D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mamba]

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.

it doesn’t stop working, it just means it does not apply to those creatures. If there were two guards, one with blindsight and one without, the second one still would not see the invisible character

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.

and moving, standing alone should not be enough

 

[Stalker0]

Quick poll.
Which do you like better.

• Stealth breaks immediately after you lose cover / obscurement
• Stealth breaks at the end of your turn if you don't have cover / concealment
• Stealth doesn't break irrelevant of cover / concealment.

Number 2. I think it removes all of the absurd scenarios but still lets a ninja be a ninja. hop out of the shadows and get some one, dash from shadow to shadow, etc.

 

[mamba]

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.

yes, we went through that, hiding outside of combat also gives me the invisible condition. And since the char is now invisible, they can walk past the guards unless the guards succeed on their search check

 

[mamba]

sure....and so why doesn't that work in open areas with no cover just as it works with 3/4 cover?

you can duck behind 3/4 cover, try doing that in the open

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Regarding Search checks, it does say that you make a "Wisdom check to discern something that isn't obvious." So you could also rule when something is obvious.

 

[Charlaquin]

Regarding Search checks, it does say that you make a "Wisdom check to discern something that isn't obvious." So you could also rule when something is obvious.

Generally it’s not obvious when there’s something invisible in your line of sight. That’s kinda the point of invisibility.

 

[Arilyn]

and that is why invisible and hidden are good to separate, even if you do not like all that many distinct conditions. I absolutely agree on the ruling...

The way it's written is going to lead to endless arguments between RAW and RAI...

Definitely agree invisible and hidden need to be separate.

 

[Mistwell]

Did someone ask Crawford an ''explain me like I'm 5 yo'' on a socials? I'm pretty sure even the designer cant explain the logical procedure of the stealth rules in 3-4 easy to follow steps. After a massive playtest, the best they could get was this convoluted mess?

It's been years since Crawford directly responded on socials to questions like that

 

[MarkB]

Quick poll.
Which do you like better.

• Stealth breaks immediately after you lose cover / obscurement
• Stealth breaks at the end of your turn if you don't have cover / concealment
• Stealth doesn't break irrelevant of cover / concealment.

I'd tend towards option 1, but could see some value in option 2.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

It does specify the end conditions.

It specifies sufficient end conditions. But it does not say they are exclusive end conditions. If they were exclusive, you would end up with the aforementioned absurd results. What if you light up the darkness with a magic item? What if you telepathically tell the guard exactly where you are? What if someone else does?

The rule was confusingly written, but they are written with the knowledge that we humans will read them and use our own logic.

I've known judges that read real laws with more inclination towards reasonable interpretation than some gamers.