D&D 5E Why do so many DMs use the wrong rules for invisibility?

[The Crimson Binome]

Giving Advantage on Stealth checks seems reasonable since Stealth folds Hide & Move Silent into a single check. Since being invis makes hide very easy but doesn't help with move silent.

Stealth is only moving silently. If you are visible - if you aren't behind cover, within obscurement, or invisible - then you can't even attempt to hide.

That's why Invisibility is useful for sneaking around. It makes it so that you have a chance to not be detected, as compared to definitely automatically being detected by anyone looking in your direction. But your chance of not being detected isn't any greater than if you were sneaking through darkness or just outside of someone's field of vision; being unseen is already a precondition for stealth, so it can't be a factor in how well you sneak around.

 

[Samir]

Stealth is only moving silently. If you are visible - if you aren't behind cover, within obscurement, or invisible - then you can't even attempt to hide.

That's why Invisibility is useful for sneaking around. It makes it so that you have a chance to not be detected, as compared to definitely automatically being detected by anyone looking in your direction. But your chance of not being detected isn't any greater than if you were sneaking through darkness or just outside of someone's field of vision; being unseen is already a precondition for stealth, so it can't be a factor in how well you sneak around.

Being unseen is no longer a precondition for stealth. PHB errata:

The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly.

The DM tells you when you can hide, and the DM tells you whether or not you need to roll Stealth. There's also no requirement to use the Hide Action.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Being unseen is no longer a precondition for stealth.

Nevertheless, being seen more-clearly or less-clearly is not a factor in how well you sneak. Once it is determined that you're sufficiently unseen that sneaking is possible, that's no longer a factor in the equation.

If you have someone sneaking across a darkened room, the fact that the enemy can't see them is already accounted for in allowing the check to begin with. They wouldn't also make the check at Advantage just because they can't be seen. Likewise if you're sneaking down a hallway, with a guard on the other side of the door; that's just a routine use of the skill, and doesn't represent circumstances which are significantly advantageous enough to grant Advantage on the check.

I mean, unless your DM is just Dis/Advantage happy, and hands it out all over the place. I can see how your mileage may vary in this.

 

[Caliban]

So, entering this thread after 9 pages, and without bothering to read any previous posts, I have to ask.

Are there any "right" rules for invisibility? Since people can't seem to agree on what the wrong ones are.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Are there any "right" rules for invisibility?

The only "right" rules are the ones that work for your specific table.

This is especially made the case because the 5th edition game intentionally took a stance that is basically "This is the kind of thing that ends up getting resolved a bunch of different ways no matter what the rules are according to historical evidence, so let's just make the official rule be 'DM's discretion' and not waste words/effort." when it comes to the general topic of how noticing things works.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, entering this thread after 9 pages, and without bothering to read any previous posts, I have to ask.

Post #24.

Are there any "right" rules for invisibility?

No.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nevertheless, being seen more-clearly or less-clearly is not a factor in how well you sneak. Once it is determined that you're sufficiently unseen that sneaking is possible, that's no longer a factor in the equation.

If you have someone sneaking across a darkened room, the fact that the enemy can't see them is already accounted for in allowing the check to begin with. They wouldn't also make the check at Advantage just because they can't be seen. Likewise if you're sneaking down a hallway, with a guard on the other side of the door; that's just a routine use of the skill, and doesn't represent circumstances which are significantly advantageous enough to grant Advantage on the check.

I mean, unless your DM is just Dis/Advantage happy, and hands it out all over the place. I can see how your mileage may vary in this.

A stealth check could be asked for anytime the DM determines there is uncertainty as to whether you would succeed at hiding or fail at it. Thus saying if the check is allowed it must mean you were not seen doesn't entirely follow. The reason the check failed may be explained in the fiction as you were seen to clearly to go unnoticed.

Depending on a number of factors related to the hide attempt the DM may decide to give advantage or disadvantage to it.

 

[Oofta]

So, entering this thread after 9 pages, and without bothering to read any previous posts, I have to ask.

Are there any "right" rules for invisibility? Since people can't seem to agree on what the wrong ones are.

Sure.

For invisibility and darkness, the rules are actually quite sparse. Someone in darkness is effectively blinded.
Blinded
• A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.


Invisible
• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.

Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

Hiding
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly,
and you give away your position if you make noise, such as
shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible
creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of
its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has
to stay quiet.

​

That's about all there is for the "right" rules. People's interpretation of those rules is a bit more problematic of course.

The critical thing people argue about is the phrase "can be detected". Some people say that means you may or may not be detected based on the situation and that there are no clear rules so the DM needs to make a judgement call. Other people seem to think you are always detected even if you've been polymorphed into a mouse and turned invisible while at the other end of a football field if you haven't taken the hide action.

 

[Caliban]

My feeling is the thing that causes the most problems with Invisibility is that Hiding is now an Action, whereas in 3rd edition and 4th edition it was part of the Move actions. If you were invisible, you could stealth and still take your normal action.

Now, you have to give up your action in order to hide, even if the circumstances would seem to indicate you are hidden without actually taking the Hide action. This was probably done to make rogues the stealthiest class, since they can Hide as a bonus action, giving them more options to when it comes to hiding.

 

[Lanefan]

So, entering this thread after 9 pages, and without bothering to read any previous posts, I have to ask.

Are there any "right" rules for invisibility?

No, and we're well on our way to determining the left ones aren't much use either.

The uppercut rules, however, are showing great promise...