D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mellored]

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

assume they cast the silence spell. Completely taking noise out of the equation.

Now how will they find you?

. 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

I believe in the simple human ability to make a mistake and miss a sentence.

And in forgiveness. So I'm not going to bash them or boycott the book over it.

It's 1 sentence that 90% of people will assume is in the book play that way without noticing it's missing. Most of this thread is people arguing "that rule is there"

Not surprising if the Devs missed it too.

 

[Thommy H-H]

assume they cast the silence spell. Completely taking noise out of the equation.

Now how will they find you?

Oh, I was ready for this one! Yes, if someone burns a level 2 spell slot to mean they move silently after successfully concealing themselves, then I would be happy, as DM, to let them gain the benefits of the Invisible condition for a turn longer than they otherwise might.

Congratulations: you just used two whole actions on giving yourself advantage on an attack roll! You could have just thrown a dagger from your hiding place to get the same thing, but whatever.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

According to the spell description and the invisible condition, it doesn't.

 

[MarkB]

What's the not-louder-than-a-whisper limitation for then?

Mostly for limiting communication, I think. You can't co-ordinate verbally with your team mates unless they're right next to you.

 

[Thommy H-H]

Mostly for limiting communication, I think. You can't co-ordinate verbally with your team mates unless they're right next to you.

Yes, that's one of the things that would cause you to lose the Invisible condition. But also, everything else louder than a whisper, which includes almost everything. If it was just the intention that no one be able to talk loudly while hiding, the rule would say, "You can't speak louder than a whisper" or something.

 

[Prism]

These are clearly simplified combat rules, which is where most of the 5e status effects are used. Putting aside the name of the status effect itself, this does not actually make a character invisible and therefore its a bit pointless to worry about the guards on the gate example since that has nothing to do with combat.

The invisibility status allows a hidden character to come out of hiding, move and perform a ranged or melee attack without worrying about details such as 360 vision, cover along the way, ambient noise during combat, sense of smell, level of distraction of an opponent. Your reward for being invisible is a slightly better defense and a single slightly better attack. Some tables want to play this sort of abstraction and some do not.

The important thing not covered by either hiding or invisible is the 'awareness' factor of if the other party knows that they are there. In combat, using these rules then yes they are. Out of combat, while guarding a gate? That would be a different judgement, likely made by the DM and hopefully explored further in the DMG with examples.

I would suggest stop trying to apply combat rules to non combat situations until we see the DMG

 

[MarkB]

Yes, that's one of the things that would cause you to lose the Invisible condition. But also, everything else louder than a whisper, which includes almost everything. If it was just the intention that no one be able to talk loudly while hiding, the rule would say, "You can't speak louder than a whisper" or something.

But it's a difficult thing to adjudicate - any player whose character is set up for stealth will claim that they're capable of stepping very quietly - and will also feel very arbitrary in many situations. Like, if the guards are 100 feet away in a rainstorm and having a conversation with each other, is there any good in-world reason why a few coins jingling in your pocket should give you away?

 

[Charlaquin]

No, my interpretation is that the Invisible condition is not necessarily One Ring-style invisibility.

The invisible condition is the entirety of the effect granted the invisibility spell, so unless the condition is one ring style invisibility, the spell doesn’t grant 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.

If the game effect is the same, then either the game effect of being in pitch darkness or successfully hiding yourself behind intervening terrain must include remaining unseen when someone illuminates the darkness with a torch or moves so that the terrain no longer intervenes from their perspective, or the game effect of having the invisibility spell cast on you must not include being unseen while illuminated and not behind intervening terrain. Either interpretation is unacceptable to me.

Note that this is how it works in the 2014 rules too, just explained differently.

No, it isn’t. The 2014 rules account for being unseen and undetected separately (though admittedly it’s phrased awkwardly); hiding grants the latter under the condition of the former but does not grant the former on its own, so you need suitable cover or concealment to prevent you from being seen, and invisiblity grants you the former at all times while the spell lasts but does not inherently grant the latter, though it makes the latter much easier to gain by hiding, since you no longer need cover or concealment.

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.

Again, that’s a reasonable interpretation, except that it would mean the invisibility spell, which only grants the invisible condition, must also only grant this mechanical effect and not actual invisibility.

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.

That’s not the worst. The worst is a situation where the PC goes somewhere there are no enemies around and repeatedly rolls stealth checks until they get a 15 plus, and then walks straight through a maximum security area (describing themselves being super, super quiet about it, of course!) completely undetected. Or, if you favor the “the invisible condition isn’t actual invisibility” interpretation, the worst is a situation where the player casts the invisibility spell and tries to sneak through a maximum security area, only to be told, “sorry, the spell doesn’t actually make you invisible, it just gives you advantage on attacks and initiative rolls.”

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

Personally, I would be quite happy with nerfing the invisibility spell to a type of SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) field. In other word, basic invisibility dos does not prevent others from seeing you, but it means that they generally ignore you because they believe that you are somebody else's problem.

 

[Charlaquin]

These are clearly simplified combat rules, which is where most of the 5e status effects are used. Putting aside the name of the status effect itself, this does not actually make a character invisible and therefore its a bit pointless to worry about the guards on the gate example since that has nothing to do with combat.

Except if the invisible condition doesn’t actually make the character invisible, neither does the invisibility spell, since the spell only gives you the invisible condition.