There's no reference to finding those under Invisibility because it's for when hidden which isn't the case.
Otherwise you generally notice creature unless they're stealthy is how i rules it.
Perception and Encounters
If the characters encounter another group of creatures and neither side is being stealthy, the two groups automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another
How you rule it is one thing. How the RAW lays it out, particularly in the context of combat when everyone’s position is being tracked on a grid is another.
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?
For whatever reason the rules about hearing are extremely well hidden in D&D 5e, apparently there is something on the DM screen but it's not really anywhere else. Again because the answer is "it depends", standing 5ft from a waterfall it is harder to pinpoint the location of someone based on hearing than in the silence of a library. But also, hearing isn't the only other way to determine someone's location. A dog can location people based purely on scent, sharks can locate fish based on electrical impulses, snakes can use vibrations in the ground etc...
I once again come back to "If you need a hard rule written in a book, rather than trusting your DM to make a reasonable ruling, then you shouldn't be playing at that table."
If you absolutely need the book to tell you, then in combat the general guidance is to assume all creatures are aware of all other creatures.
There's no reference to finding those under Invisibility because it's for when hidden which isn't the case.
Otherwise you generally notice creature unless they're stealthy is how i rules it.
Perception and Encounters
If the characters encounter another group of creatures and neither side is being stealthy, the two groups automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another
But if they both give you the same condition, how am I visible with one and not with the other? And isn't Hiding by definition being stealthy??
So your argument is that nothing in the game actually makes you invisible (transparent), correct?
Well, I don't know if there's nothing, there are a lot of weird rules in the game, but as written, neither invisible nor invisibility do so. The spell is relying on "everyone knows what it means to be invisible", ignoring the fact that the invisible condition... doesn't actually make you invisible.
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?
For whatever reason the rules about hearing are extremely well hidden in D&D 5e, apparently there is something on the DM screen but it's not really anywhere else. Again because the answer is "it depends", standing 5ft from a waterfall it is harder to pinpoint the location of someone based on hearing than in the silence of a library. But also, hearing isn't the only other way to determine someone's location. A dog can location people based purely on scent, sharks can locate fish based on electrical impulses, snakes can use vibrations in the ground etc...
I once again come back to "If you need a hard rule written in a book, rather than trusting your DM to make a reasonable ruling, then you shouldn't be playing at that table."
That’s a bit of a simplistic take- having rules for stealth in combat effectively fleshed out in RAW creates a consistent play experience, the same way thoroughly spelled out spell effects do. Obviously, there’s always room for interpretation and house rules, but there’s a lot of value in setting an approximate baseline.
And that’s where 2024 stealth fails- as I’ve said the hard text in the PHB and DMG is counterintuitive and/or undefined to the point we demonstrably can’t achieve a consensus on what the baseline is.
And that’s where 2024 stealth fails- as I’ve said the hard text in the PHB and DMG is counterintuitive and/or undefined to the point we demonstrably can’t achieve a consensus on what the baseline is.
ArntItheBest just posted the base line: if in combat then creatures are generally aware of where all other creatures are while in sight or hearing range of each other, unless they are Hidden, and Hidden ends if you make a sound above a whisper.
ArntItheBest just posted the base line: if in combat then creatures are generally aware of where all other creatures are while in sight or hearing range of each other, unless they are Hidden, and Hidden ends if you make a sound above a whisper.
You have correctly described the 2014 rules. It wouldn't be shocking if 2024 was intended to do the same thing, but you really cannot make firm conclusions based on what is actually written.
. . . 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?
I said nothing of the sort. We are talking about the Hide Action, Stealth, and how the Invisible Condition relates to it. Asking me about the Invisibility spell is not germane because we are not discussing it and it feels like you are trying to distract from the fact that you cannot actually prove your claim.
ArntItheBest just posted the base line: if in combat then creatures are generally aware of where all other creatures are while in sight or hearing range of each other, unless they are Hidden, and Hidden ends if you make a sound above a whisper.
You have correctly described the 2014 rules. It wouldn't be shocking if 2024 was intended to do the same thing, but you really cannot make firm conclusions based on what is actually written.
Did you not read what ArntItheBest posted? That's pretty blatantly obvious.
And that’s where 2024 stealth fails- as I’ve said the hard text in the PHB and DMG is counterintuitive and/or undefined to the point we demonstrably can’t achieve a consensus on what the baseline is.
ArntItheBest just posted the base line: if in combat then creatures are generally aware of where all other creatures are while in sight or hearing range of each other, unless they are Hidden, and Hidden ends if you make a sound above a whisper.
I actually never said that being Hidden makes anyone unaware of your presence, because the rules don't say that either. I am trying to find out where people are getting a distinction in how visible you are by Hiding vs. Invisibility.
And the two interpretations of "the rules make perfect sense" are contradictory. You are saying that you are Invisible after Hiding until you make a loud sound, and other people are saying that stepping into the open takes it away because you are no longer Hiding. You even have a third camp that says Hiding makes you truly, fully invisible (transparent), even when you're in the open and running into people. If the people saying "the rules make perfect sense" are disagreeing THIS MUCH, then maybe, just maybe, the rules are not clearly written.
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?
For whatever reason the rules about hearing are extremely well hidden in D&D 5e, apparently there is something on the DM screen but it's not really anywhere else. Again because the answer is "it depends", standing 5ft from a waterfall it is harder to pinpoint the location of someone based on hearing than in the silence of a library. But also, hearing isn't the only other way to determine someone's location. A dog can location people based purely on scent, sharks can locate fish based on electrical impulses, snakes can use vibrations in the ground etc...
I once again come back to "If you need a hard rule written in a book, rather than trusting your DM to make a reasonable ruling, then you shouldn't be playing at that table."
If you absolutely need the book to tell you, then in combat the general guidance is to assume all creatures are aware of all other creatures.
So your argument is that you should not know, nor should you need to know, how a core game mechanic works. Just let the DM figure it out! This puts a large onus on the DM as well as definitely leading to at the table arguments. Session 0 usually covers houserules and homebrew. It shouldn't be needed to discuss the DM's interpretation of the rules that WotC should have actually written.
What if your DM rules that you are "found" the moment that you are not behind total cover? Per your argument, that is perfectly RAW and acceptable. Maybe the next table says that enemies have to take the Search action and pass the DC in order to find you. Again, perfectly RAW and acceptable. One severely kneecaps Rogues (or anyone trying to be stealthy by non-magical means), the other makes Rogues better than spellcasters by giving them an unlimited Greater Invisibility. Or are you saying that YOUR interpretation is the only reasonable one and that every DM ever will agree with you?
And what is wrong with wanting a hard written rule? We have hard written rules for almost everything else in the game. We even had good, hard written rules for this in (some people chose to houserule it, but at least there was a written rule!) You're saying I shouldn't play D&D unless I am okay with the DM deciding what is and isn't possible on everything. At that point, I would argue I'm not playing D&D, I'm playing [InsertDMnameHere]'s Fantasy Funland - Where the Rules are Made Up and the Rolls Don't Matter.
And that’s where 2024 stealth fails- as I’ve said the hard text in the PHB and DMG is counterintuitive and/or undefined to the point we demonstrably can’t achieve a consensus on what the baseline is.
ArntItheBest just posted the base line: if in combat then creatures are generally aware of where all other creatures are while in sight or hearing range of each other, unless they are Hidden, and Hidden ends if you make a sound above a whisper.
The issue being that by RAW if I and an enemy are in non-magical darkness and they don’t have darkvision, I could be a Rogue, Hide as a Bonus Action, and then use my Action to light a torch, lantern, etc and still remain Invisible by the argument that only the explicitly spelled out criteria end Hide. It’s completely nonsensical, but the ambiguity of what qualifies as being found and use of Invisible for the effect create the result. Yes, it’s a nonsensical case, but unlike Peasant Railgun type stuff it’s running on actual mechanics, not inference. Ergo, I and other feel the RAW is very poorly constructed here.
. . . 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?
I said nothing of the sort. We are talking about the Hide Action, Stealth, and how the Invisible Condition relates to it. Asking me about the Invisibility spell is not germane because we are not discussing it and it feels like you are trying to distract from the fact that you cannot actually prove your claim.
It is 100% germane because they both do the same thing! You are saying that Invisible doesn't make you invisible, but that is literally all that Invisibility does!
We are talking about Invisibility because it uses the EXACT SAME CONDITION as the Hide Action / Stealth. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, 5.5e doesn't have a way to become invisible (transparent). The rules and results of Hide directly impact Invisibility because you cannot have one interpretation of Invisibility for one and a different one for the other. That is why I contend that they never should have tried to use Invisible for Hide because it unintentionally broke Invisibility.
. . . 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?
I said nothing of the sort. We are talking about the Hide Action, Stealth, and how the Invisible Condition relates to it. Asking me about the Invisibility spell is not germane because we are not discussing it and it feels like you are trying to distract from the fact that you cannot actually prove your claim.
It is 100% germane because they both do the same thing! You are saying that Invisible doesn't make you invisible, but that is literally all that Invisibility does!
We are talking about Invisibility because it uses the EXACT SAME CONDITION as the Hide Action / Stealth. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, 5.5e doesn't have a way to become invisible (transparent). The rules and results of Hide directly impact Invisibility because you cannot have one interpretation of Invisibility for one and a different one for the other. That is why I contend that they never should have tried to use Invisible for Hide because it unintentionally broke Invisibility.
It is not germane, and I will show you why;
ArntItheBest: I have the Avian Condition, so I can fly. esampson: You are a penguin. ArntItheBest: Yes, but that gives me the Avian Condition. Ergo, I can fly! esampson: Flight is not actually part of the Avian Condition. ArntItheBest: So you are claiming that nothing can fly? esampson: I did not say that. ArntItheBest: What about an eagle? Eagles have the exact same Condition! esampson: We aren't talking about eagles. We are talking about penguins. Eagles are not germane to this discussion.
We are talking about Invisibility because it uses the EXACT SAME CONDITION as the Hide Action / Stealth.
Yes, but also being chained up in manacles, being held in place by Telekinesis, being inside the stomach of a purple worm, or starting to turn into stone from a medusa's glare all use the EXACT SAME CONDITION : Restrained.
Likewise, being seduced by a Succubus, being mind-controlled by an Aboleth, being enthralled by a bard's performance, and being magically influenced towards being friendly towards someone all use the EXACT SAME CONDITION: Charmed.
Likewise, lying down of your own volition, being knocked over by a Tidal Wave, and falling 1000 ft out of the sky all use the EXACT SAME CONDITION: Prone.
Likewise, being drunk, dying of viper venom, being afflicted by a disease, or having your lungs burning from volcanic fumes all use the EXACT SAME CONDITON: Poisoned.
Likewise, being so terrified you can't move, being poisoned by muscle-affected toxins, being held in place by magic all use the EXACT SAME CONDITION: Paralyzed.
The issue being that by RAW if I and an enemy are in non-magical darkness and they don’t have darkvision, I could be a Rogue, Hide as a Bonus Action, and then use my Action to light a torch, lantern, etc and still remain Invisible by the argument that only the explicitly spelled out criteria end Hide. It’s completely nonsensical, but the ambiguity of what qualifies as being found and use of Invisible for the effect create the result. Yes, it’s a nonsensical case, but unlike Peasant Railgun type stuff it’s running on actual mechanics, not inference. Ergo, I and other feel the RAW is very poorly constructed here.
What are you talking about? No that's not how RAW works. RAW as soon as you light a torch you are not hidden - you are standing in full view with a spotlight on you, so your Invisible condition ends and the enemy can strike you without any penalty.
The issue being that by RAW if I and an enemy are in non-magical darkness and they don’t have darkvision, I could be a Rogue, Hide as a Bonus Action, and then use my Action to light a torch, lantern, etc and still remain Invisible by the argument that only the explicitly spelled out criteria end Hide. It’s completely nonsensical, but the ambiguity of what qualifies as being found and use of Invisible for the effect create the result. Yes, it’s a nonsensical case, but unlike Peasant Railgun type stuff it’s running on actual mechanics, not inference. Ergo, I and other feel the RAW is very poorly constructed here.
What are you talking about? No that's not how RAW works. RAW as soon as you light a torch you are not hidden - you are standing in full view with a spotlight on you, so your Invisible condition ends and the enemy can strike you without any penalty.
I would say so, but as we’ve seen, the argument exists that by RAW if a player’s actions don’t explicitly break Hide only a Search Action can. I don’t agree, but by a strictly by the book reading the case is there.
So your argument is that you should not know, nor should you need to know, how a core game mechanic works. Just let the DM figure it out! This puts a large onus on the DM as well as definitely leading to at the table arguments. Session 0 usually covers houserules and homebrew. It shouldn't be needed to discuss the DM's interpretation of the rules that WotC should have actually written.
The DM making decisions about what they players can and cannot do in any particular situation is the core game mechanics.
No where in the books does it say you need a Sleight of Hand check with DC 17 to steal a gold ring off the finger of Jasmine the local innkeeper.
No where in the books does it say that vaulting over a fence into the nobleman's house requires a DC 10 Acrobatics check.
No where in the books does it say, that convincing a group of bandits to surrender requires a DC 18 Intimidation check.
No where in the books does it say that taming a baby owlbear requires 20 successful DC 14 Animal Handling checks each made on different days.
No where in the books does it say that throwing a bathtub full of water onto a library that is on fire requires a DC 20 Athletics check, or that 3 successful checks is sufficient to extinguish that fire.
No where in the books does it say that eating 7-day old Bulette meat requires a DC 18 Constitution saving throw to avoid food poisoning.
No where in the books does it say that failing an Acrobatics check to cross a wobbly bridge causes you to fall off the bridge to your death.
No where in the books does it say that your ally could try to grab you when you fall with an Athletics check to save you from that certain doom, or that you could use a Dexterity saving throw to catch yourself.
No where in the books does it say that putting a stack of bricks on a pressure-plate trap causes the trap to trigger.
etc... etc....
The vast majority of the game is based on DM rulings. There should be no table arguments because the people at the table should respect each other enough not to waste everyone's time arguing in the middle of a session. In every table I've been at if the DM makes a ruling the players didn't expect they state once that "they thought it worked like X, why did you rule it works like Y?" and the DM either answers defending their decision or they realize they made a mistake and correct their ruling. Then everyone moves on. Really this sounds like people seriously need to work on their social skills before playing D&D if they can't handle that the game relies of DM rulings and the DM might not agree with them and they'll just have to accept that and move on.
There's no reference to finding those under Invisibility because it's for when hidden which isn't the case.
Otherwise you generally notice creature unless they're stealthy is how i rules it.
Perception and Encounters
If the characters encounter another group of creatures and neither side is being stealthy, the two groups automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another
But if they both give you the same condition, how am I visible with one and not with the other? And isn't Hiding by definition being stealthy??
You're not visible while Invisible in any way shape or form, unless a Special Senses such as Blindsight or Truesight that specifically let you see see creatures that have the Invisible condition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's no reference to finding those under Invisibility because it's for when hidden which isn't the case.
Otherwise you generally notice creature unless they're stealthy is how i rules it.
How you rule it is one thing. How the RAW lays it out, particularly in the context of combat when everyone’s position is being tracked on a grid is another.
For whatever reason the rules about hearing are extremely well hidden in D&D 5e, apparently there is something on the DM screen but it's not really anywhere else. Again because the answer is "it depends", standing 5ft from a waterfall it is harder to pinpoint the location of someone based on hearing than in the silence of a library. But also, hearing isn't the only other way to determine someone's location. A dog can location people based purely on scent, sharks can locate fish based on electrical impulses, snakes can use vibrations in the ground etc...
I once again come back to "If you need a hard rule written in a book, rather than trusting your DM to make a reasonable ruling, then you shouldn't be playing at that table."
If you absolutely need the book to tell you, then in combat the general guidance is to assume all creatures are aware of all other creatures.
But if they both give you the same condition, how am I visible with one and not with the other? And isn't Hiding by definition being stealthy??
Well, I don't know if there's nothing, there are a lot of weird rules in the game, but as written, neither invisible nor invisibility do so. The spell is relying on "everyone knows what it means to be invisible", ignoring the fact that the invisible condition... doesn't actually make you invisible.
That’s a bit of a simplistic take- having rules for stealth in combat effectively fleshed out in RAW creates a consistent play experience, the same way thoroughly spelled out spell effects do. Obviously, there’s always room for interpretation and house rules, but there’s a lot of value in setting an approximate baseline.
And that’s where 2024 stealth fails- as I’ve said the hard text in the PHB and DMG is counterintuitive and/or undefined to the point we demonstrably can’t achieve a consensus on what the baseline is.
ArntItheBest just posted the base line: if in combat then creatures are generally aware of where all other creatures are while in sight or hearing range of each other, unless they are Hidden, and Hidden ends if you make a sound above a whisper.
You have correctly described the 2014 rules. It wouldn't be shocking if 2024 was intended to do the same thing, but you really cannot make firm conclusions based on what is actually written.
I said nothing of the sort. We are talking about the Hide Action, Stealth, and how the Invisible Condition relates to it. Asking me about the Invisibility spell is not germane because we are not discussing it and it feels like you are trying to distract from the fact that you cannot actually prove your claim.
Did you not read what ArntItheBest posted? That's pretty blatantly obvious.
I actually never said that being Hidden makes anyone unaware of your presence, because the rules don't say that either. I am trying to find out where people are getting a distinction in how visible you are by Hiding vs. Invisibility.
And the two interpretations of "the rules make perfect sense" are contradictory. You are saying that you are Invisible after Hiding until you make a loud sound, and other people are saying that stepping into the open takes it away because you are no longer Hiding. You even have a third camp that says Hiding makes you truly, fully invisible (transparent), even when you're in the open and running into people. If the people saying "the rules make perfect sense" are disagreeing THIS MUCH, then maybe, just maybe, the rules are not clearly written.
So your argument is that you should not know, nor should you need to know, how a core game mechanic works. Just let the DM figure it out! This puts a large onus on the DM as well as definitely leading to at the table arguments. Session 0 usually covers houserules and homebrew. It shouldn't be needed to discuss the DM's interpretation of the rules that WotC should have actually written.
What if your DM rules that you are "found" the moment that you are not behind total cover? Per your argument, that is perfectly RAW and acceptable. Maybe the next table says that enemies have to take the Search action and pass the DC in order to find you. Again, perfectly RAW and acceptable. One severely kneecaps Rogues (or anyone trying to be stealthy by non-magical means), the other makes Rogues better than spellcasters by giving them an unlimited Greater Invisibility. Or are you saying that YOUR interpretation is the only reasonable one and that every DM ever will agree with you?
And what is wrong with wanting a hard written rule? We have hard written rules for almost everything else in the game. We even had good, hard written rules for this in (some people chose to houserule it, but at least there was a written rule!) You're saying I shouldn't play D&D unless I am okay with the DM deciding what is and isn't possible on everything. At that point, I would argue I'm not playing D&D, I'm playing [InsertDMnameHere]'s Fantasy Funland - Where the Rules are Made Up and the Rolls Don't Matter.
The issue being that by RAW if I and an enemy are in non-magical darkness and they don’t have darkvision, I could be a Rogue, Hide as a Bonus Action, and then use my Action to light a torch, lantern, etc and still remain Invisible by the argument that only the explicitly spelled out criteria end Hide. It’s completely nonsensical, but the ambiguity of what qualifies as being found and use of Invisible for the effect create the result. Yes, it’s a nonsensical case, but unlike Peasant Railgun type stuff it’s running on actual mechanics, not inference. Ergo, I and other feel the RAW is very poorly constructed here.
It is 100% germane because they both do the same thing! You are saying that Invisible doesn't make you invisible, but that is literally all that Invisibility does!
We are talking about Invisibility because it uses the EXACT SAME CONDITION as the Hide Action / Stealth. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, 5.5e doesn't have a way to become invisible (transparent). The rules and results of Hide directly impact Invisibility because you cannot have one interpretation of Invisibility for one and a different one for the other. That is why I contend that they never should have tried to use Invisible for Hide because it unintentionally broke Invisibility.
Please stop saying that. I don't believe Agilemind is making that claim.
I believe he is saying that you have the Invisible Condition.
The difference between the two has been pointed out repeatedly, so it is starting to feel like you are being disingenuous rather than merely terse.
It is not germane, and I will show you why;
ArntItheBest: I have the Avian Condition, so I can fly.
esampson: You are a penguin.
ArntItheBest: Yes, but that gives me the Avian Condition. Ergo, I can fly!
esampson: Flight is not actually part of the Avian Condition.
ArntItheBest: So you are claiming that nothing can fly?
esampson: I did not say that.
ArntItheBest: What about an eagle? Eagles have the exact same Condition!
esampson: We aren't talking about eagles. We are talking about penguins. Eagles are not germane to this discussion.
Yes, but also being chained up in manacles, being held in place by Telekinesis, being inside the stomach of a purple worm, or starting to turn into stone from a medusa's glare all use the EXACT SAME CONDITION : Restrained.
Likewise, being seduced by a Succubus, being mind-controlled by an Aboleth, being enthralled by a bard's performance, and being magically influenced towards being friendly towards someone all use the EXACT SAME CONDITION: Charmed.
Likewise, lying down of your own volition, being knocked over by a Tidal Wave, and falling 1000 ft out of the sky all use the EXACT SAME CONDITION: Prone.
Likewise, being drunk, dying of viper venom, being afflicted by a disease, or having your lungs burning from volcanic fumes all use the EXACT SAME CONDITON: Poisoned.
Likewise, being so terrified you can't move, being poisoned by muscle-affected toxins, being held in place by magic all use the EXACT SAME CONDITION: Paralyzed.
What are you talking about? No that's not how RAW works. RAW as soon as you light a torch you are not hidden - you are standing in full view with a spotlight on you, so your Invisible condition ends and the enemy can strike you without any penalty.
I would say so, but as we’ve seen, the argument exists that by RAW if a player’s actions don’t explicitly break Hide only a Search Action can. I don’t agree, but by a strictly by the book reading the case is there.
The DM making decisions about what they players can and cannot do in any particular situation is the core game mechanics.
No where in the books does it say you need a Sleight of Hand check with DC 17 to steal a gold ring off the finger of Jasmine the local innkeeper.
No where in the books does it say that vaulting over a fence into the nobleman's house requires a DC 10 Acrobatics check.
No where in the books does it say, that convincing a group of bandits to surrender requires a DC 18 Intimidation check.
No where in the books does it say that taming a baby owlbear requires 20 successful DC 14 Animal Handling checks each made on different days.
No where in the books does it say that throwing a bathtub full of water onto a library that is on fire requires a DC 20 Athletics check, or that 3 successful checks is sufficient to extinguish that fire.
No where in the books does it say that eating 7-day old Bulette meat requires a DC 18 Constitution saving throw to avoid food poisoning.
No where in the books does it say that failing an Acrobatics check to cross a wobbly bridge causes you to fall off the bridge to your death.
No where in the books does it say that your ally could try to grab you when you fall with an Athletics check to save you from that certain doom, or that you could use a Dexterity saving throw to catch yourself.
No where in the books does it say that putting a stack of bricks on a pressure-plate trap causes the trap to trigger.
etc... etc....
The vast majority of the game is based on DM rulings. There should be no table arguments because the people at the table should respect each other enough not to waste everyone's time arguing in the middle of a session. In every table I've been at if the DM makes a ruling the players didn't expect they state once that "they thought it worked like X, why did you rule it works like Y?" and the DM either answers defending their decision or they realize they made a mistake and correct their ruling. Then everyone moves on. Really this sounds like people seriously need to work on their social skills before playing D&D if they can't handle that the game relies of DM rulings and the DM might not agree with them and they'll just have to accept that and move on.
You're not visible while Invisible in any way shape or form, unless a Special Senses such as Blindsight or Truesight that specifically let you see see creatures that have the Invisible condition.