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

[Plaguescarred]

So the rules and the devs are inconsistent on this subject is the minimum we can say. No arguments from one side or another is gonna change anything i believe so each should weight the consequences of running it one way or another and stick with what they think is best for their campaign. The rest is just us arguing over again #businessasusual


Yan
D&D Playtester

 

[Werebat]

The important thing is that as a player, you find a way to coerce your DM into ruling invisibility however it would be most advantageous to the PCs, even if that means changing how it is handled several times in the same combat.

That's how you WIN.

 

[Oofta]

Seeking consistency in the use of the word "can"; and more and more seeking that it not be used at all but instead be replaced by "will", "may", "might", or whatever other word gives the right amount of (un)certainty for the situation.
...
Lan-"people that post to this forum can be obtuse: guilty as charged, y'r honour"-efan

I agree that "might" can be clearer than "can be". However, it just doesn't feel like conversational english to me to say something like "a rectangle might be a square". I would say that "a rectangle can be a square". Maybe it's a regional thing, but I think it's more likely that the entire PHB is written in a conversational, relaxed style.

The PHB is not written like a legal document, it's not written in "gamerize". By and large I think that's a good thing.

At some point you have to invoke Occam's razor. In this case I think it's more like Occam's dull butterknife. What's the simplest interpretation of the rule? That you always know where every ant is even if you cannot see them because in theory you "could" hear them and they haven't taken the hide action? Or that depending on circumstances you may not notice someone unless you've seen them, touched them or they've done something significant to attract your attention like shouting or knocking things over?

Since there are no explicit rules on how to detect or know the precise position of something you can't see, it's up the DM. Personally I fall back on the real world when there are no rules (e.g. dragons). Do what makes sense to you and your group.

 

[tomBitonti]

OK, try parsing these:

The room is misty but characters looking south can see a dim shape, possibly a statue.

The room is misty but characters looking south may see a dim shape, possibly a statue.

"Can" implies certainty - you look, you can see it. "May" implies uncertainty - you look, you may or may not see it; which is what I'm after.

And even then, "can" in the first instance above should be replaced by "will" to make it even more clear.

Lan-"is 'can' the new four-letter word in design?"-efan

Both are imprecise. In actual play, I would use:

"The room is misty. Looking south, you see a dim shape, possibly a statue."

In both of the original statements, "can see" and "may see" muddy the waters unnecessarily. Do the characters see a dim shape, or don't they?

For a room description for a GM, I would be more specific:

"The room is misty and has a statue along the southern wall. The mist obscures vision; characters will notice the statue with a DC 10 Perception check (DC 20 passive)."

Saying "may" or "might" without providing a definite conditions which change "may" to "does" or "does not" seems poor writing.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Tony Vargas]

So the rules and the devs are inconsistent on this subject is the minimum we can say. .. .

Just like every other subject.

Hey, at least they're consistent about it. ;P


(no, I have nothing useful to say, here, just the joke, sorry if it wasn't funny)

 

[S'mon]

I have to houserule-ish invisibility in 5e because there basically are no rules for invisibility in 5e. There are rules for the Hide action but nothing on how hard it is to spot an invisible creature not specifically hiding. So I go to the general rules and use a Per DC 20 (Hard) to detect an invisible creature, Per DC 25 (Very Hard) to detect an Arcane Eye since it's Tiny. IMO it should neither be impossible nor automatic.

Giving Advantage on Stealth checks seems reasonable since Stealth folds Hide & Move Silent into a single check. Since being invis makes hide very easy but doesn't help with move silent.

 

[Darkness]

You never played 4e I take it?

9 Hells, it played so much like a board game they snipped out a few details, boxed it up, & sold it as such. 4 times! (Wrath if Ashardolan, Ravenloft, Legend of Drizzt, & Elemental Evil

You want to talk about feel?
Was I really supposed to take an edition where the designers tried to tell me that magic arrows didn't exist seriously?

... a rule set I dislike. Specifically 4e. Whatever you claim, you're not a good enough DM & you're story is not good enough to overcome my dislike of the AEDU system.
... 4e? I'd rather do laundry. ...

Please tone down the rhetoric about editions you happen not to like. Edition warring isn't welcome on these boards.

(To prevent confusion among our readers, I should point out that two of the above quotes are from other threads.)

 

[Samir]

If it's not automatically not detected, being invisible provides no general instruction on how to generate this difficulty or how to detect it like a Stealth check does. DM must come up with one (Check roll, DC etc..)


Funny you ask I don't know, nor did Jeremy Crawford answered clearly when i asked him on twitter https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/716028724454367232?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

@wax_eagle can you target a creature who is obscured but not hidden? More precisely, is hidden the only way to conceal position?
@JeremyECrawford Being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position. The DM may decide that other methods can also conceal it.
@Plaguescarred Then could it be possible that Feral Sense invisible creature location awareness is pointless if invisible doesnt conceal?
@JeremyECrawford Feral Senses lets you detect an invisible creature within 30 feet of you that isn't hidden—no effort required.
@Plaguescarred But you normally can do so already if it isn't hidden no?

I've seen so many of these Jeremy Crawford non-answers at this point, I'm convinced that he starts from the assumption that the book has no errors, and rationalizes around it.

 

[Lanefan]

Both are imprecise. In actual play, I would use:

"The room is misty. Looking south, you see a dim shape, possibly a statue."

In both of the original statements, "can see" and "may see" muddy the waters unnecessarily. Do the characters see a dim shape, or don't they?

For a room description for a GM, I would be more specific:

"The room is misty and has a statue along the southern wall. The mist obscures vision; characters will notice the statue with a DC 10 Perception check (DC 20 passive)."

Saying "may" or "might" without providing a definite conditions which change "may" to "does" or "does not" seems poor writing.

All good points, and your wording is better than mine; except:

If a perception check is needed in order to notice the dim shape then either you're assuming a roll within your narration or there needs to be one between "The room is misty" and "Looking south...". If they auto-see the dim shape and need a p-check to determine what it is, then the (assumed or actual roll) comes there unless someone moves closer to check it out.

Lanefan

 

[tomBitonti]

All good points, and your wording is better than mine; except:

If a perception check is needed in order to notice the dim shape then either you're assuming a roll within your narration or there needs to be one between "The room is misty" and "Looking south...". If they auto-see the dim shape and need a p-check to determine what it is, then the (assumed or actual roll) comes there unless someone moves closer to check it out.

Lanefan

Yes. Either, a player signaling an intent to look more carefully in the mist, or a behind the scenes passive check.

I do hint to the players that there is more detail available, but they have to be more active to discover it. That is conveyed by noting the mist and by saying "possibly" a statue.

An issue that I'm seeing is the low DC. Checks at such low DC's are pedantic. There will be a point where a character automatically sees the statue.

Thx!
TomB