D&D 5E Invisibility and Perception

[Ovinomancer]

The obvious flaw in game built around exceptions, while also trying to stay rules-light, is that you get weird interactions when you try to combine racial abilities with magic abilities. The fact that an ability allowing you to hide combines better with an ability that gives you advantage on hiding, rather than with another ability that allows you to hide, is very similar to the numerous instance where two sources of Advantage don't stack with each other but either one would stack with a mere +1 bonus.

Except, and here's the weird, someone hiding behind a tree with an elven cloak is strictly better at hiding than someone who is invisible and hiding behind a similar tree. Cloak guy gets advantage, invisible guy doesn't.

Now, granted, cloak guy in the middle of a stone room is screwed -- no chance at hiding, while the invisible guy still gets to hide, but it is momentarily head scratching to realize that camouflage offers a better benefit to invisibility in some situations.

 

[fjw70]

Except, and here's the weird, someone hiding behind a tree with an elven cloak is strictly better at hiding than someone who is invisible and hiding behind a similar tree. Cloak guy gets advantage, invisible guy doesn't.

Now, granted, cloak guy in the middle of a stone room is screwed -- no chance at hiding, while the invisible guy still gets to hide, but it is momentarily head scratching to realize that camouflage offers a better benefit to invisibility in some situations.

You have to use some common sense or else the rule books would be massive tomes to cover every possible integration of abilities, items, and rules.

Being invisible really doesn't help much when hiding behind a tree, and you could rule that the cloak doesn't help either since the cloak only effects sight and if you have an opaque barrier between the characters then there is no sight to obscure.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You have to use some common sense or else the rule books would be massive tomes to cover every possible integration of abilities, items, and rules.

Being invisible really doesn't help much when hiding behind a tree, and you could rule that the cloak doesn't help either since the cloak only effects sight and if you have an opaque barrier between the characters then there is no sight to obscure.

Okay, I see that the tree might be confusing, so let's swap out all instances of 'behind a tree' with 'your choice of half cover' and redo.

 

[fjw70]

Okay, I see that the tree might be confusing, so let's swap out all instances of 'behind a tree' with 'your choice of half cover' and redo.

Still not too weird. When hiding in a forest an invisible character can interact t with the environment to give away his position while a magic cloak could hide those interactions.

I am sure there is an example that may be weird but a little common sense can handle it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Still not too weird. When hiding in a forest an invisible character can interact t with the environment to give away his position while a magic cloak could hide those interactions.

I am sure there is an example that may be weird but a little common sense can handle it.

Hiding behind a waist high cardboard box, in the middle of an otherwise empty and brightly lit stone room, an elven cloaked person is strictly better at hiding than an invisible one.

Sheesh, take the meaning and stop looking for places that you can justify it if you squint.

 

[jayoungr]

I guess invisibility is a lot weaker in 5E than I thought it was. If I understand correctly, it takes two rounds for anyone to actually disappear: the first round's action is casting the spell, and the second round's action is hiding. They do no damage and eat attacks (albeit at disadvantage) for the first round. Seems like a very steep price. It seems to me that the invisible person should still be able to roll stealth vs perception to move without being noticed during the round when they go invisible.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Good Lord! Note, to self: Go home after class tonight. Read the 5e description of the spell Invisibility. Take a black Permanent marker and in bold letters write across the text of this spell USE EARLIER ADDITION. What does the freaking FLY spell say? Roll with advantage and you "think" you can fly? Jumping Jehosiphat - INVISIBILITY is INVISIBILITY, WT(BLEEP) is this roll with advantage to "try" to hide horse-vomit. I find I am starting to get annoyed with some of the minutiae I am learning of 5e.

OK, I looked it up. In answer to the OP, if the fighter rolls a high enough perception, the 5e Invisibility spell is a completely wasted spell slot.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess invisibility is a lot weaker in 5E than I thought it was. If I understand correctly, it takes two rounds for anyone to actually disappear: the first round's action is casting the spell, and the second round's action is hiding. They do no damage and eat attacks (albeit at disadvantage) for the first round. Seems like a very steep price. It seems to me that the invisible person should still be able to roll stealth vs perception to move without being noticed during the round when they go invisible.

Yup, if you choose to rule it that way. It doesn't say, and if you go with assuming that regular rules apply with only the explicit additions called out in the invisibility effect, you get that hot mess you posted above. I've chosen to rule that, if invisible, you're automatically hiding with advantage. Solves the problems quite nicely. Players can make perception checks as they wish to attempt to locate your position, but you get advantage on your stealth checks.

Realize, though, that this still most likely screws the wizards, who's unlikely to have a high DEX and training in stealth, especially if he's being hunted by a party. Parties tend to have at least one high perception member, and each of them get the chance to roll well against the wizard. But it's better than the hot mess, and I reserve the right to improve it. I just need to be careful to remember that anything that works on the DM's side of the screen should work on the player's side as well. I don't want invisibility to equal an 'I win' button without some serious investment.

Good Lord! Note, to self: Go home after class tonight. Read the 5e description of the spell Invisibility. Take a black Permanent marker and in bold letters write across the text of this spell USE EARLIER ADDITION. What does the freaking FLY spell say? Roll with advantage and you "think" you can fly? Jumping Jehosiphat - INVISIBILITY is INVISIBILITY, WTF is this roll with advntage to "try" to hide horse-vomit. I find I am starting to get annoyed with some of the minutiae I am learning of 5e.

OK, I looked it up. In answer to the OP, if the fighter rolls a high enough perception, the 5e Invisibility spell is a completely wasted spell slot.

Well, now, that's a very useful post. Do you have a newsletter?

 

[epithet]

Hiding behind a waist high cardboard box, in the middle of an otherwise empty and brightly lit stone room, an elven cloaked person is strictly better at hiding than an invisible one.

Sheesh, take the meaning and stop looking for places that you can justify it if you squint.

Only if your DM isn't doing his job.

The elven cloak just flat-out gives advantage as a rule. Invisibility relies on a DM to assess the situation and give advantage or disadvantage as appropriate, as rulings based on circumstances. Most of the time you should have advantage to hide from anyone who can't see you, and most of the time you're at a disadvantage to perceive a thing that you can't see. It doesn't have to spell that out in the description of the spell for your DM to know it.

I'm starting the think that 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e have left terrible psychic scars on the roleplaying community by spelling everything out in excruciatingly complex detail. DMs need to remember how to improvise.

 

[jayoungr]

OK, I looked it up. In answer to the OP, if the fighter rolls a high enough perception, the 5e Invisibility spell is a completely wasted spell slot.

Well, not completely wasted, as it still means any attacks made against the invisible creature are made at disadvantage. But that doesn't seem like a great deal of benefit.