D&D (2024) New stealth rules.

[Thommy H-H]

Except that, again, the invisibility and greater invisibility spells only grant the condition. So if you assume the condition isn’t literal invisibility, neither are those spells.

I'm not saying it isn't that. I'm saying it isn't necessarily that. It can't always be that, because then how would Hide work? And the spells grant the condition, but they also tell you how it applies and how you can lose it, with implications for the game's fiction about what's actually going on.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that's asking me to prove a negative - you're asking me to find you were it says something isn't something else. That's not how D&D's rules work. I could equally ask you to show me where it says a Longsword doesn't deal 33d10 damage. The rules say what they do, not what they don't do, or the PHB would contain all human knowledge.

No. Find something that says it IS something different. Not isn't. IS.

Going to the other post above. I don't think it will be in the vision rules. I think it will be, if it's anywhere, in the stealth rules which we have not yet seen.

 

[Thommy H-H]

No. Find something that says it IS something different. Not isn't. IS.

Okay, that's just...not what proving a negative even means.

 

[Argyle King]

This or the ranger relying on Hunter's Mark too much.

And this can be fixed with a sentence that every DM is going to play with anyways.

Those are the only real complaints I've seen.

From what I've seen of the new mounted combat rules, those aren't particularly good either.

 

[mellored]

From what I've seen of the new mounted combat rules, those aren't particularly good either.

As far as I am aware, they are the same.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not saying it isn't that. I'm saying it isn't necessarily that.

But neither of those spells grant any benefits besides that, which means either it is necessarily that, or those spells don’t grant that.

It can't always be that, because then how would Hide work?

Yes, exactly. You have independently arrived at the issue I take with the rules as they are written. The difference is that instead of assuming that there’s some unwritten function of these spells, I assume Hide doesn’t work with the current wording of these rules.

And the spells grant the condition, but they also tell you how it applies and how you can lose it, with implications for the game's fiction about what's actually going on.

Nah, they only tell you that they give you the conditions for their duration. The invisibility spell (but not the greater invisibility spell) also says it (the spell) ends if you attack or cast a spell. Any additional details about “how it applies” are assumptions that are not directly stated in the rules text.

 

[KYRON45]

In the end it comes down to using the rule the way you see fit for you and your group. Just like every other rule.

 

[Prism]

Except that, again, the invisibility and greater invisibility spells only grant the condition. So if you assume the condition isn’t literal invisibility, neither are those spells.

It doesn't matter if the spells grant real invisibility and the hiding method doesn't. The outcome is the same. The invisible person gets the three benefits as stated in the condition. The opponent knows you are there and knows where you are. They can attack you with disadvantage if they wish. How the effect is described or imagined as no ingame effect. It could be because the invisible person moves out from hiding without the opponent noticing. Or it could be because the invisible person is under the effect of the invisibility spell. You can describe them however you want but the effect is the same.

 

[mamba]

Well, as I've said a couple of times, while Hide and Invisibility both grant the Invisible condition,

and as you may haver noticed, there are a few people who think that this was a pretty bad choice. I am one of them.

So, the Invisible condition from the Hide action is fragile: you can't make any noise louder than a whisper, and someone can remove it from you by making a successful Search action. It's tricky to maintain once you get into the thick of combat.

once I get into combat, out of combat not as much

Yes, but they would do the same thing. Because, again, the Invisible condition actually says nothing about you being transparent or anything like that.

no they would not be identical, that is my point. The one that really is 'hidden' would be more fragile and basically offer the current 'invisible' plus the ending conditions from Hide (plus others to clean that thing up) while the new 'invisible' would become stronger than the current 'hide around corner' version of invisible

 

[Remathilis]

So you're set to punish if your players try to use RAW here?

RAW works fine, until it doesn't.

Bag of rats. Commoner railgun. Coffeelocks. Pun Pun. The game has plenty of "well according to the rules" areas that are RAW but not RAI and players trying to abuse the system deserve what they get coming to them.