D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Chaosmancer]

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

No, we have an 85 page thread because instead of going "okay, weirdly worded, but I see what the goal was" we have people going "Well, actually, the rules technically allow... and therefore this is the real intent, because why write it that way if you weren't intended this to be a video game"

 

[mamba]

I think that's more for when you are looking for a trigger to a trap during combat or something. I think a perception check to notice a "hiding" rogue standing right in front of you will not require an action. At least it shouldn't.

it should not, for a Rogue that still is hiding it should however

 

[Thommy H-H]

"Hiding makes you Invisible" works fine if Invisible = Not Seen.

It gets weird when your brain thinks Invisible = See-through.

And it does require some rewiring of your brain. Multiple people in this thread have challenged me on saying that the Invisible condition says nothing about not actually being visible in the way that most of us understand it, as if I personally don't know what the word means. This isn't coming from me, guys: I'm just interpreting the rules as I understand them! WOTC used a common word with a common definition to mean something slightly different, and I saw (I believe) what they were going for and am trying to explain how I think it is intended to work.

Honestly, my advice to anyone interested in making these rules work and not just complain about how they make no sense, is to substitute all references to the Invisible condition for a different word of your choice in your head. Then try running through various scenarios and see if they're more palatable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Only from toxic players who want to show off their "Well, actually..." skills while chuckling and pushing up their glasses.

Anyone playing in good faith will not attempt things that are clearly not intended like this. And if I ever run into someone who wants to argue and insist on that, they will quickly find that they don't like that rule, and would rather use something that makes sense.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

I see this kind of claim all the time on ENWorld - and I wonder what kind of jerks you guys get stuck playing with. I don't have a single person at any of my many tables that would "push for" anything so incredibly stupid. IF they tried out that interpretation (and 9/10 times it would be because they "read it on the internet" - so be careful what you spread around) and I said "Ha! No, that's not how it works" then every. single. one. of. them. would laugh, nod, and move on with the "real" game. You know - one with out that sort of foolishness.

 

[mamba]

The army is TRYING to be sneaky. Gollum is SNEAKING behind the party. There is a good faith effort on the part of the narrative to act towards the goal of remaining unseen.

Many people keep claiming that is unnecessary, because RAW is poorly written and implies that you need not make any token effort towards remaining stealthy after your initial roll.

you still have to be quiet at a minimum, so yes, there is some effort involved. The question is more is it enough to avoid noise, and how long can I be out in the open (indefinitely / not at all / not at the end of my turn)

 

[Kinematics]

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

Sorry, this is unclear. Can you restate what you mean, here?

 

[Pauln6]

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.

Yes. A guard, by default, is using their action to search, so darting from tree to tree might not work. A child playing with a doll is not using its action to search, so only requiring one DC15 roll at the start works fine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, we have an 85 page thread because instead of going "okay, weirdly worded, but I see what the goal was" we have people going "Well, actually, the rules technically allow... and therefore this is the real intent, because why write it that way if you weren't intended this to be a video game"

It is Crawford. Going by his tweets, rules producing counterintuitive nonsense is no problem for him. And obviously the intent is not clear to many. We shouldn't need do be doing this sort of guessing of intent or rely on people not exploiting blatant and obvious issues in the rules. Rules should be clear, and should produce RAI when played RAW. These designers have ten years of experience with the system, as well as extensive playtest that identified the exact issue. We should demand better.

 

[mamba]

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.

the real problem is that in this case it means either one, depending on how you got the condition and then treats the two as essentially the same