D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[FrogReaver]

Oh, I just caught that contests/opposed rolls are gone, too. So without the book, I'm concluding there's no way to move silently in 5.24. Meaning any movement while invisible drops the invisible condition.

I mean there can still be dm sets dc and you roll a dex skill check method?

 

[TiQuinn]

The big thing that irritates me that being stealthed/hidden is more than simply being unseen (invisible). Stealth covers the old Move Silently as well as Hide in Shadows of the old game, and simply granting invisibilty doesn't account for that. They really should have made a separate Hidden condition.

This. Stealth is not magical. Invisibility is magical.

 

[mellored]

That breaks the invisibility spell. Can’t put those ending conditions in the condition itself or you’ll break invisibility and greater invisibility.

Those are changes to the hide action, not invisible.

Hide makes you invisible, as long as you have concealment or cover.

Instead of the nebulous "found by" an enemy.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is no paradox. I was just looking at your post about that and the invisible condition doesn't say, "unless they can see you" which would result in what you are arguing. It says, "Unless they can somehow see you" which means that they need some aid to normal vision to see the invisible being.

RAI probably. But somehow seeing you could refer to looking in your direction. So we don’t really know that.

 

[Nijay]

I mean there can still be dm sets dc and you roll a dex skill check method?

True, it could be an option like Hide, DC 15 stealth.

 

[TiQuinn]

There is no paradox. I was just looking at your post about that and the invisible condition doesn't say, "unless they can see you" which would result in what you are arguing. It says, "Unless they can somehow see you" which means that they need some aid to normal vision to see the invisible being.

Sure, man. I'm not going to argue with you over this. The level that you are parsing this at is the exact problem that I want to avoid. Somehow, indeed.

 

[Stoutstien]

I've been using the same pattern for every system I run

1) player describes thier goal and how they attempt to achieve it. In the case of avoiding detection details matter but only to the extent of understanding the spirit of the choice. No <actions> or dice are needed.

2) i determine how possible it it for them to be detected based on all the relevant factors. How alert is the NPC, how well can they perceive in the environment, what things could possibly give the PC(s) away, how focused is the NPC, and so on. Looks like a lot but 2-3 key words cover it.

3) if there is a chance for the NPC to detect the PC(s) then i ask how they react to becoming slightly aware there might be something amiss. This could mean they do nothing, hold their breath,quicky move out of line of sight before a light source exposes them, or about anything else they can think of as long as it has sound base if working.

4) player makes an ability check to see if they stay hidden. Important point here here is a failure doesn't automatically mean the NPCs is aware what they detected only they are confident they sensed something.

5) resolve and repeat as necessary.

In combat it doesn't work all that different then printed in the phb besides i add a note regarding coming out of concealment to attack and using common sense on if the target could reasonably detect them before they attack. The NPCs last action would determine this. Back turned dealing with a different threat? Passive check. Purposely waiting for them to pop out? Auto success. Hectic melee? Make an ability check vs stealth roll.

About the only change is turning the hidden tag into obscured when dealing with combat. That way players can see differences between being undetected and not currently pinpointed.

 

[Nijay]

This. Stealth is not magical. Invisibility is magical.

It seems like hiding grants magical invisibility in these rules.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem is that with a single condition we should be interpreting it to work a single way. The invisible condition either doesn't work correctly for hiding or doesn't work correctly for the invisibility spell.

This seems to me to be associated with the issue of the invisibility condition not ending when an enemy sees you - it ends when an enemy 'finds you' - which seems to require the search action.

Now maybe we will be told that 'find you' was natural language and applies to things like guards seeing you without making a search check.

The problem is with hiding making people invisible. Invisibility doesn't end when you are found. It ends if they can somehow see you, which searching doesn't grant. Searching can find something hidden or even something invisible, but it doesn't mean that you can see that which you found.

Now it can be argued that the specific hide rules override the invisible condition rules, but that still means that the hidden person is completely invisible unless searched for, even if standing right in front of you.

 

[Maxperson]

It seems like hiding grants magical invisibility in these rules.

It shouldn't, but that how they wrote it.