D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[DEFCON 1]

For me nothing has changed. I have my own rules for Stealth and Hiding (both in and out of combat) and couldn't care less what the rulebooks say. It was that way for 3E. It was that way for 4E. It was that way for 5E. It is that way still.

Why concern oneself with what "the rules say" when probably a majority of the rules in any rulebook are ones that go against how one wishes to play D&D (over decades of edition congregation)? Use the rules (or fluff) you have designed for yourself or morphed together from previous rule systems... and introduce new rules (and fluff) from the newest rulebook-- or indeed any of the previous rulebooks-- that feel like they would work within your designs on how Dungeons & Dragons works best for you.

RAW is overrated. Always has been. Always will be.

 

[Incenjucar]

Official/League/Whatever play and playing under multiple tables make good clear rules important regardless of your comfort in paying for bad rules.

 

[Remathilis]

From another review I heard that skills aren't really discussed in detail in the PHB. They didn't really discuss what a skill can/can't do. They theorized there might be more about that in the DMG.

It's possible there is additional info about stealth in the DMG as well.

I admit it's a stretch, but I think it might help to see the DMG before we write the whole thing off.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It seems like hiding grants magical invisibility in these rules.

What it looks like is that the invisibility condition isn't magical. There just happens to be a spell that grants it.

 

[MarkB]

For me nothing has changed. I have my own rules for Stealth and Hiding (both in and out of combat) and couldn't care less what the rulebooks say. It was that way for 3E. It was that way for 4E. It was that way for 5E. It is that way still.

Why concern oneself with what "the rules say" when probably a majority of the rules in any rulebook are ones that go against how one wishes to play D&D (over decades of edition congregation)? Use the rules (or fluff) you have designed for yourself or morphed together from previous rule systems... and introduce new rules (and fluff) from the newest rulebook-- or indeed any of the previous rulebooks-- that feel like they would work within your designs on how Dungeons & Dragons works best for you.

RAW is overrated. Always has been. Always will be.

Because I don't always get to make those decisions. In some games I'm just the player.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Does this solve things? Paraphrased description of the Invisibility condition from the new PHB:

Specifically, the inclusion of some language that if you can be seen (you're dancing in front of a guard in broad daylight, you're standing in front of a creature with darkvision or blindsight, etc.), then obviously you don't get the benefits of being invisible; would that fix the problems?

That "unless they somehow can see you" basically closes the door on the arguments on this.

"I charge towards the guards"

"They start shooting you with their bows"

"But how, I'm invisible because i successfully hid!"

"The guards can see you, thus, by RAW, you aren't invisible any more."

I'm sure some will try to rules lawyer their way around the wording, but it very much seems that if a foe can see you, you lose the Invisble status.

Yeah, people are literally arguing that since the Hide action doesn't break from stepping out of cover, that you remain invisible, and you can't be seen if you are invisible unless you have the spell cast on you to see invisible beings. The bolded line is their entire argument in a nutshell.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, people are literally arguing that since the Hide action doesn't break from stepping out of cover, that you remain invisible, and you can't be seen if you are invisible unless you have the spell cast on you to see invisible beings. The bolded line is their entire argument in a nutshell.

I mean, that’s what invisible means, and the rule doesn’t say otherwise. We’re all in agreement that it’s absurd, but some of us think the rules shouldn’t say absurd things, and others… don’t think that, I guess?

 

[Arilyn]

I think the pushback is not that anyone thinks once you hide you turn magically invisible and can bounce out of hiding with impunity. The problem is in the wording. And the very real possibility players will argue for the ridiculous interpretation cause... people.

Since the rules are careful to subscribe the details, it sets up a ruleset that on the one hand, offers clarity, but on the other, expects careful following of these rules.

If the wording is unclear, then logic is no longer necessarily applied, as fights over exact word meaning take precedence.

 

[Argyle King]

So the hide action gives you invisibility into perpetuity is a more logical interpretation than stoping the action that let's you have invisibility... ends the invisibility??

Logical from the perspective of how an average person understands eyesight to work? No.

Logical from the perspective of the game's established "logic" processes for how Invisible is defined? Yes.

Do I personally think it's ridiculous that a DC 15 check leads to a better version of invisibility than using magic? Yes.

Are the current version of the rules written in a way that states a PC is invisible after succeeding on the aforementioned DC 15 check? Yes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Fine, a special sense then. My point is, invisibility is definitionally the inability to see something with normal vision, even when it’s right in front of you.

Have you literally seen any movie ever, where someone was hiding in the jungle or underbrush, and you didn't see them until they stood up or otherwise stepped out of the greenery.

Ta dah! Invisibility in the real world.

There are no secret rules. The rules do what they say they do, and don’t do things they don’t say they do. If the intent is for leaving cover or concealment to end the invisible condition gained by use of the hide action, the rules for the hide action should say that. They don’t. The fact that it made it to print this way suggests to me that it is, in fact, the intent, but if it isn’t there should be errata issued as soon as possible.

I define it as the rule defines it: with a successful wisdom (perception) check against a DC equal to the result of the hiding creature’s dexterity (stealth) check. By the general rules, this is done with either passive perception, or the search action. So yes, there is something in the rules that says it takes an action.

So, you walk into a room. I describe an empty room. The Player turns to leave and a giant smashes them with their club, because the player didn't declare an action, therefore they could not "find" the giant? Or is every room empty and bare until they declare the action and "find" the furniture?

Come on. Even if it is RAW, it is so clear and obvious it is not Rules as Intended. You don't need to specify an action to see things which are obviously visible.

Effectively invisible, sure. Not literally invisible. Your body still reflects light, there’s just currently either no light hitting you or some other opaque object(s) in the way. Now, it would not be unreasonable for the rules to represent this “effective invisibility” with the invisibility condition, but then those rules would need to specify that said “effective invisiblity” ends as soon as there is light reflecting off of you and no opaque objects blocking the view of you.

Why would the rules need to specify this? We don't always need the rules to lay out every possible exception to the rules. It is clearly obvious that if the darkness is removed, it is no longer hindering sight. We don't need to specify that.

Because the flaw in the wording that enables this is so glaringly obvious, it leads me to believe it’s more likely to have been intentional than a mistake. Especially because they allegedly read every comment in the playtest surveys and I pointed out this “mistake” in every survey since UA6, and I know I’m not the only respondent to have done so. So, either they were aware of this mistake and forgot to fix it, or it isn’t a mistake.

In what possible world is spending six seconds behind a potted plant supposed to give you infinite invisibility where you no longer need to try to hide, but can saunter past people with impunity? You keep saying the flaw is so obvious that it had to be intentional, and therefore they INTEND for players to be able to slip behind any cover for a brief moment, then dance in front of people in broad daylight without losing stealth. But that is so absurd that there is no possible reason to assume it was intentional EXCEPT because it is so absurd. Which is nonsense logic.

The cover or obscuration isn’t what grants the benefits. The condition grants the benefits, and the rule defines the initial conditions required to use the action that grants the conditions, and separately lists the events that can end the condition. Leaving cover or concealment is not listed among these events, and I believe that to be intentional. Because they want to enable you to come out of cover to attack someone without being seen, and seemingly just don’t care that this approach also enables you to come out of cover to simply walk past the enemy without being seen, and remain unseen indefinitely. Which is what I take issue with. They should care about that.

They didn't care because no one should ever think that is the intention of the rules or how it works. I swear to you, I am never once going to mention this "flaw" in the stealth rules to any DM or Player I ever play with, and NO ONE is going to attempt what you keep insisting is how the rule is intended to work. Because no one will think that is a reasonable action.