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

[Charlaquin]

And I do agree with your edit; what I don't agree is with this ridiculous notion some have that because the Invisible condition doesn't specify how you can be seen, if you gain the condition from the Invisibility spell then you can still be seen by just looking at you.

Well, that reading is incompatible with the one in my edit. Either the invisible condition itself makes creatures not see you while you have it, in which case the invisibility spell works as intended and Stealth works as I described in the edit, or the invisible condition does not itself make creatures not see you, in which case Stealth makes more sense in my opinion, but the invisibility spell is useless. I think the text is unclear enough that someone could reasonably arrive at either conclusion, but I’m pretty dang sure that the one where the invisibility spell actually works is RAI.

 

[MerricB]

For hiding, as in taking the hide action, yes. It’s not clear to me this is meant to apply to staying hidden once you have the invisible condition. But it might be?

"Hiding" is at least a more ongoing-meaning word than "Hide". It's a problem in a few sets of D&D rules, in fact - do you need to keep the initial conditions to remain hidden?

 

[Selas]

Well, that reading is incompatible with the one in my edit. Either the invisible condition itself makes creatures not see you while you have it, in which case the invisibility spell works as intended and Stealth works as I described in the edit, or the invisible condition does not itself make creatures not see you, in which case Stealth makes more sense in my opinion, but the invisibility spell is useless. I think the text is unclear enough that someone could reasonably arrive at either conclusion, but I’m pretty dang sure that the one where the invisibility spell actually works is RAI.

Agreed'

 

[Selas]

Did you notice that Mike Mearls agreed with the reading that the new Invisibility spell as written doesn't actually make you invisible (as in, fading from sight, etc.)?

Incidentally, Legacy definition of "invisible":

• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.

Current definition of "invisible"

Surprise. If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.

That is because it doesn't make you transparent, it makes you unable to be perceived by the senses; this is why there is no Perception check involved like with the Hide action. Invisible uses the natural language definition (not perceptible by vision), not the gamified version from video games and media.

I don't think we'd have all these problems with how it worked if the Hide action also made you "Invisible". (Because, when you're hidden, you're still physically visible). And so when two things both make you "Invisible", you rather need something more to distinguish what they mean.

The devs decided to use one term most likely to save space and have all of stealth fall under it, and that's why they went with the natural language version. You already have more than enough distinguishing details from each feature to determine what they mean, unless the problem is that you want it spelled out on the Invisible condition like in 2014, which would then make the Hide action no different than the spell. All rules (in general) are meant to be read in good faith for them to work, and going down rabbit holes trying to scrutinize them would just cause all of them to unravel.

Again, this is not rocket science. Most here already have the RAI pinned down; it's the RAW that people are getting hunged up

Edit: I remember even JC explained in one of the earlier Playtest videos that the Invisible condition is not optic camouflage, but more of replacing a video feed with another. It's where I got the analogy that I use

 

[Guest 7037866]

Does this help, adding the underlined part to the spell?

 

[Selas]

Does this help, adding the underlined part to the spell?

View attachment 397058

It doesn't read well; I would put it after the Invisible condition like so:

A creature you touch has the Invisible condition and is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense until the spell ends.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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.

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.

Right. Folks are applying reason and assumption to what the words say and then saying that the words work just fine as they are. They are conflating their inferences and assumptions with RAW, but that's not how RAW works. RAW is what is written, not what people can infer, reason, or assume about it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes, but the language of searching shows that it is an action both in and out of combat. Actions are proactive, not passive, so unless someone is searching for someone who is hidden, they wouldn't as the rules are written, get a roll or passive perception to notice the hider.

 

[Maxperson]

Also... you can describe the invisibility spell working however you want but mechanically it gives you the Invisible condition which can only be negated in the specific ways you counter or end the spell.. its pretty simple design when you accept it for what it is vs. Preconceived notions.

No, not preconceived, notions. Vs. natural language, which is what 5e is based on.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, for the record, I’m 90% confident that my interpretation in post 263 and its implications for the “Goof Off” action are RAI. I believe the designers wanted creatures to have to use an action and pass a Perception check to find a creature that successfully used the Hide action, even if that creature moves out in the open after using the action.

Here is where we part ways. I think that the RAI is for the creature to be seen, but the RAW is written horribly and if followed to the letter, allows the creature to move out into the open without being seen.