I'm hung up on the part where if you're invisible and talk, you're somehow not invisible anymore.
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.
It's not new though, 2014 PHB also break Stealth if you make noise.
Hiding: You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.
Or are you saying that you only get Invisible the instant that you make the check and then lose it? Do you have to continually roll checks to maintain it?
No, I'm saying that the little words matter here because it changes the meaning. You do not "get" the condition. Nothing permanent happens at the moment that you "make" the check.
Instead, you "have" the condition "on" a successful check (which is the last thing that's needed to become hidden). The check itself persists just like it did in 2014 since this becomes the DC for all subsequent find checks while you remain hidden.
And just like in 2014, if you are no longer hiding then that stealth check is no longer valid for anything. It no longer exists.
For example, if you attack a creature you make an attack roll. Once that attack is resolved there is no longer an attack roll. Five rounds later when you want to attack another creature you don't go back and reuse that same attack roll. That old attack roll is long gone. If you want to attack something again you need to make a new attack roll.
Same thing with Hide checks. The hide check determines if you are hidden. If you are no longer hiding then that Hide check is gone.
And you only "have" the condition on a successful check. If there's no successful check then you don't have it. No other interpretation of that statement makes any sense.
I promise you, the act of hiding somewhere does not actually make someone an invisible person. It just allows you to enjoy a list of benefits while you are hidden.
Ah, thanks. I missed that. So, they actually took out the bit about "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."? And the spell doesn't actually say that the target creature becomes invisible either?
Wow, this all seems extraordinarily bad, I honestly don't know what they were thinking. And how did this sort of thing get all the way through 8 rounds of playtesting and into the final published material, that's just crazy. This will all require immediate errata.
If there are problems this serious with how some core mechanics of the game were written then it's starting to seem like a decent idea to wait a while before buying the books until they correct these things and reprint them with the inevitable changes.
What they removed was the bit from the Invisible condition that said "If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight"; it was in the Playtest all the way through Playtest 8. My point is that they removed it intentionally for the final print.
My guess is they wanted to keep it intentionally vague so that it could apply to both Hiding and magical Invisibility.
The problem with removing clarifications after playtesting is that it introduces bugs into the rules as written.
The essential issue is that the invisibility spell does NOT have the line from the 2014 rules "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
That clause needs to be applied to the invisibility SPELL but not to a creature who is hidden. A hidden creature CAN be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense - a creature made invisible by the spell should NOT be able to be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense. This clause appears to be absent in the 2024 rules.
The invisibility spell applies the invisible condition. Hiding applies the invisible condition. NOTHING in either hiding or the spell indicates that any special sense is required to see a creature with the invisible condition. All the conditions says is "If a creature can somehow see you" BUT the spell has NOTHING in the text indicating that the creature affected by the spell can't be seen except by magic or special senses. The ONLY thing the spell does is apply the invisible condition which ALSO contains no text related to whether a creature is seen or unseen.
The end result of a stupid desire to create simpler rules is that the rules as written are broken for either the invisibility spell or for hiding depending on whether the DM decides whether a creature with the invisible condition can be seen with normal senses or not. The DM could house rule that a creature affected by the invisibility spell can't be seen with normal senses while a hidden creature can BUT unfortunately, the 2024 rules don't seem to state that anywhere.
Clearly a line was omitted in an attempt to simplify things that simply broke it.
-------------
P.S. In terms of the playtest line that was changed, I think someone noticed that the clause that you mention was deleted "If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight" .. implies that a creature that was hidden can NOT be seen unless special senses are used. So a creature that succeeds in hiding can walk out in front of a creature that can see them and remain "invisible" even though they can be clearly seen. That is a broken rule. However, in their attempt to fix it, they did NOT add the equivalent line to the invisibility spells so that invisiblity from the spell would require special senses. They fixed one clear problem and created another due to last minute editing (especially if the citation was part of the invisible condition through 8 playtest cycles).
P.P.S. The one difference between hiding and the invisibility spell is that when hidden you lose the invisible condition when you are "found", while being found is not an option to lose the condition when under the spell.
If you step out in front of another creature then the DM could rule that you are automatically found and thus lose the invisible condition. However, the rules on finding someone get into perception vs stealth DCs, cover, and passive perception. There is a requirement to have 3/4 or full cover or heavy obscurement to make a stealth check ... the rules do NOT say (at least the ones cited so far) that these are required to continue to remain hidden. Can a creature hide behind 3/4 cover and then move into an area with no cover and remain hidden? If they are found they remove the invisibility condition granted by being hidden. However, the rules do not appear to explicitly state that continued cover is required to remain hidden.
Without clarification on either finding a creature or the senses needed to detect a hidden creature, the simplifications they have applied using the invisible condition for both hiding and the invisibility spell are broken.
It is the same issue that they have had trying to treat darkness, foliage and fog exactly the same in the interests of simplicity when this introduces unplayable contradictions requiring a DM to introduce house rules to get something that resembles reality.
David, I agree with all of that except I strongly feel that the best fix is to just put it back into the condition. If we accept that the intention was that you must remain hidden to keep the condition, then it really is true that you cannot see a hidden creature without special senses, such as x-ray vision to see through walls or something. The whole thing works fine if it gets put back into the condition. Finding someone with a perception check does not have to mean that the creature was actually seen with that check. In the description for perception checks, only a portion of that skill actually has to do with directly seeing things.
I'm hung up on the part where if you're invisible and talk, you're somehow not invisible anymore.
Losing the invisible condition by making too much noise is in the description of Hiding ... not in the Invisible condition. If you look at the text cited for the invisibility spell, making noise is NOT a reason you lose invisible condition. In the case of the spell, the only ways to lose the condition are attacking, casting a spell or doing damage. In the case of hiding, you can lose the invisible condition by attacking, casting a spell, doing damage, making too much noise, or being "found".
How you obtained the invisible condition is a crucial factor in how the condition is lost. The invisible condition only defines the benefits received it does not mean that the creature is "invisible" in the classic sense of being unable to be seen by normal senses.
The "invisible" condition itself does not say anything about being unseen. Most people's understanding of the invisibility spell is that it makes the creature unable to be seen except by magic or special senses. However, most people interpret hidden to mean making use of terrain and other obstructions to make it difficult to notice you. In either case, a creature receives the benefits of the invisible condition as long as the other creature can't "somehow see them".
However, the invisibility spell lacks the text from the 2014 PHB indicating that "an invisible creature can only be seen by magic and special senses" which makes the "somehow seen" clause in the invisible condition ambiguous especially since when it is in the invisible condition it applies to both a hidden creature and one affected by the invisibility spell.
The core problem is that they tried to merge 'invisible' and 'hidden'.
The common language understanding of "invisible" is that it means you cannot be seen with normal vision, whereas "hidden" means you are difficult to see with normal vision. These are, obviously, not the same. The playtest definition of invisible corresponded to the first definition. The current definition of invisible doesn't actually correspond to either version.
David, I agree with all of that except I strongly feel that the best fix is to just put it back into the condition. If we accept that the intention was that you must remain hidden to keep the condition, then it really is true that you cannot see a hidden creature without special senses, such as x-ray vision to see through walls or something. The whole thing works fine if it gets put back into the condition. Finding someone with a perception check does not have to mean that the creature was actually seen with that check. In the description for perception checks, only a portion of that skill actually has to do with directly seeing things.
I'd like to avoid a situation where the rules would call for a creature with the invisible condition, that was only hidden and not actually invisible due to magic, to remain invisible even when standing in front of a creature that would have the capability to see them due to normal vision.
A hidden creature can be seen by normal vision when they are not behind cover, it isn't possible to hide from a creature that can see you. An invisible creature can not be seen by normal vision even when standing immediately in front of another creature that is looking directly at them.
In my opinion, adding text to the invisible condition will end up applying to both hidden creatures and the invisible spell and would result in one or the other behaving, in my opinion, in an unexpected way.
Essentially, in my opinion, no matter how well a creature can hide, they don't remain hidden if they can be clearly seen. I don't think a creature should become "invisible" just due to hiding. A hidden creature may have the same benefits as a creature affected by an invisibility spell as long as they remain unseen but requiring special senses to see a creature with the invisible condition would result in people interpreting a hidden creature to be able to move freely in the field of view of another creature because that creature did not have special senses. (Not just requiring Xray vision or Devils sight or something else to see through the cover or heavy obscurement that was being used to hide in the first place. In those cases, the special senses prevent the hiding creature from having the cover or obscurement needed to hide in the first place.
There is a requirement to have 3/4 or full cover or heavy obscurement to make a stealth check ... the rules do NOT say (at least the ones cited so far) that these are required to continue to remain hidden. Can a creature hide behind 3/4 cover and then move into an area with no cover and remain hidden? If they are found they remove the invisibility condition granted by being hidden. However, the rules do not appear to explicitly state that continued cover is required to remain hidden.
I didn't see this P.P.S. before. David, I wonder why you and so many others are reading it this way?
The Hide action makes it clear that the check itself persists for a specific purpose. "Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you." Why would we need to make note of anything unless this check was ongoing? And why would a creature try to find you unless you are hidden? This implies a duration for this check. This check is ongoing while you are hidden. The whole point of the check in the first place was to become hidden. And now that check persists. Wouldn't it make sense that this check only applies while you are hidden? In addition to this duration, there is a list of other ways to lose the condition, which starts with "The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs". Why does the text bother to specify "immediately"? Most of the time we just get a list of ways that the condition ends. The "immediately" is to differentiate these reasons for the condition ending against the natural expiration of the duration, which occurs when you are no longer hiding.
The Hide action begins by telling us all of the situations that must be in place in order to BE concealed: To be concealed, the situation must be appropriate (stated elsewhere), you must be heavily obscured or behind three-quarters cover or behind total cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight. Once all of that is in place, you must still actually succeed on a check "while" all of those situations are met. The check is then ongoing. And again, the check must be successful "while" these other things are happening.
With all of that said, we now have "On a successful check, you have the Invisible Condition." This check is ongoing while the prerequisites are met. This is the ongoing confirmation that you are successfully concealed. Otherwise, you're not concealed. What sense would it make if there are a series of requirements to be concealed and then you break those but you are somehow still concealed? Concealed by what exactly? If the check must be made while the prerequisites are met and the check is then ongoing, how can we interpret this to mean that the prerequisites no longer have to be met? That makes no sense. If there's a successful check in play, it's because the prerequisites are still met. (You must succeed "while" the prerequisites are met.) In addition, you have the Condition on a successful check. If there is no successful check (which expires when the prerequisites for being concealed are no longer met since a successful check must be made while the conditions are met), then you don't have the condition. You don't ever "get" the condition. You "have" the condition on a successful check, which is ongoing while certain circumstances continue to be met.
Yes, all of this was a lot more explicit in 2014 with the inclusion of the phrase "Until you stop hiding", but I really believe that the intention of the designers was that saying it like that in the new rule would be redundant since the text already means this. I agree that it could be made to be more clear. If there's really this much confusion on this point, then some tweaks on this wording are in order.
I didn't see this P.P.S. before. David, I wonder why you and so many others are reading it this way?
Because it's an entirely consistent reading of the rule, and the alternative reading (you can hide as long as your opponent can't see you in the first place) is also stupid.
Essentially, in my opinion, no matter how well a creature can hide, they don't remain hidden if they can be clearly seen.
I agree with this, but it wouldn't be because that creature is invisible or not invisible. It would be because they are no longer hidden. The Hide Action defines a series of prerequisites that must be met to be concealed. If a person steps out of hiding because they believe that they are actually invisible, but they really are not, then they are no longer hidden because they are no longer concealed. In fact, if that creature really is an invisible creature, they STILL would no longer be hidden since they are no longer concealed -- but in that case they still get the benefits of being actually invisible.
This point actually seems like a pretty big point of confusion though based on how the Hide action is currently written since it no longer comes straight out and says "Until you stop hiding". So, that wording should be made to be more clear. If the text was written in a way that it was more clear to people that you are only hidden while you remain . . . er . . . hidden, then treating a hidden creature the same as an invisible creature should not actually be a problem.
I'm hung up on the part where if you're invisible and talk, you're somehow not invisible anymore.
Losing the invisible condition by making too much noise is in the description of Hiding ... not in the Invisible condition. If you look at the text cited for the invisibility spell, making noise is NOT a reason you lose invisible condition. In the case of the spell, the only ways to lose the condition are attacking, casting a spell or doing damage. In the case of hiding, you can lose the invisible condition by attacking, casting a spell, doing damage, making too much noise, or being "found".
How you obtained the invisible condition is a crucial factor in how the condition is lost. The invisible condition only defines the benefits received it does not mean that the creature is "invisible" in the classic sense of being unable to be seen by normal senses.
The "invisible" condition itself does not say anything about being unseen. Most people's understanding of the invisibility spell is that it makes the creature unable to be seen except by magic or special senses. However, most people interpret hidden to mean making use of terrain and other obstructions to make it difficult to notice you. In either case, a creature receives the benefits of the invisible condition as long as the other creature can't "somehow see them".
However, the invisibility spell lacks the text from the 2014 PHB indicating that "an invisible creature can only be seen by magic and special senses" which makes the "somehow seen" clause in the invisible condition ambiguous especially since when it is in the invisible condition it applies to both a hidden creature and one affected by the invisibility spell.
Right but if you're invisible and try to hide, somehow now if you talk it removes the invisibility.
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.
Right but if you're invisible and try to hide, somehow now if you talk it removes the invisibility.
It removes the invisible status granted by hiding. If you have invisible granted by some other effect that wasn't removed, that still exists.
While that would be a reasonable was to rule it, that isn't what it actually says. It says it removes the invisibility condition.
It applies new exit conditions for the condition itself. So you can have the effect stripped for a ton of ways that don't make any sense.
"The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
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.
It applies new exit conditions for the condition itself. So you can have the effect stripped for a ton of ways that don't make any sense.
"The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
"The condition" refers to the instance of invisibility applied by the hide action. It's possible to have multiple copies of the same condition; their effects are not cumulative, but they are removed separately.
It applies new exit conditions for the condition itself. So you can have the effect stripped for a ton of ways that don't make any sense.
"The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
"The condition" refers to the instance of invisibility applied by the hide action. It's possible to have multiple copies of the same condition; their effects are not cumulative, but they are removed separately.
The 2014 rules said the following about stacking conditions: "If multiple effects impose the same condition on a creature, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition's effects don't get worse. A creature either has a condition or doesn't."
So if you lost a condition due to one effect and that ended, you would not lose the same condition due to another effect. So hopefully, that won't be an issue in the 2024 rules assuming the text for conditions hasn't changed.
In terms of the hiding and invisible question - you could lose the invisible condition due to hiding if you make noise but you would retain the invisible condition due to the spell since it can't be ended that way.
It will be interesting if they have clarified the rules on invisible vs hiding vs knowing where a creature is vs having to guess their location because they were hiding while invisible.
It will be interesting if they have clarified the rules on invisible vs hiding vs knowing where a creature is vs having to guess their location because they were hiding while invisible.
They seem to have gotten rid of what they even said. It used to be that stealth allowed turning your location unknown, that's gone now.
I was actually thinking of this exact scenario last night while not able to get back to a computer and before even seeing this latest sequence of posts.
In 2024, based only on the information posted so far in this thread, I can't think of any incentive why an actual invisible creature would ever try to Hide (which would be a big change from 2014, which explicitly stated "An invisible creature can always try to hide" implying that there were clear benefits to doing so).
However, in 2024, if an actual invisible creature DOES try to Hide, it does seem like this particular interaction is broken. He has actually made things worse for himself by hiding since there are now additional ways that he can lose the condition -- which, logically, should NOT be the case.
"The condition" refers to the instance of invisibility applied by the hide action. It's possible to have multiple copies of the same condition; their effects are not cumulative, but they are removed separately.
I've been actually hoping that someone can provide a rule which says that the game works like this, but I'm not convinced that it actually does. I don't think that we're meant to track multiple instances of a Condition in all cases. Particularly, if a feature states that a Condition is ended or removed, I do not think that it's at all clear that only one instance of the Condition is removed.
In order for the designers to even attempt to do what they did here with invisibility and hiding, it's actually pretty important that the game does work this way or else this design wouldn't work at all -- I'm just not sure that the game really does work like that.
The 2014 rules said the following about stacking conditions: "If multiple effects impose the same condition on a creature, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition's effects don't get worse. A creature either has a condition or doesn't."
So if you lost a condition due to one effect and that ended, you would not lose the same condition due to another effect. So hopefully, that won't be an issue in the 2024 rules assuming the text for conditions hasn't changed.
In terms of the hiding and invisible question - you could lose the invisible condition due to hiding if you make noise but you would retain the invisible condition due to the spell since it can't be ended that way.
Hmm, I'm still not sure if that's what the rule is really saying. For reference and clarity, let me go ahead and blockquote the relevant text:
A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.
If multiple effects impose the same condition on a creature, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition's effects don't get worse. A creature either has a condition or doesn't.
So, the invisibility spell and the hiding rules list different ways that the condition can be countered. If not countered, then it lasts for a duration.
There is a mention of the possibility of having multiple instances of a condition in terms of having different durations. But then it says that a creature either has a condition or doesn't.
That's one thing that hasn't been talked about much so far in this thread -- there is an additional unwritten way to lose the condition which is just that the duration expires. In the case of the invisibility spell, the duration is 1 hour (at least it was in 2014). Also, there is even one more way to lose the condition in that case -- loss of concentration on the spell (in 2014) (or also, any other way that "the spell ends", such as due to Dispel Magic).
In the case of the new Hiding rules, there has been some frankly surprising argument about this, but it seems clear to me that the duration in this case is until you are no longer hidden / concealed.
So, we can have two instances of the Invisible condition with two differently defined durations. However, can we really assume that the clauses "A condition lasts either until it is countered" and "A creature either has a condition or doesn't" are actually both referring to an instance of the Condition? I guess if we squint really hard at the entire blockquote above we can sort of get there, but it seems a little bit questionable to me.
I actually think that it should work that way. That you can have multiple totally separate instances of a Condition. Plus, in order for these new hiding rules to work at all this is pretty much a requirement. It would just be nice if it was more clear that the game actually does work that way.
Essentially, in my opinion, no matter how well a creature can hide, they don't remain hidden if they can be clearly seen.
I agree with this, but it wouldn't be because that creature is invisible or not invisible. It would be because they are no longer hidden. The Hide Action defines a series of prerequisites that must be met to be concealed. If a person steps out of hiding because they believe that they are actually invisible, but they really are not, then they are no longer hidden because they are no longer concealed. In fact, if that creature really is an invisible creature, they STILL would no longer be hidden since they are no longer concealed -- but in that case they still get the benefits of being actually invisible.
This point actually seems like a pretty big point of confusion though based on how the Hide action is currently written since it no longer comes straight out and says "Until you stop hiding". So, that wording should be made to be more clear. If the text was written in a way that it was more clear to people that you are only hidden while you remain . . . er . . . hidden, then treating a hidden creature the same as an invisible creature should not actually be a problem.
2014 Halfling and Wood elf abilities to hide while only lightly obscured created a lot of arguments because they stretched credulity in places. Invisibility has magic hand-wavium that allows credulity as "its magic" so people more easily accept the absurd. It is why rogues have always kind of sucked in D&D through every edition.
These rules alas also stretch credulity and so you are having a gut reaction against them. I can understand that. But I suspect they are to simulate a chaotic environment (in combat) or not overly alert (out of combat) opponents to the hidden character that allows for moving between areas of cover when the enemy is distracted, moving silently so as to not attract attention etc and which also takes into account an abstracted action economy. This allows sneaking gameplay that goes beyond what you are allowing of being either behind cover, or instantly always being visible to the enemy (which would be no fun for sneaky characters). Its a bit of an abstraction that can work if you go with it.
Your assumption seems to be that the moment someone moves out of cover they are no longer hiding- this is not correct. Per RAW as well as likely the intention of the character hiding.
Historically many a time a person (even entire armies) can sneak up on others without being permanently behind concealment the entire way, usually there are a myriad of circumstances (external and internal to both parties) that contributed to the success of such a feat. Using a roll of the dice and hiding/perception mechanics is abstracting such circumstances and turning them into die rolls to see what the outcome is.
For what its worth I agree with you that if there was a single point of cover (a single tree for example in an open field) and somewhat was staring fixedly in anticipation for their quarry to come out the person hiding would have little chance of staying hidden once out of cover. But the game is abstracting the level of attention an observer is giving to a situation using a perception role (or passive perception) under most circumstances, rather than automatically assuming rapt and flawless attention. There is nothing wrong with A DM ruling that under specific conditions the observer gets massive bonusses, advantage etc and that a character/NPC is using the search action to stay attentive or that a feat of stealth is impossible but assuming everyone is always attentive and perceives everything in line of sight takes away from stealth play and is also highly unrealistic.
I am not a huge fan of how it is written, something so important to several classes in the game should have been made clear in the PHB. What we need are official examples of play so that the intent and mechanics are made clearer. Should have been in the PHB but hopefully this will be in the DMG I can see these rules working RAW and making for good game play if you look at them as a necessary abstraction.
I'm hung up on the part where if you're invisible and talk, you're somehow not invisible anymore.
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.
It's not new though, 2014 PHB also break Stealth if you make noise.
No, I'm saying that the little words matter here because it changes the meaning. You do not "get" the condition. Nothing permanent happens at the moment that you "make" the check.
Instead, you "have" the condition "on" a successful check (which is the last thing that's needed to become hidden). The check itself persists just like it did in 2014 since this becomes the DC for all subsequent find checks while you remain hidden.
And just like in 2014, if you are no longer hiding then that stealth check is no longer valid for anything. It no longer exists.
For example, if you attack a creature you make an attack roll. Once that attack is resolved there is no longer an attack roll. Five rounds later when you want to attack another creature you don't go back and reuse that same attack roll. That old attack roll is long gone. If you want to attack something again you need to make a new attack roll.
Same thing with Hide checks. The hide check determines if you are hidden. If you are no longer hiding then that Hide check is gone.
And you only "have" the condition on a successful check. If there's no successful check then you don't have it. No other interpretation of that statement makes any sense.
I promise you, the act of hiding somewhere does not actually make someone an invisible person. It just allows you to enjoy a list of benefits while you are hidden.
The problem with removing clarifications after playtesting is that it introduces bugs into the rules as written.
The essential issue is that the invisibility spell does NOT have the line from the 2014 rules "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
That clause needs to be applied to the invisibility SPELL but not to a creature who is hidden. A hidden creature CAN be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense - a creature made invisible by the spell should NOT be able to be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense. This clause appears to be absent in the 2024 rules.
The invisibility spell applies the invisible condition. Hiding applies the invisible condition. NOTHING in either hiding or the spell indicates that any special sense is required to see a creature with the invisible condition. All the conditions says is "If a creature can somehow see you" BUT the spell has NOTHING in the text indicating that the creature affected by the spell can't be seen except by magic or special senses. The ONLY thing the spell does is apply the invisible condition which ALSO contains no text related to whether a creature is seen or unseen.
The end result of a stupid desire to create simpler rules is that the rules as written are broken for either the invisibility spell or for hiding depending on whether the DM decides whether a creature with the invisible condition can be seen with normal senses or not. The DM could house rule that a creature affected by the invisibility spell can't be seen with normal senses while a hidden creature can BUT unfortunately, the 2024 rules don't seem to state that anywhere.
Clearly a line was omitted in an attempt to simplify things that simply broke it.
-------------
P.S. In terms of the playtest line that was changed, I think someone noticed that the clause that you mention was deleted "If a creature can somehow see you, as with magic or Blindsight" .. implies that a creature that was hidden can NOT be seen unless special senses are used. So a creature that succeeds in hiding can walk out in front of a creature that can see them and remain "invisible" even though they can be clearly seen. That is a broken rule. However, in their attempt to fix it, they did NOT add the equivalent line to the invisibility spells so that invisiblity from the spell would require special senses. They fixed one clear problem and created another due to last minute editing (especially if the citation was part of the invisible condition through 8 playtest cycles).
P.P.S. The one difference between hiding and the invisibility spell is that when hidden you lose the invisible condition when you are "found", while being found is not an option to lose the condition when under the spell.
If you step out in front of another creature then the DM could rule that you are automatically found and thus lose the invisible condition. However, the rules on finding someone get into perception vs stealth DCs, cover, and passive perception. There is a requirement to have 3/4 or full cover or heavy obscurement to make a stealth check ... the rules do NOT say (at least the ones cited so far) that these are required to continue to remain hidden. Can a creature hide behind 3/4 cover and then move into an area with no cover and remain hidden? If they are found they remove the invisibility condition granted by being hidden. However, the rules do not appear to explicitly state that continued cover is required to remain hidden.
Without clarification on either finding a creature or the senses needed to detect a hidden creature, the simplifications they have applied using the invisible condition for both hiding and the invisibility spell are broken.
It is the same issue that they have had trying to treat darkness, foliage and fog exactly the same in the interests of simplicity when this introduces unplayable contradictions requiring a DM to introduce house rules to get something that resembles reality.
David, I agree with all of that except I strongly feel that the best fix is to just put it back into the condition. If we accept that the intention was that you must remain hidden to keep the condition, then it really is true that you cannot see a hidden creature without special senses, such as x-ray vision to see through walls or something. The whole thing works fine if it gets put back into the condition. Finding someone with a perception check does not have to mean that the creature was actually seen with that check. In the description for perception checks, only a portion of that skill actually has to do with directly seeing things.
Losing the invisible condition by making too much noise is in the description of Hiding ... not in the Invisible condition. If you look at the text cited for the invisibility spell, making noise is NOT a reason you lose invisible condition. In the case of the spell, the only ways to lose the condition are attacking, casting a spell or doing damage. In the case of hiding, you can lose the invisible condition by attacking, casting a spell, doing damage, making too much noise, or being "found".
How you obtained the invisible condition is a crucial factor in how the condition is lost. The invisible condition only defines the benefits received it does not mean that the creature is "invisible" in the classic sense of being unable to be seen by normal senses.
The "invisible" condition itself does not say anything about being unseen. Most people's understanding of the invisibility spell is that it makes the creature unable to be seen except by magic or special senses. However, most people interpret hidden to mean making use of terrain and other obstructions to make it difficult to notice you. In either case, a creature receives the benefits of the invisible condition as long as the other creature can't "somehow see them".
However, the invisibility spell lacks the text from the 2014 PHB indicating that "an invisible creature can only be seen by magic and special senses" which makes the "somehow seen" clause in the invisible condition ambiguous especially since when it is in the invisible condition it applies to both a hidden creature and one affected by the invisibility spell.
If not in the PHB, the DMG might have also a glossary that includes things like invisible.
The core problem is that they tried to merge 'invisible' and 'hidden'.
The common language understanding of "invisible" is that it means you cannot be seen with normal vision, whereas "hidden" means you are difficult to see with normal vision. These are, obviously, not the same. The playtest definition of invisible corresponded to the first definition. The current definition of invisible doesn't actually correspond to either version.
I'd like to avoid a situation where the rules would call for a creature with the invisible condition, that was only hidden and not actually invisible due to magic, to remain invisible even when standing in front of a creature that would have the capability to see them due to normal vision.
A hidden creature can be seen by normal vision when they are not behind cover, it isn't possible to hide from a creature that can see you. An invisible creature can not be seen by normal vision even when standing immediately in front of another creature that is looking directly at them.
In my opinion, adding text to the invisible condition will end up applying to both hidden creatures and the invisible spell and would result in one or the other behaving, in my opinion, in an unexpected way.
Essentially, in my opinion, no matter how well a creature can hide, they don't remain hidden if they can be clearly seen. I don't think a creature should become "invisible" just due to hiding. A hidden creature may have the same benefits as a creature affected by an invisibility spell as long as they remain unseen but requiring special senses to see a creature with the invisible condition would result in people interpreting a hidden creature to be able to move freely in the field of view of another creature because that creature did not have special senses. (Not just requiring Xray vision or Devils sight or something else to see through the cover or heavy obscurement that was being used to hide in the first place. In those cases, the special senses prevent the hiding creature from having the cover or obscurement needed to hide in the first place.
I didn't see this P.P.S. before. David, I wonder why you and so many others are reading it this way?
The Hide action makes it clear that the check itself persists for a specific purpose. "Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you." Why would we need to make note of anything unless this check was ongoing? And why would a creature try to find you unless you are hidden? This implies a duration for this check. This check is ongoing while you are hidden. The whole point of the check in the first place was to become hidden. And now that check persists. Wouldn't it make sense that this check only applies while you are hidden? In addition to this duration, there is a list of other ways to lose the condition, which starts with "The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs". Why does the text bother to specify "immediately"? Most of the time we just get a list of ways that the condition ends. The "immediately" is to differentiate these reasons for the condition ending against the natural expiration of the duration, which occurs when you are no longer hiding.
The Hide action begins by telling us all of the situations that must be in place in order to BE concealed: To be concealed, the situation must be appropriate (stated elsewhere), you must be heavily obscured or behind three-quarters cover or behind total cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight. Once all of that is in place, you must still actually succeed on a check "while" all of those situations are met. The check is then ongoing. And again, the check must be successful "while" these other things are happening.
With all of that said, we now have "On a successful check, you have the Invisible Condition." This check is ongoing while the prerequisites are met. This is the ongoing confirmation that you are successfully concealed. Otherwise, you're not concealed. What sense would it make if there are a series of requirements to be concealed and then you break those but you are somehow still concealed? Concealed by what exactly? If the check must be made while the prerequisites are met and the check is then ongoing, how can we interpret this to mean that the prerequisites no longer have to be met? That makes no sense. If there's a successful check in play, it's because the prerequisites are still met. (You must succeed "while" the prerequisites are met.) In addition, you have the Condition on a successful check. If there is no successful check (which expires when the prerequisites for being concealed are no longer met since a successful check must be made while the conditions are met), then you don't have the condition. You don't ever "get" the condition. You "have" the condition on a successful check, which is ongoing while certain circumstances continue to be met.
Yes, all of this was a lot more explicit in 2014 with the inclusion of the phrase "Until you stop hiding", but I really believe that the intention of the designers was that saying it like that in the new rule would be redundant since the text already means this. I agree that it could be made to be more clear. If there's really this much confusion on this point, then some tweaks on this wording are in order.
Because it's an entirely consistent reading of the rule, and the alternative reading (you can hide as long as your opponent can't see you in the first place) is also stupid.
I agree with this, but it wouldn't be because that creature is invisible or not invisible. It would be because they are no longer hidden. The Hide Action defines a series of prerequisites that must be met to be concealed. If a person steps out of hiding because they believe that they are actually invisible, but they really are not, then they are no longer hidden because they are no longer concealed. In fact, if that creature really is an invisible creature, they STILL would no longer be hidden since they are no longer concealed -- but in that case they still get the benefits of being actually invisible.
This point actually seems like a pretty big point of confusion though based on how the Hide action is currently written since it no longer comes straight out and says "Until you stop hiding". So, that wording should be made to be more clear. If the text was written in a way that it was more clear to people that you are only hidden while you remain . . . er . . . hidden, then treating a hidden creature the same as an invisible creature should not actually be a problem.
Right but if you're invisible and try to hide, somehow now if you talk it removes the invisibility.
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.
It removes the invisible status granted by hiding. If you have invisible granted by some other effect that wasn't removed, that still exists.
While that would be a reasonable was to rule it, that isn't what it actually says. It says it removes the invisibility condition.
It applies new exit conditions for the condition itself. So you can have the effect stripped for a ton of ways that don't make any sense.
"The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
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 condition" refers to the instance of invisibility applied by the hide action. It's possible to have multiple copies of the same condition; their effects are not cumulative, but they are removed separately.
The 2014 rules said the following about stacking conditions: "If multiple effects impose the same condition on a creature, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition's effects don't get worse. A creature either has a condition or doesn't."
So if you lost a condition due to one effect and that ended, you would not lose the same condition due to another effect. So hopefully, that won't be an issue in the 2024 rules assuming the text for conditions hasn't changed.
In terms of the hiding and invisible question - you could lose the invisible condition due to hiding if you make noise but you would retain the invisible condition due to the spell since it can't be ended that way.
It will be interesting if they have clarified the rules on invisible vs hiding vs knowing where a creature is vs having to guess their location because they were hiding while invisible.
They seem to have gotten rid of what they even said. It used to be that stealth allowed turning your location unknown, that's gone now.
I was actually thinking of this exact scenario last night while not able to get back to a computer and before even seeing this latest sequence of posts.
In 2024, based only on the information posted so far in this thread, I can't think of any incentive why an actual invisible creature would ever try to Hide (which would be a big change from 2014, which explicitly stated "An invisible creature can always try to hide" implying that there were clear benefits to doing so).
However, in 2024, if an actual invisible creature DOES try to Hide, it does seem like this particular interaction is broken. He has actually made things worse for himself by hiding since there are now additional ways that he can lose the condition -- which, logically, should NOT be the case.
and also . . .
I've been actually hoping that someone can provide a rule which says that the game works like this, but I'm not convinced that it actually does. I don't think that we're meant to track multiple instances of a Condition in all cases. Particularly, if a feature states that a Condition is ended or removed, I do not think that it's at all clear that only one instance of the Condition is removed.
In order for the designers to even attempt to do what they did here with invisibility and hiding, it's actually pretty important that the game does work this way or else this design wouldn't work at all -- I'm just not sure that the game really does work like that.
Hmm, I'm still not sure if that's what the rule is really saying. For reference and clarity, let me go ahead and blockquote the relevant text:
So, the invisibility spell and the hiding rules list different ways that the condition can be countered. If not countered, then it lasts for a duration.
There is a mention of the possibility of having multiple instances of a condition in terms of having different durations. But then it says that a creature either has a condition or doesn't.
That's one thing that hasn't been talked about much so far in this thread -- there is an additional unwritten way to lose the condition which is just that the duration expires. In the case of the invisibility spell, the duration is 1 hour (at least it was in 2014). Also, there is even one more way to lose the condition in that case -- loss of concentration on the spell (in 2014) (or also, any other way that "the spell ends", such as due to Dispel Magic).
In the case of the new Hiding rules, there has been some frankly surprising argument about this, but it seems clear to me that the duration in this case is until you are no longer hidden / concealed.
So, we can have two instances of the Invisible condition with two differently defined durations. However, can we really assume that the clauses "A condition lasts either until it is countered" and "A creature either has a condition or doesn't" are actually both referring to an instance of the Condition? I guess if we squint really hard at the entire blockquote above we can sort of get there, but it seems a little bit questionable to me.
I actually think that it should work that way. That you can have multiple totally separate instances of a Condition. Plus, in order for these new hiding rules to work at all this is pretty much a requirement. It would just be nice if it was more clear that the game actually does work that way.
2014 Halfling and Wood elf abilities to hide while only lightly obscured created a lot of arguments because they stretched credulity in places. Invisibility has magic hand-wavium that allows credulity as "its magic" so people more easily accept the absurd. It is why rogues have always kind of sucked in D&D through every edition.
These rules alas also stretch credulity and so you are having a gut reaction against them. I can understand that. But I suspect they are to simulate a chaotic environment (in combat) or not overly alert (out of combat) opponents to the hidden character that allows for moving between areas of cover when the enemy is distracted, moving silently so as to not attract attention etc and which also takes into account an abstracted action economy. This allows sneaking gameplay that goes beyond what you are allowing of being either behind cover, or instantly always being visible to the enemy (which would be no fun for sneaky characters). Its a bit of an abstraction that can work if you go with it.
Your assumption seems to be that the moment someone moves out of cover they are no longer hiding- this is not correct. Per RAW as well as likely the intention of the character hiding.
Historically many a time a person (even entire armies) can sneak up on others without being permanently behind concealment the entire way, usually there are a myriad of circumstances (external and internal to both parties) that contributed to the success of such a feat. Using a roll of the dice and hiding/perception mechanics is abstracting such circumstances and turning them into die rolls to see what the outcome is.
For what its worth I agree with you that if there was a single point of cover (a single tree for example in an open field) and somewhat was staring fixedly in anticipation for their quarry to come out the person hiding would have little chance of staying hidden once out of cover. But the game is abstracting the level of attention an observer is giving to a situation using a perception role (or passive perception) under most circumstances, rather than automatically assuming rapt and flawless attention. There is nothing wrong with A DM ruling that under specific conditions the observer gets massive bonusses, advantage etc and that a character/NPC is using the search action to stay attentive or that a feat of stealth is impossible but assuming everyone is always attentive and perceives everything in line of sight takes away from stealth play and is also highly unrealistic.
I am not a huge fan of how it is written, something so important to several classes in the game should have been made clear in the PHB. What we need are official examples of play so that the intent and mechanics are made clearer. Should have been in the PHB but hopefully this will be in the DMG I can see these rules working RAW and making for good game play if you look at them as a necessary abstraction.