Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 9436142" data-attributes="member: 6802765">At a high level, yes, I agree that the designers intended the 2024 rules to be able to resolve a character attempting to prevent enemies from locating them by sound. Partially that's because of the mention of "sneaking past a guard" in the stealth rules, and partially that's because I can't imagine the designers intentionally omitting something so fundamental.But since the subject effectively isn't discussed in the 2024 PHB, I have no idea how they intended the new rules to be used to resolve such attempts. On the one hand, if they're keeping the 2014 assumption that creatures know the location of anyone they can see or hear, then active effort would typically be required to become or remain unheard. But the rules funnel attempts at "sneaking past a guard" to the Hide action, which only mentions keeping quiet as a requirement to keep the Invisible condition. This is in tension with the Invisibility spell, which also provides the Invisible condition but with no requirement to remain quiet. How then would a character with the Invisible condition from the Invisibility spell go about becoming unheard? Do they need to successfully take the Hide action like they would in the 2014 rules, redundantly obtaining the Invisible condition, but this time able to lose the extra copy of the condition if they make noise above a whisper? That seems to be the most functional approach, but it's clunky at best, and in any event it's is a non-obvious reading of the rules. I can't imagine someone new to D&D who reads the 2024 rules casting the Invisibility spell expecting to need to follow it up with an action that on its face merely provides a more-limited version of the Invisible condition. So maybe the Hide action wasn't intended to be how one resolves attempts to become/remain unheard? Or maybe merely hearing a creature isn't enough to locate them in the 2024 rules? Or maybe something else? I just don't know how it was intended to be run from the PHB text we've seen so far.My statement was explicitly limited to statements by community members regarding rules interpretations under discussion in a forum thread. In that context, I feel it is important to respect others' contributions by acknowledging differences of opinion when they persist. I am not making any broader claim about how to define what is and is not "disputed."</blockquote>

Verification