D&D (2024) Weird invisibility loophole saves Hiding but ruins the spell: Lose the Condition's benefits without losing the Condition

[Blue]

The text of the Invisible condition specifies that "You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you." Also, "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."

Weirdly enough, then, the Invisible condition is phrased in a way where you can lose most of the benefits of the condition (by being seen), without losing the condition itself! The only condition that does not require you to remain unseen is advantage on initiative rolls. Which makes sense. If you jump out and ambush, you want that initiative advantage given by the surprise rules.

It's poor design, but does not require absurd results. RAW you get to have the condition, but almost none of its benefits. What this means for the Invisibility spell, of course, will require clarification...

Let me get this right - if one creature has See Invisible so can see someone, you think it's bad design that the Invisible Condition doesn't go away? That one person being able to see you should remove that condition for everyone?

Sorry, I find that logic to be 100% wrong.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Let me get this right - if one creature has See Invisible so can see someone, you think it's bad design that the Invisible Condition doesn't go away? That one person being able to see you should remove that condition for everyone?

Sorry, I find that logic to be 100% wrong.

The poor design is not the Invisibility Condition itself, but rather conflating Invisible and Hidden. The confusion and arguing it has caused on the internet is evidence enough RAI (and common sense)will need to be used rather than RAW. Unless, of course, there's something clarifying in the DMG. I also think this PHB is overall an improvement over the previous one. But I have quibbles.

 

[M_Natas]

Nobody wants to run it that way. We all agree that’s a stupid way to run it. The problem is, the hide action grants exactly the same benefits as the invisibility spell. So, either the enemy must not find you when they walk over and look down into the sarcophagus where you’re lying, or they must find you when you do the same thing but cast invisibility instead of taking the hide action. Both things go against “common sense.” The rule just sucks without inserting some unwritten rule to make hiding and actual invisibility somehow functionally different from each other.

The difference are actually the end conditions. Hiding grants the invisible condition and add its own end conditions while the spell invisibility grants you the invisible condition with a different set of end conditions.
The conditions to end invisibility are different and separate from the invisibility condition itself.
In game logic we have:
Hiding: [Invisibilty] [Ending conditions from hiding]
Invisibility spell: [Invisibility] [ending conditions from spell]

If you would code that as a computer game that would totally make sense to save a little bit of space.
In a D&D rulebook it is ... backwards.

They separated the benefits, which were identical in the playtest (hidden condition and invisible condition) from how to end the condition.

Then they decided to do the stupid thing and named the condition invisibility.

So, simple fix:

The condition needs firstly to be renamed in something neutral. Unseen or Unnoticed.
Now hiding grants the beneficial condition of being unseen and the invisibility spell grants the same condition but both have different ways in ending it.

The discussion wouldn't have started.

But now the second problem is:

Some things still don't make sense. The surprise part of the condition is not really working, unless you say "if one NPC sees you, the condition is broken and you don't have it in relation to all others anymore ...".


But the biggest problem is, that the 2014 difference between being hidden and being invisible is gone.

In 2014 being invisible meant, that people still knew in general where you were. They still could attack the 5foot grid area were you are, they just have disadvantage.

The hidden condition meant, that People didn't know, where you are. They were not able to attack reliable a 5 foot area and hit you, because you could be standing or sitting somewhere else.

But in 2024, people still can reliable attack you after hiding, they just have disadvantage?

 

[Charlaquin]

The difference are actually the end conditions. Hiding grants the invisible condition and add its own end conditions while the spell invisibility grants you the invisible condition with a different set of end conditions.
The conditions to end invisibility are different and separate from the invisibility condition itself.
In game logic we have:
Hiding: [Invisibilty] [Ending conditions from hiding]
Invisibility spell: [Invisibility] [ending conditions from spell]

If you would code that as a computer game that would totally make sense to save a little bit of space.
In a D&D rulebook it is ... backwards.

They separated the benefits, which were identical in the playtest (hidden condition and invisible condition) from how to end the condition.

Then they decided to do the stupid thing and named the condition invisibility.

So, simple fix:

The condition needs firstly to be renamed in something neutral. Unseen or Unnoticed.
Now hiding grants the beneficial condition of being unseen and the invisibility spell grants the same condition but both have different ways in ending it.

The discussion wouldn't have started.

But now the second problem is:

Some things still don't make sense. The surprise part of the condition is not really working, unless you say "if one NPC sees you, the condition is broken and you don't have it in relation to all others anymore ...".


But the biggest problem is, that the 2014 difference between being hidden and being invisible is gone.

In 2014 being invisible meant, that people still knew in general where you were. They still could attack the 5foot grid area were you are, they just have disadvantage.

The hidden condition meant, that People didn't know, where you are. They were not able to attack reliable a 5 foot area and hit you, because you could be standing or sitting somewhere else.

But in 2024, people still can reliable attack you after hiding, they just have disadvantage?

I have a different assessment, but I’m pretty fatigued with this whole discussion.