D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[mamba]

I mean, that's probably how I'd rule it too

it never was about how we would rule it, we should not have to go against what the rule states to have sensible results, the rule should reflect / establish them

 

[Charlaquin]

This just represents the problem using a word for a particular game condition that also has a very clear meaning in everyday language.

It wouldn’t matter if the condition was named something else. The fundamental problem is that the invisibility spell and the hide action both grant the same mechanical benefits, with the latter only imposing a few additional caveats on how those benefits can end, but simply being in a position where a character with normal vision is not prevented from observing you is not among those caveats.

 

[Belen]

You have to have cover or concealment to hide. Period. You are not invisible in plain sight.

 

[mamba]

If I, as the DM, rule

I do not care about what you as the DM rule. It may come as a surprise, but we are not discussing how you would be ruling

We are discussing what the rules are

 

[Thommy H-H]

it never was about how we would rule it, we should not have to go against what the rule states to have sensible results, the rule should reflect / establish them

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.

 

[mamba]

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 quite generous - I'd rather throw a few ability checks in there to represent having to find new hiding places now and then.

perfectly fine by me

 

[Charlaquin]

That feels like a brain fart?

You mean on the part of the folks who wrote the rule? Maybe, but this has been pointed out in three rounds of UA survey feedback, so at this point it feels less like a brain fart and more like an intentional choice. If it is a mistake, we should demand it be errata’d as quickly as possible.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

But they can't see you. And if you are quiet, they can't know you are there without a successful perception check, See Invisible, True Seeing or the like.

They will still have disadvantage to hit you, but as you say, we're not talking about an enemy, so they probably won't do that. They can talk to you, interact with you, whatever they want. Again, you're conflating the Invisible condition with your notion of "being invisible".

One equals the other. It's absurd to think that the invisible condition does not involve being invisible. If you aren't invisible, you don't get the condition.

 

[FrogReaver]

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 you search a room or something, we make a check and I narrate the results. You don't have to tell me every single action you take. The overall effects are the same - we're just not going to worry about each individual guard between you and the gates! Trust me: this helps you, and more importantly it stops everyone else at the table being bored."

I can repeat myself too.

‘Good luck telling the player he can’t use the hide rules in the book outside combat’

 

[mamba]

You have to have cover or concealment to hide. Period. You are not invisible in plain sight.

the invisibility spell seems to disagree with that