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.
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.