D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Pauln6]

The problem with RAI is its utterly DM dependent. Vague and poorly worded rules left for the dm to figure things out. RAI is a design failure - it leaves players to guess at what they meant. For something like this, its so obviously worded like garbage. Its not hard to see how clumsy it is. DMing 5.5 is gonna be awful because everything becomes more vague and conflicting. Much less using 5.0 material, because its NOT backwards compatible. It requires all sorts of dm decisions about what works, how they interact, which thing this and that. The devs of dnd are just offloading all the work to the dm and cashing their paychecks from writing "new" books that are just different enough to justify calling it 5.5

Not quite 'entirely DM dependent' because it still constrained by logical assumptions. Or to put it another way, the legal rules of contractual interpretation are that words should be given the ordinary meaning that would be conveyed to an objective bystander with knowledge of the relevant background.

There was an intention behind the changes. What would help me is someone official explaining what problem it was that the change in wording was intended to fix. Then I can ignore any unintended consequences that go beyondthe ordinary meaning against that background.

Same with the silly interpretation of the two-weapon fighting rules.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not quite 'entirely DM dependent' because it still constrained by logical assumptions. Or to put it another way, the legal rules of contractual interpretation are that words should be given the ordinary meaning that would be conveyed to an objective bystander with knowledge of the relevant background.

There was an intention behind the changes. What would help me is someone official explaining what problem it was that the change in wording was intended to fix. Then I can ignore any unintended consequences that go beyondthe ordinary meaning against that background.

Same with the silly interpretation of the two-weapon fighting rules.

I think that is fairly easily guessed at.

A big problem with the 2014 rules was, since facing is not a thing and the hidden condition disappeared the moment you broke cover, it was technically impossible to benefit from being hidden. You would get line of sight to shoot a crossbow, therefore break cover, therefore no hidden condition and no advantage. Not the intent, but the RAW. So part of the changes were to allow things like looking up over the wall you hid behind to fire, or rushing out of a dark alley to stab someone.

The other thing they were attempting to resolve was redundancy. We also see this with them removing diseases, since almost all diseases were part of the poisoned condition. Hidden was exactly like invisible, except it had a few exceptions. So they wanted to simplify by having only one condition for both. Which is also good because "Hidden" wasn't actually even a condition. It was a term used by the stealth rules and nowhere else, and was more of a "state" similar to being "underwater" rather than a condition you could obtain.

 

[Pauln6]

I think that is fairly easily guessed at.

A big problem with the 2014 rules was, since facing is not a thing and the hidden condition disappeared the moment you broke cover, it was technically impossible to benefit from being hidden. You would get line of sight to shoot a crossbow, therefore break cover, therefore no hidden condition and no advantage. Not the intent, but the RAW. So part of the changes were to allow things like looking up over the wall you hid behind to fire, or rushing out of a dark alley to stab someone.

The other thing they were attempting to resolve was redundancy. We also see this with them removing diseases, since almost all diseases were part of the poisoned condition. Hidden was exactly like invisible, except it had a few exceptions. So they wanted to simplify by having only one condition for both. Which is also good because "Hidden" wasn't actually even a condition. It was a term used by the stealth rules and nowhere else, and was more of a "state" similar to being "underwater" rather than a condition you could obtain.

I concur.

 

[Xetheral]

A big problem with the 2014 rules was, since facing is not a thing and the hidden condition disappeared the moment you broke cover, it was technically impossible to benefit from being hidden.

While under the 2014 it was indeed impossible (without a special feature or DM ruling on distraction) to become or remain unseen by use of the Hide action, successfully hiding made one unheard, thus preventing enemies from detecting one's location. That's a pretty major benefit, and one it is disputed whether the 2024 rules preserve.

 

[Chaosmancer]

While under the 2014 it was indeed impossible (without a special feature or DM ruling on distraction) to become or remain unseen by use of the Hide action, successfully hiding made one unheard, thus preventing enemies from detecting one's location. That's a pretty major benefit, and one it is disputed whether the 2024 rules preserve.

No, it is disputed only by you. No one else has agreed with you that the skill for being unheard does not make you unheard when successfully used.

 

[Xetheral]

No, it is disputed only by you. No one else has agreed with you that the skill for being unheard does not make you unheard when successfully used.

That may or may not be true, depending on whether those who have reacted to my posts on the topic did so because they agree with me, or for other reasons. (And to reiterate so that my position is clear, I agree that the text in the book indicates that becoming and/or remaining unheard was intended to be achievable with the Hide action, I just think the rules they wrote for that action fail to clearly effectuate that intent.)

But regardless of how many participants in a thread hold a particular opinion, I'm going to classify as disputed any issue where, after discussion, there are one or more community members who dissagree as to what the rules say. You may prefer a higher threshold for classifying a disagreement as a dispute, and that's fine--it simply means we're each using the term differently.

 

[Nefermandias]

The problem with RAI is its utterly DM dependent. Vague and poorly worded rules left for the dm to figure things out. RAI is a design failure - it leaves players to guess at what they meant. For something like this, its so obviously worded like garbage. Its not hard to see how clumsy it is. DMing 5.5 is gonna be awful because everything becomes more vague and conflicting. Much less using 5.0 material, because its NOT backwards compatible. It requires all sorts of dm decisions about what works, how they interact, which thing this and that. The devs of dnd are just offloading all the work to the dm and cashing their paychecks from writing "new" books that are just different enough to justify calling it 5.5

RAI means "Rules as intended". It is anything but DM dependant. In most cases, they become clear once you apply common sense. Whe common sense isn't enough, you can always ask the author about the reasoning behind something.

I would argue that RAW (rules as written) are much more vulnerable to bizarre interpretations and rules lawyering.

By the way, relying on a referee to make judgement calls on a case by case basis is definitely not a design failure. That's just your personal preference stated as a hard, objective fact.

 

[mellored]

RAI means "Rules as intended". It is anything but DM dependant.

Problem is, we don't know RAI for stealth.

Easy enough for the two weapon fighting needing 2 hands. We also have Crawford confirming it.

In most cases, they become clear once you apply common sense.

There are several common sense rules for stealth.

Common sense excludes permanently invisible. But what about half cover and light obscurement?
At the end of your turn?

It's not clear which one is intended.

 

[Nefermandias]

Problem is, we don't know RAI for stealth.

Easy enough for the two weapon fighting needing 2 hands. We also have Crawford confirming it.

There are several common sense rules for stealth.

Common sense excludes permanently invisible. But what about half cover and light obscurement?
At the end of your turn?

It's not clear which one is intended.

That's true. I expect JC to say something about the Hide Action soon.

 

[Belen]

Right, I was suggesting a fix to the rules of hiding that adds, "Once hidden, if you use movement, the invisibility condition ends at the end of your current turn."

It is absolutely both RAI and RAW for a DM to ask for a Dexterity (Stealth) check if a player describes trying to sneak past a guard in an exploration sceen, or sneak down an empty hallway without attracting attention. This is from the basic order of play.

You didn't hide up to your wife, you hid and then snuck up to your wife. But this perfectly describes my rule adjustment. You hide from your wife (Make a DC15 Dexterity (Stealth) check. You succeed and she walks by you, not seeing you because she wasn't actively searching and your check beat her passive perception. You then come out of your hidiing spot to move up to her. If you do so before the end of your turn you get advantage on your 'tickle' attack without making another check. If you don't make it to her in 6 seconds, you are no longer Invisible, and would lose your advantage unless you attempt to Hide again.

This is why they should not have nerfed surprise.

I agree with you because it should be a surprise round where the hidden rogue gets a free round to attack with advantage because they surprised the person.