D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[TiQuinn]

I don't have a problem with stealth being equivalent to magic, that's good for the martials. I do have a problem that being hidden is MORE than being invisible. In many ways it's a combination of Invisibility and Silence, but you can willingly end both.

Because D&D doesn't using facing and breaks movement up into choppy rounds, I can somewhat envision that being out in the open and not losing stealth could be feasible (ye olde "sneak past the guards while they're talking to each other and/or distracted" or "sneak up behind someone"). But I think it should be noted in the rules that if you don't have some kind of obstruction in the way your stealth should be at disadvantage at the least (Passive gaining a +5 bonus). It assumes your still trying to be sneaky, passing by when the observer is distracted or looking elsewhere. If the PC does something blatantly stupid or irrational, the DM should treat it as the PC willingly dropping the stealthed condition, regardless what the rules say.

One thing I find unusual - in 2014 5E, if move more than half your movement rate is there any penalty to stealth? How about if you dash? I don't remember seeing any rules against this other than you can't stealth on overland movement if you're using quick pace.

That's all fine - it simply requires a DM to adjudicate the situation and say when stealth works, when it can be attempted with a bonus or a penalty, and when it's just impossible given the circumstances.

 

[Maxperson]

Or, ‘somehow can see you’ includes standing in front of someone that can see you

Even if we go with that, the specific hiding rules still require a perception check equal to the DC of the hide check in order to see the person.

 

[FrogReaver]

That isn't what it says. It says you have to have that before you turn invisible. Once you are out of sight and make the successful check, you become invisible(gain the invisible condition) at which point the ways to find you are as follows.

1) you make a sound louder than a whisper.
2) an enemy finds you.
3) you make an attack roll.
4) you cast a spell with a verbal component.

he was just explaining his suggested fix.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't care about not breaking the invisibility or greater invisibility spell. They wrote it the way they wrote it. I'll play it the way I want to play it.

Which is fair and I think we will all do that here. We're discussing how they wrote it, though. I doubt any of us is going to grant the hider complete invisibility like it says to.

 

[Maxperson]

he was just explaining his suggested fix.

Ah. My issue was that I missed the first exchange and only saw the one where I quoted. It was a longer conversation and I didn't pick up on that.

 

[TiQuinn]

you made a comment about interpreting the rule. If you don’t want to discuss rule interpretation that’s fine, but it’s a bit odd to act like theres a better way to interpret the rule and then not share it. So I’m a bit puzzled.

If you are hiding, you are "invisible" until you are seen. Magical invisibility is not the same as hiding. I can somehow see you just by seeing you if you are out in the open. If you are magically invisible, then I cannot see you out in the open, but need something like Truesight or See Invisibility.

 

[mellored]

Hide doesn’t depend on concealment at all. It’s 3/4 cover total cover or heavy obscurement to hide.

Cover or obscurement then.

That isn't what it says. It says you have to have that before you turn invisible. Once you are out of sight and make the successful check, you become invisible(gain the invisible condition) at which point the ways to find you are as follows.

1) you make a sound louder than a whisper.
2) an enemy finds you.
3) you make an attack roll.
4) you cast a spell with a verbal component.

Number 2 is the issue here.

Right

#2 is the one i am changing to "you do not have cover or obscurement (including half cover and light obscurement) from an enemy".

Which is how I expect it was supposed to work.

 

[TiQuinn]

Which is fair and I think we will all do that here. We're discussing how they wrote it, though. I doubt any of us is going to grant the hider complete invisibility like it says to.

Then why play this game (meaning this parsing of the rule here on the board)? Why harp on what they wrote or didn't write? If we are both in agreement that the rule is written poorly, and no one would want to implement it in their game, why deny someone their interpretation or parsing of the rule?

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

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

I would not be surprised if they meant to remove it entirely and forgot

 

[mamba]

Honestly, I think one of the big issues people are having here is that the word "invisible" has a load of baggage from fantasy fiction, superheroes, etc. You hear invisible, you think Invisible Man, you think magical powers. But invisible also just means "not visible" and I believe that's the sense in which the condition uses it. Ideally we'd have some other word that didn't carry all those connotations, like "unvisible" or something, but we don't.

doesn’t fix anything at all, you can name it whatever you want and the issue persists because it is in the wording of the rules, not the name