D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Pauln6]

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.

It should come a no surprise when some people have never been able to get their heads around non-magical healing that they could not get their heads around non-magical invisibility.

 

[Weiley31]

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

The Cleric and Revised Species 2022 UA.

Page 20 after Heroic Inspiration and above Hide(Action) in the Terms Glossary.

It was the "Third Playtest" for OneDnD according to the opening segment of the Playtest itself.

 

[Kinematics]

No, but they have had spells that do not do what they say in the tin before. For the record, I have always found regular invisibility to be a problem and would much prefer it as a spell that cause people to ignore you rather than a true invisibility. It makes coordination in infiltration possible and, in my belief make more sense from a worldbuilding and narrative perspective, while being effectively the same thing.

That would also make sense in distinguishing between Invisibility and Greater Invisibility. Invisibility is the "don't notice me" field, so if you do something to get noticed, it breaks the field. Greater Invisibility is the literal invisibility effect, so even if someone notices you, it doesn't change the fact that you can't be seen.

 

[Pauln6]

That would also make sense in distinguishing between Invisibility and Greater Invisibility. Invisibility is the "don't notice me" field, so if you do something to get noticed, it breaks the field. Greater Invisibility is the literal invisibility effect, so even if someone notices you, it doesn't change the fact that you can't be seen.

Maybe the fight with the witch at the end of Robin Hood Prince of Thieves is more like the invisibility spell.

 

[mamba]

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.

this assumes that the point if all this was to stealthily attack, it most likely wasn’t… as you notice it is a bit much trouble for that

 

[Thommy H-H]

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.

Yeah. If you're magically Invisible - from the Invisibility spell, for example - you don't lose it by making a noise, but that's the only mechanical difference from just taking the Hide action. So someone could still come over and have a look at whatever you're doing, presumably either having heard you or seen things being moved around as you get up to whatever nefarious business you're doing! And if you just Hid then, yeah, where's the mechanical advantage? Who cares? Someone comes over and says, "What are you doing with that chandelier?" and the PC can either not reply (still Invisible!) or reveal themselves. But by not replying, they're going to cause a scene, thus defeating the purpose of being Invisible in the first place... How many Wisdom (Perception) checks is an entire banqueting hall full of nobles all looking in your direction?

So yes, you can become Invisible and theoretically stay Invisible by taking extraordinary steps to do so, but those steps are probably going to cause more complications to the situation, to the extent that the (moderate) mechanical advantage isn't even worth it.

 

[mamba]

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.

good to know that I cannot be poisoned outside of combat

 

[Thommy H-H]

this assumes that the point if all this was to stealthily attack, it most likely wasn’t… as you notice it us a bit much trouble for that

If you're not attacking, why are we even using the combat rules? Let's make a check and move on.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I think the text about not being able to make a sound louder than a whisper is primarily meant to hamper communication, not movement, since different players and DMs will have different ideas about how quietly it is possible to move under what circumstances. But, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is never possible to change position without making a sound louder than a whisper. Now let’s say a PC is in an area of darkness, successfully takes the hide action, and remains perfectly silent and still. Then an enemy carrying a lit torch moves into the area, illuminating it with bright light. Can that enemy see the PC?

Now take the same example and imagine instead of taking the hide action, the PC cast the invisibility spell on themselves. Does the torch-carrying enemy see them now? If your answer is different than your answer to the previous example, why? What in the rules text lead you to that conclusion?

There is no practical effect to being invisible other than advantage on initiative?

You also can’t be targeted by effects that require the creature using the effect to see its target (unless the creature using the effect has a special sense that allows them to see invisible targets), attacks against you have disadvantage (unless the attacker has a special sense that allows them to see invisible targets), and your attacks have advantage (unless the target has a special sense that allows them to see invisible attackers).

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

No, surprise now imposes disadvantage on the surprised creature’s initiative roll. There are also a number of effects that previously enabled surprise which now instead grant their user advantage on initiative, including the invisible condition. Indeed, if you have the invisible condition and attack an unaware target, you’ll have advantage on initiative and they’ll likely have disadvantage on initiative due to being surprised. Which I actually think is pretty neat.

 

[FrogReaver]

The Invisibility condition is how the game represents not being seen, which includes a variety of means, magical or otherwise. Do you have an issue with Poisoned representing a whole host of different debilitating effects?

And if you're sneaking through a maximum security prison, are we talking about a combat situation or something more abstract? Because if the player is running around stabbing people, then they'll constantly be breaking their Invisibility and needing to Hide again. If they're sneaking and staying out of everyone's way, that's a Dexterity (Stealth) check vs. passive Perception, and I would determine whether that's possible given the circumstances - are there sufficient hiding places? No? Then you'll need the Invisibility spell or something similar which - in the fiction of the game - prevents you from being seen.

Good luck telling the player he can’t take the hide action listed in the rules outside combat.