Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New stealth rules.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 9437896" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>I can't agree that there's nothing to discuss other than the designer's high-level goals for stealth. An essential part of analyzing and discussing new rules is examining how the designers implemented their intent.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Neither. If anyone has new information from the PHB or designer comments to contribute, or a new textual analysis that has been overlooked so far, great! But my purpose in this thread is analyzing and discussing the new rules in order to evaluate how useful they are. Hearing how different community members plan to run those rules at their tables is interesting and tangentially relevant to evaluating the new rules' utility (based on how much posters are planning to add or change), but I'm not trying to solicit advice. And at a conceptual level, I don't think the rules are insufficiently specific--indeed, based on what we've seen so far I think that they're simultaneously over-specific (by relying on a one-size-fits-all Condition) and non-specific (by not addressing aspects of stealth not covered by the Condition).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I've not seen the 2024 Help Action, but I think a more apt comparison would be if the explicit benefit of using medicine was providing a "Recuperating" condition, and yet that condition failed to address the full range of things one would expect medicine to be useful for.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that <em>if</em> the designers intended to maintain the assumption that characters know the location of any creature in hearing range, then it would be workable to use the Hide action to resolve whether a creature who already has the Invisible condition from the Invisibility spell is heard. It worked in the 2014 rules and it could be <em>made to work</em> in the 2024 rules. But due to the lack of supporting text (and previously mentioned non-intuitive readings it would require) I'm not confident that either of those <em>are</em> intended by the new rules (although I think it's somewhat more likely than not). The revision to the Hide action to revolve around the Invisible condition is a <em>big</em> change, and it's unclear to me from the text how extensive the ramifications from that change are intended to be. That I can't tell from the text itself whether the 2024 changes to stealth are intended to be a (failed) clarification of the existing 2014 rules, or instead an overhaul to mechanically buff (or nerf!) stealth is, in my opinion, a black mark against the 2024 rules that weighs heavily against their usefulness.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 9437896, member: 6802765"] I can't agree that there's nothing to discuss other than the designer's high-level goals for stealth. An essential part of analyzing and discussing new rules is examining how the designers implemented their intent. Neither. If anyone has new information from the PHB or designer comments to contribute, or a new textual analysis that has been overlooked so far, great! But my purpose in this thread is analyzing and discussing the new rules in order to evaluate how useful they are. Hearing how different community members plan to run those rules at their tables is interesting and tangentially relevant to evaluating the new rules' utility (based on how much posters are planning to add or change), but I'm not trying to solicit advice. And at a conceptual level, I don't think the rules are insufficiently specific--indeed, based on what we've seen so far I think that they're simultaneously over-specific (by relying on a one-size-fits-all Condition) and non-specific (by not addressing aspects of stealth not covered by the Condition). I've not seen the 2024 Help Action, but I think a more apt comparison would be if the explicit benefit of using medicine was providing a "Recuperating" condition, and yet that condition failed to address the full range of things one would expect medicine to be useful for. I agree that [I]if[/I] the designers intended to maintain the assumption that characters know the location of any creature in hearing range, then it would be workable to use the Hide action to resolve whether a creature who already has the Invisible condition from the Invisibility spell is heard. It worked in the 2014 rules and it could be [I]made to work[/I] in the 2024 rules. But due to the lack of supporting text (and previously mentioned non-intuitive readings it would require) I'm not confident that either of those [I]are[/I] intended by the new rules (although I think it's somewhat more likely than not). The revision to the Hide action to revolve around the Invisible condition is a [I]big[/I] change, and it's unclear to me from the text how extensive the ramifications from that change are intended to be. That I can't tell from the text itself whether the 2024 changes to stealth are intended to be a (failed) clarification of the existing 2014 rules, or instead an overhaul to mechanically buff (or nerf!) stealth is, in my opinion, a black mark against the 2024 rules that weighs heavily against their usefulness. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New stealth rules.
Top