D&D 5E Why do so many DMs use the wrong rules for invisibility?

[Oofta]

Dang, you guys are still discussing this? I was just stating the RAW, you are free to home-brew it however you like.

You opened up a can of worms between what I would call literalists (like yourself) and pragmatists (like myself). There's nothing wrong with either style.

Literalists go by the book, the whole book and nothing but the book. Since hiding causes you to be undetected, you make the assumption that the only way to be undetected is to be hidden.

Pragmatists use the book as a starting point and then apply real world logic. So dragons fly, people have hit points but if the rules don't explicitly state how something works, we assume that things would work like they do in the real world. The rules don't state anywhere that creatures automatically know where everyone else is if they are not hidden, so we don't make that assumption.

It's not home-brewing. It's not house-ruling. It's not about RAW (which IMHO is a meaningless acronym). It's a different approach to the interpretation of how to play the game. That's all.

 

[Helldritch]

You opened up a can of worms between what I would call literalists (like yourself) and pragmatists (like myself). There's nothing wrong with either style.

Literalists go by the book, the whole book and nothing but the book. Since hiding causes you to be undetected, you make the assumption that the only way to be undetected is to be hidden.

Pragmatists use the book as a starting point and then apply real world logic. So dragons fly, people have hit points but if the rules don't explicitly state how something works, we assume that things would work like they do in the real world. The rules don't state anywhere that creatures automatically know where everyone else is if they are not hidden, so we don't make that assumption.

It's not home-brewing. It's not house-ruling. It's not about RAW (which IMHO is a meaningless acronym). It's a different approach to the interpretation of how to play the game. That's all.

I could not have resumed it better myself. The only thing I could add is the following.
Since RPG existed, we have seen zounds of rules and ruling. From these, some form of unsaid concensus appeared. Although it is not explicitly stated, the rules are bent by the pragmatist to suit an historical and a logical view of what was done before and what should be (or should've been).

The litteralist cares nothing but the rules. If a rule does not say "x" then "x" is not allowed/permitted. Is that a bad view or a bad way to do things? I surely would not throw them a rock as I am most of the time, a rule abiding type of DM. But sometimes, pragamatism takes over me and all of a sudden, a rule that does not fit what I would've expected from it will be changed. The invisibility rule is one of them. The duration of the shield spell is an other one that I changed (see the thread on the shield spell... very enlightening).

By going for a DM ruling point of view, 5ed went back to the roots of D&D. We are far from a rule for everything. This has the advantage of allowing a DM to improvise and adapt rules on the go if the DM deems it necessary. The downside is that sometimes, rulings might become inconsistent as a similar situation can be ruled differently. This is something we would not see in 3.x, 4ed as there is almost a rule for every situation you might come up with.

What we see in most of these threads are really the two points of view that Oofta described. From my perspective, none of these are bad. On some topics, I am on one side. On some others I am on the other side. Both can have pretty good points going for themselves. All you have to keep in mind is what you wish to do at your table on that particuliar topic.

 

[Oofta]

... a rule that does not fit what I would've expected from it will be changed. The invisibility rule is one of them.

One minor point. One I should probably just give up on. I see nothing in the rules that says because you "can be detected" based on noise or other interactions with the environment that you automatically are detected. Rules on hiding that state how you can avoid detection do not state that hiding is the only way to avoid detection. Nowhere does it state that creatures know your location unless you are hidden from them.

Whether or not you can be detected if invisible, or how accurately your position can be determined if you are invisible is simply not covered in the rules.

As far as I can tell, I am following the letter of the rules while still being a [overly stubborn] pragmatist.

 

[Wepwawet]

Dang, you guys are still discussing this? I was just stating the RAW, you are free to home-brew it however you like.

No, you were not stating the RAW, you were just stating one (IMO unrealistic) interpretation, but not RAW.

I always wanted to start a thread that gained a life of its own and went on for dozens of pages!

Well done sir, I applaud you

 

[Uller]

Every stealth thread goes like this...

Also threads about buying magic items.

 

[Wepwawet]

I'll make one about stealthily buying invisible magic items and break ENWorld!!!

 

[Oofta]

Every stealth thread goes like this...

Also threads about buying magic items.

I want to laugh at this, but I'm afraid at this point it will start to sound like The Joker. Of course if it's Mark Hamill's Joker that isn't all bad.

Because I really do feel compelled to say that the whole discussion is only peripherally related to stealth ... hiding doesn't say it's the only way to avoid detection ... CAN'T STOP TYPING ... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

 

[Tony Vargas]

And, by "laughed with this post" I mean ... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

 

[Lanefan]

I'll make one about stealthily buying invisible magic items and break ENWorld!!!

Break it, maybe, but if you really want to shatter it beyond repair they'd have to be aligned magic items whose function and lore had changed from edition to edition...

Lanefan

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I'll make one about stealthily buying invisible magic items and break ENWorld!!!

No, to break ENWorld it would have about spamming Cunning Action to stealthily buy invisible magic items in a lore-friendly way.