Search results

Well, as I've said a couple of times, while Hide and Invisibility both grant the Invisible condition, they both impose different methods of losing it which change how they work to some extent. Much like how you might get the Poisoned condition from being bitten by a snake or from a demon cursing...

And it does require some rewiring of your brain. Multiple people in this thread have challenged me on saying that the Invisible condition says nothing about not actually being visible in the way that most of us understand it, as if I personally don't know what the word means. This isn't coming...

Yeah, everyone is bouncing off that "you have the Invisible condition" bit in the Hide action, and struggling to come back from that. Look back at my posts in this thread: I've had to reiterate that, in rules terms, "Invisible" doesn't mean "invisible" time and time again. It all works, it just...

I just wish they'd called the Invisible condition Concealed or something. That's all this is: semantic confusion. The rules work fine if you don't get hung up on the fact that Invisible doesn't mean what you think it means based on how things have worked in the past.

It isn't the same condition - the Invisible condition granted by the Hide action is contingent on other factors, such as not making noise. So no, I would not necessarily rule it the same way because it's a different situation.

It has a specific RAW effect. The Invisible condition in the 2024 rules, I mean. It does four things, two of which affect attacks, one of which affects targetting with spells and other effects, one of which affects Initiative rolls. Those things don't necessarily come up in play while exploring...

Right. So a player takes the Hide action while we're exploring a dungeon and running things in abstract time. That's fine. Never said it wasn't. But what that means - what effect gaining the Invisible condition has, by these rules - is up to me as DM to determine, because Invisible means...

No, because if there was no cover available, they might need to cast it to be able to sneak by at all. Or it would affect the required behaviour while sneaking: the Invisibility spell lets you maintain the Invisible condition even when you make a sound louder than a whisper, so a character could...

D&D switches game modes all the time. Lots of actions work differently when they're taken in different modes of play. That's not new, nor does it contradict any rules being discussed here.

Citation needed. Invisible grants you advantage on your attack rolls, disadvantage on attack rolls that target you, and you're not eligible to be targeted by effects requiring line of sight. That's it. It's a general set of rules that covers all kinds of situations where you aren't visible.

I did explain why I'd rule it in a way consistent with the RAW in the rest of the post. Invisibility only grants combat-based effects; it's not so much that you'd lose the condition, it's that the condition doesn't matter if all you're doing is wandering around not fighting anyone.

Did I say otherwise? What I said was I'd rule based on the situation, so if you can convince me that you're not making a sound louder than a whisper and no one is Searching as we abstract you sneaking through an entire fortress or whatever, then I'll let the Invisibility ride. But that would be...

I mean, that's probably how I'd rule it too, but people are coming up with bizarre edge cases based on selectively applying RAW. Technically, you still have the Invisible condition while you're causing mischief in plain sight (silently, somehow) but no one is attacking anyone else. In that case...

Okay? Then I'll rule based on the situation and the fiction. If you're sneaking through a guarded area, we'll make some Dexterity (Stealth) checks. If you want to do something that will draw attention to yourself, we'll discuss what's happening and whether the Invisible condition continues to...

No, they can't perfectly see you - you have the Invisible condition, and you only lose that in certain situations from the Invisibility spell, which differ from those required for the Hide action. How you interpret that in the fiction is up to you, but it seems to me that Hiding puts far more...

The rules for the Invisible condition don't say anything about a creature being unaware of your existence. If you stand in front of a creature, even with the Invisible condition, the DM can rule they know you're there based on the game's fiction. They will still have disadvantage to hit you, but...

And I'm going to tell them what I just told you. Sorry, I thought that was clear. "Yeah, those rules are really for round-by-round combat situations. I was going to play this in a slightly more abstract way because otherwise we'll be here all day counting every space on the map! Just like when...

Finding you ends the Invisible condition on you (if you took the Hide action). It doesn't have any bearing on whether a given creature is aware of you or not. That's a DM judgement call based on the fiction of the game. So not every single person (enemy or otherwise) needs to be making a...

Why would I say that? I'd just run that action differently if we were playing a scenario where the PC didn't intend to engage in any combat. If they want to go turn by turn and we track whether they're Invisible or not for every 6 second segment of time based on how much noise I think they're...

If you're not attacking, why are we even using the combat rules? Let's make a check and move on.