D&D (2024) Thoughts on Stealth and D&D2024

[Parmandur]

I’m not interested in trying to help a problematic DM-player dynamic, I just think the rules should actually say how they’re obviously meant to work.

I think they do...?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think thee do...?

They do not, because again, the invisibility spell obviously isn’t supposed to end when a creature looks at you, but doesn’t say so, implying that the condition it grants should not normally end under those circumstances. But the hide action grants the same condition and does not specify that a creature finds you if it looks at you, even though they are obviously supposed to.

 

[Parmandur]

They do not, because again, the invisibility spell obviously isn’t supposed to end when a creature looks at you, but doesn’t say so, implying that the condition it grants should not normally end under those circumstances. But the hide action grants the same condition and does not specify that a creature finds you if it looks at you, even though they are obviously supposed to.

Specific beats general: the way that the Ibnvisibikity spell stops is written out specifically. It "ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell", no more, no less. That implies nothing about the general rule.

 

[Bae'zel]

This discussion is making my head spin.

It seems so crystal clear to me, and I’m quite an idiot.

Common sense, contextual application of rulings. Each situation being different.

“Invisible” condition from mundane, non-magical hiding is not the same as magical invisibility to me, the DM. I can narrate and interpret the difference.

I’m utterly baffled that my fellow hobbyists, who are always much smarter than I am (not being sarcastic, I am fairly certain that I have a lower IQ than average) are so hung up on this.

 

[Imaro]

If this ruling is such common sense, what’s the problem with the rules text just saying it explicitly, for the benefit of those whose sense is not so common?

Because there could always be corner cases, especially as the game expands, that would be missed by an explicit call out... and then we are right back here.

 

[Reynard]

I’m sorry, do you intuitively expect a different result than magical invisibility making you unable to be seen when a creature looks directly at you, and hiding not doing that?

YES. Because that is literally what the rules say.

 

[mamba]

You all wanted plain English in the game. You got exactly what you asked for.

just because they use English words does not mean it is plain English… plain English does not treat ‘hidden’ and ‘transparent’ as synonyms

 

[mamba]

Maybe it would have been better if they called the condition "Hidden" or "non-visible"

there should be two conditions

 

[Parmandur]

just because they use English words does not mean it is plain English… plain English does not treat ‘hidden’ and ‘invisible’ as synonyms

OK, just because I am "that guy" in terms of language...yes, they are synonyms. "Invisible" does not imply supernatural or unnatural hidden essential, it just means "hidden". That is in the dictionary. If you cannot see a pot in your closed cabinet to say that it is invisible to you is proper usage.

 

[Parmandur]

there should be two conditions

Not really: the specific conditions of the Spell clearly outline how it works differently than thr more common sense Invisible condition.