D&D (2024) Thoughts on Stealth and D&D2024

[Reynard]

To me, this is clearly the intent, but it’s not consistent with the wording, especially your example of an enemy moving in a way that grants them full direct line of sight to you. Nothing in the rules for the Hide action says that you lose the invisible condition if an enemy has line of sight to you, and I assume the invisible condition doesn’t normally end under those circumstances since the invisibility spell would be useless if it did.

Yes, it does. It says the Invisible condition ends if an enemy finds you. That is explicit. The invisible condition granted by the spell has a different rules for how and when the condition ends -- because it is a spell. Don't conflate the Hide action with the Invisible condition.

 

[abirdcall]

I understand it as thus: you are no longer hidden / invisible if:

• you take an action that makes a sound or make an attack
• if the enemy beats your stealth check with a Perception check (active or passive)
• if the situation changes and logic prevails (eg, you are hiding behind a column, and an enemy moves in a way that grants them full direct line of sight on you, or you are hiding in the shadows and someone casts Daylight or Faerie Fire)

Stealth has always relied on a bit of interpretation, even before the 2024 revision.

If it is still ambiguous to so many people, then yeah, it is a problem with the way it was written. I understand it fully and I think it works fine. But clearly this is a big issue for a lot of people, even if I cannot relate at all.

I agree that #3 is a good way to do it, and really THE way to do it. But it took me a few days of thinking about it before settling on it to be sure I wasn't missing anything because the rules are poorly worded. That doesn't necessarily mean they are bad rules, just poorly worded because #3 should be said somewhere.

If the DMG addressed it then it would be completely fine and in keeping with the PHB being for players and the DMG being for DMs adjudicating the game, but, it didn't and that is the issue with the structure of the rules.

When applying #3 I think they're better rules than 2014, but, it takes a bit of figuring out that it needs to be that way to get there.

 

[Parmandur]

Not at all, it's almost always opposed by perception, either with an opposed roll or using the passive score. So the DC of stealth is 100% dependent upon the creature you are trying to hide from and 0% on the "task" at hand. And although a creature's perceptiveness certainly should have an impact, stealth tasks aren't created equally and so a large part of the DC should come from how easy/hard the actual task at hand is, trying to move silently across a room is simply harder to do in an old house with creaky floorboards, that should be reflected in the DC rather then advantage/disadvantage.

So, just like grappling or other opposed tasks?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, it does. It says the Invisible condition ends if an enemy finds you. That is explicit.

That’s not explicit, because what circumstances under which an enemy can find you are left undefined. If you are transparent, an enemy would not find you if they had line of sight to you, and if the invisible condition doesn’t make you transparent, then neither does the invisibility spell as written.

The invisible condition granted by the spell has a different rules for how and when the condition ends -- because it is a spell.

The effects of the spell end after the duration expires, or you make an attack. But the effects of the spell are simply granting the invisible condition, so if the invisible condition doesn’t make you transparent, neither does the spell.

Don't conflate the Hide action with the Invisible condition.

I’m not. The hide action and the invisibility spell both grant the invisible condition. But the invisible condition’s effects only work against creatures that can’t see you, and neither source of the condition defines what creatures can or can’t see you under what circumstances.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah I'm getting déja vu here. Like back in the Fall when every sub-Reddit and forum had endless arguments about the new Stealth rules.

Just when I think I've totally nailed it, a new thread pops up and makes me second guess myself, doubt myself.

Gotta note this down once again.

PHB, Pg. 19:

• The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. (good so far).
• When you try to hide, you take the Hide action. (again, good so far, I interpret "you" as the character, not me as a person because DUH).

PHB, Pg. 368:

• ...you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check (simple enough, base line difficulty),
• while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, (yep, makes sense, you have to have shadowy or obstructing conditions to hide, can't just vanish into thin air),
• and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight (got it, you can't just duck behind cover or vanish into thin air while someone is looking straight at you);
• if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you (some dialogue between player and DM, good stuff)
• On a successful check you have the Invisible condition (that means you get advantage on initiative checks, can't be targetted by on sight effects from people you're hiding from, and if somehow someone makes an attack at you they get disadvantage, got it)

-Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check (got it, anyone actively searching for you uses your Stealth check as the DC, makes sense, opposed checks and all, I assume that this applies to Passive Perception checks too)

• The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs (ie, you're no longer 'Hidden" in this scene)
• you make a sound louder than a whisper (got it), an enemy finds you (got it, one of the bad guys finds you, it isn't a stretch of the imagination that their colleagues know too), you make an attack roll (makes sense), or you cast a spell with a Verbal component (yep, magic is loud, unsubtle and vulgar).

So far I don't see where the confusion lies. If anything, it makes me wonder what sorts of class abilities, spells and magic items allow characters (or monsters) to find exemptions from some of these.

Mostly agree.

I think one confusion lies in the invisibility spell which lacks a line that says: yoi are translucient and can't be found without special vision.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That’s not explicit, because what circumstances under which an enemy can find you are left undefined. If you are transparent, an enemy would not find you if they had line of sight to you, and if the invisible condition doesn’t make you transparent, then neither does the invisibility spell as written.

Yoi are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

I think in this case, the DM's guide rules:

Use benevolvent interpretaion of rules and rules are no physics trump being technically correct here.

 

[Reynard]

That’s not explicit, because what circumstances under which an enemy can find you are left undefined. If you are transparent, an enemy would not find you if they had line of sight to you, and if the invisible condition doesn’t make you transparent, then neither does the invisibility spell as written.

The effects of the spell end after the duration expires, or you make an attack. But the effects of the spell are simply granting the invisible condition, so if the invisible condition doesn’t make you transparent, neither does the spell.

I’m not. The hide action and the invisibility spell both grant the invisible condition. But the invisible condition’s effects only work against creatures that can’t see you, and neither source of the condition defines what creatures can or can’t see you under what circumstances.

I don't understand why you are working so hard to make this difficult.

The hide action sets up one set of circumstances under which a character gains and loses the invisible condition.

The Invisibility spell sets up another set of circumstances under which a character gains and loses the invisible condition.

These are different and to be treated differently. If a character has the invisible condition because they took the hide action, you refer to the hide action to determine whether and when they lose that condition.

If the character has the invisible condition because someone cast the Invisibility spell on them, you refer to the spell to determine whether and when they lose that condition.

The invisible condition itself says nothing about whether and when you lose that condition.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yoi are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

I think in this case, the DM's guide rules:

Use benevolvent interpretaion of rules and rules are no physics trump being technically correct here.

Again, my critique is not that the intent is impossible to determine. It’s that what the rules actually say are not consistent with what was obviously intended, which in my opinion makes them badly written.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, my critique is not that the intent is impossible to determine. It’s that what the rules actually say are not consistent with what was obviously intended, which in my opinion makes them badly written.

Which is why I already admitted that you are technically correct.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't understand why you are working so hard to make this difficult.

I’m not working hard to make it difficult, I am pointing out what the text literally says.

The hide action sets up one set of circumstances under which a character gains and loses the invisible condition.

The Invisibility spell sets up another set of circumstances under which a character gains and loses the invisible condition.

Correct, and neither of those sets of conditions include an enemy having line of sight to you. Which is obviously not the intent, since hiding behind a tree should not continue to make you impossible to see once you are no longer hidden behind the tree. This is a flaw in the writing that produces an obviously unintended result.

These are different and to be treated differently. If a character has the invisible condition because they took the hide action, you refer to the hide action to determine whether and when they lose that condition.

And where in the hide action does it say an enemy finds you if it gains line of sight to you?

If the character has the invisible condition because someone cast the Invisibility spell on them, you refer to the spell to determine whether and when they lose that condition.

And where in the invisibility spell does it say that an enemy does not find you if it gains line of sight to you?

The invisible condition itself says nothing about whether and when you lose that condition.

Right, and neither does it say anything about whether and when an enemy can see you while under the condition (without losing it), though its text does imply that’s a possibility. So we must look to the different sources of the condition to determine these things. And neither the invisibility spell nor the hide action provide that clarity.