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

[Oofta]

OK, try parsing these:

The room is misty but characters looking south can see a dim shape, possibly a statue.

The room is misty but characters looking south may see a dim shape, possibly a statue.

"Can" implies certainty - you look, you can see it. "May" implies uncertainty - you look, you may or may not see it; which is what I'm after.

And even then, "can" in the first instance above should be replaced by "will" to make it even more clear.

Lan-"is 'can' the new four-letter word in design?"-efan

Except "can" does not imply certainty. There isn't much of the horse left to beat, but saying that a rectangle can be a square does not imply that all rectangles are squares.

IMHO, if you have this much of an issue with parsing the word "can" you are over-thinking it. The text in the PHB is not meant to be read like a legal document.

From a logic perspective (ignoring the rules for a moment) I agree that if someone makes enough sound and they are close enough you may know their position.

But I don't care if you're blowing a bugle, if you are 100 yards away if I can't see you I won't know your exact position. I may know your approximate location, and in most circumstances I will know your direction.

Imagine another scenario. You're alone and blindfolded in a gymnasium. Someone enters the gymnasium. You may have a decent idea of where they are by hearing a door open and hearing footsteps. But now assume there's a basketball game. Odds of hearing someone over the noise unless they're really close is minimal. Add a cheering crowd, or make it an open basketball court in the middle of a noisy city? Not gonna happen.

As far as the rules, I don't see an explicit rule that states that the game would not work the same as the real world. Rectangles aren't always squares simply because rectangles can be squares and you don't always detect someone's location simply because they can be detected based on noise they make.

 

[Oofta]

OK, try parsing these:

The room is misty but characters looking south can see a dim shape, possibly a statue.

...

Lan-"is 'can' the new four-letter word in design?"-efan

I was thinking about this, and I think the issue is the sentence structure.

You are saying that "...can see a dim..." is the same as "The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves."

You are changing the phrase "can be" to "can". That's a significant difference. A better comparison would be to the phrase (ignoring tense)

"The room is misty but characters looking south you see a dim shape, it could be a statue."

My english teacher would be disappointed that I don't remember my grammar diagramming so I could explain it better.

If you can think of a phrase that uses "can" and "be" together to declare certainty feel free to post it. In the meantime

A rectangle can be a square.
In D&D you can be a dwarf.
People that post to this forum can be obtuse.

All phrases that more closely match "location can be detected".

 

[Tony Vargas]

As far as the rules, I don't see an explicit rule that states that the game would not work the same as the real world.

Obviously, there are a LOT of rules in D&D that result in the game world not working the same as the real world. Not just the magic-involved ones, either. Hit points and armor class are particularly glaring examples. Some of it's because the game is a game and not a simulation. And, of course, some of it is because the kind of worlds the game models aren't the real world, at all.

In the former case, rules that are presumably about the game aspect and not the modeling a world aspect, the DM can always tweak them towards the latter in whatever way he wants. But he needn't assume he'll be tweaking them /towards/ the way things work in the real world. The world the campaign is set in would presumably be the better target.

Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

If enemies know where you are standing unless you use the first alternative, the other two do not do what they say they do.

The first alternative isn't "taking the Hide Action." Of course 'hiding' could mean taking the hide action, or it could mean standing behind cover/concealment or burying yourself in a pile of refuse - peril of natural language.

So you could interpret hiding in your quote to just mean hiding, and 'try' to suggest that some effort (like the Hide action) is required and some risk of failure implied in all three cases. Or, you could interpret hiding as 'taking the Hide Action' and the other two as granting the same benefit as the hide action, without any roll required... then interpret 'try' as indicating, perhaps, a chance of failure due to active perception checks in the second two cases.

Always room for interpretation.

 

[Oofta]

The first alternative isn't "taking the Hide Action," of course 'hiding' could mean taking the hide action, or it could mean standing behind cover/concealment or burying yourself in a pile of refuse - peril of natural language.

So you could interpret hiding in your quote to just mean hiding, and 'try' to suggest that some effort (like the Hide action) is required and some risk of failure implied in all three cases. Or, you could interpret hiding as 'taking the Hide Action' and the other two as granting the same benefit as the hide action, without any roll required... then interpret 'try' as indicating, perhaps, a chance of failure due to active perception checks in the second two cases.

Always room for interpretation.

Well obviously the combatants couldn't be hiding. Hide is an action and you can't take actions outside of combat! Wait, that means you could never be surprised! These rules are irredeemably broken!

 

[ThePolarBear]

No, the Combat rules offer the Hide Action as a way to get the benefits under "Unseen Attackers and Targets." Nowhere in the book is it written that masking your location requires the hide action.

In fact, under Unseen Attackers and Targets, the book provides three distinct options for escaping detection:

If enemies know where you are standing unless you use the first alternative, the other two do not do what they say they do.

I honestly do not want to put myself into this discussion any more than what i already have, but i have to ask for clarity: What do you mean with "escaping detection"? I know that passage of the PHB, what do you read in it? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Lanefan]

I was thinking about this, and I think the issue is the sentence structure.

You are saying that "...can see a dim..." is the same as "The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves."

Seeking consistency in the use of the word "can"; and more and more seeking that it not be used at all but instead be replaced by "will", "may", "might", or whatever other word gives the right amount of (un)certainty for the situation.

You are changing the phrase "can be" to "can". That's a significant difference. A better comparison would be to the phrase (ignoring tense)

"The room is misty but characters looking south you see a dim shape, it could be a statue."

If this is to replace the first version (the 'can' version, not the 'may'), it's fine. I was simply throwing together an off-the-cuff example of where 'can' and 'may' parse quite differently; to thus point out that where the rules substitute 'can' for 'may' they are producing unintended results.

If you can think of a phrase that uses "can" and "be" together to declare certainty feel free to post it. In the meantime

A rectangle can be a square.
In D&D you can be a dwarf.
People that post to this forum can be obtuse.

All phrases that more closely match "location can be detected".

And in all of these cases 'may' is a flat-out better choice of word. 'Might' works too.

A silly quibble, I know, but it's little things like this that sometimes cause headaches; and it seems to be cropping up in other threads beyond just this one. (long rest, I'm looking at you)

Lan-"people that post to this forum can be obtuse: guilty as charged, y'r honour"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Isn't that the point of ruling over rules though? DM's are free to choose their own version that makes their table happy.

Can is defined as having the ability to or having the possibility of. The two versions of invisibility that we see here reflects that.

 

[Plaguescarred]

There's the rules as clear or not as we think they are and come to understand and run them, and there's the developper's take on this subject. Jeremy Crawford said being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position on twitter https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/536686682213744642?ref_src=twsrc^tfw


@wax_eagle can you target a creature who is obscured but not hidden? More precisely, is hidden the only way to conceal position?
@JeremyECrawford Being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position. The DM may decide that other methods can also conceal it.


Personally i don't run being unseen by being either invisible, blinded or in darkness to automatically make your location unknown because a part from having advantage/disadvantage to attack or be attacked - which they already have being unseen, concealing your location is the only other benefit hidden grant and giving it automatically thus greatly devalue Hiding IMHO. I find better to make eligible to try to hide instead.

Also it's attacking while hidden and not invisible, that you give away your location so if invisible concealed your location without being hidden it could freely attack without giving it away.

Unseen Attackers & Targets: If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—whenyou make an attack, you give away your location when theattack hits or misses


Yan
D&D Playtester.

 

[Plaguescarred]

The point being made is that being detected while invisible isn't automatic, it's at the DM's discretion. Since "usually" and "outside factors" are in the DM's purview and the extent of those will vary game to game, I think we're on the same page.

If it's not automatically not detected, being invisible provides no general instruction on how to generate this difficulty or how to detect it like a Stealth check does. DM must come up with one (Check roll, DC etc..)

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?

Funny you ask I don't know, nor did Jeremy Crawford answered clearly when i asked him on twitter https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/716028724454367232?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

@wax_eagle can you target a creature who is obscured but not hidden? More precisely, is hidden the only way to conceal position?
@JeremyECrawford Being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position. The DM may decide that other methods can also conceal it.
@Plaguescarred Then could it be possible that Feral Sense invisible creature location awareness is pointless if invisible doesnt conceal?
@JeremyECrawford Feral Senses lets you detect an invisible creature within 30 feet of you that isn't hidden—no effort required.
@Plaguescarred But you normally can do so already if it isn't hidden no?

 

[Wepwawet]

I think "can" deserves its own thread: Playing 5e D&D wrong or broken word "CAN"?