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

[Kobold Stew]

I see the Stealth thread has finally reached sufficient size that it is spawning multiple offspring. How long until we're completely overrun?

When it happens, we won't see it coming.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The moral of the story is that we Enworlders wait for the book's 2nd and later printings to avoid all the errors with this initial batch. Let our experience with such things shine through.

 

[FarBeyondC]

When it happens, we won't see it coming.

Who's we? I've got an all-seeing eye and familiars that can see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I'm starting to wonder if the bolded is in fact the whole point of this exercise: a massive nerf to Invisibility.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm starting to wonder if the bolded is in fact the whole point of this exercise: a massive nerf to Invisibility.

I don’t think so. I think it was rather meant to make mundane stealth work more like a video game (particularly Skyrim): Go behind a rock or something, press the crouch button, and then as long as your stats are high enough and you don’t make too much noise, you can go pretty much wherever you want and all the enemies will just ignore you. That this functionally makes the invisibility spell pointless was more likely an oversight or an acceptable loss than the intended consequence.

 

[Baumi]

In 5E it was always that even when you are invisible they still know where you are. You had to actively hide, so they don't know hwere you are. That doesn't mean that you don't get the benefits of disavantage to attack, cannot be targeted....

 

[mellored]

I'm starting to wonder if the bolded is in fact the whole point of this exercise: a massive nerf to Invisibility.

Pretty sure it was to simplify 2 nearly identical rules (hidden and invisible) into a single rule.

Here is what it was in an earlier playtest.

3 Identical bullet points, and the 4th hidden one got moved to the Hide action.

And it's just that one extra line got lost along the way.

 

[leozg]

The root of this problem is that invisible is not a condition of a character itself but a condition of a character in relation to another character, and the design ignores its relational characteristic. A is invisible to B, can be visible by C and invisible to D and so on.
Using some logic, it could be maped as:
invisible(A,B)=true
invisible(A,C)=false
invisible(A,D)=true

Just for comparison, prone is not relational, if A is prone, it is prone in relation to everyone (or no one):
prone(A)=true

Other relational conditions are: charmed, frightened, grappled.

 

[M_Natas]

Pretty sure it was to simplify 2 nearly identical rules (hidden and invisible) into a single rule.

Here is what it was in an earlier playtest.
View attachment 375854
View attachment 375855

3 Identical bullet points, and the 4th hidden one got moved to the Hide action.

And it's just that one extra line got lost along the way.

The problem is, that this is already worse then the 2014 version.
Which differentiates between Invisible (a condition) and hiding (a mechanic/rule set).

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.

HIDING

The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.

Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.

For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.

What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured as explained in chapter 8, “Adventuring.”

The only thing going for the 2024 version is, that it is shorter.

 

[Flamestrike]

Using normal vision, can you somehow see creatures who have the Invisible condition?

If a creature climbs into an open sarcophagus and Hides (gaining the invisible condition), all you need to do is walk over to the sarcophagus and look in.

An enemy has now found you, and you lose the invisible condition.

That's the common sense interpretation.

Yes I know the 'but you cant see the invisible creature when you look in, because they're invisible' argument, but that's an absurd interpretation, and if we acknowledge that its absurd, then its equally the wrong interpretation.

If you want to cling to the absurd interpretation check out what it allows:

With the absurd interpretation, a creature can Hide in a closed toilet stall at a packed Football match (gaining the invisible condition) and then can quietly move out of the toilet stall, past scores of people in the restroom, and walk from there out onto the football pitch in front of 100,000 spectators, quietly juggling 8 bright red balls, and remain hidden (and invisible) while so doing.

With the common sense interpretation, as soon as our hidden football fan opens the toilet stall door and the scores of people in the restroom look in, he's no longer invisible.

Pick an interpretation. I know which one I'm going with.