D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

These 4e rules are way more reasonable than the new 5e rules. If we had something like the first bullet point in the 4e rules, there would be no significant issue.

 

[mellored]

Can you post that here, because this is a screenshot from the 2024 PHB

View attachment 375215

And it says DEALS damage, not TAKES damage.

For the dragonborn who can deal damage without attacking or casting a spell.

 

[mamba]

I don't think I'm convinced the invisibility effect should end automatically, though.

that is fine, different tastes, I prefer it however, too bad this change apparently did not even happen…

 

[Belen]

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

I think he is trying to say that bringing 4e into the discussion is opening a can of edition wars.

Also, it makes it far more likely to turn off people who hated 4e which is a much larger group than those who liked it.

 

[Iosue]

Also, it makes it far more likely to turn off people who hated 4e which is a much larger group than those who liked it.

Well, a more vocal group.

 

[mamba]

Well, a more vocal group.

not sure about that part, some people cannot resist to praise 4e every chance they get too

 

[Iosue]

not sure about that part, some people cannot resist to praise 4e every chance they get too

Sure, but there's a whole bunch of people who played 4e, and liked 4e, and who really have no interest in wading into yet another 4e discussion with people who didn't like it.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Edit: The invisibility spell had been quoted in in earlier discussions as ending when taking damage, but based on screenshots, it appears the actual condition is dealing damage, which matches the spirit, if not the letter, of the 2014 rules.

Stepping away from the definition of "invisible" for a moment, it appears there's a another change to spell-based invisibility in the 2024 rules.

2014 Invisibility Spell: A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.

2024 version (as posted by @DavyGreenwind): The Target has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. It ends early if the creature takes damage, casts a spell or makes an attack.

I don't recall this change or the reasoning for it being discussed in any of the UAs, but it seems quite significant. Whereas the 2014 version continues until you take a potentially hostile action (or an opponent uses a specialized ability to counter it), the 2014 version can easily be negated by mundane enemy attacks. This doesn't matter much if you're using invisibility to avoid detection entirely, but it makes the spell much weaker if you're trying to disengage from combat or protect a vulnerable character.

That might’ve been a typo on my end. My new phone's autocorrect is crazy.

Edit: I think my typo spawned at least four pages of debate. My apologies, good folks of EnWorld. This weekend has been bonkers.

 

[Iosue]

I kept meaning to respond to this, and figured I better do so before the 4e discussion takes over the thread.

The surprising part to me was that it is "medium" difficulty to hide when you're already hidden from sight. It's like, after eating breakfast, having a significant chance of failing to break your fast.

I see the check as being more for the benefits of the Invisible condition than for literally being required to hide. At least as I would run it, if you're behind a cover, and a monster didn't see you go there, then he wouldn't know you were there (barring special senses). As long as you didn't move from that cover, you'd be fine. But if you want to get advantage on your initiative, or on your attack, or to impose disadvantage on attacks from enemies who do have a rough idea where you are, then you'd have to make the roll.

Sure, this is how I would interpret it. Besides the DC, it's not bad. There's the weird logical contradiction though, that to get Invisible, you must have concealment and make a check. Failing the check means you don't get the Invisible condition, nor the "Concealed" effect of it - which seems to negate your prior concealment.

I think the high-ish DC is because if it was, say, 10, then Rogues with Expertise in Stealth would soon be doing it virtually at-will. DC 10 is likely a 85% chance for a 1st level Rogue with a +3 in Dex and +4 in Stealth. Then they hit Level 5, and now they probably have a +4 in Dex and +6 in Stealth. Already, they'd never fail it.

At DC 15, the 1st level Rogue has a 60% chance of success. Decently high, but with room to grow. Now it's an 75% at Level 5, and doesn't become automatic until Level 9.

I could also see an argument made that the DC benefits the player by reducing variance. A DC of 15 is higher than most monsters' passive Perception. A PC knows that even if they barely make it with a 15, they have a good chance of staying hidden, while with a 14 or lower, they know they failed, and can make alternative plans.

All that said, personally, as DM I think I'm going to stick with enemies' passive Perception as the DC. The new rule is streamlined, and may be easier for new players and DMs to handle, but I have 10 years of experience with 5e, and have had no issues with stealth. Or, at least, I'll ask Rogue players which way they want to go: the clear Yes/No of the 2024 Hide Action, or the more swingy Maybe? of the 2014 Hide rules.

 

[Argyle King]

In 4e D&D, the effect of the 6th level Invisibility spell is "The target is invisible until the end of your next turn. If the target attacks, the target becomes visible." It's left up to the game participants to flavour this as One Ring-style invisibility, guided by the flavour text ("A creature you choose vanishes from sight.").

The technical game term "invisibility" is also used to describe the result of a successful Stealth check to hide, various mental effects (analogous to psionic invisibility in AD&D), etc.

It seems that this recent version of 5e D&D may be going back to this 4e D&D convention around nomenclature.

I had said elsewhere that the updated rules seem to be taking some inspiration from 4E.

I already thought that may be the case back when the fey warlock and warden* (can't exactly remember what it was called in the preview) classes were shown.

Looking at the monster statblocks and how conditions are both simplified and highlighted makes me think that even more.