D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Chaosmancer]

I've been thinking about this and...okay, bear with me, but what if the rule is structured in such a way as to favour a PC who makes the effort to conceal themselves from the enemy? Look at it this way: playing with the (vague) 2014 rules, you'd let a PC take the Hide action to duck behind a wall or something, right? And they'd make a Dexterity (Stealth) check, probably with a DC equal to the passive Perception of whomever they were hiding from. At that point, you'd rule they were unseen, and would get advantage on an attack roll, for example. Let's say the PC wants to dart (or sneak) out of cover and stab a guard, rather than shoot. How do you rule that? The actual rules don't really cover it - in theory, the instant they're out of cover, they're visible, and they don't get advantage. Which kind of defeats the purpose of sneaking up and getting into a hiding position first. The guard ought to be vulnerable in that situation, and you might rule the stealthy PC is carefully picking their moment to strike (like when the guard is looking away). Similarly, if they wanted to sneak past the guard, would you make them take the Hide action every turn they were tiptoeing away? I think most of us would let the initial Stealth check result ride.

So, let's take that (common) ruling and turn it into a specific rule. What does that look like? Well, maybe it looks like a PC becoming "Invisible" when they succeed on a check, and gaining the benefits thereof until the situation changes radically. Either they make an attack (so the condition ends anyway), or they sneak away and go unnoticed...in which case, yeah, they'd stay Invisible as long as they don't make a loud noise. If they step right in front of someone? Well, they'd get advantage on their attack roll, which is not unreasonable in that circumstance. Or, if they don't attack, you'd rule that the spotter would see them automatically on their turn, ending the condition anyway. They can only run away so fast without making "a noise louder than a whisper", so the worst case scenario is that the Invisible PC gets 60 feet away before the guarded who spotted them can react, automatically spot them and end the Invisible condition. Remember that Surprise as it was doesn't exist any more: there's no free turn, just advantage on your Initiative roll if you're Invisible. So that extra turn to run away, or get the drop on an enemy, is instead built into Invisibility as a condition.

What I'm saying is, this rule seems to be set up to essentially give a PC the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stealth. That might be why it's a DC 15 check instead of DC 10. They used an action to Hide and made a successful non-trivial ability check (or alternatively burned a level 2 spell slot); let them have a bit of Invisibility, as a treat. It's still highly conditional, so at most you might get one or two slightly weird interactions, which are fairly easy to rationalise. "How can I be Invisible when he's looking right at me?" "Well, you stepped out of the shadows; he didn't know you were there until that moment, that's why you got advantage on the attack roll. Remember, this is all happening in less than 6 seconds!"

Yes, I believe that is 100% what happened and what the intent is of this. It is about good faith play not being technically over-written by the rules.

 

[Iosue]

no it doesn't, you can e.g. sneak attack, which means you leave the cover

Please quote the rest of the sentence, so we can see just what a non-sequitur this response is.

 

[CrackedParrot]

There is no such thing as actual invisibility in the real world though. No living thing is actually invisible in the entire span of the world.



Nothing in 5e was ever absurd to this degree. Once you take this out of the realm of a player acting up and dancing in front of guards, and turn it into "players immolated by a dragon that "hid" in a bush 600 years ago and has been flying around invisible ever since" or "An army of hobgoblins hid behind a hill once, now they march invisible past every single town to sack the capital directly" then it is clear that this interpretation of the intent is nonsense.

While I agree that the RAW Hide rules seem absurd in a sandbox, I think they make sense in the context of actual roleplaying.

An army of hobgoblins trying to sneak past all of the towns to get to the capital is an awesome story. The rules enable this by having the hobgoblins roll Dexterity (Stealth). The hobgoblins are trying to be sneaky; they aren't dancing their way through the countryside. If the army rolls well, they are able to be sneaky with nobody noticing them. If they roll poorly, then some hobgoblin soldiers were being insufficiently sneaky and gave everyone away.

The army might need to get past a guard tower manned by guards actively searching for threats. The guards make the Search action and make a Wisdom (Perception) check to identify threats. If they roll higher than the army's previous Dexterity (Stealth) roll, then the guards raise the alarm. If the guards roll low, then the army is able to sneak past the and get to the capital.

If the DM wants to have Gollum hiding in a cave for hundreds of years, then it is totally fine for Gollum to be totally unnoticeable to any PC who doesn't explicitly try to search for hidden creatures. If Gollum sneaks up on the PCs, he can follow them for many nights and then get a single attack with Advantage before his Invisible condition ends.

 

[Maxperson]

The Hide action rule is written with the assumption that the hiding character will remain hidden, thus requiring a search check, not that they will say, “Yay, now by the rules my successful Hide action means I have magical invisibility!” and walk out in full view of the guards.

Ditto the use of “somehow” in “somehow sees you.” If you have magical invisibility and walk around in a rain storm, the enemy can “somehow” see you. If you’re Hiding, and striving to stay hidden, but the enemy has tremorsense, the enemy “somehow” sees you.

If you’ve used the Hide action to get the Invisible condition, and then walk out in front of the guards, the guards “somehow” see you, because they see you.

You are assuming a whole lot here that isn't in the RAW that we can see. Hiding grants you the invisible condition, as does the invisibility spell. There is literally no difference except that hiding builds in a perception check to end it. If walking in front of guards allows the invisible hider to be see, then the guard can also see a person who has cast invisibility and walks in front of him.

I understand where you are coming from, but when talking about how the written rules work, you can't assume things not said. When talking about how you think the rules are intended you can assume what you think they were going for, but not when talking about how the written rules work. That's what the W in RAW means. Written.

 

[mamba]

Please quote the rest of the sentence, so we can see just what a non-sequitur this response is.

I don't have the rest of the sentence, was looking for it but failed, so I went from memory. Since you already determined it is a non sequitur, I am sure you can provide it.

 

[CrackedParrot]

I really hope that's the case, but would love to see more clarity from the rules. Right now we're not working from a full deck, just from a few rules excerpts.

Basically, I'd just like an answer to the following two scenarios:

View attachment 375025

A and B are enemies who met each other in this corridor and immediately rolled initiative. B won, and retreated around the corner on his turn then made a successful Hide check, rolling a 17. A's passive perception is 14, so it doesn't come into play here.

Scenario 1: On her turn A walks to the bend of the corridor and turns right, looking southward directly at B. Does she automatically find B, removing his invisible condition, or does she need to spend an action and make a successful DC 17 Perception check to see him?

Scenario 2: On her turn A readies an action to shoot B as soon as she can see him. Then, on his turn, B quietly walks 30 feet around the turn and up to the square adjacent to A, intending to stab her. At what point does A see B and get to take her readied action?

I think the issue comes from A specifically relying on her sense of sight. A knows that B is somewhere nearby and can be more dynamic with how she approaches combat.

Scenario 1: On her turn, A walks to the bend of the corridor and turns right, looking southward directly at B. While she cannot see B directly, she still knows where B is based on sound, smell, dust markings on the ground, etc. A can attack B, but she has Disadvantage (due to the Invisible condition). B remains unseen by A. If B attacks A later, then B loses the Invisible condition.

Scenario 2: On her turn, A readies an action to shoot B as soon as she can perceive him. Then, on his turn, B quietly walks 10 feet northward and is perceivable but still unseen by A. A makes a reaction attack with Disadvantage due to the Invisible condition. B remains unseen by A, continues his movement around the turn and up to the square adjacent to A, makes an attack with Advantage (due to the Invisible condition) against A, and then loses the Invisible condition.

 

[SkidAce]

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

I likw #2 because even though I know we don't have facing rules, if a guard is staring across the valley and not checking their six (like they should be trained to do) then I want my stealth characters to be able to creep up behind them and murderize them with every advantage they can get.

 

[Incenjucar]

The bottom line is that the term "invisible" in 5E does not match the basic English standard understanding of the word. It's more of a metaphorical usage. "He sat alone at lunch among the jocks and cheerleaders, and was invisible."

 

[Iosue]

I don't have the rest of the sentence, was looking for it but failed, so I went from memory. Since you already determined it is a non sequitur, I am sure you can provide it.

Just click on the quote you included on your post.

 

[Iosue]

You are assuming a whole lot here that isn't in the RAW that we can see. Hiding grants you the invisible condition, as does the invisibility spell. There is literally no difference except that hiding builds in a perception check to end it. If walking in front of guards allows the invisible hider to be see, then the guard can also see a person who has cast invisibility and walks in front of him.

I understand where you are coming from, but when talking about how the written rules work, you can't assume things not said. When talking about how you think the rules are intended you can assume what you think they were going for, but not when talking about how the written rules work. That's what the W in RAW means. Written.

Rules as written is that the Invisible condition from the Hide Action ends when “an enemy finds you.” It is yours (and others’) interpretation that this requires a Perception check even when the Hiding character steps out in front of the guards. I’m not the one making assumptions about RAI here.