D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Maxperson]

I like it, also, by the time you take damage, someone certainly suspects that you are there

I can see a BBEG setting up an invisible energy screen trap on the door in to deal damage and reveal invisible folks. Also, it makes area spells like fireball a bit more useful.

 

[Remathilis]

The more I keep reading, I the less I think hiding became buffed and the more I think the spell invisibility got nerfed into "free hiding, the spell"

 

[Amrûnril]

I like it, also, by the time you take damage, someone certainly suspects that you are there

True, and they can take appropriate actions, such as sounding an alarm, attempting attacks at disadvantage, or using specialized abilities that reveal invisible creatures. I don't think I'm convinced the invisibility effect should end automatically, though.

 

[Maxperson]

The more I keep reading, I the less I think hiding became buffed and the more I think the spell invisibility got nerfed into "free hiding, the spell"

It's still a little early to tell for sure. We really need to see what the stealth rules say. Those might provide some clarity that the rules we see are lacking big time.

 

[pemerton]

Invisibility/invisible as it is commonly understood in D&D is one ring style invisibility. Absent something in the hiding rules or invisibility condition saying it isn't one ring style, it is. That's what it has meant for 50 years and nothing yet seen shows that to have changed.

This is wrong as a matter of historical fact. In 4e D&D, as per its updated Stealth rules (which are reproduced in the PHB2), a successful check to hide renders a character invisible (and silent).

There are also multiple rogue powers that have the "martial" keyword and that make the character invisible (eg Hide in Plain Sight, Hide from the Light).

It's obvious that "invisible" in these powers does not refer to One Ring-style magical transparency. It means that, due to the rogue's (perhaps preternatural) skill, they are unable to be spotted/noticed by those looking for them.

 

[Maxperson]

This is wrong as a matter of historical fact. In 4e D&D, as per its updated Stealth rules (which are reproduced in the PHB2), a successful check to hide renders a character invisible (and silent).

There are also multiple rogue powers that have the "martial" keyword and that make the character invisible (eg Hide in Plain Sight, Hide from the Light).

It's obvious that "invisible" in these powers does not refer to One Ring-style magical transparency. It means that, due to the rogue's (perhaps preternatural) skill, they are unable to be spotted/noticed by those looking for them.

Okay. So we can exclude the time period of 4e. I didn't play it so I didn't know that. That still leaves the vast majority of the time the game has been going with invisibility being one ring style.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is wrong as a matter of historical fact. In 4e D&D, as per its updated Stealth rules (which are reproduced in the PHB2), a successful check to hide renders a character invisible (and silent).

There are also multiple rogue powers that have the "martial" keyword and that make the character invisible (eg Hide in Plain Sight, Hide from the Light).

It's obvious that "invisible" in these powers does not refer to One Ring-style magical transparency. It means that, due to the rogue's (perhaps preternatural) skill, they are unable to be spotted/noticed by those looking for them.

Oh wow. Why?

 

[pemerton]

Except that, again, the invisibility and greater invisibility spells only grant the condition. So if you assume the condition isn’t literal invisibility, neither are those spells.

But neither of those spells grant any benefits besides that, which means either it is necessarily that, or those spells don’t grant that.

<snip>

they only tell you that they give you the conditions for their duration. The invisibility spell (but not the greater invisibility spell) also says it (the spell) ends if you attack or cast a spell. Any additional details about “how it applies” are assumptions that are not directly stated in the rules text.

In 4e D&D, the effect of the 6th level Invisibility spell is "The target is invisible until the end of your next turn. If the target attacks, the target becomes visible." It's left up to the game participants to flavour this as One Ring-style invisibility, guided by the flavour text ("A creature you choose vanishes from sight.").

The technical game term "invisibility" is also used to describe the result of a successful Stealth check to hide, various mental effects (analogous to psionic invisibility in AD&D), etc.

It seems that this recent version of 5e D&D may be going back to this 4e D&D convention around nomenclature.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Then feel free to send all the hate mail you want to WoTC. But in case you weren't aware, no one here is a WoTC designer, and Crawford didn't make a tweet saying that a person dancing in front of a guard is invisible because they hid once.

 

[pemerton]

Oh wow. Why?

Why what?