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

[Selas]

Ok. So why can a creature without such senses see through the Invisible condition gained by the Hide action?

You realize that you continue going in circles right? It has been explained multiple times that the Invisible condition is a set of benefits and that it's how you gain it that determines how it ends. Hide is a physical act of you staying out of sight and this is backed by the stealth skill; it doesn't create an optical camouflage meaning you can be seen with a Perception check which governs normal sight. The spell--which is a magical illusion--doesn't have such limitation since it's a status granted by magic. There is no DC to beat, so you can't use normal sight.

Edit: to simplify this,

- Hide is using cover and concealment to stay outside a target's sight

- Spell is using a magical illusion to vanish from someone's sight

 

[Charlaquin]

You realize that you continue going in circles right?

Yes, because people keep trying to counter my arguments with the same points that don’t actually address them.

It has been explained multiple times that the Invisible condition is a set of benefits and that it's how you gain it that determines how it ends.

And I have explained equally many times that how the condition ends is not relevant to what I’m saying. I’m talking about what the condition does when you actually have it.

Hide is a physical act of you staying out of sight and this is backed by the stealth skill; it doesn't create an optical camouflage meaning you can be seen with a Perception check which governs normal sight. The spell--which is a magical illusion--doesn't have such limitation since it's a status granted by magic. There is no DC to beat, so you can't use normal sight.

All of this describes what we intuitively expect to happen based on the narrative descriptions, not what is actually stated in the rules.

You should really read and respond to my post with my homebrew abracadabra spell and Purple condition. I think that will communicate my point in a much more effective way.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Yes, because people keep trying to counter my arguments with the same points that don’t actually address them.

And I have explained equally many times that how the condition ends is not relevant to what I’m saying. I’m talking about what the condition does when you actually have it.

All of this describes what we intuitively expect to happen based on the narrative descriptions, not what is actually stated in the rules.

You should really read and respond to my post with my homebrew abracadabra spell and Purple condition. I think that will communicate my point in a much more effective way.

It is explained in the rules, both versions, you are conflating two independent things that are very similar.

Hide (5.5) is an action that requires a Stealth check DC 15. What you roll is the perception check DC to see you. If you pass the Stealth check you gain the invisible condition until you break it, or a Perception check meets or beats your DC set by your Stealth check.


The Invisibility spell gives the invisible condition until the spell is broken by you, concentration break, or time.


The Hide action does not cast the Invisibility spell.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is explained in the rules, both versions, you are conflating two independent things that are very similar.

Hide (5.5) is an action that requires a Stealth check DC 15. What you roll is the perception check DC to see you. If you pass the Stealth check you gain the invisible condition until you break it, or a Perception check meets or beats your DC set by your Stealth check.


The Invisibility spell gives the invisible condition until the spell is broken by you, concentration break, or time.


The Hide action does not cast the Invisibility spell.

Please read and respond to my post about my homebrew abracadabra spell and Purple condition here. It will communicate my point more clearly.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Please read and respond to my post about my homebrew abracadabra spell and Purple condition here. It will communicate my point more clearly.

I did, I have actually read the entire thread.

Please read my post you quoted where I explained in detail the difference.

The action Hide does not cast the Spell Invisibility, they are 2 different things that provide the Condition invisible with their own rules to how the condition can be ended.

 

[Charlaquin]

I did, please read my post you quoted where I explained in detail the difference.

What? You didn’t respond to a single one of the questions I asked about my homebrew spell and condition…

The action Hide does not cast the Spell Invisibility, they are 2 different things that provide the Condition invisible with their own rules to how the condition can be ended.

I didn’t ask you about the Hide action or the invisibility spell. I asked you about my homebrew abracadabra spell and Purple condition. Please, humor me. Set aside everything about hiding and invisibility, and help me assess my homebrew spell and condition.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

What? You didn’t respond to a single one of the questions I asked about my homebrew spell and condition…

I didn’t ask you about the Hide action or the invisibility spell. I asked you about my homebrew abracadabra spell and Purple condition. Please, humor me. Set aside everything about hiding and invisibility, and help me assess my homebrew spell and condition.

Oh, sorry I thout you were having trouble understanding the rules as written, I have no interest in debating your HB.
Which is leaving out the action Hide Purple.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, sorry I thout you were having trouble understanding the rules as written, I have no interest in debating your HB.

I’m not having trouble understanding the rules as written, I am critiquing a problem with the rules as written, and using my homebrew (which if it isn’t obvious, has the exact same text as the invisibility spell and invisible condition, only the names have been changed) in order to illustrate what that critique is. People keep telling me I’m conflating the condition and the spell, or that my evaluation is based on preconceived notions because of the name of the condition, or that if the condition had a different name, there wouldn’t be a problem. So, I am using “homebrew” with the same text but different names to isolate the variable everyone seems to think is confusing me and show that the problem still exists in the absence of that variable. If you answer my questions, I’ll be able to demonstrate what my actual critique of the RAW is.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I’m not having trouble understanding the rules as written, I am critiquing a problem with the rules as written, and using my homebrew (which if it isn’t obvious, has the exact same text as the invisibility spell and invisible condition, only the names have been changed) in order to illustrate what that critique is. People keep telling me I’m conflating the condition and the spell, or that my evaluation is based on preconceived notions because of the name of the condition, or that if the condition had a different name, there wouldn’t be a problem. So, I am using “homebrew” with the same text but different names to isolate the variable everyone seems to think is confusing me and show that the problem still exists in the absence of that variable. If you answer my questions, I’ll be able to demonstrate what my actual critique of the RAW is.

Your example is flawed as it does not include the Hide Purple Action.
You are either conflating the Spell Invisibility with the Action Hide, or you are looking for a debate that just is not there.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your example is flawed as it does not include the Hide Purple Action.
You are either conflating the Spell Invisibility with the Action Hide, or you are looking for a debate that just is not there.

I’m not asking about the Hide action yet. We can get to that once we’ve established what the actual effects of the Invisible condition are. If you answer my questions about how the “Purple” condition affects my character, then we can have the necessary foundation to discuss what I was intending to call the Goof Off action.