D&D (2024) Stealth Errata

[mearls]

In the new errata, the stealth rules get the following update:

• Hide [Action] (p. 368) In the second paragraph, “you have the Invisible condition” is now “you have the Invisible condition while hidden”. In the third paragraph, “The condition ends on you” is now “You stop being hidden”.

I think this cleans up some of the wonkiness around using Invisible for hidden creatures, but also introduces hidden as a pseudo-condition. There still might be some tension within the rules. Can a creature that has the ability to see invisible automatically find you?

Reading the rules, I think the answer is yes. The Hide action specifies that you stop being hidden if an enemy finds you. However, if you still fulfilled the conditions for attempting to hide, my sense is that you should remain hidden.

Is that take crazy or am I on to something? I think the new errata is pretty elegant, but it doesn't quite go far enough. On the other hand, I imagine we'll see the rules evolve over time.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, they should just add "hidden" as a sub-condition to invisible, and then just refer to "hidden" in the text, so it reads intuitively.

This is why emphasizing natural language rather than creating key words/jargon is a better approach!

Me, I just basically ignore the RAW for stealth and communicate with the player to figure out what they are trying to do and how it will work.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't care enough about all the terminology and wording regarding all the facets of hiding, stealth, cover, concealment, invisibility etc. etc. myself... but just from a common-sense POV...

If you are hidden because you are behind heavy cover... See Invisible doesn't let you look through solid objects. So even if you have the 'Invisible' condition due to being behind that cover... losing that condition because of the See Invisible spell doesn't mean the person can now automatically see you. You're still behind heavy cover. To "find you" means they have to move to a position where you are no longer behind heavy cover relative to them.

Whether or not that works through the "technical language" the game has given us, I don't know. But this is why I've always been a "Rulings, Not Rules" kind of player.

 

[DEFCON 1]

BTW - I wonder how many people are going to read the thread title and wonder if Mike is talking about "secretive" errata that WotC is trying to sneak into the game... rather than what it actually is... errata about Stealth.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't care enough about all the terminology and wording regarding all the facets of hiding, stealth, cover, concealment, invisibility etc. etc. myself... but just from a common-sense POV...

If you are hidden because you are behind heavy cover... See Invisible doesn't let you look through solid objects. So even if you have the 'Invisible' condition due to being behind that cover... losing that condition because of the See Invisible spell doesn't mean the person can now automatically see you. You're still behind heavy cover. To "find you" means they have to move to a position where you are no longer behind heavy cover relative to them.

Whether or not that works through the "technical language" the game has given us, I don't know. But this is why I've always been a "Rulings, Not Rules" kind of player.

See Invisible lets a person see an invisible creature as if they were visible, no more no less.

So I argue at that point, the normal rules of visibility still apply. If a creature is completely behind cover, which blocks line of sight, than yeah the creature remains hidden.

But if the creature has anything less than total cover, or just concealment....by the book See Invis would 100% disrupt their hiding.

 

[mearls]

BTW - I wonder how many people are going to read the thread title and wonder if Mike is talking about "secretive" errata that WotC is trying to sneak into the game... rather than what it actually is... errata about Stealth.

That would be kind of funny. It reminds me of the episode of Frasier where Frasier and Niles plot and scheme to get into a secret club. When they finally worm their way in, they find another, even more secretive, club within the secret club.

"Shh! Don't tell anyone, but we fixed the ranger..."

 

[Mistwell]

So it now reads:

Hide [Action]​

With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover 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 Invisible condition while hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

You stop being hidden 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

 

[Mistwell]

See Invisible lets a person see an invisible creature as if they were visible, no more no less.

So I argue at that point, the normal rules of visibility still apply. If a creature is completely behind cover, which blocks line of sight, than yeah the creature remains hidden.

But if the creature has anything less than total cover, or just concealment....by the book See Invis would 100% disrupt their hiding.

So you can hide behind 3/4ths cover. But if someone casts see invisible (even if you're just a rogue using the ordinary hide action), they can see you behind 3/4ths cover?

"as if they were visible" to me means if you still meet the conditions for hiding, which includes 3/4ths cover, they're still hidden.

 

[Clint_L]

So you can hide behind 3/4ths cover. But if someone casts see invisible (even if you're just a rogue using the ordinary hide action), they can see you behind 3/4ths cover?

"as if they were visible" to me means if you still meet the conditions for hiding, which includes 3/4ths cover, they're still hidden.

Yeah, having the word "invisible" in there still needlessly complicates things.

 

[SteveC]

To me, this is the best example of rules that my group and I just work around. I think it's the equivalent of the "attack versus attack action" from 5.0. Exactly how hiding and attacking works is something we've had to work out via compromise so that it works at our table.