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

[mellored]

Fair enough.

Wizard: "I cast invisibility."
DM: "The kobolds laugh at you for wasting a spell slot that does nothing, right before tossing their spears in your direction."

They would have all have disadvantage on their throws. And the kobold shaman fails to cast hold person on you.

So he chooses to cast Cloud of Daggers instead, and the others surround the square your in, opportunity attacks at the ready.

 

[Remathilis]

There are three known ways* to gain the invisible condition: hide action, Invisibility/greater Invisibility, and the nature's veil ability for rangers. All three have different conditions and requirements, plus slightly different flavoring, but all grant the same game effect.

I've been trying to figure out how to square this circle myself. The best thing I can think of is that D&D conditions mean nothing in the context of narrative, only in mechanics. This would jive with how charm person and swashbuckler panache can both use the charmed condition, how total darkness and blindness both grant the blindness condition, and how poison and disease can both grant the poisoned condition, despite each effect is described and sourced totally different.

What might have been nice is if the invisibility spell added a little more flavor or explanation on how it grants your the invisible condition. As it is, its less "One Ring" style invisible and more "auto-hide" style, but mechanically I don't see a problem or imbalance.


* There may be more, these are the three I've heard about so far.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I've been trying to figure out how to square this circle myself. The best thing I can think of is that D&D conditions mean nothing in the context of narrative, only in mechanics. This would jive with how charm person and swashbuckler panache can both use the charmed condition, how total darkness and blindness both grant the blindness condition, and how poison and disease can both grant the poisoned condition, despite each effect is described and sourced totally different.

This

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They would have all have disadvantage on their throws. And the kobold shaman fails to cast hold person on you.

Nope, because they can "somehow see you" given that the invisible condition says nothing about not being able to be seen with normal vision.

 

[Weiley31]

They just should've stuck with calling it the Hidden condition instead of making sound like you predator cloak.

 

[Charlaquin]

What the condition is called really isn’t the problem. The problem is that the invisibility spell and the hide action grant the same mechanical benefits, only listing different criteria for what causes you to lose those benefits, and none of the criteria for ending the benefits of the hide action include being in a position where a creature with normal vision would be able to see you.

Regardless of what the condition is called or how you interpret the fictional explanation for what is causing you to receive the condition’s benefits, a creature with the condition must still benefit from them while in a position where another creature with normal vision could otherwise see them, or else the invisibility spell would be useless. And if a creature with the condition continues to receive its benefits while in a position where another creature with normal vision would otherwise be able to see them, then the hide action seems to keep creatures who use it from being seen in situations where it doesn’t make sense for it to do so.

 

[Argyle King]

They would have all have disadvantage on their throws. And the kobold shaman fails to cast hold person on you.

So he chooses to cast Cloud of Daggers instead, and the others surround the square your in, opportunity attacks at the ready.

They can all somehow see you.
They see you when you're sleeping.
They know when you're awake.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Yet seeing invisib

Nope, because they can "somehow see you" given that the invisible condition says nothing about not being able to be seen with normal vision.

Except it is not listed under the vision section for normal vision but it specifically stated for other types that can see invisible things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yet seeing invisib

Except it is not listed under the vision section for normal vision but it specifically stated for other types that can see invisible things.

Well, seems that see invisibility does nothing. By RAW invisibility doesn't make things impossible to see with normal vision.

 

[Umbran]

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...

I don't think so. You don't lose the condition in general, while you may lose the benefits against specific opponents who can see you. That seems sensible.