D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Pauln6]

You have to be silent to maintain the invisible condition granted by the hide action. Nothing in the rule says you can’t move without losing the condition.

But running in armour would involve making a noise louder than a whisper. Hell, even walking in armour in a quiet room would make more noise than a whisper. I wear a rucksack for work and the rattle of my chewing gum pot when I walk fast is louder than a whisper. If I walk slowly and carefully, that rattle goes away.

So, if you are outside a room and cannot be seen, say due to a wall, you can't be targeted (because you can't be seen) but you are only invisible if you succeed on a DC15 stealth check. There is no practical effect to being invisible other than advantage on initiative?

Surprise is now simulated by the enemy not being able to target you without disadvantage until after you have attacked?

 

[Thommy H-H]

They could be doing plenty of things.
Posioning drinks.
Casting spells without verbal components.
Writing nasty letters about your mom on the walls.
Cutting the rope to a chandelier having over a banquet table.

And there's absolutely nothing in the rules for the Invisible condition that prevents someone walking over to them and going, "Hey, what are you doing?"

Do you see what I'm getting at? The Invisible condition isn't literally "turning invisible". It's a game effect without any further implications.

 

[mellored]

But running in armour would involve making a noise louder than a whisper.

Accounted for by the disadvantage on you stealth checks.

Also. Naked monks.

 

[Maxperson]

At some point everyone will notice that we’re arguing about how to play hide and seek right?

 

[Pauln6]

Accounted for by the disadvantage on you stealth checks.

Also. Naked monks.

Try running with a backpack and see how quiet you are!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

But running in armour would involve making a noise louder than a whisper. Hell, even walking in armour in a quiet room would make more noise than a whisper. I wear a rucksack for work and the rattle of my chewing gum pot when I walk fast is louder than a whisper. If I walk slowly and carefully, that rattle goes away.

So, if you are outside a room and cannot be seen, say due to a wall, you can't be targeted (because you can't be seen) but you are only invisible if you succeed on a DC15 stealth check. There is no practical effect to being invisible other than advantage on initiative?

Surprise is now simulated by the enemy not being able to target you without disadvantage until after you have attacked?

On the topic of stealth in armour this video is worth a look. starting at about 4:14

 

[mellored]

Try running with a backpack and see how quiet you are!

So as long as I quietly walk though a city naked and not carrying a backpack...

 

[Thommy H-H]

But running in armour would involve making a noise louder than a whisper. Hell, even walking in armour in a quiet room would make more noise than a whisper. I wear a rucksack for work and the rattle of my chewing gum pot when I walk fast is louder than a whisper. If I walk slowly and carefully, that rattle goes away.

So, if you are outside a room and cannot be seen, say due to a wall, you can't be targeted (because you can't be seen) but you are only invisible if you succeed on a DC15 stealth check. There is no practical effect to being invisible other than advantage on initiative?

Surprise is now simulated by the enemy not being able to target you without disadvantage until after you have attacked?

This is how I believe it works, yes. I think this is actually quite elegant - if we imagine a PC sneaking up on a guard like this, rather than have a "surprise round", what we instead have is a first turn where the DM might rule the guard isn't yet aware of the PC, and uses its action to Search (because they're a guard, and they're fairly attentive), so even if it succeed on that check, it's still had to waste a turn. But even if the DM doesn't do that, chances are the PC will be able to act first thanks to having advantage on Initiative, and will get advantage on their first attack roll too.

 

[Pauln6]

And there's absolutely nothing in the rules for the Invisible condition that prevents someone walking over to them and going, "Hey, what are you doing?"

Do you see what I'm getting at? The Invisible condition isn't literally "turning invisible". It's a game effect without any further implications.

If they whisper, "Hey, what are you doing?" this would not break the invisibility because it isn't loud enough to pinpoint. Talking presumably just dispels the illusion.

In terms of when you do not have the invisibility spell, surely the mechanic is just replicating the surprise of coming out of nowhere. If you walk over and talk, you are not gaining any kind of mechanical advantage anyway, so what does it matter? If you 'walk' over and attack with advantage, this is replicating surprise.

 

[Kinematics]

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.

I'm starting to think you're trolling at this point.

Let's try an analogy. I'm going to create a condition called "Hits Better", which gives you a +1 to hit and a +1 to damage. There are two ways to get this condition:

1) Get a magic weapon with a +1 modifier.
2) Raise your Str by 2 points.

In both cases you now have +1 to hit, and +1 to damage rolls. However, despite the fact that they both give the condition, there are implications about each which are different. The two options give the same condition, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing, or that they manifest in the game in the same way.

For example, the boost to Str means you keep the condition even when you change weapons. The magic weapon, on the other hand, can be given to a friend to allow him to gain the buff, while the Str increase cannot be transferred that way.

An assertion that you could give your Str to another party member, or that having one magic weapon means all your weapons are magic, would not make any sense.

Let's try another analogy using another condition.

You can Restrain someone by tying him up with rope, or by trapping him in the Web spell. Your argument translates to the assertion that if he is Restrained, he must necessarily be trapped in a web, because that's what the Web spell does, and that you can only tie him up if you wrap him in webbing. To use rope to restrain him must therefore mean that the Web spell doesn't work, or that the Web spell ties people up with ropes, because there's no way for the Restrained condition to be created in different ways.

You seem dead set on saying that the condition and the spell are exactly the same thing, and that if the condition does not grant an effect, neither does the spell, or vice versa. This insistence seems to be an obstinate refusal to acknowledge the basic understanding that the condition and the thing that grants the condition do not have to be the same thing.

In the case of invisibility, the Invisible spell grants the Invisible condition by making you invisible, One Ring-style. Hiding grants you the Invisibility condition, but not via One Ring-style invisibility. These two statements do not conflict. The Invisibility condition does not grant One Ring-style invisibility; only the spell does that. The fact that hiding does not grant One Ring-style invisibility, despite granting the Invisible condition, does not in any way imply that the Invisibility spell does not grant One Ring-style invisibility.