D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[DavyGreenwind]

Tremorsense (and other special senses) aren't in question.

How do you see something that has the "Invisible condition" with normal sight?

In fact, the text of the Invisible condition specify that "You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you." Also, "Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature."

Weirdly enough, then, the Invisible condition is phrased in a way where you can lose most of the benefits of the condition (by being seen), without losing the condition itself!

It's poor design, but does not require absurd results.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is a reversal of cause and effect. New D&D "Invisible" does not mean "cannot be seen." It only means "unseen." Too see something invisible means it is no longer invisible. In fact, the text of the Invisible condition even contemplates something with the Invisible condition being seen.

It is you who are reversing the cause and effect. How can "be seen" that would drop the invisibility occur before the invisibility is dropped?

In fact, the text of the Invisible condition specify that "You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you." Also, "Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature."

Weirdly enough, then, the Invisible condition is phrased in a way where you can lose most of the benefits of the condition (by being seen), without losing the condition itself!

It's poor design, but does not require absurd results.

I mean taken literally nothing in the invisibility condition states that you cannot be seen with normal vision, so the last two bullet points of it actually do nothing. But I don't think this is how people assume the invisibility spell to work.

 

[Argyle King]

In fact, the text of the Invisible condition specify that "You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you." Also, "Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don't gain this benefit against that creature."

Weirdly enough, then, the Invisible condition is phrased in a way where you can lose most of the benefits of the condition (by being seen), without losing the condition itself!

It's poor design, but does not require absurd results.

If they can "somehow see you" would cover things like scent, tremorsense, and possibly J.J. Abrams writing the third part of your campaign.

Can you somehow see invisible creatures?

I understand what you mean.
I agree that, as written, results that I feel would be absurd occur.

However, how it is written does not produce clear results. As said earlier, I feel that's especially true given that the edition of the game that appears to be influencing how it is written had similar situations.

 

[Argyle King]

The Invisible condition is simply the mechanical benefits from being unseen.

How one gains and maintains the condition is explained elsewhere.

I agree that there are criteria for how the Invisible condition is gained or lost.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

It is you who are reversing the cause and effect. How can "be seen" that would drop the invisibility occur before the invisibility is dropped?

There's nothing in the text of the Invisibility condition that says you cannot be seen.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

There's nothing in the text of the Invisibility condition that says you cannot be seen.

Nor is there in the spell Invisibility!

 

[Argyle King]

There's nothing in the text of the Invisibility condition that says you cannot be seen.

That's true.

What do you posit would be the benefit of casting a spell that grants the Invisible condition?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's nothing in the text of the Invisibility condition that says you cannot be seen.

OK. So two last bullet points of invisibily condition do nothing? You cast invisibility spell on you, but enemies can target you with spells and attack you without disadvantage as they actually can see you?

Because yes, I agree that this is technically what's written in the rules, but is also is an absurd result thus the rules are still terrible.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

That's true.

What do you posit would be the benefit of casting a spell that grants the Invisible condition?

THAT is actually, in my opinion, the greater problem presented by the 2024 rules. Hidden actually makes more sense than the spell does. I would home rule that the Invisibility granted by the spell is your typical fantasy invisibility, aka translucent. I would add text to the spell that says, "a creature using normal vision cannot perceive you," or something like that.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

OK. So two last bullet points of invisibily condition do nothing? You cast invisibility spell on you, but enemies can target you with spells and attack you without disadvantage as they actually can see you?

Because yes, I agree that this is technically what's written in the rules, but is also is an absurd result thus the rules are still terrible.

I actually agree--I think the Invisibility spell is the greater problem RAW than the Hide rules