D&D (2024) Stealth Errata

[KYRON45]

And the thing about the English language is that words have fuzzy definitions. “Conditions aren’t appropriate for hiding” doesn’t necessarily mean someone or something can’t be hidden there, especially if they/it initially hid under different conditions.

The thing about the English language is that there will always be people who make things mean what they want.

 

[KYRON45]

Who cares?

I'm not going to worry about forcing the game designers to hold my hand for this. This is the most logical (at least to me) interpretation and it works quite well. End of problem as far as I'm concerned.

It warms my soul that people are arguing about the rules for hide and seek.

 

[Charlaquin]

The difference between hidden and invisible is that hidden means that no one knows your location or even if you are present at all. Invisible just means you are unseen.

Again, this is how I interpret the rules.

Sure. And what text in the rules leads you to this interpretation?

 

[Kinematics]

Well, then it means that you certainly cannot be found with vision, as hidden gives you invisibility, and invisibility means you cannot be seen.

Not strictly correct. Invisible doesn't prevent you from being "found" with vision; it only means that you cannot be seen. If I stand behind you, I'm invisible to you, but if you turn around you can see (find) me.

Standing behind you makes me "hidden" (non-glossary condition), and being hidden makes me Invisible (keyword). I cannot be seen while hidden because you aren't looking that way/don't know where to look, but that's not the same as not being able to be seen, period.


I do like the change they made in the errata. You don't use the Hide action to become Invisible. You use the Hide action to become hidden, and being hidden implicitly gives you the benefits of being Invisible (because that's part of what being hidden means).

However "hidden" is not a keyword. There is no game mechanic tied to that state; it's purely narrative. Being Invisible is a keyword, and there are certain mechanical benefits gained by having that condition.

They also changed the last paragraph so that it no longer reads "The condition ends on you", as that seemed to refer to being Invisible, since that was the only defined condition mentioned in the previous paragraphs. The intent apparently was that the "condition" being referred to was the "hidden" condition, but since that's not an actual mechanical condition, it was not obvious. Now you just stop being hidden, which then dominoes into the Invisible condition.

They should have added a Hidden (keyword) condition, even if its entire description was, "While you are Hidden, you have the Invisible condition." There's a certain DRY (don't repeat yourself) approach to the chosen design that isn't actually appropriate. In programming, DRY is taken as dogma by many, but it really shouldn't be. There are definitely times to repeat yourself, and times when an otherwise useless interface layer is appropriate.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not strictly correct. Invisible doesn't prevent you from being "found" with vision; it only means that you cannot be seen. If I stand behind you, I'm invisible to you, but if you turn around you can see (find) me.

Standing behind you makes me "hidden" (non-glossary condition), and being hidden makes me Invisible (keyword). I cannot be seen while hidden because you aren't looking that way/don't know where to look, but that's not the same as not being able to be seen, period.


I do like the change they made in the errata. You don't use the Hide action to become Invisible. You use the Hide action to become hidden, and being hidden implicitly gives you the benefits of being Invisible (because that's part of what being hidden means).

However "hidden" is not a keyword. There is no game mechanic tied to that state; it's purely narrative. Being Invisible is a keyword, and there are certain mechanical benefits gained by having that condition.

They also changed the last paragraph so that it no longer reads "The condition ends on you", as that seemed to refer to being Invisible, since that was the only defined condition mentioned in the previous paragraphs. The intent apparently was that the "condition" being referred to was the "hidden" condition, but since that's not an actual mechanical condition, it was not obvious. Now you just stop being hidden, which then dominoes into the Invisible condition.

They should have added a Hidden (keyword) condition, even if its entire description was, "While you are Hidden, you have the Invisible condition." There's a certain DRY (don't repeat yourself) approach to the chosen design that isn't actually appropriate. In programming, DRY is taken as dogma by many, but it really shouldn't be. There are definitely times to repeat yourself, and times when an otherwise useless interface layer is appropriate.

Better yet, the hidden condition itself should have just said what mechanical benefits you get from having it, since the word invisible implies that something under said condition cannot be seen, even if looked at directly.

 

[Kinematics]

Better yet, the hidden condition itself should have just said what mechanical benefits you get from having it, since the word invisible implies that something under said condition cannot be seen, even if looked at directly.

Yeah. Or at least, "the benefits of the Invisible condition", rather than the Invisible condition itself.

 

[Epic Meepo]

That is one definition of the word hiding. It is not clear from the text that it is the intended meaning, because there are other definitions of the word. This is why game rules text often defines specific technical language, because plain English is often ambiguous and ambiguity is not conducive to keeping rulests functioning as intended. I actually think from the context, it’s more likely that this phrasing is meant to refer to when the character can attempt to hide, not if they stay hidden, since there are more specific rules for determining the latter.

My statement applies to all definitions of the word "hiding," without need for context or knowledge of intent.

Per the rules, the DM determines when conditions are appropriate for X.
By definition, X = Z.
Therefore, per the rules, the DM determines when conditions are appropriate for Z.

That logic applies for any possible value of Z (or any possible definition of "hiding," if X is the word "hiding"). There is no possible value you can choose for Z where the DM doesn't determine when the conditions are appropriate for Z.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah. Or at least, "the benefits of the Invisible condition", rather than the Invisible condition itself.

That still leads to the question of if being unable to be seen when someone is looking directly at you is one of the benefits of the invisible condition. Certainly by a plain-English reading it would seem like it ought to be. And the fact that no spell that grants the condition specifies that it also makes you impossible to see when being looked at directly, in addition to the invisible condition, seems to imply that it must be one of the benefits of the condition. Otherwise such a benefit would be rather conspicuously lacking from those spells.

 

[Charlaquin]

My statement applies to all definitions of the word "hiding," without need for context or knowledge of intent.

Per the rules, the DM determines when conditions are appropriate for X.
By definition, X = Z.
Therefore, per the rules, the DM determines when conditions are appropriate for Z.

That logic applies for any possible value of Z (or any possible definition of "hiding," if X is the word "hiding"). There is no possible value you can choose for Z where the DM doesn't determine when the conditions are appropriate for Z.

You’re assuming that they meant for that single use of the word hiding to encompass all definitions of the word simultaneously? That’s a strange assumption, and certainly not a natural language reading, since that’s not how English usually works.

 

[Stalker0]

That still leads to the question of if being unable to be seen when someone is looking directly at you is one of the benefits of the invisible condition. Certainly by a plain-English reading it would seem like it ought to be.

Further enhanced by the note that while the DM determines the condition for hiding, once hiding is done there are only a specific conditions that actually remove hiding. None of them is the loss of total cover/concealment.

The theoretical one is that an enemy "finds you", but how do they find someone who is invisible and silent (because they made their stealth check).