D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[aco175]

I know what my next DMsGuild book is; 1001 things that is louder than a whisper.

Just to stay in the invisible condition, and could not make a sound louder than that-

DM gives in to the player on why A cannot hide and then run past B who was hiding as well.

 

[mamba]

Because it doesn’t have to be sight. It might be that, or it might be one of various varieties of Blindsight, or abilities like Tremorsense. All that and Perception checks. “Find you” covers a wide variety of situations.

and yet ‘somehow see’ is sufficient for the Invisible condition. If that were meant here as well, they should use the same term

I hardly think it is the fault of the designers for not writing, “You lose the benefits of the Hide action if you stop hiding.”

that is not how any action works, you perform the action and get a result. The result does not vanish by you stopping to perform the action

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

The text of the invisibility spell does not state that the spell does anything other than grant the invisible condition. Therefore unless we assume the existence of some secret functionality of the spell that is not written in its rules text, the invisibility spell can not grant any benefits that the invisible condition, on its own, doesn’t grant. Therefore unless the invisible condition makes its subject impossible to see without special senses when in a brightly lit area with no cover or obscuration, the invisibility spell can not do so either. The hide action grants the invisible condition with additional caveats that end the condition. Being in a brightly lit area with no cover or obscuration is not one of these caveats. Therefore either the hide action must allow you to remain unseen in a brightly lit area with no cover or obscuration, or the invisibility spell must not.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I thought everyone knew that when PCs move loud Beethoven music sounds from their space to indicate their awesomeness.

 

[Thommy H-H]

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

Why would I say that? I'd just run that action differently if we were playing a scenario where the PC didn't intend to engage in any combat. If they want to go turn by turn and we track whether they're Invisible or not for every 6 second segment of time based on how much noise I think they're making and rolling for every guard's Wisdom (Perception) check, we can do that, but it's to their advantage to abstract the Hide action to a (or a series of) Dexterity (Stealth) checks against a set DC. Maybe if they fail one, we run an encounter or something. There are a lot of tools in the DM's box.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't know what's so complicated about being quiet, not attacking and not casting a spell with a verbal component. Do that and unless the person is an enemy, he can't possibly find you without a perception check equal to the hide check. Creatures get to find you via perception. Only enemies get to find you otherwise.

A lot of the time my PCs are sneaking, it's not around enemies. It's around people that I just don't want to know that I'm there.

 

[Pauln6]

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?


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).

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.

Yes, it seems obvious that the invisible condition should be contingent on maintaining cover and concealment and that the invisibility spell grants concealment. I won't be changing my approach to invisibility personally. I've always made rulings on the fly. I am a bit nervous that I don't yet understand the changes to the surprise rules but then I don't yet have the book.

I thought everyone knew that when PCs move loud Beethoven music sounds from their space to indicate their awesomeness.

I think you find it is the battle theme from Conan the Barbarian.

 

[Thommy H-H]

I don't know what's so complicated about being quiet, not attacking and not casting a spell with a verbal component. Do that and unless the person is an enemy, he can't possibly find you without a perception check equal to the hide check. Creatures get to find you via perception. Only enemies get to find you otherwise.

A lot of the time my PCs are sneaking, it's not around enemies. It's around people that I just don't want to know that I'm there.

Finding you ends the Invisible condition on you (if you took the Hide action). It doesn't have any bearing on whether a given creature is aware of you or not. That's a DM judgement call based on the fiction of the game. So not every single person (enemy or otherwise) needs to be making a Perception check to interact with you - they can just walk up to you and ask what you're doing if they have reason to be suspicious.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why would I say that? I'd just run that action differently if we were playing a scenario where the PC didn't intend to engage in any combat. If they want to go turn by turn and we track whether they're Invisible or not for every 6 second segment of time based on how much noise I think they're making and rolling for every guard's Wisdom (Perception) check, we can do that, but it's to their advantage to abstract the Hide action to a (or a series of) Dexterity (Stealth) checks against a set DC. Maybe if they fail one, we run an encounter or something. There are a lot of tools in the DM's box.

Because when you do that the player is going to ask you why you aren’t using the hide rules.

 

[Thommy H-H]

Because when you do that the player is going to ask you why you aren’t using the hide rules.

And I'm going to tell them what I just told you. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

"Yeah, those rules are really for round-by-round combat situations. I was going to play this in a slightly more abstract way because otherwise we'll be here all day counting every space on the map! Just like when you search a room or something, we make a check and I narrate the results. You don't have to tell me every single action you take. The overall effects are the same - we're just not going to worry about each individual guard between you and the gates! Trust me: this helps you, and more importantly it stops everyone else at the table being bored."