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

[kayakingpoodle]

I’m not asking about the Hide action yet. We can get to that once we’ve established what the actual effects of the Invisible condition are. If you answer my questions about how the “Purple” condition affects my character, then we can have the necessary foundation to discuss what I was intending to call the Goof Off action.

I get it, but it is a wholey un-nesacary exercise to prove that the spell is different than the action, which has been explained ad nauseam over the last few pages.

 

[Charlaquin]

I get it, but it is a wholey un-nesacary exercise to prove that the spell is different than the action, which has been explained ad nauseam over the last few pages.

No, it is a necessary exercise because people keep not understanding the actual critique I’m making. Please, just humor me. Tell me if the goblin has disadvantage on attacks against Charlie, if Charlie has advantage on attacks against the goblin, if Billy the Bard can cast enlarge/reduce on Charlie, and how you reached those conclusions. I promise this is going somewhere and it will involve what happens when the condition is granted by the Hide Goof Off action instead and how that’s different.

 

[Charlaquin]

If it helps, my answers would be that yes, the Goblin does have disadvantage, Charlie does have advantage, and Billy cannot cast enlarge/reduce on Charlie, because the concealed benefit of Purple prevents the goblin and Billy from seeing her, and the attacks affected benefit grants advantage to Charlie against creatures that can’t see her, and imposes disadvantage on attacks from creatures that can’t see her. But, I think one might reasonably reach a different conclusion from the text of the homebrew spell and condition, and what that means for the action that grants Purple will depend on what conclusions one draws. I’m asking these questions to insure that we are on the same page about these things before discussing the action.

 

[Gimby]

If I'm understanding @Charlaquin correctly here, the problem is basically that the abracadabra spell provides a list of conditions that end the Purple condition and the Purple condition has limitations on the benefits of the condition depending on whether the Purple creature can be "somehow seen".

The reading that contradicts @Charlaquin 's post 263 is I think that the abracadabra spell does not by itself stop a creature being "somehow seen", it just applies the Purple condition. The condition remains active even if the creature can be "somehow seen" so the condition ending components of the abracadabra spell don't really matter - this isn't a case of Specific beats General as there is no conflict.

In this reading, nothing about the abracadabra spell limits the ability for Charlie to be "somehow seen" and so only the first of the three benefits applies. In order for the other benefits to apply, the abracadabra spell should include a line saying "the target cannot be seen by normal vision (possibly including Darkvision for clarity here) while the Purple condition is active.

 

[Charlaquin]

If I'm understanding @Charlaquin correctly here, the problem is basically that the abracadabra spell provides a list of conditions that end the Purple condition and the Purple condition has limitations on the benefits of the condition depending on whether the Purple creature can be "somehow seen".

The reading that contradicts @Charlaquin 's post 263 is I think that the abracadabra spell does not by itself stop a creature being "somehow seen", it just applies the Purple condition. The condition remains active even if the creature can be "somehow seen" so the condition ending components of the abracadabra spell don't really matter - this isn't a case of Specific beats General as there is no conflict.

In this reading, nothing about the abracadabra spell limits the ability for Charlie to be "somehow seen" and so only the first of the three benefits applies. In order for the other benefits to apply, the abracadabra spell should include a line saying "the target cannot be seen by normal vision (possibly including Darkvision for clarity here) while the Purple condition is active.

Yes, that’s the other reasonable interpretation I was referring to. So, I would say that both this and the interpretation I gave in post 263 are valid ways to understand the interaction between Abracadabra and Purple.

Under the interpretation you’ve given here, I think the Goof Off action (listed here for reference)

Spoiler

Goof Off
With the Goof Off action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscures or behind Three-Quarters Covee or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.

On a successful check, you have the Purple condition. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component

works perfectly fine. However, under the interpretation in post 263, if Charlie uses the Goof Off action instead of the Abracadabra spell to gain the Purple condition, the goblin gaining line of sight to her would not end the Purple condition, because the Concealed benefit of Purple would be preventing the goblin from seeing Charlie. Now, the goblin could take the Search action to try to find Charlie, and if it succeeded, the Purple condition would end. But until and unless the goblin takes the Search action and succeeds at the Perception check, Charlie would retain the Purple condition as long as she doesn’t attack, cast a spell with a verbal component, or make a sound louder than a whisper.

 

[maeve]

In this reading, nothing about the abracadabra spell limits the ability for Charlie to be "somehow seen" and so only the first of the three benefits applies. In order for the other benefits to apply, the abracadabra spell should include a line saying "the target cannot be seen by normal vision (possibly including Darkvision for clarity here) while the Purple condition is active.

This is essentially my literal reading of the effect of the Invisibility spell (although obviously not the intention). I think enlarge/reduce would not work, because the spell applies an effect to a creature that the caster can see, and is therefore excluded by the Concealed effect. However, preventing effects that require seeing the Invisible creature is the totality of Concealed effect. I don't believe that being able to see someone can reasonably be called an effect that requires the target be seen, and therefore is not included.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, for the record, I’m 90% confident that my interpretation in post 263 and its implications for the “Goof Off” action are RAI. I believe the designers wanted creatures to have to use an action and pass a Perception check to find a creature that successfully used the Hide action, even if that creature moves out in the open after using the action.

 

[Retros_x]

I've decoded the rules in that other thread. They work they are just incredibly convoluted and badly spelled out. I don't understand how you manage to make the stealth rules even more confusing than in 2014 where they already lead often to confusion. I agree that they absolutely failed to make the rules more clear in the 2025 books regarding to stealth.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is essentially my literal reading of the effect of the Invisibility spell (although obviously not the intention). I think enlarge/reduce would not work, because the spell applies an effect to a creature that the caster can see, and is therefore excluded by the Concealed effect. However, preventing effects that require seeing the Invisible creature is the totality of Concealed effect. I don't believe that being able to see someone can reasonably be called an effect that requires the target be seen, and therefore is not included.

Oh, so in your reading, the goblin would be able to attack Charlie without disadvantage and Charlie wouldn’t get advantage against it, but Billy wouldn’t be able to cast enlarge/reduce on Charlie? That’s really interesting, I hadn’t considered that as a possibility, but it makes sense when you explain it this way! I agree that it’s probably not RAI, but I think your case for it as RAW seems perfectly valid.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've decoded the rules in that other thread. They work they are just incredibly convoluted and badly spelled out. I don't understand how you manage to make the stealth rules even more confusing than in 2014 where they already lead often to confusion. I agree that they absolutely failed to make the rules more clear in the 2025 books regarding to stealth.

Your conclusions in the other thread are essentially the post 263 interpretation. Which is a perfectly valid way to read the rules, but it does result in creatures being able to take the Hide action, move out into the open, and remain Invisible until a creature takes the Search action and passes their check. And I do agree that I think this is how it’s intended to work, I just think that goes against most people’s intuition of how hiding should work. Generally when you hide and then come out into the open, people can see you.