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

[jodyjohnson]

I feel the best solution is to simply discard --Insert problem rule here -- and run it like in all the other rpgs where it has worked fine for me these last three decades.

As the melting pot edition, this seems like it should be the default for 5e. Lacking a preferred rule from a previous edition, use the 5e version or an adaptation of the previous rule. That was what I expected from the DMG - a bunch of modified ways that previous editions handled some of the disputed rules.

 

[Oofta]

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

If you're close enough, sure. Much more than 10-20 feet? I don't think you'd see it. That's one of the situational things you need to take into account when trying to figure out if anyone can determine where an invisible creature is.

You can't see them, so you need to either hear a significant volume of sound (close enough and loud enough to overcome ambient noise), they have to interact with the environment in a way you can see, or by touch.

 

[Oofta]

...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.

You keep saying it's broken. So how could it be better? You say you know the answer so why not share?

 

[Lanliss]

If you're close enough, sure. Much more than 10-20 feet? I don't think you'd see it. That's one of the situational things you need to take into account when trying to figure out if anyone can determine where an invisible creature is.

You can't see them, so you need to either hear a significant volume of sound (close enough and loud enough to overcome ambient noise), they have to interact with the environment in a way you can see, or by touch.

Yes, I agree with this. I will say that some cases make it easier. For example, your witch a couple posts up. Assuming she fire balled a market place, there will be smoke. Smoke is a heavy gas, and responds quite easily to motion, so she would be leaving a decent wake, unless she pulled out of the marketplace before the fireball landed. I wouldn't rule the wake is enough to target her directly, but you have a general idea of her direction. Attacking her while not sure where exactly she is would be handled by the disadvantage for attacking an unseen target, IMO. I wouldn't put her on a battle map (if I used one) but I would let them know if they hit her or not, with maybe a perception check to see if they know where their attack went exactly.

 

[Caliban]

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

Thinking about it some more, I suppose in most of those situations the DM just assigns an arbitrary Perception DC. It's not about the inherent stealthiness of the creature, but the environment itself that is causing creatures to become Hidden without taking any actions.

But one weird side effect of the normal rules I just thought of - the Warlock invocation "One With Shadows" is nearly useless. You can use your action to become Invisible while in shadows or darkness, but the invisibility drops if you move or take an action. Which means you can't take an Action to Hide...

 

[Lanliss]

Thinking about it some more, I suppose in most of those situations the DM just assigns an arbitrary Perception DC. It's not about the inherent stealthiness of the creature, but the environment itself that is causing creatures to become Hidden without taking any actions.

But one weird side effect of the normal rules I just thought of - the Warlock invocation "One With Shadows" is nearly useless. You can use your action to become Invisible while in shadows or darkness, but the invisibility drops if you move or take an action. Which means you can't take an Action to Hide...

But no limitation on Bonus action hiding, so your rogue will be fine.

 

[Caliban]

But no limitation on Bonus action hiding, so your rogue will be fine.

And I suppose you could Hide and then activate One with Shadow even if you aren't a rogue/warlock. But it seems strange that you can hide before you become invisible, but not afterward.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Sure, but being counter-intuitive and being different from previous editions shouldn't make it unclear or confusing. It says something different from what you might expect from having read those other books, but it's still more-or-less internally consistent (barring a couple of outside abilities which were probably written before those rules were finalized).

There are some less-concrete examples about how things work outside of combat, which the DM is expected to adjudicate and which rarely cause any confusion in play, but this example of casting this particular spell while in-combat is fairly straight-forward. And if you don't like it then you're welcome to change it, but as written, the rules are perfectly sufficient to describe how that scenario is intended to play out. Vanishing from combat is a tool for Arcane Tricksters, and not your run-of-the-mill Wizard or Illusionist.

 

[Caliban]

Sure, but being counter-intuitive and being different from previous editions shouldn't make it unclear or confusing.

I think being counter-intuitive and different from established expectations is almost the definition of unclear and confusing.

It may be internally consistent, but it doesn't work how I expect stealth to work. Hence, counter-intuitive. Since it doesn't work the way it's "supposed" to based on my previous experiences (in previous editions), that disconnect causes confusion.

You may be an evolved intellect that is not tripped up by such things, but some of us are not as blessed as you.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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

That's not what I said. I said it has to impact every single gamer for it to be an objective issue - there is a huge difference.

You get onto someone else for phrasing their opinion in a way that suggests it applies outside of their own experience, but then you do the very same thing in phrasing your own opinion. That's not cool.