It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
It definitely seems like there is no benefit to the hide action after you are already invisible.
It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
True, it doesn't make you transparent...it makes you invisible to other's sense of sight. Think of the Invisible condition gained through the spell as someone disappearing from a security camera feed because it was hacked with an older feed where you're not present.
It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
True, it doesn't make you transparent...it makes you invisible to other's sense of sight. Think of the Invisible condition gained through the spell as someone disappearing from a security camera feed because it was hacked with an older feed where you're not present.
But it isn't different. The Invisible condition gained through the spell is exactly the same as what is given from hiding. The two are the same condition.
It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
The condition does, however, conceal you. (And that's not ConcealedTM, it's just part of the InvisibleTM Condition.) Narrative flavor is up to the reader, but perhaps it's from actual "invisibility" for the spell so named, but "being hidden from sight" from the Hide action. Stealth!
The Search action finds concealed things (I've read the book now; the SearchTM Action, using Perception, "detects" "Concealed creature or object"), and the HideTM action explicitly says the invisible condition is removed if "an enemy finds you". The book also says the DM "decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." The book is actually more clear about this than I was expecting.
It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
True, it doesn't make you transparent...it makes you invisible to other's sense of sight. Think of the Invisible condition gained through the spell as someone disappearing from a security camera feed because it was hacked with an older feed where you're not present.
But it isn't different. The Invisible condition gained through the spell is exactly the same as what is given from hiding. The two are the same condition.
The condition's the same, but Hide has more requisites than the Invisibility spell to enter and more triggers to end it. That's the difference. Spells ignore mundane physical laws, per the spell effects description of CH7
The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws; any outcomes beyond those effects are under the DM’s purview. Whatever the effects, they typically deal with targets, saving throws, attack rolls, or all three, each of which is detailed below.
The Rules Glossary also has a rule on Magical Effects, which state effects done by spells are magical in nature:
It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
The condition does, however, conceal you. (And that's not ConcealedTM, it's just part of the InvisibleTM Condition.) Narrative flavor is up to the reader, but perhaps it's from actual "invisibility" for the spell so named, but "being hidden from sight" from the Hide action. Stealth!
The Search action finds concealed things (I've read the book now; the SearchTM Action, using Perception, "detects" "Concealed creature or object"), and the HideTM action explicitly says the invisible condition is removed if "an enemy finds you". The book also says the DM "decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." The book is actually more clear about this than I was expecting.
I mean, Concealed is an effect of the invisible condition that is defined within the condition. And all it says is that you can't be affected by things that require sight if you can't be seen (which is the general rule for any affect that requires sight). So it really is ConcealedTM just like being InvisibleTM doesn't make you Surprise (whatever that would mean) or make you Attacks Affected. Those are defined effects within the InvisibleTM condition.
Unless you would say that Attacks Affected is another phrase for invisible? Because it duplicates the Unseen Attacker language, so it must just be natural language for unseen attacker, right?
It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
True, it doesn't make you transparent...it makes you invisible to other's sense of sight. Think of the Invisible condition gained through the spell as someone disappearing from a security camera feed because it was hacked with an older feed where you're not present.
But it isn't different. The Invisible condition gained through the spell is exactly the same as what is given from hiding. The two are the same condition.
The condition's the same, but Hide has more requisites than the Invisibility spell to enter and more triggers to end it. That's the difference. Spells ignore mundane physical laws, per the spell effects description of CH7
The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws; any outcomes beyond those effects are under the DM’s purview. Whatever the effects, they typically deal with targets, saving throws, attack rolls, or all three, each of which is detailed below.
The Rules Glossary also has a rule on Magical Effects, which state effects done by spells are magical in nature:
An effect is magical if it is created by a spell, a magic item, or a phenomenon that a rule labels as magical.
So Hiding is better than Invisibility because you can still cast spells that don't have a verbal component or using Subtle Spell. Whereas actually turning invisi.....sorry what WAS I thinking, nothing in 5.24 actually makes you invisible.
Whereas using magic to.....to.....to gain a condition is strictly worse for a magic user than just hiding because casting any spell (even Subtly) breaks your magic. Yes. That is making the good sense.
It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
The condition does, however, conceal you. (And that's not ConcealedTM, it's just part of the InvisibleTM Condition.) Narrative flavor is up to the reader, but perhaps it's from actual "invisibility" for the spell so named, but "being hidden from sight" from the Hide action. Stealth!
The Search action finds concealed things (I've read the book now; the SearchTM Action, using Perception, "detects" "Concealed creature or object"), and the HideTM action explicitly says the invisible condition is removed if "an enemy finds you". The book also says the DM "decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." The book is actually more clear about this than I was expecting.
I mean, Concealed is an effect of the invisible condition that is defined within the condition. And all it says is that you can't be affected by things that require sight if you can't be seen (which is the general rule for any affect that requires sight). So it really is ConcealedTM just like being InvisibleTM doesn't make you Surprise (whatever that would mean) or make you Attacks Affected. Those are defined effects within the InvisibleTM condition.
Unless you would say that Attacks Affected is another phrase for invisible? Because it duplicates the Unseen Attacker language, so it must just be natural language for unseen attacker, right?
There is no "Concealed Condition" in the glossary. The word is not redefined. It means what it means.
This entire argument ("'concealed' doesn't mean anything; they bolded the word so it can't have natural meaning; it never says things can't see you!") is preposterous. Even if it held water, it would make the entire clause a waste of space in the book.
It gets more weird when you factor in a sorcer who can metamagic and still cast spells and maintain Invisibility while the invisibility spell itself would end. There is no point in the actual invisible spell because hiding behind a tree and having expertise in stealth is just better.
Hide ends when someone succeeds at a Search action, or the DM decides you're too obvious. The spell doesn't end with those.
It doesn't say that it ends when the DM decides that it does.
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, Hide says the condition ends "when an enemy finds you", which is natural language. Walking in front of a guard that's looking at you means the guard "found you". The Invisibility spell has no such requirement.
And neither hiding nor Invisibility actually make you invisible, they just give you a condition called InvisibleTM. Which means that being InvisibleTM as a result of Invisibility doesn't mean that people can't see you, they just have disadvantage to hit you because of *mumble mumble* MAGIC and you get advantage on a single attack because of *Jazz Hands* MAGIC.
True, it doesn't make you transparent...it makes you invisible to other's sense of sight. Think of the Invisible condition gained through the spell as someone disappearing from a security camera feed because it was hacked with an older feed where you're not present.
But it isn't different. The Invisible condition gained through the spell is exactly the same as what is given from hiding. The two are the same condition.
The condition's the same, but Hide has more requisites than the Invisibility spell to enter and more triggers to end it. That's the difference. Spells ignore mundane physical laws, per the spell effects description of CH7
The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws; any outcomes beyond those effects are under the DM’s purview. Whatever the effects, they typically deal with targets, saving throws, attack rolls, or all three, each of which is detailed below.
The Rules Glossary also has a rule on Magical Effects, which state effects done by spells are magical in nature:
An effect is magical if it is created by a spell, a magic item, or a phenomenon that a rule labels as magical.
So Hiding is better than Invisibility because you can still cast spells that don't have a verbal component or using Subtle Spell. Whereas actually turning invisi.....sorry what WAS I thinking, nothing in 5.24 actually makes you invisible.
Whereas using magic to.....to.....to gain a condition is strictly worse for a magic user than just hiding because casting any spell (even Subtly) breaks your magic. Yes. That is making the good sense.
You can just say to use magic to fool an enemy into believing you're not where you are. Still, the spell has it's uses, since you can use it to gain the Invisible condition without the need to hide in combat and then reposition to an advantageous position, or you can use it to sneak into a fortress or enemy hideout without having to skulk in the shadows to avoid being seen.
It definitely seems like there is no benefit to the hide action after you are already invisible.
So, are you disagreeing with my previous two posts that explained the benefit?
Remember, sometimes a game mechanic is spread out across multiple rules that can appear in multiple places throughout the book. This was the case with how Hiding worked in the 2014 rules and this is also the case in the 2024 rules. Not everything related to how hiding works appears within the Hide Action. Specifically, the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule strongly implies that a hidden creature's location is unknown. Presumably because you are unseen and unheard and are also not currently located by any other normal senses.
The condition does, however, conceal you. (And that's not ConcealedTM, it's just part of the InvisibleTM Condition.) Narrative flavor is up to the reader, but perhaps it's from actual "invisibility" for the spell so named, but "being hidden from sight" from the Hide action. Stealth!
The Search action finds concealed things (I've read the book now; the SearchTM Action, using Perception, "detects" "Concealed creature or object"), and the HideTM action explicitly says the invisible condition is removed if "an enemy finds you". The book also says the DM "decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." The book is actually more clear about this than I was expecting.
This might seem like a nitpick, but I think that it's an important distinction -- the Invisible Condition does not conceal you. However, my interpretation is that a successful Hide action DOES conceal you. Not because of anything to do with having the Invisible Condition, but because the Hide action begins with: "You try to conceal yourself", and so logically the successful Stealth check makes you successful in your attempt to do so. In this context, "concealed" must mean more than just being unseen, since you need to be unseen before you even attempt to Hide. In this context, in my opinion, "concealed" means that your location becomes unknown. But this requires looking at other rules and applying them here in order for us to get there.
The reason why I think that this distinction is important has to do with what you said about the Search action "finding" concealed things. This is actually the reason why the Hide action allows the Invisible Condition to be ended by a successful Search, but the Invisibility spell does not -- because being "invisible" (assuming it is fixed to function as intended) does not actually mean that your location is concealed in this context -- it just means that you cannot be seen. The location of an invisible creature is still known and therefore that creature can be directly attacked at disadvantage, for example. Since the Invisible Condition itself does not actually cause this type of concealment (which is only the result of successfully hiding, but not the result of successfully casting invisibility), those mechanics all actually function correctly.
So Hiding is better than Invisibility because you can still cast spells that don't have a verbal component or using Subtle Spell. Whereas actually turning invisi.....sorry what WAS I thinking, nothing in 5.24 actually makes you invisible.
Whereas using magic to.....to.....to gain a condition is strictly worse for a magic user than just hiding because casting any spell (even Subtly) breaks your magic. Yes. That is making the good sense.
Actually, this is nothing new. Being Hidden was better than being Invisible in 2014 also. That's why an Invisible creature was explicitly allowed to attempt to Hide. Being Invisible meant being unable to be seen, whereas being Hidden meant currently Unseen and Unheard resulting in an Unknown Location.
Assuming that becoming Invisible gets fixed at some point, all of this remains true in 2024.
This entire argument ("'concealed' doesn't mean anything; they bolded the word so it can't have natural meaning; it never says things can't see you!") is preposterous. Even if it held water, it would make the entire clause a waste of space in the book.
In fact, the "Concealed" text block within the Invisible Condition IS a waste of space in the book. It doesn't actually do anything. It is just restating general rules for seeing things. It could and actually should be removed from the Condition without affecting anything.
That block does not make the creature actually concealed in the way that people are thinking -- it just makes the creature concealed from specific types of effects IF you cannot be seen. But by default, all creatures are already concealed from those effects if they cannot be seen. Nothing about that block of text conceals a creature from normal senses. Normal senses are not effects. If I see you, you are not being affected by any sort of effect.
Instead, a better interpretation is that the Hide action itself enables the creature to become concealed from normal senses (while remaining hidden). This is because the Hide action states that "you try to conceal yourself" and you might be successful in doing so if you pass your Stealth check. Separately from this, the successful Stealth check ALSO allows the creature to "have" the Invisible Condition (while remaining stealthy -- i.e. "on" a successful check), but that Condition is not what causes the creature to become concealed -- being successfully hidden is what does that.
I do not believe the Invisible condition will be fixed to what you want because so far the way it's written seems intentional, so don't expect an errata. Why do I say this? Because there have been some changes found already between the printed and digital versions, yet the Invisible condition is the same in both. We might get Sage Advice rulings on it since Crawford did mention that those will be available in the future.
Also, you can't dismiss the word Concealed when the condition specifically states that "you experience the following effects", then proceeds to list three effects in bold--Concealed being one of them. Whether you agree with the contents is a different matter.
This entire argument ("'concealed' doesn't mean anything; they bolded the word so it can't have natural meaning; it never says things can't see you!") is preposterous. Even if it held water, it would make the entire clause a waste of space in the book.
In fact, the "Concealed" text block within the Invisible Condition IS a waste of space in the book. It doesn't actually do anything. It is just restating general rules for seeing things. It could and actually should be removed from the Condition without affecting anything.
That, alone, demonstrates the ridiculousness of your position. I know that language and communication are imperfect, including the written word, but do you really think this is the best and most accurate interpretation?
I get it...in the 2014 rules, it can be difficult to tell the difference between technical terms and natural language (and hey, sometimes words are used as both at the same time). People would commonly get very pathological trying to parse things, especially when interpretting rules in light of designer tweets and other outside sources ("melee attacks" vs "attacks with a melee weapon" and such). But, applying a little "common sense" and not getting tied up over game definitions overriding natural definitions would clear up the issues about 80% of the time.
And this...this argument is trying to apply the worst of those pathologies to the new rules, for good or ill, to be more effective rules lawyers. Like, it's a time-honored tradition and I get it. It's practically a trauma response. But they fixed this particular pathology in the new book. They provided a full glossary of terms. So now you know exactly when they are redefining terms, vs just adding mechanics to natural language. They even classify terms with categories like "condition" and "hazard" and "action." You can ditch most of the pathological arguments about the meanings of words.
EDIT: note how you have agreed that the Search action ends someone's hide, despite "detect" and "find" being different words. Neither are in the glossary, but we understand that they are synonyms.
I do not believe the Invisible condition will be fixed to what you want because so far the way it's written seems intentional, so don't expect an errata.
If people keep complaining you might see a clarification errata. That doesn't mean they change what they want it to me, it means they rephrase it to remove uncertainty.
Also, you can't dismiss the word Concealed when the condition specifically states that "you experience the following effects", then proceeds to list three effects in bold--Concealed being one of them. Whether you agree with the contents is a different matter.
This entire argument ("'concealed' doesn't mean anything; they bolded the word so it can't have natural meaning; it never says things can't see you!") is preposterous. Even if it held water, it would make the entire clause a waste of space in the book.
In fact, the "Concealed" text block within the Invisible Condition IS a waste of space in the book. It doesn't actually do anything. It is just restating general rules for seeing things. It could and actually should be removed from the Condition without affecting anything.
That, alone, demonstrates the ridiculousness of your position . . .
There is a lot of ambiguity throughout the 2024 rules for hiding and invisibility. This is absolutely, positively NOT one of them.
The concealed effect is a specifically defined effect that conceals a creature from effects that require sight unless that creature can be seen. Full stop. That's what the concealed effect is. Trying to say that this effect has anything to do with actually concealing a creature in any manner that might better align with common usage of the word such as obscuring another creature's ability to see you . . . is flat out wrong. That's not what the effect says that it does and effects do what they say.
Except Concealed is an effect! It says so right in the Invisible condition. It says you experience the following effects: Surprise, Concealed, Attacks Affected. It then proceeds to define each of those effects right underneath. Concealed is not a condition, it is an effect of the Invisible condition.
Or do you think that being Invisible should make you also Surprised? That's natural language too, right? It's written right there, you are Surprised whenever you are Invisible.
The writers wanted to not have to write up a hidden condition by making it Invisible, so they tried to make Invisible not as strong, but they then made Invisible absolutely useless. It's just bad game design. I don't think I'm ever going to 5.24e.
Except Concealed is an effect! It says so right in the Invisible condition. It says you experience the following effects: Surprise, Concealed, Attacks Affected. It then proceeds to define each of those effects right underneath. Concealed is not a condition, it is an effect of the Invisible condition.
The entire text of the Invisible condition is a set of effects. That's the point. One is that your opponents are surprised (which has its own entry in the glossary), another is that you are concealed, and yet another is that attacks (both incoming and outgoing) are affected. Each of those has extra stuff (mechanics, mostly) attached. The fact that "surprised" and "attacks affected" aren't being redefined (what, you think the invisible condition is defining the invisible person as "surprised"?) goes to show that "concealed" isn't getting redefined, either, to mean some abstract thing. It means you are concealed (verbatim) and have some mechanical riders on that.
I'm not the one ignoring the effects of the condition.
Except Concealed is an effect! It says so right in the Invisible condition. It says you experience the following effects: Surprise, Concealed, Attacks Affected. It then proceeds to define each of those effects right underneath. Concealed is not a condition, it is an effect of the Invisible condition.
Or do you think that being Invisible should make you also Surprised? That's natural language too, right? It's written right there, you are Surprised whenever you are Invisible.
The writers wanted to not have to write up a hidden condition by making it Invisible, so they tried to make Invisible not as strong, but they then made Invisible absolutely useless. It's just bad game design. I don't think I'm ever going to 5.24e.
You do you, but many will not be passing over the other 75%+ things they've improved over one single rule that was written ambiguous by design so it could apply to many different scenarios by a DM. If people want to do overly-detailed readings of the rules instead of using them as guidelines, that's their prerogative. A rule could have 10 different meanings depending on who you ask, even if written as clear and concise as possible.
Since were talking about Hide and Invisibility let's use an example: Hide says that the Invisible condition ends if an enemy finds you; this is natural language. Find is defined in the Oxford dictionary as: "to discover or perceive by chance or unexpectedly". If you're walking down a sidewalk and you see a $20 bill, what's one of the first things you think? "Oh, I just found a 20 dollar bill on the street". Did I search for it? No, I stumbled on it by chance because it was in my line of sight. And yet, you see people saying that because the term "Find" is not defined in the rules, they can walk in front on an enemy's line of sight and not lose the Condition, or that the DM cannot rule that you lose the condition because the clause on page 19 for Hiding applies before you take the Hide action.
Could WotC have chosen to write instead: "if you are in an enemy's line of sight"? Yes, they could've, but they chose "an enemy finds you" because it applies to more than just line of sight. Unfortunately, Rules Lawyers want things completely spelled out so they don't have to deal with abstract or critical thinking.
Rules are written with some degree of ambiguity so that they can apply to many different scenarios; otherwise if they are too rigid it restricts creativity.
Except Concealed is an effect! It says so right in the Invisible condition. It says you experience the following effects: Surprise, Concealed, Attacks Affected. It then proceeds to define each of those effects right underneath. Concealed is not a condition, it is an effect of the Invisible condition.
The entire text of the Invisible condition is a set of effects. That's the point. One is that your opponents are surprised (which has its own entry in the glossary), another is that you are concealed, and yet another is that attacks (both incoming and outgoing) are affected. Each of those has extra stuff (mechanics, mostly) attached. The fact that "surprised" and "attacks affected" aren't being redefined (what, you think the invisible condition is defining the invisible person as "surprised"?) goes to show that "concealed" isn't getting redefined, either, to mean some abstract thing. It means you are concealed (verbatim) and have some mechanical riders on that.
I'm not the one ignoring the effects of the condition.
The Concealed effect in the Invisible Condition conceals the creature from effects. it doesn't conceal the creature from being seen. It just doesn't do that.
That's not really the mistake that was made though. The devastating mistake was that they removed the phrase "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" from the Condition. That clause was by far the most important aspect of the 2014 Condition. That clause is absolutely essential in creating the existence of invisible creatures in the D&D multiverse. Without that clause, they don't exist.
This trope is something that has existed in the game going all the way back to 1st Edition. It absolutely has to be fixed.
Except Concealed is an effect! It says so right in the Invisible condition. It says you experience the following effects: Surprise, Concealed, Attacks Affected. It then proceeds to define each of those effects right underneath. Concealed is not a condition, it is an effect of the Invisible condition.
The entire text of the Invisible condition is a set of effects. That's the point. One is that your opponents are surprised (which has its own entry in the glossary), another is that you are concealed, and yet another is that attacks (both incoming and outgoing) are affected. Each of those has extra stuff (mechanics, mostly) attached. The fact that "surprised" and "attacks affected" aren't being redefined (what, you think the invisible condition is defining the invisible person as "surprised"?) goes to show that "concealed" isn't getting redefined, either, to mean some abstract thing. It means you are concealed (verbatim) and have some mechanical riders on that.
I'm not the one ignoring the effects of the condition.
Except your opponents are not Surprised, you just get advantage on Initiative checks. So Surprise is absolutely being redefined. And so is Attacks Affected. You don't get a +2 to your damage, you don't get additional reach, it clearly defines what Attacks Affected means.
Same thing with Concealed. It never says "you are concealed", so your "verbatim" is a lie. It says you have the affect Concealed, which means things that can't see you can't affect you with things that require sight (which is just a general rule).
So, in your houserule of the condition, what is "Concealing" you? You cast Invisibility by going Solid Snake and placing a box over yourself? I guess you could get the exact same effect as your version of the Invisible condition by just having a curtain on a hoop that you pull around yourself. The added bonus of that is that casting spells and making noise wouldn't end the condition!
Except Concealed is an effect! It says so right in the Invisible condition. It says you experience the following effects: Surprise, Concealed, Attacks Affected. It then proceeds to define each of those effects right underneath. Concealed is not a condition, it is an effect of the Invisible condition.
The entire text of the Invisible condition is a set of effects. That's the point. One is that your opponents are surprised (which has its own entry in the glossary), another is that you are concealed, and yet another is that attacks (both incoming and outgoing) are affected. Each of those has extra stuff (mechanics, mostly) attached. The fact that "surprised" and "attacks affected" aren't being redefined (what, you think the invisible condition is defining the invisible person as "surprised"?) goes to show that "concealed" isn't getting redefined, either, to mean some abstract thing. It means you are concealed (verbatim) and have some mechanical riders on that.
I'm not the one ignoring the effects of the condition.
Except your opponents are not Surprised, you just get advantage on Initiative checks. So Surprise is absolutely being redefined. And so is Attacks Affected. You don't get a +2 to your damage, you don't get additional reach, it clearly defines what Attacks Affected means.
Same thing with Concealed. It never says "you are concealed", so your "verbatim" is a lie. It says you have the affect Concealed, which means things that can't see you can't affect you with things that require sight (which is just a general rule).
So, in your houserule of the condition, what is "Concealing" you? You cast Invisibility by going Solid Snake and placing a box over yourself? I guess you could get the exact same effect as your version of the Invisible condition by just having a curtain on a hoop that you pull around yourself. The added bonus of that is that casting spells and making noise wouldn't end the condition!
The more I read the book the more I think the intended meaning is that you are concealed. It doesn't say that. But the rogue thief ability seems to only make sense if you hide and remain hidden/concealed as you move about. Of course it could intend for you to use a ranged weapon, but it doesn't specify so...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It definitely seems like there is no benefit to the hide action after you are already invisible.
True, it doesn't make you transparent...it makes you invisible to other's sense of sight. Think of the Invisible condition gained through the spell as someone disappearing from a security camera feed because it was hacked with an older feed where you're not present.
But it isn't different. The Invisible condition gained through the spell is exactly the same as what is given from hiding. The two are the same condition.
The condition does, however, conceal you. (And that's not ConcealedTM, it's just part of the InvisibleTM Condition.) Narrative flavor is up to the reader, but perhaps it's from actual "invisibility" for the spell so named, but "being hidden from sight" from the Hide action. Stealth!
The Search action finds concealed things (I've read the book now; the SearchTM Action, using Perception, "detects" "Concealed creature or object"), and the HideTM action explicitly says the invisible condition is removed if "an enemy finds you". The book also says the DM "decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." The book is actually more clear about this than I was expecting.
The condition's the same, but Hide has more requisites than the Invisibility spell to enter and more triggers to end it. That's the difference. Spells ignore mundane physical laws, per the spell effects description of CH7
The Rules Glossary also has a rule on Magical Effects, which state effects done by spells are magical in nature:
I mean, Concealed is an effect of the invisible condition that is defined within the condition. And all it says is that you can't be affected by things that require sight if you can't be seen (which is the general rule for any affect that requires sight). So it really is ConcealedTM just like being InvisibleTM doesn't make you Surprise (whatever that would mean) or make you Attacks Affected. Those are defined effects within the InvisibleTM condition.
Unless you would say that Attacks Affected is another phrase for invisible? Because it duplicates the Unseen Attacker language, so it must just be natural language for unseen attacker, right?
So Hiding is better than Invisibility because you can still cast spells that don't have a verbal component or using Subtle Spell. Whereas actually turning invisi.....sorry what WAS I thinking, nothing in 5.24 actually makes you invisible.
Whereas using magic to.....to.....to gain a condition is strictly worse for a magic user than just hiding because casting any spell (even Subtly) breaks your magic. Yes. That is making the good sense.
There is no "Concealed Condition" in the glossary. The word is not redefined. It means what it means.
This entire argument ("'concealed' doesn't mean anything; they bolded the word so it can't have natural meaning; it never says things can't see you!") is preposterous. Even if it held water, it would make the entire clause a waste of space in the book.
You can just say to use magic to fool an enemy into believing you're not where you are. Still, the spell has it's uses, since you can use it to gain the Invisible condition without the need to hide in combat and then reposition to an advantageous position, or you can use it to sneak into a fortress or enemy hideout without having to skulk in the shadows to avoid being seen.
So, are you disagreeing with my previous two posts that explained the benefit?
Remember, sometimes a game mechanic is spread out across multiple rules that can appear in multiple places throughout the book. This was the case with how Hiding worked in the 2014 rules and this is also the case in the 2024 rules. Not everything related to how hiding works appears within the Hide Action. Specifically, the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule strongly implies that a hidden creature's location is unknown. Presumably because you are unseen and unheard and are also not currently located by any other normal senses.
This might seem like a nitpick, but I think that it's an important distinction -- the Invisible Condition does not conceal you. However, my interpretation is that a successful Hide action DOES conceal you. Not because of anything to do with having the Invisible Condition, but because the Hide action begins with: "You try to conceal yourself", and so logically the successful Stealth check makes you successful in your attempt to do so. In this context, "concealed" must mean more than just being unseen, since you need to be unseen before you even attempt to Hide. In this context, in my opinion, "concealed" means that your location becomes unknown. But this requires looking at other rules and applying them here in order for us to get there.
The reason why I think that this distinction is important has to do with what you said about the Search action "finding" concealed things. This is actually the reason why the Hide action allows the Invisible Condition to be ended by a successful Search, but the Invisibility spell does not -- because being "invisible" (assuming it is fixed to function as intended) does not actually mean that your location is concealed in this context -- it just means that you cannot be seen. The location of an invisible creature is still known and therefore that creature can be directly attacked at disadvantage, for example. Since the Invisible Condition itself does not actually cause this type of concealment (which is only the result of successfully hiding, but not the result of successfully casting invisibility), those mechanics all actually function correctly.
Actually, this is nothing new. Being Hidden was better than being Invisible in 2014 also. That's why an Invisible creature was explicitly allowed to attempt to Hide. Being Invisible meant being unable to be seen, whereas being Hidden meant currently Unseen and Unheard resulting in an Unknown Location.
Assuming that becoming Invisible gets fixed at some point, all of this remains true in 2024.
In fact, the "Concealed" text block within the Invisible Condition IS a waste of space in the book. It doesn't actually do anything. It is just restating general rules for seeing things. It could and actually should be removed from the Condition without affecting anything.
That block does not make the creature actually concealed in the way that people are thinking -- it just makes the creature concealed from specific types of effects IF you cannot be seen. But by default, all creatures are already concealed from those effects if they cannot be seen. Nothing about that block of text conceals a creature from normal senses. Normal senses are not effects. If I see you, you are not being affected by any sort of effect.
Instead, a better interpretation is that the Hide action itself enables the creature to become concealed from normal senses (while remaining hidden). This is because the Hide action states that "you try to conceal yourself" and you might be successful in doing so if you pass your Stealth check. Separately from this, the successful Stealth check ALSO allows the creature to "have" the Invisible Condition (while remaining stealthy -- i.e. "on" a successful check), but that Condition is not what causes the creature to become concealed -- being successfully hidden is what does that.
I do not believe the Invisible condition will be fixed to what you want because so far the way it's written seems intentional, so don't expect an errata. Why do I say this? Because there have been some changes found already between the printed and digital versions, yet the Invisible condition is the same in both. We might get Sage Advice rulings on it since Crawford did mention that those will be available in the future.
Also, you can't dismiss the word Concealed when the condition specifically states that "you experience the following effects", then proceeds to list three effects in bold--Concealed being one of them. Whether you agree with the contents is a different matter.
That, alone, demonstrates the ridiculousness of your position. I know that language and communication are imperfect, including the written word, but do you really think this is the best and most accurate interpretation?
I get it...in the 2014 rules, it can be difficult to tell the difference between technical terms and natural language (and hey, sometimes words are used as both at the same time). People would commonly get very pathological trying to parse things, especially when interpretting rules in light of designer tweets and other outside sources ("melee attacks" vs "attacks with a melee weapon" and such). But, applying a little "common sense" and not getting tied up over game definitions overriding natural definitions would clear up the issues about 80% of the time.
And this...this argument is trying to apply the worst of those pathologies to the new rules, for good or ill, to be more effective rules lawyers. Like, it's a time-honored tradition and I get it. It's practically a trauma response. But they fixed this particular pathology in the new book. They provided a full glossary of terms. So now you know exactly when they are redefining terms, vs just adding mechanics to natural language. They even classify terms with categories like "condition" and "hazard" and "action." You can ditch most of the pathological arguments about the meanings of words.
EDIT: note how you have agreed that the Search action ends someone's hide, despite "detect" and "find" being different words. Neither are in the glossary, but we understand that they are synonyms.
If people keep complaining you might see a clarification errata. That doesn't mean they change what they want it to me, it means they rephrase it to remove uncertainty.
and also
There is a lot of ambiguity throughout the 2024 rules for hiding and invisibility. This is absolutely, positively NOT one of them.
The concealed effect is a specifically defined effect that conceals a creature from effects that require sight unless that creature can be seen. Full stop. That's what the concealed effect is. Trying to say that this effect has anything to do with actually concealing a creature in any manner that might better align with common usage of the word such as obscuring another creature's ability to see you . . . is flat out wrong. That's not what the effect says that it does and effects do what they say.
Except Concealed is an effect! It says so right in the Invisible condition. It says you experience the following effects: Surprise, Concealed, Attacks Affected. It then proceeds to define each of those effects right underneath. Concealed is not a condition, it is an effect of the Invisible condition.
Or do you think that being Invisible should make you also Surprised? That's natural language too, right? It's written right there, you are Surprised whenever you are Invisible.
The writers wanted to not have to write up a hidden condition by making it Invisible, so they tried to make Invisible not as strong, but they then made Invisible absolutely useless. It's just bad game design. I don't think I'm ever going to 5.24e.
The entire text of the Invisible condition is a set of effects. That's the point. One is that your opponents are surprised (which has its own entry in the glossary), another is that you are concealed, and yet another is that attacks (both incoming and outgoing) are affected. Each of those has extra stuff (mechanics, mostly) attached. The fact that "surprised" and "attacks affected" aren't being redefined (what, you think the invisible condition is defining the invisible person as "surprised"?) goes to show that "concealed" isn't getting redefined, either, to mean some abstract thing. It means you are concealed (verbatim) and have some mechanical riders on that.
I'm not the one ignoring the effects of the condition.
You do you, but many will not be passing over the other 75%+ things they've improved over one single rule that was written ambiguous by design so it could apply to many different scenarios by a DM. If people want to do overly-detailed readings of the rules instead of using them as guidelines, that's their prerogative. A rule could have 10 different meanings depending on who you ask, even if written as clear and concise as possible.
Since were talking about Hide and Invisibility let's use an example: Hide says that the Invisible condition ends if an enemy finds you; this is natural language. Find is defined in the Oxford dictionary as: "to discover or perceive by chance or unexpectedly". If you're walking down a sidewalk and you see a $20 bill, what's one of the first things you think? "Oh, I just found a 20 dollar bill on the street". Did I search for it? No, I stumbled on it by chance because it was in my line of sight. And yet, you see people saying that because the term "Find" is not defined in the rules, they can walk in front on an enemy's line of sight and not lose the Condition, or that the DM cannot rule that you lose the condition because the clause on page 19 for Hiding applies before you take the Hide action.
Could WotC have chosen to write instead: "if you are in an enemy's line of sight"? Yes, they could've, but they chose "an enemy finds you" because it applies to more than just line of sight. Unfortunately, Rules Lawyers want things completely spelled out so they don't have to deal with abstract or critical thinking.
Rules are written with some degree of ambiguity so that they can apply to many different scenarios; otherwise if they are too rigid it restricts creativity.
The Concealed effect in the Invisible Condition conceals the creature from effects. it doesn't conceal the creature from being seen. It just doesn't do that.
That's not really the mistake that was made though. The devastating mistake was that they removed the phrase "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" from the Condition. That clause was by far the most important aspect of the 2014 Condition. That clause is absolutely essential in creating the existence of invisible creatures in the D&D multiverse. Without that clause, they don't exist.
This trope is something that has existed in the game going all the way back to 1st Edition. It absolutely has to be fixed.
Except your opponents are not Surprised, you just get advantage on Initiative checks. So Surprise is absolutely being redefined. And so is Attacks Affected. You don't get a +2 to your damage, you don't get additional reach, it clearly defines what Attacks Affected means.
Same thing with Concealed. It never says "you are concealed", so your "verbatim" is a lie. It says you have the affect Concealed, which means things that can't see you can't affect you with things that require sight (which is just a general rule).
So, in your houserule of the condition, what is "Concealing" you? You cast Invisibility by going Solid Snake and placing a box over yourself? I guess you could get the exact same effect as your version of the Invisible condition by just having a curtain on a hoop that you pull around yourself. The added bonus of that is that casting spells and making noise wouldn't end the condition!
The more I read the book the more I think the intended meaning is that you are concealed. It doesn't say that. But the rogue thief ability seems to only make sense if you hide and remain hidden/concealed as you move about. Of course it could intend for you to use a ranged weapon, but it doesn't specify so...