Stealth in D&D 2024 is... frustrating.

[@gambent6853]

I believe the reason they did this, creating the Invisible condition, was to make it easier to run in their new vtt project sigil. I think a lot of the changes were geared towards making the game a little more like a video game to support that new vtt. That’s why it seems worse and doesn’t make sense for actual play.

[@mattlazer902]

I 100% agree with this and have been saying it for a while. many of these rules either make a DM's Job much harder to keep track of or completely remove the need for a DM's rulings or discretion. Not to mention the player power spike.

[@NoESanity]

but it does create a lot more problems. stealth isn't just visual... smell, touch, taste, hearing, tremorsense, or any other methods of detection none of those matter, as long as you're even just mostly obscured. yes this invisible condition ends if you make a sound, but what is "make noise?" obviously shouting, but what about whispering to an alley? what about footsteps, do we have to worry about dm's dropping random stick landmines that might snap? if it's the heat of battle do we have to worry about heavy breathing or a heavy heartbeat? what about "if found" so you can stealth against an enemy with tremor sense but they just instantly end your invisibility? what if you fart, does the enemy smelling you trip clue them in on your location well enough to end the condition? sure that might sound silly, but there are enough races that would have distinct animal smells. throwing in a hidden condition wouldn't cost any real additional resources, just an icon... even if they automated it, attaching it to a passive perception based on abilities and skills and just making it red or green (or an open or closed eye) is all that needs to be done. it would also account for the fact that the stealth version of the condition as additional end states. magical invisibility doesn't have the "if you make noise" or "if someone finds you"

[@thesonofdormammu5475]

@@mattlazer902 This won't be a problem when they create their AI DMs for the VTT. I think all of this is geared toward allowing people to play without DMs essentially turning the game into a video game similar to those board games they put out (Castle Ravenloft, etc). Then people can play whenever they want instead of having to gather together once a week. I know a number of people that would play multiple times per week if a DM was available.

[@TheRealKLT]

This opinion doesn't make much sense to me, if I'm being honest, because it's already not very difficult to code the 2014 rules. Foundry VTT *already* runs like a video game, with the right extensions installed.

[@mikegilkey]

That is what they made all the changes. Easier to code the game

[@hideshiseyes2804]

I’ve never seen good stealth rules that try to rigorously define things in this way. Here’s what a good stealth rule looks like: “When you attempt to hide, sneak past someone, etc. make a Stealth roll to see if you succeed or not.” If there’s any doubt then the GM makes a ruling, same as anything else. The only problem is that people who don’t understand that TTRPGs as a medium are fundamentally dependent on subjective human communication will scream incessantly about “GM fiat” until the designers publish a new edition where they attempt to rigorously define every possible element of the game’s fiction in terms of mechanics, and inevitably fail.

[@tobiasravntaastrm5898]

You should totally do a follow up to this video with ideas on how to fix Stealth. That would be great!

[@jtvanilla1776]

I've looked at a lot of different perspectives, and I think the invisible condition works, because in the case of an enemy that has been captured and is unable to alert its allies, it no longer counts as an enemy. I think it also makes sense that if you're hiding and you're not in clear line of sight of your allies, they shouldn't be able to see you either. Three quarters cover doesn't make sense, I think that was a gimme to give more benefit to stealth builds. The big change was that now in 2024 creatures don't have 360⁰ line of sight, so they have to be looking in your direction. I agree, they could've worded it better though, and it took me a while to understand it.

[@naranha1776]

It is fixable. Just ignore the DC 15 part and make only one stealth check. Treat the person as relatively hidden to all monsters that have a passive perception that is equal or lower and you have cover from. Tjey can only sneak on their turn at half speed while staying hidden. Ok, that's basically PF2e now...

[@BenHameen33]

I plan on treating the 2024 rules as amature homebrew. I might use some of the good, but not use parts they made worse or just needlessly changed, like these weird non-intuitive Stealth rules that still aren't clear

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

I like the Cover and Obscure requirements. 5e doesn't make Obscure that good RAW. But that's it... Invisible Condition, Hide action being negated by a bound & silenced enemy who doesn't care, and DC15 etc. While Concealed Condition are not clear. Divinity Original Sin 2 did Stealth much better.

[@JoshW431]

Frankly, this comes down to a simple design decision that WotC made: Under the in 2014 stealth rules, the DM has to keep track of which creatures a particular PC is hidden FROM, and that's a pain. Creatures move, they have different passive perceptions, they can talk to one another, revealing the PC to *some* of their fellows, etc. It can be a mess for a DM to keep track of. So a simple design decision was made that admittedly, does not mirror real life, (as many things in D&D do not). Namely, that when you try to hide, you are either stealthed from ALL enemies, or you are not stealthed from ANY of them. Enemies have different passive perceptions? No problem, there's just one DC. An enemy moves around and finds you? You're no longer stealthed. "Wait, which of these goblins spotted me? They ALL moved last turn, and I lost track." No worries; if ANY can see you, you'll need to hide again. It's a simplification measure. Now, this decision leads neatly into the Invisible condition. If you need to be stealthed from EVERYONE, "Stealth" becomes a condition, rather than something you have relative to individuals. Sure, you could make a new condition called "hidden" or "stealthed", but "Invisible" is right there, and basically grants the same benefits, so why rewrite it? Sure, it's a little weird when technically, "invisible" also affects allies, but no DM is going to rule that you are invisible from your allies when hiding from enemies. IMO, unless WotC wanted to add a paragraph of clarifying text for edge cases, (which I suspect people would also complain about - "WotC is too wordy!"), it seems like most of these are reasonable decisions. I will grant you that they probably got too specific in some the cases where stealth is broken, but honestly, you're complaining that WotC is TOO specific in some cases and NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH in others. Too specific, and DMs don't have room to interpret the rules, and not specific enough, leaves things open to exploitation by people interpreting the rules *exactly as written* without regard for the intent. Oh, I almost forgot, it's super misleading to say that "WotC had 10 years to fix this and they didn't". I mean, sure, but they also had 5000 other things to do during that time. It wasn't like they ONLY had Stealth rules to fix, nor were stealth rules rewrites their top priority.

[@arcturuslight_]

that's why we need playtests to let them know where to be more wordy and where less. This could've been fixed by playtesting. And because the rules here require clarifications or a lot of additional interpretation to work, they should've gone the route of "DM decides how this works based on common and dramatic sense and consideration of game balance". Instead they present you with a solid rule while expecting you to discard it and think for yourself how stealth works, while providing no guidance. Basing it on conditions is fine enough, but imo, hidden nor invisible shouldn't be conditions in the first place, just rules for when a creature can't see you should be enough, and "being invisible" just to mean you are see-through.

[@EventyrGames]

I appreciate your perspective, but just like I might be overstating the issue with these new rules, I think you're overstating the issue of tracking different Passive Perceptions. It's never taken our table more than a few seconds to go: "Roll Stealth" "I got a 17" "Alright, you easily lose the goblins in the bushes. The dragon overhead doesn't seem to have lost sight of you, however." And you're right, revealing a PC to allies is definitely a thing, but it shouldn't be implied (there are 1,000 scenarios where a monster wouldn't be able to do so). It'd be easy to write: "A creature you're not hidden from can reveal your presence to other creatures, such as by pointing or shouting." Anyway, discussion like this just makes me want to prove that you can make rules for Stealth much smoother and usable (and shorter!) than WotC has, so maybe I should just give it a spin ;)

[@dylanhyatt5705]

The three reasons I switched from D&D to Pathfinder was that the Stealth rules were not clear and as DM I to often make arbitrary rulings on the fly. The other reason was confusion over casting 'x' spells on a given turn - Cantrips, Spells - Bonus Action - Action - sloppy action economy design. Though the new design appears they have clarified, only one spell slot on your turn, there are numerous sources outside of slots which will probably unbalance the game. The other reason was the encounter building rules were unreliable - I had what should have been a routine encounter lead nearly to a TPK, and a boss fight end in the first round thanks to a sequence of overpowered spells. I still have a soft spot for D&D, but the new addition looks way too swingy - with common sense rule design sacrificed on the altar of VTT.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Poor quality design is STILL a poor quality design. It doesn't change anything when better designs exist. It's not a good excuse. Not worth being above average or higher of quality control. 2024 is akin to Overwatch 2... Not impressive, but Hasbro knows that for their hopes in their VTT.

[@ludviglethmller3259]

​You definitely should give your version of stealth a go! ​@@EventyrGames

[@4syates]

Well said. The 2014 rules were unnecessarily poor. This is worse.

[@CorrosiveCitrus]

I personally thought the 2014 rules were perfectly fine albeit inconviently scattered throughout the book (which to be fair, is how a lot of the book is). These new rules, sure keep everything simple to look up, but... Are very inflexible and don't make sense in a lot of situations.

[@ivanhagstrom5601]

The reason for these changes are alost certainly to make the rules more managable in a VTT, which kinda sucks

[@clarkside4493]

I mean, the captured goblin example just means you need to either blindfold him or kill him. But I get what you are saying. I think we should still try it like it is first, but also see how you can cause distractions, because distracted was a thing in the previous DMG.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Nah... Maybe for new players but these rules are... Terrible. It's not worth trying run with those janky stealth rules.

[@clarkside4493]

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Don't forget the monsters might be made with these Stealth rules in mind, so changes could make them more or less powerful than intended.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@clarkside4493 Given that a goblin who says "I won't alert anyone" will still alert everyone not because he lied but because of the rules. It is enough to tell me everything wrong with 2024 stealth rules as a DM. This is a low quality design. Especially for a TTRPG. It's not worth my enforcement of the rules. That said, 5e Stealth mechanics was never good to begin with. 2024 is even worse. There is zero excuse, but knowing Hasbro. I understand why. There's no justification. It's just a failed design and nothing more. (Even video games that are well designed do better. TTRPGs have it much easier by comparison.)

[@bradleyhurley6755]

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 I would rule that he is no longer an enemy at that point, and therefore is not considered in the action ending.

[@RaethFennec]

If we use the literal definition of enemy, it says "a person who is ACTIVELY opposed or hostile to someone or something." Can they see you? Are they an enemy? Ask your DM. Easy. Advantage on initiative? Enemies are rushing at your allies, but not you. You can act without having to square off and defend against them. Turns are 6 seconds. Hide grants Invisible? You're invisible ~to the enemy~. If you can handle a dragon seeing you with truesight despite casting Invisibility, you can handle this. Silly to say you lose the benefits if they can see you? Nah, in 2014 they didn't, and you didn't. It was dumb. You can hide with 3/4 cover or Heavily Obscured, when you can still see each other otherwise. So... 11:54 ... yes. Did I take the rage bait? :P They're a big step up from 2014, and the rules are made for DMs. They're very easy to understand with common language, but leave flexibility. 5e doesn't have airtight rules on purpose. Please enjoy the engagement, but... also probably read the rules yourself and try playtesting it. Your opinion might change with experience. Most of the changes are pretty slick, and some of the weirdness that lingers is overshadowed and maybe not as much of a problem anymore. Still, we'll see in the coming months just how much people can really start pacing the rules and features. :P Check out Warlock with Armor of Agathys and Fiendish Vigor, for example.

[@xezzee]

is that not a contradiction? Three-Quarters cover means at least three-quarters of you is behind the cover. If you are fully behind the cover you are fully behind the cover. This means that if you have Three-Quarters cover you can see the enemy and enemy can see you. So by contradiction you can't hide behind Three-Quarters cover becasue enemies can see you? So them saying you can't does not work becasue they see you?

[@chrisderhodes7629]

The FAQ for stealth rules is going to be a lot longer than the rules themselves

[@David-id6jw]

The entire Invisible condition argument heavily misunderstands what the rules are trying to convey. And in fact, Treantmonk pointed out one such case in explaining the rule that you still seem to be stumbling over here. Your cleric wants to cast Healing Word on you. You have the Invisible condition. Can she cast on you? 1) You gained the Invisible condition by casting Invisibility. You cannot be seen. The cleric cannot see you. She cannot cast Healing Word on you. 2) As above, but the cleric casts See Invisible. You still have the Invisible condition, but she can see you now, so she can cast Healing Word on you. 3) You gained the Invisible condition by Hiding. Your cleric does not know where you are, and cannot see you. She cannot cast Healing Word on you. 4) You whisper to her from the tree you're hiding behind, allowing her to know where you are. She can now see you, and casts Healing Word on you. You still have the Invisible condition, though, because you weren't found by an enemy. The "can somehow see you" phrase covers lots of ways you could be seen that don't break the Invisible condition, which is why it got incorporated into the condition itself. It closes various loopholes from the old rules, while also making it more suitable for using the Invisible condition for new scenarios. It also requires you to understand that the Invisible condition is just a collection of effects, not a hard definition of what it means to be invisible. Just like every other condition can come about from numerous different causes, and are only a label for a particular set of effects, where the label hopefully gives you a good idea of the types of effects being described. Invisible means, generically, "not seen", whether because of physical limitations, mental effects, suppression of knowledge, or lack of awareness. The actual bit about being physically seen is the only part that may potentially suppress the benefits. Once that view is understood, the usefulness of the Invisible condition really expands in scope and utility.

[@David-id6jw]

I will agree that there are uncertainties in the rules. Particularly in the timing of when you may or may not lose the condition vs the action that may have led to that loss, and what constitutes an "enemy" for the purpose of finding you.

[@NoESanity]

3:45 this actually kind of makes sense. the idea is you have to pass a DC15 to successfully hide, so a dragon or anything else can still find you, but the action of hiding now has a DC. this is to prevent stupid shit like someone rolling a 9 for their stealth roll and asking the DM "am i hidden" instead of having to navigate the old "you think you're hidden" bullshit this is a simple, yes or no criteria, which is really useful because 5e had a lot of builds that summed up as "bonus action stealth, for advantage" regardless of if passive perception would ge them spotted or not. 6:30 RAW, a party that is all sneaking through a cave together are invisible to each other. the bonkers as fuck shit that could lead to... just imagine a group of 4 people go through a dungeon sneaking to avoid enemies and traps just start killing your teammates and you can't do anything because you can't see them. 7:40 also stealth giving the invisible condition is a RAW ruling that stealth doesn't work for sounds. it doesn't matter how much you whisper or try to mask your scent or anything else, stealth is just a non-magical way of becoming invisible not silent or untraceable.

[@sjhhej]

I expect there are many rules in 6th ed that will make sense when plugged into WotCs always online microtransaction infested VTT video game that they intend D&D to become.

[@Isaax]

Stealth rules were bad back then, but the idea of the DC being tied to the passive perception of the guy you're trying to hide from was GOOD. What were they thinking making it always 15?? Punishes low level characters severely, especially rogues, yet trivializes stealth rolls at higher levels even against high level foes. Fuckin hell

[@vindex57]

I feel like adding "[DC15] or the highest passive perception of the enemies you are trying to hide from, whichever is higher" would solve the first point. DC 15 does speed it up though. And hide from any enemy seems like a non-issue to me. It's clear enough what it means, but the wording could be better. Honestly I think the text is perfectly functional in an actual game. But I get your point.

[@EventyrGames]

To me, these rules are about as usable as the rules from the 2014 PHB - which basically just means that I'll mostly just rule stealth based on Intuition. For experienced DMs, it isn't a big issue, but if you're a new DM trying to understand how stealth works? Having rules that are this poorly written just invites inevitable misunderstandings, misuse, and needless discussion. With years of development, it's quite disappointing that this is what we get, IMO.

[@syvajarvi2289]

Yeah, as an experienced DM, I use passive perception as the DC with the 2014 rules. The basic rule of thumb is that the high perceptive guy alerts the enemy party as a free action. It’s a throw back to how the ranger class functioned in 1e.

[@quillogist2875]

The enemy finds you when you move out of your cover. The static DC is awkward but simplifies the rule. There will always be rules interpretation by the DM.

[@KinMusicUK]

They definitely tried to simplify things by using the invisible condition but just didn't think it through enough and ended up making loads of issues

[@DarkinQusitor]

Try to play CASTLES AND CRUSADES, from Troll lord games. Its a much better system than D&D 5th edition

[@fortunatus1]

First, the rules are supposed to be very general because it would takes numerous pages to detail every possible scenario. They're giving the DM a general rule that is modified by the situation. My reading is that you are not stealthed if even one other can see you is BECAUSE they can shout to allies or reveal you in some way like holding up their hand for attention and pointing (often depicted in action movies involving special forces). If they are Silenced and/or hog tied, the designers are assuming that this is something the DM takes into account. Second, Invisible now has a different definition than the common way the word is used. It's not a physical condition, it's definition is broader in this game and now includes both stealth and invisibility. Third, DC 15 stealth. Right off the bat, I am assuming this is just the basic level and creatures with more powerful senses will raise the DC. I agree though; it should read that the baseline DC is 15 but that the DM determines the DC. In sum, I don't have a copy of the PHb. I am just going over what is presented in the video. Seems to me that this is a general rule that will have situational exceptions. It's up to the DM to address those exceptions.

[@kevinmcdunn8058]

What a mess. The specifics they added into this revision of the rules are just going to lead to even more rules lawyering; tbh the problems with it are evident at a glance, I’m astonished this made it into the final version. Honestly I feel like this entire edition could have been done better by a part-time hobbiest within a month, I’m really baffled at how this is what came out of such a long development cycle. I’m grateful for the positive updates but it’s really looking like a large portion of those were already ubiquitous as house rules.

[@deusvault5732]

I think the flat DC Is definitely the wrong direction the rest could be reasonable. But that takes me out of it. Edit: reasonable not the best rules

[@edmundfreeman7203]

I agree, these rules are bad. If 'an enemy finds me' means 'an enemy can see me' the stealth is completely useless.

[@AdrianGell]

I thought this was insightful and found this video after slogging through the same bits with the same confusion. If it wasn't for VTT pressure, I think they could have just re-taught the 2014 rules better. It took a long time and rereading for me to understand and usually-remember them and find the extra related rule nuggets that actually made 2014 stealth and such work very well. The new material has genuinely done a great job of re-teaching things without changing them, or just nudging the paradigm a little bit (ie Search / Study actions) so the things you already knew fit together tighter. But fully refactored stuff just kills me, not even in the design decision alone, but it's like they never made a second pass on it to give the same treatment as the kept-stuff. For instance - the effects of a successful Hide action or the Invisible condition do not give any benefit to moving silently, but do require silence to maintain. The rules do lay out that an attempt to move silently (if there is a risk of failure) also requires a Stealth check [separate from the Hide action]. This would have been the ideal book to point that out. Especially as it's a departure from 5E('14). My best guess is that BG3 never features terrain with a risk of breaking branches or kicking a stone off a wall, so it wasn't part of the behavior they were trying to copy with this, and never considered it.

[@ogrejehosephatt37]

I wonder if they have more complicated optional stealth rules in DMG.

[@EventyrGames]

I'd rather have better rules than most complicated :O

[@ogrejehosephatt37]

@@EventyrGames Ha, fair. It just seems like the intent of the current rules is to simplify stealth. I think any improvement would be more complicated by necessity, not that being complicated itself is a virtue.

[@CorrosiveCitrus]

I had 0 issues with the 2014 stealth rules themselves, just they way they were presented by being scattered in various places in the book (the invisible condition was dumb though, that you still got the benefits even when seen). These new rules though... What the hell... Huge step backwards.

[@user-microburst]

Im starting to understand the new philosophy. It is about becoming unseen. U can only do that if u r out of their sight and use heavily obscuring or cover to hide. It just takes a DC15. But if someone searches and beats your stealth vs perception (they must use an action for it) then u are seen.

[@DrakeTheCaster]

1. The only flaw in this is that you need to be hidden from ALL enemies. Yes they should have realized the wording was bad and caught it, but it's overall alot better than the current 5E rules for hiding. Having a set DC 15 for hiding is kinda dumb though and should just be a default suggested number as opposed to the baseline default. 2. The way invisibility already works in 5E is dumb as-is. If you are invisible, you should be completely unable to be targeted by attacks AND spells that require sight on you, instead of the enemy having disadvantage hitting you etc. 3. It's semantics. The invisible condition doesn't mean you are literally magically invisible, it means hidden. Because being unseen is the same as being invisible, so long as you are hidden you may as well be invisible. Would 'hidden' be a better term that applies to both being hidden AND invisible? Sure, but it's again semantics. 4. Also I think the examples for ending invisibility account for the most common scenarios, which is generally the better way to establish your rules and conditions around. Having hyper-specific exceptions is the kinda thing that can be explained further in the sage-advise resource.

[@mercurius665]

Great video as usual. The old guard at WotC just seems to struggle with the concept of simplification. I wonder why they seem to be so baffled by these common sense concepts. I'm gonna go play Cairn.

[@Azeur]

I'll just roll a stealth check to hide from D&D instead

[@azraelvrykolakas157]

What they should have is two kinds of stealth. Active and passive. If you're engaged in active steath and someone spots you they would be unnerved and it may be a priority to say "hes right there" but the odds of not being seen in the first place benefit you. A guillie suit would count as active because it's obvious you're trying to hide but grey clothes would be passive because it could just be how you dress. If people know you're hiding it should be harder to hide but not necessarily impossible.

[@4syates]

Yes, would be curious to see how you would homebrew it.

[@Alex-rq8mh]

I just got tov it definitely seems like the real dnd 5.5. Better class changes... martial got fantastic buffs. I was not a fan when I skimmed it originally but after taking a closer look I became a huge fan. It might be a better alternative for people who like 5e but are not down for the class and spell changes to 2024

[@jessicaalvis7063]

I really don't see any issues. I have never had issues with RAW vs RAI because I am a determined GM. I make calls like that all the time, changing up the rules, so to me it is just every-day ruling. I think the new Hide action is really good. Is it perfect? No. But a good GM should be able to deal with stuff like this on the fly just as easily as take a sip of his drink.

[@NidhCthon]

This is bettrer for me, as a VTT user. I can code a stealth macro and apply the condition with all of its implications and be done with it.

[@SteveMorris-c2r]

I don't really see the problem. There is a flat dc to hide that requires heavy obscurement, or more than half cover and no enemy line of sight. If an enemy wants to find you they need to spend an action or move to a location where you are now in line of sight. The rule clearly states that the only line of sight you need to be concerned with is enemy and that the effects of the invisible condition only apply to creatures that cant see you. The effects of the condition end immediately upon being spotted by the enemy, making any loud noise, attacking or casting a spell with a verbal component. The new rule feels pretty straight forward. There are some casters that no longer require verbal components for their spells. I think Goo warlock and Illusionist wizard are examples of that. In theory they could hide and cast their spells with out breaking the condition. I think its a little harder for Rouges to abuse stealth now, but their kit is no longer completely reliant on stealth so its not much of a nerf there. With a flat hide dc it opens up stealth to many more builds. Now more classes can make better use of stealth. It used to be an all or nothing ability. You either built for stealth or you didn't. Now I can see just about any class wanting to start an ambush for that surprise initiative advantage. I also find the idea of a barbarian dipping out of sight to come up behind some one and home run swing the enemy off a wall, cliff or tower to be amusing.

[@taggartaa]

4:22 That also doesn't make sense though, you shouldn't know which enemies you successfully hid from until they take an action that shows they know where you are, just as much as all enemies shouldn't know where you are because one of them knows.

[@Matthew14853]

We've been looking to swap our campaigns into 2024 and I ruled that if you break the two conditions heavily obscured or three quarters cover you are no longer hidden. To the argument that coming out of cover to attack would then negate the advantage I would say first it's a game and we don't have to try and use realism when feels like you're just trying to make an argument to invalidate this and second arrow slits and other cover has been used throughout history with ranged weapons and that seems very plausable

[@ogrejehosephatt37]

Is the intent that there's a flat check to hide, but you use q creature's perception to find a hidden creature?

[@EventyrGames]

Yup, that is the intention. Issue is, it seems that a Search action is necessary to find a hidden creature, so if you don't suspect anyone's hidden, monster's perception never comes up. It's just wonky.

[@ogrejehosephatt37]

@@EventyrGames Hm. Yeah. It's up to the the hider to give themselves away by making a sound louder than a whisper, or... Moving positions? One bit that really confuses me is having total cover allows one to try to hide. Why do you need to make a check to hide if you can't be seen?

[@mappybc6097]

Open the 2014 MM, look at the passive perception scores of most creatures. Notice just how abysmal 90% of them are in comparison to their CR? Base DC15 is just so that starting rogues and mid level characters with trained stealth can't just roll a 4 and still hide from opponents. As for Invisible? It's easy. Creatures with truesight that were supposed to be preternaturaly perceptive couldn't see jack s**t when facing a 11th+ level rogue with reliable talent whose worst possible stealth result was a 23. Now any spell or ability that allows the user to see Invisible creatures will do the trick. All of this could have been prevented by just not doing insane bs like skulker+ boots of elvenkind assassin builds.

[@raven_glass]

I wouldn't use these rules. Stealth is very simple. You can't hide from a target(s) that can see you. Then, if you are hiding, it is a simple perception vs sealth check. Making a noise also introduces a perception check. (Dis)advantage is dependant on the circumstance (waterfall etc). Stealth only gives you an advantage on Initiative if you start the combat.

[@shinom0ri]

I watched the start of this video, and thought the first example was a bit in bad faith, before stopping the watch. Later on I tried to read up on invisibility (spell and condition), hiding, searching, see invisibility ect, and I was completely baffled. They actually manged to make it worse, and what really hit it home for me was that fact that it nowhere states what exactly being invisible is. Are you translucent or simply hard to find? It doesn't specify this anywhere. I now have no idea what happens if you succeed on a hide action and walk in to plain view RAW. You have the invisible condition, same as when cast invisibility. One could argue that being invisible is the same as being successfully hidden now - no roll required. It is so confusing, because it's clearly distinctly different than it was from 2014, so I can't even use the 2014 rules as a reference to get a better idea of what you meant then. I now realize not overly harsh, though I'd probably use a different example than the scrying mage two towns over. It can, as it did with me, seem a bit in bad faith. I'd love it if you gave some homebrew fix for this, as I'm now convinced you were a 100 % right. I don't see others pointing this out, so for that you deserve a like and subscribe.

[@bradleyhurley6755]

This is where I think the issue lies. The invisible condition does not make one invisible or unseen. Though I am still looking for the exact wording of the invisibility spell. Basically being Heavily obscured is what makes you unable to be seen. The invisible condition does not. It does provide you with benefits if you are invisible/unseen, but does not itself grant you invisibility/being unseen.

[@user-microburst]

The line of sight part is what I don’t get

[@4saken404]

I've always thought the rules were strange. For example where it says you need total cover. This implies that when you are normally under total cover, say, behind a wall, you are somehow not automatically hidden. I find it odd that you need to use your primary action _and_ succeed at a roll just to remain unseen against enemies that, by definition, can't see you.

[@EventyrGames]

Yeah, it's very messy. In essence, what 5E has always been trying to convey but not really succeeded at, is that there are two types of Hidden: • There's the type of Hidden where whoever you're hiding from literally don't know that you're there, because they can't pick your presence up with any of their senses - they literally don't know where you are. Let's call this Unsensed. • There's the type of Hidden where whoever you're hiding from can't see you (with whatever form of sight it has), but it can sense you in some other way and knows roughly where you are (i.e., it can hear your footsteps where you're walking or the rustling leaves of the bush you're hiding in). I like to call this Unseen - it's also exactly what the Invisible condition does. In the example of going behind total cover, you're often OK only being Unseen, because your enemy still can't attack you or target you with most spells (since Total Cover protects you from that stuff). If you want to make it so they don't even know where you went after dipping behind the wall OR you want to pop out a few seconds later and make an attack with advantage, you'd first need to make a Stealth check against their Passive Perception to do so. Imagine that as you moving quietly as you come around the wall, so you're not only "Unseen" but also "Unsensed". It should be said that this isn't necessarily what the rules say (2014 or 2024), but how I explain the act of stealthing to myself and my players ;)

[@bradleyhurley6755]

You are not. Being behind total cover means you cannot be seen. Stealth/hiding is required because you can still make noise, you could accidentally have a foot in the wrong spot. You may have left tracks leading to where you are hiding. This is fundamentally important, the stealth row isn't to determine whether or not you are seen, being behind total cover means you are not seen. The stealth row determines how hard it is for the opponent to notice that you are hiding. Either because of the sounds you make, the footprints you left. The tree leaves you are causing to not blow while everything else is blowing in the wind. Its also important to not the invisible condition doesn't make you invisible or unseen.

[@CorrosiveCitrus]

You're equating hidden and unseen when they are two different things Unseen does not equal unheard for example The 2014 rules did a perfect job of defining this. These new rules are more like the old 2014 playtest rules that were dropped because they were clunky and video gamey.

[@Miranda17137]

It's just lazy work. They needed to add another condition. Call it "Stealth" or "Concealment". "Your enemies have not found you. You have advantage on attacks against them, and they cannot target you. They must make a Perception check to be able to attack you while you are concealed."

[@Blaidd101]

Could blind fold the godlin? But yah wizards didn't fully clear up these and other rules.

[@master_rafiki]

Agreed. Patently overdesigned.

[@TwinSteel]

🥳🫂👍🏿

[@duncbot9000]

The more I hear about 5.5e the more I hate it

[@Isaax]

It has some serious dogshit rulings, but it's still an overall improvement without a doubt. So it's weird to hear this take

[@duncbot9000]

@@Isaax it's like it goes halfway to where it should, but the amount of changes to things that weren't a problem and lack of changes to the problematic parts just irks me. It's like why did they make the choices they did??

[@Isaax]

@@duncbot9000 Agreed, and you are right, that's a good assessment of the 2024 rules and design. I still am personally eager to play it over 2014 5e, because as I said I still believe it to be an overall improvement, but I agree extremely with you on the puzzling choices that resulted in changes where they weren't needed and too few changes where they needed more, and so on

[@AncientRylanor69]

h

[@Isaax]

I can't blame people for switching to Shadowdark.

[@jefR6875]

DC 15 is just the floor for officially saying a creature is "invisible." it still becomes a skill contest when other individual creatures are looking for the stealthed creature, so yes a big red dragon with PP 25 is still going to see the stealthed creature even though they are "invisible" because they rolled the minimum. i agree that the whole thing was poorly written, so your confusion is not unwarranted. I would just treat it as a contest: the player says "i am hiding" and they roll stealth to set the DC for anyone looking for them. simple as that. if conditions are not good for hiding, the DM can have them roll with disadvantage. And the DM can make a reasonable ruling that a creature sees them if they are in the open to that creature.

[@EventyrGames]

That's a sensible ruling, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the rules, as far as I can tell. A creature needs to take a Search action to get a chance to find someone.

[@jefR6875]

@@EventyrGames you don’t jump right into the search action. When a creature hides, it is essentially a skill contest with everyone around them. So until you complete that contest, the other creatures don’t yet need to use search to find them. It is only after it is determined that a creature successfully hid from another creature that the “looking” creature must then use a search action to try and find the now hidden creature. The DC 15 threshold only determines whether or not the hiding creature sufficiently concealed themself to be invisible to anyone. In the same way that a toddler hiding behind a clear glass door hasn’t actually hidden themselves because they suck at it, the hiding creatures roll is the INITIAL test to see if the hiding creature possesses enough skill that they can be considered hidden at all. But that doesn’t mean that every other creature now can’t see them, just that now there is a contest.

[@jefR6875]

Essentially, after the DC 15 threshold is hit, other creatures get to roll to see if any of them perceived you running behind the rock. If they didn’t see you run behind the rock, then they must now use the search action to find you.

[@EventyrGames]

I don't disagree that what you're saying is sensible, but it's not what the rules say. If it did, I'd be much happier.

[@infinitedm5396]

Well... No. Disagree completely. Hiding has been far too nebulous

[@chrisderhodes7629]

Th new system is nebulous

[@CorrosiveCitrus]

Hiding in 2014: Does the DM think it makes sense to be able to attempt to hide right now? If so, Make a check vs enemies passive perception (nice and simple). Hiding in 2024: You're in 3/4 cover, great, are you out of LoS? Well... No because it's 3/4 cover... Okay I'll duck down so it's total cover. Cool make a DC15 stealth check. I got a 17, am I hidden? Well you can't see the enemy so you don't know. But I do know because it's DC15 and I got a 17.... Okay but you won't know if he finds you after his search action because you can't see him. BUT the rules say I can look and then discern if they see me though? Okay, sure, you look and see that they can see you because now you are in his LoS... Okay I'll stay ducked down and make an attack roll... My invisibility only ends after the roll it says... Yes but now you're in LoS so no... None of this makes any sense

[@fabiogap.78]

D&D is not a videogame or a championship.

[@DeadpoolAli]

Correct. It's a fantasy game that doesn't deliver on certain fantasies.

[@DM-G_H]

I think only a rules lawyer would not understand what the rules are intended to mean. In which case, the DM just needs to set their foot down. As a DM, I haven't ever had many problems with ruling unless it was a rules lawyer. In that case, I just tell them too bad that is my ruling. If the rest of the table agrees, then that tells me the other person is being unreasonable.

[@EventyrGames]

I get that, but rules are supposed to be... well rules. And these are very specific in parts (noise breaking Invisibility, for example) and, of course, we can decide that we ignore these very specific rulings when they shouldn't be there, but then... why have them? To me, i's disappointing after literal years of development, that this is what they came up with. Obviously, we can houserule stuff and ignore rulings - but having to do that for a revised ruleset right out of the box? Just doesn't feel great, tbh.

[@DM-G_H]

@@EventyrGames I agree, it could have been written better. It appears they have staff that doesn't have a good grasp of the English language. They need editors that not only check if it grammatically works, but makes sense as well. Preferably someone who understands the game mechanics as well.

[@arcturuslight_]

The problem is in that rules are there to provide guidance, otherwise why even have them. When every sentence of a rule needs a "well obviously this wasn't meant to be taken literally, so let's discuss how are we gonna interpret it", it would've been better to go "DM decides what happens, based on common and dramatic sense" way. It's such a mess here when it presents itself as a hard rule, but you are expected to ignore it and make up how it works.

[@DM-G_H]

​@@arcturuslight_ I agree, they wrote the rule horribly. They obviously do not have editors that possess all three skill sets of understanding proper grammar, game mechanics, and general conversational English.