The “so what” is making the point that the Hide rules in 2024 are badly constructed. People argue that you can move freely once you succeed on the initial roll because the only mechanically defined means of being found is the Search Action, which is exacerbated by the decision to roll it into the Invisible condition and the fact that there’s no explicit RAW in 2024 that anything on the map is automatically seen if there’s clear LoS to it. The counterpoint being raised is that if people are playing the strictly by what’s written card, then the Invisible condition does not actually make a subject transparent or otherwise impossible to be seen by the naked eye; the only thing it expressly says on that front is that the subject cannot be targeted by effects that require sight.
The point is to highlight why the reading people use about how Hide and being found work to support the idea it is functional invisibility is not one that produces useful results when applied to other parts of the game.
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?
You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
If you needed special senses to try to find hidden creatures, the Hide rules would say so. They don't, so you don't.
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.
The condition states you can't be targeted by sight unless you can be seen. This is vague on purpose, because this is different for each feature, but you're trying to lump them all to try and prove a flawed point. It doesn't matter if it says you're transparent or not, all it matters is how it functions mechanically.
Again, does the spell says that "an enemy finds you" is a trigger to end it? Keep in mind that the game defines conditions as:
Condition: A condition is a temporary game state. The definition of a condition says how it affects its recipient, and various rules define how to end a condition.
To answer your question: No; then you can't find someone under the Invisibility spell or a magical ability that gives you the Invisible condition (like the Ranger's Nature's Veil) unless you have a sense or feature that allows you so.
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?
Does the hide action says you lose the Invisible condition if "an enemy finds you"? If Yes, then seeing them is a valid way to find them. Like Plaguescarred said: You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
How you're found can be either the Search action or Passive Perception, because the Hide rule only says a Perception check. Outside of these, its DM fiat per the rule on page 19.
The “so what” is making the point that the Hide rules in 2024 are badly constructed. . .
Assuming that you are referring to my 'So what?',
No, he isn't actually making that point. He's making the point that there is an error in the Invisibility Spell.
If this thread was about the Invisibility Spell then his point about a houserule would have been a correct one to make. That is not what this thread is about, however, no matter how much he tries to confuse matters by mentioning the Invisibility Spell.
The “so what” is making the point that the Hide rules in 2024 are badly constructed. . .
Assuming that you are referring to my 'So what?',
No, he isn't actually making that point. He's making the point that there is an error in the Invisibility Spell.
If this thread was about the Invisibility Spell then his point about a houserule would have been a correct one to make. That is not what this thread is about, however, no matter how much he tries to confuse matters by mentioning the Invisibility Spell.
That's why I said he's mixing things to prove a flawed point. Just saying that everyone that doesn't follow his interpretation is houseruling doesn't make it so
The condition states you can't be targeted by sight unless you can be seen. This is vague on purpose, because this is different for each feature.
The problem is... it's not different for each feature. If it were different for each feature, features would actually specify how you can be seen.
At the very least it is conceivable that it could be different for each feature in the future. Next week they could come out with Zany Armor of Wacky Rules that grants you the Invisible Condition but specifies that you can be spotted by beardless gnomes, and that if you are spotted you are immediately teleported to the South Pole.
Any similarity between two different things that give the Invisible Condition cannot be used to prove something about the Invisible Condition any more than the fact that eagles and penguins are both carnivores proves that all Avians are carnivores.
The condition states you can't be targeted by sight unless you can be seen. This is vague on purpose, because this is different for each feature.
The problem is... it's not different for each feature. If it were different for each feature, features would actually specify how you can be seen.
At the very least it is conceivable that it could be different for each feature in the future. Next week they could come out with Zany Armor of Wacky Rules that grants you the Invisible Condition but specifies that you can be spotted by beardless gnomes, and that if you are spotted you are immediately teleported to the South Pole.
Any similarity between two different things that give the Invisible Condition cannot be used to prove something about the Invisible Condition any more than the fact that eagles and penguins are both carnivores proves that all Avians are carnivores.
And to your point, if a feature is affected by a sense or vice versa, it usually says so, like the Gloom Stalker's Umbral Sight:
Level 3: Umbral Sight
You gain Darkvision with a range of 60 feet. If you already have Darkvision when you gain this feature, its range increases by 60 feet.
You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on Darkvision. While entirely in Darkness, you have the Invisible condition to any creature that relies on Darkvision to see you in that Darkness.
The “so what” is making the point that the Hide rules in 2024 are badly constructed. People argue that you can move freely once you succeed on the initial roll because the only mechanically defined means of being found is the Search Action, which is exacerbated by the decision to roll it into the Invisible condition and the fact that there’s no explicit RAW in 2024 that anything on the map is automatically seen if there’s clear LoS to it. The counterpoint being raised is that if people are playing the strictly by what’s written card, then the Invisible condition does not actually make a subject transparent or otherwise impossible to be seen by the naked eye; the only thing it expressly says on that front is that the subject cannot be targeted by effects that require sight.
The point is to highlight why the reading people use about how Hide and being found work to support the idea it is functional invisibility is not one that produces useful results when applied to other parts of the game.
People argue about almost every rule in the book, just look at peasant rail gun, or any of the "builds" out there. The point of rule books is to convey how something is supposed to work as efficiently as possible. It's not to try to stop pedants and people who want to break the game from breaking the game - to try to achieve that is a waste of the designers' time to write and try to poke holes into everything they have written, and it would waste everyone else's time reading tons of additional rules and clarifications that are unnecessary for most people to understand how the game work.
I would argue the rules are perfectly well written, because it provides an easy filter for me as a DM for whom to invite to my table or not. All I need to do is ask them "If you hide successfully can you then walk down an empty hallway past a guard on duty and not be noticed?" If they say yes, they aren't getting invited to my game.
People argue about almost every rule in the book, just look at peasant rail gun, or any of the "builds" out there. The point of rule books is to convey how something is supposed to work as efficiently as possible.
No, the point is to convey how something is supposed to work in a way that is both clear and succinct. If people argue about what a rule means, they've failed at the first.
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?
You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
If you needed special senses to try to find hidden creatures, the Hide rules would say so. They don't, so you don't.
But the rules for Invisible and Invisibility ALSO don't say that you need special sense to find them. So that means you don't need it to find them, right? And my reply was in response to Agilemind saying that hearing or seeing footprints was detecting, not finding.
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?
You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
If you needed special senses to try to find hidden creatures, the Hide rules would say so. They don't, so you don't.
But the rules for Invisible and Invisibility ALSO don't say that you need special sense to find them. So that means you don't need it to find them, right? And my reply was in response to Agilemind saying that hearing or seeing footprints was detecting, not finding.
You do, because a more specific rule tells you so (Truesight, Blindsight, See Invisibility). Specific beats general, and the book does have an entry that explains this
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.
The condition states you can't be targeted by sight unless you can be seen. This is vague on purpose, because this is different for each feature, but you're trying to lump them all to try and prove a flawed point. It doesn't matter if it says you're transparent or not, all it matters is how it functions mechanically.
Again, does the spell says that "an enemy finds you" is a trigger to end it? Keep in mind that the game defines conditions as:
Condition: A condition is a temporary game state. The definition of a condition says how it affects its recipient, and various rules define how to end a condition.
To answer your question: No; then you can't find someone under the Invisibility spell or a magical ability that gives you the Invisible condition (like the Ranger's Nature's Veil) unless you have a sense or feature that allows you so.
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?
Does the hide action says you lose the Invisible condition if "an enemy finds you"? If Yes, then seeing them is a valid way to find them. Like Plaguescarred said: You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
How you're found can be either the Search action or Passive Perception, because the Hide rule only says a Perception check. Outside of these, its DM fiat per the rule on page 19.
But nothing in the Invisibility spell states that a special sense is required to see you! You are making up a rule on how you think it should work, but it's just not in the rules. Nothing in the Invisible condition even says that you are hard or difficult to see.
The reason that transparency or being impossible to see or however you want to say it matters because Concealed and Attacks Affected both have the clause "unless the enemy can see you". If that weren't in there, you would have a point, but the fact that there is another requirement to getting those effects matters. You cannot say that whether they can see you or not doesn't matter when it is a requirement of the two most important effects of the Invisible condition.
I get why they put that in there. Because a strict reading of the 5e Invisible condition meant that See Invisibility didn't negate the advantage/disadvantage on attacks. But what they neglected to do was actually have anything that said you cannot be seen. You can make up a rule that it's different for Hide and Invisibility, but please stop saying that you are reading the rules as is.
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?
You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
If you needed special senses to try to find hidden creatures, the Hide rules would say so. They don't, so you don't.
But the rules for Invisible and Invisibility ALSO don't say that you need special sense to find them. So that means you don't need it to find them, right? And my reply was in response to Agilemind saying that hearing or seeing footprints was detecting, not finding.
You do, because a more specific rule tells you so (Truesight, Blindsight, See Invisibility). Specific beats general, and the book does have an entry that explains this
How are senses a more specific rule than the rule for Invisible?? And this is the Fallacy of the Converse, anyway. Just because Truesight, Blindsight, and See Invisibility say that you can see Invisible things, doesn't mean that nothing else can. Again, these are straight copies from 5e when it was actually spelled out that you needed a special sense or the aid of magic to see Invisible creatures.
But even if I did ascribe to your logic, then you have to apply it to Hide as well. Because the spell and senses you referenced don't apply to Invisibility, they apply to the Invisible condition. Which also means that Truesight and See Invisibility mean that no one can ever sneak up on you, which is bonkers to say the least.
You keep trying to make a distinction where none exists between Invisible from Hide and Invisible from Invisibility.
The “so what” is making the point that the Hide rules in 2024 are badly constructed. . .
Assuming that you are referring to my 'So what?',
No, he isn't actually making that point. He's making the point that there is an error in the Invisibility Spell.
If this thread was about the Invisibility Spell then his point about a houserule would have been a correct one to make. That is not what this thread is about, however, no matter how much he tries to confuse matters by mentioning the Invisibility Spell.
My point is that Hide, the Invisible condition, and all magical invisibility (it's not just Invisibility, it's Greater Invisibility and every other spell that grants the Invisible condition) don't work together as written. If Invisible works the way you think it does for Hide, then it doesn't work the way it should for magical invisibility. It's not an error in the spell, it's an error in them trying to force Hide into Invisible.
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?
You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
If you needed special senses to try to find hidden creatures, the Hide rules would say so. They don't, so you don't.
But the rules for Invisible and Invisibility ALSO don't say that you need special sense to find them. So that means you don't need it to find them, right? And my reply was in response to Agilemind saying that hearing or seeing footprints was detecting, not finding.
You do, because a more specific rule tells you so (Truesight, Blindsight, See Invisibility). Specific beats general, and the book does have an entry that explains this
How are senses a more specific rule than the rule for Invisible?? And this is the Fallacy of the Converse, anyway. Just because Truesight, Blindsight, and See Invisibility say that you can see Invisible things, doesn't mean that nothing else can. Again, these are straight copies from 5e when it was actually spelled out that you needed a special sense or the aid of magic to see Invisible creatures.
Sense are more specific because of this, which you conveniently ignored:
Condition: A condition is a temporary game state. The definition of a condition says how it affects its recipient, and various rules define how to end a condition.
Rules say what they say they do, and nowhere does the PHB says that you can normally see someone with the Invisible condition with natural sight, unless a rule specifies so.
But even if I did ascribe to your logic, then you have to apply it to Hide as well. Because the spell and senses you referenced don't apply to Invisibility, they apply to the Invisible condition. Which also means that Truesight and See Invisibility mean that no one can ever sneak up on you, which is bonkers to say the least.
And it does apply to the Hide action, even Plaguescarred quoted the SAC that says so, but you conveniently ignored it too.
You keep trying to make a distinction where none exists between Invisible from Hide and Invisible from Invisibility.
There's a distinction, but it's not in the condition, it's in the specific rule that gives you the condition. You want to ignore it? Go ahead, but that's not gonna change things.
Using the example others have, does the Poisoned condition means I'm poisoned? Not anymore, because diseases now give the Poisoned condition. Conditions are game states, and the rule that gives you the condition is what determines what you actually have. This has been explained to you over the past 5-8 pages of the thread, but you continue to claim otherwise
The “so what” is making the point that the Hide rules in 2024 are badly constructed. . .
Assuming that you are referring to my 'So what?',
No, he isn't actually making that point. He's making the point that there is an error in the Invisibility Spell.
If this thread was about the Invisibility Spell then his point about a houserule would have been a correct one to make. That is not what this thread is about, however, no matter how much he tries to confuse matters by mentioning the Invisibility Spell.
My point is that Hide, the Invisible condition, and all magical invisibility (it's not just Invisibility, it's Greater Invisibility and every other spell that grants the Invisible condition) don't work together as written. If Invisible works the way you think it does for Hide, then it doesn't work the way it should for magical invisibility. It's not an error in the spell, it's an error in them trying to force Hide into Invisible.
And again, assuming for the moment that you are correct, that error exists because of a lack of verbiage in the spells. It is not a problem with the Hide Action and the Invisible Condition (which is what we are talking about) and updating the Invisible Condition to do what you want would break other things because those are not the only times the Invisible Condition comes up (e.g., gelatinous cubes can also have the Invisible Condition).
The only reason you keep bringing up the spell is because you want to establish some connection between the two that doesn't exist. You cannot attribute any effect from the spell to the Hide Action. That is not possible. The characteristics that they share in common are those of the Invisibility Condition. Anything outside of those characteristics is not automatically shared.
Thus, the Invisibility Spell has zero bearing on anything.
I will say that the Hide Action could benefit from some clarity as to whether the character is 'truly invisible' or merely gains the enumerated benefits of the Invisible Condition, but that has nothing at all to do with the spell. That has to do with assumptions people make.
Rules say what they say they do, and nowhere does the PHB says that you can normally see someone with the Invisible condition with natural sight, unless a rule specifies so.
That's not how the rules work. You can't reference the PHB not saying something to imply that it means the opposite must be true. Nothing in the PHB says I don't take ongoing fire damage after being hit by a Fireball because my skin is burned and bubbling, but it would be foolish to argue that I do. Even if there was a feature in the game that stated "You do not take ongoing fire damage after being hit with Fireball", everyone would see this as nonsensical, because nothing ever states that you would.
A rule has to say something in order for it to be true. The Invisible condition would first have to say that you cannot see Invisible creatures with normal sight for it to be true. Not saying it doesn't does not make it so. And if this was their intent all along, why did they remove that exact language after the last round of playtest and not put it back in with the errata?
The “so what” is making the point that the Hide rules in 2024 are badly constructed. . .
Assuming that you are referring to my 'So what?',
No, he isn't actually making that point. He's making the point that there is an error in the Invisibility Spell.
If this thread was about the Invisibility Spell then his point about a houserule would have been a correct one to make. That is not what this thread is about, however, no matter how much he tries to confuse matters by mentioning the Invisibility Spell.
My point is that Hide, the Invisible condition, and all magical invisibility (it's not just Invisibility, it's Greater Invisibility and every other spell that grants the Invisible condition) don't work together as written. If Invisible works the way you think it does for Hide, then it doesn't work the way it should for magical invisibility. It's not an error in the spell, it's an error in them trying to force Hide into Invisible.
And again, assuming for the moment that you are correct, that error exists because of a lack of verbiage in the spells. It is not a problem with the Hide Action and the Invisible Condition (which is what we are talking about) and updating the Invisible Condition to do what you want would break other things because those are not the only times the Invisible Condition comes up (e.g., gelatinous cubes can also have the Invisible Condition).
The only reason you keep bringing up the spell is because you want to establish some connection between the two that doesn't exist. You cannot attribute any effect from the spell to the Hide Action. That is not possible. The characteristics that they share in common are those of the Invisibility Condition. Anything outside of those characteristics is not automatically shared.
Thus, the Invisibility Spell has zero bearing on anything.
I will say that the Hide Action could benefit from some clarity as to whether the character is 'truly invisible' or merely gains the enumerated benefits of the Invisible Condition, but that has nothing at all to do with the spell. That has to do with assumptions people make.
What you keep misunderstanding is that THE ONLY THING that Invisibility and Greater Invisibility do is give you this condition. There is 100% a connection between Hide and Invisibility because WotC decided to make them both do effectively the same thing by them both granting the Invisible condition. I am not attributing something else from Invisibility to the Hide action, because there is nothing else in Invisibility BUT the Invisible condition.
It is a problem with the Invisible condition, because in 5e it absolutely worked the way everyone would expect it to. But then in 5.5e, they made it so that Hide gave you Invisible and thus broke how magical invisibility worked. The rules have to all work together to be cohesive, so saying that Invisibility has nothing to do with this discussion is incredibly disingenuous.
Unless your contention, again, is that there is no way to become transparent in the game.
Unless your contention, again, is that there is no way to become transparent in the game.
I'm not aware of anything in the game that explicitly cares about transparency.
Transparent things like windows still block line of sight (for the purposes of spellcasting), or do they? Does glass provide Cover? There's no rule that says that transparent things are immune to radiant damage. There's no rule that says invisible things don't provide obscurement. Though they are not listed explicitly as things that do provide obscurement. There's no rule that says a Halfling can't do the "naturally stealthy" thing behind an invisible ally. It does require being "obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you" so maybe it would follow the same implied inferrence of obscurement.
So, I don't think "transparency" matters, outside of player imagination, narrative flow, or DM fiat. And none of those care about "only strict RAW."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The “so what” is making the point that the Hide rules in 2024 are badly constructed. People argue that you can move freely once you succeed on the initial roll because the only mechanically defined means of being found is the Search Action, which is exacerbated by the decision to roll it into the Invisible condition and the fact that there’s no explicit RAW in 2024 that anything on the map is automatically seen if there’s clear LoS to it. The counterpoint being raised is that if people are playing the strictly by what’s written card, then the Invisible condition does not actually make a subject transparent or otherwise impossible to be seen by the naked eye; the only thing it expressly says on that front is that the subject cannot be targeted by effects that require sight.
The point is to highlight why the reading people use about how Hide and being found work to support the idea it is functional invisibility is not one that produces useful results when applied to other parts of the game.
You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
If you needed special senses to try to find hidden creatures, the Hide rules would say so. They don't, so you don't.
The condition states you can't be targeted by sight unless you can be seen. This is vague on purpose, because this is different for each feature, but you're trying to lump them all to try and prove a flawed point. It doesn't matter if it says you're transparent or not, all it matters is how it functions mechanically.
Again, does the spell says that "an enemy finds you" is a trigger to end it? Keep in mind that the game defines conditions as:
To answer your question: No; then you can't find someone under the Invisibility spell or a magical ability that gives you the Invisible condition (like the Ranger's Nature's Veil) unless you have a sense or feature that allows you so.
Does the hide action says you lose the Invisible condition if "an enemy finds you"? If Yes, then seeing them is a valid way to find them. Like Plaguescarred said: You don't need to see hidden creature to find them, you need to perceive them, which encompass more than the sense of sight.
How you're found can be either the Search action or Passive Perception, because the Hide rule only says a Perception check. Outside of these, its DM fiat per the rule on page 19.
Assuming that you are referring to my 'So what?',
No, he isn't actually making that point. He's making the point that there is an error in the Invisibility Spell.
If this thread was about the Invisibility Spell then his point about a houserule would have been a correct one to make. That is not what this thread is about, however, no matter how much he tries to confuse matters by mentioning the Invisibility Spell.
That's why I said he's mixing things to prove a flawed point. Just saying that everyone that doesn't follow his interpretation is houseruling doesn't make it so
The problem is... it's not different for each feature. If it were different for each feature, features would actually specify how you can be seen.
At the very least it is conceivable that it could be different for each feature in the future. Next week they could come out with Zany Armor of Wacky Rules that grants you the Invisible Condition but specifies that you can be spotted by beardless gnomes, and that if you are spotted you are immediately teleported to the South Pole.
Any similarity between two different things that give the Invisible Condition cannot be used to prove something about the Invisible Condition any more than the fact that eagles and penguins are both carnivores proves that all Avians are carnivores.
And to your point, if a feature is affected by a sense or vice versa, it usually says so, like the Gloom Stalker's Umbral Sight:
People argue about almost every rule in the book, just look at peasant rail gun, or any of the "builds" out there. The point of rule books is to convey how something is supposed to work as efficiently as possible. It's not to try to stop pedants and people who want to break the game from breaking the game - to try to achieve that is a waste of the designers' time to write and try to poke holes into everything they have written, and it would waste everyone else's time reading tons of additional rules and clarifications that are unnecessary for most people to understand how the game work.
I would argue the rules are perfectly well written, because it provides an easy filter for me as a DM for whom to invite to my table or not. All I need to do is ask them "If you hide successfully can you then walk down an empty hallway past a guard on duty and not be noticed?" If they say yes, they aren't getting invited to my game.
No, the point is to convey how something is supposed to work in a way that is both clear and succinct. If people argue about what a rule means, they've failed at the first.
But the rules for Invisible and Invisibility ALSO don't say that you need special sense to find them. So that means you don't need it to find them, right? And my reply was in response to Agilemind saying that hearing or seeing footprints was detecting, not finding.
You do, because a more specific rule tells you so (Truesight, Blindsight, See Invisibility). Specific beats general, and the book does have an entry that explains this
But nothing in the Invisibility spell states that a special sense is required to see you! You are making up a rule on how you think it should work, but it's just not in the rules. Nothing in the Invisible condition even says that you are hard or difficult to see.
The reason that transparency or being impossible to see or however you want to say it matters because Concealed and Attacks Affected both have the clause "unless the enemy can see you". If that weren't in there, you would have a point, but the fact that there is another requirement to getting those effects matters. You cannot say that whether they can see you or not doesn't matter when it is a requirement of the two most important effects of the Invisible condition.
I get why they put that in there. Because a strict reading of the 5e Invisible condition meant that See Invisibility didn't negate the advantage/disadvantage on attacks. But what they neglected to do was actually have anything that said you cannot be seen. You can make up a rule that it's different for Hide and Invisibility, but please stop saying that you are reading the rules as is.
How are senses a more specific rule than the rule for Invisible?? And this is the Fallacy of the Converse, anyway. Just because Truesight, Blindsight, and See Invisibility say that you can see Invisible things, doesn't mean that nothing else can. Again, these are straight copies from 5e when it was actually spelled out that you needed a special sense or the aid of magic to see Invisible creatures.
But even if I did ascribe to your logic, then you have to apply it to Hide as well. Because the spell and senses you referenced don't apply to Invisibility, they apply to the Invisible condition. Which also means that Truesight and See Invisibility mean that no one can ever sneak up on you, which is bonkers to say the least.
You keep trying to make a distinction where none exists between Invisible from Hide and Invisible from Invisibility.
My point is that Hide, the Invisible condition, and all magical invisibility (it's not just Invisibility, it's Greater Invisibility and every other spell that grants the Invisible condition) don't work together as written. If Invisible works the way you think it does for Hide, then it doesn't work the way it should for magical invisibility. It's not an error in the spell, it's an error in them trying to force Hide into Invisible.
Sense are more specific because of this, which you conveniently ignored:
Condition: A condition is a temporary game state. The definition of a condition says how it affects its recipient, and various rules define how to end a condition.
Rules say what they say they do, and nowhere does the PHB says that you can normally see someone with the Invisible condition with natural sight, unless a rule specifies so.
And it does apply to the Hide action, even Plaguescarred quoted the SAC that says so, but you conveniently ignored it too.
There's a distinction, but it's not in the condition, it's in the specific rule that gives you the condition. You want to ignore it? Go ahead, but that's not gonna change things.
Using the example others have, does the Poisoned condition means I'm poisoned? Not anymore, because diseases now give the Poisoned condition. Conditions are game states, and the rule that gives you the condition is what determines what you actually have. This has been explained to you over the past 5-8 pages of the thread, but you continue to claim otherwise
And again, assuming for the moment that you are correct, that error exists because of a lack of verbiage in the spells. It is not a problem with the Hide Action and the Invisible Condition (which is what we are talking about) and updating the Invisible Condition to do what you want would break other things because those are not the only times the Invisible Condition comes up (e.g., gelatinous cubes can also have the Invisible Condition).
The only reason you keep bringing up the spell is because you want to establish some connection between the two that doesn't exist. You cannot attribute any effect from the spell to the Hide Action. That is not possible. The characteristics that they share in common are those of the Invisibility Condition. Anything outside of those characteristics is not automatically shared.
Thus, the Invisibility Spell has zero bearing on anything.
I will say that the Hide Action could benefit from some clarity as to whether the character is 'truly invisible' or merely gains the enumerated benefits of the Invisible Condition, but that has nothing at all to do with the spell. That has to do with assumptions people make.
That's not how the rules work. You can't reference the PHB not saying something to imply that it means the opposite must be true. Nothing in the PHB says I don't take ongoing fire damage after being hit by a Fireball because my skin is burned and bubbling, but it would be foolish to argue that I do. Even if there was a feature in the game that stated "You do not take ongoing fire damage after being hit with Fireball", everyone would see this as nonsensical, because nothing ever states that you would.
A rule has to say something in order for it to be true. The Invisible condition would first have to say that you cannot see Invisible creatures with normal sight for it to be true. Not saying it doesn't does not make it so. And if this was their intent all along, why did they remove that exact language after the last round of playtest and not put it back in with the errata?
What you keep misunderstanding is that THE ONLY THING that Invisibility and Greater Invisibility do is give you this condition. There is 100% a connection between Hide and Invisibility because WotC decided to make them both do effectively the same thing by them both granting the Invisible condition. I am not attributing something else from Invisibility to the Hide action, because there is nothing else in Invisibility BUT the Invisible condition.
It is a problem with the Invisible condition, because in 5e it absolutely worked the way everyone would expect it to. But then in 5.5e, they made it so that Hide gave you Invisible and thus broke how magical invisibility worked. The rules have to all work together to be cohesive, so saying that Invisibility has nothing to do with this discussion is incredibly disingenuous.
Unless your contention, again, is that there is no way to become transparent in the game.
I'm not aware of anything in the game that explicitly cares about transparency.
Transparent things like windows still block line of sight (for the purposes of spellcasting), or do they? Does glass provide Cover?
There's no rule that says that transparent things are immune to radiant damage.
There's no rule that says invisible things don't provide obscurement. Though they are not listed explicitly as things that do provide obscurement.
There's no rule that says a Halfling can't do the "naturally stealthy" thing behind an invisible ally. It does require being "obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you" so maybe it would follow the same implied inferrence of obscurement.
So, I don't think "transparency" matters, outside of player imagination, narrative flow, or DM fiat. And none of those care about "only strict RAW."