D&D 5E Invisibility and Perception

[Bleys Icefalcon]

It almost reads like the designers took a look at invisibility and decided that it was simply too advantageuos, and effectively removed it from the game (at least as anything any of us have had experience with). What is in the game, certainly isn't invisibility. I'm not sure what we should call it. Advantaged Possible Obscurement? Simple mortal perception may allow a person to see footprints, or possibly smell the heathen as he walks by, or feel a caress of air as the bandit passes... but should not, in any way allow a person to see an invisibile person. It's magic. They're invisible. What we have in 5e, is anything but what most versions of our game, or almost all fantasy writers have ever dreamed up when it comes to invisibility.

 

[77IM]

What you are missing is that Perception has more to do with hearing and noticing other clues than with seeing the other person directly.

Invisibility makes it so that you can't be seen, just like an opaque wall makes it so you can't be seen. In both cases, an opponent can still try to perceive your location by hearing you or noticing how you affect the world around you. They might fail (in fact, most monster stat blocks have terrible passive perception, so they'll probably fail), but they might succeed, and your relative skill levels determine how likely that is.

Next are you going to complain that they nerfed opaque walls?

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Now, on to opaque walls.

First let's clarify what we are talking about. And clearly, that's the level of transparency vs. the amount of filter - that element that gives it (the opaque wall) it's diffused character, when attempting to look through them. There is a long history of glass blowers, going all the way to roman kiln fired, mold blown glass. Even then they would add elements; types of metal, sand and even soil to cause an obscurement within the glass, to bar what could be seen through it, and to what detail.

From a game play element, opaque walls should provide an element of cover, or the 'opaque' effect may be adjudicated by the DM to not so much impact the difficulty of a perception score of a person trying to peer through, but the amount of detail one can perceive.

Now, let's look at an invisible person, hiding behind an opaque wall. As written 5e, he gains advantage in what we used to call "hiding in plain sight." Again, an argument could be made that if the person using 5e invisibility, were doing so behind our opaque wall, then the target diff. for successfully perceiving him could (should is too forceful of a word around these parts) be adjudicated, once again by the DM.

So, no. I don't have any particular issues with opaque walls.

 

[wedgeski]

I'm dissatisfied with 5E's implementation of invisibility as well, but the fact is, if you're invisible, you can't be seen. In the vast majority of common sense, DM-adjudicated scenarios, that's going to be a huge benefit.

I would feel like bonking on the head any DM who tried to tell me that, whilst I was invisible, I hadn't technically tried to hide yet, so there was no impact on someone shooting at me.

 

[jayoungr]

I've just noticed something.

The Invisibility spell (2nd-level illusion) allows a creature you touch to become invisible for up to 1 hour. If cast at 3rd level or higher, you can add extra targets.

Then there's a Greater Invisibility spell (4th-level illusion) which allows you or a creature you touch to be invisible for up to 1 minute.

Both are concentration spells. Both have a range of touch. The description of touch spells on p. 202 says that you may target yourself with one.

So...isn't Invisibility a better spell than Greater Invisibility? What's up with that?? Could they perhaps originally have intended for Greater Invisibility to allow concealment to more senses than just sight?? There is some precedent for being invisible and inaudible in a roll on the Wild Magic table for sorcerers...

 

[77IM]

Invisibility ends if you make an attack or cast a spell. Greater invisibility has no such restriction.

 

[iserith]

I would feel like bonking on the head any DM who tried to tell me that, whilst I was invisible, I hadn't technically tried to hide yet, so there was no impact on someone shooting at me.

But there is - the attacker gets disadvantage on the attack roll.

 

[epithet]

Invisibility is dropped if you attack or cast a spell.

Greater invisibility allows you to attack or cast a spell and remain invisible.

Edit: As mentioned a couple of posts above.

 

[jayoungr]

Ah, missed that bit about greater invisibility allowing you to attack while invisible. The higher spell level, short duration, and lack of additional targets suggests to me that the game designers think this is huge, but I'm not really seeing why, since you still won't be "hidden." Maybe I need to see this at the table.

 

[Aenorgreen]

Greater Invisibility is amazing on a rogue. They can attack with backstab, move away without an OA, and hide as their bonus action.