fighter power to do what you suggested.

Then with the fighter stuff, you declare that you could easily houserule it not to work, without affecting the core functionality, but you seem to insist that spamming hide until you get the result you want is core functionality of the hide action, instead of, you know... hiding from an enemy.

Yes, I suggested a houserule in case the weirdness of this unlikely corner case produces. Note that I did not insist that the rules already work like I suggested even they don't say so.

Why not write that hiding doesn't make you transparent? Why not write that breaking from your cover and standing in front of an enemy allows that enemy to see you? Why not write that you can't hide from nothing 42 times in a row until you roll a natural 20? Why should they have to?

Why am I defending these rules? Because I don't think they are sloppy. I don't think they are poorly put together. I think they are actually very good rules that have a lot of flexibility, and answer questions for me about how specific scenes I could never figure out mechanically would work. The idea of mixing hidden and invisible into a single condition to represent being unseen has opened up an entire branch of stealth in social situations, a type of stealth I could never get a mechanical grip on in 2014, completely viable and accounted for under these rules.

The problem? The problem is people approaching these rules in bad faith. Creating absurd scenarios, ignoring alternative explanations. All you need to do to "fix" these rules, is accept that "finds you" is broader than a perception check as an action, and they are 100% fixed. Because despite your constant "but they don't SAY that" you know what it means to find something. Then, to fix the invisibility spell, you just have to accept that the invisibility spell works like an invisibility spell. That's it.

You're inventing rules. Either stop it or admit you're doing so.

And what do you think is more helpful for new DMs and players who go online looking for advice? Do you think it will be helpful to a new DM for a player to say "Well, this guy is a DM of twenty years, and he says the rules are terrible because I am totally allowed to keep re-rolling my stealth checks every morning until I crit, and you can't stop me." or "Well, I went online to check these rules because I was slightly confused, and I guess this is a massive issue because there is a hundred page thread where people keep insisting that hiding makes you unseeable, so you can never be seen by a perception check, so if you hide once I guess you are invisible forever? I'm so confused by this game"

Or do you think it is FAR more helpful and FAR better if a new DM came to you slightly confused to say "Yeah, the condition says invisible, but for hiding it just means unseen, while the spell makes you invisible like you were thinking. The wording is a little rough, but some common sense makes it obvious."

Which one leads to better games in the future? Or do you want option 3 "Invent a reality warping machine and go to an alternative reality where the rules are written to my exact specifications", because I think that one isn't going to happen.

I, and several other people who have criticised the rules have offered houserule suggestions to improve them. What we have not done is to insist that the rules are fine and anyone who doesn't see it is either dumb or acting in bad faith.
I think the former approach is more helpful in assisting people who have an issue with the rules.

 

[pemerton]

Base functionality of hide is that you can take action to become invisible and remain so, until conditions for ending it are met.

Does 5e have rules for retries?

I did not insist that the rules already work like I suggested even they don't say so.

<snip>

You're inventing rules. Either stop it or admit you're doing so.

<snip>

I, and several other people who have criticised the rules have offered houserule suggestions to improve them. What we have not done is to insist that the rules are fine and anyone who doesn't see it is either dumb or acting in bad faith.

People don't need to be dumb, or acting in bad faith, to disagree over the content of a loosely-drafted rule. I mean, this happens in respect of tightly-drafted rules all the time (see eg many legal disputes). Why would D&D rules be any different?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Does 5e have rules for retries?

Not as such, I don't think, but the normal procedure for skill (and ability) checks is that unless they're invoked by some specific rules widget, it is the GM who calls them, so no retries unless the GM calls for them. In base 5e hiding still was an action, but it specifically said that GM decides whether conditions are appropriate for hiding. Hidden condition was also way easier to lose.
5.5 is very specific about conditions required for hiding and conditions for losing the invisibility, so it seems more inappropriate for the GM to fiat "no, you cannot" or "no, you're found" outside of those circumstances.

And I am not saying previous way of doing it was great. It wasn't, and I welcome rules being more specific. I just don't think these specific rules are doing a good job (4e rules you quoted earlier seemed better structured to me at a glance.)

I also wish that the general issue of retries was actually addressed in the rules in some concrete manner. DMG, I hope?

People don't need to be dumb, or acting in bad faith, to disagree over the content of a loosely-drafted rule. I mean, this happens in respect of tightly-drafted rules all the time (see eg many legal disputes). Why would D&D rules be any different?

I think the issue is not that this is a loosely-drafted rule, or at least it doesn't appear to be such. It is very explicit and specific, so I think that sort of discourages "interpreting" it to do something different than what is specified. In 5e a lot of rules were sorta "let the GM figure it out" which is not exactly great, but in such instance it is pretty obvious that things are supposed to be flexible and open to different interpretation. With very specific rule that is really not the case.

 

[pemerton]

5.5 is very specific about conditions required for hiding and conditions for losing the invisibility, so it seems more inappropriate for the GM to fiat "no you cannot," "no, you're found" outside of those circumstances.

<snip>

I think the issue is not that this is a loosely-drafted rule, or at least it doesn't appear to be such. It is very explicit and specific, so I think that sort of discourages "interpreting" it to do something different than what is specified.

This seems like one difference of approach - to rules interpretation and adjudication - that the DMG might clear up: both retries, and "found", and more generally how the fiction is supposed to interact with relatively tightly specified actions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Base functionality of hide is that you can take action to become invisible and remain so, until conditions for ending it are met. The rules are actually pretty clear, they just produce weird results. You're inventing all sort of caveats about when and how many times the action can be sued, and how the invisible person can be found, that are not actually in the rules, whilst denying that you're doing so.


I was not doubting that RAW allows the fighter power to do what you suggested.


Yes, I suggested a houserule in case the weirdness of this unlikely corner case produces. Note that I did not insist that the rules already work like I suggested even they don't say so.



You're inventing rules. Either stop it or admit you're doing so.



I, and several other people who have criticised the rules have offered houserule suggestions to improve them. What we have not done is to insist that the rules are fine and anyone who doesn't see it is either dumb or acting in bad faith.
I think the former approach is more helpful in assisting people who have an issue with the rules.

Not as such, I don't think, but the normal procedure for skill (and ability) checks is that unless they're invoked by some specific rules widget, it is the GM who calls them, so no retries unless the GM calls for them. In base 5e hiding still was an action, but it specifically said that GM decides whether conditions are appropriate for hiding. Hidden condition was also way easier to lose.
5.5 is very specific about conditions required for hiding and conditions for losing the invisibility, so it seems more inappropriate for the GM to fiat "no, you cannot" or "no, you're found" outside of those circumstances.

And I am not saying previous way of doing it was great. It wasn't, and I welcome rules being more specific. I just don't think these specific rules are doing a good job (4e rules you quoted earlier seemed better structured to me at a glance.)

I also wish that the general issue of retries was actually addressed in the rules in some concrete manner. DMG, I hope?



I think the issue is not that this is a loosely-drafted rule, or at least it doesn't appear to be such. It is very explicit and specific, so I think that sort of discourages "interpreting" it to do something different than what is specified. In 5e a lot of rules were sorta "let the GM figure it out" which is not exactly great, but in such instance it is pretty obvious that things are supposed to be flexible and open to different interpretation. With very specific rule that is really not the case.

I am so tired.

Do you know how many people claimed that WoTC hates all DMs because they had loose rules that were not stricter and put all the weight on the DM to figure out? How many video essays were made on that very topic? Now, we have slightly stricter rules that give the DM more guidance... and that just shows that WoTC is incompetent because if they are read EVEN STRICTER than they are intended to be read, then you can create absurd scenarios.

You know the hide action mentions having cover, right? You know that cover is RELATIVE to another creature, correct? I mean, if I press my back to a crumbling wall whether or not I have cover depends on which side of the wall the enemy is on. But no, the entire basic functionality of the hide action has nothing to do with hiding from an enemy, because they didn't specifically state that, despite it breaking if an enemy finds you , and stating you need to be out of an enemies line of sight, and that the you need cover or obscurement from the enemy. But nope, you don't need an enemy at all, hide from absolutely nothing for no reason whatsoever so you can enjoy endless invisibility without spending a spell slot.

I hope all your players approach every single house rule you make with all of the same energy you keep bringing to this, forcing you to constantly get more and more and more specific with every pass, lest your rules allow them to do something absurd that you didn't intend. Meanwhile, I'm going to be playing with adults who don't insist on these stupid word games to show that the rules are bad and broken and WoTC is incompetent or terrible.

 

[deadman1204]

So, after some discussion and analysis, I don’t think that’s actually RAI. There is a sidebar about passive perception, so it does seem to still be a thing, so if a creature’s passive perception is higher than the rogue’s stealth check, it should still find the rogue. Additionally, there seems to be some ambiguity about if the “invisible” condition actually makes you invisible. Two of its benefits specifically don’t apply to creatures that “can somehow see you,” and I think it’s safe to say that if a rogue is not actually under the effects of the invisibility or greater invisibility spell, a potion of invisibility, or a magic item that turns them invisible, then any creature with line of sight to them should be interpreted as being able to “somehow see” the rogue, even if that makes the condition stupidly named.

The interpretation I will be going with until/unless new information is revealed that changes my mind is this:

To hide, a character needs 3/4 or full cover or heavy obscuration, and then must succeed on a Dexterity (Stealth) check against the higher of 15 or the highest passive perception among hostile creatures in the vicinity. On a success, the character gains a condition that grants them advantage on initiative rolls, advantage on attack rolls against creatures that can’t see them, and imposes disadvantage on attack rolls against them made by creatures that can’t see them. This condition ends if the hidden character makes a sound louder than a whisper, makes an attack roll, or casts a spell with a verbal component, if they enter the vicinity of a hostile creature with a higher passive perception than their stealth roll, or if a creature uses the search action and beats their stealth roll with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

If we just ignore that the condition is called “invisible,” all of this is mostly reasonable. I don’t really like the DC 15 floor for the stealth check, or the fact that any creature detecting the rogue “breaks” their stealth for all other creatures. But other than that I think it’s actually fine.

The problem with RAI is its utterly DM dependent. Vague and poorly worded rules left for the dm to figure things out. RAI is a design failure - it leaves players to guess at what they meant. For something like this, its so obviously worded like garbage. Its not hard to see how clumsy it is. DMing 5.5 is gonna be awful because everything becomes more vague and conflicting. Much less using 5.0 material, because its NOT backwards compatible. It requires all sorts of dm decisions about what works, how they interact, which thing this and that. The devs of dnd are just offloading all the work to the dm and cashing their paychecks from writing "new" books that are just different enough to justify calling it 5.5

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem with RAI is its utterly DM dependent. Vague and poorly worded rules left for the dm to figure things out. RAI is a design failure - it leaves players to guess at what they meant.

I agree, but that’s a problem caused by the use natural language, not solved by it.

For something like this, it’s so obviously worded like garbage. It’s not hard to see how clumsy it is.

Actually I think the wording is quite clear. Most of the confusion is resulting from the fact that we’re getting the rules secondhand, and from the fact that the extremely permissive weapon drawing/stowing rules enable a lot of unintuitive things.

DMing 5.5 is gonna be awful because everything becomes more vague and conflicting. Much less using 5.0 material, because it’s NOT backwards compatible. It requires all sorts of dm decisions about what works, how they interact, which thing this and that. The devs of dnd are just offloading all the work to the dm and cashing their paychecks from writing "new" books that are just different enough to justify calling it 5.5

Oh, ok, so you’re one of the folks who’s just determined to be angry about the new rules. Well, I hope that works out for you. Happy gaming!

 

[deadman1204]

I agree, but that’s a problem caused by the use natural language, not solved by it.

Actually I think the wording is quite clear. Most of the confusion is resulting from the fact that we’re getting the rules secondhand, and from the fact that the extremely permissive weapon drawing/stowing rules enable a lot of unintuitive things.

Oh, ok, so you’re one of the folks who’s just determined to be angry about the new rules. Well, I hope that works out for you. Happy gaming!

Huh? I'm invalid because I'm "angry" and "dislike 5.5"? lol
I thought 5.5 had alot of potential, right up until the actual phb was released. Its only then that we started to see how poorly things were tested. Don't take my opinion, consider that wotc sent lawsuit threats to basically every youtuber who was talking about the new phb they had. Everyone was panning it, so wotc had to shut down the entire influcencer community of dnd. Silencing criticism is a sure sign that theres a problem.

 

[Charlaquin]

Huh? I'm invalid because I'm "angry" and "dislike 5.5"? lol

I didn’t say your opinion was invalid. I just don’t think arguing with you about it is going to be a productive use of my time.

I thought 5.5 had alot of potential, right up until the actual phb was released. It’s only then that we started to see how poorly things were tested. Don't take my opinion, consider that wotc sent lawsuit threats to basically every youtuber who was talking about the new phb they had. Everyone was panning it, so wotc had to shut down the entire influcencer community of dnd. Silencing criticism is a sure sign that theres a problem.

A cease and desist is not a lawsuit threat. And no, they didn’t send C&Ds to every YouTuber talking about the PHB, only to the handful who did full page-throughs. Which was a huge PR misstep (not a huge shock, WOTC’s PR has been pretty terrible for a while now), but was more likely motivated by their irrational fear of digital piracy than by trying to keep people from reading the PHB early. If they hadn’t wanted that, they wouldn’t have sold early copies at Gen Con.