D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[FrogReaver]

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.

I mean if anyone could come up with an interpretation no matter how outlandish that followed the words and allowed both hiding and the invisibility spell to function correctly in any sense I’m all far it. I don’t think it can be done.

 

[Kinematics]

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

I think the issue is that Invisibility is encompassing two separate concepts: When someone can't see you (ie: the Invisibility spell), and when someone doesn't see you (ie: hidden).

In both cases, the person is unable to see you, but the reasons for that are different. In one, the light isn't reflecting off of you for the person's eyes to see. In the other, the person just isn't looking in the right place, or you've painted yourself to look like a wall and blend in with the background, or you cover yourself in mud to avoid the IR senses of the alien, or whatever.

The conditions that allow the person to see you are thus different based on the source and method of Invisibility, even though they both have the same practical effect — the person doesn't see you — and thus are listed as the same condition.

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.

"the inability to see something with normal vision" — Yes
"even when it’s right in front of you." — No

And going back to the original text, as posted by Treantmonk, but leaving out his edit:

With the hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.

On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.

Note that without Treantmonk's edit, there's a bit more flexibility in the meaning.

1. You lose the condition after an enemy finds you.
2. Your Stealth check's total is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

Note that finding you does not include the requirement that it be done using a Wisdom (Perception) check, only that finding you with a Wisdom (Perception) check must beat the DC of your Dexterity (Stealth) check.

So that leaves open the option that you can be found by means other than a Wisdom (Perception) check, which should include standing out in the open where you're easily seen. Another method might include using a spell like Scrying.

The only real question is the interaction with the spell See Invisible. If I'm hidden and standing behind you, and you cast See Invisible, do you know that I'm there if you're still looking away from me?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the pushback is not that anyone thinks once you hide you turn magically invisible and can bounce out of hiding with impunity.

I mean, I do think that is the situation the rules, as they are currently written, create. But I agree it’s absurd and not how it should work. Which is why I think the rule should be changed so it doesn’t create this situation.

 

[Incenjucar]

Based on previous context, 5E's concept of Invisible is less Invisible Woman and more Glass Frog.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the issue is that Invisibility is encompassing two separate concepts: When someone can't see you (ie: the Invisibility spell), and when someone doesn't see you (ie: hidden).

In both cases, the person is unable to see you, but the reasons for that are different. In one, the light isn't reflecting off of you for the person's eyes to see. In the other, the person just isn't looking in the right place, or you've painted yourself to look like a wall and blend in with the background, or you cover yourself in mud to avoid the IR senses of the alien, or whatever.

The conditions that allow the person to see you are thus different based on the source and method of Invisibility, even though they both have the same practical effect — the person doesn't see you — and thus are listed as the same condition.

Yes, I agree.

"the inability to see something with normal vision" — Yes
"even when it’s right in front of you." — No

That is what invisible means though. If I can see something when it’s in front of me, it’s visible.

And going back to the original text, as posted by Treantmonk, but leaving out his edit:

Note that without Treantmonk's edit, there's a bit more flexibility in the meaning.

1. You lose the condition after an enemy finds you.
2. Your Stealth check's total is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

Note that finding you does not include the requirement that it be done using a Wisdom (Perception) check, only that finding you with a Wisdom (Perception) check must beat the DC of your Dexterity (Stealth) check.

But it doesn’t innumerate any other ways of finding you. Again, the rules do what they say they do, and don’t do things they don’t say they do.

So that leaves open the option that you can be found by means other than a Wisdom (Perception) check, which should include standing out in the open where you're easily seen. Another method might include using a spell like Scrying.

This is where our interpretations differ.

The only real question is the interaction with the spell See Invisible. If I'm hidden and standing behind you, and you cast See Invisible, do you know that I'm there if you're still looking away from me?

That is also a problem with these rules.

 

[Argyle King]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

John Cena aside, Camouflage ≠ Invisibility in the real world.

There are a lot of things (shields, hitpoints, ranged attacks) that function very differently in D&D than they do in virtually any context outside of D&D.

I would guess that it is not Rules as Intended, but I cannot say that with 100% certainty because a lot of things that I felt were odd rules actually were RAI in the edition of the game from which the 5e24 update appears (to me) to have taken some influence.

 

[Arilyn]

I mean if anyone could come up with an interpretation no matter how outlandish that followed the words and allowed both hiding and the invisibility spell to function correctly in any sense I’m all far it. I don’t think it can be done.

I know..
But since there's arguing here, there'll be arguing at the table. Hope I'm just being pessimistic!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The ridiculous interpretation is a boon to the players. They are incentivized to ignore common sense.

 

[mellored]

The ridiculous interpretation is a boon to the players. They are incentivized to ignore common sense.

Issue is on both sides.

Having a pack of wolves walk past the players and surround then wizard before attacking is going to feel quite unfair as well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Issue is on both sides.

Having a pack of wolves walk past the players and surround then wizard before attacking is going to feel quite unfair as well.

The players would lynch the DM if that happened. They simply outnumber them. This is going to be a player thing in practice.