D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[TiQuinn]

So it’s like Invisible Boy in Mystery Men. He’s only invisible when no one is looking at him.

EXACTLY!

 

[mamba]

No, becase the invisible condition ends when you can 'somehow' be seen.

no it doesn’t, that only means you get no bonus to two things you might attempt

 

[TiQuinn]

I had hoped having had to deal with this for years he would try to write clear rules, not double down on the RAW nonsense

I think we're all smarter now than to wait for an obscure podcast or tweet from him talking obliquely about RAW vs. RAI.

 

[OB1]

There is no paradox. I was just looking at your post about that and the invisible condition doesn't say, "unless they can see you" which would result in what you are arguing. It says, "Unless they can somehow see you" which means that they need some aid to normal vision to see the invisible being.

'Somehow' covers no longer being concealed If you are invisible to me because you are behind a turned over table, and then you come out from behind the table and I'm looking at you, I can see you.

 

[mamba]

Every d&d and rpg book should come with a “common sense” rule.

Common sense: Look you know what we mean. Sometimes trying to clarify that in rules can be a tad muddled. Just keep it simple and don’t overthink it and definitely don’t go all rules lawyer over it. Just use common sense.

I am using common sense, I am replacing this rule

 

[OB1]

no it doesn’t, that only means you get no bonus to two things you might attempt

And you don't get the benefit of the third because the Hide action is an action you take in Combat. So if you aren't getting any of the conditions, you are effectively no longer invisible.

Let's say you are behind a turned over table, hiding. You made your DC15 check, and none of the enemies used the search action to find you. You pop up from cover to take a shot. One enemy is facing you, another is not. You would not gain the benefit of the invisible condition on the one looking at you (which you would be able to discern) but you would against the one facing away. It feels like everyone is conflating the 'magic' version of invisible with the common definition.

 

[Thommy H-H]

doesn’t fix anything at all, you can name it whatever you want and the issue persists because it is in the wording of the rules, not the name

I guess. But "unless they can somehow see you" might be causing less consternation if the condition was "Not Being Able to be Seen". As I've said, I believe the intention was getting rid of the quasi-status of hidden/not visible/unable to be seen which had no real bearing on Invisible (meaning a magically Invisible creature still had to take the Hide action to avoid being detected). Obviously people are stumbling over it even so, but I think it's down to a shift in terminology. "Invisible" now has a broader meaning in the game than "magically invisible".

 

[FrogReaver]

WotC should write rules that are clear and don't require "fixes" on day 1 to function

No one disagrees. Next!

 

[FrogReaver]

I would not be surprised if they meant to remove it entirely and forgot

Me either. My guess is that they kept it for backward compatibility though.

 

[mamba]

And one is free to interpret it that way if they really want their game to play like that. But I expect most people won't want it to play like that.

this is not a matter of interpretation, it is exactly what the rules say, that I do not want to run my game like that is irrelevant to what the rules have to say