- And what score will you beat? You can run as many Perception checks as you want, but you have no score to beat to be able to see someone under the Invisible condition granted by the Invisibility spell, therefore you can't find them using Perception.
And therefore the DM sets the DC. If no DC is listed for a check, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It could be impossible, it could be automatic, it could be anywhere in between. In general you would figure the DC as the normal for that situation (generally zero if in full view) plus any listed situational modifiers... which there aren't any of.
Concealed isn't a game term, which means it uses the standard meaning in English. Tell me, what does concealed mean?
Honestly. Any player or DM who uses such uninformed pedantry to say "Invisibility doesn't make you invisible just because it gives the Invisible condition" really needs to step away from the game.
Bro, all they're doing is trying to exploit ambiguities, tensions, or contradictions, to look for ammunition for an argument they are are already determined to make, which is that the rules are broken. It's nothing more than adversarial reading of the text for the sake of pedantry. The previous two threads died off because of this.
I'm looking at it from reading the text, having never played the game before. I would 100% believe that perception would counteract the Invisible condition. The thing that would confuse me would be why the Invisible condition doesn't make one invisible, but that is beside the point. I think perception is why the hide action doesn't allow you to move out from the tree. However, if I interpret the Hide action not allowing you to move out from the tree, I see no way to interpret Invisibility doing anything.
The main issue is that you guys seem to be adding in that the DM can at any point decide hiding is no longer appropriate, but the Hide action specifically states that is during the initial check, not at any other point. And there is enough people arguing that you can in fact hide behind a tree and move, make a melee attack while being hidden to make it seem as though the wording isn't exactly precise.
I imagine this is going to come up quite often at game tables. Because reading the hide action straight forward seems to indicate that if you have a 30 Stealth check, you are going to be able to leave your tree move 30ft. attack and still get sneak attack damage. (which I don't believe is the case).
So I"m not making an exploit, I'm ending one before it even starts.
Concealed isn't a game term, which means it uses the standard meaning in English. Tell me, what does concealed mean?
Visible but somewhat difficult to see -- equivalent to having a perception DC to see it. You would not call an invisible object concealed in standard English, because a concealed object can be found -- and in fact finding concealed objects is a defined feature of the perception skill. The DC is just unspecified, and unspecified means "the DM decides the DC" (the default DC in 2024 appears to be 15).
Concealed isn't a game term, which means it uses the standard meaning in English. Tell me, what does concealed mean?
Visible but somewhat difficult to see -- equivalent to having a perception DC to see it. You would not call an invisible object concealed in standard English, because a concealed object can be found -- and in fact finding concealed objects is a defined feature of the perception skill. The DC is just unspecified, and unspecified means "the DM decides the DC" (the default DC in 2024 appears to be 15).
Concealed means hidden. It doesn't matter how. Concealed definitely isn't defined as visible but somewhat difficult to see.
With this meaning in mind, the Invisibility spell makes you hidden. It specifies you retain the condition until the spell ends and doesn't list any check that can be made to break it. Which means you're relying on something else that specifies it can see a creature under the Invisible condition.
You're complicating a simple concept with an answer to a question nobody who isn't trying to manipulate the rules asked.
Concealed isn't a game term, which means it uses the standard meaning in English. Tell me, what does concealed mean?
Visible but somewhat difficult to see -- equivalent to having a perception DC to see it. You would not call an invisible object concealed in standard English, because a concealed object can be found -- and in fact finding concealed objects is a defined feature of the perception skill. The DC is just unspecified, and unspecified means "the DM decides the DC" (the default DC in 2024 appears to be 15).
Concealed means hidden. It doesn't matter how. Concealed definitely isn't defined as visible but somewhat difficult to see.
With this meaning in mind, the Invisibility spell makes you hidden. It specifies you retain the condition until the spell ends and doesn't list any check that can be made to break it. Which means you're relying on something else that specifies it can see a creature under the Invisible condition.
You're complicating a simple concept with an answer to a question nobody who isn't trying to manipulate the rules asked.
Based on previous rulings and game requirements, perception is able to allow you to find invisible creatures. The question is whether or not it allows you to see them. Perception does allow you to see concealed objects. The designers in 2014 clearly realized that and included that the invisible condition also made you heavily obscured. Thus perception can locate an invisible creature but not see them.
2024 doesn't seem to include anything preventing the character from being seen.
- And what score will you beat? You can run as many Perception checks as you want, but you have no score to beat to be able to see someone under the Invisible condition granted by the Invisibility spell, therefore you can't find them using Perception.
And therefore the DM sets the DC. If no DC is listed for a check, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It could be impossible, it could be automatic, it could be anywhere in between. In general you would figure the DC as the normal for that situation (generally zero if in full view) plus any listed situational modifiers... which there aren't any of.
Concealed isn't a game term, which means it uses the standard meaning in English. Tell me, what does concealed mean?
Honestly. Any player or DM who uses such uninformed pedantry to say "Invisibility doesn't make you invisible just because it gives the Invisible condition" really needs to step away from the game.
These game elements (Hide, Invisibility, Invisible condition, Perception) sparked a huge discussion on EnWorld foum too. Probably on other D&D forums & Reddit as well.
I suspect if the Dungeon Master Guide doesn't offer more guidelines, WoTC will have to release errata or Sage Advice.
I think the biggest question becomes how far can a rogue travel after hiding behind a tree. Assume he has a silence spell on him.
He hides and Rolls a 30+ on his perception check guaranteeiing noone is going to see him. He then walks out from behind his tree to the middle of town.
If we have concluded that the invisible condition means you are concealed, then effectively the rogue remains concealed despite someone looking directly at him. He is effectively invisible.
It we don't take it as being concealed then he is found. But that nullifies the invisible condition.
The language in the hide condition could be at issue, since it only states the DM determines the condition for hiding at the start of the check not at other points.
But perception should allow you to find an invisible creature otherwise greater invisibility becomes game breaking spell. (Guessing gives you a 1% chance of locating the target on top of disability to attack. The way it works you attack then move) . So Perception clearly needs to notice the creature.
But conditions don't stack? So you presumably can't have the invisible spell and then hide. So should someone always know where an invisible creature is?
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
Since nothing about either Invisible or Concealed state that the creature cannot be seen with normal vision, it can be.
Please take another look at the sentence you just typed, and think about how and why it might be just a teensy bit self-contradictory
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
But why? It is the same condition.
So? That says nothing about how the condition might be ended in each specific case or scenario
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
But why? It is the same condition.
The hiding rules add an extra way to break the condition (someone finding you). Just like how the spell adds different extra ways (the duration ends, dispel magic, etc). I have not seen anything that actually says a perception check can remove the invisible condition in the general case.
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
But why? It is the same condition.
Because one of the things required to gain the Invisible condition from Hide is to be out of an enemy's line of sight. If you're in line of sight like your example below, you no longer meet the conditions to be hidden and the DM can make that call per the Hiding rule on page 19. An enemy needs to take the Search action (Perception) if you're behind total or three quarters cover, or you're out of their line of sight. Being in line of sight of an enemy satisfies the requirement for "an enemy finds you".
If we have concluded that the invisible condition means you are concealed, then effectively the rogue remains concealed despite someone looking directly at him. He is effectively invisible.
Edit: one last clarification...in 2014 there as a line that said "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you". This line is no longer present in 2024, and the rules only mention line of sight in 2024; this is why some are saying you can come out of hiding and attack an enemy. However, this only works so long as your target doesn't have line of sight of you.
Now, about Greater Invisibility:
But perception should allow you to find an invisible creature otherwise greater invisibility becomes game breaking spell. (Guessing gives you a 1% chance of locating the target on top of disability to attack. The way it works you attack then move) . So Perception clearly needs to notice the creature.
Greater Invisibility only grants you the Invisible condition in 2024, and there are no triggers to break it. Page 281, it says "a creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends"; that's it.
Finally, although Perception shouldn't be able to overcome the Invisible condition, it doesn't mean it's entirely useless; you can use it to indirectly find a general location of someone under the Invisibility spell if there is enough evidence left by the spellcaster, like let's say: footsteps, or disturbed terrain, etc. In this case you can use the Unseen attackers rule on page 26 to target an area with disadvantage.
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
But why? It is the same condition.
The hiding rules add an extra way to break the condition (someone finding you). Just like how the spell adds different extra ways (the duration ends, dispel magic, etc). I have not seen anything that actually says a perception check can remove the invisible condition in the general case.
I wouldn't say remove... But more nullify? The last two elements don't function if you can be seen by the creature.
It seems to me like you are saying you can be seen under one set of circumstances but you can't be seen under a different set of circumstances even though they should be the same.
Like we can produce someone hiding behind a tree with enough spells on them that the only way they could be found when they walk out from the tree is by sight.
But it seems to me that you are saying you can't be seen with the invisible condition, which means walking behind a tree with pass wouldn't a trace and silence active should let you walk past a guard of completely as the can't find you to break the condition.
I reject the idea that the DM can arbitrarily end the invisible condition as that is not listed as an option. The hide action does not state you must maintain cover only that it is required for the initial check.
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
But why? It is the same condition.
Because Perception overcome only the method by which the Invisible condition is granted, not the condition itself, and the spell doesn't itself makes any such refecence, only Hiding does.
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
But why? It is the same condition.
Because Perception overcome only the method by which the Invisible condition is granted, not the condition itself, and the spell doesn't itself makes any such refecence, only Hiding does.
The hide action doesn't say that line of sight breaks it. It only states that if you make a search action and roll equal or greater than the hide check that you find the person. So a stealth check of 30 means it's unlikely you are going to break the invisible condition via perception. No where does any ability specify that line of sight ends the condition.
The hiding rules add an extra way to break the condition (someone finding you). Just like how the spell adds different extra ways (the duration ends, dispel magic, etc). I have not seen anything that actually says a perception check can remove the invisible condition in the general case.
Why does this keep coming up. There is no need to break the condition. You just need to render the condition irrelevant -- which you do by seeing them -- which there are no obstacles, beyond possibly a perception check, to doing.
So, is the invisible spell missing a section that says you are in a heavily obscured area? (That use to be part of the condition) Or have I vastly misinterpreted something?
To answer your original question of "Is the Invisibility spell (2024) missing something?":
the answer is that it's not really the spell that's missing something, it's that the Invisible Condition itself is missing a critical statement that existed all the way through the playtesting and then was inexplicably removed at the last moment before publication. In 2014, that statement was phrased like this:
"An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
All that has to happen is for this to be put back into the Invisible Condition and everything about this new design would function properly.
This would have to be combined with the interpretation that a hidden creature can only "have" the Invisible Condition while he is hidden (duh). In other words, a successful stealth check should expire once you are no longer hiding -- this was more explicitly obvious in the 2014 rules but is merely just implied in the 2024 rules. You only have the condition "on" a successful stealth check (that stealth check must actually exist, unexpired). In my opinion it already does work this way, but perhaps this could be tweaked to become a bit more explicit so that there are less arguments about that point.
So, is the invisible spell missing a section that says you are in a heavily obscured area? (That use to be part of the condition) Or have I vastly misinterpreted something?
To answer your original question of "Is the Invisibility spell (2024) missing something?":
the answer is that it's not really the spell that's missing something, it's that the Invisible Condition itself is missing a critical statement that existed all the way through the playtesting and then was inexplicably removed at the last moment before publication. In 2014, that statement was phrased like this:
"An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
All that has to happen is for this to be put back into the Invisible Condition and everything about this new design would function properly.
This would have to be combined with the interpretation that a hidden creature can only "have" the Invisible Condition while he is hidden (duh). In other words, a successful stealth check should expire once you are no longer hiding -- this was more explicitly obvious in the 2014 rules but is merely just implied in the 2024 rules. You only have the condition "on" a successful stealth check (that stealth check must actually exist, unexpired). In my opinion it already does work this way, but perhaps this could be tweaked to become a bit more explicit so that there are less arguments about that point.
I think I agree with you in how the hide action and invisible condition are supposed to be working. I don't think the text gets there if I look at it from opening the book and reading it for the first time without any prior knowledge.
I'm looking at it from reading the text, having never played the game before. I would 100% believe that perception would counteract the Invisible condition. The thing that would confuse me would be why the Invisible condition doesn't make one invisible, but that is beside the point. I think perception is why the hide action doesn't allow you to move out from the tree. However, if I interpret the Hide action not allowing you to move out from the tree, I see no way to interpret Invisibility doing anything.
The main issue is that you guys seem to be adding in that the DM can at any point decide hiding is no longer appropriate, but the Hide action specifically states that is during the initial check, not at any other point. And there is enough people arguing that you can in fact hide behind a tree and move, make a melee attack while being hidden to make it seem as though the wording isn't exactly precise.
I imagine this is going to come up quite often at game tables. Because reading the hide action straight forward seems to indicate that if you have a 30 Stealth check, you are going to be able to leave your tree move 30ft. attack and still get sneak attack damage. (which I don't believe is the case).
So I"m not making an exploit, I'm ending one before it even starts.
Visible but somewhat difficult to see -- equivalent to having a perception DC to see it. You would not call an invisible object concealed in standard English, because a concealed object can be found -- and in fact finding concealed objects is a defined feature of the perception skill. The DC is just unspecified, and unspecified means "the DM decides the DC" (the default DC in 2024 appears to be 15).
Concealed means hidden. It doesn't matter how. Concealed definitely isn't defined as visible but somewhat difficult to see.
With this meaning in mind, the Invisibility spell makes you hidden. It specifies you retain the condition until the spell ends and doesn't list any check that can be made to break it. Which means you're relying on something else that specifies it can see a creature under the Invisible condition.
You're complicating a simple concept with an answer to a question nobody who isn't trying to manipulate the rules asked.
Based on previous rulings and game requirements, perception is able to allow you to find invisible creatures. The question is whether or not it allows you to see them. Perception does allow you to see concealed objects. The designers in 2014 clearly realized that and included that the invisible condition also made you heavily obscured. Thus perception can locate an invisible creature but not see them.
2024 doesn't seem to include anything preventing the character from being seen.
*applause*
These game elements (Hide, Invisibility, Invisible condition, Perception) sparked a huge discussion on EnWorld foum too. Probably on other D&D forums & Reddit as well.
I suspect if the Dungeon Master Guide doesn't offer more guidelines, WoTC will have to release errata or Sage Advice.
I think the biggest question becomes how far can a rogue travel after hiding behind a tree. Assume he has a silence spell on him.
He hides and Rolls a 30+ on his perception check guaranteeiing noone is going to see him. He then walks out from behind his tree to the middle of town.
If we have concluded that the invisible condition means you are concealed, then effectively the rogue remains concealed despite someone looking directly at him. He is effectively invisible.
It we don't take it as being concealed then he is found. But that nullifies the invisible condition.
The language in the hide condition could be at issue, since it only states the DM determines the condition for hiding at the start of the check not at other points.
But perception should allow you to find an invisible creature otherwise greater invisibility becomes game breaking spell. (Guessing gives you a 1% chance of locating the target on top of disability to attack. The way it works you attack then move) . So Perception clearly needs to notice the creature.
But conditions don't stack? So you presumably can't have the invisible spell and then hide. So should someone always know where an invisible creature is?
I don't think Perception should overcome invisibility 's invisible condition, it never did before barring any special senses or magic specifically letting you do so.
If the Invisible condition comes from something else such as Hiding then it can be overcomed by normal sense.
But why? It is the same condition.
Please take another look at the sentence you just typed, and think about how and why it might be just a teensy bit self-contradictory
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So? That says nothing about how the condition might be ended in each specific case or scenario
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The hiding rules add an extra way to break the condition (someone finding you). Just like how the spell adds different extra ways (the duration ends, dispel magic, etc). I have not seen anything that actually says a perception check can remove the invisible condition in the general case.
Because one of the things required to gain the Invisible condition from Hide is to be out of an enemy's line of sight. If you're in line of sight like your example below, you no longer meet the conditions to be hidden and the DM can make that call per the Hiding rule on page 19. An enemy needs to take the Search action (Perception) if you're behind total or three quarters cover, or you're out of their line of sight. Being in line of sight of an enemy satisfies the requirement for "an enemy finds you".
Edit: one last clarification...in 2014 there as a line that said "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you". This line is no longer present in 2024, and the rules only mention line of sight in 2024; this is why some are saying you can come out of hiding and attack an enemy. However, this only works so long as your target doesn't have line of sight of you.
Now, about Greater Invisibility:
Greater Invisibility only grants you the Invisible condition in 2024, and there are no triggers to break it. Page 281, it says "a creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends"; that's it.
Finally, although Perception shouldn't be able to overcome the Invisible condition, it doesn't mean it's entirely useless; you can use it to indirectly find a general location of someone under the Invisibility spell if there is enough evidence left by the spellcaster, like let's say: footsteps, or disturbed terrain, etc. In this case you can use the Unseen attackers rule on page 26 to target an area with disadvantage.
I wouldn't say remove... But more nullify? The last two elements don't function if you can be seen by the creature.
It seems to me like you are saying you can be seen under one set of circumstances but you can't be seen under a different set of circumstances even though they should be the same.
Like we can produce someone hiding behind a tree with enough spells on them that the only way they could be found when they walk out from the tree is by sight.
But it seems to me that you are saying you can't be seen with the invisible condition, which means walking behind a tree with pass wouldn't a trace and silence active should let you walk past a guard of completely as the can't find you to break the condition.
I reject the idea that the DM can arbitrarily end the invisible condition as that is not listed as an option. The hide action does not state you must maintain cover only that it is required for the initial check.
Because Perception overcome only the method by which the Invisible condition is granted, not the condition itself, and the spell doesn't itself makes any such refecence, only Hiding does.
The hide action doesn't say that line of sight breaks it. It only states that if you make a search action and roll equal or greater than the hide check that you find the person. So a stealth check of 30 means it's unlikely you are going to break the invisible condition via perception. No where does any ability specify that line of sight ends the condition.
Why does this keep coming up. There is no need to break the condition. You just need to render the condition irrelevant -- which you do by seeing them -- which there are no obstacles, beyond possibly a perception check, to doing.
To answer your original question of "Is the Invisibility spell (2024) missing something?":
the answer is that it's not really the spell that's missing something, it's that the Invisible Condition itself is missing a critical statement that existed all the way through the playtesting and then was inexplicably removed at the last moment before publication. In 2014, that statement was phrased like this:
"An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
All that has to happen is for this to be put back into the Invisible Condition and everything about this new design would function properly.
This would have to be combined with the interpretation that a hidden creature can only "have" the Invisible Condition while he is hidden (duh). In other words, a successful stealth check should expire once you are no longer hiding -- this was more explicitly obvious in the 2014 rules but is merely just implied in the 2024 rules. You only have the condition "on" a successful stealth check (that stealth check must actually exist, unexpired). In my opinion it already does work this way, but perhaps this could be tweaked to become a bit more explicit so that there are less arguments about that point.
I think I agree with you in how the hide action and invisible condition are supposed to be working. I don't think the text gets there if I look at it from opening the book and reading it for the first time without any prior knowledge.