D&D (2024) Stealth Errata

[Charlaquin]

In the new errata, the stealth rules get the following update:

• Hide [Action] (p. 368) In the second paragraph, “you have the Invisible condition” is now “you have the Invisible condition while hidden”. In the third paragraph, “The condition ends on you” is now “You stop being hidden”.

I think this cleans up some of the wonkiness around using Invisible for hidden creatures, but also introduces hidden as a pseudo-condition. There still might be some tension within the rules. Can a creature that has the ability to see invisible automatically find you?

Reading the rules, I think the answer is yes. The Hide action specifies that you stop being hidden if an enemy finds you. However, if you still fulfilled the conditions for attempting to hide, my sense is that you should remain hidden.

Is that take crazy or am I on to something? I think the new errata is pretty elegant, but it doesn't quite go far enough. On the other hand, I imagine we'll see the rules evolve over time.

This errata still doesn’t address the underlying issue of not defining how a creature is supposed to find you.

 

[mearls]

Agree on invisible still muddying the waters, but I think it's a good step forward. I actually like see invisible as a spell that counters stealth, but I am not crazy about a low level spell being a hard counter to one of the rogue's core tricks.

I think if you nest invisible into hidden, things work. While you are hidden, you are invisible. You lose that invisible if you are no longer hidden from a creature.

 

[Deset Gled]

Raise your hand if you thought this thread was about rules changes between printings that weren't mentioned in the formal errata docs.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm just fascinated @mearls started a thread!

I just can't get worked up about RAW. I can't remember what the rules are between all the editions I've played anyways. I get that common sense isn't really the answer, but it's what we use at the tables I run.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the fact that they introduced this errata and still haven’t defined any way for you to stop being hidden besides a creature finding you, or any way for a creature to find you other than succeeding on a Wisdom (Perception) check only further confirms my suspicion that it is, in fact, designer intent that you can hide behind cover or obscuration, step out into the open, and remain hidden until an enemy makes and succeeds a Perception check.

 

[Shardstone]

In the new errata, the stealth rules get the following update:

• Hide [Action] (p. 368) In the second paragraph, “you have the Invisible condition” is now “you have the Invisible condition while hidden”. In the third paragraph, “The condition ends on you” is now “You stop being hidden”.

I think this cleans up some of the wonkiness around using Invisible for hidden creatures, but also introduces hidden as a pseudo-condition. There still might be some tension within the rules. Can a creature that has the ability to see invisible automatically find you?

Reading the rules, I think the answer is yes. The Hide action specifies that you stop being hidden if an enemy finds you. However, if you still fulfilled the conditions for attempting to hide, my sense is that you should remain hidden.

Is that take crazy or am I on to something? I think the new errata is pretty elegant, but it doesn't quite go far enough. On the other hand, I imagine we'll see the rules evolve over time.

I wish they just made a Hidden condition.

 

[Mistwell]

I think the fact that they introduced this errata and still haven’t defined any way for you to stop being hidden besides a creature finding you, or any way for a creature to find you other than succeeding on a Wisdom (Perception) check only further confirms my suspicion that it is, in fact, designer intent that you can hide behind cover or obscuration, step out into the open, and remain hidden until an enemy makes and succeeds a Perception check.

I don't know. I'd really like to know though.

My 9th level arcane trickster, 3 level wizard would sure like to know if he can hide as a bonus action, step out into the open with a minimum 22 hide check thanks to Reliable Talent and expertise, and then upcast Tasha's Hideous Laughter on three targets forcing them to save at disadvantage with Magical Ambush.

Because as it is in theory he could do that from behind 3/4ths cover, but it's a lot harder to see three targets while you're behind that much cover than it is to just step out into the open.

 

[mearls]

This errata still doesn’t address the underlying issue of not defining how a creature is supposed to find you.

Great point. I think we'll end up seeing a hidden condition for that reason. Right now, you have to reverse engineer the conditions for hiding to get what is probably the answer.

 

[Charlaquin]

Great point. I think we'll end up seeing a hidden condition for that reason. Right now, you have to reverse engineer the conditions for hiding to get what is probably the answer.

Yeah, and doing that, it looks like the ways you stop being hidden are attacking, casting a spell, making a sound louder than a whisper, and a creature “finding you,” which is undefined, except that the creature can find you by succeeding at a Wisdom (Perception) check with a DC equal to the total on your Dexterity (Stealth) check. So, yeah, I do think these rules are clearer now, and that clarity backs up my interpretation of the previous rules that once hidden, you remain hidden even if you stop being covered or concealed, as long as you don’t attack, cast a spell, or make too much noise, until an enemy makes and passes a Perception check.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know. I'd really like to know though.

My 9th level arcane trickster, 3 level wizard would sure like to know if he can hide as a bonus action, step out into the open with a minimum 22 hide check thanks to Reliable Talent and expertise, and then upcast Tasha's Hideous Laughter on three targets forcing them to save at disadvantage with Magical Ambush.

Because as it is in theory he could do that from behind 3/4ths cover, but it's a lot harder to see three targets while you're behind that much cover than it is to just step out into the open.

I mean, he certainly can by RAW, as far as I can tell. I don’t think most DMs are going to rule in accordance with that, but I’m now very confident that it’s what the text of the rules says is supposed to happen.