mellored
Legend
Where does it say that?This part is incorrect. First if you're in line of sight, you lose invisibility.
And wouldn't that make the invisibility spell pretty pointless?
Where does it say that?This part is incorrect. First if you're in line of sight, you lose invisibility.
yeah considering the passage goes out of its way later to specifically list the things that would break your hiding, and that does not include the cover/obscurement..... I cannot accept the interpretation that the "while" means you have to stay in those conditions to maintain stealth.The “while” here refers to the conditions you must be under while making the check, not in order to remain hidden once the check has been made and succeeded.
It doesn't say that. If you were meant to lose invisibility when you leave cover, it would say so. There's no "secret" rules in d&d - things do what they say they do and don't do what they don't say they do.Where does it say that?
And wouldn't that make the invisibility spell pretty pointless?
Yeah, now that it’s been pointed out, I do think that’s probably the correct interpretation of the text, but good lord is it poorly worded if that’s the intent.I think thats the goal: You have to roll at least a 15, even if the monster you're hiding from has a super low Passive perception (like say, 8). It’s to set a Floor.
Not really true, lots and lots of things in dnd are unspecified and just assumed. For example, the rules for underwater combat or lakes or bodies of water never specify that I get wet, and stay wet when I leave the water. But I doubt a single person here would try to argue that a character leaves the water and is completely dry.There's no "secret" rules in d&d - things do what they say they do and don't do what they don't say they do.
yeah the fact that they kept a sidebar for passive perception when it should be a core part of the stealth rules is a bit ludicrous to me.Yeah, now that it’s been pointed out, I do think that’s probably the correct interpretation of the text, but good lord is it poorly worded if that’s the intent.
That's not what I'm referring to. I am specifically referencing a statement from Jeremy Crawford:Not really true, lots and lots of things in dnd are unspecified and just assumed. For example, the rules for underwater combat or lakes or bodies of water never specify that I get wet, and stay wet when I leave the water. But I doubt a single person here would try to argue that a character leaves the water and is completely dry.
Wow, right you are. Why the hell is the condition even called “invisible” if being seen negates its benefits? Being impossible to see (except with magic) should be the primary if not sole benefit of being invisible. This confusion could have easily been avoided by just changing the condition’s name to “hidden.”Not sure I want to rip this can of worms further open, but what the heck.
It's worth taking another look at the Invisible condition:
![]()
Note that the only thing Invisible gives you unconditionally is advantage on Initiative checks. The other two benefits only occur unless "the creature can somehow see you".
If you walk up to a guard in plain sight, you may be gaining the benefit of a condition called "invisible", but the guard can definitely somehow see you.