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

[Lanefan]

You say "no more than" like there is some alternative that's more than personal preferences.

I'm saying it's a personal preference as opposed to something that is hard-coded in the rules or that is the default at all tables.

That gameplay reason also points at what the RAW's intent is, because when figuring out what 5e's intended design is when it's potentially ambiguous, you can often wager that good designers would like their game to play easier and faster, and would not like their game to turn into 15 minutes of Marco Polo any more than they want their game to turn into 15 minutes of bonus-stacking.

I suppose if someone really likes the Marco Polo-ing, that'd be a counterpoint to that reason for the RAW's intent, but is anyone really a fan of not knowing where the enemy that you're going to have to take out sooner or later is?

Yes; the fans are those PCs who are using the exact same tactics against the enemy! Never mind that a resourceful party will have multiple ways of quickly locating an invisible enemy if they're willing to spend just a tiny bit of time and effort...a simple Detect Magic will usually do. That said, sometimes things can be more fun if they're not made easy.

Or of constantly tracking the "last space we saw you in"? Because those are some of the reasons why it's a pet peeve for me - those things are Not Fun.

Sometimes "Not Fun" happens; never mind that it's defined differently by pretty much everyone. Also, players of stealth characters sometimes quite enjoy the cat-and-mouse of invisibles trying to both find and avoid each other at the same time.

Or of PC's easily avoiding damage thanks to not participating in the fight?

I cut this out of context because it's a huge and completely different issue. Countering this requires the DM to give out xp on an individual rather than group basis where no participation in an encounter = no xp for it. Invisibility has no direct bearing on this issue as non-participation can take many forms, and there's been a few threads in here over the last few years that covered it in depth - look for any thread to do with how (or if) xp are awarded and it'll probably be in there.

Lanefan

 

[Amatiel]

One point I clarified in my own campaigns, is range. If a target is unseen but not hidden (stealthed), perception DC 10 means you can pinpoint a target to 25 feet, and DC 15 general direction out to 50 feet. Beyond 50 feet, I consider even an unstealthed creature to be effectively stealthed unless they play a drum or something equally stupid.

 

[CapnZapp]

What I find hard to believe is that anyone could defend the current rules, but apparently there is...

For me, the rules fail on all levels.

Its easy to create unintuitive unbelievable situations. But that might not bother some of you, "its just a game anyways", and that's okay.

But the rules aren't internally consistent, complete or even comprehensible. Okay so some of you go "rulings not rules" and aren't running your games exactly anyways.

From one angle, this is a huge win, since there is no complaint that sticks, since those rules essentially commit to nothing.

For instance: running into darkness to evade scary monsters. By the rules this does not help you one bit (since you not seeing negates every disadvantage they get). Not even actively dodging makes a difference. Only if you have time to run into the darkness, and then stealth/hide, will you gain something (since now your exact square is unknown). But the rules doesn't even provide us with a mechanism for finding you in that darkness!

---

But the one argument that is unassailable is that "why then buy rules for money"? There is no good reason why WotC should get away with making such a mess (except that they have essentially split the user base, so one half will always shoot down the complaints of the other half).

To me, this is execrable. We're talking "alternative facts" levels of uselessness.

---

The hard fact is that 5th edition completely botches stealth rules.

Sure no rpg has "perfect" stealth rules, but 5e doesn't do a "good enough" job - it's actually among the worst I've ever seen.

When it comes to 5E stealth-related rules, my grade can only be "0. I Wasted My Money".

 

[dco]

It's not that it needs to state you are automatically detected, because everyone around you is already automatically detected by default, and the invisibility condition doesn't do anything to change that. All it says is that, for the purpose of hiding, you are heavily obscured; which is simply one of the prerequisites for hiding. If it also made you hidden, it would have stated that.

And from a mechanical perspective, if you don't actually take the Hide action, then you haven't rolled your Stealth check, which means we don't know the DC for someone to even attempt to locate you by sound.

Where does it say things are automatically detected? What is the point of detect spells?

The condition also says "a invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or special sense". If there is any doubt the heavily obscured section talks about the blind condition, so against the invisible thing people are blind.
It also says the creature's location can be detected by noise or tracks, obviously an invisible creature is not detected by default as you say, it's logical, sight is the only targeting sense humans have and this is translated to the game. The DM determines the DC as always, I don't see the problem there, for example if you are seeing a parade or a concert you should not be able to hear any footsteps, if there is people moving and talking it should be very difficult to discern the noise of all footsteps, if the creature walks silently then the difficulties should rise, if the floor makes noise it should be easier. Apply common sense.

 

[ThePolarBear]

At massive cost of realism and believability.

Not the intent of 5e. Can't blame someone for sticking to their design vision.

Fact of life: a bunch of blind people fighting each other (assuming nobody has any blind-fighting abilities) is simply going to take longer than if they all could see what they were doing. Adv/disadv can cancel, sure, but there needs to be a flat to-hit penalty imposed along with a risk of hitting the wrong target; and if it means rolling more dice...well, that's what they're for.

I play to have fun. For me rolling for half an hour of "misses" is not fun. I do not care if the characters are there for half an hour playing blind whack-a-mole. And i do not think that anyone that had the possibility to move out of Darkness would remain in there if this means that the ability to strike with advantage/give out disadvantage would come back. It's not realistic? Sure. Can you change it? Sure. Does it work for the phylosophy "simple and fast"? Yeah, very much so.

"There needs to be" only in your opinion. It's fine, but there's no need for WOTC, or else there would be.

 

[akr71]

Can we get a 'smiley eating popcorn' emoji? Or a train wreck one? There have been a few threads in the past couple weeks that could have used one.

 

[ThePolarBear]

For instance: running into darkness to evade scary monsters. By the rules this does not help you one bit (since you not seeing negates every disadvantage they get)

On the other hand if monsters are scary, you no longer see them, so prehaps the fear runs off. And they also do not get any advantage they might have had before. You run into darkness because a situation is disadvantageous for you and you are trying to equilize it, not because it gives you and only you some sort of advantage. Also... REALLY? You run into darkness because there's a monster following you? Didn't see many horror movies have you? ;D

Not even actively dodging makes a difference.

Can't dodge what you can't see anyway, so what's the point?

Only if you have time to run into the darkness, and then stealth/hide, will you gain something (since now your exact square is unknown). But the rules doesn't even provide us with a mechanism for finding you in that darkness!

The Search Action. In fact, unless you are trained into shadow arts (rogue), you are going to neutralize most if not all the "monsters" by continuosly succeding at hiding, even if you get continuosly detected. Win?

But the one argument that is unassailable is that "why then buy rules for money"? There is no good reason why WotC should get away with making such a mess (except that they have essentially split the user base, so one half will always shoot down the complaints of the other half).

It's your opinion, man. It's not an argument. If you don't like it, you do not like it. I'm not trying to make you like something that you don't and won't try to. It's not about not being discussable. It's not an argument to begin with.

---

The hard fact is that 5th edition completely botches stealth rules.

Opinions, not facts. The very fact that anyone that runs the rules "their way" is absolutely contained inside the "the dm chooses when one can hide" statement in the very same rule you say they botched means something. You might think that it's a easy way out - and i agree. But it's far from fact due to people is still running 5e, there's people using stealth, and people having fun. You also bring no numbers to the table.

When it comes to 5E stealth-related rules, my grade can only be "0. I Wasted My Money".

Thanks for sharing.

 

[nexalis]

I fall squarely in the camp of people who claim that, if you are invisible and don't want your location to be automatically detected, you need to use the Hide action and succeed on a Stealth check.

In addition to the reasons cited by Hussar, I'm A Banana, and others, this version of the rule ensures that characters whose identities revolve around use of the Stealth skill are not trivialized by spellcasters with access to 2nd-level spells. This was a common complaint in prior editions of the game, and I'm certain I read somewhere that it was the main motivation for the current set of rules governing invisibility.

Indeed, the best use of the invisibility spell in 5e is to cast it on the party stealth-monkey, which is exactly what the designers intended. This is no more gamist or unrealistic than the abstraction of hit points or AC, in my opinion.

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=6857451]ThePolarBear[/MENTION], I am sorry if I gave you the impression I was interested in debating this issue.

I am most assuredly not. The 5e stealth rules are essentially non-existent; if not worse than that.

Please find someone else to argue against. If you are genuinely interested in hearing more about how I reason when I come to my conclusion, feel free to ask. But the issue of the overall utility is closed as far as I am concerned: please don't waste your energy trying to defend the indefensible.

Thank you

 

[CapnZapp]

Thanks for sharing.

Thank you.