And no, "this is fundamentally unclear and you'll have to make your own house rules about it" is a reasonable answer in a rules forum.
That's just you broadcasting your indecision. "DMs need to make rulings" doesn't invalidate a RAW interpretation (because RAW is always a function of interpretation).
Huh? I can't even parse what that's supposed to mean. RAW is about textual analysis, if it needs interpretation and extrapolation we're in RAI territory.
Side 1 Says : "The DM gets to decide when you can or cannot hide and whether or not you remain hidden given the in-game situation. So you can only sneak up on someone if it makes sense that you could sneak up on them." Side 2 Hears : "The moment you move after having rolled Stealth you are no longer hidden, sneaking is impossible, and Rogue players are stupid and don't deserve to do anything fun ever."
Side 2 Says : "I want to be able to sneak up and assassinate people because that's cool and fun. DMs are meenies and won't ever let me do that." Side 1 Hears : "I want to be able to be permanently invisible at all times and be able to do everything and anything I want without the enemies ever seeing me."
You know what the answer is? Side 2 should stop playing with those DMs, and should stop expecting a book of rules to magically make a toxic game group not be toxic. If you can't trust your DM to rule fairly on when you can / can't hide then don't play with that DM. D&D is a social game, it is built in the unique social contract at each table. If you don't like the social contract at your table find another one. Don't demand the designers give you a bludgeon for you to hit DMs you don't like with. And both sides should stop arguing on the internet and go make some friends to play some D&D with.
This is not a good characterization. While that might represent the majority of interactions, there actually are people who say "The moment you move after having rolled Stealth you are no longer hidden, sneaking is impossible, and Rogue players are stupid and don't deserve to do anything fun ever." and there are people who say "I want to be able to be permanently invisible at all times and be able to do everything and anything I want without the enemies ever seeing me.".
They are not majority views, but they are definitely there.
And no, "this is fundamentally unclear and you'll have to make your own house rules about it" is a reasonable answer in a rules forum.
That's just you broadcasting your indecision. "DMs need to make rulings" doesn't invalidate a RAW interpretation (because RAW is always a function of interpretation).
Huh? I can't even parse what that's supposed to mean. RAW is about textual analysis, if it needs interpretation and extrapolation we're in RAI territory.
It's common to think that RAW is "objective" and RAI is "subjective." But the opposite is true.
RAI, i.e. the intentions of the designer(s)/writer(s), when actually communicated, is pretty concrete. RAW, however, is about the text standing "alone" to be read, understood, and interpreted by the reader.
The argument I am making is that the rules don't work, not because I want to be right or "dunk on a strawman", but because nobody knows what the RAI is.
Was it RAI that you can no longer become transparent? Because the 5.5e rules don't allow for this unless you add what you think the writers intended.
Was it RAI that someone who Hides can leave cover to attack while Invisible but not to walk past a group of guards while Invisible ? The rules don't say this anywhere. They don't differentiate at all. I think that you reasonably should be able to pass a stealth check when coming out from cover to sneak up and get advantage on an attack, but definitely not be invisible while you do it.
What they probably should have done was to make these Hide rules for out of combat. You must pass a contested check to avoid being found. Then, they could have given the Rogue a new Bonus Action (like Steady Aim) to get Advantage on their next attack if they pass a check coming out of cover. Why they brought invisibility into it, I cannot comprehend.
The simple fact that all of the people here saying the rules work IF you treat this like that or only allow it if the DM feels it or this that and the other means that the rules are not clearly written and will be house ruled at every table. This makes for an inconsistent game experience if you play at multiple tables or could completely upend a character build if you are bringing one to a new table. Core mechanics of the game should not be this open to interpretation, and should definitely not invalidate other aspects (looking at you Invisibility).
Here's the thing: for a large number of people, the rules aren't confusing at all. For a large number of people, especially those who paid attention to comments during playtesting, the RAI is clear as well.
Moreover, virtually everyone objecting to the rules as being 'unclear' appear to be actively seeking out ways to twist the clear language of the rules because they disagree with what those rules are rather than present actual examples of unclear rules.
Why they brought invisibility into it, I cannot comprehend.
Because they had fun playing BG3. They have even said in interviews that they were inspired by BG3 when writing 2024 rules. In BG3, the game engine makes your character appear to be "invisible" while they are successfully hidden, in the same way that they do when are actually invisible. In BG3, which the rules are clearly inspired by, you can sneak up on people and surprise attack them, but you have to be actively sneaking - i.e. remaining hidden - and avoid their red "line-of-sight" or "sensing" area. If you enter that "sensing" area and are not obscured they find you automatically. Whereas being actively Invisible allows you to be obscured & remain hidden as long as you are actively sneaking even within their red "sensing" area.
If anyone is confused how the rules are meant to work, just watch some BG3 footage on Twitch or Youtube. It's blatantly obvious that is what the designers were going for but leaving the definition of the red "sensing" area up to DMs to adjudicate.
. . .Why they brought invisibility into it, I cannot comprehend. . .
I don't think they really did (though I admit this is my interpretation). Yes, the Condition is named Invisible, but just like you can have the Poisoned Condition without actually being poisoned, I think you can have the Invisible Condition without being invisible.
Agilemind's BG3 example kind of shows that thinking, I feel. In BG3 they make the character appear invisible on the screen (i.e., they give them their equivalent of the Invisible Condition) so there is feedback to the player that allows them to remember that they are not just walking about normally (and likely they are sharing code that tells the NPCs how to act), but they are not actually invisible (they have to worry about issues like cover and cones of perception).
If anyone is confused how the rules are meant to work, just watch some BG3 footage on Twitch or Youtube. It's blatantly obvious that is what the designers were going for but leaving the definition of the red "sensing" area up to DMs to adjudicate.
Yep.
And the RAW explicitly asks them to adjudicate, and the game rules (in general) give them plenty of tools.
In BG3, the game engine makes your character appear to be "invisible" while they are successfully hidden, in the same way that they do when are actually invisible.
Lots of video games implement stealth in a similar way, and if your game is using facing you can make it work the same way in 2014 (as that rule didn't make it into 2024, you'll have to house rule). Mechanically BG3 doesn't treat stealth at all like invisibility.
Mechanically BG3 doesn't treat stealth at all like invisibility.
That's subjective depending on what you mean by "at all like". BG3 the character model clearly has a "invisible" toggle which changes its appearance, it also has a "sneaking" toggle which changes its animations. Then it has a series of if-then statements to determine when those toggles get flipped - these if-thens are different for different sources of invisible. Meanwhile enemies are programmed to react based on the the status of those two toggles.
The sentence that was referencing to it in 2014 is in 2024.
It's not new to 2024.
The simplest answer to "why was it written this way" is "it was done this way in 2014 and we didn't rewrite it".
the rules give a default situation, and say the dm can overule that. But they literally say that about every rule in both versions.
the difference in 2024 is they have a baseline hide system that functions like most d20 tests to determine an unknown outcome, and the DM can make a judgement call based on the narrative,
and in 2014 they had a baseline non functional hide/stealth system, but the DM could overule that if they see fit.
Setting the baseline assumption is important, because A. Many players try to follow the baseline rules, and B, It gives the dm an idea of what the normal expectation is.
Basically the 2014 rules say unless the DM makes a special exception, you are immediately seen once leaving cover.
Basically 2024 rules say, make a stealth roll versus creature perception to decide whether they notice you or dont notice you while you are attempting to be unnoticed. unless the dm makes a special exception.
the second is a better rule system because hide is useful on its own, within the rules, and the dm can mitigate it, whereas in the first the very common combat/irl situation of being sneaky/stealthy doesnt exist unless you ask the dm for an exception.
The argument I am making is that the rules don't work, not because I want to be right or "dunk on a strawman", but because nobody knows what the RAI is.
Was it RAI that you can no longer become transparent? Because the 5.5e rules don't allow for this unless you add what you think the writers intended.
Was it RAI that someone who Hides can leave cover to attack while Invisible but not to walk past a group of guards while Invisible ? The rules don't say this anywhere. They don't differentiate at all. I think that you reasonably should be able to pass a stealth check when coming out from cover to sneak up and get advantage on an attack, but definitely not be invisible while you do it.
What they probably should have done was to make these Hide rules for out of combat. You must pass a contested check to avoid being found. Then, they could have given the Rogue a new Bonus Action (like Steady Aim) to get Advantage on their next attack if they pass a check coming out of cover. Why they brought invisibility into it, I cannot comprehend.
The simple fact that all of the people here saying the rules work IF you treat this like that or only allow it if the DM feels it or this that and the other means that the rules are not clearly written and will be house ruled at every table. This makes for an inconsistent game experience if you play at multiple tables or could completely upend a character build if you are bringing one to a new table. Core mechanics of the game should not be this open to interpretation, and should definitely not invalidate other aspects (looking at you Invisibility).
The rules havent changed whether you are transparent or not, the rules havent decided that. The narrative determines by what means you are invisible.
the rules are simply describing an effect which has specific rules related to it.
While you have condition "x" you have advanatge on initiative rolls, you have advantage on attacking, people have disadvantage to attack you, and effects that require you to be seen dont work on you unless something has a specific effects that allows them to see you.
When you cast invisible spell, you have condition X
When you hide you have condition X unless you are found.
You are transparent if the feature/player/dm narratively says you are for that effect.
Its raw, that person who hides can sneak past guards, or make an attack. These are both common reasons someone may want a mechanic like hide.
"Invisible" condition just means literally that they dont 'see' you. And 'see' in that sentence means they arent conscious of you.
Someone who is behind you is invisible (you cant see them) Someone who is camoflauged is invisible, (you dont register them mentally) Someone who becomes completely transparent through a spell is invisible (you cant see them). Someone who makes it impossible for people to be aware of thier existence is invisible.
They wanted a mechanical rule to describe this state of being uneffected by things that require sight. And they wanted to attach a specific set of mechanical benefits to that state.
The confusion here is not really the RAW, the major confusion occurs because:
1. people who have a specific idea of what invisible means, and are not accepting/understanding that they redefined what they mean when they say 'invisible condition" Much like they redefined advantage, attack, etc.
2. people are used to/ conflate /prefer 2014 rules/ the concept of stealth being primarily related to position and circumstance
3. People who just dont get the syntax/diction of the rule
And those often exist in some combination of those 3.
And all rules can have those possible issues, 2014 hide was IMO harder to parse, there were similar arguements and questions as to hide/stealth worked when 5e was released for example.
Basically 2024 rules say, make a stealth roll versus creature perception to decide whether they notice you or dont notice you while you are attempting to be unnoticed.
Um... no-one has any real problems with that rule. The complaints are about the hide action, which says nothing like what you just described.
The argument I am making is that the rules don't work, not because I want to be right or "dunk on a strawman", but because nobody knows what the RAI is.
Was it RAI that you can no longer become transparent? Because the 5.5e rules don't allow for this unless you add what you think the writers intended.
Was it RAI that someone who Hides can leave cover to attack while Invisible but not to walk past a group of guards while Invisible ? The rules don't say this anywhere. They don't differentiate at all. I think that you reasonably should be able to pass a stealth check when coming out from cover to sneak up and get advantage on an attack, but definitely not be invisible while you do it.
What they probably should have done was to make these Hide rules for out of combat. You must pass a contested check to avoid being found. Then, they could have given the Rogue a new Bonus Action (like Steady Aim) to get Advantage on their next attack if they pass a check coming out of cover. Why they brought invisibility into it, I cannot comprehend.
The simple fact that all of the people here saying the rules work IF you treat this like that or only allow it if the DM feels it or this that and the other means that the rules are not clearly written and will be house ruled at every table. This makes for an inconsistent game experience if you play at multiple tables or could completely upend a character build if you are bringing one to a new table. Core mechanics of the game should not be this open to interpretation, and should definitely not invalidate other aspects (looking at you Invisibility).
The rules havent changed whether you are transparent or not, the rules havent decided that. The narrative determines by what means you are invisible.
the rules are simply describing an effect which has specific rules related to it.
While you have condition "x" you have advanatge on initiative rolls, you have advantage on attacking, people have disadvantage to attack you, and effects that require you to be seen dont work on you unless something has a specific effects that allows them to see you.
When you cast invisible spell, you have condition X
When you hide you have condition X unless you are found.
You are transparent if the feature/player/dm narratively says you are for that effect.
Its raw, that person who hides can sneak past guards, or make an attack. These are both common reasons someone may want a mechanic like hide.
"Invisible" condition just means literally that they dont 'see' you. And 'see' in that sentence means they arent conscious of you.
Someone who is behind you is invisible (you cant see them) Someone who is camoflauged is invisible, (you dont register them mentally) Someone who becomes completely transparent through a spell is invisible (you cant see them). Someone who makes it impossible for people to be aware of thier existence is invisible.
They wanted a mechanical rule to describe this state of being uneffected by things that require sight. And they wanted to attach a specific set of mechanical benefits to that state.
The confusion here is not really the RAW, the major confusion occurs because:
1. people who have a specific idea of what invisible means, and are not accepting/understanding that they redefined what they mean when they say 'invisible condition" Much like they redefined advantage, attack, etc.
2. people are used to/ conflate /prefer 2014 rules/ the concept of stealth being primarily related to position and circumstance
3. People who just dont get the syntax/diction of the rule
And those often exist in some combination of those 3.
And all rules can have those possible issues, 2014 hide was IMO harder to parse, there were similar arguements and questions as to hide/stealth worked when 5e was released for example.
A few problems with your argument:
Nothing in Hide, Invisible, or Invisibility say anything about special senses being required to see you. That is something that existed in 5e that they removed in 5.5e.
Not a single feature or narrative in 5.5e states that you are transparent. They just give you the Invisible condition (same as Hide). And Invisible just says that you can't be affected by things that require sight unless the enemy can see you (which is just the rule for something requiring sight).
"An enemy finds you" is not defined at all in the rules. That would be like putting into Attack Rolls that you hit the target when you meet/beat their AC, "unless you miss", without giving any definition of how you might "miss".
Redefining "invisible" as "not being aware of your presence" doesn't actually fix anything. Are you invisible because they are not aware of your presence? Or are they not aware of your presence because you are invisible? If the former, what makes them aware? If the latter, what stops you from walking across the room without being noticed?
This also causes problems with Invisibility because if they become aware of your presence, then they can just see you (with the first definition). If sticking with the latter definition of Invisible, then it has to work the same for Hide. They both use the same condition, so they cannot mechanically operate differently.
Your #2 above seems to be backwards. If anything, 5.5e Hide is more dependent on position and circumstance. You have to be out of every enemy's line of sight to even attempt Hiding and have to pass a baseline check to succeed, regardless of the Perception checks of the enemies.
Your #3 is just an ad hominem - you don't agree with me, so you must just not understand it. The only way the "syntax and diction" make this work is if you take parts of the 5e rules and apply them, or base your understanding off of how Hide worked in 5e. Someone new to the game who had never played/read 5e books would be at a loss as to how these rules work in a vacuum. Even knowing the 5e rules, I still don't understand how the 5.5e rules were intended to work.
. . .Why they brought invisibility into it, I cannot comprehend. . .
I don't think they really did (though I admit this is my interpretation). Yes, the Condition is named Invisible, but just like you can have the Poisoned Condition without actually being poisoned, I think you can have the Invisible Condition without being invisible.
Agilemind's BG3 example kind of shows that thinking, I feel. In BG3 they make the character appear invisible on the screen (i.e., they give them their equivalent of the Invisible Condition) so there is feedback to the player that allows them to remember that they are not just walking about normally (and likely they are sharing code that tells the NPCs how to act), but they are not actually invisible (they have to worry about issues like cover and cones of perception).
Then there is no way to become invisible/transparent in 5.5e. Because the only thing Invisibility and Greater Invisibility grant you are the Invisible condition.
Conflating the two caused a real problem with both. If you rule that you are impossible to see when Invisible then an enemy could never "find you". If you rule that Invisible does not make you impossible to see, then the above spells are severely diminished if not entirely useless.
Because "You're invisible until you're seen" could also apply to someone who has never taken the Hide action or cast an Invisibility spell.
The Invisible Condition states that you are concealed. It is agnostic as to whether that's because you are transparent or no-one knows where you are (or completely obscured, etc etc).
Being hidden, as defined within the Hide Action, ends when you draw attention to yourself (generally do stuff to make a noise) or someone finds you (generally by making a Perception check). Which ends the Invisible Condition.
The rules for being found are not within the Invisible Condition (because they don't apply to the spell, etc), but instead defined by the Hide rules. "Hidden" is basically a wrapper around the Invisible Condition. This was what the PHB errata were clarifying.
...
Yes, I know there's a bunch of you who want to tell me that the Invisible Condition doesn't conceal you, but instead redefines "concealed" to something meaningless. Get in line. You are all being pathologically incorrect to no constructive end.
Yes, I know there's a bunch of you who want to tell me that the Invisible Condition doesn't conceal you, but instead redefines "concealed" to something meaningless. Get in line. You are all being pathologically incorrect to no constructive end.
How dare people actually read what the rules say, you mean? People say that because it's true.
. . . "An enemy finds you" is not defined at all in the rules. That would be like putting into Attack Rolls that you hit the target when you meet/beat their AC, "unless you miss", without giving any definition of how you might "miss". . .
That's almost genius.
Yes, that is exactly what it is.
Just because you beat a creature's AC does not mean you automatically hit them (at least effectively). There are defined cases where you can beat a creature's AC without hitting them (e.g., they are outside your Reach or Range, they are behind Total Cover, etc.). There are also undefined cases where, although a player rolled well enough to beat a creature's AC, they don't effectively 'hit' them because of some choice they are making (e.g., attacking a creature with a feather duster, trying to garrote a guard with a spaghetti noodle).
In a similar vein, 'an enemy finds you' is generally defined (they roll well enough to beat the DC established by the Stealth roll). There are some defined cases where the enemy can find someone without beating that DC (e.g., Truesight). There are also undefined cases where, regardless of what the player rolled, the enemy can find them because the player is being a knob (e.g., standing out in the open).
The vast majority of the time if you make 'the roll' (whether that is beating a creature's AC of beating their Perception) then you will succeed. There's situations where you will clearly fail because you are trying to operate outside of the defined rules (such as attacking something outside your reach or trying to use Stealth without Cover), but even if you avoid those the DM has the right to say you fail because what you are doing is simply too unreasonable (and exactly where that line exists is pretty much impossible to define and will vary from DM to DM).
Now, I agree that the language could be a Hell of a lot clearer, but that is more or less what I think the designers meant.
(n.b., This is my opinion on how to interpret what the designers have written. It is not meant to say that other people may not have come to other interpretations. Ask your doctor if esampson's interpretation is right for you. Possible side effects of esampson's interpretation may include confusion, snark, and inexplicable blind rage. If you have confusion that lasts for more than four hours, consider discontinuing esampson's interpretation.
Esampson's interpretation is not legal in all states.)
The Invisible Condition states that you are concealed. It is agnostic as to whether that's because you are transparent or no-one knows where you are (or completely obscured, etc etc).
Being hidden, as defined within the Hide Action, ends when you draw attention to yourself (generally do stuff to make a noise) or someone finds you (generally by making a Perception check). Which ends the Invisible Condition.
The rules for being found are not within the Invisible Condition (because they don't apply to the spell, etc), but instead defined by the Hide rules. "Hidden" is basically a wrapper around the Invisible Condition. This was what the PHB errata were clarifying.
...
Yes, I know there's a bunch of you who want to tell me that the Invisible Condition doesn't conceal you, but instead redefines "concealed" to something meaningless. Get in line. You are all being pathologically incorrect to no constructive end.
People want it completely spelled out, even though what they're asking for was in the playtests for the Invisible condition and ultimately was removed by the dev team. The designers had no problem identifying when you "vanished" or "turned invisible" using magical abilities or spells in the playtest videos, but somehow we don't know the designers intent. Some people just can't get over the whole "Invisible as a Condition" and it's why is still being debated, but this is the direction WotC decided to go and I don't see them backtracking. For all those that complain about the condition being unusable, the comment below encapsulates the other side of that coin:
Here's the thing: for a large number of people, the rules aren't confusing at all. For a large number of people, especially those who paid attention to comments during playtesting, the RAI is clear as well.
Ultimately, the condition is just a descriptive set of benefits or hindrances that are predicated by a trigger, whether that's through a physical means or magical means; how that is illustrated is dependent on the narrative device used by the DM. This is not going to satisfy the rules lawyers, and the fact there was no errata for the condition itself is kind of telling that WotC is quite comfortable with what it says.
Why they brought invisibility into it, I cannot comprehend.
Because they had fun playing BG3. They have even said in interviews that they were inspired by BG3 when writing 2024 rules. In BG3, the game engine makes your character appear to be "invisible" while they are successfully hidden, in the same way that they do when are actually invisible. In BG3, which the rules are clearly inspired by, you can sneak up on people and surprise attack them, but you have to be actively sneaking - i.e. remaining hidden - and avoid their red "line-of-sight" or "sensing" area. If you enter that "sensing" area and are not obscured they find you automatically. Whereas being actively Invisible allows you to be obscured & remain hidden as long as you are actively sneaking even within their red "sensing" area.
If anyone is confused how the rules are meant to work, just watch some BG3 footage on Twitch or Youtube. It's blatantly obvious that is what the designers were going for but leaving the definition of the red "sensing" area up to DMs to adjudicate.
Sort of. In BG3 if you are outside of their vision cone your stealth is 100% successful no matter what you rolled. If you enter their vision cone and the area is brightly lit with no obstructions you automatically fail. If you are in their vision cone(which is fairly short range like most things in BG3) and it is not perfect seeing conditions for you, a stealth check is made every round. So if its dim light for example you can walk straight up to them, get right in front of them, dance around metaphorically and not be spotted because you keep rolling awesome. If that is what they were going for, I have no idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Huh? I can't even parse what that's supposed to mean. RAW is about textual analysis, if it needs interpretation and extrapolation we're in RAI territory.
This is not a good characterization. While that might represent the majority of interactions, there actually are people who say "The moment you move after having rolled Stealth you are no longer hidden, sneaking is impossible, and Rogue players are stupid and don't deserve to do anything fun ever." and there are people who say "I want to be able to be permanently invisible at all times and be able to do everything and anything I want without the enemies ever seeing me.".
They are not majority views, but they are definitely there.
It's common to think that RAW is "objective" and RAI is "subjective." But the opposite is true.
RAI, i.e. the intentions of the designer(s)/writer(s), when actually communicated, is pretty concrete. RAW, however, is about the text standing "alone" to be read, understood, and interpreted by the reader.
A "only RAW, no RAI" stance is the game rules equivalent of "the Death of the Author" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author). It could also be viewed as analogous to the Reformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation) but that metaphor is a bigger stretch.
The argument I am making is that the rules don't work, not because I want to be right or "dunk on a strawman", but because nobody knows what the RAI is.
Was it RAI that you can no longer become transparent? Because the 5.5e rules don't allow for this unless you add what you think the writers intended.
Was it RAI that someone who Hides can leave cover to attack while Invisible but not to walk past a group of guards while Invisible ? The rules don't say this anywhere. They don't differentiate at all. I think that you reasonably should be able to pass a stealth check when coming out from cover to sneak up and get advantage on an attack, but definitely not be invisible while you do it.
What they probably should have done was to make these Hide rules for out of combat. You must pass a contested check to avoid being found. Then, they could have given the Rogue a new Bonus Action (like Steady Aim) to get Advantage on their next attack if they pass a check coming out of cover. Why they brought invisibility into it, I cannot comprehend.
The simple fact that all of the people here saying the rules work IF you treat this like that or only allow it if the DM feels it or this that and the other means that the rules are not clearly written and will be house ruled at every table. This makes for an inconsistent game experience if you play at multiple tables or could completely upend a character build if you are bringing one to a new table. Core mechanics of the game should not be this open to interpretation, and should definitely not invalidate other aspects (looking at you Invisibility).
Here's the thing: for a large number of people, the rules aren't confusing at all. For a large number of people, especially those who paid attention to comments during playtesting, the RAI is clear as well.
Moreover, virtually everyone objecting to the rules as being 'unclear' appear to be actively seeking out ways to twist the clear language of the rules because they disagree with what those rules are rather than present actual examples of unclear rules.
Because they had fun playing BG3. They have even said in interviews that they were inspired by BG3 when writing 2024 rules. In BG3, the game engine makes your character appear to be "invisible" while they are successfully hidden, in the same way that they do when are actually invisible. In BG3, which the rules are clearly inspired by, you can sneak up on people and surprise attack them, but you have to be actively sneaking - i.e. remaining hidden - and avoid their red "line-of-sight" or "sensing" area. If you enter that "sensing" area and are not obscured they find you automatically. Whereas being actively Invisible allows you to be obscured & remain hidden as long as you are actively sneaking even within their red "sensing" area.
If anyone is confused how the rules are meant to work, just watch some BG3 footage on Twitch or Youtube. It's blatantly obvious that is what the designers were going for but leaving the definition of the red "sensing" area up to DMs to adjudicate.
I don't think they really did (though I admit this is my interpretation). Yes, the Condition is named Invisible, but just like you can have the Poisoned Condition without actually being poisoned, I think you can have the Invisible Condition without being invisible.
Agilemind's BG3 example kind of shows that thinking, I feel. In BG3 they make the character appear invisible on the screen (i.e., they give them their equivalent of the Invisible Condition) so there is feedback to the player that allows them to remember that they are not just walking about normally (and likely they are sharing code that tells the NPCs how to act), but they are not actually invisible (they have to worry about issues like cover and cones of perception).
Yep.
And the RAW explicitly asks them to adjudicate, and the game rules (in general) give them plenty of tools.
Lots of video games implement stealth in a similar way, and if your game is using facing you can make it work the same way in 2014 (as that rule didn't make it into 2024, you'll have to house rule). Mechanically BG3 doesn't treat stealth at all like invisibility.
That's subjective depending on what you mean by "at all like". BG3 the character model clearly has a "invisible" toggle which changes its appearance, it also has a "sneaking" toggle which changes its animations. Then it has a series of if-then statements to determine when those toggles get flipped - these if-thens are different for different sources of invisible. Meanwhile enemies are programmed to react based on the the status of those two toggles.
the rules give a default situation, and say the dm can overule that. But they literally say that about every rule in both versions.
the difference in 2024 is they have a baseline hide system that functions like most d20 tests to determine an unknown outcome, and the DM can make a judgement call based on the narrative,
and in 2014 they had a baseline non functional hide/stealth system, but the DM could overule that if they see fit.
Setting the baseline assumption is important, because A. Many players try to follow the baseline rules, and B, It gives the dm an idea of what the normal expectation is.
Basically the 2014 rules say unless the DM makes a special exception, you are immediately seen once leaving cover.
Basically 2024 rules say, make a stealth roll versus creature perception to decide whether they notice you or dont notice you while you are attempting to be unnoticed. unless the dm makes a special exception.
the second is a better rule system because hide is useful on its own, within the rules, and the dm can mitigate it, whereas in the first the very common combat/irl situation of being sneaky/stealthy doesnt exist unless you ask the dm for an exception.
The rules havent changed whether you are transparent or not, the rules havent decided that. The narrative determines by what means you are invisible.
the rules are simply describing an effect which has specific rules related to it.
While you have condition "x" you have advanatge on initiative rolls, you have advantage on attacking, people have disadvantage to attack you, and effects that require you to be seen dont work on you unless something has a specific effects that allows them to see you.
When you cast invisible spell, you have condition X
When you hide you have condition X unless you are found.
You are transparent if the feature/player/dm narratively says you are for that effect.
Its raw, that person who hides can sneak past guards, or make an attack. These are both common reasons someone may want a mechanic like hide.
"Invisible" condition just means literally that they dont 'see' you. And 'see' in that sentence means they arent conscious of you.
Someone who is behind you is invisible (you cant see them) Someone who is camoflauged is invisible, (you dont register them mentally) Someone who becomes completely transparent through a spell is invisible (you cant see them). Someone who makes it impossible for people to be aware of thier existence is invisible.
They wanted a mechanical rule to describe this state of being uneffected by things that require sight. And they wanted to attach a specific set of mechanical benefits to that state.
The confusion here is not really the RAW, the major confusion occurs because:
1. people who have a specific idea of what invisible means, and are not accepting/understanding that they redefined what they mean when they say 'invisible condition" Much like they redefined advantage, attack, etc.
2. people are used to/ conflate /prefer 2014 rules/ the concept of stealth being primarily related to position and circumstance
3. People who just dont get the syntax/diction of the rule
And those often exist in some combination of those 3.
And all rules can have those possible issues, 2014 hide was IMO harder to parse, there were similar arguements and questions as to hide/stealth worked when 5e was released for example.
Um... no-one has any real problems with that rule. The complaints are about the hide action, which says nothing like what you just described.
A few problems with your argument:
Then there is no way to become invisible/transparent in 5.5e. Because the only thing Invisibility and Greater Invisibility grant you are the Invisible condition.
Conflating the two caused a real problem with both. If you rule that you are impossible to see when Invisible then an enemy could never "find you". If you rule that Invisible does not make you impossible to see, then the above spells are severely diminished if not entirely useless.
Because "You're invisible until you're seen" could also apply to someone who has never taken the Hide action or cast an Invisibility spell.
The Invisible Condition states that you are concealed. It is agnostic as to whether that's because you are transparent or no-one knows where you are (or completely obscured, etc etc).
Being hidden, as defined within the Hide Action, ends when you draw attention to yourself (generally do stuff to make a noise) or someone finds you (generally by making a Perception check). Which ends the Invisible Condition.
The rules for being found are not within the Invisible Condition (because they don't apply to the spell, etc), but instead defined by the Hide rules. "Hidden" is basically a wrapper around the Invisible Condition. This was what the PHB errata were clarifying.
...
Yes, I know there's a bunch of you who want to tell me that the Invisible Condition doesn't conceal you, but instead redefines "concealed" to something meaningless. Get in line. You are all being pathologically incorrect to no constructive end.
How dare people actually read what the rules say, you mean? People say that because it's true.
That's almost genius.
Yes, that is exactly what it is.
Just because you beat a creature's AC does not mean you automatically hit them (at least effectively). There are defined cases where you can beat a creature's AC without hitting them (e.g., they are outside your Reach or Range, they are behind Total Cover, etc.). There are also undefined cases where, although a player rolled well enough to beat a creature's AC, they don't effectively 'hit' them because of some choice they are making (e.g., attacking a creature with a feather duster, trying to garrote a guard with a spaghetti noodle).
In a similar vein, 'an enemy finds you' is generally defined (they roll well enough to beat the DC established by the Stealth roll). There are some defined cases where the enemy can find someone without beating that DC (e.g., Truesight). There are also undefined cases where, regardless of what the player rolled, the enemy can find them because the player is being a knob (e.g., standing out in the open).
The vast majority of the time if you make 'the roll' (whether that is beating a creature's AC of beating their Perception) then you will succeed. There's situations where you will clearly fail because you are trying to operate outside of the defined rules (such as attacking something outside your reach or trying to use Stealth without Cover), but even if you avoid those the DM has the right to say you fail because what you are doing is simply too unreasonable (and exactly where that line exists is pretty much impossible to define and will vary from DM to DM).
Now, I agree that the language could be a Hell of a lot clearer, but that is more or less what I think the designers meant.
(n.b., This is my opinion on how to interpret what the designers have written. It is not meant to say that other people may not have come to other interpretations. Ask your doctor if esampson's interpretation is right for you. Possible side effects of esampson's interpretation may include confusion, snark, and inexplicable blind rage. If you have confusion that lasts for more than four hours, consider discontinuing esampson's interpretation.
Esampson's interpretation is not legal in all states.)
People want it completely spelled out, even though what they're asking for was in the playtests for the Invisible condition and ultimately was removed by the dev team. The designers had no problem identifying when you "vanished" or "turned invisible" using magical abilities or spells in the playtest videos, but somehow we don't know the designers intent. Some people just can't get over the whole "Invisible as a Condition" and it's why is still being debated, but this is the direction WotC decided to go and I don't see them backtracking. For all those that complain about the condition being unusable, the comment below encapsulates the other side of that coin:
Ultimately, the condition is just a descriptive set of benefits or hindrances that are predicated by a trigger, whether that's through a physical means or magical means; how that is illustrated is dependent on the narrative device used by the DM. This is not going to satisfy the rules lawyers, and the fact there was no errata for the condition itself is kind of telling that WotC is quite comfortable with what it says.
Sort of. In BG3 if you are outside of their vision cone your stealth is 100% successful no matter what you rolled. If you enter their vision cone and the area is brightly lit with no obstructions you automatically fail. If you are in their vision cone(which is fairly short range like most things in BG3) and it is not perfect seeing conditions for you, a stealth check is made every round. So if its dim light for example you can walk straight up to them, get right in front of them, dance around metaphorically and not be spotted because you keep rolling awesome. If that is what they were going for, I have no idea.