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

[Barolo]

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.

Actually I'm needin' m'self some ol' "left" rules for invisibility over here...... or there, I can't see.

(or might not, or may not, or will not, I'm not sure anymore)

 

[FrogReaver]

Those pesky invisibility rules must be hiding again

 

[ThePolarBear]

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.

Yes, but this purely falls into DM adjudication and not the rules for hiding themselves that state that the initial roll is kept until a creature is discovered or stops hiding.
It would be unfair, for me, to have a player roll again just because someone entered the scene since the "roll" is assumed to be on the perception side of things - you compare perception to the stealth roll after all in a way that's "automatic".

Calling a Stealth check because the player does something that is outside of "normal hiding" - for example slinging past a guard with little cover and not while in combat - would prompt me to call for another check.

Sure.

For invisibility and darkness, the rules are actually quite sparse. Someone in darkness is effectively blinded.

No. Second time might be the charm, since you previously asked to be corrected. This part has been errataed. It's now "someone is considered effectively blinded for the purpose of noticing something that's heavily obscured"

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

You also forgot about half of them, like, for example,"the DM is the one that has the last word about someone being able to hide".

Not quotes, still enough to make the point across.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Please stop justifying the biggest clusterfrack of inconsistent, incomprehensible stealth rules in the history of D&D.

What you say would be admirable, if the rules actually defined ways to run stealth clearly, and discussed the various adjustments you could make.

But do not confuse that by spinning the very deficiencies of the current rules as something other than wholly negative.

Thank you

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[DEFCON 1]

Please stop justifying the biggest clusterfrack of inconsistent, incomprehensible stealth rules in the history of D&D.

Please stop insinuating that what you think the rules should be are in fact the way the rules should be. Personally, I think a lot of your complaints about many of the various rules are lame and the game would be worse for having them.

Thank you.

 

[Oofta]

Please stop justifying the biggest clusterfrack of inconsistent, incomprehensible stealth rules in the history of D&D.

Please stop insinuating that what you think the rules should be are in fact the way the rules should be. Personally, I think a lot of your complaints about many of the various rules are lame and the game would be worse for having them.

Thank you.

Amen. If you have something constructive to add, if you have a real criticism (RAAARRRR is not a real criticism) I don't care. Kind of tired of the BS.

 

[Oofta]

You also forgot about half of them, like, for example,"the DM is the one that has the last word about someone being able to hide".

Not quotes, still enough to make the point across.

Well, since I don't believe that invisibility and hiding necessarily have anything to do with each other, I don't really give two figs.

The topic is not about hiding, it is about invisibility and the fact that some people think that the only way to avoid detection is to have this "condition" called "hidden" which is not mentioned anywhere in the book.

 

[Maxperson]

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...

I took a jab at some rules earlier.

 

[Oofta]

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.
​

No. Second time might be the charm, since you previously asked to be corrected. This part has been errataed. It's now "someone is considered effectively blinded for the purpose of noticing something that's heavily obscured"
​

Ummm ... I'm quoting the rules for Blinded, page 290 of the PHB or 105 of the basic rules, not the rules for Vision and Light heavily obscured area. I guess I could have included those rules, but I did not.​

 

[Uchawi]

Every table I played at for the most part had some DM version of a rule that was not followed explicitly by what is considered RAW. With that stated, 5E did a pretty poor job with stealth and related rules overall since technically they did not have to re-invent them, just improve them. So as a player, I agree you should discuss your rules hang ups before you start. At some point we all have to decide if the inconsistencies in rulings or poorly written rules interferes with our enjoyment of the game. Eventually your lack of enjoyment will bleed over to other players if you continue to argue with the DM.