D&D (2024) Weird invisibility loophole saves Hiding but ruins the spell: Lose the Condition's benefits without losing the Condition

[Hussar]

Ahhh, is it that time of year again? When we start arguing about the definition of the word, "the"?

Hey, you folks INSISTED that 5e D&D MUST use natural language. That they absolutely must not use keywords.

You all got what you asked for. It's not poorly written. It's written in natural language which means you have to read it as such.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ahhh, is it that time of year again? When we start arguing about the definition of the word, "the"?

It's weird.

The Rules expressly give the DM power to adjudicate when 'circumstances are appropriate for hiding' (not that a DM needed that power, because he or she has it already with the power to adjudicate literally everything in the game).

Apparently that express power to adjudicate when 'circumstances are appropriate for hiding', actually limits DM adjudication, because now the DM 'cant make a ruling on when a creature can be found'.

Apply common sense here people! Clearly they're the same thing.

You emerge from your hiding spot, in full view of the enemy, and the circumstances are no longer appropriate for hiding for you, and you are no longer hidden.

But hey. Lets go with an absurdist interpretation instead.

 

[Hussar]

Ah, but, @Flamestrike, you're not doing it right.

The goal here is to prove that WotC is incompetent and 5e 2024 is a horrible mess and we should all not touch it to punish WotC for whatever sins you care to think of. This has nothing whatsoever to do with actually, honestly, critiquing how things are written. After all, as I said, 5e is written in natural language. That was absolutely insisted on.

So, instead of approaching 5e in the manner in which it's written, we're instead going to do a 180 and insist on iron clad rules and then call the naturally written rules poorly written because they don't work when you read them as technical langauge.

It's a really neat trap. I guess it's 2007 all over again.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ah, but, @Flamestrike, you're not doing it right.

The goal here is to prove that WotC is incompetent and 5e 2024 is a horrible mess and we should all not touch it to punish WotC for whatever sins you care to think of.

Im not a huge fan of the new Hiding rules (the previous ones worked just fine IMG).

Granting the 'invisible condition' is weird, and it doesn't play nice with being invisible (for example, you cant gain the same condition twice so hiding while invisible now no longer does anything, whereas before 'hiding' via the action was generally required if you want to actually become hidden while you were invisible)

Wizards is clearly trying to strike a balance here with the new rules written in a way to enable both the 'Push the Stealth button and vanish' gamers (coming from video games generally) and more conventional table top gamers (where context is important) a way to use the Hiding rules to support each interpretation.

The end result is going to be both sides furiously arguing with each other about what the rules really allow and what they dont.

Of course, the correct answer is 'both sides are correct, depending on who their DM is'.

 

[Argyle King]

If a creature climbs into an open sarcophagus and Hides (gaining the invisible condition), all you need to do is walk over to the sarcophagus and look in.

An enemy has now found you, and you lose the invisible condition.

That's the common sense interpretation.

Yes I know the 'but you cant see the invisible creature when you look in, because they're invisible' argument, but that's an absurd interpretation, and if we acknowledge that its absurd, then its equally the wrong interpretation.

If you want to cling to the absurd interpretation check out what it allows:

With the absurd interpretation, a creature can Hide in a closed toilet stall at a packed Football match (gaining the invisible condition) and then can quietly move out of the toilet stall, past scores of people in the restroom, and walk from there out onto the football pitch in front of 100,000 spectators, quietly juggling 8 bright red balls, and remain hidden (and invisible) while so doing.

With the common sense interpretation, as soon as our hidden football fan opens the toilet stall door and the scores of people in the restroom look in, he's no longer invisible.

Pick an interpretation. I know which one I'm going with.

Common sense would say that hiding wouldn't grant invisibility.

 

[Flamestrike]

Common sense would say that hiding wouldn't grant invisibility.

It doesn't. It grants the condition. They're not necessarily the same thing.

It was done deliberately IMO to appease the 'Mash the Stealth button' gaming tables coming from BG3 and similar CRPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

Ahhh, is it that time of year again? When we start arguing about the definition of the word, "the"?

Hey, you folks INSISTED that 5e D&D MUST use natural language. That they absolutely must not use keywords.

You all got what you asked for. It's not poorly written. It's written in natural language which means you have to read it as such.

Except the problem here is that they are using keywords; to wit, "invisibile" and-or "hidden". They then go on to make a complete mess of it, using one to define the other where they should be completely separate things with independent definitions and using different rules.

 

[Lanefan]

It's weird.

The Rules expressly give the DM power to adjudicate when 'circumstances are appropriate for hiding' (not that a DM needed that power, because he or she has it already with the power to adjudicate literally everything in the game).

Apparently that express power to adjudicate when 'circumstances are appropriate for hiding', actually limits DM adjudication, because now the DM 'cant make a ruling on when a creature can be found'.

Which would be the case had they not given a hidden creature the "invisible" condition. But they did, and because "invisible" has a real-world meaning that everybody is familiar with (to wit; that you can't be seen even if you're right in front of the viewer) this opens the door wide for all sorts of bizarre interpretations from those who put RAW ahead of everything including common sense (and if you've never met any of those people, count yer blessings!).

You emerge from your hiding spot, in full view of the enemy, and the circumstances are no longer appropriate for hiding for you, and you are no longer hidden.

But hey. Lets go with an absurdist interpretation instead.

That's just it: the interpretation is absurd because the wording is absurd. Fix the latter and the former goes away; and with 50 years of design experience and a lengthy playtest, fixing the latter should not be something the DM has to do.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't. It grants the condition. They're not necessarily the same thing.

That's just it: many (probably most) people assume they are the same thing, and proceed accordingly.

It was done deliberately IMO to appease the 'Mash the Stealth button' gaming tables coming from BG3 and similar CRPGs.

Can't speak to this side of things as I haven't played a CRPG (other than the most basic of rogue-likes) since the 1990s.

 

[Flamestrike]

Which would be the case had they not given a hidden creature the "invisible" condition. But they did, and because "invisible" has a real-world meaning that everybody is familiar with (to wit; that you can't be seen even if you're right in front of the viewer) this opens the door wide for all sorts of bizarre interpretations from those who put RAW ahead of everything including common sense (and if you've never met any of those people, count yer blessings!).

Which was the point.

They want people who play games where 'I hit the stealth button and vanish! is a thing to have that option.

They also wanted to cater to people who are prepared to use common sense.

That's just it: the interpretation is absurd because the wording is absurd. Fix the latter and the former goes away; and with 50 years of design experience and a lengthy playtest, fixing the latter should not be something the DM has to do.

IMO it was deliberately vague.

They're trying to cater to two very different playing styles with a single rule, that is supposed to cover every possible circumstances where a thing is 'hidden'.

For the people who want 'I hit the stealth button and dissapear' they can have that interpretation.

For the people who prefer common sense 'the DM determines when circumstances are OK for hiding' they can go the other way.