D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

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.
No it doesn't: the Invisibility granted by the Hide action is conditional on not making a noise louder than a whisper. It's incredibly fragile. You basically can't maintain it without deliberately creeping around. The Invisibility from the spell still works even if you stomp around the dungeon and get in the guard's faces.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I mean, if the rogue shouts "you can't see me" then that breaks stealth, yes.
Even running. You are massively underestimating how loud someone wearing studded leather and carrying a load of weapons actually moves if they're not trying to do so silently. I believe the "louder than a whisper" clause is basically saying you can't just wander around freely being invisible because you ducked behind a bush. You have to justify how you're staying unnoticed. And in most cases, the moment you stand up and take a step, you're probably making too much noise. I agree it would be better if they just said that, but again, I think the idea is to let the player get advantage if they take the trouble to Hide and not have the DM keep track of who can see whom.
 

No it doesn't: the Invisibility granted by the Hide action is conditional on not making a noise louder than a whisper. It's incredibly fragile. You basically can't maintain it without deliberately creeping around. The Invisibility from the spell still works even if you stomp around the dungeon and get in the guard's faces.
I’m talking about the benefits of having the condition. Assuming you can move quietly, you can indeed come out from behind cover and stand right in front of your enemy’s face with the invisibility from the hide action. Either that or you can’t come out of cover and stand right in front of your enemy’s face with the invisibility from the invisibility spell. Granted, you can be as loud as you want with the latter, but that’s not the part anyone is objecting to. It’s the lack of visibility that’s a problem, not the requirement for near-silence.
 


Even running. You are massively underestimating how loud someone wearing studded leather and carrying a load of weapons actually moves if they're not trying to do so silently. I believe the "louder than a whisper" clause is basically saying you can't just wander around freely being invisible because you ducked behind a bush. You have to justify how you're staying unnoticed. And in most cases, the moment you stand up and take a step, you're probably making too much noise. I agree it would be better if they just said that, but again, I think the idea is to let the player get advantage if they take the trouble to Hide and not have the DM keep track of who can see whom.
You seem to be hinging a lot on non verbal noises louder than a whisper stopping this. But different DMs are going to be all over the map with that. And I really don’t think a defacing ruling saying anytime you hide and don’t act sneaky you make a noise louder than a whisper is going to be a common or obvious ruling.

Like a dm could do that but making players jump through hoops just so you can claim raw works seems like maybe not the best idea.
 

I’m talking about the benefits of having the condition. Assuming you can move quietly, you can indeed come out from behind cover and stand right in front of your enemy’s face with the invisibility from the hide action. Either that or you can’t come out of cover and stand right in front of your enemy’s face with the invisibility from the invisibility spell. Granted, you can be as loud as you want with the latter, but that’s not the part anyone is objecting to. It’s the lack of visibility that’s a problem, not the requirement for near-silence.
Right. But what are the benefits of the condition? This is what I said earlier about people getting into the weeds with a precise definition of the Hide action, but taking a vibes-based approach to the Invisibility condition.

All Invisibility actually does is grant you advantage on attacks, give attacks against you disadvantage, and make you impossible to target with any effect that specifically requires you to be seen. It doesn't say anything about other creatures not being aware of you, or not being able to pinpoint your location, or being able to see through you, or being freaked out because a door apparently opened and closed of its own accord. The Invisible condition is not explicitly "invisibility" in the everyday sense we might use the term to describe someone slipping on the One Ring or the like. It's a broad condition meaning "not visible" that does what it says it does.
 

You seem to be hinging a lot on non verbal noises louder than a whisper stopping this. But different DMs are going to be all over the map with that. And I really don’t think a defacing ruling saying anytime you hide and don’t act sneaky you make a noise louder than a whisper is going to be a common or obvious ruling.

Like a dm could do that but making players jump through hoops just so you can claim raw works seems like maybe not the best idea.
What's the not-louder-than-a-whisper limitation for then? It's true that if you simply assume everyone is gliding around on greased wheels and making no noise when they draw weapons or discuss plans or stub a toe or get stabbed then, yeah, hiding behind a bush once makes you Invisible forever. But that's not what the rule says: it says, if you make basically any noise at normal volume, you stop being Invisible. You need to stay hiding.
 

Right. But what are the benefits of the condition? This is what I said earlier about people getting into the weeds with a precise definition of the Hide action, but taking a vibes-based approach to the Invisibility condition.

All Invisibility actually does is grant you advantage on attacks, give attacks against you disadvantage, and make you impossible to target with any effect that specifically requires you to be seen. It doesn't say anything about other creatures not being aware of you, or not being able to pinpoint your location, or being able to see through you, or being freaked out because a door apparently opened and closed of its own accord. The Invisible condition is not explicitly "invisibility" in the everyday sense we might use the term to describe someone slipping on the One Ring or the like. It's a broad condition meaning "not visible" that does what it says it does.
Ok, so just to be clear, your interpretation is that the invisibility spell doesn’t affect you like slipping on the one ring would? That’s a valid reading, but I would argue it’s just as stupid as crouching behind a bush affecting you like slipping on the one ring, just from the other direction.

Either the hide action does too much or the invisibility spell does too little. Either way this rule sucks.
 

This is very concerning to me.

It is not that the rule is terribly hard to fix, it is that it got printed this way in the first place. I would be pretty concerned of the competence of any rules writer who wrote this. I would be super concerned if they had ten years of experience with the system and extensive playtest. This is amateur hour stuff.

2024 version was supposed to be an update and clean-up of the 5e rules. But if this is indicative of the quality, then what the hell I am paying for? At least with the 2014 version I have already fixed most of the bad rules; I am not terribly interested in giving WotC money to get a new, possibly worse, set of problems to fix!
 

Ok, so just to be clear, your interpretation is that the invisibility spell doesn’t affect you like slipping on the one ring would? That’s a valid reading, but I would argue it’s just as stupid as crouching behind a bush affecting you like slipping on the one ring, just from the other direction.

Either the hide action does too much or the invisibility spell does too little. Either way this rule sucks.
No, my interpretation is that the Invisible condition is not necessarily One Ring-style invisibility. It is a condition being used to describe a creature being unseen, whether by hiding out of sight or using magic. The Invisibility spell turns you invisible, One Ring-style, but the game effect of that amounts to the same thing as being in pitch darkness or successfully concealing yourself behind intervening terrain, except you don't lose it by making any noise louder than a whisper. Note that this is how it works in the 2014 rules too, just explained differently.

Everyone is fixating on "hiding makes you turn invisible somehow" which, yes, sounds ridiculous, but the Invisible condition has a specific meaning that, if you look at the actual game effect, doesn't particularly strain credulity. At worst, you're looking at a situation where a PC gets advantage on an attack roll on the same turn they break cover. Like, so what? Let the Rogue sneak up and slit a guard's throat. That's what Rogues do.
 

Remove ads

Top