D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Crimson Longinus]

The intent of the rules is clear.

Sure. That's why we have 85 page thread arguing about it...

 

[Xetheral]

Do we know if 5e 2024 still has generic rules for unseen attackers? Or has the invisible condition supplanted them?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The intent isn't clear due to previous rulings that go against what may make sense enough to figure out in 30 seconds. So, without the option of spending some piety points for glitter and increased visibility, what we're left with is parsing out how the game is coded.

Do I think the interpretations in this thread defy what makes sense? Yes, and I have said that multiple times. However, what may make sense to me is not always how the game is written.

It could be easily fixed by adding a "hidden" condition. Maybe the DMG will do that; maybe there will be errata; maybe 6th Edition.

No, the intent is clear.

These rules are not meant for a PC to stand in an empty room, and roll stealth twenty-five times until they get over a 15 and then stroll out of the room, completely invisible to everyone in the entire city. Firstly, the rules of the game do not allow the PC to declare a check, the DM determines when a check is warranted due to uncertainty in the situation. Additionally, the game has NEVER really supported "just keep re-rolling until you succeed"

So that scenario is not the intent of the rules.

What about if you are in the woods, and you hide behind a bush, and sneak up to a bandit camp? Well, no player, ever, without specifically trying to make a point about this thread in particular, would ever say "okay, I want to step out of the bush, and disco dance in front of the scout, since I'm invisible and the scout can't see me". No one would think that is a reasonable action, if they were not insisting that that is exactly how they interpret these rules. Everyone agrees that is absurd.

The reason that the rules do not say that breaking cover doesn't break the condition granted from hiding, is because that was how things used to work, which meant that if a character run from the bush to a tree, then the rules technically meant they were automatically spotted. Also, it meant that the player couldn't say "I wait until he turns around, then rush out and stab him" because the second they moved from their cover, they lost all benefits of being hidden. Now, they can do this clearly obvious thing that hiding should allow them to do.

So, when we stop saying "well, what is actually written allows..." and instead look at "what would a player, in good faith, attempt to do?" then the rules intent is crystal clear, and these rules work. They actually work really well. Better than the old rules. The designers just made the stupid decision to only consider good faith play.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Do we know if 5e 2024 still has generic rules for unseen attackers? Or has the invisible condition supplanted them?

I suspect that Invisible = Unseen. Haven't seen anything else about it, no pun intended.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, technically it just means "not visible" - which works fine for a hiding Rogue.

The trouble is that this is a FANTASY game, where "invisible" usually means right in front of you but you still can't see it.

What we're used to it meaning in our games, and what it means here are at odds.

And you don't see that as a problem?

 

[mamba]

Yeah, but if you've misplaced your keys, do you have enough information on their location to just go grab them? Or do you have to actively search in order to find them?

the latter, but if an invisible person makes some noise somewhere the same is true, I cannot just walk up to them unless they did so pretty close to me

Just being in the house isn't enough information. On the other hand, if you heard the keys clatter against the floor, you may know that they fell behind the couch, even if you can't directly see them, and thus have enough information to move the couch and retrieve them in short order.

Likewise, a guard may know a notorious thief is hiding in the house, but not know exactly where, and thus have to spend time searching the house room by room, and hope not to get ambushed.

precisely. Finding a person is not the latter of these two examples

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No, the intent is clear.

These rules are not meant for a PC to stand in an empty room, and roll stealth twenty-five times until they get over a 15 and then stroll out of the room, completely invisible to everyone in the entire city. Firstly, the rules of the game do not allow the PC to declare a check, the DM determines when a check is warranted due to uncertainty in the situation. Additionally, the game has NEVER really supported "just keep re-rolling until you succeed"

So that scenario is not the intent of the rules.

What about if you are in the woods, and you hide behind a bush, and sneak up to a bandit camp? Well, no player, ever, without specifically trying to make a point about this thread in particular, would ever say "okay, I want to step out of the bush, and disco dance in front of the scout, since I'm invisible and the scout can't see me". No one would think that is a reasonable action, if they were not insisting that that is exactly how they interpret these rules. Everyone agrees that is absurd.

The reason that the rules do not say that breaking cover doesn't break the condition granted from hiding, is because that was how things used to work, which meant that if a character run from the bush to a tree, then the rules technically meant they were automatically spotted. Also, it meant that the player couldn't say "I wait until he turns around, then rush out and stab him" because the second they moved from their cover, they lost all benefits of being hidden. Now, they can do this clearly obvious thing that hiding should allow them to do.

So, when we stop saying "well, what is actually written allows..." and instead look at "what would a player, in good faith, attempt to do?" then the rules intent is crystal clear, and these rules work. They actually work really well. Better than the old rules. The designers just made the stupid decision to only consider good faith play.

I'm sold! Your post passes the "sniff test" - the designers expect people to play with what makes sense, not with what doesn't make sense. Fools! How could we argue for 80+ pages if we did that!?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Except that there are at least a couple of interpretations that have some degree of consensus in this thread - one, that you automatically get found if you leave cover, and another that you can stay hidden if you get back into cover by the end of your turn, allowing you to sneak from hiding spot to hiding spot.

And both of those work fine. I prefer the cover to cover, because that fits better with what the players want to do.

But note, NEITHER of you consensuses are "can disco dance naked in the town square, because I took the hide action in my room and therefore I am permanently invisible from everyone" which is the interpretation that keeps getting pushed forward as "well the rules say...."

 

[Micah Sweet]

And both of those work fine. I prefer the cover to cover, because that fits better with what the players want to do.

But note, NEITHER of you consensuses are "can disco dance naked in the town square, because I took the hide action in my room and therefore I am permanently invisible from everyone" which is the interpretation that keeps getting pushed forward as "well the rules say...."

Because the rules allow for it. Players benefit when the rule is used RAW in this way, so we will see them push for it IMO.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And you don't see that as a problem?

I'm mixed. My brain wants to go to Invisible = See-through too.

But I'm starting to slowly come around on it. I HATED it when I saw it in the playtest!

I still don't think that these rules are well-considered, though. But they probably work "well-enough". I'll have to actually try them (something I didn't do while playtesting - I just stuck with 2014, which of course, has its own problems).