D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[DavyGreenwind]

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

But when they step out in front of you and wave, they are obvious

 

[Mistwell]

The key thing to keep in mind as that we only ever THINK were hiding.

There is a cat who visits our yard frequently who, when it sees me, ducks it's head into the bushes.

Just it's head. The rest of the body is sticking out.

I am pretty sure it thinks it's hiding.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I like this ruling, but it doesn't seem RAI to me, else we'd be seeing a lot of rogues sneaking up to sleeping dragons and slitting their throats without ever needing to roll initiative. If I can make one skill check to kill a boss, I'd always be trying to get and maximize that skill check.

One of the things they've been trying to do in this revision is to reduce the power of an ambush so that it doesn't decide an encounter, so I don't think they'd intend to allow for an ambush that negates the need for an encounter. Rather, I think they'd intend to defang that strategy wherever possible. It'd be more consistent with the design that slitting a throat is just the action that rolls initiative and you might have advantage on it, but you still take your turn and deal damage, not just immediately kill the big bad.

 

[Chaosmancer]

impossible to see without the use of magic.

Blindsight from echolocation (bats) or tremorsense (something IRL spiders have) are not magical.

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.

Maybe it did slip through. It seems so glaringly obvious that I would wonder why it was included, if not for this thread and people insisting on absurdities.

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

How else would you define "finding" someone if it isn't seeing them? And remember, there is NOTHING in the rules that state that it takes an action to see someone who is not attempting to hide.

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.

No, it absolutely should work that way. If I am hidden in a dark room, and an enemy with no light source or darkvision enters the room... then I am effectively invisible. IF I am hidden in the woods and no one sees me... then I am effectively invisible.

We literally see this all the time in movies. You just keep insisting that the condition persists when the player stops acting like a rational, reasonable person, and starts abusing the wording.

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

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.

Yes, it is situational. So insisting you continue to get the benefits after losing the situation that grants those benefits is nonsense.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Piggy backing off that, this might actually be a bit of a stealth nerf to the invisibility spell. In the history of D&D, the invisibility spell has been superior to hiding/stealth in every possible way.

I don't think this is correct. You can still hide from enemies that can see invisible no problem, like high-level demons, in more than one edition. It is true that functionally there is a substantial overlap, and at certain level intervals invisibility comes on top, but they are not the same thing, nor should they be, and one cannot assume one is always better than the other.

 

[OB1]

Except the rules do say that. Because the specific rules you quoted very specifically tell me when that condition ends. And its not when I leave 3/4 cover.

If a spell gives me an effect....and says it ends if I use athletics check DC 15 as an action....I don't suddenly assume a dexterity saving throw will also get rid of the effect or a perception check or a religion check, etc. The effect ends when the condition that are specified tell me the effect ends, its just that simple.

Would I prefer that the rule spell out that if you leave cover, or otherwise are somehow seen, that the condition ends? Maybe. But if I pop out of cover with one guard with their back to me and another staring at me, I'd prefer to get advantage on the one rather than loose the condition because one of the guards did see me.

And again, if you can be seen after rolling the check, you no longer gain the effect from the invisible condition. So what does it matter if your condition is invisible if it doesn't do anything to help you? If a PC wanted to move out of cover up to someone with their back turned, I might also ask for a Stealth check to see if they can do so without making a noise above a whisper. If a player said "I already made a Hide Check!" I'd respond that they did, but that the action they took has uncertainty about it, and therefore requires a roll (back to the general order of play).

If you are behind a table, Hide and gain the Invisible condition, and then a monster walks behind the table, it doesn't have disadvantage on it's attack against you because it can see you. If you walk out of cover up to a guard looking at you, you don't get advantage on the attack because it can see you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

It doesn't specify it because it is obvious. I'm sorry, yes, that turns out to have been a terrible mistake on their part, but it is true. They assumed the players were functional people who could understand nuance.

IT doesn't break the millisecond you leave cover, because that was how the old rules were broken, since no one could ever benefit from stealth because the moment they moved to attack, they broke stealth. It doesn't require full cover, because logically there are things that don't provide that that could be used to stealth. For example, hiding in a crowd where, technically, you don't have full cover, but also you could clearly hide because we know exactly what that looks like.

RAI is actually really clear, it just requires common sense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But if I pop out of cover with one guard with their back to me and another staring at me, I'd prefer to get advantage on the one rather than loose the condition because one of the guards did see me.

One of the things about being hidden is that like charmed or frightened it is relative - there's a creature you are hidden from.

This is also why it's useful to have more than one guard standing watch, right? You can be hidden from one, but if the other spots you, they can raise the alarm (and turn those passive checks into active ones).

 

[Chaosmancer]

Quick poll.
Which do you like better.

• Stealth breaks at the end of your turn if you don't have cover / concealment

This one, because it is the one that works the best out of the three options.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Sure, nothing wrong with that

and moving, standing alone should not be enough

Eh. If I had a dwarf player who used tremorsense, and they didn't detect someone because "they are just standing" that would be dumb and the player would be very frustrated with me for essentially making their ability useless. It says if you are in contact with the ground, that's how I'm using it.