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

[Lanefan]

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

The designers' only mistake here (though IMO a flagrant one) is that they used the same term (bolded) for both conditions.

Had they used a different term for "hiding invisibility" then these issues go away. And the term is sitting right there: hidden.

 

[Chaltab]

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.

But why not just let the VTT coders solve that mess? Why let a rule that humans cant use go to print?

 

[Dalamar]

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).

It makes it entirely redundant, though. If hiding makes you invisible only while nobody can see you... it doesn't actually do anything.

Unless you mean you can Hide (the action that makes you Invisible) using a disguise. In which case, see invisible allows you to see through disguises? Or maybe some disguises (trying to blend in) but not others (trying to impersonate someone)? That doesn't sound like it's making the rules good, it's just moving which part of the rules is bad.

 

[ECMO3]

Yeah in the newer rules it seems you can only have invisibility condition while behind cover. If you cast invisibility on yourself and walk out from behind cover you can now be seen. I also don't think the kobolds in the begining have disdvantage because of the new wording of the condition.

I guess you are kind of transparent but there is some kind of aura or disturbance that lets you be seen anyway.

 

[ECMO3]

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

I would have to read the new version of the spelll, but if they are using the wording on the 2014 spell, yes he can see the hiding character.

You are invisible in the box, the spell lets him see invisibile creatures. He can't see anything else inside the box, but he can see you and what you are carrying/wearing that are also invisibile. If you are laying there squished in next to a Vampire, he can't see the Vampire, unless the Vampire takes an action to hide and succeeds in which case he is visibile to the person with see invisibility as well.

The way I read it is when one character casts see invisibility, anyone who has the invisibile condition can be seen anywhere within the range of vision. That is what the spell does.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah in the newer rules it seems you can only have invisibility condition while behind cover. If you cast invisibility on yourself and walk out from behind cover you can now be seen.

I don’t think that’s true. The text indicates that you need cover or obscuration to hide, but it’s not clear that you need it to remain hidden. I could imagine that being the intent, but I think the text is far too ambiguous on the matter if so.

 

[Kinematics]

It makes it entirely redundant, though. If hiding makes you invisible only while nobody can see you... it doesn't actually do anything.

Eh, what? Hiding gives you the Invisible condition, it doesn't make you invisible (transparent).

Basically, hiding means you are no longer seen. You are not visible. You are in-visible. Characters gain mechanical benefits when they are not seen. The Invisible condition enumerates those benefits.

You're flipping the cause and the effect. Like, the Restrained condition doesn't cause you to be tied up with ropes. Being tied up with ropes gives you the Restrained condition. The Invisible condition doesn't cause you to be transparent. Being transparent gives you the Invisible condition.

And just like there are other ways to end up with the Restrained condition than being tied up with ropes, there are other ways to end up with the Invisible condition than being transparent.

 

[Dalamar]

Eh, what? Hiding gives you the Invisible condition, it doesn't make you invisible (transparent).

Basically, hiding means you are no longer seen. You are not visible. You are in-visible. Characters gain mechanical benefits when they are not seen. The Invisible condition enumerates those benefits.

You're flipping the cause and the effect. Like, the Restrained condition doesn't cause you to be tied up with ropes. Being tied up with ropes gives you the Restrained condition. The Invisible condition doesn't cause you to be transparent. Being transparent gives you the Invisible condition.

And just like there are other ways to end up with the Restrained condition than being tied up with ropes, there are other ways to end up with the Invisible condition than being transparent.

Yes, but for a chatacter to Hide, they can't be seen by enemies. So Hiding makes the character Invisible to enemies... that can't see the character to begin with. And since the argument is that Hiding does not make the character transparent or otherwise prevent them from being seen, there is no way for the character to benefit from it (they can't come out from the hiding spot) or other characters to interact with the condition (the character is not seen regardless). In other words, it is redundant.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, but for a chatacter to Hide, they can't be seen by enemies. So Hiding makes the character Invisible to enemies... that can't see the character to begin with. And since the argument is that Hiding does not make the character transparent or otherwise prevent them from being seen, there is no way for the character to benefit from it (they can't come out from the hiding spot) or other characters to interact with the condition (the character is not seen regardless). In other words, it is redundant.

I think under the interpretation @Kinematics is advocating for, the invisibility condition is not redundant because it’s the delivery mechanism for the mechanical benefits of being unseen. Yes, you can only receive those benefits under conditions where you couldn’t be seen anyway. But the benefits it’s granting - particularly advantage on initiative rolls and attack rolls, and attackers having disadvantage against you, are not inherently granted just by being in a position from which you can’t be seen. You need the condition itself to give you those benefits.

 

[Hussar]

Nm