Unless your contention, again, is that there is no way to become transparent in the game.
I'm not aware of anything in the game that explicitly cares about transparency.
Transparent things like windows still block line of sight (for the purposes of spellcasting), or do they? Does glass provide Cover? There's no rule that says that transparent things are immune to radiant damage. There's no rule that says invisible things don't provide obscurement. Though they are not listed explicitly as things that do provide obscurement. There's no rule that says a Halfling can't do the "naturally stealthy" thing behind an invisible ally. It does require being "obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you" so maybe it would follow the same implied inferrence of obscurement.
So, I don't think "transparency" matters, outside of player imagination, narrative flow, or DM fiat. And none of those care about "only strict RAW."
But it does matter because of the "unless you can be seen" clause in Concealed and Attacks Affected. Something has to make you difficult or impossible to see, or these two effects are useless.
Unless your contention, again, is that there is no way to become transparent in the game.
I'm not aware of anything in the game that explicitly cares about transparency.
Transparent things like windows still block line of sight (for the purposes of spellcasting), or do they? Does glass provide Cover? There's no rule that says that transparent things are immune to radiant damage. There's no rule that says invisible things don't provide obscurement. Though they are not listed explicitly as things that do provide obscurement. There's no rule that says a Halfling can't do the "naturally stealthy" thing behind an invisible ally. It does require being "obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you" so maybe it would follow the same implied inferrence of obscurement.
So, I don't think "transparency" matters, outside of player imagination, narrative flow, or DM fiat. And none of those care about "only strict RAW."
But it does matter because of the "unless you can be seen" clause in Concealed and Attacks Affected. Something has to make you difficult or impossible to see, or these two effects are useless.
You will not respect this answer, but "concealed" literally means you can't be seen. This language is intuitively obvious. It's not "Concealed: blah blah blah" and it's not a glossary entry. It's just an english word describing an effect, followed by a mechanical ruling for special mechanical effects.
You can interpret it however you wish (though the DM's interpretation is the one that matters). You cannot tell me what I can and cannot understand.
How are senses a more specific rule than the rule for Invisible?? And this is the Fallacy of the Converse, anyway. Just because Truesight, Blindsight, and See Invisibility say that you can see Invisible things, doesn't mean that nothing else can. Again, these are straight copies from 5e when it was actually spelled out that you needed a special sense or the aid of magic to see Invisible creatures.
But even if I did ascribe to your logic, then you have to apply it to Hide as well. Because the spell and senses you referenced don't apply to Invisibility, they apply to the Invisible condition. Which also means that Truesight and See Invisibility mean that no one can ever sneak up on you, which is bonkers to say the least.
You keep trying to make a distinction where none exists between Invisible from Hide and Invisible from Invisibility.
You are trying to argue that the rules exist outside of the narrative context in which they're used. These are not just abstract keywords. We know what it means to hide, therefore we know what is required to see somebody that is hiding. And we have mechanics to apply in uncertain cases.
(Is that a house ruling? Only in the sense that every ruling made at the table is a house ruling, even the most basic ones. RAW does not incorporate the narrative context, because it cannot.)
All conditions do is describe the game-mechanical effects of a state. In the case of Invisible, that state is "not being seen". How you can be seen is outside of the condition's scope.
Are the rules around this stuff well put together? No. But they function as long as you take the context into account.
(In particular, invisibility magic not specifying that you cannot be seen by normal sight is an omission, but we are still aware of the context, so it's not actually a problem.)
Unless your contention, again, is that there is no way to become transparent in the game.
I'm not aware of anything in the game that explicitly cares about transparency.
Transparent things like windows still block line of sight (for the purposes of spellcasting), or do they? Does glass provide Cover? There's no rule that says that transparent things are immune to radiant damage. There's no rule that says invisible things don't provide obscurement. Though they are not listed explicitly as things that do provide obscurement. There's no rule that says a Halfling can't do the "naturally stealthy" thing behind an invisible ally. It does require being "obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you" so maybe it would follow the same implied inferrence of obscurement.
So, I don't think "transparency" matters, outside of player imagination, narrative flow, or DM fiat. And none of those care about "only strict RAW."
But it does matter because of the "unless you can be seen" clause in Concealed and Attacks Affected. Something has to make you difficult or impossible to see, or these two effects are useless.
You will not respect this answer, but "concealed" literally means you can't be seen. This language is intuitively obvious. It's not "Concealed: blah blah blah" and it's not a glossary entry. It's just an english word describing an effect, followed by a mechanical ruling for special mechanical effects.
You can interpret it however you wish (though the DM's interpretation is the one that matters). You cannot tell me what I can and cannot understand.
We've gone over this, and it falls apart when you look at the rest. If you say the Invisible condition says you are concealed, even though "you are concealed" is not written anywhere in the rule, then you have to apply it across the board. You must also be Surprise and you must also be Attacks Affected.
But what the rule does say is, "you experience the following effects." and then lists Surprise, Concealed, and Attacks Affected. Meaning that these are effects of the condition with specific definitions after them. Otherwise we have to rule that either you are Surprised when you Hide or every time you Hide your enemies get the Surprise condition, which doesn't make any sense.
And saying that is not "[Game Term]. [Definition]" is wrong, because that is how the entire rest of the rules are written. Look at any monster and you will see. Take an Owlbear for example. It has "Multiattack. The owlbear makes two Rend attacks." Right there it is defining what Multiattack means for an owlbear. It defines it differently more most other monsters. So under Invisible, it is defining Concealed with "Concealed. You aren't affected by..." It follows the exact same structure.
Even granting your interpretation, it now means that I cannot be seen after I Hide. Which is getting into the crux of the argument: magical invisibility and Hiding should be different, but RAW they are not in 5.5e.
How are senses a more specific rule than the rule for Invisible?? And this is the Fallacy of the Converse, anyway. Just because Truesight, Blindsight, and See Invisibility say that you can see Invisible things, doesn't mean that nothing else can. Again, these are straight copies from 5e when it was actually spelled out that you needed a special sense or the aid of magic to see Invisible creatures.
But even if I did ascribe to your logic, then you have to apply it to Hide as well. Because the spell and senses you referenced don't apply to Invisibility, they apply to the Invisible condition. Which also means that Truesight and See Invisibility mean that no one can ever sneak up on you, which is bonkers to say the least.
You keep trying to make a distinction where none exists between Invisible from Hide and Invisible from Invisibility.
You are trying to argue that the rules exist outside of the narrative context in which they're used. These are not just abstract keywords. We know what it means to hide, therefore we know what is required to see somebody that is hiding. And we have mechanics to apply in uncertain cases.
(Is that a house ruling? Only in the sense that every ruling made at the table is a house ruling, even the most basic ones. RAW does not incorporate the narrative context, because it cannot.)
All conditions do is describe the game-mechanical effects of a state. In the case of Invisible, that state is "not being seen". How you can be seen is outside of the condition's scope.
Are the rules around this stuff well put together? No. But they function as long as you take the context into account.
(In particular, invisibility magic not specifying that you cannot be seen by normal sight is an omission, but we are still aware of the context, so it's not actually a problem.)
So you finally agree with me. These rules only work if you use the context of 5e to houserule the interpretation. That reading these rules as-is do not make narrative or mechanical sense.
Unless your contention, again, is that there is no way to become transparent in the game.
I'm not aware of anything in the game that explicitly cares about transparency.
Transparent things like windows still block line of sight (for the purposes of spellcasting), or do they? Does glass provide Cover? There's no rule that says that transparent things are immune to radiant damage. There's no rule that says invisible things don't provide obscurement. Though they are not listed explicitly as things that do provide obscurement. There's no rule that says a Halfling can't do the "naturally stealthy" thing behind an invisible ally. It does require being "obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you" so maybe it would follow the same implied inferrence of obscurement.
So, I don't think "transparency" matters, outside of player imagination, narrative flow, or DM fiat. And none of those care about "only strict RAW."
But it does matter because of the "unless you can be seen" clause in Concealed and Attacks Affected. Something has to make you difficult or impossible to see, or these two effects are useless.
You will not respect this answer, but "concealed" literally means you can't be seen. This language is intuitively obvious. It's not "Concealed: blah blah blah" and it's not a glossary entry. It's just an english word describing an effect, followed by a mechanical ruling for special mechanical effects.
You can interpret it however you wish (though the DM's interpretation is the one that matters). You cannot tell me what I can and cannot understand.
Except Concealed as it applies to the condition only says that it interacts with effects, rather than creating an explicit static state of simply being unseen. It’s a label, not an effect on its own merits. We can choose to intuit how that should function in various cases, however in doing that we return to the can of worms for how Hide works- if it is conceded that the “concealed” effect of Invisible does more than is explicitly written, then it should follow that “until you are found” should open more possibilities than the explicit example of the Search Action, thus raising the most pertinent question of this thread: can you Hide and then end up in the clear LoS of an enemy without ending the effect? If no because the only explicit example is the Search Action, why are we not bound by the counterintuitive but strictly RAW reading of an effect in other cases?
The fact that See Invisibility let you "you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" is to me another clear indication that they aren't visible.
The fact that See Invisibility let you "you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" is to me another clear indication that they aren't visible.
This was again almost a direct copy from 5e, and probably worked up through the last playtest as intended. But now Hidden creatures are not visible, so them leaving cover should not mean that they are found/findable.
We've gone over this, and it falls apart when you look at the rest. If you say the Invisible condition says you are concealed, even though "you are concealed" is not written anywhere in the rule, then you have to apply it across the board. You must also be Surprise and you must also be Attacks Affected.
And? When I have the Invisible Condition, my opponents will, in fact, be surprised by me! The fact that the primary "mechanical" effect of that is "I get Advantage on Initiative" doesn't mean that, narratively, they "really knew I was there all along, and aren't really surprised, because it doesn't say they didn't know!"
Even granting your interpretation, it now means that I cannot be seen after I Hide. Which is getting into the crux of the argument: magical invisibility and Hiding should be different, but RAW they are not in 5.5e.
Yes, this is the crux. When I am Hidden, you cannot see me. I am concealed. Whether that's because I'm "transparent" or "hella sneaky" or anything else is all a matter of narrative paint.
What is mechanically distinct is how I lose the Invisible Condition.
If I got it from the spell: I lose it when duration (1 hour) ends (per the spell) I lose it if the caster loses concentration (per the spell) I lose it if I make an attack roll, deal damage, or cast any spell (per the spell)
If I got it from the Hide Action: I lose it if I make a sound louder than a whisper, which can include many things that only make noise by DM fiat (per the Action) I lose it if I make an attack roll (per the Action) I lose it if I cast a spell with a Verbal component (per the Action) I lose it if an enemy finds me (per the Action)
Those are pretty clear distinctions between the two situations.
Hiding has two extra bits: 1) The book explicitly states that the DM can pre-empt the whole thing by forbidding it in situations where I just can't reasonably hide. (per the Hiding section in Chapter 1; admittedly, the choice to make a tiny one-paragraph section in the chapter just to say that was weird.) 2) "Finding me" is a broad term, just like making "a sound louder than a whisper": - Yes, it explicitly includes a DC for the Search action as a concrete mechanic. - It also implicity includes Passive Perception to (at least) hear me when I try to use Stealth to move silently (per the definition of Stealth in Chapter 1 and various references elsewhere) - It can include me doing anything to alert anyone, like tap them on the shoulder (per basic narrative flow or DM fiat) - If someone "sees" me or "locates" me with a special sense, like Blindsight or Tremorsense, then I lose the condition. - If I stay behind cover, then Truesight or See Invisibility will not find me, but if I leave cover they can see me, so I lose the condition (per the SAE, actually)
The only "weird" case to me is the last (Truesight and See Invisibility): were I the DM, I would happily rule that they don't "find" a hidden person, just mean that they could see them if they knew where to look (but if they knew where to look they'd no longer be Hidden, so this is moot). This is because I don't believe See Invisibility or Truesight give someone 360 degree perfect awareness, which is relevant only due to the narrative paint of "avoiding people's cones of vision", which is why it would need to be a houserule or other form of DM fiat.
And I happily admit that that last bit is a houserule.
The fact that See Invisibility let you "you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" is to me another clear indication that they aren't visible.
Or it simply means that it supersedes the Concealed effect precluding the targeting of the subject by sight. Logically, this should be because the subject has been rendered magically invisible, but insofar as parsing effects strictly by what is written goes neither of these actually describes the physical/visual state of the creature.
Again, I’m not advocating for this paradigm. I’m highlighting why it’s a bad one to parse the rules with- as in cases like how to find a creature after they Hide.
We've gone over this, and it falls apart when you look at the rest. If you say the Invisible condition says you are concealed, even though "you are concealed" is not written anywhere in the rule, then you have to apply it across the board. You must also be Surprise and you must also be Attacks Affected.
And? When I have the Invisible Condition, my opponents will, in fact, be surprised by me! The fact that the primary "mechanical" effect of that is "I get Advantage on Initiative" doesn't mean that, narratively, they "really knew I was there all along, and aren't really surprised, because it doesn't say they didn't know!"
Even granting your interpretation, it now means that I cannot be seen after I Hide. Which is getting into the crux of the argument: magical invisibility and Hiding should be different, but RAW they are not in 5.5e.
Yes, this is the crux. When I am Hidden, you cannot see me. I am concealed. Whether that's because I'm "transparent" or "hella sneaky" or anything else is all a matter of narrative paint.
What is mechanically distinct is how I lose the Invisible Condition.
If I got it from the spell: I lose it when duration (1 hour) ends (per the spell) I lose it if the caster loses concentration (per the spell) I lose it if I make an attack roll, deal damage, or cast any spell (per the spell)
If I got it from the Hide Action: I lose it if I make a sound louder than a whisper, which can include many things that only make noise by DM fiat (per the Action) I lose it if I make an attack roll (per the Action) I lose it if I cast a spell with a Verbal component (per the Action) I lose it if an enemy finds me (per the Action)
Those are pretty clear distinctions between the two situations.
Hiding has two extra bits: 1) The book explicitly states that the DM can pre-empt the whole thing by forbidding it in situations where I just can't reasonably hide. (per the Hiding section in Chapter 1; admittedly, the choice to make a tiny one-paragraph section in the chapter just to say that was weird.) 2) "Finding me" is a broad term, just like making "a sound louder than a whisper": - Yes, it explicitly includes a DC for the Search action as a concrete mechanic. - It also implicity includes Passive Perception to (at least) hear me when I try to use Stealth to move silently (per the definition of Stealth in Chapter 1 and various references elsewhere) - It can include me doing anything to alert anyone, like tap them on the shoulder (per basic narrative flow or DM fiat) - If someone "sees" me or "locates" me with a special sense, like Blindsight or Tremorsense, then I lose the condition. - If I stay behind cover, then Truesight or See Invisibility will not find me, but if I leave cover they can see me, so I lose the condition (per the SAE, actually)
The only "weird" case to me is the last (Truesight and See Invisibility): were I the DM, I would happily rule that they don't "find" a hidden person, just mean that they could see them if they knew where to look (but if they knew where to look they'd no longer be Hidden, so this is moot). This is because I don't believe See Invisibility or Truesight give someone 360 degree perfect awareness, which is relevant only due to the narrative paint of "avoiding people's cones of vision", which is why it would need to be a houserule or other form of DM fiat.
And I happily admit that that last bit is a houserule.
So are you saying that if you are Invisible that your enemies also get disadvantage on their Initiative rolls?
And can you explain how you can be Attacks Affected?
I notice you ignored the part where I point out how the rest of the rules of the game use the same nomenclature to dictate a game term and its definition....
Rules say what they say they do, and nowhere does the PHB says that you can normally see someone with the Invisible condition with natural sight, unless a rule specifies so.
A rule has to say something in order for it to be true. The Invisible condition would first have to say that you cannot see Invisible creatures with normal sight for it to be true. Not saying it doesn't does not make it so. And if this was their intent all along, why did they remove that exact language after the last round of playtest and not put it back in with the errata?
And not saying it doesn't mean that you can see invisible creatures. Again, rules say what they say they do unless superceded by a more specific rule.
People already provided you with more explanations since my previous post so I'm not gonna rethread it, but here's the thing: the crux of the problem is that you want the condition to say you're transparent or the rule doesn't work for you. Kenclary went over the mechanical differences between Hide and Invisibility, but you don't want to accept them. I've quoted the text explaining how conditions are just effects and it's the rules that set the distinctions, but that's not enough for you. At this point, there is nothing anyone in this forum can say to you that will satisfy you because you don't want to accept the explanations.
So are you saying that if you are Invisible that your enemies also get disadvantage on their Initiative rolls?
No. (my condition doesn't give them Disadvantage; it gives me Advantage.)
If you're referring to the Glossary entry for Surprise (or the subsection under Initiative in Chapter 1), that is gated on them being unaware that combat is starting at all.
If I am Hidden or Invisible, I get Advantage on Initiative. If they are also unaware of combat at all (like, my Invisible self is the only opponent there, or combat is starting without them being aware), they also get Disadvantage on Initiative. But if I'm just invisible when my teammates start an otherwise normal, non-surprising fight, I still get Advantage but my enemies don't get Disadvantage.
Don't get tripped up by naive readings of nuanced rules!
And can you explain how you can be Attacks Affected?
My attacks are affected (they get Advantage), and incoming attacks are affected (they get Disadvantage). This is pretty self-evident.
I notice you ignored the part where I point out how the rest of the rules of the game use the same nomenclature to dictate a game term and its definition....
I didn't ignore you. You are just wrong. When the rest of the rules (re)define a term, they put it in the Glossary, so it can be looked up and referenced. Having an explicit Glossary is a huge win over the 2014 rules.
And even when they put a term in the Glossary, it does not exclude that term from all other "natural" meaning. Which is why they define things like "the Invisible Condition" instead of the word "invisible", or "the Poisoned Condition" to allow for some poisons (like the ones in the DMG) to have other effects.
You will not respect this answer, but "concealed" literally means you can't be seen.
No, it does not mean that, either in the rules, or in reality. Concealed in RAW doesn't say anything about being unable to be seen, concealed in standard language just means not obvious -- could be impossible, could just mean some degree of difficulty.
So are you saying that if you are Invisible that your enemies also get disadvantage on their Initiative rolls?
No. (my condition doesn't give them Disadvantage; it gives me Advantage.)
If you're referring to the Glossary entry for Surprise (or the subsection under Initiative in Chapter 1), that is gated on them being unaware that combat is starting at all.
If I am Hidden or Invisible, I get Advantage on Initiative. If they are also unaware of combat at all (like, my Invisible self is the only opponent there, or combat is starting without them being aware), they also get Disadvantage on Initiative. But if I'm just invisible when my teammates start an otherwise normal, non-surprising fight, I still get Advantage but my enemies don't get Disadvantage.
Don't get tripped up by naive readings of nuanced rules!
And can you explain how you can be Attacks Affected?
My attacks are affected (they get Advantage), and incoming attacks are affected (they get Disadvantage). This is pretty self-evident.
I notice you ignored the part where I point out how the rest of the rules of the game use the same nomenclature to dictate a game term and its definition....
I didn't ignore you. You are just wrong. When the rest of the rules (re)define a term, they put it in the Glossary, so it can be looked up and referenced. Having an explicit Glossary is a huge win over the 2014 rules.
And even when they put a term in the Glossary, it does not exclude that term from all other "natural" meaning. Which is why they define things like "the Invisible Condition" instead of the word "invisible", or "the Poisoned Condition" to allow for some poisons (like the ones in the DMG) to have other effects.
You are incorrect there. Multiattack does not appear in the rules glossary. Nor do any of the things defined under monsters or under many classes/subclasses.
Take Monk for example. The class feature is Monk's Focus (also does not appear in the rules glossary). Then it lists the different features using the exact same nomenclature:
Step of the Wind. You can take the Dash action as a Bonus Action. Alternatively, you can expend 1 Focus Point to take both the Disengage and Dash actions as a Bonus Action, and your jump distance is doubled for the turn.
Step of the Wind seems to imply that I can walk on the air, per natural language, so does Step of the Wind give me a flying speed?
And can you explain why my enemies don't get disadvantage on their Initiative rolls since the term is literally "Surprise"? The fact that Concealed is followed by a period and then a definition is pretty clear that the following is what they mean. Now, if the text literally said "you are concealed", you would have a leg to stand on, just like if the text said "you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
"Concealed. You AREN'T affected by any effect that requires its target to be SEEN unless the effect’s creator can somehow SEE you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."
"Concealed. You AREN'T affected by any effect that requires its target to be SEEN unless the effect’s creator can somehow SEE you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."
and not be seeing?
Because seeing things is not defined as an effect; it just happens. And if that seems like an excessively pedantic hair to split, that’s because it is. Much like the argument that the only way to find a creature that successfully Hid is with a Search Action, when the creature is out in the open. I believe most people splitting hairs over Invisible- such as myself- are doing it to highlight how this section of the rules seems to be poorly constructed if you apply a strict “only what the text explicitly says” approach to the scope of various parts.
"Concealed. You AREN'T affected by any effect that requires its target to be SEEN unless the effect’s creator can somehow SEE you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."
and not be seeing?
The difference is that there's nothing actually preventing the target being seen, and the default is that targets are seen unless some effect prevents them from being seen.
Unless your contention, again, is that there is no way to become transparent in the game.
I'm not aware of anything in the game that explicitly cares about transparency.
Transparent things like windows still block line of sight (for the purposes of spellcasting), or do they? Does glass provide Cover? There's no rule that says that transparent things are immune to radiant damage. There's no rule that says invisible things don't provide obscurement. Though they are not listed explicitly as things that do provide obscurement. There's no rule that says a Halfling can't do the "naturally stealthy" thing behind an invisible ally. It does require being "obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you" so maybe it would follow the same implied inferrence of obscurement.
So, I don't think "transparency" matters, outside of player imagination, narrative flow, or DM fiat. And none of those care about "only strict RAW."
But it does matter because of the "unless you can be seen" clause in Concealed and Attacks Affected. Something has to make you difficult or impossible to see, or these two effects are useless.
You will not respect this answer, but "concealed" literally means you can't be seen. This language is intuitively obvious. It's not "Concealed: blah blah blah" and it's not a glossary entry. It's just an english word describing an effect, followed by a mechanical ruling for special mechanical effects.
You can interpret it however you wish (though the DM's interpretation is the one that matters). You cannot tell me what I can and cannot understand.
Except Concealed as it applies to the condition only says that it interacts with effects, rather than creating an explicit static state of simply being unseen. It’s a label, not an effect on its own merits. We can choose to intuit how that should function in various cases, however in doing that we return to the can of worms for how Hide works- if it is conceded that the “concealed” effect of Invisible does more than is explicitly written, then it should follow that “until you are found” should open more possibilities than the explicit example of the Search Action, thus raising the most pertinent question of this thread: can you Hide and then end up in the clear LoS of an enemy without ending the effect? If no because the only explicit example is the Search Action, why are we not bound by the counterintuitive but strictly RAW reading of an effect in other cases?
Yes you can be in "clear line of sight" thats the point of the change.
Hidden is no longer mechanically defined by position or LOS. Thats because LOS and position in DND are both abstract. Line of sight represents everything you could see around you. (because a turn is an absraction) Position actually just represents an arbitrary place for things to target you in your turn. You are theoretically moving as needed during your turn (because a turn is an abstraction)
The natural state of awareness in dnd is you are aware of everything within 360 degrees as far as the eye can see, and aware of things making noise within a certain range.
What hide does is switch the base assumption to, you are not aware of the thing hiding within your awareness range, unless other things make you aware. Mainly this has a number of limited mechanical methods, but also there is narrative methods and DM ruling.
Now, "can" doesnt always mean you will be. DM always have a lot of leeway with d20 rolls as they are only done when the dm thinks its approprate.
but the base situation is hide is primarily determined by your stealth roll vs creatures perception.
now, all the rules with rolls apply, even without narrative or fiat. You might have disadvantage hiding in place where people are more aware of you, they may have advantage to percieve you. The DM can roll instead of using a passive number if they wish.
If they did not change the baseline rule, then stealth doesnt really exist in formal dnd rules. And there was no baseline on what stealth was capable of, or how it can be used from table to table. Which was particularly a problem because they had formalized actions based around stealth.
to reiterate, the point of the hide action is to make it so that people cant detect you even while you are within line of sight. The DM may determine situationally or narratively the mechanic doesnt apply.
the hide action is the action to use when you want to pass through someones awareness area without being noticed, when you normally would be.
i'd like to sneak past the guard
id like to sneak behind that man without them being aware
id like to leave the room while no one notices me.
anyone can be unnoticed by having visual cover and being outside of hearing range, hide therefor only serves a purpose at all if it does something different than that
Dude, this was YOUR argument. You literally said if they (re)define a term it is in the rules glossary when I pointed out how they use this exact nomenclature for things like Multiattack. Your argument was that any time we see "GameTerm. Definition" they are only redefining it if it appears in the rules glossary.
My argument was (and is) that they would not negate the natural meaning of a word ("concealed") without explicitly redefining it in the Glossary.
Does that mean a Monk actually takes a "Step of the Wind?" Sure. I see no problem there. They also make a "flurry" of "blows." And a monster can "multiattack."
You keep trying to prove that they've written everyone into a corner, but there are plenty of people who understand how it works, without issue. Don't take your frustration out on people who don't share it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But it does matter because of the "unless you can be seen" clause in Concealed and Attacks Affected. Something has to make you difficult or impossible to see, or these two effects are useless.
You will not respect this answer, but "concealed" literally means you can't be seen. This language is intuitively obvious. It's not "Concealed: blah blah blah" and it's not a glossary entry. It's just an english word describing an effect, followed by a mechanical ruling for special mechanical effects.
You can interpret it however you wish (though the DM's interpretation is the one that matters). You cannot tell me what I can and cannot understand.
You are trying to argue that the rules exist outside of the narrative context in which they're used. These are not just abstract keywords. We know what it means to hide, therefore we know what is required to see somebody that is hiding. And we have mechanics to apply in uncertain cases.
(Is that a house ruling? Only in the sense that every ruling made at the table is a house ruling, even the most basic ones. RAW does not incorporate the narrative context, because it cannot.)
All conditions do is describe the game-mechanical effects of a state. In the case of Invisible, that state is "not being seen". How you can be seen is outside of the condition's scope.
Are the rules around this stuff well put together? No. But they function as long as you take the context into account.
(In particular, invisibility magic not specifying that you cannot be seen by normal sight is an omission, but we are still aware of the context, so it's not actually a problem.)
We've gone over this, and it falls apart when you look at the rest. If you say the Invisible condition says you are concealed, even though "you are concealed" is not written anywhere in the rule, then you have to apply it across the board. You must also be Surprise and you must also be Attacks Affected.
But what the rule does say is, "you experience the following effects." and then lists Surprise, Concealed, and Attacks Affected. Meaning that these are effects of the condition with specific definitions after them. Otherwise we have to rule that either you are Surprised when you Hide or every time you Hide your enemies get the Surprise condition, which doesn't make any sense.
And saying that is not "[Game Term]. [Definition]" is wrong, because that is how the entire rest of the rules are written. Look at any monster and you will see. Take an Owlbear for example. It has "Multiattack. The owlbear makes two Rend attacks." Right there it is defining what Multiattack means for an owlbear. It defines it differently more most other monsters. So under Invisible, it is defining Concealed with "Concealed. You aren't affected by..." It follows the exact same structure.
Even granting your interpretation, it now means that I cannot be seen after I Hide. Which is getting into the crux of the argument: magical invisibility and Hiding should be different, but RAW they are not in 5.5e.
So you finally agree with me. These rules only work if you use the context of 5e to houserule the interpretation. That reading these rules as-is do not make narrative or mechanical sense.
Except Concealed as it applies to the condition only says that it interacts with effects, rather than creating an explicit static state of simply being unseen. It’s a label, not an effect on its own merits. We can choose to intuit how that should function in various cases, however in doing that we return to the can of worms for how Hide works- if it is conceded that the “concealed” effect of Invisible does more than is explicitly written, then it should follow that “until you are found” should open more possibilities than the explicit example of the Search Action, thus raising the most pertinent question of this thread: can you Hide and then end up in the clear LoS of an enemy without ending the effect? If no because the only explicit example is the Search Action, why are we not bound by the counterintuitive but strictly RAW reading of an effect in other cases?
The fact that See Invisibility let you "you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" is to me another clear indication that they aren't visible.
This was again almost a direct copy from 5e, and probably worked up through the last playtest as intended. But now Hidden creatures are not visible, so them leaving cover should not mean that they are found/findable.
And? When I have the Invisible Condition, my opponents will, in fact, be surprised by me! The fact that the primary "mechanical" effect of that is "I get Advantage on Initiative" doesn't mean that, narratively, they "really knew I was there all along, and aren't really surprised, because it doesn't say they didn't know!"
Yes, this is the crux. When I am Hidden, you cannot see me. I am concealed. Whether that's because I'm "transparent" or "hella sneaky" or anything else is all a matter of narrative paint.
What is mechanically distinct is how I lose the Invisible Condition.
If I got it from the spell:
I lose it when duration (1 hour) ends (per the spell)
I lose it if the caster loses concentration (per the spell)
I lose it if I make an attack roll, deal damage, or cast any spell (per the spell)
If I got it from the Hide Action:
I lose it if I make a sound louder than a whisper, which can include many things that only make noise by DM fiat (per the Action)
I lose it if I make an attack roll (per the Action)
I lose it if I cast a spell with a Verbal component (per the Action)
I lose it if an enemy finds me (per the Action)
Those are pretty clear distinctions between the two situations.
Hiding has two extra bits:
1) The book explicitly states that the DM can pre-empt the whole thing by forbidding it in situations where I just can't reasonably hide. (per the Hiding section in Chapter 1; admittedly, the choice to make a tiny one-paragraph section in the chapter just to say that was weird.)
2) "Finding me" is a broad term, just like making "a sound louder than a whisper":
- Yes, it explicitly includes a DC for the Search action as a concrete mechanic.
- It also implicity includes Passive Perception to (at least) hear me when I try to use Stealth to move silently (per the definition of Stealth in Chapter 1 and various references elsewhere)
- It can include me doing anything to alert anyone, like tap them on the shoulder (per basic narrative flow or DM fiat)
- If someone "sees" me or "locates" me with a special sense, like Blindsight or Tremorsense, then I lose the condition.
- If I stay behind cover, then Truesight or See Invisibility will not find me, but if I leave cover they can see me, so I lose the condition (per the SAE, actually)
The only "weird" case to me is the last (Truesight and See Invisibility): were I the DM, I would happily rule that they don't "find" a hidden person, just mean that they could see them if they knew where to look (but if they knew where to look they'd no longer be Hidden, so this is moot). This is because I don't believe See Invisibility or Truesight give someone 360 degree perfect awareness, which is relevant only due to the narrative paint of "avoiding people's cones of vision", which is why it would need to be a houserule or other form of DM fiat.
And I happily admit that that last bit is a houserule.
Or it simply means that it supersedes the Concealed effect precluding the targeting of the subject by sight. Logically, this should be because the subject has been rendered magically invisible, but insofar as parsing effects strictly by what is written goes neither of these actually describes the physical/visual state of the creature.
Again, I’m not advocating for this paradigm. I’m highlighting why it’s a bad one to parse the rules with- as in cases like how to find a creature after they Hide.
So are you saying that if you are Invisible that your enemies also get disadvantage on their Initiative rolls?
And can you explain how you can be Attacks Affected?
I notice you ignored the part where I point out how the rest of the rules of the game use the same nomenclature to dictate a game term and its definition....
And not saying it doesn't mean that you can see invisible creatures. Again, rules say what they say they do unless superceded by a more specific rule.
People already provided you with more explanations since my previous post so I'm not gonna rethread it, but here's the thing: the crux of the problem is that you want the condition to say you're transparent or the rule doesn't work for you. Kenclary went over the mechanical differences between Hide and Invisibility, but you don't want to accept them. I've quoted the text explaining how conditions are just effects and it's the rules that set the distinctions, but that's not enough for you. At this point, there is nothing anyone in this forum can say to you that will satisfy you because you don't want to accept the explanations.
No. (my condition doesn't give them Disadvantage; it gives me Advantage.)
If you're referring to the Glossary entry for Surprise (or the subsection under Initiative in Chapter 1), that is gated on them being unaware that combat is starting at all.
If I am Hidden or Invisible, I get Advantage on Initiative. If they are also unaware of combat at all (like, my Invisible self is the only opponent there, or combat is starting without them being aware), they also get Disadvantage on Initiative. But if I'm just invisible when my teammates start an otherwise normal, non-surprising fight, I still get Advantage but my enemies don't get Disadvantage.
Don't get tripped up by naive readings of nuanced rules!
My attacks are affected (they get Advantage), and incoming attacks are affected (they get Disadvantage). This is pretty self-evident.
I didn't ignore you. You are just wrong. When the rest of the rules (re)define a term, they put it in the Glossary, so it can be looked up and referenced. Having an explicit Glossary is a huge win over the 2014 rules.
And even when they put a term in the Glossary, it does not exclude that term from all other "natural" meaning. Which is why they define things like "the Invisible Condition" instead of the word "invisible", or "the Poisoned Condition" to allow for some poisons (like the ones in the DMG) to have other effects.
No, it does not mean that, either in the rules, or in reality. Concealed in RAW doesn't say anything about being unable to be seen, concealed in standard language just means not obvious -- could be impossible, could just mean some degree of difficulty.
You are incorrect there. Multiattack does not appear in the rules glossary. Nor do any of the things defined under monsters or under many classes/subclasses.
Take Monk for example. The class feature is Monk's Focus (also does not appear in the rules glossary). Then it lists the different features using the exact same nomenclature:
Step of the Wind. You can take the Dash action as a Bonus Action. Alternatively, you can expend 1 Focus Point to take both the Disengage and Dash actions as a Bonus Action, and your jump distance is doubled for the turn.
Step of the Wind seems to imply that I can walk on the air, per natural language, so does Step of the Wind give me a flying speed?
And can you explain why my enemies don't get disadvantage on their Initiative rolls since the term is literally "Surprise"? The fact that Concealed is followed by a period and then a definition is pretty clear that the following is what they mean. Now, if the text literally said "you are concealed", you would have a leg to stand on, just like if the text said "you are impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
What is the difference betwen this:
"Concealed. You AREN'T affected by any effect that requires its target to be SEEN unless the effect’s creator can somehow SEE you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."
and not be seeing?
Because seeing things is not defined as an effect; it just happens. And if that seems like an excessively pedantic hair to split, that’s because it is. Much like the argument that the only way to find a creature that successfully Hid is with a Search Action, when the creature is out in the open. I believe most people splitting hairs over Invisible- such as myself- are doing it to highlight how this section of the rules seems to be poorly constructed if you apply a strict “only what the text explicitly says” approach to the scope of various parts.
The difference is that there's nothing actually preventing the target being seen, and the default is that targets are seen unless some effect prevents them from being seen.
Yes you can be in "clear line of sight" thats the point of the change.
Hidden is no longer mechanically defined by position or LOS. Thats because LOS and position in DND are both abstract. Line of sight represents everything you could see around you. (because a turn is an absraction) Position actually just represents an arbitrary place for things to target you in your turn. You are theoretically moving as needed during your turn (because a turn is an abstraction)
The natural state of awareness in dnd is you are aware of everything within 360 degrees as far as the eye can see, and aware of things making noise within a certain range.
What hide does is switch the base assumption to, you are not aware of the thing hiding within your awareness range, unless other things make you aware. Mainly this has a number of limited mechanical methods, but also there is narrative methods and DM ruling.
Now, "can" doesnt always mean you will be. DM always have a lot of leeway with d20 rolls as they are only done when the dm thinks its approprate.
but the base situation is hide is primarily determined by your stealth roll vs creatures perception.
now, all the rules with rolls apply, even without narrative or fiat. You might have disadvantage hiding in place where people are more aware of you, they may have advantage to percieve you. The DM can roll instead of using a passive number if they wish.
If they did not change the baseline rule, then stealth doesnt really exist in formal dnd rules. And there was no baseline on what stealth was capable of, or how it can be used from table to table. Which was particularly a problem because they had formalized actions based around stealth.
to reiterate, the point of the hide action is to make it so that people cant detect you even while you are within line of sight. The DM may determine situationally or narratively the mechanic doesnt apply.
the hide action is the action to use when you want to pass through someones awareness area without being noticed, when you normally would be.
i'd like to sneak past the guard
id like to sneak behind that man without them being aware
id like to leave the room while no one notices me.
anyone can be unnoticed by having visual cover and being outside of hearing range, hide therefor only serves a purpose at all if it does something different than that
My argument was (and is) that they would not negate the natural meaning of a word ("concealed") without explicitly redefining it in the Glossary.
Does that mean a Monk actually takes a "Step of the Wind?" Sure. I see no problem there. They also make a "flurry" of "blows." And a monster can "multiattack."
You keep trying to prove that they've written everyone into a corner, but there are plenty of people who understand how it works, without issue. Don't take your frustration out on people who don't share it.