D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mellored]

Do you mean this like for real for real, or like, haha, the rules suck?

I know passive checks are gone but I'm wondering if the Stealth skill defines something like moving silently as part of your movement and making an opposed roll (Stealth vs Perception)?

Passive perception still exists.

 

[Nijay]

Didn't the supreme sneak ability for rogues say they can spend 1d6 sneak attack damage to remain hidden if they end their turn behind cover? Wouldn't this be a specific that trumps general. What is the general? Might it be that if you move while using stealth you are no longer hiding at the end of your move?

I think the general is that movement makes noise, which drops the condition.

 

[TiQuinn]

I agree with you that they should have created some sort of hidden condition, but when you say, "You’re not invisible, you have the Invisible condition." it seems like you don't know what invisible means., because if you have the invisible condition, you are invisible. Invisible = invisible condition in 5e.

At the time that I wrote that, we were knee deep in a discussion about the paradoxical way that the condition and Hiding was written, and didn't know how the Invisibility spell was written up. Based on the way RAW vs RAI has been discussed previously by WotC, as well as how they've been very specific about capitalization rules in this version, it was a very tortured, lawyerlike interpretation. I don't think we need that kind of language or structure, but the game has ceded so much ground to rules-lawyers and bad faith interpretations, it appears there's no going back.

 

[Nijay]

Passive perception still exists.

Quoting Treantmonk, "nowhere is it mentioned what it is for or how it is used."

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree with you that they should have created some sort of hidden condition, but when you say, "You’re not invisible, you have the Invisible condition." it seems like you don't know what invisible means., because if you have the invisible condition, you are invisible. Invisible = invisible condition in 5e.

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.

 

[Nijay]

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.

 

[mellored]

Here. I think this fixes the issue, as intended.

The condition ends immediately after any of the following occurs
*you make a sound louder than a whisper
*you are found by and enemy do not have concealment or cover to an enemy
*you make an attack roll
*you cast a spell with a Verbal component.

 

[Stormonu]

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here. I think this fixes the issue, as intended.

The condition ends immediately after any of the following occurs
*you make a sound louder than a whisper
*you are found by and enemy do not have concealment or cover to an enemy
*you make an attack roll
*you cast a spell with a Verbal component.

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

 

[Maxperson]

At the time that I wrote that, we were knee deep in a discussion about the paradoxical way that the condition and Hiding was written, and didn't know how the Invisibility spell was written up. Based on the way RAW vs RAI has been discussed previously by WotC, as well as how they've been very specific about capitalization rules in this version, it was a very tortured, lawyerlike interpretation. I don't think we need that kind of language or structure, but the game has ceded so much ground to rules-lawyers and bad faith interpretations, it appears there's no going back.

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.