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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

But it doesn't have such language, which is the issue! Either invisible creatures can "somehow be seen" by normal vision, in which case invisibility spell does almost nothing, or they cannot, in which case you cannot find hiding creatures just by seeing them by normal vision, as you cannot see them! Like those are literally the two possible interpretation under the RAW, and both are nonsensical. It is simple as that.

All the people who argue that RAW works, try to smuggle in some invented rules that allow them to rule these situations differently, but no such rules exist in the text. Just accept that your perfectly sensible approach is a houserule and move on.

 

[aco175]

There still seems to be some in combat vs. out of combat things I need to figure out. The sarcophagus example allows a PC to hide and have the invisible condition. The bad guy walks over and looks in. I'm fine to allow him to see the PC, but what if the PC wanted to attack as soon as the person looks in? Would the PC gain advantage on initiative or it is now lost since the bad guy looked in? Would it be better if you jump out as you hear the bad guy approach in order to gain advantage to initiative, but then is it lost since you jumped out and now seen?

It seems that the rules are aimed to allow rogues to be able to sneak attack each turn to keep their DPR up with the other PCs. The aim rule allows you to not hide behind the corner and pop out to gain advantage from hiding, so it seems this is meant to allow advantage more often.

I kind of see the out of combat being more like OB1 in Star Wars sneaking around the Death Star and hiding behind things or making sounds to distract the stormtroopers. If he wanted to jump out and attack them- what? Now it becomes in combat Does it go to the surprise rules and he only gets to have them have disadvantage to initiative? Does he never get advantage to attack since he moves the 10ft to attack? I can see him getting to use the invisible condition from hiding to get advantage to initiative and if he goes first, can benefit from hiding until the end of his turn. If the bad guys go first, then I can see trying to jump out and stumbling or something that breaks the condition since the bad guys can see him on their turn.

 

[Dalamar]

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).

So if someone casts see invisible but does not open the box, do they see the hiding character?

If they do not, that implies that the hiding character is invisible (not the game term) even without being Invisible (the game term). So hiding doesn't actually do anything.

If they do, it implies that see invisible allows you to see hiding characters through cover. So actively hiding makes you more visible against creatures who can see invisible creatures.

 

[Xeviat]

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

The fact that there have been 3 (?) threads on this that have gone so long says otherwise. I severely dislike the "hide first to set the DC" nature of it. A Hidden condition could easily say "you become noticed at the end of your turn if you no longer have sufficient cover or concealment" to ensure hiders can move between cover.

 

[Epic Meepo]

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.

This speaks to one of the big complaints I have about the use of the Invisibility condition in the new rules. You have presented a consistent, common sense, workable way to apply the hiding rules and the Invisibility spell at the table. But even with all the benefits of common sense, the strongest statement you can make about the Invisibility spell is that it likely makes someone transparent.

I don't want to know what a spell likely does. I want to know what it actually does, from the perspective of the characters interacting with it. If I'm a gamist, the spell works fine as written, because I just take the rules at face value without explanation. But if I care about the narrative, I need to know for sure if and when a spell effect makes someone translucent. Granted, I could decide that arbitrarily, but if I'm a narrativist consulting the rules, I'm looking for guidelines that inform my narrative in ways that reduce the number of arbitrary decisions I have to make.

 

[Pauln6]

The fact that there have been 3 (?) threads on this that have gone so long says otherwise. I severely dislike the "hide first to set the DC" nature of it. A Hidden condition could easily say "you become noticed at the end of your turn if you no longer have sufficient cover or concealment" to ensure hiders can move between cover.

Yeah that would be an improvement but means you would be auto detected even if the guard is looking the other way. DM discretion is preferable I think. The issue isn't with hiding, it's the clunky way invisibility spells are expected to work without any real description to give assistance. Also, if Detect Invisibility is Intended to spot hidden creatures as well, that's actually fine but if they aren't looking that way or if PC has total cover, there are some issues there too with whether one Trump's the other.

 

[Nefermandias]

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.

On the other hand, if we're going for the more sane interpretation, people are only Invisible while out of everyone's sight.

If that's the case, what's the point of being invisible in the first place?

 

[Kinematics]

On the See Invisible spells, I don't think it's quite that bad. See Invisible allows you to see someone with the Invisible condition, but it doesn't allow you to see through solid objects. So it's like, you could see the hiding person with See Invisible, but only if you could actually see the hiding person. You can't see the person hiding in the sarcophagus, because you can't see through the sarcophagus.

Yes, that makes it a bit redundant, but meshes with other ways of making use of hiding such as Disguise (which isn't really covered in the base rules).

 

[Chaltab]

I'm baffled as to why the rule was changed to begin with. The 5E rules were clear if a bit wordy, but the 5.24 rule is clear as mud.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm baffled as to why the rule was changed to begin with. The 5E rules were clear if a bit wordy, but the 5.24 rule is clear as mud.

10 to 1? The old rules weren’t executable by a computer. They required DM discretion to resolve (which IMO was exactly what made them work well), so they couldn’t be directly translated to video games or any hypothetical “AI” DM or other automated DM software, and that made them less than ideal for Project Sigil.

On a similar note, I imagine that’s what coding Influence, Search, and Study as specific actions with default DCs was about as well.