D&D (2024) Stealth Errata

[Charlaquin]

Who cares?

Well obviously @Crimson Longinus does. I do too. Seems like a lot of people do. Turns out, clear and explicit game rules text is important to a lot of people.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, you all ain't getting explicit game rules text... just like no one got it in 5E14 either. Which means you all just have to make a Ruling. Just as you've done for the past decade.

 

[Hussar]

Well, then it means that you certainly cannot be found with vision, as hidden gives you invisibility, and invisibility means you cannot be seen.

Which is exactly what I said. Invisible means you cannot be seen. It does not mean you cannot be found at all. If you are invisible for whatever reason, the baddies know where you are. Taking the Stealth Action allows you to hide your actual location. Again, this is the most rational ruling I can see.

Sure. And what text in the rules leads you to this interpretation?

Pretty much common sense and just looking at the rules. I looked at the rules in the PHB under conditions where it lists the effects of being invisible. Simply being invisible does not mean that you are undetected. It simply means you cannot be seen for some reason - obscurement, darkness, magic, bad weather, magic. Whatever. The Hide Action is listed on page 368 of the PHB and tells me that when I hide, I gain the invisible condition (meaning I cannot be seen or targetted by LOS effects) AND I can be found with a Perception (Wisdom) check with a DC based on my check.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. The problem is that people want to rule that the invisible condition means more than it says. The enemy can only find me under certain listed conditions.

I fail to see why this is complicated.

Well obviously @Crimson Longinus does. I do too. Seems like a lot of people do. Turns out, clear and explicit game rules text is important to a lot of people.

I think it's more that people want to make things a lot more complicated than they need to be. There's nothing complicated here. Make the check (DC 15) and you are no longer "seeable" if that's a word, by anyone who doesn't take an action to make a Perception check. The check is only allowable in some circumstances, typically ruled by the DM.

I've been watching people try to turn themselves into knots for years over something so basically simple as this. It's really mind blowing how complicated people want to make this. Sorry folks, this is what RULINGS NOT RULES means. This is what you wanted. You demanded this. You don't now get to bitch about getting what you wanted. 4e had perfectly serviceable stealth rules (which, frankly, is mostly where my own rulings come from) that were 100% rejected. So, no, too bad. You refused to accept explicit game rules. You made the bed, now lie in it.

 

[dave2008]

You made the bed, now lie in it.

To be fair, it is quite possible that the ones who are complaining now are not the ones who made the bed.

 

[Mistwell]

I've been watching people try to turn themselves into knots for years over something so basically simple as this. It's really mind blowing how complicated people want to make this. Sorry folks, this is what RULINGS NOT RULES means. This is what you wanted. You demanded this. You don't now get to bitch about getting what you wanted. 4e had perfectly serviceable stealth rules (which, frankly, is mostly where my own rulings come from) that were 100% rejected. So, no, too bad. You refused to accept explicit game rules. You made the bed, now lie in it.

While I like rulings not rules for some topics, I always preferred the 4e final hiding rules (not the initial ones) and I still don't understand why they didn't adapt them to this version. I don't think fans rejected the 4e hiding rules, though I remember much grousing about them flubbing them in the first version of that game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry folks, this is what RULINGS NOT RULES means. This is what you wanted. You demanded this. You don't now get to bitch about getting what you wanted. 4e had perfectly serviceable stealth rules (which, frankly, is mostly where my own rulings come from) that were 100% rejected. So, no, too bad. You refused to accept explicit game rules. You made the bed, now lie in it.

Speak for yourself!

 

[Hussar]

Speak for yourself!

I mean hey, the guy who gave you the 5e stealth rules started this thread to complain about not having explicit stealth rules.



I gave you my interpretation of the stealth rules. For me, they are explicit. Heck, IME, stealth pretty much only comes up with ranged rogue builds and once in a blue moon when someone tries scouting instead of simply sending the invisible familiar out to do it.

So, for the majority of times that stealth happens in game, again purely in my experience, the stealth rules and my interpretation are perfectly serviceable.

 

[evilbob]

Once you successfully take the Hide [Action], can you leave the conditions which allowed you to hide (see below) into conditions which normally do not allow you to make a new Hide Action, and remain hidden until you or someone else does something which stops you from being hidden (see below)?

I feel like one of the reasons this is so hard is because stealth can encompass two different ways to see the same situation that are both easy to visualize: sneaking up on someone during combat where you would remain hidden (I hid behind the boulder and now I'm sneaking out from behind it toward the goblin who doesn't know where I am to hit him over the head with a sap), and sneaking during combat where you would not remain hidden (I hid behind a boulder and then I stepped out from behind the boulder and now everyone sees me). That is literally the same action! But each interpretation lends itself toward one version of sneak, and a different way to write the rules.

The first one neatly answers Mistwell's question as yes, and the second one neatly answers it as no. But importantly: neither is invalid, and neither has to be the exclusive interpretation! There will always be situations where either one makes more sense. Hence: 50,000 wordcount threads.

So in the end... it depends on the situation, hence the "cover all" of "it depends on the DM," and why no one is wrong and these threads will never end with one true answer.

 

[abirdcall]

I kind of hate this because turns in D&D are a simplification of combat that narratively is supposed to be happening all at once, right. Or do we think the actors are literally all standing perfectly still while one person does their entire turn? Why wouldn't the rogue see/hear someone circling around the boulder and take steps to stay out of their notice? Either moving around the boulder as the opponent does or slipping into another hiding spot.

The hide check is an abstraction that takes into account that enemies may be trying to find them. The perception check (or passive perception) is also an abstraction that determines how good you are at finding someone hidden. Moving around a boulder to see the rogue is breaking this abstraction with a "gotcha" that the rogue has no defense against. I don't like it. Let the abstractions stand, because I-go then you-go turns don't really support hiding behind things at all which is silly.

The rogue should hide behind the boulder and then run over to another boulder. Hiding allows them to do this without being seen running to the other boulder. Narratively they are taking advantage of distractions and such.

If the rogue just stays behind the same boulder they should be seen when another creature comes around on their turn. This is their turn now and the character is in plain sight.

However, if the rogue did run to another boulder what would happen is the creature would come around to the original boulder and be confused because that is where they last saw the character.