It's not actually clear to me how an enemy's "See Invisibility" would break my status of being "hidden" if that enemy still cannot currently see or hear me.
It applies because of 3/4 cover. Normally, if you are hiding with 3/4 cover, you get the benefits of invisibility; see invisibility means you don't, and thus you get seen normally.
It's not actually clear to me how an enemy's "See Invisibility" would break my status of being "hidden" if that enemy still cannot currently see or hear me.
It applies because of 3/4 cover. Normally, if you are hiding with 3/4 cover, you get the benefits of invisibility; see invisibility means you don't, and thus you get seen normally.
Yes, but what I meant is "if that enemy still cannot currently see or hear me normally". I.E., I'm not currently behind three-quarters cover.
For example, let's take the issue of cover out of it. Suppose you are standing in a totally dark space, and I do not have darkvision or any other helpful senses and therefore I cannot currently see you. Right now, I have no idea if you even have the Invisible condition or not, but I go ahead and cast See Invisibility on myself anyway. Now I have the ability to see creatures that have the Invisible condition. Suppose you actually do not have that condition. What has changed? Nothing. I still cannot see you. But suppose you do have the Invisible condition due to the Invisibility spell? What has changed? Still nothing. I still cannot see you since you are still in the dark. Lastly, suppose you did not have the effects of the Invisibility spell, but you DID successfully hide in that dark space and therefore you have the Invisible condition due to being Hidden. What has changed? Still nothing. I still cannot see you since you are still in the dark. See Invisibility allows me to see you as if you are visible, but it doesn't do me much good while you (a visible creature) are located in the dark. It would seem to me that you are still Hidden in this case.
See Invisibility allows me to see you as if you are visible, but it doesn't do me much good while you (a visible creature) are located in the dark. It would seem to me that you are still Hidden in this case.
Sure, though it's kind of irrelevant that you're hidden unless you assume that there's an implicit 'unheard' in the hidden condition (it feels like 2024 was trying to get rid of the entire concept of distinguishing vision and hearing, and only got half way there).
See Invisibility allows me to see you as if you are visible, but it doesn't do me much good while you (a visible creature) are located in the dark. It would seem to me that you are still Hidden in this case.
Sure, though it's kind of irrelevant that you're hidden unless you assume that there's an implicit 'unheard' in the hidden condition (it feels like 2024 was trying to get rid of the entire concept of distinguishing vision and hearing, and only got half way there).
But thats when a stealth check is needed to know if they can hear you breathing.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I feel like the core problem with the 2024 rules is that the authors were perfectly comfortable and used to running with extremely loose rules and a lot of on the fly adjudication by the DM, but they got feedback about 'mother may I' mechanics so they tried to firm things up -- except, since they don't play that way, they're bad at it.
See Invisibility allows me to see you as if you are visible, but it doesn't do me much good while you (a visible creature) are located in the dark. It would seem to me that you are still Hidden in this case.
Sure, though it's kind of irrelevant that you're hidden unless you assume that there's an implicit 'unheard' in the hidden condition (it feels like 2024 was trying to get rid of the entire concept of distinguishing vision and hearing, and only got half way there).
But thats when a stealth check is needed to know if they can hear you breathing.
That might be considered louder than a whisper.
In what world is breathing louder than a whisper? Even if you are panting for breath, a whisper is going to be louder than that.
See Invisibility allows me to see you as if you are visible, but it doesn't do me much good while you (a visible creature) are located in the dark. It would seem to me that you are still Hidden in this case.
Sure, though it's kind of irrelevant that you're hidden unless you assume that there's an implicit 'unheard' in the hidden condition (it feels like 2024 was trying to get rid of the entire concept of distinguishing vision and hearing, and only got half way there).
But thats when a stealth check is needed to know if they can hear you breathing.
That might be considered louder than a whisper.
In what world is breathing louder than a whisper? Even if you are panting for breath, a whisper is going to be louder than that.
You’ve never been in a quiet room with mouth breathers? And some people whisper rather louder than others, the point was if you’re tooking into darkness to see if something is there, you might also focus on if you hear anything too. Hiding and remaining hidden still requires you to be silent enough not to possibly be heard, so you either check your still hidden or assume the person might be able to hear the hidden creature shifting around trying to ensure they remain hidden.
A passive check might just keep one hidden while an active check might just make that holding your breath cause the other creature to move on. Or you could have ate a lot of garlic and the looker smells it.
Just because you can’t be seen doesn’t mean you are absolutely untraceable or undetectable. ( unless you make a high enough check to cover your tracks as best you can.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The reasoning behind the revision to Hide must have been you are unseeninvisible and unheard until you make a sound louder than a whisper etc...
I would bet they started by writing a "hidden [condition]" and really quickly realized it was just an extra-conditional wrapper around the Inivisible Condition, and (in an effort to not repeat themselves) wrote up those extra-conditional bits in the Hide [Action] rather than a new condition. The editors don't want repetition --- because that inflates wordcount, which inflates page count, which inflates printing costs....I'm sure there's a cost/word formula they have worked out.
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
The reasoning behind the revision to Hide must have been you are unseeninvisible and unheard until you make a sound louder than a whisper etc...
I would bet they started by writing a "hidden [condition]" and really quickly realized it was just an extra-conditional wrapper around the Inivisible Condition, and (in an effort to not repeat themselves) wrote up those extra-conditional bits in the Hide [Action] rather than a new condition. The editors don't want repetition --- because that inflates wordcount, which inflates page count, which inflates printing costs....I'm sure there's a cost/word formula they have worked out.
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
While I personally think printing a full color image might well cost more to print than an extra 40 or 50 word section to make a condition that addresses Hidden[ game state ], I believe the game would benefit more from the text than the image.
That noted being hidden has always had trouble with the fact that like OG 5e surprise, you can be hidden from some and seen by others.
2024 started by clarifying enemy see’s you, but has far as strictly sticking with invisible condition, it needs to be as it was in Og 5e, just because you can’t be seen doesn’t mean you still can’t be detected by some other means, and sight is but one of five senses a creature can have. And the more you have to do to keep yourself hidden the harder it should be to do so. A one roll fits all model is fine for a video game, but this is not a video game it’s D&D. DM’s can run the players little railroading trip off the rails just as well.
The best way is errata that make a hidden condition, and limits how “invisible” a hidden creature is.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The reasoning behind the revision to Hide must have been you are unseeninvisible and unheard until you make a sound louder than a whisper etc...
I would bet they started by writing a "hidden [condition]" and really quickly realized it was just an extra-conditional wrapper around the Inivisible Condition, and (in an effort to not repeat themselves) wrote up those extra-conditional bits in the Hide [Action] rather than a new condition. The editors don't want repetition --- because that inflates wordcount, which inflates page count, which inflates printing costs....I'm sure there's a cost/word formula they have worked out.
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
IDK may be but it would surprise me even less if they didn't want to create a new condition and in their desire to simplify Hide, they opted to rely the invisible condition instead.
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
Technical writing isn't for a technical audience, it's for a technical subject. However, the problem is that they didn't do non-technical writing, they did bad technical writing. Non-technical writing is like 2014's "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". If you're going to be more precise than that... do it right.
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
Technical writing isn't for a technical audience, it's for a technical subject. However, the problem is that they didn't do non-technical writing, they did bad technical writing. Non-technical writing is like 2014's "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". If you're going to be more precise than that... do it right.
writing of rules is not really generally the norm for technical writing, And an instruction to follow DM advice would be neither technical wrting or non technical writing. Thats just a rule for the game. And its not particularly uncommon, many games have judges/umpires/commisioners, and whoever is guven the task of making the rules clear, there jib is to clearly state that, if thats the rule.
tech writers are generally writing internal things for professionals
Generally speaking, game designers write rules games. and honestly I dont think a tech writer is going to do better at writing dnd rules, for many reasons
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
Technical writing isn't for a technical audience, it's for a technical subject. However, the problem is that they didn't do non-technical writing, they did bad technical writing. Non-technical writing is like 2014's "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". If you're going to be more precise than that... do it right.
writing of rules is not really generally the norm for technical writing, And an instruction to follow DM advice would be neither technical wrting or non technical writing. Thats just a rule for the game. And its not particularly uncommon, many games have judges/umpires/commisioners, and whoever is guven the task of making the rules clear, there jib is to clearly state that, if thats the rule.
tech writers are generally writing internal things for professionals
Generally speaking, game designers write rules games. and honestly I dont think a tech writer is going to do better at writing dnd rules, for many reasons
(yeah, tech writing is absolutely for a technical audience. I say that as someone who has done both tech writing and game writing, for professional and academic purposes.)
I think game writing is usually considered closest to journalistic writing --- you want it to be terse and easy to follow. But, more accurately, you write to the style guide, that is usually dictated by the publisher.
But what's going on with D&D writing, and what folks are railing against, is editing and publishing, not the quality of writing. Books are printed in "folios" and things --- so "adding one page" might actually mean "adding four pages" or such, or "needing more art," or involve other weird breakpoints of which people outside of the publishing industry aren't aware. There's outline editing, draft editing, line editing, layout, art sourcing, art layout, a host of printing costs, and other such things that are fairly invisible to the reader. Publishing is a whole-ass industry.
I think game writing is usually considered closest to journalistic writing --- you want it to be terse and easy to follow. But, more accurately, you write to the style guide, that is usually dictated by the publisher.
Rules writing is about explaining clear and concisely what a rule does and how to use it. It's equivalent to writing a user's manual, which at least in my experience is done by tech writers.
I just went back and reread most of this thread. I see all of the people stating that, "The DMG is going to expand on this and make it make sense. For sure!!" and laugh and laugh....
The reasoning behind the revision to Hide must have been you are unseeninvisible and unheard until you make a sound louder than a whisper etc...
I would bet they started by writing a "hidden [condition]" and really quickly realized it was just an extra-conditional wrapper around the Inivisible Condition, and (in an effort to not repeat themselves) wrote up those extra-conditional bits in the Hide [Action] rather than a new condition. The editors don't want repetition --- because that inflates wordcount, which inflates page count, which inflates printing costs....I'm sure there's a cost/word formula they have worked out.
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
IDK may be but it would surprise me even less if they didn't want to create a new condition and in their desire to simplify Hide, they opted to rely the invisible condition instead.
The original failing is thinking that hidden is a condition one should have instead of treating hidding as something you inflict upon others. The observer should be "Unaware" of X, where X is whatever creatures are hidden. Having it be a condition of the hiding creature is what creates al the strange interactions. Shortcutting to piggieback the invisible condition made it even worse. Like, how does a spell to see invisible creatures help you find a creature hiding behind a couch that isn't actually invisible? Nonsense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The reasoning behind the revision to Hide must have been you are unseeninvisible and unheard until you make a sound louder than a whisper etc...
I would bet they started by writing a "hidden [condition]" and really quickly realized it was just an extra-conditional wrapper around the Inivisible Condition, and (in an effort to not repeat themselves) wrote up those extra-conditional bits in the Hide [Action] rather than a new condition. The editors don't want repetition --- because that inflates wordcount, which inflates page count, which inflates printing costs....I'm sure there's a cost/word formula they have worked out.
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
IDK may be but it would surprise me even less if they didn't want to create a new condition and in their desire to simplify Hide, they opted to rely the invisible condition instead.
The original failing is thinking that hidden is a condition one should have instead of treating hidding as something you inflict upon others. The observer should be "Unaware" of X, where X is whatever creatures are hidden. Having it be a condition of the hiding creature is what creates al the strange interactions. Shortcutting to piggieback the invisible condition made it even worse. Like, how does a spell to see invisible creatures help you find a creature hiding behind a couch that isn't actually invisible? Nonsense.
Yeah, all the people saying that the 5e version that let you be hidden from some and not from other was a problem are sorely mistaken. Even if I was found by one person, that doesn't mean everyone else can suddenly see me.
Even with 5e Invisible, people could know exactly where you were and the Unseen Target/Attacker rules would still be in play. If someone shouts, "He's in the bushes!" and I shoot my bow, they still can't see me when I let the arrow fly, meaning I should still have advantage. Similarly if they know I'm in the bushes but can't see me, they would/should still have disadvantage to attack me.
They could have still written it as a Condition, but said, "You treat enemies that you have successfully hidden from as Blinded to you." So they couldn't use sight based targeting, would get disadvantage on attacks against you, and your attacks would have advantage against them.
"Even if I was found by one person, that doesn't mean everyone else can suddenly see me."
I'm pretty sure that's what the rules say. If any enemy finds you, you're no longer hidden... at all.
Plus, "hidden" is a game state. You're it or you're not.
It might not feel logical, but I think it's more a matter of balance and simplicity.
RAW, stealth is actually very powerful. And it wouldn't take much to make it OP.
I'm sorry if my statement was confusing. IN REALITY, if one person finds me, it doesn't mean everyone else can see me. With the 5.5e RAW Hide rules, you are absolutely correct.
If you read the rest of my post, I offered up a solution that I think would make everything work: "You treat enemies that you have successfully hidden from as Blinded to you."
Then it is not a condition that you have, you treat enemies that you hide from as Blinded to you (just like the rules for darkness/heavily obscured worked/work in 5e/5.5e). They could make Invisible back the way it was in 5e (except maybe add the "if they can see you" bit so that you don't still gain advantage on enemies with See Invisibility or Truesight), unbreak everything, and make people happy. They would still need to clarify how an enemy "finds you" and what constitutes "remaining hidden", but it would definitely unbreak Invisible without adding any new Conditions. It would arguably be less text than what is current.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It applies because of 3/4 cover. Normally, if you are hiding with 3/4 cover, you get the benefits of invisibility; see invisibility means you don't, and thus you get seen normally.
Yes, but what I meant is "if that enemy still cannot currently see or hear me normally". I.E., I'm not currently behind three-quarters cover.
For example, let's take the issue of cover out of it. Suppose you are standing in a totally dark space, and I do not have darkvision or any other helpful senses and therefore I cannot currently see you. Right now, I have no idea if you even have the Invisible condition or not, but I go ahead and cast See Invisibility on myself anyway. Now I have the ability to see creatures that have the Invisible condition. Suppose you actually do not have that condition. What has changed? Nothing. I still cannot see you. But suppose you do have the Invisible condition due to the Invisibility spell? What has changed? Still nothing. I still cannot see you since you are still in the dark. Lastly, suppose you did not have the effects of the Invisibility spell, but you DID successfully hide in that dark space and therefore you have the Invisible condition due to being Hidden. What has changed? Still nothing. I still cannot see you since you are still in the dark. See Invisibility allows me to see you as if you are visible, but it doesn't do me much good while you (a visible creature) are located in the dark. It would seem to me that you are still Hidden in this case.
Sure, though it's kind of irrelevant that you're hidden unless you assume that there's an implicit 'unheard' in the hidden condition (it feels like 2024 was trying to get rid of the entire concept of distinguishing vision and hearing, and only got half way there).
But thats when a stealth check is needed to know if they can hear you breathing.
That might be considered louder than a whisper.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I feel like the core problem with the 2024 rules is that the authors were perfectly comfortable and used to running with extremely loose rules and a lot of on the fly adjudication by the DM, but they got feedback about 'mother may I' mechanics so they tried to firm things up -- except, since they don't play that way, they're bad at it.
In what world is breathing louder than a whisper? Even if you are panting for breath, a whisper is going to be louder than that.
The reasoning behind the revision to Hide must have been you are
unseeninvisible andunhearduntil you make a sound louder than a whisper etc...You’ve never been in a quiet room with mouth breathers?
And some people whisper rather louder than others, the point was if you’re tooking into darkness to see if something is there, you might also focus on if you hear anything too.
Hiding and remaining hidden still requires you to be silent enough not to possibly be heard, so you either check your still hidden or assume the person might be able to hear the hidden creature shifting around trying to ensure they remain hidden.
A passive check might just keep one hidden while an active check might just make that holding your breath cause the other creature to move on. Or you could have ate a lot of garlic and the looker smells it.
Just because you can’t be seen doesn’t mean you are absolutely untraceable or undetectable. ( unless you make a high enough check to cover your tracks as best you can.)
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I would bet they started by writing a "hidden [condition]" and really quickly realized it was just an extra-conditional wrapper around the Inivisible Condition, and (in an effort to not repeat themselves) wrote up those extra-conditional bits in the Hide [Action] rather than a new condition. The editors don't want repetition --- because that inflates wordcount, which inflates page count, which inflates printing costs....I'm sure there's a cost/word formula they have worked out.
Combine that with their desire to not be doing technical writing (which requires a technical audience), and a fundamental insistence on the primacy of the DM, and you can understand why they write the way they do.
While I personally think printing a full color image might well cost more to print than an extra 40 or 50 word section to make a condition that addresses Hidden[ game state ], I believe the game would benefit more from the text than the image.
That noted being hidden has always had trouble with the fact that like OG 5e surprise, you can be hidden from some and seen by others.
2024 started by clarifying enemy see’s you, but has far as strictly sticking with invisible condition, it needs to be as it was in Og 5e, just because you can’t be seen doesn’t mean you still can’t be detected by some other means, and sight is but one of five senses a creature can have.
And the more you have to do to keep yourself hidden the harder it should be to do so.
A one roll fits all model is fine for a video game, but this is not a video game it’s D&D.
DM’s can run the players little railroading trip off the rails just as well.
The best way is errata that make a hidden condition, and limits how “invisible” a hidden creature is.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
IDK may be but it would surprise me even less if they didn't want to create a new condition and in their desire to simplify Hide, they opted to rely the invisible condition instead.
Technical writing isn't for a technical audience, it's for a technical subject. However, the problem is that they didn't do non-technical writing, they did bad technical writing. Non-technical writing is like 2014's "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". If you're going to be more precise than that... do it right.
writing of rules is not really generally the norm for technical writing, And an instruction to follow DM advice would be neither technical wrting or non technical writing. Thats just a rule for the game. And its not particularly uncommon, many games have judges/umpires/commisioners, and whoever is guven the task of making the rules clear, there jib is to clearly state that, if thats the rule.
tech writers are generally writing internal things for professionals
Generally speaking, game designers write rules games. and honestly I dont think a tech writer is going to do better at writing dnd rules, for many reasons
i think you are overestimating
(yeah, tech writing is absolutely for a technical audience. I say that as someone who has done both tech writing and game writing, for professional and academic purposes.)
I think game writing is usually considered closest to journalistic writing --- you want it to be terse and easy to follow. But, more accurately, you write to the style guide, that is usually dictated by the publisher.
But what's going on with D&D writing, and what folks are railing against, is editing and publishing, not the quality of writing. Books are printed in "folios" and things --- so "adding one page" might actually mean "adding four pages" or such, or "needing more art," or involve other weird breakpoints of which people outside of the publishing industry aren't aware. There's outline editing, draft editing, line editing, layout, art sourcing, art layout, a host of printing costs, and other such things that are fairly invisible to the reader. Publishing is a whole-ass industry.
Rules writing is about explaining clear and concisely what a rule does and how to use it. It's equivalent to writing a user's manual, which at least in my experience is done by tech writers.
I just went back and reread most of this thread. I see all of the people stating that, "The DMG is going to expand on this and make it make sense. For sure!!" and laugh and laugh....
The original failing is thinking that hidden is a condition one should have instead of treating hidding as something you inflict upon others. The observer should be "Unaware" of X, where X is whatever creatures are hidden. Having it be a condition of the hiding creature is what creates al the strange interactions. Shortcutting to piggieback the invisible condition made it even worse. Like, how does a spell to see invisible creatures help you find a creature hiding behind a couch that isn't actually invisible? Nonsense.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yeah, all the people saying that the 5e version that let you be hidden from some and not from other was a problem are sorely mistaken. Even if I was found by one person, that doesn't mean everyone else can suddenly see me.
Even with 5e Invisible, people could know exactly where you were and the Unseen Target/Attacker rules would still be in play. If someone shouts, "He's in the bushes!" and I shoot my bow, they still can't see me when I let the arrow fly, meaning I should still have advantage. Similarly if they know I'm in the bushes but can't see me, they would/should still have disadvantage to attack me.
They could have still written it as a Condition, but said, "You treat enemies that you have successfully hidden from as Blinded to you." So they couldn't use sight based targeting, would get disadvantage on attacks against you, and your attacks would have advantage against them.
Did I just solve it??
"Even if I was found by one person, that doesn't mean everyone else can suddenly see me."
I'm pretty sure that's what the rules say. If any enemy finds you, you're no longer hidden... at all.
Plus, "hidden" is a game state. You're it or you're not.
It might not feel logical, but I think it's more a matter of balance and simplicity.
RAW, stealth is actually very powerful. And it wouldn't take much to make it OP.
I'm sorry if my statement was confusing. IN REALITY, if one person finds me, it doesn't mean everyone else can see me. With the 5.5e RAW Hide rules, you are absolutely correct.
If you read the rest of my post, I offered up a solution that I think would make everything work: "You treat enemies that you have successfully hidden from as Blinded to you."
Then it is not a condition that you have, you treat enemies that you hide from as Blinded to you (just like the rules for darkness/heavily obscured worked/work in 5e/5.5e). They could make Invisible back the way it was in 5e (except maybe add the "if they can see you" bit so that you don't still gain advantage on enemies with See Invisibility or Truesight), unbreak everything, and make people happy. They would still need to clarify how an enemy "finds you" and what constitutes "remaining hidden", but it would definitely unbreak Invisible without adding any new Conditions. It would arguably be less text than what is current.