D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Micah Sweet]

I was replying to a post that made an assertion about how D&D has been for the past 50 years.

In addition, these current Stealth rules seem to be broadly modelled on the revised 4e rules, so my post seems relevant for that reason also. Here are the 4e rules for remaining hidden (ie after a successful check has been made; from PHB2 p 222):

Remaining Hidden: You remain hidden as long as you meet these requirements.​

​

Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden. You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.​

​

Keep Quiet: If you speak louder than a whisper or otherwise draw attention to yourself, you don’t remain hidden from any enemy that can hear you.​

​

Keep Still: If you move more than 2 squares during an action, you must make a new Stealth check with a –5 penalty. If you run, the penalty is –10. If any enemy’s passive Perception check beats your check result, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy.​

​

Don’t Attack: If you attack, you don’t remain hidden.​

​

Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.​

The "keep out of sight" rule in 4e occupies more-or-less the same functional space as the "enemy finds you" rule cited in the OP.

You're the one who referred to 50 years of D&D history, not me!

And given that the new rules seems to be rather similar to the 4e rules, I think it might matter.

Agreed. That the 5.5 design philosophy seems to be moving more overtly towards 4e seems very relevant.

 

[pemerton]

Yes. And I’m just noting that your first post in a 2024 d&d discussion inserted 4e d&d into that discussion.

So just to be clear, your view is that it is better to encourage inaccurate descriptions of the rules history of D&D, than to mention 4e D&D?

 

[FrogReaver]

So just to be clear, your view is that it is better to encourage inaccurate descriptions of the rules history of D&D, than to mention 4e D&D?

Nope.

But let me be clear as well, do you plan to say anything about 2024 d&d that doesn’t somehow tie back to 4e or some other non-d&d game?

 

[pemerton]

do you plan to say anything about 2024 d&d that doesn’t somehow tie back to 4e

Not in the context of the Stealth rules, given that they seem to be a reworking of the 4e rules! I'm surprised it hasn't been more widely noticed and discussed.

or some other non-d&d game

Why are you characterising 4e D&D as a non-D&G game? That's a bit odd.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why are you characterising 4e D&D as a non-D&G game? That's a bit odd.

I didn't. I was referencing your mention of Rolemaster.

In Rolemaster, invisibility (and similar effects) are lost when attacking or when attacked. It's interesting to see this come into D&D.

 

[pukunui]

It is really bad. Even basic stuff like encumbrance and travel pace seems to be handwaved now. My last hope is that th DMG will have something to say about that.

Travel pace is still in there. It’s the forced march bit that has been removed (or possibly shifted to the DMG). As for encumbrance, I think people are getting a bit mixed up there. The optional variant encumbrance rule that’s in the 2014 PHB has been removed (and will probably appear in the DMG), but the default carrying capacity rules are still there, they’ve just been moved into the rules glossary. (I spotted them there in one of the flip-through videos.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Not in the context of the Stealth rules, given that they seem to be a reworking of the 4e rules! I'm surprised it hasn't been more widely noticed and discussed.

Have fun. I won't be joining that conversation.

 

[pemerton]

Have fun. I won't be joining that conversation.

Yet you've replied to my posts about it half-a-dozen or so times!

 

[Pauln6]

Right, so to summarise, the main practical difference here is that a person under the effect of an invisibility spell can talk and an enemy will still need to make a perception check to work out which square they are in? If fighting someone with improved invisibility in melee, could someone hold their action to attack the square where the attack came from with disadvantage?

As far as non magical 'invisibility' goes, the main issue is why a character would be able to retain it if they don't have cover, concealment at the end of their turn, if the enemy isn't distracted a la Ben Kenobi in the Death Star.

If this is it, then the only change we will need to make is the restriction to targetting (spell) invisible characters who are speaking. But I do agree that adoption of a name for the condition that matches a spell with such a strong thematc identity is unnecessarily confusing.

I would have thought though that trying to locate someone who is invisible and silent should be harder than finding someone who is invisible and talking?

 

[MarkB]

Remaining Hidden: You remain hidden as long as you meet these requirements.

​

Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden. You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.​

Wow, all the way back then they had a concise, simple way to phrase it that resolves the entire question, and somehow they managed not to include it in this version.

I'm still holding out hope that the concept of "the enemy finds you" is defined in such clear terms elsewhere than the rules we've seen so far.