D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mellored]

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...

...ending the condition if you no longer have cover or obscurement...

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

impossible to see without the use of magic.

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.

Because it’s what the rules say. If the intent is not for it to be interpreted that way, then it shouldn’t be written that way. It would be trivially easy to include a “you are no longer In sufficient cover or obscuration” clause to the list of things that end the condition, so I can only assume that the choice not to do so was intentional. Or if it wasn’t intentional and somehow slipped through despite three rounds of playtest feedback, they should issue errata to correct it as quickly as possible.

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

The rules don’t say that. If they did, I wouldn’t have this problem with them.

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.

The spell shouldn’t end in that case, the creature with the special sense should just ignore the effects of the condition. Which is how the condition works as-written. I think the invisible condition is fine as-written, the problem is that the hide action shouldn’t grant the invisible condition, because it shouldn’t work the same way the invisibility spell does.

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.

Yes, so since invisibility and hiding work differently, they should have different mechanics.

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

But situationally. If you are hidden and the conditions which are causing you to be hidden change, you are no longer hidden. Because you’re not actually invisible, you are just currently not being observed.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

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

But it also doesn't specify any duration for the Invisible condition. The way people are reading it, you could crouch down behind a bush, become "invisible," and emerge still "invisible." You would then remain invisible for all time, until an enemy looked for you and found you, or you talked or attacked. That's a clearly absurd result, and not RAI or really even quite RAW. The logical thing is that, to benefit from Hide, you must stay hidden. Though it was ambiguously written, one should always try to avoid absurd results.

If someone is determined to play RAW, then I would point to page 19 - "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

 

[WanderingMystic]

So in my opinion is as follows.
1: make your hide check while no one is looking as long as you get at least a 15 or higher you are now "invisible".
2: when you enter into an area where someone could possibly see you the dm checks their passive perception vs the number you rolled...let's say you rolled a 17 and they have a passive perception of 14. They don't notice you
(Note: passive checks are detailed in the DMG now since they are not player facing)
3a: You decide to walk right up to the guard because you are being silly, well the dm give the guard advantage on their passive check and they spot you since their passive is now a 19.
3b: Even though you are in their line of sight you move to encircle them coming up behind them. In this case you are not moving close to them not in bright light so the situation doesn't change. If the guard uses his action to perform the search action they might spot you.
3c: The guard is a dwarf with active tremor sense or has the blind fighting fighting style when you get close enough they see you no check needed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I just want to point out that a rule, even in isolation, that causes this much arguing about its implementation is, by definition, a bad rule.

Honestly? I'm fine calling it a poorly written rule. Okay, fine. It was poorly written.

What is frustrating is that people are saying it is a non-functional rule because [Insert insane interpretation that no one would have, backed by a player attempting a set of actions they would clearly never attempt because it is utterly nonsensical]. No. None of that is going to happen. No player who is playing in good faith is going to say "since I hid in a bush three years ago, I cannot be seen, so I will make faces at the King because I am forever invisible". That is clearly not how it is meant to function, because it is nonsense.

And frankly, it all is coming from a single point. Because Treantmonk added that red text saying that it took an action to find a stealthed character. Without that, no one would have this insane interpretation. Because that clearly is not what was meant by the search action being needed.

 

[OB1]

this is not an in combat example

If you're not in combat then you aren't using the in combat hiding rule that grants the invisible condition, you're using the regular order of play rules and making checks vs the DM DC.

Again, the specific rule of the Hide action in combat overides the general rule of play. Same with the Infuence or Search combat actions. Or even attack or magic actions.

For example, if a PC sneaks up to a sleeping nobel and slits their throat, I wouldn't have them roll an attack, I'd set a DC for them to do so without waking them up. If they succeed, the target is dead, if the fail, roll initiative.

 

[Stalker0]

And frankly, it all is coming from a single point. Because Treantmonk added that red text saying that it took an action to find a stealthed character. Without that, no one would have this insane interpretation. Because that clearly is not what was meant by the search action being needed.

So then what is the correct interpretation?

Is it as soon as I leave cover....because then why on god's green earth wouldn't it just say that when it lists all these other very specific conditions?

It can't just be line of sight, because 3/4 cover doesn't block line of sight, so stealth wouldn't actually be possible in 3/4 cover.

Are you supposed to use passive perception, because that is now just a tiny block not even connected to the rules on hiding.


We all agree that the current situation the RAW suggest is patently absurd, but the problem is, it doesn't suggest what the true RAI is either.

 

[mellored]

But it also doesn't specify any duration for the Invisible condition.

It does specify the end conditions.

Which does not including walking around in the open.

If someone is determined to play RAW, then I would point to page 19 - "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

Not that I can actually to speak for everyone, but I don't think anyone wants to play that way.

We want it the rules fixed so everyone is on the same page without different DMs ruling differently at different tables.

By including end conditions when you walk out of the bush.
Or possibly ending it at the end of your turn.

Either will work. Just 1 sentence to clear things up.

 

[OB1]

So in my opinion is as follows.
1: make your hide check while no one is looking as long as you get at least a 15 or higher you are now "invisible".
2: when you enter into an area where someone could possibly see you the dm checks their passive perception vs the number you rolled...let's say you rolled a 17 and they have a passive perception of 14. They don't notice you
(Note: passive checks are detailed in the DMG now since they are not player facing)
3a: You decide to walk right up to the guard because you are being silly, well the dm give the guard advantage on their passive check and they spot you since their passive is now a 19.
3b: Even though you are in their line of sight you move to encircle them coming up behind them. In this case you are not moving close to them not in bright light so the situation doesn't change. If the guard uses his action to perform the search action they might spot you.
3c: The guard is a dwarf with active tremor sense or has the blind fighting fighting style when you get close enough they see you no check needed.

I'd suggest the following change.

3b: The gaurd turns his head while you go behind him, preventing you from gaining advantage on the attack, because she can 'somehow' see you.

 

[Stalker0]

If you're not in combat then you aren't using the in combat hiding rule that grants the invisible condition, you're using the regular order of play rules and making checks vs the DM DC.

Again, the specific rule of the Hide action in combat overides the general rule of play. Same with the Infuence or Search combat actions. Or even attack or magic actions.

For example, if a PC sneaks up to a sleeping nobel and slits their throat, I wouldn't have them roll an attack, I'd set a DC for them to do so without waking them up. If they succeed, the target is dead, if the fail, roll initiative.

Where are people getting the notion that hide is a combat action only? This is just listed one of the many actions in the game. Same as use an object or the magic action....and no one is suggesting those can only be used in combat. Hide is....hide....not "combat hide"