D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mamba]

Welp, there goes my “the invisible condition doesn’t actually make you invisible” interpretation. And I’m back to hating these stealth rules.

I think my solution is to call the 'invisibility' condition 'hidden' and create a new 'invisibility' that say that everything from 'hidden' applies and in addition creatures cannot detect you through normal eyesight or darkvision. Seems the most straightforward fix for this nonsense

 

[Chaosmancer]

lol, so there goes the theory that the spell does more than apply the condition to you

Yea. Really didn't expect it to do anything more than give invisibly.

Which anyone can get by going around a corner and rolling stealth a few times.

Welp, there goes my “the invisible condition doesn’t actually make you invisible” interpretation. And I’m back to hating these stealth rules.

Rules as Intended.

The invisibility spell gives you the invisible condition until the spell ends.
Hiding gives you the invisible condition, but it has extra caveats to it. Such as not being in line of sight.

There is also the Thief Rogue ability:

Which prevents you from being spotted if you attack and don't end your turn in cover.

And, honestly, what is the difference between an invisible woman behind you, or a woman hiding so well you have no idea she is behind you? Practically speaking... nothing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think my solution is to call the 'invisibility' condition 'hidden' and create a new 'invisibility' that say that everything from 'hidden' applies and in addition creatures cannot detect you through normal eyesight or darkvision. Seems the most straightforward fix for this nonsense

I’m just going to keep using the perfectly functional 2014 stealth rules, and incorporate the new advice that if you can see a creature you can tell if it can see you, and that heavy obscuration or 3/4 cover are sufficient to establish that a creature can’t see you.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

invisibility itself is fine, what is not fine is turning invisible by successfully hiding behind a bush. Please show me the various fantasy media that does that

Maybe the old gen assassin creed?

 

[mamba]

Rules as Intended.

The invisibility spell gives you the invisible condition until the spell ends.
Hiding gives you the invisible condition, but it has extra caveats to it. Such as not being in line of sight.

rules as unintended, the line of sight is only relevant for the Hide action, not for the invisibility condition

here is also the Thief Rogue ability:

Which prevents you from being spotted if you attack and don't end your turn in cover.

there should not be a don't in your last sentence. That solves the issue for a Stealth Attack, but I can just do anything else and remain invisible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Rules as Intended.

The invisibility spell gives you the invisible condition until the spell ends.
Hiding gives you the invisible condition, but it has extra caveats to it. Such as not being in line of sight.

That’s a caveat for taking the hide action. The only caveats these rules give for ending the invisible condition are making an attack roll, casting a spell with a verbal component, making a sound louder than a whisper, and being found by a creature. The lattermost of those is actually undefined, but we can infer from the result of the stealth check setting the DC to find you with a perception check that a successful perception check is required to find you.

There is also the Thief Rogue ability:
View attachment 374974

Which prevents you from being spotted if you attack and don't end your turn in cover.

The attack is the part that would otherwise end the invisible condition.

And, honestly, what is the difference between an invisible woman behind you, or a woman hiding so well you have no idea she is behind you? Practically speaking... nothing.

The difference is the invisible woman could move in front of me without me seeing her.

 

[ezo]

I’m just going to keep using the perfectly functional 2014 stealth rules

"Perfectly functional"??? Where are those!?!

and incorporate the new advice that if you can see a creature you can tell if it can see you,

Except you can't always really tell that, can you?

and that heavy obscuration or 3/4 cover are sufficient to establish that a creature can’t see you.

Heavy obscurement already blocks vision entirely, so nothing new there right?

Just to clarify with 3/4-cover, do you mean it will allow you a chance to hide to become unseen or that with 3/4-cover you simple can't be seen??

 

[mamba]

That’s a caveat for taking the hide action.

ah, I was double checking invisibility...

 

[Asisreo]

Its an indirect buff to martials. Didn't we want martials to do fantastical things? Well now a level 1 rogue can go invisible fairly consistently.

In all seriousness, this rule does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I can work around it, but its definitely going to be confusing and silly for my players no matter how I spin it.

 

[Iosue]

PC: So I'm completely behind the wall, total cover?

DM: Yes.

PC: And I'm not in anyone's line of sight?

DM: Yes.

PC: But I can see the dragon's toe. Can it see me?

DM: No.

PC: Okay, I Hide.

DM: Roll.

PC: But . . . fine. 14.

DM: You fail. The dragon moves five feet and breathes fire all over your face.

PC: Dammit!

PC: So I'm completely behind the wall, total cover?

DM: Yes.

PC: And I'm not in anyone's line of sight?

DM: Yes.

PC: But I can see the dragon's toe. Can it see me?

DM: No.

PC: Okay, I Hide.

DM: Roll.

PC: Okay! Aw, crap. 14.

DM: As you secure your position, you step on a twig, which snaps with a loud sound. The dragon's head whips around to your direction. It moves five feet, sees you and breathes fire all over your face.

PC: Dammit!

Or, and hear me out on this, failure doesn't mean anything other than the PC doesn't get the benefits of the invisible condition.