D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mamba]

Not seeing where the problem occurs. In combat, I can walk past guards anytime I want on my turn unless they are blocking me some way.

this is not an in combat example

 

[mamba]

This understanding does not conclusively follow from the reading, but it does so plausibly, and makes the most sense.

and by that I guess you mean ‘would make sense’ rather than it actually following from what is written…

 

[MarkB]

Exactly. I don't think the Hide action is replacing stealth checks. Hide only works with cover or heavy obscurity. The way I read it, the active Search is necessary to see you when covered or obscured, but if you are no longer covered or obscured, you cannot benefit from the Hide action (aka, the Invisible condition ends). This understanding does not conclusively follow from the reading, but it does so plausibly, and makes the most sense.

I really hope that's the case, but would love to see more clarity from the rules. Right now we're not working from a full deck, just from a few rules excerpts.

Basically, I'd just like an answer to the following two scenarios:

A and B are enemies who met each other in this corridor and immediately rolled initiative. B won, and retreated around the corner on his turn then made a successful Hide check, rolling a 17. A's passive perception is 14, so it doesn't come into play here.

Scenario 1: On her turn A walks to the bend of the corridor and turns right, looking southward directly at B. Does she automatically find B, removing his invisible condition, or does she need to spend an action and make a successful DC 17 Perception check to see him?

Scenario 2: On her turn A readies an action to shoot B as soon as she can see him. Then, on his turn, B quietly walks 30 feet around the turn and up to the square adjacent to A, intending to stab her. At what point does A see B and get to take her readied action?

 

[Maxperson]

Well first you don't want it on the invisible condition, you want it in the hide rules.

The perception check is in the hide rules.

Second, walking in front of someone doesn't autosucced a perception check (or auto end the stealth).

Sure it does. Or at least it can. The DM decides when something is in doubt or automatically successful/unsuccessful.

It would be situational. If the hider was in darkness and sneaking past, the shadow could put the check in doubt. If there is light though, and the guard has a clear view, the check should be automatically successful.

Makes sense for a DM to run it that way, but we need to actually get it added to the rules.

All of that is already in the rules.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

and by that I guess you mean ‘would make sense’ rather than it actually following from what is written…

It doesn't clearly follow from what is written, but it also does not not follow, haha. It could be argued both ways. The only thing that is clear is how unclear it is

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I really hope that's the case, but would love to see more clarity from the rules. Right now we're not working from a full deck, just from a few rules excerpts.

Basically, I'd just like an answer to the following two scenarios:

View attachment 375025

A and B are enemies who met each other in this corridor and immediately rolled initiative. B won, and retreated around the corner on his turn then made a successful Hide check, rolling a 17. A's passive perception is 14, so it doesn't come into play here.

Scenario 1: On her turn A walks to the bend of the corridor and turns right, looking southward directly at B. Does she automatically find B, removing his invisible condition, or does she need to spend an action and make a successful DC 17 Perception check to see him?

Scenario 2: On her turn A readies an action to shoot B as soon as she can see him. Then, on his turn, B quietly walks 30 feet around the turn and up to the square adjacent to A, intending to stab her. At what point does A see B and get to take her readied action?

I would rule that, when A walks around the corner, B no longer has three quarters/total cover. And because B does not have cover, B cannot benefit from the hide action, and A sees B automatically. Unless, of course, it is dark...

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, before I was saying that the invisible condition didn’t actually make the character impossible to see, it just defined what benefits they would receive from being unseen (and also granted them advantage on initiative rolls even if they were seen). We now know that is not the case. The invisible condition does make the character impossible to see. Well, either that or the invisibility spell doesn’t make the character impossible to see, which is equally absurd.

Invisibility never made you "impossible to see", not only because there were ways to see invisible creatures, but because of blindsight, tremorsense, and other special senses.

Right, but the conditions that end this functional invisibility are listed as
1. You make too much noise
2. You make an attack roll
3. You cast a spell with a verbal component (arguably just a clarification of 1)
4. An enemy finds you

Since the invisible condition does in fact make you impossible to see, salsa dancing in front of an enemy does not satisfy condition 4. It might satisfy condition 1, if you don’t dance quietly enough, hence the listed perception check required to find you. But that requires the enemy to spend a whole action looking for you on its own turn. You are otherwise free to salsa dance to your heart’s content. If this is not the intended function of the rule, then the rule should not be written this way.

As much as I joke about people reading the rules like robots, you aren't actually a robot who is incapable of doing anything that is not RAW. The rules as intended are blatantly obvious here. If you were hiding, and you stand in front of someone, you are no longer hiding. The entire problem you have is that the interpretation you are running with makes no sense. Yet you keep insisting it is the only possible result.

The name of the condition isn’t the problem. The fact that the condition prevents creatures from finding you by looking at you with their open, functioning eyeballs is the problem, because that’s not how sneaking works.

A lot of people, including myself, were making these very claims about it at the time. If you don’t believe me I will go dig up quotes.

If they can see you with their functioning eyeballs, they have found you.

No. They should have had two different conditions that worked differently. Because sneaking should not work the same as magical invisibility. Sneaking should stop working when someone looks at you with their open, functioning eyeballs and magical invisibility should not.

But magical invisibility should stop working when people with blindsight "See" you, or when people with Tremorsense "see" you, or when people with the ability to see through illusions "see" you. So they would BOTH have to stop working when people can "see" them, they just have different things that can see them.

Perfectly functional eyeballs can't pierce the Invisibility spell. True Sight can't pierce a clay pot. Tremorsense sees both of you if you are standing on the ground.

No, stealth making you unable to be seen is the problem. Mundane stealth shouldn’t do that.

That is literally exactly what stealth IS. If you are hidden, you cannot be seen. Definitionally.

 

[MarkB]

I would rule that, when A walks around the corner, B no longer has three quarters/total cover. And because B does not have cover, B cannot benefit from the hide action, and A sees B automatically. Unless, of course, it is dark...

As written, cover only comes into play when initially attempting the Hide action. It is not specified as being required to maintain it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer I would even be fine with the hide action granting the invisible condition if “you end your turn in a space that is not heavily obscured and without three quarters cover or total cover from an enemy” was listed as one of the things that ends the condition. In the absence of that, the rules do in fact enable you to remain invisible in plain sight for as long as you want.

Sorry, this was on the next page.

And sure, I'd be fine with that, because that seems to be entirely the intention of the rules.

 

[mellored]

Sure it does. Or at least it can. The DM decides when something is in doubt or automatically successful/unsuccessful.

Sure. DM fiat is always available. But I wouldn't count on it.

It would be situational. If the hider was in darkness and sneaking past, the shadow could put the check in doubt. If there is light though, and the guard has a clear view, the check should be automatically successful.

So... it ends immediately it they no longer have obscurement or cover...

Seems like a great sentence to add to the rules.