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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There most assuredly is "an issue".

You forgot to add "...for me."

 

[Lanliss]

In a relatively quiet dungeon, a creature wearing plate armor (which doesn't clank as much as some people think, but that's another topic) turns invisible and walks away on the stone floor as his footsteps echo down the hall.

Versus a wizard in robes during a fight is during a torrential thunderstorm. Wind is howling, thunder booms constantly and the wizard 50 feet away at the top of a battlement. He turns invisible and flies away on a broom. Does anyone know where he went? Why?
​

There is a person shaped hole in the rain pattern. Probably kind of hard to miss, I think.

 

[Caliban]

I still don't see what the confusion is. The rules make perfect sense to me, and my players have never complained about them or disagreed with them.

I can understand that some people don't immediately intuit the difference between invisible and hidden, but once that part has been clarified, there's no issue.

I think the biggest source of confusion is that they changed the mechanics of how Stealth works from previous editions. And that's the part of invisibility that causes problems - when and how you can be Stealthed/Hidden.

Previously, you could Stealth/Hide as part of your move action (as well as moving). Now it requires a full action, which means you can't cast Invisibility and immediately Hide. It seems counter intuitive that turning invisible doesn't immediately grant you a chance to become hidden - you have to wait six seconds and actively attempt to hide now.

The rules don't have a "Passive Stealth" for when you are hard to notice but haven't actively tried to hide your location. The rules seem to assume your location is immediately apparent even if you can't be seen.

 

[Lanefan]

There is a person shaped hole in the rain pattern. Probably kind of hard to miss, I think.

My players sometimes forget this and wonder why their invisibility isn't as effective as it should be. Then they remember it's raining... (and if they don't know what the in-game weather's doing then they haven't been listening, as I always narrate it)

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

The rules don't have a "Passive Stealth" for when you are hard to notice but haven't actively tried to hide your location. The rules seem to assume your location is immediately apparent even if you can't be seen.

Which is surprising given how many other situations in which a "Passive Stealth" type of thing would come up:
- a guard standing still (or even moving a bit) by a wall on a dark rainy night, not trying to hide but still difficult to notice
- a creature swimming beneath the water's surface, it's not trying to hide but is rather just moving through its natural environment yet still might be hard to notice from above the surface
- any creature with good natural camouflage that simply blends into its surroundings without trying to e.g. a Yeti in snow or a green-clad Leprechaun in a forest
- any situation involving severely-reduced visibility and-or hearing e.g. a howling blizzard; you and someone else passing 30' away might have Passive Stealth even if you were trying to find each other!
- and think about all those situations in real life where someone sneaks up on you without intending to - you just simply didn't expect them to be there

Lanefan

 

[CapnZapp]

You forgot to add "...for me."

...no, there objectively is an issue... as evidenced by all these posts, all these threads, all these posters that can't agree on how it is supposed to work.

You may have noticed that I haven't actually entered the various subdiscussions - this is because I feel the best solution is to simply discard 5e stealth and run it like in all the other rpgs where it has worked fine for me these last three decades.

 

[ccs]

There is a person shaped hole in the rain pattern. Probably kind of hard to miss, I think.

Ah, but you're forgetting that the wizard is INVISIBLE. Meaning that you can see straight through him & see the rain on the other side.
Maybe if you roll really well on a perception check or such you'll notice some sort of distortion.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...no, there objectively is an issue...

If there were "objectively" an issue, everyone would be experiencing it. Some of us aren't, which means the issue is subjective.

 

[Lanliss]

Ah, but you're forgetting that the wizard is INVISIBLE. Meaning that you can see straight through him & see the rain on the other side.
Maybe if you roll really well on a perception check or such you'll notice some sort of distortion.

That is a possible ruling, yes. There are a lot of those though, so we are back to square one. I was simply providing an ( one of many) answer to the question "How could he be seen?"

 

[CapnZapp]

If there were "objectively" an issue, everyone would be experiencing it. Some of us aren't, which means the issue is subjective.

A rule does not have to impact every single gamer for it to be an issue, don't be preposterous.

This issue impacts a lot of gamers. That's a fact, and not merely opinion.

And why am I (once more) talking to you anyway, Aaron...? I have already wished Saelorn good luck with his successful grooking of the rules.