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

tomBitonti

Adventurer
As to the a question of whether a second character knows a first character's position after the first casts invisibility, I think that needs to answered carefully, with a difference between "knows definitely where a character is located" and "has a good idea of where a character is located". For example, if there was a higher level "invisibility and dimension door" spell which made a character invisible then moved the character 10' in a chosen direction, would a character automatically know the final location of the character who cast the spell?

Thx!
TomB
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tony Vargas

Legend
The first (and last) time the rules defined hidden as a "condition", or explicitly stated that if you were not hidden people knew your exact position was 4E.
In context it wasn't quite that unconditional (ie everyone on Oerth doesn't know the position of everyone else who hasn't made a stealth check recently, all the time). That shouldn't have to be stated, but this is rapidly becoming one of /those/ threads.

But, yes, Hidden was a condition, with an explicit game-jargon meaning, and, after some confusion very similar to what we've had with 5e this time around (afterall those specific rules didn't change that much 4e->Next->5e), there was an errata that clarified that meaning (or maybe even established it, I don't recall atm, it's been settled for so long). After that, the issue was no longer in question.

That's one of the benefits of a 'gamist' design that defines and consistently uses (and promptly errata's when there are issues) a bunch of jargon. 5e didn't go that way, it chose natural language over jargon as much as possible. That makes the book a more accessible read, but a more ambiguous source of rules. In turn 5e leverages that ambiguity as part of the foundation for DM Empowerment. You /need/ the DM to make rulings where the rules are ambiguous, that dependence empowers the DM to take a more active hand in shaping the game on all levels.

When folks trot out claims of 'RAW' they're - probably unintentionally, perhaps out of habit - actively undermining that goal of DM Empowerment.

OTOH, while Hidden is not a condition in 5e, Hide /is/ an Action. So there is an explicit meaning, there. FWIW. (In 5e, not much until the DM makes his ruling!)

So I make the assumption that people state that your position is automatically known unless you've taken the hide action because they got used to 4E. No one has pointed to any rules in 5E that explicitly state otherwise.
No rule explicitly states that DMs who rule one way do not do so out of habit formed in an prior edition? I mean, AFAICT, that's how that last paragraph parses. And that last sentence is true. An odd thing to say, perhaps, but true. ;)
Well, that's one way to parse it - I'm the one who's going on about the ambiguity of natural language, afterall, I should allow that there are others....
Another way that also fits would be that "no rule in 5e explicitly contradicts the assumption that your position is automatically known unless you've 'taken the hide action' successfully." That's also true.
I'm guessing you meant the opposite, that "no rule in 5e explicitly contradicts the assumption that your position is not automatically known even if you have not taken the Hide Action." Which is particularly true, I think, given the trivial case of obviously not knowing where every non-hiding creature in the world is, all the time. ;)

More to the point, it's up to the DM to rule whether the position of a creature is known to another or not - whether someone has declared a Hide action or declared searching for a hidden creature as their action. That ruling can include calling for check from either or both parties. Or not.

(Though I'd advise against call for checks 'both,' as I consider opposed checks overly random/'swingy,' especially under BA. JMHO from years of experience with 3e.)

As to the a question of whether a second character knows a first character's position after the first casts invisibility, I think that needs to answered carefully, with a difference between "knows definitely where a character is located" and "has a good idea of where a character is located".
In another thread I brought up the possibility of knowing that the character is still present, but not the 'exact' location. So "you hear footsteps echoing around the cavern, you can't tell where they're coming from..." or "... you're pretty sure he's in /that/ side of the room somewhere..." Facilitates recon by fireball, that.

For example, if there was a higher level "invisibility and dimension door" spell which made a character invisible then moved the character 10' in a chosen direction, would a character automatically know the final location of the character who cast the spell?
There were powers like that in 4e, and if they were meant to prevent others from knowing the final location of the user they would contain language like "...and you can make a stealth check to become Hidden" or just "...and you become Hidden until..." That's jargon and exception-based design for you.
Something similar in 5e probably wouldn't contain such language, and leave it to the DM to rule how the teleportation & invisibility interact. For instance, one DM may decide that teleportation opens a dimensional gate and/or bleeds off interdimensional friction as a puff of smoke and/or displaces air with a loud pop or whatever - and thus the two points involved are obvious, even if the character teleporting isn't; another DM might rule that the obvious intent of the spell is to escape detection, so it must render the caster's location unknowable short of more powerful magic.
That's natural language and DM Empowerment. The very existence of a spell like that, worded that way (in ambiguous natural language) presents another opportunity for the DM to fine-tune the challenge of an encounter, the tone of the setting, and/or the nature of magic in his campaign.
 
Last edited:

In 3.5, the Invisibility spell stated that you could not be seen. It merely noted that you were not silenced and you could still give away your position by stepping into a puddle or similar.

So I make the assumption that people state that your position is automatically known unless you've taken the hide action because they got used to 4E. No one has pointed to any rules in 5E that explicitly state otherwise.
Third edition had detailed rules for locating invisible creatures. It used the keyword "pinpointed" to describe a creature whose location is known to you, even though you cannot see it.

I won't speak for 4E. If you tell me that it had a Hidden condition, then I'll believe you.

Fifth edition describes a similar situation to 3.5, but with less detail. There is a brief section in the Basic Rules document which describes the interaction between an attacker and a defender that is either invisible or hidden, where hidden is defined as both unseen and unheard. Context makes it clear that a hidden creature is one whose position is not known to you.
 

Oofta

Legend
Supporter
Third edition had detailed rules for locating invisible creatures. It used the keyword "pinpointed" to describe a creature whose location is known to you, even though you cannot see it.

It's been too long since I played 3.5 to remember all the rules. I do specifically recall that invisible opponents were a pain in the arse. Oddly enough, that was part of the fun - how do you fight someone you can't see? Glitterdust was our savior more than once but we also had people get creative and do things like cast create water so we would see outline of the person as the water splashed down and then see prints in the newly formed pools. One of my old characters always carried around a small bag of flour to throw in the hopes of temporarily outlining the creature.

Some people may find that style of play annoying, but I enjoyed it and continue to use similar in my 5E games. Knowing that someone is "over there somewhere" without being able to pinpoint them exactly is rare, but it does happen.

And as always, IMHO the phrase "an invisible person can be detected" does not mean "an invisible person is always detected" any more than "a rectangle can be a square" means that "a rectangle is always a square".
 

And as always, IMHO the phrase "an invisible person can be detected" does not mean "an invisible person is always detected" any more than "a rectangle can be a square" means that "a rectangle is always a square".
That is simply not how the language is used, in practice. If the DM tells you that an enemy can be detected on the far end of the room, then you should take that to mean your character detects an enemy on the far end of the room. It's like asking if you can borrow a pencil; it's not technically the correct question to be asking, but it's how the language works in practice.

As far as the rules are concerned, the Invisible condition tells you the degree to which it makes you hidden: "for the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured." Is a heavily obscured character automatically hidden - "both unseen and unheard"? No, of course not. The rules tell us that you can still be heard as normal, and also tell us that it requires a Stealth check in order try and hide. The Hiding rules tell us that an invisible character can always try and hide, not that they are often or generally considered to be hidden by default unless environmental circumstances suggest otherwise.

Put simply, your interpretation is not what is intended by the rules. There are too many places where the rules would have been written differently if your interpretation was intended, and while you're welcome to change any rules at your own table, you should be aware of those changes so that you can convey them to your players and prevent misunderstandings.
 

Oofta

Legend
Supporter
That is simply not how the language is used

...

Put simply, your interpretation is not what is intended by the rules.

LOL. Last time I looked, english was my primary language, thanks for correcting me.

I am so glad you are the final arbiter of the rules.

I guess that also means that all rectangles are squares since rectangles can be squares.

In any case, have fun gaming!
 


Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
The
Brah, the Barbarian: Hey, can you pass the ale?

Iggy, the Wizard: Sure, I can.

Brah: ....... well?

Iggy: I can pass it.

Brah: ..... well, WILL YOU PASS THE ALE? BRAH THIRSTY!

Iggy: Oh, I thought you were asking if I was able to. Would you like me to pass the ale, Brah?

Brah: BRAH HATE WIZARDS!!!!!
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Brah, the Barbarian: Hey, can you pass the ale?

Iggy, the Wizard: Sure, I can.

Brah: ....... well?

Iggy: I can pass it.

Brah: ..... well, WILL YOU PASS THE ALE? BRAH THIRSTY!

Iggy: Oh, I thought you were asking if I was able to. Would you like me to pass the ale, Brah?

Brah: BRAH HATE WIZARDS!!!!!
Sezs
 


Remove ads

Top