D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mellored]

BUT the text still says or the enemy "finds you" which, I think, might be left up to DM interpretation with rules in the DMG. But I don't know.

"Finds you" with a Search action that beats your roll.

 

[MarkB]

It doesn't. I you read further, I switched to "OK now I am unsure". And the more I read, the more I think you remain with the Invisible condition until something beats your stealth check or you attack or make a sound above a whisper. BUT the text still says or the enemy "finds you" which, I think, might be left up to DM interpretation with rules in the DMG. But I don't know.

Yeah, despite Treantmonk's red annotation, that whole "the enemy finds you" bit is still terribly nebulous, and might swing these rules back to sane.

Like, the example being touted in this thread is the hiding character stepping out into plain sight, but what if it's the other way around - the hiding creature is around a corner, but the enemy moves past that corner so that they're in plain sight. Does the enemy still need to take an action to Search, or do they automatically find the hiding character?

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

You're being too generous. This is a consistent problem going back to 1999 when they wrote the 3e rules, continuing with the 3.5e, 4e, and 4e Revised rules as well. So, 25 years to fix this problem

Idk I think Hide was reasonably Clear in 3.X. Like, not necessarily Good or Easy to Run at the Table, but it was at least obvious how it was supposed to work beyond making the GM figure everything out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't have "d&d2024 would de-emphasize the Exploration Pillar even harder than 5e does" on my bingo card. And yet, here we are.

I did. "Get to the action" is practically their mission statement. They don't really care about stuff that doesn't affect combat, at least not much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're being too generous. This is a consistent problem going back to 1999 when they wrote the 3e rules, continuing with the 3.5e, 4e, and 4e Revised rules as well. So, 25 years to fix this problem

Does it count as fixed now? 25 years and counting.

 

[Mistwell]

"Finds you" with a Search action that beats your roll.

No, the rules don't say that, that's just Treantmonk's own addition in red text. It just says finds you. Then we have passive perception rules, a Search action, obscurement rules, etc..

 

[Mistwell]

Idk I think Hide was reasonably Clear in 3.X. Like, not necessarily Good or Easy to Run at the Table, but it was at least obvious how it was supposed to work beyond making the GM figure everything out.

Didn't they change it like four or five times because it was never working as intended, mostly using errata?

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

You're being too generous. This is a consistent problem going back to 1999 when they wrote the 3e rules, continuing with the 3.5e, 4e, and 4e Revised rules as well. So, 25 years to fix this problem

Yep. They should just bite the bullet and say that here's some structured stealth rules for combat. Outside of combat, ask your GM if there's a sneaky approach you could take and if so, what the DC is, and hey DM, usually the DC could be the passive perception of opponents, pls don't be dicky about it, done byeee

 

[mellored]

No, the rules don't say that, that's just Treantmonk's own addition in red text. It just says finds you. Then we have passive perception rules, a Search action, obscurement rules, etc..

Passive perception isn't confirmed but seems likely. Search seems obvious as well.

But what obscurement rules?

 

[Xamnam]

I wonder if the text for the invisibility spell even explicitly makes it so you can't be seen

This was my immediate question upon reading the text we do have present in this thread. Sadly, none of the videos I skimmed through touched on it.