D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Charlaquin]

That is a fair point but in the meanwhile, we have to wrestle this beast down and make sense of it.

I mean, I’m just going to keep using the 2014 rules, which were already pretty much the best stealth rules I think could have reasonably been asked for.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm starting to think that this rule is a deliberate attempt to make stealth in 5.5 like stealth in a CRPG. You press the icon for "stealth mode", your character crouches and is now undetectable by enemies even though on the screen it looks like you're clearly in their line of sight. If you're spotted your character stands up and stealth is over.

This seems to be what 5.5 is going for. The only thing missing is a rule that you come out of hiding if you end your move within 20' of an enemy and in their line of sight.

Yes, this is exactly what I think they were trying to do, which is why I think the invisible condition from hiding is in fact intended to function as literal (but not magical - you can’t dispel it) invisibility.

 

[mamba]

There is no reason to read "an enemy finds you" as referring exclusively to a Perception check, just because the words "find you" appear in both sentences. "Find you" is not a special term of use that will be in the Rules glossary.

‘Find you’ sounds a lot like an active thing, me stepping out of cover is not me being found. If they mean that why is it not a ‘can see’?

 

[mellored]

So in effect, the invisibility spell is just "better hide" which is fair for a second level spell.

Litterally the same rules.
Except Hide will break a few more ways, like making noise.

Which does not, but should, include leaving cover or obscurement. The way everyone assumes it works, and the way I will run it at my table.

Looks like a classic case of group think. It works for them because of some shared assumptions but they have not shared those assumption with us.

Or the devs just made a mistake and forgot to add a sentence.

 

[Charlaquin]

I say just use the Hidden condition from one of the previous UAs and be done with it.

Which UA had that? I know from 6 on they were using invisible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Everyone's fixating on the precise wording of the Hide action, while applying a general understanding of what is meant by invisible. You have to read what Invisible actually does in game terms, not what you think it ought to do in your imagination.

What it does in game terms is the entirety of the effect of the invisibility spell, so any interpretation that makes it function differently than actual, literal invisibility would mean the invisibility spell doesn’t make you actually literally invisible either. Which would also be stupid.

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly, I think whoever wrote this rule was just picturing a completely static scenario. The person is hiding, of course they're not going to move. And they didn't consider the idea of someone else moving to negate their cover. Since they didn't consider movement a factor, they didn't account for it in the rule.

I don’t think so. I think they wanted you to stay hidden when you move, because they were trying to imitate how stealth works in video games like Skyrim.

 

[Charlaquin]

So in effect, the invisibility spell is just "better hide" which is fair for a second level spell.

Nah, it’s worse hide, because it has a limited duration and costs a limited resource to do.

 

[mellored]

Yes, but you'd need to specify. This is my point. If the Rogue who just took the Hide action and is now Invisible says, "Lol, I'm invisible! I'm going to run up to the guard and stab him in the face!"

I mean, if the rogue shouts "you can't see me" then that breaks stealth, yes.

I think people here are underestimating the value of someone using a whole action, making a non-trivial ability check, ... It's just giving the benefit of the doubt.

So I'll put you down as another vote for "need cover or obscurement at the end of your turn".

Which is beating out the "lose stealth immediately after losing cover or obscurement".

 

[mamba]

Honestly, I think whoever wrote this rule was just picturing a completely static scenario. The person is hiding, of course they're not going to move. And they didn't consider the idea of someone else moving to negate their cover

that is what finding means to me, they were looking around and moving around