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

[kayakingpoodle]

So I had to go put my 4 hours in this month to keep the financial spreadsheet in the black. Coming back and reading the posts leaves me with a few observations/questions.

1- does the lack of a specific rule allowing something mean it is absent from the game?

2- does the lack of a specific rule reject something from the game?

3- are IRL physisics the default when magic is not involved, and the rules do not address the issue?

4- what dictionary should be used for individual words in the rules as published in the official 5e24 ruleset when it gets to the point of what each word in a rule means?

5- if there is ambiguity in the 5e24 rules do we default to the 5e14 rule if there is one?


All of these questions are about the 5e24 ruleset, and this has been a great thread and very fun to participate in so far.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

It also doesn’t say you can’t shoot the moon with an arrow. Exceptions-based design is not in the business of making rules for things you can’t do.

So it doesn't say you can't determine facing so I guess we can?

Because you have line of sight in all directions simultaneously from where you stand, because there is no facing. If there were facing, you wouldn't have line of sight to things behind you.

Where is the rule stating you have simultaneousl line of sight in all directions?

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Yeah, I’m not a programmer either, but… I mean, imagine you’re playing on a virtual tabletop that has a “hide” button that executes an automated check. If there’s a minimum DC, you have the potential to fail, even if there aren’t any enemies around to hide from. If there isn’t, you can succeed on a very low roll, and reasonably deduce that there are no enemies to hide from. So the DC 15 acts as kind of an anti-metagaming feature in a digital environment where the Hide system is automated.

So it's a video game now?

 

[Charlaquin]

So it doesn't say you can't determine facing so I guess we can?

I guess, but you don’t have to, since you already have line of sight to any space there’s an unobstructed line to from the corner of your space.

Where is the rule stating you have simultaneousl line of sight in all directions?

DMG page 45.

 

[Charlaquin]

So it's a video game now?

There have been D&D video games for decades. More relevantly, I think these decisions were probably made for the benefit of Project Sigil or whatever it’s called.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I guess, but you don’t have to, since you already have line of sight to any space there’s an unobstructed line to from the corner of your space.

DMG page 45.

Nothing there says a pc or creature with 2 forward facing eyes can see all around the simultaneously, they do have multiple lines of sight, but how many are available to process at any given time is not stated. Try again, no colored home brew needed to cloud the discussion.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nothing there says a pc or creature with 2 forward facing eyes can see all around the simultaneously, they do have multiple lines of sight, but how many are available to process at any given time is not stated.

Right, because there isn’t a limit on the number of them at a time. For such a limit to exist, it would need to be stated. Again, this is just how exceptions-based rules design works.

 

[Retros_x]

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.

Nope, that was not my conclusion to the rules and I also don't think that is RAI because its silly. But I am not interested in repeating the same arguments and points. The fact that this is the second big discussion definitely proves thouth that they utterly failed in making these rules clear.

Renaming the "invisible" condition to "concealed" condition or something similar and a better wording for the "concealed" bulletpoint could've already helped to clarify, but they should've just not mash "hidden" and "invisible" together. It was a stupid move.

 

[KYRON45]

As things are written? Or by common sense? Those are two different things here.

Remember, Crawford's rulings over the last several years show very clearly that you go by exactly what is written and can't assume anything that makes sense. See his ruling that See Invisibility doesn't let you see through invisibility or stop the effects of invisibility.

Since I am the referee most of the time and there is no trophy or sponsorship contracts at the end of the rainbow; I go with logic and reason.
In fact...a player declares their intent to hide...i look at the map and say....ok, you're pretty sure you are hidden.
Before these meandering diatribes about Stealth...I've never even seen these rules. When a player insists on using rules that I'm not that fond of he's opening up the door to disappointment. When there are die hard "ruleists" involved....they get what they want and often from time to time...."rules" are there to kill you.

But its a game and there are rules...people are shouting at their screens. To which i reply, yup its a game and at my table we use the rules the way we like them. Which i suggest everyone do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nope, that was not my conclusion to the rules and I also don't think that is RAI because its silly. But I am not interested in repeating the same arguments and points. The fact that this is the second big discussion definitely proves thouth that they utterly failed in making these rules clear.

Renaming the "invisible" condition to "concealed" condition or something similar and a better wording for the "concealed" bulletpoint could've already helped to clarify, but they should've just not mash "hidden" and "invisible" together. It was a stupid move.

This would certainly make it more clear how it works, but it wouldn’t fix the problem of being able to remain invisiblewhatever they call the condition while out of cover.