D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Chaosmancer]

Going further on the "somehow be seen" and "find" rabbit trails.

A pair of burglars — a man and a woman — break into a rich manor and escape with some jewels, but unfortunately not without setting off the alarm. Security is chasing after them, though they haven't seen the actual burglars yet.

The burglars run, round a corner in a park, and are desperately trying to find a way to hide. A little scenario seen in fiction pops into one of their heads, and they start making out on a bench, pretending to be a couple on a date.

Security rounds the corner looking for the burglars, but only see a couple making out on a park bench. Their Search (Perception) check fails to beat the burglars' Hide (Stealth) check, so the guards fail to "find" them (even though they can clearly "see" them), and continue running down the road.

Their Hide attempt gave them the Invisible status. They could still be physically seen, and thus did not gain any of the benefits that don't work if you can "somehow be seen", but since the guards didn't succeed on the Perception check, they were not "found". They could be physically seen, but were not "seen" as the people the guards were looking for.

-

I also want to consider the Search action vs passive perception. Going back to the combat scenario, when can an enemy "find" you? What happens when you break cover after Hiding?

If the enemy must Search, then obviously that can only be an option on the enemy's turn, and you therefore cannot be found during movement on your turn, only when the enemy takes its turn. This leads to the idea that ending your turn in cover preserves your hidden status, even if you broke cover during your turn.

But what about passive perception? Well, we don't have the new rules on that, so I have to speculate a bit here. We basically have two scenarios:

1. "Finding" someone must be done on your turn, regardless, so even if you use passive perception, the rogue won't be found by breaking cover and then finding cover.
2. Passive perception can function off-turn, as general awareness of what's going on around you.

In either case, you have to consider whether passive perception is sufficient for finding someone who used Hide. We know the DC is based on the Stealth check, and we know that that check had to be at least 15. At low levels most creatures are not going to beat that.

But that brings back the issue of, if you Hide, and none of the creatures around you have a passive perception high enough to beat your Stealth check, and they do not actively Search for you, does that mean you can just walk around the battlefield without a care? That seems counterintuitive for most common scenarios.

I would argue that in this scenario, the enemy creatures' passive perception is not for finding "you" in particular, but for recognizing "an enemy" in the combat space. Are you still wearing armor? Still have a weapon readied? Clearly visible? I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that as an enemy.

At the very least I would give advantage on their passive perception (+5 to the score) if you were not making any effort to hide your status as an enemy. Even the most basic low-level enemies should be breaking a 15 for spotting you then. Might even just make it automatic pass in that scenario. (Now if you shucked your armor and hid your weapons, it might be a different matter. Consider a thief showing up as a bystander near a fight he had previously been a part of.)

That still doesn't address whether it happens off-turn (when the Invisible person moves out of cover), or on the creature's turn. And after some thought, I don't think that's possible to judge without the DMG rules.

Until we get those rules, though, I'd personally consider it something that happens on the creature's turn, and thus breaking cover does not invalidate being Invisible as long as you return to cover by the end of your turn. I could easily see someone running it as happening off-turn, though, and I don't think either option is really "wrong".

-

But... That bit about being found as an enemy does bring up another idea. What happens if the druid hides, then Wild Shapes into a squirrel, and just sits up in a tree before following the goblins back to their camp when they retreat?

The druid is no longer clearly identifiable as an enemy, so would remain Invisible to the goblins for however long the scouting took, even if the squirrel is still physically visible. Again, seen, but not found. In fact, even harder to find because of the druid's new form.

This in turn leads to an obvious connection to the disguise skill. I touched on it a bit in earlier posts, but using a disguise seems like an obvious way to build in better results on the Hide check. As long as you're not trying to impersonate someone in particular, everything about the Invisible condition would seem to still apply just as well.

Disguise, Performance Deception (the burglar's makeout session), Stealth, Invisibility — they all lead to this condition that seems to encompass them in a broadly similar way. Don't notice me, don't recognize me, don't see me, don't find me. The methodology is different for all of them, but the end result can all be wrapped up in this one common mechanic, and thus one condition — Invisible.

I love this as well, because it helps with one of the classic scenarios that 5e previously did not do well. Disguising yourself as a waiter and stabbing someone during a party.

Giving an in to the "invisible" condition, via the disguise kit, suddenly gives us a rules grounding to work with. Instead of previously where it was just a big shrug.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Does someone automatically fail an athletics roll to jump to the moon?

If the answer is yes, what is the rules basis for this decision? What rule would you cite?

The GM is allowed to deem task impossible.

If the answer is that you would cite the rule in the beginning of the book, which determines that the DM only calls for a check when the outcome is uncertain, and the outcome is not uncertain that a character cannot jump to the moon... then why can we not declare that the outcome is not uncertain that an enemy can find someone who stops hiding and stands directly in front of them?

What about the invisibility spell? The invisibility spell is not broken by an enemy finding you. Therefore the circumstance does not apply. The invisibility spell gives you the condition regardless of line of sight, or other effects. The Hide action invisibility is broken when an enemy finds you.

But why would being in person's line of sigh mean they automatically find you if you're invisible? Hiding gives invisible condition, same as the spell.

Granted, the invisible condition doesn't actually say you cannot be seen with normal vision, which already is a bug in the rules. But without that assumption it does basically nothing, as it merely means you're invisible if no one is looking at you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, your rolls should not be done blind. Because that prevents you from activating limited use abilities to modify the roll. The fact you want someone to not know they rolled a 10 does not override their need to know that to activate any of a dozen things they have to alter that result.

Like I said, I'm fine with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I love this as well, because it helps with one of the classic scenarios that 5e previously did not do well. Disguising yourself as a waiter and stabbing someone during a party.

Giving an in to the "invisible" condition, via the disguise kit, suddenly gives us a rules grounding to work with. Instead of previously where it was just a big shrug.

I'd much rather scenarios like that be handled on a case by case basis, with rulings made by human beings accepting input from other human beings, that apply to that scenario moving forward.

 

[Xetheral]

Rogue: "Okay, I think I have hidden, but I can't be sure. Warlock? Light me up"
Warlock: Casts two eldritch blasts and deals 15 damage to the rogue. "Nope, you must still be visible because I could target you. There must be a hidden enemy capable of seeing you. "

Who actually plays with these people?

I don't think we need the rules to specify that you can be hidden from some people and not others. In any narrative situation where that matters, you shouldn't need to use such tortured exactitudes.

First, by making Hiding dependent on the presence of absence of a condition, it is inherently binary. If you're going to houserule at your table that it's possible to both have the Invisible condition and not have the Invisible condition at the same time, great. But if you plan to make a change that big, I don't understand why you are happy with the rules in the book.

Second, if you're playing at a table where (1) the invisible condition is binary, and (2) the DM insists that neither you or your allies can immediately tell whether or not you actually have the Invisible condition, then, in such a world, verifying whether or not the hiding character has the Invisible condition before trying to use it in a noncombat situation would not only be perfectly reasonable, it would be a basic precaution before embarking on something dangerous. (And obviously one wouldn't use a damaging cantrip. One would either use a non-damaging cantrip that requires sight--if 5e 2024 has any--or some other ability that requires a visible target.) Is trying to use character abilities to test whether or not someone is invisible ridiculous? Yes. But it's no more ridiculous than the combination of conditions (1) and (2) that would make it necessary.

 

[Iosue]

Which, functionally... what is the difference?

I played Halo, and invisibility was Predator invisibility, and got more and more visible as you moved faster. Still had people wrecking me with me having no idea they were there.

No real difference for me. I like that it provides multiple expressions of invisibility. It might be Predator style light distortion, or a displacer beast kind of effect that puts the you in the blind spot of the eye, so that people can catch a glimpse in their peripheral vision, but can never draw a bead on you when they try to look straight at you.

 

[Remathilis]

So having listened to more info on the matter:

I'm thoroughly convinced that hiding will be covered in greater detail in the DMG. Mostly due to how little exploration is addressed. I am going to wager that rules that should be handled by the DM are going to be covered there and that a lot of holes we are seeing in the PHB so far (stealth, influencing NPCs, search, and skill use in general) are going to get covered in greater detail there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So having listened to more info on the matter:

I'm thoroughly convinced that hiding will be covered in greater detail in the DMG. Mostly due to how little exploration is addressed. I am going to wager that rules that should be handled by the DM are going to be covered there and that a lot of holes we are seeing in the PHB so far (stealth, influencing NPCs, search, and skill use in general) are going to get covered in greater detail there.

I sure hope so!

 

[Chaosmancer]

The GM is allowed to deem task impossible.

Okay, good so far

But why would being in person's line of sigh mean they automatically find you if you're invisible? Hiding gives invisible condition, same as the spell.

No it does not. Hiding gives the invisible condition, however that condition breaks when an enemy finds you. The spell does not break when an enemy finds you. So, explicitly per the rules of hiding that govern how you have the invisible condition, being in their line of sight, ie finding you, ends the condition. Meanwhile, the spell ends under different conditions.

Perhaps a visual demonstration.

Invisible

Visible

It truly is as simple as that.

Granted, the invisible condition doesn't actually say you cannot be seen with normal vision, which already is a bug in the rules. But without that assumption it does basically nothing, as it merely means you're invisible if no one is looking at you.

It doesn't need to state that you cannot be seen with normal vision, because there are many different types of invisibility. For example, we know for a fact, per RAW, that there exists an ability that makes you invisible by merely creating psychic static. The Soul Knife's Psychic Veil: You can weave a veil of psychic static to mask yourself. As an action, you can magically become invisible, along with anything you are wearing or carrying, for 1 hour or until you dismiss this effect (no action required). This invisibility ends early immediately after you deal damage to a creature or you force a creature to make a saving throw.

Can you be seen with normal vision in this instance? Yes, the eye picks up the light that bounces off your body. However, the mind cannot perceive your form. Invisibility the condition granted through abilities such as this do not rely on not being found. Note that nothing in the ability states that it breaks if you are found.

Unlike the conditional invisibility granted by the hide action, which again

While hidden, you are effectively for all purposes, invisible. There is no difference in this image if the man is hiding, or if he were wearing a cloak of invisibility, or if you were simply unable to mentally register his presence. The effect, the condition, is the same.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'd much rather scenarios like that be handled on a case by case basis, with rulings made by human beings accepting input from other human beings, that apply to that scenario moving forward.

And how is that not possible with the invisible condition being allowed to operate when the target is unaware of you? Do you think a different condition being in the book would somehow make this more a situation where humans make decisions, instead of this situation where humans are making decisions?