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

[Barolo]

I once saw a genuine dispute about invisibility rules, to wit: If you make a door invisible, can people see the room behind it when it's closed?

This was a serious argument on which people had differing opinions.

Really? This got me legitimately curious.

 

[wicked cool]

I prefer I cast invisible before the enemy comes around the path and don't move and the enemy doesn't see me.

the whole predator shimmer thing-no thanks. That's more cloak of elvenkind where you blend in

you shouldn't know the phase spider is there unless you pass perception otherwise your oblivious before it attacks. Same with darkness spell. We are still using surprise rounds in our group and now I'm questioning whether its still a rule

I guess my gaming groups have been doing it wrong and I'm really ok with it. Its not a rule to get the table upset with or ask before the game starts.

house rules are usually explained prior to a game.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I've played a lot of RPGs. Almost all of the D&Ds, the white wolfs, Traveller, Hero, GURPS, CoC, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Retroclones, Bunnies and Burrows... just about anything and everything out there. Only amongst the D&D players, and really only the 3e and later D&D playing, do people expect the rules to spell out exactly and without possibility for disagreement what stealth, hiding, and invisibility mean, and then call the rules incomplete etc. if there's room for dispute.

 

[seebs]

Really? This got me legitimately curious.

I think it was rec.games.frp.dnd, the basic argument was that the spell doesn't say it makes things transparent so you can see through them, therefore you just "don't-see" them, so if you had an "invisible" door, you wouldn't see the space behind it, you just wouldn't perceive the door. This contradicts a number of things that are pretty clearly stated in the rules, so I have no idea where it came from.

 

[Oofta]

And if you don't find "...if you make noise, you give away your position" + "the creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or tracks it leaves" convincing, I don't know that there's anything that might convince you.

All I'm asking is that if you're going to quote rules that you quote them correctly and in context.

The whole paragraph from page 60 of the basic rules under Hiding

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly,
and you give away your position if you make noise, such as
shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible
creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of
its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has
to stay quiet.​

It's not just making a noise, it's shouting or doing something obvious. So someone shouting? Sure, they're probably going to be noticed. Well, unless they're in a crowd of cheering fans and their shout just blends into the background. Rules can't encompass every scenario.

Page 105 of basic rules under Invisible.

The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.​

I don't interpret "can be detected" as "is always detected".

If you prefer 4E's black and white "everyone is detected unless hidden" more power to you. I simply disagree, and don't think that's fun for realistic. To each his own.

 

[barrowwight]

I think it was rec.games.frp.dnd, the basic argument was that the spell doesn't say it makes things transparent so you can see through them, therefore you just "don't-see" them, so if you had an "invisible" door, you wouldn't see the space behind it, you just wouldn't perceive the door. This contradicts a number of things that are pretty clearly stated in the rules, so I have no idea where it came from.

I remember that thread. I feel old now. Guess I need to invest in a potion of longevity.

 

[cmad1977]

dice fapping .

This made my day and is a perfect description for it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which is why I keep pointing out (quite possibly futilely) that nowhere in the rules does it state that "if you have not taken the hide action everyone knows where you are".

It is, quite probably, futile, yes.

There are a lot of things not directly or unequivocally stated in the rules, and the DM is free to rule the way he sees fit in those (many) instances. Perversely, that includes picking one interpretation to consider 'RAW' and sticking to it even when it turns nonsensical.

If you want to use 4E's idiotic (in my opinion)

If you want to express your (unfounded, IMHO) opinion about another edition of D&D in a discussion of 5e, you can, of course, do so, but you may be adding to your already Sisyphean challenge by painting yourself as a prejudiced h4ter who is only arguing against a valid interpretation of a 5e rule because it resembles a more clearly-stated rule in 4e.

Make no mistake: you're on the right side of the 5e argument, in calling for case-by-case DM rulings, instead of sticking like glue to a half-imagined parsing of RAW even when it makes no sense (well as a similar rule may have worked in a past edition). 5e's design philosophy includes erring on the side of natural language, and encouraging DM Empowerment and 'rulings not rules.' Everything about 5e is lined up on your side of the argument. So you're shooting yourself in the foot with the 4e-did-it-that-way-so-it-must-be-wrong edition-war reasoning.

If you prefer 4E's black and white "everyone is detected unless hidden" more power to you.

I do. In 4e. where it worked very well (and was, BTW, the result of errata to address confusion over the topic much like we've seen this whole time - only out in less than a year). It's not relevant, here. In 5e, I prefer to make a ruling (and, not coincidentally, prefer to DM).

Y'know, given 5e's handling of checks, it needn't be that different. A 5e player shouldn't be going "now that I'm invisible I make a Hide check... 37!" (And not just because he's unlikely to roll a 37.) Rather, he should be declaring an action. "I cast Invisibility and stand quietly in the corner, waiting for the patrol to pass before I move on, cautiously." The DM can then narrate success (the patrol walks by, oblivious to your presence), narrate failure (a soldier walks right into you), or call for a check. Even under the interpretation that your position is known unless you hide, 5e leaves the ball in the DM's court as to whether said hiding requires a roll.

 

[Beleriphon]

Where'd the OP go?

Invisible troll?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

Where does it say that an invisible creature is hidden? Given that hidden and invisible are two conditions which the rules actually care about, and they are distinct from each other, the rules can reasonably be expected to specify if applying one would typically also apply the other. Unusual circumstances may change that, and that's why we have a DM to adjudicate, but the rules listed should be sufficient for typical use.

It's like of you had a spell that pushed someone back twenty feet, but didn't specify that they fell prone at the end of it. Some people might imagine that being thrown back twenty feet would cause someone to fall prone, but if that was intended for normal situations without some sort of mitigating circumstance, then the description of the effect should indicate that. Likewise with a spell that deals fire damage; barring situations where the target was unusually flammable, it's reasonable to expect the spell to specify if it should normally set people on fire as a result of basic usage.

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.

Yes, an invisible creature is impossible to see. That part isn't in dispute. The contentious part is - apparently - that you don't need to see something to know where it is. Sight is overrated, according to the rules, which is why invisible and hidden are two distinct conditions.

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.

Given that this is the only time I have ever seen anyone use the phrase "targeting sense", I'm going to say that it's not the obvious chain of logic that you seem to think it is.

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.

The difficulty of detecting a hidden creature is based on its Stealth check, which it hasn't rolled if it didn't take an action to hide. Modifiers may apply due to circumstances, sure, but the Stealth skill of a target is always the primary factor. That's the mechanical irregularity which would be introduced here.