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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

I don't think it is actually fair or reasonable for a person coming into a new game or new version of a game to expect that the things established by other games or versions are going to be handled in the same way.

You don't load up Legend of Zelda and expect that you'll have to jump on enemy's heads to kill them because that's how it works in Super Mario Bros., and you don't load up Donkey Kong Country and expect that you'll actually be playing as a little man jumping and climbing to try and save a girl from a barrel-throwing ape because that's how gameplay in Donkey Kong went, so why should how D&D used to work have any bearing on how the newest version of D&D works?

And it doesn't take "evolved intellect" or being "blessed" to keep yourself from having prior-version baggage clouding your judgement of the new version - it just takes realizing you have that baggage, and intentionally setting it aside while you read the new version.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think it is actually fair or reasonable for a person coming into a new game or new version of a game to expect that the things established by other games or versions are going to be handled in the same way.

You don't load up Legend of Zelda and expect that you'll have to jump on enemy's heads to kill them because that's how it works in Super Mario Bros., and you don't load up Donkey Kong Country and expect that you'll actually be playing as a little man jumping and climbing to try and save a girl from a barrel-throwing ape because that's how gameplay in Donkey Kong went, so why should how D&D used to work have any bearing on how the newest version of D&D works?

And it doesn't take "evolved intellect" or being "blessed" to keep yourself from having prior-version baggage clouding your judgement of the new version - it just takes realizing you have that baggage, and intentionally setting it aside while you read the new version.

Your opinion has been noted.

 

[Lanefan]

Vanishing from combat is a tool for Arcane Tricksters, and not your run-of-the-mill Wizard or Illusionist.

On behalf of Illusionists everywhere I just have to stand up and say "Hey!".

Invisibility, as an illusion, should be bread-and-butter for Illusionists; as should being able to use it to Do Neat Stuff...like vanish from combat.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

And it doesn't take "evolved intellect" or being "blessed" to keep yourself from having prior-version baggage clouding your judgement of the new version - it just takes realizing you have that baggage, and intentionally setting it aside while you read the new version.

Though what you call "baggage" others might call "experience"...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Though what you call "baggage" others might call "experience"...

Which is not a distinction with any relevant difference in the context of my statement.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Rain splatters when it hits a solid object. You're going to see it impacting something well before reaching the ground.

 

[Lanefan]

Which is not a distinction with any relevant difference in the context of my statement.

I was trying (and failing, I suppose) to imply a difference: "baggage" indicates something to be got rid of, "experience" implied lessons learned to be applied to future situations i.e. forward compatibility.

Then again, I'm a big proponent of backwards/forwards compatibility in many things e.g. computer software/hardware.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

He got it right. Objectively AN issue, is not the same as AN objective issue. You are confusing those two things.

 

[Maxperson]

You don't load up Legend of Zelda and expect that you'll have to jump on enemy's heads to kill them because that's how it works in Super Mario Bros., and you don't load up Donkey Kong Country and expect that you'll actually be playing as a little man jumping and climbing to try and save a girl from a barrel-throwing ape because that's how gameplay in Donkey Kong went, so why should how D&D used to work have any bearing on how the newest version of D&D works?

Nobody is claiming that D&D invisibility is expected to work like Rolemaster invisibility, which is what your examples above equate to. However, we would expect Donkey Kong Jr to be similar to Donkey Kong, and if they made a Bride of Donkey Kong, we'd expect that similarity to continue. That's reasonable approximation of the different editions of D&D.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You are confusing those two things.

No, I'm not.

Nobody is claiming that D&D invisibility is expected to work like Rolemaster invisibility, which is what your examples above equate to.

I never said anyone is making such a claim. And yes, one of my examples equates to that.

However, we would expect Donkey Kong Jr to be similar to Donkey Kong, and if they made a Bride of Donkey Kong, we'd expect that similarity to continue. That's reasonable approximation of the different editions of D&D.

My other example, however, equates to exactly what your examples here do, and is a more reasonable approximation of different editions of D&D as it shows that, sometimes, a few core ideas are kept but the game itself is built in a completely different way.

It's not the fault of the person making the game in question if someone confuses themself by expecting the game to be something other than what it actually is.