And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
An enemy with normal vision doesn't find an Invisible creature under Invisibility nor can it see it without special senses.
Can you point me to the 5.5e rule that says this? You are making an assertion that is not supported by the 5.5e rules. You are rolling in the 5e rules to support your claim.
. . .Again I come back to other conditions: Poisoned is used for drunk, venom, and toxic gases. . .
Semi-pedantic point of order (Really, I bring it up so that someone else doesn't bring it up when you use an example like this in the future), those are all actual forms of being poisoned (alcohol is a poison which is why the term is 'intoxicated').
Poisoned is also used for some diseases (there is no more Diseased Condition) and Ray of Sickness. Those are probably better examples.
Why is it a problem that the Invisible condition is used for both hiding & invisibility spells, and when it ends depends on DM rulings based on the source of the Invisible condition?
The condition could certainly be designed so it worked for that purpose. As currently written, it doesn't.
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
An enemy with normal vision doesn't find an Invisible creature under Invisibility nor can it see it without special senses.
Can you point me to the 5.5e rule that says this? You are making an assertion that is not supported by the 5.5e rules. You are rolling in the 5e rules to support your claim.
That's an eagle.
We're talking about penguins.
Errors in how the Invisibility spell is written have nothing to do with Stealth. If the Invisibility spell said:
A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 8d6 Fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
would you assume that the designers meant for you to explode every time you make a Hide Action?
And this is why we shouldn't be talking about eagles.
So then Characters who specialize in Persuasion should be able to do things like convince the King to turn over their kingdom with a good die roll?
This is an odd non-sequitur. You can't use Persuasion for this purpose for the same reason you can't roll Insight to make an enemy's head explode: there are no rules supporting that use of those skills. In contrast, we have detailed rules regarding Stealth and its specific applications.
I get that some people don't want to accept that those rules exist, but they do exist, they are intended and they're necessary for game balance.
Not really a non sequitur. You said:
Characters who specialize in Stealth are supposed to do precisely what you consider "nonsensical"
So why aren't characters who specialize in Persuasion supposed to do precisely what you consider "nonsensical"?
Please don't try and say "It's the rules" or "RAW". That is an interpretation of the rules and you are certainly welcome to it, but there are other very valid interpretations. Your statement was an appeal to narrative and I'm trying to understand why you feel that it is good narrative for the skill of Stealth being an almost supernaturally powerful ability (allowing "nonsensical" things to occur) while not allowing the skill of Persuasion to do the same.
Stealth skill doesnt allow anything thats 'impossible' by whatever standards the game table has.
For any rule, it only applies in situations that are possible within the game world.
You can concince a man to give you his daughter, if he would never give you his daughter.
However, what many people describe as impossible with stealth is not impossible. Hiding in the "open" is very possible because hiding is not about being transparent, its about avoiding being noticed.
A long time ago, a friend of mine was attacked by his girlfriend's Ex, in Daytime, in a cafe, he was hit in the back of the head by one of the Ex's friends. To be clear he knew the friend entered with the EX. He lost track of him. This man was 'invisible' to him, he couldnt see him. This is far from abnormal, not only do people not have eyes in the back of their heads, they usually on focus on certain things at certain times.
I have literally seen my neices mother walk past my nieces to her room, only to later have them ask if their mother was there.
I worked in security/doorman at one time, Everyone had to pass an vestibule, with either a key, get buzzed in or have some one open the door for them. There were times i didnt notice people enter until they were at the second set of doors, and times i didnt notice someone enter or exit. The idea that it is impossible for someone in the light not to be noticed is not real at all.
Another example is camoflauge, super common IRL, and its not just clothes, its animals that match their surroundings general pattern, people in a city, How many times have creatures not noticed a stealthy animal until it was right next to them. Which also brings up perception, some animals primarily percieve things through motion, the fact that light rays are hitting the target doesnt make the creature notice them, its movement. Creatures become 'invisible' to them by not moving.
cant you spit in someone's face while being hidden? usually not, but can you pass through a room completely unnoticed? defnitely, an you spit on someones arm without them noticing, definitely.
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
An enemy with normal vision doesn't find an Invisible creature under Invisibility nor can it see it without special senses.
Can you point me to the 5.5e rule that says this? You are making an assertion that is not supported by the 5.5e rules. You are rolling in the 5e rules to support your claim.
Invisibility makes no mention of finding. As for seeing one If some Special Senses say you can see Invisible creature, then you don't unless you have such game element that let you do so.
Otherwise in my opinion many things are broken Hide, Invisible, Special Senses etc
Errors in how the Invisibility spell is written have nothing to do with Stealth. If the Invisibility spell said:
A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 8d6 Fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
would you assume that the designers meant for you to explode every time you make a Hide Action?
And this is why we shouldn't be talking about eagles.
No, because that is not part of the Invisible condition, even if it was part of the Invisibility spell. The ONLY THING that Invisibility does is grant you the Invisible condition. Just like Hiding grants you the Invisible condition; the only variance is ways that you can lose it. So you cannot have two different interpretations for the same condition.
We are talking about the Invisible condition and how it relates to both Hide and Invisibility and how a single condition breaks the understanding of one or both of these. For your odd example, we are talking about the Avian definition and how it relates to eagles and penguins.
This is more like you saying that "eagles can fly because they are Avian", but Avian doesn't say that all Avians can fly and eagle doesn't say that they can fly either. Then applying it to penguins and saying that penguins can fly because they are Avian.
(But please, let's continue going around this semantic merry-go-round of an argument. No-one will believe a ruling if it relies on "the whole condition is broken and can't be used.")
The rules forum doesn't produce rulings (that's the job of errata, sage advice, etc), it provides advice. Sometimes, the correct advice for "how should I use rule X" is "you shouldn't".
It is generally possible to figure out the intent for most abilities that provide the invisible condition: they're supposed to work like they did in 2014 and make the creature impossible to see with normal senses. The problem with the hide rule is that it's not even clear what the intent was. My best guess is that they did want it to be possible for a creature that is hiding to burst out of its hiding place and make a melee attack with advantage, because otherwise creature writeups such as the tiger don't make much sense, and that outside of the specific tactical combat use they wanted to leave it at DM discretion so you can only hide if the DM thinks its reasonable that you can hide, but I certainly can't point to specific rules text that clearly supports that view.
The rule is fairly clear how it works, they just gave the DM room to rule.
youre a hidden until you cast a spell, make an attack, or make a sound louder than a whisper, or until someone finds you. And in the same paragraph they detail hiw to mechanically be found. The DM can use 'find's you' narratively
but as you say they should understand the intent. The intent is that someone who rolls a high stealth and your perception is lower is not going to be noticed by you. The intent is that the roll's decide the narrative, the reason people have such an issue with it, is they are creating narratives that invalidate the rolls.
If you think its impossible to dodge a fireball, due to some predefined circumstances, you dont allow a save.
How does the monk dodge a fireball when he was locked in 3 foot room with no way out? He doesnt the dm created a situation for which there is no save. How do you hide from someone if you look into their eyes, and whisper repeatedly im watching you. You don't, you are no longer narratively hiding. you cant be hidden in that case.
this is different from i would like to oass the guards unnoticed. The narrative is nit predetermined, if you rolled a 15, and the guard has a 9 passive perception. "the guard is distracted by a magazine in front of him, you slip by completely unnoticed. You roll a 25 versus a creature's 20. You have become a shadow, even while the creature looks for you, you stay just out of its field of vision, making no sounds.
One may not like the rule, but its straight forward.
Your stealth roll determines how easily you are detected/ noticed.
for any situation where its possible to be unnoticed, thats the main mechanic.
invisible condition is talking about a mechanical effect of being unable to be percieved via sight, not the specific means of how it was achieved. camoflauge, being in the darkness, hiding, becoming transparent, getting lost ina crowd, obfuscate(VTM) would all fall under the umbrella of ways to have the 'invisble condition'
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
An enemy with normal vision doesn't find an Invisible creature under Invisibility nor can it see it without special senses.
Can you point me to the 5.5e rule that says this? You are making an assertion that is not supported by the 5.5e rules. You are rolling in the 5e rules to support your claim.
Invisibility makes no mention of finding. As for seeing one If some Special Senses say you can see Invisible creature, then you don't unless you have such game element that let you do so.
Otherwise in my opinion many things are broken Hide, Invisible, Special Senses etc
Welcome to the argument that everyone is making. They copied a lot of text from 5e (like for Truesight) without actually ever saying that Invisible made you impossible to see without them. And they had to remove that language, because otherwise Hide wouldn't make sense (needing magic or a special sense to see a Hiding character). Because based on your reading of Truesight allowing you to see Invisible characters, then you would still need a special sense to see someone Hiding.
The entire issue stems from them trying to use the Invisible condition for Hiding without them thinking through the rest of the ramifications for the rest of the game. It would have made MUCH more sense if they had used Blinded like they do for Heavily Obscured. But alas, here we are. I think they haven't addressed this in SAC or errata because of the significant amount of reprinting they would actually have to do to make it make sense.
Because based on your reading of Truesight allowing you to see Invisible characters, then you would still need a special sense to see someone Hiding.
You don't need special senses such as Blindsight to find someone hidden as Perception encompass more than your sight sense.
But you can see invisible creature with such special senses wether they're using Hide or Invisibility as the Sage Advice indicate.
If I’m hidden and a creature with Blindsight or Truesight sees me, am I still hidden?
No. Being hidden is a game state that gives you the Invisible condition. If a creature finds you, you’re no longer hidden and lose that condition, as explained in the Hide action (see appendix C of the Player’s Handbook).
Because based on your reading of Truesight allowing you to see Invisible characters, then you would still need a special sense to see someone Hiding.
You don't need special senses such as Blindsight to find someone hidden as Perception encompass more than your sight sense.
But you can see invisible creature with such special senses wether they're using Hide or Invisibility as the Sage Advice indicate.
If I’m hidden and a creature with Blindsight or Truesight sees me, am I still hidden?
No. Being hidden is a game state that gives you the Invisible condition. If a creature finds you, you’re no longer hidden and lose that condition, as explained in the Hide action (see appendix C of the Player’s Handbook).
But Invisibility and Invisible don't say that you are impossible or hard to see. And the thought that someone is transparent until you pass a perception check against them or they cough, and then they suddenly pop into existence is nonsensical.
And Hiding and Invisible don't say that your location is unknown either. So they would have "found" you because nothing says you are not "found". Unless your assertion is that knowing their location is not "finding" them. At which point, how DO you "find" someone if not by seeing them?
Errors in how the Invisibility spell is written have nothing to do with Stealth. If the Invisibility spell said:
A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius Sphere makes a Dexterity saving throw, taking 8d6 Fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
would you assume that the designers meant for you to explode every time you make a Hide Action?
And this is why we shouldn't be talking about eagles.
No, because that is not part of the Invisible condition, even if it was part of the Invisibility spell. The ONLY THING that Invisibility does is grant you the Invisible condition. Just like Hiding grants you the Invisible condition; the only variance is ways that you can lose it.
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
That variance is hugely important, despite your attempt to trivialize it. One of those ways you can lose the Invisible Condition is to be found. In what I will refer to as the 'common interpretation' you can be found if you make no reasonable attempt to hide yourself.
So you cannot have two different interpretations for the same condition.
It's not two interpretations any more than there are two different interpretations of the Avian Condition.
The problem is you are insisting that (able to fly/ability to stand out in the open) be part of the (Avian Condition/Invisible Condition). While these may at first seem to be reasonable assumptions, they are not, in fact, 'RAW'.
One interpretation of the Condition, but different requirements for how you keep that Condition.
We are talking about the Invisible condition and how it relates to both Hide and Invisibility and how a single condition breaks the understanding of one or both of these.
No. We are talking about how the Invisible Condition relates to the Hide Action. That is what this thread is about. You are dragging in the spell. The spell is irrelevant because it is not the Hide Action.
In short, you are creating a Straw Man argument, and when I point out that it is a Straw Man, you want to insist that we talk about the Straw Man.
If I tell you that is is a very nice Straw Man and I like the hat you have given him, will that make you happy?
For your odd example, we are talking about the Avian definition and how it relates to eagles and penguins.
This is more like you saying that "eagles can fly because they are Avian", but Avian doesn't say that all Avians can fly and eagle doesn't say that they can fly either. Then applying it to penguins and saying that penguins can fly because they are Avian.
No. I'm not saying anything of the sort. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Ddim. Ingenting. Nicht.
Again, you are starting to construct a Straw Man.
I'm saying:
Penguins are Avians
Flight, while common for Avians, is not an automatic feature of all Avians.
If some author neglects to mention that eagles can fly it does not mean they can't, nor does it mean penguins can. Anything that is written or not written about eagles is completely irrelevant because, while eagles and penguins share many similarities due to both of them being Avians, penguins are not eagles.
You cannot even say 'Eagles lay eggs, so penguins must lay eggs'. While penguins do lay eggs, they do so because that is part of being an Avian. Eagles have nothing to do with why penguins lay eggs.
We are discussing the Hide Action. The Invisibility spell may share similarities to it, but it cannot be used to establish anything, positive or negative, about the Hide Action because it is not the Hide Action. You cannot even use it to infer anything about the Invisible Condition. Any similarities between the two not covered by the Condition are coincidental. Beyond the effects explicitly specified in the Condition the two can be as different as a humming bird and phorusrhacids (Terror birds, and I am using the more precise term to avoid confusion and having someone think I am referring to some D&D creature, not because I want to make you look something up).
Thus, the Invisibility spell is completely irrelevant.
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
An enemy with normal vision doesn't find an Invisible creature under Invisibility nor can it see it without special senses.
Can you point me to the 5.5e rule that says this? You are making an assertion that is not supported by the 5.5e rules. You are rolling in the 5e rules to support your claim.
Invisibility makes no mention of finding. As for seeing one If some Special Senses say you can see Invisible creature, then you don't unless you have such game element that let you do so.
Otherwise in my opinion many things are broken Hide, Invisible, Special Senses etc
Welcome to the argument that everyone is making. They copied a lot of text from 5e (like for Truesight) without actually ever saying that Invisible made you impossible to see without them. And they had to remove that language, because otherwise Hide wouldn't make sense (needing magic or a special sense to see a Hiding character). Because based on your reading of Truesight allowing you to see Invisible characters, then you would still need a special sense to see someone Hiding.
The entire issue stems from them trying to use the Invisible condition for Hiding without them thinking through the rest of the ramifications for the rest of the game. It would have made MUCH more sense if they had used Blinded like they do for Heavily Obscured. But alas, here we are. I think they haven't addressed this in SAC or errata because of the significant amount of reprinting they would actually have to do to make it make sense.
This entire argument boils down to people not liking that Hide is no longer a separate state because WotC decided to to tie stealth and Invisibility a catch-all condition. Again, it it comes to whether you interpret it in a functional way or in a dysfunctional way. Whatever you decide, it's your choice. And since you said this before: no... no one is homebrewing if they interpret it as functional, and to imply otherwise is dismissive and petty.
But Invisibility and Invisible don't say that you are impossible or hard to see. And the thought that someone is transparent until you pass a perception check against them or they cough, and then they suddenly pop into existence is nonsensical.
And Hiding and Invisible don't say that your location is unknown either. So they would have "found" you because nothing says you are not "found". Unless your assertion is that knowing their location is not "finding" them. At which point, how DO you "find" someone if not by seeing them?
An Invisible creature isn't transparent necessarily because you can't see it. Sources will tell, magic could, meanwhile hiding in heavy foliage might be more akin to camouflage.
If anyone could see invisible creature, then they could be affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
But the condition saying "unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you" is to me a clear indication you're not normally seen by everyone. However while you're concealed most creature don't see you.
Unseen Attackers and Target saying ""If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." is to me a clear indication your location isn't readily known otherwise you'd know they're there.
Ambush is impossible if you know the location of hidden creatures and can see them.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
Because based on your reading of Truesight allowing you to see Invisible characters, then you would still need a special sense to see someone Hiding.
You don't need special senses such as Blindsight to find someone hidden as Perception encompass more than your sight sense.
But you can see invisible creature with such special senses wether they're using Hide or Invisibility as the Sage Advice indicate.
If I’m hidden and a creature with Blindsight or Truesight sees me, am I still hidden?
No. Being hidden is a game state that gives you the Invisible condition. If a creature finds you, you’re no longer hidden and lose that condition, as explained in the Hide action (see appendix C of the Player’s Handbook).
But Invisibility and Invisible don't say that you are impossible or hard to see. And the thought that someone is transparent until you pass a perception check against them or they cough, and then they suddenly pop into existence is nonsensical.
And Hiding and Invisible don't say that your location is unknown either. So they would have "found" you because nothing says you are not "found". Unless your assertion is that knowing their location is not "finding" them. At which point, how DO you "find" someone if not by seeing them?
Again, does the Invisibility spell says the condition ends if "an enemy finds you"?
No, ergo you can't find someone under the Invisibility spell by seeing them unless you have something that says you can.
Now, can you know where they are by hearing them or checking for footprints or though other means? Yes, but that is not finding, that is detecting, and still needs a Perception roll against stealth, but this is DM fiat.
And if that was in there, then Hiding would make you impossible to see without a special sense, meaning you could walk through an open, well lit room and be perfectly transparent.
Not really since you have the Invisible condition while hidden per errata, which stop when an enemy finds you.
So they can find you because you are no longer Invisible, but you are only no longer invisible because you are not hidden, and you are only not hidden because they found you. Do you see the circular logic here?
How does an enemy with only normal vision find an Invisible character that doesn't make a sound? If you say, "Well, because they see you", then Invisible can't make you impossible to see. If your answer is that it's because you are not hidden, then what stopped you from being hidden? "They found you because they found you." does not make good rules.
An enemy with normal vision doesn't find an Invisible creature under Invisibility nor can it see it without special senses.
Can you point me to the 5.5e rule that says this? You are making an assertion that is not supported by the 5.5e rules. You are rolling in the 5e rules to support your claim.
Invisibility makes no mention of finding. As for seeing one If some Special Senses say you can see Invisible creature, then you don't unless you have such game element that let you do so.
Otherwise in my opinion many things are broken Hide, Invisible, Special Senses etc
Welcome to the argument that everyone is making. They copied a lot of text from 5e (like for Truesight) without actually ever saying that Invisible made you impossible to see without them. And they had to remove that language, because otherwise Hide wouldn't make sense (needing magic or a special sense to see a Hiding character). Because based on your reading of Truesight allowing you to see Invisible characters, then you would still need a special sense to see someone Hiding.
The entire issue stems from them trying to use the Invisible condition for Hiding without them thinking through the rest of the ramifications for the rest of the game. It would have made MUCH more sense if they had used Blinded like they do for Heavily Obscured. But alas, here we are. I think they haven't addressed this in SAC or errata because of the significant amount of reprinting they would actually have to do to make it make sense.
This entire argument boils down to people not liking that Hide is no longer a separate state because WotC decided to to tie stealth and Invisibility a catch-all condition. Again, it it comes to whether you interpret it in a functional way or in a dysfunctional way. Whatever you decide, it's your choice. And since you said this before: no... no one is homebrewing if they interpret it as functional, and to imply otherwise is dismissive and petty.
But you are houseruling if you rule that Invisibility makes you transparent, because nothing in the rules says it does. And you are houseruling if you say that leaving cover makes you lose Invisibility because nothing in the rules says it does.
The fact of the matter is that they never wrote out how an "enemy may find you" aside from a Perception check, so anything that you add to that is a houserule. Or can you point out in the rules about how an enemy finds you outside of taking the Search action?
Because based on your reading of Truesight allowing you to see Invisible characters, then you would still need a special sense to see someone Hiding.
You don't need special senses such as Blindsight to find someone hidden as Perception encompass more than your sight sense.
But you can see invisible creature with such special senses wether they're using Hide or Invisibility as the Sage Advice indicate.
If I’m hidden and a creature with Blindsight or Truesight sees me, am I still hidden?
No. Being hidden is a game state that gives you the Invisible condition. If a creature finds you, you’re no longer hidden and lose that condition, as explained in the Hide action (see appendix C of the Player’s Handbook).
But Invisibility and Invisible don't say that you are impossible or hard to see. And the thought that someone is transparent until you pass a perception check against them or they cough, and then they suddenly pop into existence is nonsensical.
And Hiding and Invisible don't say that your location is unknown either. So they would have "found" you because nothing says you are not "found". Unless your assertion is that knowing their location is not "finding" them. At which point, how DO you "find" someone if not by seeing them?
Again, does the Invisibility spell says the condition ends if "an enemy finds you"?
No, ergo you can't find someone under the Invisibility spell by seeing them unless you have something that says you can.
Now, can you know where they are by hearing them or checking for footprints or though other means? Yes, but that is not finding, that is detecting, and still needs a Perception roll against stealth, but this is DM fiat.
Nothing in the game says that you can see creatures affected by the Invisibility spell. They simply state that you can see Invisible creatures. So by your own logic, you can't find someone that is Invisible, regardless of source, unless you have one of these special senses.
And if hearing them, checking for footprints, or other means is "not finding, but detecting", then how do you find a character that Hid? If you have to see them to find them, and you cannot see them without a special sense, how do you find an Invisible creature?
. . .But you are houseruling if you rule that Invisibility makes you transparent, because nothing in the rules says it does.
Assuming that there isn't buried text somewhere that clarifies that, you are absolutely correct.
So what?
And you are houseruling if you say that leaving cover makes you lose Invisibility because nothing in the rules says it does.
And again, you are correct, but now only technically correct. Leaving cover does not make you lose the Invisible Condition. Being found does.
Ergo, you can leave cover while no one is around and you will retain the Invisible Condition.
The fact of the matter is that they never wrote out how an "enemy may find you" aside from a Perception check, so anything that you add to that is a houserule. Or can you point out in the rules about how an enemy finds you outside of taking the Search action?
And now you are incorrect. Just because they do not enumerate ways that you can be found beyond the Perception Check does not mean they intended for Perception Check to be the only way. That position would only be supported if they said something along the lines of 'the only way to Find the character'. They did not. That leaves open the possibility of other methods that the character may be found.
Thus, an interpretation, not a houserule.
And Passive Perception is a form of Perception Check. Thus, a character can be found outside the Search Action.
but as you say they should understand the intent. The intent is that someone who rolls a high stealth and your perception is lower is not going to be noticed by you.
The intent is that someone who rolls a high stealth and behaves in a stealthy manner is not going to be noticed.
The big problem here is that 5e doesn't use facing or vision arcs, which means there's no option to hide by staying out of people's arc of vision (and this is where the BG3 comparison breaks down: BG3 has facing and vision arcs, and that lets you do a lot of things to manipulate where potential observers are looking). This either means you can't hide in the open at all (which doesn't match reality, let alone cinematic reality) or you can hide while someone is looking at you (which also doesn't match reality or cinematic reality).
But Invisibility and Invisible don't say that you are impossible or hard to see. And the thought that someone is transparent until you pass a perception check against them or they cough, and then they suddenly pop into existence is nonsensical.
And Hiding and Invisible don't say that your location is unknown either. So they would have "found" you because nothing says you are not "found". Unless your assertion is that knowing their location is not "finding" them. At which point, how DO you "find" someone if not by seeing them?
An Invisible creature isn't transparent necessarily because you can't see it. Sources will tell, magic could, meanwhile hiding in heavy foliage might be more akin to camouflage.
If anyone could see invisible creature, then they could be affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
But the condition saying "unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you" is to me a clear indication you're not normally seen by everyone. However while you're concealed most creature don't see you.
Unseen Attackers and Target saying ""If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." is to me a clear indication your location is otherwise not known otherwise you'd know they're there.
Ambush is impossible if you can, and know the location of hidden creatures.
Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
But again, these are inferences on what you think the writers intended. None of the spells say you are transparent, the just give you the Invisible condition. If the spells actually said that you were impossible to see without certain senses, then they would not even have to apply the Invisible condition, because the Unseen Attacker / Unseen Target rules and Targeting rules would already apply. The only thing Invisible would get you is advantage on Initiative.
And the implication on Invisiblemust apply to both Hide and Invisibility since they are the same condition. If the implication that you are unable to be seen unless by special means, then that must also apply to Hide.
And the rules for Unseen Attackers is just a straight copy from 5e. It worked with the 5e rules, because Hide actually made it so your location was unknown.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can you point me to the 5.5e rule that says this? You are making an assertion that is not supported by the 5.5e rules. You are rolling in the 5e rules to support your claim.
Semi-pedantic point of order (Really, I bring it up so that someone else doesn't bring it up when you use an example like this in the future), those are all actual forms of being poisoned (alcohol is a poison which is why the term is 'intoxicated').
Poisoned is also used for some diseases (there is no more Diseased Condition) and Ray of Sickness. Those are probably better examples.
The condition could certainly be designed so it worked for that purpose. As currently written, it doesn't.
That's an eagle.
We're talking about penguins.
Errors in how the Invisibility spell is written have nothing to do with Stealth. If the Invisibility spell said:
would you assume that the designers meant for you to explode every time you make a Hide Action?
And this is why we shouldn't be talking about eagles.
Stealth skill doesnt allow anything thats 'impossible' by whatever standards the game table has.
For any rule, it only applies in situations that are possible within the game world.
You can concince a man to give you his daughter, if he would never give you his daughter.
However, what many people describe as impossible with stealth is not impossible. Hiding in the "open" is very possible because hiding is not about being transparent, its about avoiding being noticed.
A long time ago, a friend of mine was attacked by his girlfriend's Ex, in Daytime, in a cafe, he was hit in the back of the head by one of the Ex's friends. To be clear he knew the friend entered with the EX. He lost track of him. This man was 'invisible' to him, he couldnt see him. This is far from abnormal, not only do people not have eyes in the back of their heads, they usually on focus on certain things at certain times.
I have literally seen my neices mother walk past my nieces to her room, only to later have them ask if their mother was there.
I worked in security/doorman at one time, Everyone had to pass an vestibule, with either a key, get buzzed in or have some one open the door for them. There were times i didnt notice people enter until they were at the second set of doors, and times i didnt notice someone enter or exit. The idea that it is impossible for someone in the light not to be noticed is not real at all.
Another example is camoflauge, super common IRL, and its not just clothes, its animals that match their surroundings general pattern, people in a city, How many times have creatures not noticed a stealthy animal until it was right next to them. Which also brings up perception, some animals primarily percieve things through motion, the fact that light rays are hitting the target doesnt make the creature notice them, its movement. Creatures become 'invisible' to them by not moving.
cant you spit in someone's face while being hidden? usually not, but can you pass through a room completely unnoticed? defnitely, an you spit on someones arm without them noticing, definitely.
Invisibility makes no mention of finding. As for seeing one If some Special Senses say you can see Invisible creature, then you don't unless you have such game element that let you do so.
Otherwise in my opinion many things are broken Hide, Invisible, Special Senses etc
No, because that is not part of the Invisible condition, even if it was part of the Invisibility spell. The ONLY THING that Invisibility does is grant you the Invisible condition. Just like Hiding grants you the Invisible condition; the only variance is ways that you can lose it. So you cannot have two different interpretations for the same condition.
We are talking about the Invisible condition and how it relates to both Hide and Invisibility and how a single condition breaks the understanding of one or both of these. For your odd example, we are talking about the Avian definition and how it relates to eagles and penguins.
This is more like you saying that "eagles can fly because they are Avian", but Avian doesn't say that all Avians can fly and eagle doesn't say that they can fly either. Then applying it to penguins and saying that penguins can fly because they are Avian.
The rule is fairly clear how it works, they just gave the DM room to rule.
youre a hidden until you cast a spell, make an attack, or make a sound louder than a whisper, or until someone finds you. And in the same paragraph they detail hiw to mechanically be found. The DM can use 'find's you' narratively
but as you say they should understand the intent. The intent is that someone who rolls a high stealth and your perception is lower is not going to be noticed by you. The intent is that the roll's decide the narrative, the reason people have such an issue with it, is they are creating narratives that invalidate the rolls.
If you think its impossible to dodge a fireball, due to some predefined circumstances, you dont allow a save.
How does the monk dodge a fireball when he was locked in 3 foot room with no way out? He doesnt the dm created a situation for which there is no save. How do you hide from someone if you look into their eyes, and whisper repeatedly im watching you. You don't, you are no longer narratively hiding. you cant be hidden in that case.
this is different from i would like to oass the guards unnoticed. The narrative is nit predetermined, if you rolled a 15, and the guard has a 9 passive perception. "the guard is distracted by a magazine in front of him, you slip by completely unnoticed. You roll a 25 versus a creature's 20. You have become a shadow, even while the creature looks for you, you stay just out of its field of vision, making no sounds.
One may not like the rule, but its straight forward.
Your stealth roll determines how easily you are detected/ noticed.
for any situation where its possible to be unnoticed, thats the main mechanic.
invisible condition is talking about a mechanical effect of being unable to be percieved via sight, not the specific means of how it was achieved. camoflauge, being in the darkness, hiding, becoming transparent, getting lost ina crowd, obfuscate(VTM) would all fall under the umbrella of ways to have the 'invisble condition'
Welcome to the argument that everyone is making. They copied a lot of text from 5e (like for Truesight) without actually ever saying that Invisible made you impossible to see without them. And they had to remove that language, because otherwise Hide wouldn't make sense (needing magic or a special sense to see a Hiding character). Because based on your reading of Truesight allowing you to see Invisible characters, then you would still need a special sense to see someone Hiding.
The entire issue stems from them trying to use the Invisible condition for Hiding without them thinking through the rest of the ramifications for the rest of the game. It would have made MUCH more sense if they had used Blinded like they do for Heavily Obscured. But alas, here we are. I think they haven't addressed this in SAC or errata because of the significant amount of reprinting they would actually have to do to make it make sense.
You don't need special senses such as Blindsight to find someone hidden as Perception encompass more than your sight sense.
But you can see invisible creature with such special senses wether they're using Hide or Invisibility as the Sage Advice indicate.
But Invisibility and Invisible don't say that you are impossible or hard to see. And the thought that someone is transparent until you pass a perception check against them or they cough, and then they suddenly pop into existence is nonsensical.
And Hiding and Invisible don't say that your location is unknown either. So they would have "found" you because nothing says you are not "found". Unless your assertion is that knowing their location is not "finding" them. At which point, how DO you "find" someone if not by seeing them?
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
That variance is hugely important, despite your attempt to trivialize it. One of those ways you can lose the Invisible Condition is to be found. In what I will refer to as the 'common interpretation' you can be found if you make no reasonable attempt to hide yourself.
It's not two interpretations any more than there are two different interpretations of the Avian Condition.
The problem is you are insisting that (able to fly/ability to stand out in the open) be part of the (Avian Condition/Invisible Condition). While these may at first seem to be reasonable assumptions, they are not, in fact, 'RAW'.
One interpretation of the Condition, but different requirements for how you keep that Condition.
No. We are talking about how the Invisible Condition relates to the Hide Action. That is what this thread is about. You are dragging in the spell. The spell is irrelevant because it is not the Hide Action.
In short, you are creating a Straw Man argument, and when I point out that it is a Straw Man, you want to insist that we talk about the Straw Man.
If I tell you that is is a very nice Straw Man and I like the hat you have given him, will that make you happy?
No. I'm not saying anything of the sort. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Ddim. Ingenting. Nicht.
Again, you are starting to construct a Straw Man.
I'm saying:
We are discussing the Hide Action. The Invisibility spell may share similarities to it, but it cannot be used to establish anything, positive or negative, about the Hide Action because it is not the Hide Action. You cannot even use it to infer anything about the Invisible Condition. Any similarities between the two not covered by the Condition are coincidental. Beyond the effects explicitly specified in the Condition the two can be as different as a humming bird and phorusrhacids (Terror birds, and I am using the more precise term to avoid confusion and having someone think I am referring to some D&D creature, not because I want to make you look something up).
Thus, the Invisibility spell is completely irrelevant.
This entire argument boils down to people not liking that Hide is no longer a separate state because WotC decided to to tie stealth and Invisibility a catch-all condition. Again, it it comes to whether you interpret it in a functional way or in a dysfunctional way. Whatever you decide, it's your choice. And since you said this before: no... no one is homebrewing if they interpret it as functional, and to imply otherwise is dismissive and petty.
An Invisible creature isn't transparent necessarily because you can't see it. Sources will tell, magic could, meanwhile hiding in heavy foliage might be more akin to camouflage.
If anyone could see invisible creature, then they could be affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen.
But the condition saying "unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you" is to me a clear indication you're not normally seen by everyone. However while you're concealed most creature don't see you.
Unseen Attackers and Target saying ""If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." is to me a clear indication your location isn't readily known otherwise you'd know they're there.
Ambush is impossible if you know the location of hidden creatures and can see them.
Again, does the Invisibility spell says the condition ends if "an enemy finds you"?
No, ergo you can't find someone under the Invisibility spell by seeing them unless you have something that says you can.
Now, can you know where they are by hearing them or checking for footprints or though other means? Yes, but that is not finding, that is detecting, and still needs a Perception roll against stealth, but this is DM fiat.
But you are houseruling if you rule that Invisibility makes you transparent, because nothing in the rules says it does. And you are houseruling if you say that leaving cover makes you lose Invisibility because nothing in the rules says it does.
The fact of the matter is that they never wrote out how an "enemy may find you" aside from a Perception check, so anything that you add to that is a houserule. Or can you point out in the rules about how an enemy finds you outside of taking the Search action?
Nothing in the game says that you can see creatures affected by the Invisibility spell. They simply state that you can see Invisible creatures. So by your own logic, you can't find someone that is Invisible, regardless of source, unless you have one of these special senses.
And if hearing them, checking for footprints, or other means is "not finding, but detecting", then how do you find a character that Hid? If you have to see them to find them, and you cannot see them without a special sense, how do you find an Invisible creature?
Assuming that there isn't buried text somewhere that clarifies that, you are absolutely correct.
So what?
And again, you are correct, but now only technically correct. Leaving cover does not make you lose the Invisible Condition. Being found does.
Ergo, you can leave cover while no one is around and you will retain the Invisible Condition.
And now you are incorrect. Just because they do not enumerate ways that you can be found beyond the Perception Check does not mean they intended for Perception Check to be the only way. That position would only be supported if they said something along the lines of 'the only way to Find the character'. They did not. That leaves open the possibility of other methods that the character may be found.
Thus, an interpretation, not a houserule.
And Passive Perception is a form of Perception Check. Thus, a character can be found outside the Search Action.
The intent is that someone who rolls a high stealth and behaves in a stealthy manner is not going to be noticed.
The big problem here is that 5e doesn't use facing or vision arcs, which means there's no option to hide by staying out of people's arc of vision (and this is where the BG3 comparison breaks down: BG3 has facing and vision arcs, and that lets you do a lot of things to manipulate where potential observers are looking). This either means you can't hide in the open at all (which doesn't match reality, let alone cinematic reality) or you can hide while someone is looking at you (which also doesn't match reality or cinematic reality).
But again, these are inferences on what you think the writers intended. None of the spells say you are transparent, the just give you the Invisible condition. If the spells actually said that you were impossible to see without certain senses, then they would not even have to apply the Invisible condition, because the Unseen Attacker / Unseen Target rules and Targeting rules would already apply. The only thing Invisible would get you is advantage on Initiative.
And the implication on Invisible must apply to both Hide and Invisibility since they are the same condition. If the implication that you are unable to be seen unless by special means, then that must also apply to Hide.
And the rules for Unseen Attackers is just a straight copy from 5e. It worked with the 5e rules, because Hide actually made it so your location was unknown.