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

[Iry]

For the people who prefer common sense 'the DM determines when circumstances are OK for hiding' they can go the other way.

While I agree with your interpretation, there must be a better way to parse it than a logical fallacy like 'common sense'.

 

[Argyle King]

It doesn't. It grants the condition. They're not necessarily the same thing.

It was done deliberately IMO to appease the 'Mash the Stealth button' gaming tables coming from BG3 and similar CRPGs.

How does D&D 2024 define the Invisibility Condition?

 

[Plaguescarred]

Invisible [Condition]
When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
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.

 

[Argyle King]

 

[Epic Meepo]

Which was the point.

They want people who play games where 'I hit the stealth button and vanish! is a thing to have that option.

They also wanted to cater to people who are prepared to use common sense.



IMO it was deliberately vague.

They're trying to cater to two very different playing styles with a single rule, that is supposed to cover every possible circumstances where a thing is 'hidden'.

For the people who want 'I hit the stealth button and dissapear' they can have that interpretation.

For the people who prefer common sense 'the DM determines when circumstances are OK for hiding' they can go the other way.

I think you've successfully identified what's causing friction in discussions about the hiding rules. I suspect some people who are pointing out the absurdity of the RAW are trying to make a similar point, albeit in a more circumspect manner.

The new rules for hiding are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are trying to present a codified, stealth-button-type game mechanic for a gamist play style (in which the game is a self-contained, deterministic set of rules with their own internal logic), while simultaneously providing a natural language appeal to "rulings not rules" for a more narrative, natural language play style (in which the so-called game is just a set of guidelines for creating a consistent, shared narrative).

The problem with this approach is that those two different philosophies aren't entirely compatible. If you want a gamist, stealth-button mechanic, you have to go all in and define everything in gamist language. Writing half of a gamist rule and then telling players to fill in the rest with common sense is antithetical to the gamist philosophy. That's like saying the resource cost to build a road in Settlers of Catan is whatever resource cost the active player thinks makes sense for the terrain in which the road is being built. That's not a game rule. That's a guideline for making a ruling.

Conversely, it makes no sense for natural language guidelines which appeal to common sense to also include gamist language. Common sense trumps everything, so invoking technical jargon keywords with meanings not grounded in natural language is a needless distraction. All the technical language gets immediately thrown out the minute it contradicts common sense. At which point, why is it even there to start with? Just provide an appeal to common sense and an example or two to demonstrate how common sense applies in situations that arise at the table.

Writing some sort of hybrid rule in an effort to allow for both of these possibilities is absurd. If the PHB wants to allow for both of these approaches to the rules for hiding, it needs to actually present two alternative rules for hiding. You can't just mash-up gamist language and natural language to produce some sort of middle ground that appeals to multiple play styles. By failing to commit to one philosophy or the other (or to a pair of variant rules), it seems to me the PHB is implementing both potential approaches to the rules poorly.

 

[Xeviat]

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.

This!

Invisible is relative. Invisible also doesn't mean hidden; your footsteps could be heard, there could be a predator-esque shimmer when you move, and so on.

Invisible and Hidden both shouldn't grant advantage on initiative, because what if one person in a group of enemies has see invisible but the others don't? How can you get initiative advantage against all but one? Surprise is disadvantage on initiative, that should have been enough, or advantage on initiative if you're hidden to everyone (but then you'd know if there was a hidden enemy who can see you).

I'll be using Hidden and Invisible as separate conditions.

 

[Iry]

If the PHB wants to allow for both of these approaches to the rules for hiding, it needs to actually present two alternative rules for hiding.

Or at least a modal within the condition, like:

"If you are magically hidden you cannot be found by sight."

And then use the term magically hidden in spells like Invisibility.

 

[Flamestrike]

How does D&D 2024 define the Invisibility Condition?

When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
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.

The condition expressly contemplates a situation where a creature could 'somehow see you'

You could be hidden (and thus have the invisible condition) at the start of your turn via hiding inside a sarcophagus (and out of sight of an enemy).

The enemy - on their turn - could then walk up to the sarcophagus and simply look down and in, and they would now be able to see you (the thing making you 'invisible' to them was self evidently the sarcophagus walls).

You then lose the invisible condition that was granted to you from hiding (you expressly lose it if a creature 'finds you').

To me, that just seems the common sense interpretation of the rules.

That said, if people want to run it as 'you duck into the sarcophagus in full view of the enemy, take the Hide action and hit the Stealth button, roll a 15+ and you're suddenly translucent, even if the enemy creature literally walks over and looks down into the sarcophagus where you're lying' then by all means, go for it.

 

[Argyle King]

When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
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.

The condition expressly contemplates a situation where a creature could 'somehow see you'

You could be hidden (and thus have the invisible condition) at the start of your turn via hiding inside a sarcophagus (and out of sight of an enemy).

The enemy - on their turn - could then walk up to the sarcophagus and simply look down and in, and they would now be able to see you (the thing making you 'invisible' to them was self evidently the sarcophagus walls).

You then lose the invisible condition that was granted to you from hiding (you expressly lose it if a creature 'finds you').

To me, that just seems the common sense interpretation of the rules.

That said, if people want to run it as 'you duck into the sarcophagus in full view of the enemy, take the Hide action and hit the Stealth button, roll a 15+ and you're suddenly translucent, even if the enemy creature literally walks over and looks down into the sarcophagus where you're lying' then by all means, go for it.

To me, Common Sense also would say that I wouldn't create a technical term for a rules manual and then also use the term in a potentially ambiguous way rather than just writing "natural language" (i.e. hidden, camouflage, etc) if I wanted my audience to use natural language interpretations of what I had written.

Common Sense might also tell me things like making a deal with a devil to gain power (like a warlock) would carry some obligation to serve the wants/needs of the patron or else I might lose access to power. However, D&D 2024 says that isn't the case. If you're a paladin, you can gain powers from just believing in yourself.

I don't disagree with your thought process. Though, I do question where exactly "common sense" is expected to be used in contemporary D&D because some parts of the game are written (both RAI & RAW) in a way that is counterintuitive to common sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

When you have the Invisible condition, you experience the following effects.
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.

The condition expressly contemplates a situation where a creature could 'somehow see you'

You could be hidden (and thus have the invisible condition) at the start of your turn via hiding inside a sarcophagus (and out of sight of an enemy).

The enemy - on their turn - could then walk up to the sarcophagus and simply look down and in, and they would now be able to see you (the thing making you 'invisible' to them was self evidently the sarcophagus walls).

You then lose the invisible condition that was granted to you from hiding (you expressly lose it if a creature 'finds you').

To me, that just seems the common sense interpretation of the rules.

That said, if people want to run it as 'you duck into the sarcophagus in full view of the enemy, take the Hide action and hit the Stealth button, roll a 15+ and you're suddenly translucent, even if the enemy creature literally walks over and looks down into the sarcophagus where you're lying' then by all means, go for it.

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.