Would you allow this?

Maxperson said:

Sure, I guess if you want to completely ignore context it makes you "invisible." For those of use who understand the rest of the stealth rules in the PHB which clearly show that you are not invisible, but merely out of sight, we understand that it's not the same as the spell. From the stealth rules.

"Becoming Hidden: You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you’re outside the enemy’s line of sight."

So you can become "invisible" if you are out of sight due to cover. But hey, feel free to keep doubling down on a position that isn't supported by the rules when you put the word "invisible" in the proper context.

Click to expand...

There is also the opening sentence, that says that "[t]he GM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding", as well as the bit that says "under certain circumstances, the GM 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." Presumably it is also possible in the world of 5e for someone who is not concealed to sneak up on someone who is distracted and looking the other way - given that this sometimes happens in the relatively mundane real world, presumably it can happen in the fantasy world of 5e.

Which is the context of my response way upthread - a fighter who wants to be invisible, ie unseen, can try to hide - which (in 5e) is a DEX/Stealth check.

Maxperson said:

The stealth "invisible" also fails to meet the 4e definition of invisibility. Specifically, it fails the first bullet point. The stealth rules specifically say that you can see the hidden target with normal forms of vision by simply having a high enough perception, and by pointing out that you must "stay out of sight."


INVISIBLE
✦ You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision.
✦ You have combat advantage against any enemy that can’t see you.
✦ You don’t provoke opportunity attacks from enemies that can’t see you.

Click to expand...

If your Stealth check is successful, ie defeats the opposed Perception check, then you are invisible to those you are hiding from ie they can't see you with normal forms of vision. That's the point of hiding - to be unseen.

In 4e invisibility is quite frequently relational (ie you are invisible to X) - when hiding, when you hit someone with Eyebite, etc - and what that means is that the person to whom you are invisible can't see you with their normal vision.

Blindsight or Tremorsense can defeat hiding, and also the Invisibiilty spell, in the appropriate circumstances (eg someone hiding behind a wall can't be seen with Blindsight, but someone hiding in darkness can be), but (depending on adjudication) probably not Eyebite.

It's all fairly straightforward, provided the table has a good shared sense of what the different keywords connote.

pemerton said:

There is also the opening sentence, that says that "[t]he GM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding", as well as the bit that says "under certain circumstances, the GM 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." Presumably it is also possible in the world of 5e for someone who is not concealed to sneak up on someone who is distracted and looking the other way - given that this sometimes happens in the relatively mundane real world, presumably it can happen in the fantasy world of 5e.

Click to expand...

More evidence that I'm correct. Thanks! If someone was invisible from hiding, no such distraction is needed. Distraction would only be required if you could be seen by normal forms of vision, which means that it cannot be invisibility as defined by 4e.

Which is the context of my response way upthread - a fighter who wants to be invisible, ie unseen, can try to hide - which (in 5e) is a DEX/Stealth check.

Click to expand...

He's not invisible. He's unseen. There's a difference.

If your Stealth check is successful, ie defeats the opposed Perception check, then you are invisible to those you are hiding from ie they can't see you with normal forms of vision. That's the point of hiding - to be unseen.

Click to expand...

Unseen does not equal invisible in 4e. I provided the definition, and to be invisible, you "can't be seen with normal forms of vision", not "you aren't seen with normal forms of vision." Since even if someone fails to spot you, you can be(as in it's possible to be) seen with normal vision, hiding does not equate to invisibility.

Seems like a niggling parsing of wording, but I see it, in the woods, all the time, a perfectly visible animal, with the right natural camouflage, is unseen,
till it moves. It's not invisible, you just don't notice it.

pemerton said:

Which is the context of my response way upthread - a fighter who wants to be invisible, ie unseen, can try to hide - which (in 5e) is a DEX/Stealth check.

Click to expand...

Oh my.

This is amusing. You're talking about invisible as "unseen," while the person you're talking to (and everybody else, I think) was talking about invisible as the sort of effect you get from the invisibility spell or a Klingon cloaking device.

No wonder you and Max are talking past each other.

Satyrn said:

Oh my.

This is amusing. You're talking about invisible as "unseen," while the person you're talking to (and everybody else, I think) was talking about invisible as the sort of effect you get from the invisibility spell or a Klingon cloaking device.

No wonder you and Max are talking past each other.

Click to expand...

It's a habit of his. He likes to redefine terms or use them in oddball ways, and then to try and prove that people using the terms as they are normally used are incorrect.

Satyrn said:

Oh my.
This is amusing. You're talking about invisible as "unseen," while the person you're talking to (and everybody else, I think) was talking about invisible as the sort of effect you get from the invisibility spell or a Klingon cloaking device.
No wonder you and Max are talking past each other.

Click to expand...

Lot of over-thinking going on.

Satyrn said:

Oh my.

This is amusing. You're talking about invisible as "unseen," while the person you're talking to (and everybody else, I think) was talking about invisible as the sort of effect you get from the invisibility spell or a Klingon cloaking device.

No wonder you and Max are talking past each other.

Click to expand...

Someone (maybe [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]?) upthread posited that the suggestion in the OP was as absurd as a fighter declaring that s/he turns invisible. My response to that was that a fighter turning invisible equals making a DEX/Stealth check. In 4e that is literally true - a successful Stealth check makes you invisible. (As per the rules that I have already quoted twice upthread.)

In 5e it is not literally true, but the effect of being hidden is that you go unnoticed, which in a wide range of scenarios achieves the same outcome as turning invisible. (Not all - bags of flour are better for spotting people who are using an illusion effect to be unseen; peeking around a corner is better for spotting a person using the furniture to be unseen; using a Helm of Telepathy is better for spotting a person using a charm spell, like the 4e Eyebite, to be unseen.)

I also made the point that, in 4e, there are utility powers that a rogue can use which have their effect described as "you are invisible", and presumably in 5e the same thing would be done by way of a DEX/Stealth check. (I am assuming that the whole point of dropping utility powers in 5e was that it's ability/stealth check rules were flexible enough to emulate all of 4e and more. Otherwise rogues, fighters and other non-casters seem a bit hosed.)

Maxperson said:

It's a habit of his. He likes to redefine terms or use them in oddball ways, and then to try and prove that people using the terms as they are normally used are incorrect.

Click to expand...

Given that (i) you are just wrong about 4e, and (ii) you intervened in a discussion I was having with another poster, about how a fighter might become unseen, maybe the shoe is on the other foot?

Tony Vargas said:

Lot of over-thinking going on.

Click to expand...

One implication seems to be that in 4e you can play a ninja without using magic - you can have a rogue whose ability to stay hidden (by dint of camouflage, distraction, stillness, etc) is just that good - but in 5e, at least according to other posters in this thread, you can't.

pemerton said:

In 5e it is not literally true, but the effect of being hidden is that you go unnoticed, which in a wide range of scenarios achieves the same outcome as turning invisible.

Click to expand...

It's whatever/however the DM narrates it to be.

I also made the point that, in 4e, there are utility powers that a rogue can use which have their effect described as "you are invisible", and presumably in 5e the same thing would be done by way of a DEX/Stealth check

Click to expand...

I see no reason to presume that. In fact, even assuming a DEX(stealth) check will be called for is presumptuous. Any action declaration by any player of any character in any circumstance at any time can be narrated by the DM as failure or success at the DMs sole discretion.

I am assuming that the whole point of dropping utility powers in 5e was that it's ability/stealth check rules were flexible enough to emulate all of 4e and more. Otherwise rogues, fighters and other non-casters seem a bit hosed.)

Click to expand...

Your assumption is unwarranted, and, yes, they are.

pemerton said:

Given that (i) you are just wrong about 4e, and (ii) you intervened in a discussion I was having with another poster, about how a fighter might become unseen, maybe the shoe is on the other foot?

Click to expand...

I've proven through the definitions, context and more that I am right on this. Stealth, with no other special ability acting on it, does not make you invisible. It ONLY makes you unseen and/or unheard. I love how you are now claiming the discussion is about being unseen, when you were clearly arguing that it makes one invisible. Invisibility is defined in the 4e book and stealth does not fit the definition.