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

[Selas]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

The rules only list four special senses:

Blindsight: within it's range, you can see something that has the Invisible condition without relying on physical sight
Truesight: You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition.
Tremorsense: can technically let you know where a creature under the Invisible condition is located
Darkvision: lets you see in Darkness as if it were Dim Light.

Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, in the DMG or PHB does it define what physical/normal sight is--nor is it listed as a special sense--so that means it follows the natural language definition

Rules do what they say they do, and two outright state they can break it, and one can "bypass" it.

Hide tells you to make a stealth check and use the result as the DC for a creature to FIND you with a Perception check, which the PHB defines as "Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss." The Invisibility spell has no such requirement, and since the rules do not list physical sight as a special sense, then it can't be used to break the Invisibility spell.

 

[Maxperson]

This is what Hide says:

On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

As for Search, here is what it says:

You're still taking the Search action outside combat, but there is no action economy to affect you in a non-combat scenario

Yes, but action economy or no, taking the search action outside of combat is still a proactive action. If you don't think to do it, you won't see the hidden "invisible" creature, because you won't find him.

Their wording on this is horrible, and the choice to removing hidden and make it invisible was also really bad. Hopefully @MerricB will come up with something better. Scratch that, he can't help but come up with something better. Hopefully he comes up with something really good.

 

[Maxperson]

You only need a special sense to break the Invisible condition from the Invisibility spell, not for the Hide action. I assume the other poster just cannot or refuses to separate the two

Technically, Tremorsense can break through the Invisible condition from Hide due to how it works, but this is more of a DM's call

I know that I'd let it work as it doesn't depend on sight. Seems odd that it's a DM call and not just part of the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

So let me address these separately....

HIDE: You cannot hide if an opponent can see you, so you are starting from a position of your opponent(s) not being able to see you... otherwise you cannot take the Hide action. As long as said opponents cannot see you you gain all of the effects of the Invisible condition... thus you should be taking advantage of terrain, avoiding being in direct line of sight and honestly using missile weapons near areas where you can easily position to hide again or from obscurement in order to maintain this.

Spell: The invisibility spell gives you all of the advantages of the Invisible condition unless...
1. The spell's duration ends
2. The target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell
3. A specific counter to the spell is used.

NOTE: These are the only ways, regardless of what the Invisible condition states that someone using the spell can loose the condition.

Great. But here’s the problem: it does not matter if the invisible condition from the spell ends or not if the condition doesn’t actually make you impossible to see without special senses. And if the condition does actually make you impossible to see, then there’s no need to stick to cover after you used it to gain the condition via the hide action.

As long as you have the Invisible condition you are concealed and thus you cannot be affected by any effect that requires it's target to be seen (including locating you, though smell, sound and other forms of perception might work).

If that’s how you’re interpreting the invisible condition to work (which makes sense, since otherwise 2/3s of its effects don’t do anything), then you can get behind cover, take the hide action to gain the invisible condition, and then immediately leave cover without being found, since the condition would be preventing effects that require the target to see you (such as finding you).

This right here is your transparency, always look in another direction or just don't notice him/her mystical invisibility... You can't be seen

Ok, so are you saying that the Hide action does in fact prevent you from being seen while not covered or concealed at all, because all enemies are just looking in another direction?

 

[Charlaquin]

The rules only list four special senses:

Blindsight: within it's range, you can see something that has the Invisible condition without relying on physical sight
Truesight: You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition.
Tremorsense: can technically let you know where a creature under the Invisible condition is located
Darkvision: lets you see in Darkness as if it were Dim Light.

Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, in the DMG or PHB does it define what physical/normal sight is--nor is it listed as a special sense--so that means it follows the natural language definition

Rules do what they say they do, and two outright state they can break it, and one can "bypass" it.

Right, I don’t dispute that blindsight and truesight allow you to see a creature that has the invisible condition. I was asking how you arrived at the conclusion that you do not need one of those senses to see a creature that gained the invisible condition by using the hide action.

Hide tells you to make a stealth check and use the result as the DC for a creature to FIND you with a Perception check, which the PHB defines as "Using a combination of senses, notice something that’s easy to miss."

Sure, they could use an action to make a perception check to try to find you by sound or smell, or even incidental signs of your presence. What I’m questioning is how you arrive at the conclusion that they can see you without special senses.

The Invisibility spell has no such requirement, and since the rules do not list physical sight as a special sense, then it can't be used to break the Invisibility spell.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Imaro]

Great. But here’s the problem: it does not matter if the invisible condition from the spell ends or not if the condition doesn’t actually make you impossible to see without special senses. And if the condition does actually make you impossible to see, then there’s no need to stick to cover after you used it to gain the condition via the hide action.

If that’s how you’re interpreting the invisible condition to work (which makes sense, since otherwise 2/3s of its effects don’t do anything), then you can get behind cover, take the hide action to gain the invisible condition, and then immediately leave cover without being found, since the condition would be preventing effects that require the target to see you (such as finding you).

Ok, so are you saying that the Hide action does in fact prevent you from being seen while not covered or concealed at all, because all enemies are just looking in another direction?

You chopped up my answers, removed context and didn't address any of the actual points I posted...

 

[Charlaquin]

You chopped up my answers, removed context and didn't address any of the actual points I posted...

I split your comment into three parts to address those parts separately, just as you addressed my comments separately. I did not remove a single word of your post and I did not change the order of them at all; I didn’t even add any line breaks that weren’t already in your post. So the context is entirely intact. If I didn’t address one of your points, it’s because I didn’t disagree with that point. If you disagree with anything I said, by all means, please address it.

 

[Selas]

Sure, they could use an action to make a perception check to try to find you by sound or smell, or even incidental signs of your presence. What I’m questioning is how you arrive at the conclusion that they can see you without special senses.

Easy; Hide is a physical act of a PC using the environment to remain outside a creature's sight. Hide tells you to roll a stealth (Dexterity) check, defined as: "Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things", which is then used as the DC for Perception (using all your senses, normal or special).
Edit: if you're moving quietly and hiding behind things, then that means that you can be SEEN by normal sight.
You don't roll for stealth with the invisibility spell, so that tells me magic is making you "Invisible" from other's normal senses, including sight.

The mistake most people are making is thinking that the spell makes you transparent a la Predator, when it's really creating an illusion that you're not there as if replacing a video feed with another.

Lastly, the Invisible condition is predicated and dependent on the feature that activates it. Alone, it doesn't tell you how it works, only what it provides. You keep getting hung up on the condition itself, when it is a two-for-one deal; it can't work without the trigger feature.

 

[Charlaquin]

Easy; Hide is a physical act of a PC using the environment to remain outside a creature's sight. Hide tells you to roll a stealth (Dexterity) check, defined as: "Escape notice by moving quietly and hiding behind things", which is then used as the DC for Perception (using all your senses, normal or special). You don't roll for stealth with the invisibility spell, so that tells me magic is making you "Invisible" from other's normal senses, including sight.

Ok, so essentially you’ve arrived at this conclusion based on your intuition of how it should work based on what is happening in the fiction. I agree with this intuition. My specific complaint is that I don’t believe the actual text produces this intuitive result.

The mistake most people are making is thinking that the spell makes you transparent a la Predator, when it's really creating an illusion that you're not there as if replacing a video feed with another.

No, this is not the problem. I am perfectly happy to accept the possibility that the invisible condition itself does not make you transparent. The problem is that, under this interpretation, the Invisibility spell also doesn’t make you transparent, since the text of the spell doesn’t say it does that.

Lastly, the Invisible condition is predicated and dependent on the feature that activates it. Alone, it doesn't tell you how it works, only what it provides.
You keep getting hung up on the condition itself, when it is a two-for-one deal; it can't work without the trigger feature.

That’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation. But under this interpretation, we look to the invisibility spell in conjunction with the condition to see what it does, and we find… the spell just gives you the condition, and some circumstances under which the condition can end. It does not say you can’t be seen with normal vision while you have the condition. So if the condition doesn’t, itself, make you impossible to see, then neither does the spell.

 

[Imaro]

Great. But here’s the problem: it does not matter if the invisible condition from the spell ends or not if the condition doesn’t actually make you impossible to see without special senses. And if the condition does actually make you impossible to see, then there’s no need to stick to cover after you used it to gain the condition via the hide action.

The condition doesnt... but it does matter because the condition gives the effects that one gains from having it....

If i hide (stealth check of 20) and gain the Invisible condition with a longbow in underbrush 70ft away from my target then shoot at him with advantage (from the Invisible condition) how is that not an advantage?


If i hide (stealth check of 20) and gain the Invisible condition with a longbow in underbrush 70ft away from my target but then step out of the underbrush and he has line of sight to me... I don't gain advantage on my attack.


If i hide (stealth check of 20) and gain the Invisible condition with a longbow in underbrush 70ft away from my target but want to follow him to see where he goes... I have to maintain staying out of his line of sight to stay concealed( so I'm not seen) from the Invisible condition by staying out of the targets line of sight. Later when I do engage said target (as long as I have maintained my Invisible condition) I get advantage on initiative.

So yes it does provide advantages and yes it must be maintained by not being seen... moving into your enemy's line of sight.

If that’s how you’re interpreting the invisible condition to work (which makes sense, since otherwise 2/3s of its effects don’t do anything), then you can get behind cover, take the hide action to gain the invisible condition, and then immediately leave cover without being found, since the condition would be preventing effects that require the target to see you (such as finding you).

Except being found/seeing you ends the condition unless a specific rule overrides it... i.e. the invisibility spell conditions for ending the spell giving you the condition.

Ok, so are you saying that the Hide action does in fact prevent you from being seen while not covered or concealed at all, because all enemies are just looking in another direction?

Huh? How did you get that from what I posted... I was speaking to invisibility the spell and it's specific interactions with the condition.