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

[Oofta]

What, and abandon the rest of the party?

PCs often use invisibility for scouting, or sometimes for the combat advantage. Escaping from a fight, while abandoning your allies to their doom, is more of a villain thing.

Apparently you've never played with the same people I have.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"Can [be]" is often interpreted to be certain, or automatic. The word they should have used is "May [be]" which implies uncertainty; "Might [be]" would be even better.

Yes, as the words are generally used, if you can do something then you can do it. If you can hear something, then you can hear it. That isn't the same as saying you can always hear it, regardless of mitigating circumstances. It's just that, barring outside factors, you can hear it.

If casting the spell in the middle of combat would generally allow the character to become hidden, without spending an additional action to do so, then it's not an unreasonable expectation that the rules would mention that point. You could still read it either way, if you really wanted to, but I would be disinclined to press the point given that the intent has been clarified through other channels.

 

[Oofta]

Ding! You've found the wording problem.

"Can [be]" is often interpreted to be certain, or automatic. The word they should have used is "May [be]" which implies uncertainty; "Might [be]" would be even better.

Come to think of it, I think the same thing applies in the long-rest argument.

Lanefan

I agree that a rectangle can be a square. A politician can be honest. Fish can be found in the ocean.

A rectangle may be a square, it may not be. In theory a politician could be honest. Just because you can find fish in the ocean it doesn't mean you will be successful on every fishing trip.

I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where "Can be" would mean "certain" or "automatic". Maybe I'm just being willfully ignorant and obstinate.

At the very best it's ambiguous and not accepting other valid readings of the phrase is being pedantic.

 

[Helldritch]

My "guess"? It gives you the ability to detect them no matter how good their stealth roll was.

It does specify invisibility. Not stealthy characters/opponents. A stealthy character is still stealthy even if he is invisible. If the creature is stealthy and hidden, Feral Sense won't trigger. Same for blind sense.

It could be argued that with these in mind, turning invisible does hide your location and these abilities just prevent the invisible one to get away easily. Again we have two cases where the rules contradict one an other. Those two abilities are utterly useless if you can always know the location of a non stealthy invisible opponent. In fact, as a player, I would ask for something that could actualy be useful. If Invisibility does hide your location without a stealth roll, then these abilities are starting to shine again.

It could be ruled that there is something like passive stealth?
A 4th level wizard with 16 dex turning invisible could have a passive stealth of 15.
A 4th level cleric with 16 wis would have a passive perception of 15 so he could spot the wizard's location and warn his friends.
A 4th level rogue with 12 wis and expertise in perception could do the same as the cleric.

The possibilities are endless.
Again, use common sense. Turning invisible in the middle of a fight is and always has been a good way for the vilain to get away. This has been seen in litterature, movies and folklore hundreds of times. And if invisibility was such a bad thing why the hell would there be a need for the Detect/see invisible spell? (And no it would not be so that you don't attack with disadvantage.)

 

[SkidAce]

It does specify invisibility. Not stealthy characters/opponents. A stealthy character is still stealthy even if he is invisible. If the creature is stealthy and hidden, Feral Sense won't trigger. Same for blind sense.

I believe we see things similarly.

I was originally speaking to the point that an invisible character who had indeed taken the hide action, would still be detected by those with the abilities listed, no matter how good their stealth roll was.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you're automatically aware of the locations of non-hidden creatures, even if they're invisible, what is the purpose of the following abilities?

As written, Blindsense would let you notice people on the other side of doors, in addition to invisible creatures that may-or-may-not be attempting to hide. It would also probably get around some of the mitigating circumstances, like loud drums, that would otherwise prevent you from hearing an invisible creature.

As written, Feral Senses is not an ability that would really do much. It's probably just poor wording, and should let you pinpoint creatures that would otherwise be hidden from you, but as it stands it just might prevent a creature that you are already aware of from becoming hidden. It would probably also help bypass some mitigating circumstances, like Blindsense does.

I get the sense that the hiding rules had gone through several iterations, and some things might have slipped through the cracks. It would be helpful if they had actually defined the hidden condition at any point.

 

[Helldritch]

I believe we see things similarly.

I was originally speaking to the point that an invisible character who had indeed taken the hide action, would still be detected by those with the abilities listed, no matter how good their stealth roll was.

I don't think so.

3 cases are possible for Feral Sense (If opponent is within range).
A) Invisible non stealthy opponent. Feral sense will trigger. The invisible opponent is in deep s**t.
B) Invisible stealthy opponent. Feral sense trigger but you still have to make a perception check to know the exact location of the opponent.
C) Stealthy opponent. Tough luck. Feral sense do not trigger. Make a perception check.

For Blind Sense all the above cases. If within 10'. Tough luck for the stealthy/invisible opponent. He's toast. Otherwise, roll perception check...

But if you take the rule RAW... no need to worry. You know where is the invisible one at all time... (/sarcasm off)

 

[Samir]

As written, Blindsense would let you notice people on the other side of doors, in addition to invisible creatures that may-or-may-not be attempting to hide. It would also probably get around some of the mitigating circumstances, like loud drums, that would otherwise prevent you from hearing an invisible creature.

As written, Feral Senses is not an ability that would really do much. It's probably just poor wording, and should let you pinpoint creatures that would otherwise be hidden from you, but as it stands it just might prevent a creature that you are already aware of from becoming hidden. It would probably also help bypass some mitigating circumstances, like Blindsense does.

I get the sense that the hiding rules had gone through several iterations, and some things might have slipped through the cracks. It would be helpful if they had actually defined the hidden condition at any point.

There are two options here, based on the two possible readings of "can be detected" in the invisibility rules.

Option 1: "can be detected" means "is automatically detected", and the quoted part of Feral Senses does nothing.

Option 2: "can be detected" means "is sometimes detected", and the quoted part of Feral Senses provides a tangible benefit.

Based on that, which option do you think is more likely to be the correct reading?

 

[Oofta]

I get the sense that the hiding rules had gone through several iterations, and some things might have slipped through the cracks. It would be helpful if they had actually defined the hidden condition at any point.

There is no "hidden condition". There is an option to not be noticed by a creature by using an opposed skill check of stealth vs (passive) perception.

I'm perfectly OK with the rules as they are, but then again I'm comfortable with a little ambiguity so that a DM can tailor the game to their group and play style.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There are two options here, based on the two possible readings of "can be detected" in the invisibility rules.

Option 1: "can be detected" means "is automatically detected", and the quoted part of Feral Senses does nothing.

Option 2: "can be detected" means "is sometimes detected", and the quoted part of Feral Senses provides a tangible benefit.

Based on that, which option do you think is more likely to be the correct reading?

I'm not getting that those are the two possible readings. I'm getting Option 1.5: "can be detected" means "is usually detected, barring outside factors", and the quoted part of Feral Senses addresses those outside factors.