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

[Flamestrike]

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.

No it doesn't.

The invisible condition granted by Hiding has different triggers for the condition ending than the spell does.

While invisible (from the spell) you can be 'found' or 'make noise' and you still retain the condition (remain invisible). You can sit there invisibly blasting a trumpet and retain the condition.

That differs from the invisible condition granted from being hidden (where any significant noise, or being 'found' ends the condition). Making a noise louder than a whisper or otherwise 'being found in your hiding spot' ends the invisibility.

The invisibility granted by the spell is clearly superior. Noise and 'being found' doesn't end it.

 

[Hussar]

That differs from the invisible condition granted from being hidden (where any significant noise, or being 'found' ends the condition). Making a noise louder than a whisper or otherwise 'being found in your hiding spot' ends the invisibility.

The invisibility granted by the spell is clearly superior. Noise and 'being found' doesn't end it.

Again, yup. That's how it's supposed to work. It's not exactly rocket science. But, you have to remember that "creatively interpreting" the words in the book is part of the "fun" of the game. We're supposed to take the most obtuse interpretation of the words and then cry foul about how the words don't make sense.



Note, being invisible (no matter how it's granted) does not mean that the baddies no longer know where you are. They know exactly where you are. Or, at least what square you are in. They can still attack you, just with disadvantage. Oh, noes, a mundane hide check might grant baddies disadvantage to attack you! That's totally overpowered. It cannot be!!!

 

[Charlaquin]

No it doesn't.

The invisible condition granted by Hiding has different triggers for the condition ending than the spell does.

While invisible (from the spell) you can be 'found' or 'make noise' and you still retain the condition (remain invisible). You can sit there invisibly blasting a trumpet and retain the condition.

That differs from the invisible condition granted from being hidden (where any significant noise, or being 'found' ends the condition). Making a noise louder than a whisper or otherwise 'being found in your hiding spot' ends the invisibility.

The invisibility granted by the spell is clearly superior. Noise and 'being found' doesn't end it.

The noise part isn’t relevant to the sarcophagus example. Being found is relevant, but that’s defined in the rules for the hide action as being accomplished by beating a DC equal to the hidden creature’s stealth check with a perception check. And making a perception check is a search action. So, until another creature takes the search action and rolls high enough (or the hiding creature makes too much noise), the hide action does grant the same benefits as the invisibility spell.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again, yup. That's how it's supposed to work. It's not exactly rocket science. But, you have to remember that "creatively interpreting" the words in the book is part of the "fun" of the game. We're supposed to take the most obtuse interpretation of the words and then cry foul about how the words don't make sense.



Note, being invisible (no matter how it's granted) does not mean that the baddies no longer know where you are. They know exactly where you are. Or, at least what square you are in. They can still attack you, just with disadvantage. Oh, noes, a mundane hide check might grant baddies disadvantage to attack you! That's totally overpowered. It cannot be!!!

The problem isn’t that it’s overpowered, the problem that it’s stupid. Hiding shouldn’t make you invisible. That’s just silly.

 

[Flamestrike]

The noise part isn’t relevant to the sarcophagus example.

That wasnt your argument though. You said the spell and hiding did the same thing, but they dont.

And in the sarcophagus (while hidden) you only have the invisible condition due to hiding (behind your 3/4 cover). If that cover is disintegrated (or someone literally just walks over and looks in) they 'find you' , and you lose the condition.

You're not invisible when hiding because you're translucent. You're invisible when hiding because there is something between you and the observer (3/4 cover).

Being found is relevant, but that’s defined in the rules for the hide action as being accomplished by beating a DC equal to the hidden creature’s stealth check with a perception check.

The Search action is not the only way you can find a hidden creature though, and it never has been.

Even in the old rules a creature hidden in a sarcophagus is automatically detected if someone lifts the lid and peers on in, and a creature hidden in darkness is revealed automatically if someone turns on the lights.

No Search action required.

Just use common sense, like you would with any other ruling.

 

[Flamestrike]

Also, even back in AD&D we had some DMs rule that the thief's 'Hide in Shadows' ability was a percentile roll to basically vanish, and some DMs that were a lot less permissive with it.

It's not like this is something new.

 

[Charlaquin]

That wasnt your argument though. You said the spell and hiding did the same thing, but they dont.

I said they give the same benefits, which they do. The hide action just has more criteria that can end those benefits. But the enemy looking into the sarcophagus isn’t one of those criteria, which is why I didn’t bring them up.

And in the sarcophagus (while hidden) you only have the invisible condition due to hiding (behind your 3/4 cover). If that cover is disintegrated (or someone literally just walks over and looks in) they 'find you' , and you lose the condition.

Not actually stated in the rules.

You're not invisible when hiding because you're translucent. You're invisible when hiding because there is something between you and the observer (3/4 cover).

You’re invisible when hiding because the hide action gives you the invisible condition, the benefits of which must be that creatures can’t see you, or else the invisibility spell must not prevent creatures from seeing you. That’s the problem.

The Search action is not the only way you can find a hidden creature though, and it never has been.

The rules text disagrees with you.

Even in the old rules a creature hidden in a sarcophagus is automatically detected if someone lifts the lid and peers on in, and a creature hidden in darkness is revealed automatically if someone turns on the lights.

The old rules were actually functional. If they had stuck with the old rules, this wouldn’t be a problem. In the new rules, nothing in the hide action states that you lose the invisibility condition if you aren’t behind cover, and if it did, hiding wouldn’t do anything, because its benefits would only apply under circumstances that would prevent you from being seen anyway.

No Search action required.

Not what the rules say.

Just use common sense, like you would with any other ruling.

The rules text is not consistent with a “common sense” ruling, which is what I dislike about them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, even back in AD&D we had some DMs rule that the thief's 'Hide in Shadows' ability was a percentile roll to basically vanish, and some DMs that were a lot less permissive with it.

It's not like this is something new.

What’s new is that the rules text actually supports those DMs. It explicitly makes the rogue invisible now, and those of us who find that absurd are forced to rule less permissively than the rules text, which is always more likely to result in disagreement from players than ruling more permissively than the rules text.

 

[Flamestrike]

I said they give the same benefits, which they do.

No, they dont.

The invisibility granted by the spell is a much stronger benefit that the invisibility granted by hiding, in that the magical invisibility is not lost simply on account of making loud noises or 'being found'.

Likely because the magical invisibility is actual translucence, as opposed to the hiding invisibility which is a person hiding quietly behind a wall.

You’re invisible when hiding because the hide action gives you the invisible condition, the benefits of which must be that creatures can’t see you, or else the invisibility spell must not prevent creatures from seeing you. That’s the problem.

The creatures cant see you because you're hiding.

Not because you're translucent.

That's why you lose being invisible if you make noise, or you're found (someone opens your little box you're hiding in and peers inside).

The rules text disagrees with you.

No it doesnt!

 

[Pauln6]

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.

I think they were trying to address two problems:

Firstly, the notion that rogues can leave their hiding place and not necessarily be seen automatically at the DM's discretion. This is not a house rule. DM's discretion is rule 1. People arguing that a literal interpretation for absurd circumstances causes absurd results are disproving their own point. If even they think that interpretation is absurd, they they are effectively confirming that DM's discretion isn't really discretion but common sense.

Secondly, they wanted the invisibility spell to be better than plain hiding and wanted to cover the movie scenario where someone makes a noise, possibly even monologing, and still can't be found.

The key issue seems to be that 'unless they can somehow see you' covers a lot of ground. The invisibility spell really just needs some text to say you cannot be seen by normal vision or darkvsion.

It's not even a case of RAW vs RAI because the language allows RAW to cover both if nonsense results are ignored.

I think weapon and shield juggling needs tidying up more than stealth, which should play out fine in practice.

As far as initiative goes, it would be more sensible to confirm that where some can see you and some can't, apply disadvantage to the initiative of those that can't but their initiative can only be lower than other party members they can see if both rolls are lower.