To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
Grapple no longer makes an attack roll, the target instead must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition.
grapple doesn't make a attack roll, but to grapple you NEED to make a unarmed strike, that's a attack roll
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath or picking it up. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks."
"Attack Roll
An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."
"Grappling
A creature can grapple another creature. Characters typically grapple by using an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey. However a grapple is initiated, it follows these rules. See also “Unarmed Strike” and “Grappled.”"
No one believes that one stealth roll is good enough to remain silent forever, so why are you acting like that's the RAW? It isn't, and nobody ever said it is.
I think some people (despite being shown overwhelming evidence of the contrary) actually do believe that hiding once means being Invisible forever, and that's why this thread is 37 pages long... and counting?
How are people still mistaking the difference between unseen and unheard? Being Invisible makes you unseen, but you still need to expend effort to not make noise involuntarily. Any noise above a whisper breaks the Hide, so any action that would otherwise make noise should probably have to be rolled to accomplish silently.
It's perfectly reasonable to fill in the gaps of a rule when the RAW are vague enough, like are there sound mechanics? No? I can use common sense here. My position in general has been that it's wrong to ignore a specific rule because you can't understand how to make it work without ignoring it entirely. Get creative.
So how exactly does one stop being silent if they do not speak/cast a spell with a V component? Is there some RAW that defines how noise is involuntarily made? And if not, why is it suddenly acceptable to come up with undefined other ways a character can be found via sound, but not undefined other ways a character can be found via sight?
"Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition."
Show me the RAW that everything is silent. Show me the RAW that your clothes get bloody or damaged when you get stabbed. Show me the RAW that you can't hold 1000 candles in a hand (candles don't have a listed weight, after all).
Or accept that the majority of "reality" is, necessarily, a matter of DM rulings and judgement.
And yet somehow standing in the open beating a Hide Action is a bridge to far because... why again?
So how exactly does one stop being silent if they do not speak/cast a spell with a V component? Is there some RAW that defines how noise is involuntarily made? And if not, why is it suddenly acceptable to come up with undefined other ways a character can be found via sound, but not undefined other ways a character can be found via sight?
"Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition."
Show me the RAW that everything is silent. Show me the RAW that your clothes get bloody or damaged when you get stabbed. Show me the RAW that you can't hold 1000 candles in a hand (candles don't have a listed weight, after all).
Or accept that the majority of "reality" is, necessarily, a matter of DM rulings and judgement.
And yet somehow standing in the open beating a Hide Action is a bridge to far because... why again?
To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
Grapple no longer makes an attack roll, the target instead must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition.
grapple doesn't make a attack roll, but to grapple you NEED to make a unarmed strike, that's a attack roll
No you're not making an attack roll when you Grapple or Shove, only the Damage option specifically has you make an attack roll against the target.
It was also confirmed in Sage Advice as seen below;
If you grapple or shove an enemy, does that end a Sanctuary spell cast on you?
No. The Sanctuary spell ends only if the warded creature makes an attack roll, casts a spell, or deals damage. The Grapple and Shove options of an Unarmed Strike do none of these things.
To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
Grapple no longer makes an attack roll, the target instead must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition.
grapple doesn't make a attack roll, but to grapple you NEED to make a unarmed strike, that's a attack roll
No you're not making an attack roll when you Grapple or Shove, only the Damage option specifically has you make an attack roll against the target.
Characters typically grapple by using an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey.
You have to successfully hit with your attack before you can option to Grapple, then the target has to Str or Dex save to oppose it. Unarmed Striking from Invisible would definitely give advantage though.
Wrong! I had been playing that incorrectly, news to me. Interesting. Good luck arguing that you can grapple silently though.
And yet somehow standing in the open beating a Hide Action is a bridge to far because... why again?
I don't know who is saying that, but it's not me. (And this thread has become a war between argumentums ad absudum, so it's rather hard to tell who is just being "ironic" with their crappy gotcha scenarios.)
My position is, and has always been, that in combat everyone is constantly moving, attacking, defending, and otherwise being distracted by the fog of war --- represented by spending their Actions on attacks and spellcasting and whatnot, not to mention Move and Dash. Therefore, in combat, it is completely reasonable for a stealthy, hidden person to be able to sneak across a battlefield (a whole 15 feet or so), unnoticed, and get off a melee sneak attack on a target. It still involves doing well on a Stealth roll or two (per Turn), and may involve beating a Passive Perception score or two (per Move). If an enemy really wants to find that sneaky rogue, they should spend an Search Action! If they have the Observant feat, they can even do it with just a Bonus Action! Good luck on the Perception roll!
Furthermore, I might even apply the above, with some modifiers (select cases of Advantage and Disadvantage) to busy social encounters, even if they are out of combat. That's neither RAW nor not RAW, it's just me making rulings based on my experiences.
Further Furthermore, I probably wouldn't allow someone to just sneak down down a hallway that's being actively watched by a couple of guards who are doing nothing but watch the hallway. That's gonna need some distractions and maybe even distractions from other party members. Clever play and all that. (Imagine: that "doing nothing but watch" is effectively mechanic'ed by "take the Search Action every turn, with Advantage, because the two guards are helping each other." But in some case, I'd just call that an auto-find.)
In none of those cases is the hidden person "just standing in the open."
So how exactly does one stop being silent if they do not speak/cast a spell with a V component? Is there some RAW that defines how noise is involuntarily made? And if not, why is it suddenly acceptable to come up with undefined other ways a character can be found via sound, but not undefined other ways a character can be found via sight?
"Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition."
Show me the RAW that everything is silent. Show me the RAW that your clothes get bloody or damaged when you get stabbed. Show me the RAW that you can't hold 1000 candles in a hand (candles don't have a listed weight, after all).
Or accept that the majority of "reality" is, necessarily, a matter of DM rulings and judgement.
And yet somehow standing in the open beating a Hide Action is a bridge to far because... why again?
Because you're Invisible.
Even though you only rolled a skill check, which should not make you literally transparent?
And yet somehow standing in the open beating a Hide Action is a bridge to far because... why again?
Because you're Invisible.
Even though you only rolled a skill check, which should not make you literally transparent?
Nothing in the Invisible condition says anything about being transparent, only that you're Concealed: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you [Truesight, Blindsight, See Invisibility]. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed. [brackets added]
Roleplay it however you need to, but ultimately an Invisible creature isn't seen by others.
And yet somehow standing in the open beating a Hide Action is a bridge to far because... why again?
Because you're Invisible.
Even though you only rolled a skill check, which should not make you literally transparent?
Nothing in the Invisible condition says anything about being transparent, only that you're Concealed: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you [Truesight, Blindsight, See Invisibility]. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed. [brackets added]
Roleplay it however you need to, but ultimately an Invisible creature isn't seen by others.
Unless they can somehow see you. Logically, if you have not magically made yourself invisible, clear line of sight should allow a non-blind being to see you. Which is why 2024 Hide sucks- an overly literal reading makes rolling 15 on Stealth the equivalent of a 2nd level concentration spell.
I don't know. Maybe the Rogue steals the magic macguffin, which is why the hall is guarded like that. After all, even if there are people all around the macguffin they can't see the Rogue. All he needs to do is grab it, Dash (since grabbing isn't an Attack and Dash doesn't break Stealth), then use his Bonus Action to Dash again. Now the guards have no clue where his is and are completely unable to find him.
To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
I'm sorry. Are you advocating that you have to make an Attack roll to pick something up? That's going to make meeting at the tavern absolutely hilarious as you watch people fail to pick up their drinks at least 5% of the time.
Nothing in the Invisible condition says anything about being transparent, only that you're Concealed: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you [Truesight, Blindsight, See Invisibility]. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed. [brackets added]
Roleplay it however you need to, but ultimately an Invisible creature isn't seen by others.
Unless they can somehow see you. Logically, if you have not magically made yourself invisible, clear line of sight should allow a non-blind being to see you. Which is why 2024 Hide sucks- an overly literal reading makes rolling 15 on Stealth the equivalent of a 2nd level concentration spell.
Unbroken line of sight might allow a creature to see you, unless they're distracted, or busy reading documents they're carrying, or admiring their newly polished sword, or you exploit their blind spots, or you look like you belong there so not worth noticing, or any other number of narrative roleplay explanations. There should be a good reason to dispense with a rule other than "I have no imagination."
Edit: I'll add that nothing in the Invisibility spell says anything about being transparent either. It simply gives you the same Invisible condition as Hide. Clinging to magic as if that's a stronger narrative explanation than merely going unnoticed is not reasonable, especially in a high-fantasy, illogical setting like this. How many times have you lost an item, only to find it in a place you looked a dozen times? It was there in your line of sight, but you somehow didn't actually see it. Vision and cognition are not infallible. This is the weakness that hiding is able to exploit.
Unbroken line of sight might allow a creature to see you, unless they're distracted, or busy reading documents they're carrying, or admiring their newly polished sword, or you exploit their blind spots, or you look like you belong there so not worth noticing, or any other number of narrative roleplay explanations.
All of which are covered by "the DM determines when conditions are appropriate for hiding", or the 2014 "However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."
There's no question that it is sometimes possible to stealth through unbroken line of sight, but it shouldn't be the default assumption, nor is it particularly related to the stealth check of the person trying to sneak -- it's mostly about whether they're distracted, which is either not under the control of the stealth-er at all, or if they create their own distraction, isn't a stealth check.
It might help to consider RAI so people can shift their understanding a bit.
So ask yourself this - from a game design standpoint - which should be more powerful: Stealth or the Improved Invisibility spell? They're approximately the same level for practical purposes - we're talking about Rogues with high Dex, Expertise and Reliable Talent to pull off Stealth here (which is 7th level) vs. a 7th level arcane caster.
To me, it seems obvious: Stealth should be more powerful. We're comparing a core class feature that is heavily emphasized (and has been a part of the class design since the very first printing of D&D) vs. one option of many from a generalist class. In a balanced game, Stealth should be able to accomplish essentially everything Improved Invisibility can accomplish, only better. Otherwise, you're underpowering a class by giving a better version of one of its core features to other classes as an almost incidental feature.
What I see with the "Stealth provides the Invisible condition" change is the developers rather pointedly trying to shut down many of the arguments here about Stealth vs. Invisibility by insisting that the Invisibility spell is not a better version of Stealth but the minimum floor for what you can do with Stealth. As it should be.
To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
Grapple no longer makes an attack roll, the target instead must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition.
grapple doesn't make a attack roll, but to grapple you NEED to make a unarmed strike, that's a attack roll
No you're not making an attack roll when you Grapple or Shove, only the Damage option specifically has you make an attack roll against the target.
It was also confirmed in Sage Advice as seen below;
If you grapple or shove an enemy, does that end a Sanctuary spell cast on you?
No. The Sanctuary spell ends only if the warded creature makes an attack roll, casts a spell, or deals damage. The Grapple and Shove options of an Unarmed Strike do none of these things.
So we have a BIG problem here, because by Rules Glossary
"Attack Roll
An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."
Unbroken line of sight might allow a creature to see you, unless they're distracted, or busy reading documents they're carrying, or admiring their newly polished sword, or you exploit their blind spots, or you look like you belong there so not worth noticing, or any other number of narrative roleplay explanations.
All of which are covered by "the DM determines when conditions are appropriate for hiding", or the 2014 "However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."
I'd argue that this mechanic is why the "DM might allow" clause was removed in 2024. The DM doesn't have to guess whether your stealth roll beats their perception, because it's explicit! Beating their perception means they're sufficiently distracted, or not perceptive enough, to find you.
To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
Grapple no longer makes an attack roll, the target instead must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition.
grapple doesn't make a attack roll, but to grapple you NEED to make a unarmed strike, that's a attack roll
No you're not making an attack roll when you Grapple or Shove, only the Damage option specifically has you make an attack roll against the target.
It was also confirmed in Sage Advice as seen below;
If you grapple or shove an enemy, does that end a Sanctuary spell cast on you?
No. The Sanctuary spell ends only if the warded creature makes an attack roll, casts a spell, or deals damage. The Grapple and Shove options of an Unarmed Strike do none of these things.
So we have a BIG problem here, because by Rules Glossary
"Attack Roll
An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."
What's the problem? It does't say an Unarmed Strike is an attack roll. An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with an Unarmed Strike, which is occur when taking the Damage option. But they're other options that don't represent making an attack roll. #SpecificvsGeneral
I'd argue that this mechanic is why the "DM might allow" clause was removed in 2024. The DM doesn't have to guess whether your stealth roll beats their perception, because it's explicit! Beating their perception means they're sufficiently distracted, or not perceptive enough, to find you.
Distraction is not a function of their perception score. Distraction is a function of being distracted -- there has to actually be something going on that distracts them.
Removing the 'DM might allow' clause I would call a straight up bad decision.
So we have a BIG problem here, because by Rules Glossary
"Attack Roll
An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."
That's what I thought too, but Damage is just one option:
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect. Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier. Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it. Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
The attack roll is only necessary to Damage, the Grapple option is straight Str or Dex save.
grapple doesn't make a attack roll, but to grapple you NEED to make a unarmed strike, that's a attack roll
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect.
Damage. You make an attack roll against the target. Your bonus to the roll equals your Strength modifier plus your Proficiency Bonus. On a hit, the target takes Bludgeoning damage equal to 1 plus your Strength modifier.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition. The DC for the saving throw and any escape attempts equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab it.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or you either push it 5 feet away or cause it to have the Prone condition. The DC for the saving throw equals 8 plus your Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one size larger than you.
See also “Grappling.”"
"Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath or picking it up. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks."
"Attack Roll
An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."
"Grappling
A creature can grapple another creature. Characters typically grapple by using an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey. However a grapple is initiated, it follows these rules. See also “Unarmed Strike” and “Grappled.”"
How are people still mistaking the difference between unseen and unheard? Being Invisible makes you unseen, but you still need to expend effort to not make noise involuntarily. Any noise above a whisper breaks the Hide, so any action that would otherwise make noise should probably have to be rolled to accomplish silently.
It's perfectly reasonable to fill in the gaps of a rule when the RAW are vague enough, like are there sound mechanics? No? I can use common sense here. My position in general has been that it's wrong to ignore a specific rule because you can't understand how to make it work without ignoring it entirely. Get creative.
And yet somehow standing in the open beating a Hide Action is a bridge to far because... why again?
Because you're Invisible.
No you're not making an attack roll when you Grapple or Shove, only the Damage option specifically has you make an attack roll against the target.
It was also confirmed in Sage Advice as seen below;
Characters typically grapple by using an Unarmed Strike. Many monsters have special attacks that allow them to quickly grapple prey.
You have to successfully hit with your attack before you can option to Grapple, then the target has to Str or Dex save to oppose it. Unarmed Striking from Invisible would definitely give advantage though.Wrong! I had been playing that incorrectly, news to me. Interesting. Good luck arguing that you can grapple silently though.
I don't know who is saying that, but it's not me. (And this thread has become a war between argumentums ad absudum, so it's rather hard to tell who is just being "ironic" with their crappy gotcha scenarios.)
My position is, and has always been, that in combat everyone is constantly moving, attacking, defending, and otherwise being distracted by the fog of war --- represented by spending their Actions on attacks and spellcasting and whatnot, not to mention Move and Dash. Therefore, in combat, it is completely reasonable for a stealthy, hidden person to be able to sneak across a battlefield (a whole 15 feet or so), unnoticed, and get off a melee sneak attack on a target. It still involves doing well on a Stealth roll or two (per Turn), and may involve beating a Passive Perception score or two (per Move). If an enemy really wants to find that sneaky rogue, they should spend an Search Action! If they have the Observant feat, they can even do it with just a Bonus Action! Good luck on the Perception roll!
Furthermore, I might even apply the above, with some modifiers (select cases of Advantage and Disadvantage) to busy social encounters, even if they are out of combat. That's neither RAW nor not RAW, it's just me making rulings based on my experiences.
Further Furthermore, I probably wouldn't allow someone to just sneak down down a hallway that's being actively watched by a couple of guards who are doing nothing but watch the hallway. That's gonna need some distractions and maybe even distractions from other party members. Clever play and all that. (Imagine: that "doing nothing but watch" is effectively mechanic'ed by "take the Search Action every turn, with Advantage, because the two guards are helping each other." But in some case, I'd just call that an auto-find.)
In none of those cases is the hidden person "just standing in the open."
Even though you only rolled a skill check, which should not make you literally transparent?
Nothing in the Invisible condition says anything about being transparent, only that you're Concealed: You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you [Truesight, Blindsight, See Invisibility]. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed. [brackets added]
Roleplay it however you need to, but ultimately an Invisible creature isn't seen by others.
Unless they can somehow see you. Logically, if you have not magically made yourself invisible, clear line of sight should allow a non-blind being to see you. Which is why 2024 Hide sucks- an overly literal reading makes rolling 15 on Stealth the equivalent of a 2nd level concentration spell.
I'm sorry. Are you advocating that you have to make an Attack roll to pick something up? That's going to make meeting at the tavern absolutely hilarious as you watch people fail to pick up their drinks at least 5% of the time.
Unbroken line of sight might allow a creature to see you, unless they're distracted, or busy reading documents they're carrying, or admiring their newly polished sword, or you exploit their blind spots, or you look like you belong there so not worth noticing, or any other number of narrative roleplay explanations. There should be a good reason to dispense with a rule other than "I have no imagination."
Edit: I'll add that nothing in the Invisibility spell says anything about being transparent either. It simply gives you the same Invisible condition as Hide. Clinging to magic as if that's a stronger narrative explanation than merely going unnoticed is not reasonable, especially in a high-fantasy, illogical setting like this. How many times have you lost an item, only to find it in a place you looked a dozen times? It was there in your line of sight, but you somehow didn't actually see it. Vision and cognition are not infallible. This is the weakness that hiding is able to exploit.
All of which are covered by "the DM determines when conditions are appropriate for hiding", or the 2014 "However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."
There's no question that it is sometimes possible to stealth through unbroken line of sight, but it shouldn't be the default assumption, nor is it particularly related to the stealth check of the person trying to sneak -- it's mostly about whether they're distracted, which is either not under the control of the stealth-er at all, or if they create their own distraction, isn't a stealth check.
It might help to consider RAI so people can shift their understanding a bit.
So ask yourself this - from a game design standpoint - which should be more powerful: Stealth or the Improved Invisibility spell? They're approximately the same level for practical purposes - we're talking about Rogues with high Dex, Expertise and Reliable Talent to pull off Stealth here (which is 7th level) vs. a 7th level arcane caster.
To me, it seems obvious: Stealth should be more powerful. We're comparing a core class feature that is heavily emphasized (and has been a part of the class design since the very first printing of D&D) vs. one option of many from a generalist class. In a balanced game, Stealth should be able to accomplish essentially everything Improved Invisibility can accomplish, only better. Otherwise, you're underpowering a class by giving a better version of one of its core features to other classes as an almost incidental feature.
What I see with the "Stealth provides the Invisible condition" change is the developers rather pointedly trying to shut down many of the arguments here about Stealth vs. Invisibility by insisting that the Invisibility spell is not a better version of Stealth but the minimum floor for what you can do with Stealth. As it should be.
So we have a BIG problem here, because by Rules Glossary
"Attack Roll
An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with a weapon, an Unarmed Strike, or a spell. See also “Playing the Game” (“D20 Tests”)."
I'd argue that this mechanic is why the "DM might allow" clause was removed in 2024. The DM doesn't have to guess whether your stealth roll beats their perception, because it's explicit! Beating their perception means they're sufficiently distracted, or not perceptive enough, to find you.
What's the problem? It does't say an Unarmed Strike is an attack roll. An attack roll is a D20 Test that represents making an attack with an Unarmed Strike, which is occur when taking the Damage option. But they're other options that don't represent making an attack roll. #SpecificvsGeneral
Distraction is not a function of their perception score. Distraction is a function of being distracted -- there has to actually be something going on that distracts them.
Removing the 'DM might allow' clause I would call a straight up bad decision.
That's what I thought too, but Damage is just one option:
The attack roll is only necessary to Damage, the Grapple option is straight Str or Dex save.
Grapple should be in other description, this way is a mess