D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Charlaquin]

See Invisibility, yes.

Or open, functioning eyeballs. Nothing in the text says you can’t be seen, it just places certain restrictions on the activities creatures that can’t see you can take against you, and grants you certain benefits to actions you take against them.

It doesn’t say only spells

It doesn’t need to, since without some effect preventing you from being seen, spells are not required to see you.

Having a door slammed in your face is an effect too.

Huh?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not sure I want to rip this can of worms further open, but what the heck.

It's worth taking another look at the Invisible condition:

Note that the only thing Invisible gives you unconditionally is advantage on Initiative checks. The other two benefits only occur unless "the creature can somehow see you".

If you walk up to a guard in plain sight, you may be gaining the benefit of a condition called "invisible", but the guard can definitely somehow see you.

Exactly

 

[TiQuinn]

Exactly

Can’t wait to see the Invisibility spell now.

 

[FrogReaver]

They must have had the same person write the new invisibility section that wrote the 2014 bonus action section.

Sounds way to close to the infamous
‘You only have a bonus action if…’

 

[Charlaquin]

Can’t wait to see the Invisibility spell now.

I asked about it in the AMA thread

 

[MarkB]

I'm still holding out hope that the description of the new Search action will resolve this. What I'd like to see is a statement along the lines of "If you are looking for a creature that is within line of sight and lacks cover or obscurement, you just find it, no check or action needed."

That would solve pretty much all the perceived weirdness with the Hide action.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Am I the only DM who rules like invisibility is actual invisibility as seen in various fantasy medias? Why must it be more complicated then that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

except you can't be affected by things that requires you to be seen.

Such as guards seeing you...

That isn't what that text means. They would have said "you can't be affected by spells that require you to be seen" but fortunately other effects have the same clause. Like the World Tree Barbarian giving Temp Hp "to a creature you can see"

It was never possibly considered to mean "you can't be seen by people seeing you which would break stealth but doesn't because you can't be seen by people seeing you."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Am I the only DM who rules like invisibility is actual invisibility as seen in various fantasy medias? Why must it be more complicated then that.

I suspect it works like that at many tables, maybe most of them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Am I the only DM who rules like invisibility is actual invisibility as seen in various fantasy medias? Why must it be more complicated then that.

I’m pretty sure everyone rules like invisibility is like actual invisibility. But f you rule mundane stealth like actual invisibility, you’re probably in the minority.