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.
It was removed in playtest because people pointed out that it meant people using stealth couldn't be seen without special senses. It apparently did not occur to them that removing that turned sources of invisibility other than stealth nonsensical.
But is it really nonsensical? Like it's being pointed out, many out there are comfortable with the rule as is, while for another camp the rule is unusable unless everything is spelled out. I've seen no issues with the new rule on any of the games I've played, both at home and Organized Play. Ultimately, people either like it or don't, but that won't make WotC change it if those complaining are a small part of the community.
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.
It was removed in playtest because people pointed out that it meant people using stealth couldn't be seen without special senses. It apparently did not occur to them that removing that turned sources of invisibility other than stealth nonsensical.
The devs chose to make the condition flexible enough to be shared by different rules. They knew what they were doing, and why.
Look, language is always a little ambiguous, and there will always be semantics arguments. Even the most rigorous, technical writing (legalese) has entire professions (lawyers and judges) to interpret and apply it, and people literally still die over arguments about it.
For this particular argument, it boils down to two options: 1) an interpretation where the rule is functional or 2) a interpretation where the rule is completely dysfunctional. The choice is yours (assuming you're the DM).
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).
The problem is that nothing in 5.5e ever says that you are transparent. There is no way to become transparent, you can only get the Invisible condition. They would have to put the line from 2014 "you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" into every single spell that grants you the Invisible condition in order to actually make some invisible.
And the issue with your argument is that Heavily Obscured does not grant you the Invisible condition. You are now conflating a third thing (Heavily Obscured) which arguably should be closer to Hide than Invisibility should be to Hide.
But is it really nonsensical? Like it's being pointed out, many out there are comfortable with the rule as is, while for another camp the rule is unusable unless everything is spelled out. I've seen no issues with the new rule on any of the games I've played, both at home and Organized Play. Ultimately, people either like it or don't, but that won't make WotC change it if those complaining are a small part of the community.
Yes, we can be comfortable with the rules if we houserule it to be more like 5e. But read in a vacuum without knowledge of the prior editions of the game, these rules don't make sense.
. . . "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).
Your examples are nonsensical. You can't even make an attack if an enemy is outside of your reach/range or are behind total cover. That falls outside of the prerequisite to making an attack, just like there are prerequisites to take the Hide action (Cover/Heavily Obscured and out of sight). And attacking with a feather duster or garroting with a spaghetti noodle would still hit, it was just deal 0 damage because of the properties of the weapon.
If I meet the prerequisites for Hide and pass the check, what is it that can "find me"? I'm now Invisible, right? So unless Invisible doesn't actually make things invisible, I should be able to walk into plain sight and still be unnoticed.
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.
Well, all the feats / special abilities that used to let you hide when only lightly obscured are gone, and the Hide rules make no mention of lightly obscured so I would infer that the designers thought that was dumb and removed it from the game. Whereas you could have done such a thing with 2014 Skulker.
But is it really nonsensical? Like it's being pointed out, many out there are comfortable with the rule as is, while for another camp the rule is unusable unless everything is spelled out. I've seen no issues with the new rule on any of the games I've played, both at home and Organized Play. Ultimately, people either like it or don't, but that won't make WotC change it if those complaining are a small part of the community.
Yes, we can be comfortable with the rules if we houserule it to be more like 5e. But read in a vacuum without knowledge of the prior editions of the game, these rules don't make sense.
Nah, they are comfortable because they understand the intent; only rules lawyers are having problems with it. You're looking for the condition to spell out that you're transparent, but it won't do so because it has to apply to both hiding and magical invisibility; that's why they took the line out from playtest 8.
Like kenclary said, you either interpret the rule as functional, or as dysfunctional, but it's your choice.
If I meet the prerequisites for Hide and pass the check, what is it that can "find me"? I'm now Invisible, right? So unless Invisible doesn't actually make things invisible, I should be able to walk into plain sight and still be unnoticed.
Again I repeat, they mean "invisible" in the same way as videogames show your character as transparent to indicate that NPCs don't see you when hiding. If you gain Invisibility from hiding, you lose it as soon as you are no longer hidden, if you gain invisibility from a spell you lose it when the spell ends. Just like with other conditions, if you get the Poisoned condition from drinking poison, the condition ends when that poison is cured, if you get the Poisoned condition from a spell it ends when that spell ends, if you get the Poisoned condition from alcohol it ends when your body sobers up. Or same for Restrained, if you gain Restrained from being tied up it ends when the bonds are broken, if you gain it from a spell it ends when the spell ends, if you get if from being held by a monster it ends when you break free or the monster releases you. I assume you are capable of understanding that if a Crocodile bites character A and grapples & restains them as part of that bite, and then it bites character B that character A is no longer restrained even though no where in the rules does it say that. Why can't you understand the same think for Hidden?
. . . "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).
Your examples are nonsensical. You can't even make an attack if an enemy is outside of your reach/range or are behind total cover. That falls outside of the prerequisite to making an attack, just like there are prerequisites to take the Hide action (Cover/Heavily Obscured and out of sight). And attacking with a feather duster or garroting with a spaghetti noodle would still hit, it was just deal 0 damage because of the properties of the weapon.
Just change the verbiage. You shouldn't have rolled to attack because they were out of Range, you shouldn't have rolled to Hide because you lacked cover. In both cases, even if you do roll it doesn't matter what you roll.
Similarly, you rolled and you did action X, but you did not do so effectively. Sure, you hit, but you did no damage. Sure, you hid successfully, but now you've been found because you did something silly.
If I meet the prerequisites for Hide and pass the check, what is it that can "find me"? I'm now Invisible, right? So unless Invisible doesn't actually make things invisible, I should be able to walk into plain sight and still be unnoticed.
No. You are have the Invisible Condition. That does not mean you are invisible any more than having the Poisoned Condition means you are poisoned.
FWIW The Invisible Stalker has the Invisible condition and is described as unseen.
Invisible Stalker: Magic and malice give form to invisible stalkers, bodiless spirits of the air. These elusive beings pass unseen with nothing more than a stirring of air.
Hide is one action, and Hidden is not a condition. Hide has requirements, a single roll, and stated effects. Success means you're hidden and have the Invisible condition. Invisible creatures can't be seen, so entering another creature's line of sight has no effect.
This is not an ongoing test. The action happens once, and has triggers that cause the effects to end. That's how it's written. There's no language, explicit or implicit, that the effects of Hide end by no longer being behind cover.
This is wrong.
In fact, the test IS ongoing. The "stated effects" of taking the action are explicitly ongoing and conditional. They are only in effect "while hidden".
You take the Hide action when you attempt to conceal yourself. If successful, then you have successfully concealed yourself. But you only have the benefits of being concealed "while" you are concealed. Therefore, you have to actually remain concealed in order to continue to benefit from this Hide action. The effects of the Stealth roll are not fully resolved on the same turn that the roll is made. The text explicitly requires you to "make note of your check's total, which is [used later on]". That mechanic is ongoing, and it only applies "while hidden". The developers went through the trouble of issuing errata to emphasize this exact point.
....That's how it's written....There's no language, explicit or implicit,.....That's the language of the Invisible condition....
Geez... pedants unite. Though also no. The language explicitly says the hiding condition ends when another creature finds you. That is DELIBERATELY left undefined. If the designers wanted "find you" to only include making a perception check they would have said so. They didn't because they want it to be at DM discretion because Hiding is situational.
To be fair, I think that the concept of "finding" something in this game is reasonably well defined here:
Finding Hidden Objects
When your character searches for hidden things, such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check, provided you describe the character searching in the hidden object’s vicinity. On a success, you find the object, other important details, or both.
If you describe your character searching nowhere near a hidden object, a Wisdom (Perception) check won’t reveal the object, no matter the check’s total.
and in addition, we also have the general rule for Passive Perception:
Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature’s general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check.
So, in general, the mechanic for finding hidden creatures and objects involve Perception and/or Passive Perception.
The more important point is that finding something is only necessary if it is actually hidden. If a creature is no longer hidden, then it is no longer necessary to find it.
A creature enjoys certain benefits "while hidden". While that creature is hidden, it can be found via Perception or Passive Perception. If that creature is no longer hidden, then it no longer enjoys those benefits and, in that case, it no longer needs to be found via Perception or Passive Perception.
The Hide action happens once, and the effect on success is that you are hidden, having Invisible while hidden. The hidden effect doesn't end until the action says it does, and leaving cover is not among those ending triggers.
This is wrong. The list of things which cause you to "stop being hidden immediately" is not an exhaustive list. It is also a list which only applies "while hidden". You have to actually be hidden for any of these things to apply. The action goes through all of the steps that are necessary to attempt to conceal yourself. You need to continue to do these things to continue to enjoy the benefits of hiding on an ongoing basis since those benefits only remain valid "while hidden". If you stop hiding, then you are no longer hidden and the benefits that you enjoy "while hidden" as well as the described mechanics for some of the ways in which you might become no longer hidden no longer apply to this Hide action since you have already stopped hiding.
The hiding in a closet example is demonstrative because the enemy knows what space you're in.
Actually, this is a poor example for the point that you are trying to make here. There is actually nothing wrong with a creature attempting to hide in a closet and this should generally be deemed "appropriate" for hiding by the DM. The reason is because you actually DO NOT know what space they are in. The reason for that is because you cannot see or hear that creature (which is the hiding concept from the Unseen Attackers and Targets Sidebar). Maybe that creature cast Dimension Door immediately upon entering the closet. Maybe that closet contained a portal to the world of Narnia. Who knows? Because you cannot see or hear the creature you do not actually know its location and therefore it is hidden.
The circumstances appropriate for hiding are determined in the moment that the Hide action is attempted, i.e. are you obscured enough and out of line of sight of every enemy. Upon success, you are hidden. You don't need to continue attempting the Hide action. The DM does also have discretion on whether an action taken after hiding would qualify as one of the triggers that ends Hide's effects, but it should reasonably fit within one of the stated categories within the RAW.
No. Upon success, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Although you do not have to continue to attempt to conceal yourself with additional action economy expenditures, you DO have to remain concealed in order to continue to enjoy the benefits of this successful action.
So being behind a wall and not taking the Hide action means that I get all of the advantages of Invisible except Surprise, which only works if you Hide before combat, anyway. Why should I ever take the Hide action? Success only gives you the Invisible condition; it does not mean that enemies don't know where you are.
I disagree with this. The concepts of how hiding works in the game is spread out across several different sections of rules -- only some of which are written within the Hide action. There are already general rules within the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar which describe being hidden as a state where your location is unknown because you cannot be seen and you also cannot be heard. The Hide action is explicitly providing mechanics that are not already written elsewhere in the general rules -- so it only has to specifically mention having the Invisible condition while hidden, but that's not the "only" thing that happens when you take the Hide action. When you take the Hide action, you successfully conceal yourself and become "hidden". The general rules for what it means to be hidden DO apply.
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.
It was removed in playtest because people pointed out that it meant people using stealth couldn't be seen without special senses. It apparently did not occur to them that removing that turned sources of invisibility other than stealth nonsensical.
While skimming the rest of the thread to try to catch up to current posts, it looks like there is a lot of discussion about the Invisible condition.
I agree with the above assessment about why the "can't be seen without special senses" was removed from the Invisible condition. It kind of reeks of being a very last-minute attempt at a fix right before the publishing deadline which ended up breaking other things and making things worse overall. Having an Invisible condition that doesn't actually make you Invisible is straight up terrible.
The good news is that there is an easy fix. In the next batch of errata, the developers should simply put this back into the Invisible condition. They could do this because this change would no longer break the Stealth / Hide action mechanics since the Hide action now explicitly declares that you only have the condition "while hidden". Because of this, it really does not matter if such a hidden creature is treated as an actual invisible creature mechanically. Since the creature has to remain concealed to keep the condition, that creature cannot be seen anyway.
Meanwhile, DMs really should houserule this fix back into the Invisible condition while having faith that this will eventually be corrected via errata.
----------
Next, to address an argument that seems to keep popping up that if you cannot use the Hide action to walk around in the open while maintaining invisibility then that means that hiding is somehow useless . . . I addressed this faulty claim in a previous post but that was many pages ago now. Let me put that information here again:
Hiding does have practical effects:
1. It causes your location to be unknown to enemies. This means that they would have to "guess the square" when attempting to attack you.
2. Offensively, it allows you to lean out to three-quarters cover to make your attack while still gaining the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker (advantage). Without hiding, when you lean out to three-quarters cover you would be seen immediately and therefore losing the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker (so no advantage).
2a. Also offensively, your attack doesn't reveal your location until it hits or misses. The timing of this is preferable if the enemy has a Readied action to attack me as soon as he sees me. My attack would resolve first. Without hiding, the enemy's Readied action attack would resolve before mine while I was leaning out to make my attack.
----------
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for this thread, I want to directly address those players who really WANT to be able to "sneak up behind" an enemy into melee range and attack with advantage because narratively we all agree that this is something reasonable that a creature might want to attempt to do.
The DM has tools available to properly adjudicate this! But it's NOT with the Hide mechanic since hiding does not allow for this.
Instead, we can simply use this general rule:
Advantage/Disadvantage
Sometimes a D20 Test is modified by Advantage or Disadvantage. Advantage reflects the positive circumstances surrounding a d20 roll, while Disadvantage reflects negative circumstances.
You usually acquire Advantage or Disadvantage through the use of special abilities and actions. The DM can also decide that circumstances grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage.
Maybe the circumstance is such that the DM will allow this and maybe it's not. Maybe the DM will say "you can always try!" and it may or may not actually be possible in that particular case. If it is possible, maybe the DM asks for a regular Stealth check (not related to hiding mechanics) and determines the DC for that Stealth check based on the particulars of that situation. Maybe that DC is lower if you began this process from a Hidden position. Who knows? Every situation is different. But the results of such an activity won't be dependent on still having the Invisible condition due to taking the Hide action a while ago. Instead, we can use these other rules which are already there for DMs to be able to make proper rulings for such activities.
But is it really nonsensical? Like it's being pointed out, many out there are comfortable with the rule as is, while for another camp the rule is unusable unless everything is spelled out. I've seen no issues with the new rule on any of the games I've played, both at home and Organized Play. Ultimately, people either like it or don't, but that won't make WotC change it if those complaining are a small part of the community.
Yes, we can be comfortable with the rules if we houserule it to be more like 5e. But read in a vacuum without knowledge of the prior editions of the game, these rules don't make sense.
Nah, they are comfortable because they understand the intent; only rules lawyers are having problems with it. You're looking for the condition to spell out that you're transparent, but it won't do so because it has to apply to both hiding and magical invisibility; that's why they took the line out from playtest 8.
Like kenclary said, you either interpret the rule as functional, or as dysfunctional, but it's your choice.
I think you mean you either houserule the rules to be functional or read the rules and they are not. Saying that Invisible only really means invisible when you do it magically, even though nothing says that anywhere, is a houserule.
If I can be found while Invisible from Hiding, why can I not be found while Invisible from Invisibility? Or are you saying that a Perception check can see an Invisible from Invisibility character? If both have the same condition, both must be discoverable the same way. So if I Hide and don't make a sound, then walking into the open should not reveal me based on the RAW. Because if it is based on sight, then you could see an InvisibilityInvisible creature.
If Invisible (Hide) makes me unseen, how can seeing me undo it? Because I am already unseen, right?!? This comes down to circular logic: You only can't be seen when someone doesn't see you (i.e. Invisible Boy from Mystery Men). But if I can't be seen, then no one can see me, meaning I can't be seen to lose my "unseen" condition.
The whole thing falls apart because they tried to hamfist Hiding into Invisible. And there is narratively NO REASON that Truesight should be able to just see someone who is Hiding, because that breaks it even more: "No one can sneak up on my because I can perceive illusions for what they are!"
So, in general, the mechanic for finding hidden creatures and objects involve Perception and/or Passive Perception. The more important point is that finding something is only necessary if it is actually hidden. If a creature is no longer hidden, then it is no longer necessary to find it.
Finding is not specifically defined as requiring to use Perception. Perception is one way to do it absolutely which is why those rules are in there explicitly as a way to find a creature. But it isn't the only one. If we take the closet example, a PC could run and hide in the closet, then an enemy could come over and open the closet and "find" the PC automatically without any involvement of Perception checks vs their Stealth DC. Sure you could also describe this as the PC stopping being hidden when the enemy opens the closet, but to avoid pendants arguing about whether the PC needs to do something to end being hidden vs an enemy doing something to cause them to no longer be hidden the designers left in "find" as a deliberately value description in addition to requiring the PC to remain hidden. The rules are super clear in that respect - if the enemy does something to "find" you then you lose the condition, if you stop hiding then you lose the condition, if some third party force causes you to no longer be hidden then you lose the condition.
E.g. If a PC hides inside a barrel in an illuminated with many enemies that are alert & aware of their surroundings all of the following cause it to lose the Invisible condition:
1) The enemies roll perception and beat the PC's stealth check 2) The PC comes out of the barrel in full view of the enemies. 3) The enemies open the barrel and look inside. 4) A Shatter spell is cast which destroys the barrel.
The following wouldn't cause it to lose the Invisible condition:
1) the PC waits until the barrel is stored in the ship's hold, then quietly sneaks out when no one is around. 2) the PC waits until nightfall and it is pitch black outside then quietly sneaks out. 3) the PC uses a cloak / ring of Invisibility then quietly sneaks out.
But is it really nonsensical? Like it's being pointed out, many out there are comfortable with the rule as is.
It's more accurate to say that many people ignore the rule as is, and just say "It's stealth. It behaves like stealth." Which is an entirely understandable thing to do, and works fine until people have different ideas about what it means to behave like stealth.
. . . If I can be found while Invisible from Hiding, why can I not be found while Invisible from Invisibility?. . .
You can be found while being Invisible from Invisibility. Make too much noise and someone is going to find you and make an attack against you, though they will have Disadvantage.
Did you mean to ask why the Condition breaks when someone finds you while you are Hiding? Because the Hide action specifically says so.
Did you mean, why can you be visually found? Because the Invisible Condition does mean you are Invisible any more than the Poisoned Condition means you are poisoned. You can try and stoically ignore this fact and refuse to address it, but it remains.
. . . If I can be found while Invisible from Hiding, why can I not be found while Invisible from Invisibility?. . .
You can be found while being Invisible from Invisibility. Make too much noise and someone is going to find you and make an attack against you, though they will have Disadvantage.
Did you mean to ask why the Condition breaks when someone finds you while you are Hiding? Because the Hide action specifically says so.
Did you mean, why can you be visually found? Because the Invisible Condition does mean you are Invisible any more than the Poisoned Condition means you are poisoned. You can try and stoically ignore this fact and refuse to address it, but it remains.
But what is “too much noise” in the context of knowing your square but not losing the condition, in the context of a turn-based tabletop game? As written, the “Concealed” bullet of the Invisible condition only applies to effects that require sight, and awareness of the board is not expressly defined as an effect the way “one Humanoid you can see” is. I checked, and the Choose a Target section of making an attack makes no provisions for determining awareness of a creature’s position, and while the Unseen Attackers sidebar does note that one could potentially have to guess a square, it gives no mechanical framework for what circumstances make the creature perfectly hidden, and when it has made enough noise to give away the square.
Again, we return to the point that absolute RAW at best creates thoroughly counterintuitive results such as Invisibility from Hide or a spell not actually concealing a position, and at worst is unworkable because certain factors are couched in undefined abstracts like “a creature that can be heard but not seen”.
If I can be found while Invisible from Hiding, why can I not be found while Invisible from Invisibility? Or are you saying that a Perception check can see an Invisible from Invisibility character? If both have the same condition, both must be discoverable the same way. So if I Hide and don't make a sound, then walking into the open should not reveal me based on the RAW. Because if it is based on sight, then you could see an InvisibilityInvisible creature.
You can potentially be found while spell-invisible.
But it doesn't do anything to end the condition. The hide action says being found ends the condition. The spell says nothing of the sort.
. . . If I can be found while Invisible from Hiding, why can I not be found while Invisible from Invisibility?. . .
You can be found while being Invisible from Invisibility. Make too much noise and someone is going to find you and make an attack against you, though they will have Disadvantage.
Did you mean to ask why the Condition breaks when someone finds you while you are Hiding? Because the Hide action specifically says so.
Did you mean, why can you be visually found? Because the Invisible Condition does mean you are Invisible any more than the Poisoned Condition means you are poisoned. You can try and stoically ignore this fact and refuse to address it, but it remains.
So your argument is that nothing in the game actually makes you invisible (transparent), correct?
If I can be found while Invisible from Hiding, why can I not be found while Invisible from Invisibility? Or are you saying that a Perception check can see an Invisible from Invisibility character? If both have the same condition, both must be discoverable the same way. So if I Hide and don't make a sound, then walking into the open should not reveal me based on the RAW. Because if it is based on sight, then you could see an InvisibilityInvisible creature.
You can potentially be found while spell-invisible.
But it doesn't do anything to end the condition. The hide action says being found ends the condition. The spell says nothing of the sort.
So I can be seen while spell-Invisible? Or can I only be seen while Hide-Invisible? If I tiptoe across a well lit room in front of 20 guards after successfully Hiding, making absolutely no noise, they can't find me RAW, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It was removed in playtest because people pointed out that it meant people using stealth couldn't be seen without special senses. It apparently did not occur to them that removing that turned sources of invisibility other than stealth nonsensical.
But is it really nonsensical? Like it's being pointed out, many out there are comfortable with the rule as is, while for another camp the rule is unusable unless everything is spelled out. I've seen no issues with the new rule on any of the games I've played, both at home and Organized Play. Ultimately, people either like it or don't, but that won't make WotC change it if those complaining are a small part of the community.
The devs chose to make the condition flexible enough to be shared by different rules. They knew what they were doing, and why.
Look, language is always a little ambiguous, and there will always be semantics arguments. Even the most rigorous, technical writing (legalese) has entire professions (lawyers and judges) to interpret and apply it, and people literally still die over arguments about it.
For this particular argument, it boils down to two options: 1) an interpretation where the rule is functional or 2) a interpretation where the rule is completely dysfunctional. The choice is yours (assuming you're the DM).
The problem is that nothing in 5.5e ever says that you are transparent. There is no way to become transparent, you can only get the Invisible condition. They would have to put the line from 2014 "you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" into every single spell that grants you the Invisible condition in order to actually make some invisible.
And the issue with your argument is that Heavily Obscured does not grant you the Invisible condition. You are now conflating a third thing (Heavily Obscured) which arguably should be closer to Hide than Invisibility should be to Hide.
Yes, we can be comfortable with the rules if we houserule it to be more like 5e. But read in a vacuum without knowledge of the prior editions of the game, these rules don't make sense.
Your examples are nonsensical. You can't even make an attack if an enemy is outside of your reach/range or are behind total cover. That falls outside of the prerequisite to making an attack, just like there are prerequisites to take the Hide action (Cover/Heavily Obscured and out of sight). And attacking with a feather duster or garroting with a spaghetti noodle would still hit, it was just deal 0 damage because of the properties of the weapon.
If I meet the prerequisites for Hide and pass the check, what is it that can "find me"? I'm now Invisible, right? So unless Invisible doesn't actually make things invisible, I should be able to walk into plain sight and still be unnoticed.
Well, all the feats / special abilities that used to let you hide when only lightly obscured are gone, and the Hide rules make no mention of lightly obscured so I would infer that the designers thought that was dumb and removed it from the game. Whereas you could have done such a thing with 2014 Skulker.
Nah, they are comfortable because they understand the intent; only rules lawyers are having problems with it. You're looking for the condition to spell out that you're transparent, but it won't do so because it has to apply to both hiding and magical invisibility; that's why they took the line out from playtest 8.
Like kenclary said, you either interpret the rule as functional, or as dysfunctional, but it's your choice.
Again I repeat, they mean "invisible" in the same way as videogames show your character as transparent to indicate that NPCs don't see you when hiding. If you gain Invisibility from hiding, you lose it as soon as you are no longer hidden, if you gain invisibility from a spell you lose it when the spell ends. Just like with other conditions, if you get the Poisoned condition from drinking poison, the condition ends when that poison is cured, if you get the Poisoned condition from a spell it ends when that spell ends, if you get the Poisoned condition from alcohol it ends when your body sobers up. Or same for Restrained, if you gain Restrained from being tied up it ends when the bonds are broken, if you gain it from a spell it ends when the spell ends, if you get if from being held by a monster it ends when you break free or the monster releases you. I assume you are capable of understanding that if a Crocodile bites character A and grapples & restains them as part of that bite, and then it bites character B that character A is no longer restrained even though no where in the rules does it say that. Why can't you understand the same think for Hidden?
Just change the verbiage. You shouldn't have rolled to attack because they were out of Range, you shouldn't have rolled to Hide because you lacked cover. In both cases, even if you do roll it doesn't matter what you roll.
Similarly, you rolled and you did action X, but you did not do so effectively. Sure, you hit, but you did no damage. Sure, you hid successfully, but now you've been found because you did something silly.
No. You are have the Invisible Condition. That does not mean you are invisible any more than having the Poisoned Condition means you are poisoned.
FWIW The Invisible Stalker has the Invisible condition and is described as unseen.
This is wrong.
In fact, the test IS ongoing. The "stated effects" of taking the action are explicitly ongoing and conditional. They are only in effect "while hidden".
You take the Hide action when you attempt to conceal yourself. If successful, then you have successfully concealed yourself. But you only have the benefits of being concealed "while" you are concealed. Therefore, you have to actually remain concealed in order to continue to benefit from this Hide action. The effects of the Stealth roll are not fully resolved on the same turn that the roll is made. The text explicitly requires you to "make note of your check's total, which is [used later on]". That mechanic is ongoing, and it only applies "while hidden". The developers went through the trouble of issuing errata to emphasize this exact point.
To be fair, I think that the concept of "finding" something in this game is reasonably well defined here:
and in addition, we also have the general rule for Passive Perception:
So, in general, the mechanic for finding hidden creatures and objects involve Perception and/or Passive Perception.
The more important point is that finding something is only necessary if it is actually hidden. If a creature is no longer hidden, then it is no longer necessary to find it.
A creature enjoys certain benefits "while hidden". While that creature is hidden, it can be found via Perception or Passive Perception. If that creature is no longer hidden, then it no longer enjoys those benefits and, in that case, it no longer needs to be found via Perception or Passive Perception.
This is wrong. The list of things which cause you to "stop being hidden immediately" is not an exhaustive list. It is also a list which only applies "while hidden". You have to actually be hidden for any of these things to apply. The action goes through all of the steps that are necessary to attempt to conceal yourself. You need to continue to do these things to continue to enjoy the benefits of hiding on an ongoing basis since those benefits only remain valid "while hidden". If you stop hiding, then you are no longer hidden and the benefits that you enjoy "while hidden" as well as the described mechanics for some of the ways in which you might become no longer hidden no longer apply to this Hide action since you have already stopped hiding.
Actually, this is a poor example for the point that you are trying to make here. There is actually nothing wrong with a creature attempting to hide in a closet and this should generally be deemed "appropriate" for hiding by the DM. The reason is because you actually DO NOT know what space they are in. The reason for that is because you cannot see or hear that creature (which is the hiding concept from the Unseen Attackers and Targets Sidebar). Maybe that creature cast Dimension Door immediately upon entering the closet. Maybe that closet contained a portal to the world of Narnia. Who knows? Because you cannot see or hear the creature you do not actually know its location and therefore it is hidden.
No. Upon success, you have the Invisible condition while hidden. Although you do not have to continue to attempt to conceal yourself with additional action economy expenditures, you DO have to remain concealed in order to continue to enjoy the benefits of this successful action.
I disagree with this. The concepts of how hiding works in the game is spread out across several different sections of rules -- only some of which are written within the Hide action. There are already general rules within the Unseen Attackers and Targets sidebar which describe being hidden as a state where your location is unknown because you cannot be seen and you also cannot be heard. The Hide action is explicitly providing mechanics that are not already written elsewhere in the general rules -- so it only has to specifically mention having the Invisible condition while hidden, but that's not the "only" thing that happens when you take the Hide action. When you take the Hide action, you successfully conceal yourself and become "hidden". The general rules for what it means to be hidden DO apply.
While skimming the rest of the thread to try to catch up to current posts, it looks like there is a lot of discussion about the Invisible condition.
I agree with the above assessment about why the "can't be seen without special senses" was removed from the Invisible condition. It kind of reeks of being a very last-minute attempt at a fix right before the publishing deadline which ended up breaking other things and making things worse overall. Having an Invisible condition that doesn't actually make you Invisible is straight up terrible.
The good news is that there is an easy fix. In the next batch of errata, the developers should simply put this back into the Invisible condition. They could do this because this change would no longer break the Stealth / Hide action mechanics since the Hide action now explicitly declares that you only have the condition "while hidden". Because of this, it really does not matter if such a hidden creature is treated as an actual invisible creature mechanically. Since the creature has to remain concealed to keep the condition, that creature cannot be seen anyway.
Meanwhile, DMs really should houserule this fix back into the Invisible condition while having faith that this will eventually be corrected via errata.
----------
Next, to address an argument that seems to keep popping up that if you cannot use the Hide action to walk around in the open while maintaining invisibility then that means that hiding is somehow useless . . . I addressed this faulty claim in a previous post but that was many pages ago now. Let me put that information here again:
Hiding does have practical effects:
1. It causes your location to be unknown to enemies. This means that they would have to "guess the square" when attempting to attack you.
2. Offensively, it allows you to lean out to three-quarters cover to make your attack while still gaining the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker (advantage). Without hiding, when you lean out to three-quarters cover you would be seen immediately and therefore losing the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker (so no advantage).
2a. Also offensively, your attack doesn't reveal your location until it hits or misses. The timing of this is preferable if the enemy has a Readied action to attack me as soon as he sees me. My attack would resolve first. Without hiding, the enemy's Readied action attack would resolve before mine while I was leaning out to make my attack.
----------
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for this thread, I want to directly address those players who really WANT to be able to "sneak up behind" an enemy into melee range and attack with advantage because narratively we all agree that this is something reasonable that a creature might want to attempt to do.
The DM has tools available to properly adjudicate this! But it's NOT with the Hide mechanic since hiding does not allow for this.
Instead, we can simply use this general rule:
Maybe the circumstance is such that the DM will allow this and maybe it's not. Maybe the DM will say "you can always try!" and it may or may not actually be possible in that particular case. If it is possible, maybe the DM asks for a regular Stealth check (not related to hiding mechanics) and determines the DC for that Stealth check based on the particulars of that situation. Maybe that DC is lower if you began this process from a Hidden position. Who knows? Every situation is different. But the results of such an activity won't be dependent on still having the Invisible condition due to taking the Hide action a while ago. Instead, we can use these other rules which are already there for DMs to be able to make proper rulings for such activities.
I think you mean you either houserule the rules to be functional or read the rules and they are not. Saying that Invisible only really means invisible when you do it magically, even though nothing says that anywhere, is a houserule.
If I can be found while Invisible from Hiding, why can I not be found while Invisible from Invisibility? Or are you saying that a Perception check can see an Invisible from Invisibility character? If both have the same condition, both must be discoverable the same way. So if I Hide and don't make a sound, then walking into the open should not reveal me based on the RAW. Because if it is based on sight, then you could see an Invisibility Invisible creature.
If Invisible (Hide) makes me unseen, how can seeing me undo it? Because I am already unseen, right?!? This comes down to circular logic: You only can't be seen when someone doesn't see you (i.e. Invisible Boy from Mystery Men). But if I can't be seen, then no one can see me, meaning I can't be seen to lose my "unseen" condition.
The whole thing falls apart because they tried to hamfist Hiding into Invisible. And there is narratively NO REASON that Truesight should be able to just see someone who is Hiding, because that breaks it even more: "No one can sneak up on my because I can perceive illusions for what they are!"
Finding is not specifically defined as requiring to use Perception. Perception is one way to do it absolutely which is why those rules are in there explicitly as a way to find a creature. But it isn't the only one. If we take the closet example, a PC could run and hide in the closet, then an enemy could come over and open the closet and "find" the PC automatically without any involvement of Perception checks vs their Stealth DC. Sure you could also describe this as the PC stopping being hidden when the enemy opens the closet, but to avoid pendants arguing about whether the PC needs to do something to end being hidden vs an enemy doing something to cause them to no longer be hidden the designers left in "find" as a deliberately value description in addition to requiring the PC to remain hidden. The rules are super clear in that respect - if the enemy does something to "find" you then you lose the condition, if you stop hiding then you lose the condition, if some third party force causes you to no longer be hidden then you lose the condition.
E.g. If a PC hides inside a barrel in an illuminated with many enemies that are alert & aware of their surroundings all of the following cause it to lose the Invisible condition:
1) The enemies roll perception and beat the PC's stealth check
2) The PC comes out of the barrel in full view of the enemies.
3) The enemies open the barrel and look inside.
4) A Shatter spell is cast which destroys the barrel.
The following wouldn't cause it to lose the Invisible condition:
1) the PC waits until the barrel is stored in the ship's hold, then quietly sneaks out when no one is around.
2) the PC waits until nightfall and it is pitch black outside then quietly sneaks out.
3) the PC uses a cloak / ring of Invisibility then quietly sneaks out.
It's more accurate to say that many people ignore the rule as is, and just say "It's stealth. It behaves like stealth." Which is an entirely understandable thing to do, and works fine until people have different ideas about what it means to behave like stealth.
You can be found while being Invisible from Invisibility. Make too much noise and someone is going to find you and make an attack against you, though they will have Disadvantage.
Did you mean to ask why the Condition breaks when someone finds you while you are Hiding? Because the Hide action specifically says so.
Did you mean, why can you be visually found? Because the Invisible Condition does mean you are Invisible any more than the Poisoned Condition means you are poisoned. You can try and stoically ignore this fact and refuse to address it, but it remains.
But what is “too much noise” in the context of knowing your square but not losing the condition, in the context of a turn-based tabletop game? As written, the “Concealed” bullet of the Invisible condition only applies to effects that require sight, and awareness of the board is not expressly defined as an effect the way “one Humanoid you can see” is. I checked, and the Choose a Target section of making an attack makes no provisions for determining awareness of a creature’s position, and while the Unseen Attackers sidebar does note that one could potentially have to guess a square, it gives no mechanical framework for what circumstances make the creature perfectly hidden, and when it has made enough noise to give away the square.
Again, we return to the point that absolute RAW at best creates thoroughly counterintuitive results such as Invisibility from Hide or a spell not actually concealing a position, and at worst is unworkable because certain factors are couched in undefined abstracts like “a creature that can be heard but not seen”.
You can potentially be found while spell-invisible.
But it doesn't do anything to end the condition. The hide action says being found ends the condition. The spell says nothing of the sort.
So your argument is that nothing in the game actually makes you invisible (transparent), correct?
So I can be seen while spell-Invisible? Or can I only be seen while Hide-Invisible? If I tiptoe across a well lit room in front of 20 guards after successfully Hiding, making absolutely no noise, they can't find me RAW, right?