D&D 5E (2024) Weird invisibility loophole saves Hiding but ruins the spell: Lose the Condition's benefits without losing the Condition

[Mistwell]

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.

You're missing the other half of this discussion.

If a creature climbs into an open sarcophagus and casts Invisibility on themselves (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.

No really. The Invisibility spell does not say or imply in any way that you become any more or less visible than hiding. It doesn't say you become translucent, or anything. It literally only grants the identical thing the Hide action grants.

So something is wrong here. Either the Invisibility spell does nothing and See Invisible also does nothing, or somehow being seen doesn't mean being in their line of sight but instead means a perception check, or passive perception detection, or blindsight, truesight, or something like that.

I've slowly come to the conclusion they mean the later. Once you successfully hide while out of sight, you're now unseen even once you move out of cover and into open line of sight, until you break the condition with something you do (attack, cast spell, etc), or something spots you using passive perception, active perception check, or a special ability or spell enables detection. I think that's how they intend for it to work.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

We all agree that the results of the “invisible actually means invisible” interpretation are absurd. But they are what the words actually written in the book seem to indicate. Some of us think that makes the rules in the book poorly written.

 

[Flamestrike]

You're missing the other half of this discussion.

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

No, because the Invisibility condition granted by the spell, doesn't end when a creature looks at you.

The invisible condition granted by hiding, does end when a 'creature finds you' which it does when it literally looks right at you, lying down and being quiet, inside your sarcophagus.

No really. The Invisibility spell does not say or imply in any way that you become any more or less visible than hiding.

Yes it does.

The invisible condition from hiding ends if you make a noise louder than a whisper (unlike the spell where you can scream and remain invisible) and it also ends if 'someone finds you' (unlike with the spell).

Both the spell and Hiding grant the condition, but both have different methods of the invisibility condition ending.

 

[Flamestrike]

We all agree that the results of the “invisible actually means invisible” interpretation are absurd.

Yeah, you don't literally become translucent with a Stealth check, which is what the absurdists argue.

They're partially correct in one sense though.

The rules are written to enable a 'move from cover to cover or from cover to an enemy for a 'backstab' without revealing yourself' type situation, as long as a DM rules 'yep, no-one is looking in your general direction'.

If you otherwise move out from cover while hidden and 'invisible' while under direct observation, you lose the condition.

It just requires a bit of common sense to adjudicate.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, you don't literally become translucent with a Stealth check, which is what the absurdists argue.

They're partially correct in one sense though.

The rules are written to enable a 'move from cover to cover or from cover to an enemy for a 'backstab' without revealing yourself' type situation, as long as a DM rules 'yep, no-one is looking in your general direction'.

If you otherwise move out from cover while hidden and 'invisible' while under direct observation, you lose the condition.

Where does it say that?

It just requires a bit of common sense to adjudicate.

No, common sense allows you to recognize that the written rules imply something that obviously shouldn’t be true. Fixing that problem requires house ruling, which is fine to do, but that’s a mistake that shouldn’t have made it through playtesting.

 

[Flamestrike]

Where does it say that?

Where it says 'the DM determines when you can hide'. Translation is 'apply common sense'.

Example:

You go behind cover, hide (as the action) pass your DC15 Check and you're now invisible.

You now want to sneak up on a creature for a 'backstab'.

The DM can rule you can sneak up behind a certain creature and retain that hidden/ invisible condition and 'backstab' because the creatures attention is elsewhere.

The DM can also rule you cant do this, because the creature is looking straight where you hid, and you reveal yourself (it 'finds you') the instant you leave your hiding spot.

There is no facing in 5e, so its just a question of common sense, and the relevant context of the action, as determined by the DM.

It's a DMs call. Like every ruling in the game, for all time.

Fixing that problem requires house ruling

No, it doesnt.

It just requires a DM (and to a lesser extent, Players) exercising common sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

Where it says 'the DM determines when you can hide'.

When you can hide. Not when you are found.

You go behind cover, hide (as the action) pass your DC15 Check and you're now invisible.

You now want to sneak up on a creature for a 'backstab'.

The DM can rule you can sneak up behind a certain creature and retain that hidden/ invisible condition and 'backstab' because the creatures attention is elsewhere.

Sure, so no improvement from the 2014 version there.

The DM can also rule you cant do this, because the creature is looking straight where you hid, and you reveal yourself (it 'finds you') the instant you leave your hiding spot.

That’s not what the rules instruct the DM to do in that situation, ergo it would require a house rule.

There is no facing in 5e, so it’s just a question of common sense, and the relevant context of the action, as determined by the DM.

Which the 2014 rules directly addressed and these rules fail to.

 

[Flamestrike]

When you can hide. Not when you are found.

That's self evidently a false dichotomy.

I mean you're arguing for a parsing and interpretation of the rules which would allow a DM to determine when hiding is possible, but not when a hidden creature can be found?

I see no such restriction in the text, sorry.

I'm the DM, I determine the above, using common sense. Like the rules say. End of story.

That’s not what the rules instruct the DM to do in that situation, ergo it would require a house rule.

No, it doesn't 'require' a house rule. I mean if you want one, go for it (its your game).

It just requires common sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's self evidently a false dichotomy.

I mean you're arguing for a parsing and interpretation of the rules which would allow a DM to determine when hiding is possible, but not when a hidden creature can be found?

I’m arguing for a direct reading of what the rules actually say. If they were meant to be interpreted differently, they should have been written differently.

I see no such restriction in the text, sorry.

There doesn’t need to be a restriction, the rules just don’t say the DM determines when you are found, and the rules don’t do things they don’t say they do.

I'm the DM, I determine the above, using common sense. Like the rules say. End of story.
No, it doesn't 'require' a house rule. I mean if you want one, go for it (its your game).

It just requires common sense.

It requires you to go outside of the actual instructions within the rules. If you don’t want to call doing that “house ruling” then, whatever I guess, but common sense only allows you to detect the problem in the written text. Solving it requires going outside what is in the text.

 

[Flamestrike]

I’m arguing for a direct reading of what the rules actually say. If they were meant to be interpreted differently, they should have been written differently.

No, you're arguing for a parsed reading of the rules, in a way they were not intended to be read.

''The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding'' covers a DM deciding that hidden creature emerging from their hiding spot in full view of the enemy, is no longer hidden, because those circumstances are not appropriate for hiding.

It requires you to go outside of the actual instructions within the rules.

No it doesnt.