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.
Correct. And you cannot be seen (because you are concealed) unless the condition ends. In the case of hiding, that happens if they "find" you; otherwise if the spells ends. The DM has a lot of leeway to say if/how they find you if you hide (including various "common sense" options, especially out of combat), but a search action is one clear way. That doesn't apply to the spell.
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 Hide action specifically say line of sight and Perception.
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.
Correct. And you cannot be seen (because you are concealed) unless the condition ends. In the case of hiding, that happens if they "find" you; otherwise if the spells ends. The DM has a lot of leeway to say if/how they find you if you hide (including various "common sense" options, especially out of combat), but a search action is one clear way. That doesn't apply to the spell.
So once again if my stealth is a 30 and no one ever finds me, I would be walking around invisible all day presuming I don't make a noise)
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 Hide action specifically say line of sight and Perception.
Invisible (Condition): . . . -Unlike what the OP says, the fact that "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed" means you are. The word also is key here in showing that the target of the condition is, in fact, concealed. -That you are concealed no matter the conditions and that certain types of sight and spells allow their users to see through the Invisible condition clearly shows that even being within line of sight isn't enough to see something with the Invisible condition unless the circumstances break it (such as line of sight while using the Hide action).
Unfortunately, none of this is actually true or correct. The term "concealed" within the Invisible Condition has an explicit and exact definition which actually has nothing to do with actually being concealed. The fact that equipment is also "concealed" changes nothing, since you would need to just substitute in the definition for that word there.
For example, the statement: "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."
Can be rewritten as: "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying also isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen, unless the effect's creator can somehow see it."
None of that actually makes anything concealed in the way that people are thinking.
In fact, regardless of if there was any explicit statement which actually makes a creature invisible, the "concealed" effect technically does absolutely nothing because it simply restates general rules about seeing things. This entire effect should just be removed from the Condition.
It is my theory that a play tester made a suggestion along the lines of "Hey guys, that section of the Condition which states that the creature is concealed is redundant and can just be eliminated", and then the author of the Condition misinterpreted this advice and deleted the wrong thing! He erroneously deleted the statement that "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" instead of the Concealed effect, just due to a miscommunication at the 11th hour.
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.
Correct. And you cannot be seen (because you are concealed) unless the condition ends. In the case of hiding, that happens if they "find" you; otherwise if the spells ends. The DM has a lot of leeway to say if/how they find you if you hide (including various "common sense" options, especially out of combat), but a search action is one clear way. That doesn't apply to the spell.
So once again if my stealth is a 30 and no one ever finds me, I would be walking around invisible all day presuming I don't make a noise)
If they have no other way of finding you, sure. However, "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." and they can easily rule that you lose the condition walking around in front of alert/undistracted people.
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.
Nope, then hiding becomes broken. Which is presumably why it was removed.
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 get what you are saying, and your interpretation that only the initial stealth check matters in terms of "gaining" the condition, but not in "losing" it seems to be a popular one. However, I believe that the text does get there if read closely (of course, it should be tweaked to be made clearer). Pay special attention to the small words -- particularly the word "have". That word was chosen extremely intentionally in my opinion. The stealth check does not cause a creature to "gain" the condition. It does not cause the creature to "acquire" the condition. It does not cause the creature to become "afflicted by" the condition. Instead, you "have" the condition "on" a successful check (it's a temporary / conditional thing). So, if there is no successful check in existence, then you don't have it.
The key to all of this is the implicit (which used to be explicit) understanding that a stealth check persists and remains in effect only until you are no longer hidden. If multiple creatures are all rolling Perception checks in an effort to find you, you use that same stealth check for all of those until your stealth check ceases to exist (such as when you are found, or, implicitly, when you stop hiding).
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 Hide action specifically say line of sight and Perception.
And with WotC trying to trim wording on rules to remove what they considered "redundant", they only wrote what was enough to convey the implicit intention of the rules. I go back to the term "Good Faith Reading", because it signifies finding the meaning of what an author was trying to convey on a text. The book assumes you understand what most modern meaning of the words say, yet they also used academic language to convey their intent with the least amount of words possible.
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.
Nope, then hiding becomes broken. Which is presumably why it was removed.
It would be helpful if you explained yourself on that point because I strongly disagree with this. The solution that I've suggested above does not break hiding at all. It would all function quite well.
If you assume that you cannot be seen when hidden and you also assume that you are only hidden while you are hiding, then it would make perfect sense to say that a hidden creature is invisible while they are hidden. Because being invisible just means that you cannot be seen. There's nothing broken about that at all. In fact, it's the only solution that fixes this design without a complete overhaul.
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.
Nope, then hiding becomes broken. Which is presumably why it was removed.
It would be helpful if you explained yourself on that point because I strongly disagree with this. The solution that I've suggested above does not break hiding at all. It would all function quite well.
If you assume that you cannot be seen when hidden and you also assume that you are only hidden while you are hiding, then it would make perfect sense to say that a hidden creature is invisible while they are hidden. Because being invisible just means that you cannot be seen. There's nothing broken about that at all. In fact, it's the only solution that fixes this design without a complete overhaul.
Because now you made the Invisible condition gained from Hiding function essentially like an at-will Invisibility spell. That is what they mean. The line you want to add is what effectively will turn you transparent, and that is too potent for an action that has no cost involved. Sure, there are features that allow you to do at-will Invisibility like One with Shadows, but that has an Invocation tax.
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 get what you are saying, and your interpretation that only the initial stealth check matters in terms of "gaining" the condition, but not in "losing" it seems to be a popular one. However, I believe that the text does get there if read closely (of course, it should be tweaked to be made clearer). Pay special attention to the small words -- particularly the word "have". That word was chosen extremely intentionally in my opinion. The stealth check does not cause a creature to "gain" the condition. It does not cause the creature to "acquire" the condition. It does not cause the creature to become "afflicted by" the condition. Instead, you "have" the condition "on" a successful check (it's a temporary / conditional thing). So, if there is no successful check in existence, then you don't have it.
The key to all of this is the implicit (which used to be explicit) understanding that a stealth check persists and remains in effect only until you are no longer hidden. If multiple creatures are all rolling Perception checks in an effort to find you, you use that same stealth check for all of those until your stealth check ceases to exist (such as when you are found, or, implicitly, when you stop hiding).
Yeah I think the straight forward reading of the text only checks once to see if it's appropriate for hiding. I would need have/gain to be defined as game terms to see any difference in them.
Honestly I think we can all agree that hide and invisible should have remained separate.
And with WotC trying to trim wording on rules to remove what they considered "redundant", they only wrote what was enough to convey the implicit intention of the rules.
No, they removed non-redundant words and wrote less than what was needed to convey the intention of the rules. It wouldn't be terribly hard to write enough, it's a couple sentences, but what they've actually written is just unclear (the proof for which being the multiple threads that have come up debating it; if it was actually clear this thread wouldn't exist).
Because now you made the Invisible condition gained from Hiding function essentially like an at-will Invisibility spell. That is what they mean. The line you want to add is what effectively will turn you transparent, and that is too potent for an action that has no cost involved. Sure, there are features that allow you to do at-will Invisibility like One with Shadows, but that has an Invocation tax.
But that's what hiding is. If you assume that you only have the Condition while you are hidden then it's perfectly acceptable to think of a hidden creature as being an invisible creature. It's conceptually weird but mechanically it works, and this was the entire reason why the design team went in this direction in the first place.
Think of it this way. If you currently have no way to see a creature, does it matter at all if that creature is actually transparent or not? Why would it? It's sort of like the saying of if a tree falls in a forest and you are not anywhere near there, does it matter if the tree actually makes a noise? Can we assign the tree some sort of status or description which assumes that it makes a noise, even if we don't actually know if it does? But if we move into the tree's vicinity then it loses that status such that it would have to now actually make a noise.
If you go back to the 2014 rules, a hidden creature was always mechanically the same as an invisible creature and had the same benefits. In fact, hiding was even stronger than being invisible because it made the creature unseen AND unheard and therefore the location was unknown to other creatures. This is why an invisible creature was allowed to use an action to hide.
In 2014, the Invisible Condition made it so that a creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. Basically, it was unseen in plain sight. But not unheard. But it could attempt to hide in plain sight if an upgrade was desired. While unseen, creatures would have disadvantage to attack us. We would have advantage to attack that creature. Effects such as spells that required seeing the target were unable to target us.
Hiding meant unseen and unheard. Hiding was required to attempt to surprise another creature. While hidden (unseen and unheard), creatures would have disadvantage to attack us and they would also have to "guess the square". We would have advantage to attack creatures while hidden (because we were unseen when hidden). Effects such as spells that required seeing the target were unable to target us.
So, if you go back and review the 2014 rules, there is absolutely nothing broken about considering a hidden creature to be an invisible creature mechanically while they remain hidden. All of the same benefits apply. In fact, if 2014, being hidden was stronger than being invisible.
In the 2024 rules, they relaxed the requirement to surprise other creatures -- now you only have to be invisible (unable to be seen) instead of hidden (unseen and unheard). The other benefits all just apply to an unseen creature anyway, and hidden creatures (by definition) are unseen creatures. It also seems like in 2024 they might be doing away with the "unseen and unheard" concept for hiding, and therefore, instead of hiding being stronger than invisibility, it is basically equivalent to invisibility instead. And if that's the case, you might as well just use the same condition and call them both invisible.
Now, once again (this is super-duper important): This all only functions correctly if we have the understanding that a hidden creature is only hidden while they are hiding. That's incredibly important. This cannot be overemphasized, it's really very important. In the 2024 rules, this concept is not written very clearly -- it comes from the fact that there are a list of prerequisites given for what it means to become hidden and that the stealth roll that makes you hidden is persistent over time until it's no longer being used. In the past, it was more explicitly stated that the stealth check expires when you are found AND when you are no longer hiding. But that really should not have to be stated -- there are prerequisites for hiding and the stealth roll indicates how well hidden you are . . . that mechanic should be self-explanatory. The Hide Action goes out of its way to explain that you "have" the Condition [while you are hiding]. The wording should be tweaked so that this part of the mechanic is clearer and more explicit.
So, the way that all of that works is that a creature that is currently successfully hidden can be treated as an Invisible creature who (theoretically) is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". This IS TRUE while the creature is hidden! You definitely cannot see hidden creatures! But the trick is, as soon as you move into a position where you now have line of sight on that creature, that creature should simply be losing the Condition due to not meeting the prerequisites for hiding. Once that creature (instantly) no longer has the condition, you can now see that creature without needing any sort of magic or special senses.
The only thing that's actually missing in that entire design is a line within the Invisible Condition itself that says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". Without that line, none of this even remotely works at all because there is no such thing as an invisible creature without that line.
Now, once again (this is super-duper important): This all only functions correctly if we have the understanding that a hidden creature is only hidden while they are hiding. That's incredibly important. This cannot be overemphasized, it's really very important. In the 2024 rules, this concept is not written very clearly -- it comes from the fact that there are a list of prerequisites given for what it means to become hidden and that the stealth roll that makes you hidden is persistent over time until it's no longer being used. In the past, it was more explicitly stated that the stealth check expires when you are found AND when you are no longer hiding. But that really should not have to be stated -- there are prerequisites for hiding and the stealth roll indicates how well hidden you are . . . that mechanic should be self-explanatory. The Hide Action goes out of its way to explain that you "have" the Condition [while you are hiding]. The wording should be tweaked so that this part of the mechanic is clearer and more explicit.
So, the way that all of that works is that a creature that is currently successfully hidden can be treated as an Invisible creature who (theoretically) is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". This IS TRUE while the creature is hidden! You definitely cannot see hidden creatures! But the trick is, as soon as you move into a position where you now have line of sight on that creature, that creature should simply be losing the Condition due to not meeting the prerequisites for hiding. Once that creature (instantly) no longer has the condition, you can now see that creature without needing any sort of magic or special senses.
The only thing that's actually missing in that entire design is a line within the Invisible Condition itself that says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". Without that line, none of this even remotely works at all because there is no such thing as an invisible creature without that line.
Except that here's the problem with that interpretation: by definition, it becomes impossible to get sneak attack on a creature if being hidden from it is the only thing granting that sneak attack. You can roll a nat 20 stealth check to become "hidden," but as soon as you get line of sight, under your interpretation, you are no longer hidden and therefore can't get your sneak attack.
Now, once again (this is super-duper important): This all only functions correctly if we have the understanding that a hidden creature is only hidden while they are hiding. That's incredibly important. This cannot be overemphasized, it's really very important. In the 2024 rules, this concept is not written very clearly -- it comes from the fact that there are a list of prerequisites given for what it means to become hidden and that the stealth roll that makes you hidden is persistent over time until it's no longer being used. In the past, it was more explicitly stated that the stealth check expires when you are found AND when you are no longer hiding. But that really should not have to be stated -- there are prerequisites for hiding and the stealth roll indicates how well hidden you are . . . that mechanic should be self-explanatory. The Hide Action goes out of its way to explain that you "have" the Condition [while you are hiding]. The wording should be tweaked so that this part of the mechanic is clearer and more explicit.
So, the way that all of that works is that a creature that is currently successfully hidden can be treated as an Invisible creature who (theoretically) is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". This IS TRUE while the creature is hidden! You definitely cannot see hidden creatures! But the trick is, as soon as you move into a position where you now have line of sight on that creature, that creature should simply be losing the Condition due to not meeting the prerequisites for hiding. Once that creature (instantly) no longer has the condition, you can now see that creature without needing any sort of magic or special senses.
The only thing that's actually missing in that entire design is a line within the Invisible Condition itself that says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". Without that line, none of this even remotely works at all because there is no such thing as an invisible creature without that line.
Except that here's the problem with that interpretation: by definition, it becomes impossible to get sneak attack on a creature if being hidden from it is the only thing granting that sneak attack. You can roll a nat 20 stealth check to become "hidden," but as soon as you get line of sight, under your interpretation, you are no longer hidden and therefore can't get your sneak attack.
Does sneak attack not happen if you are within 5ft of any ally anymore?
As far as I'm aware in 2014 you do not get sneak attack from sneaking once you move out of cover.
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 disagree with this because adding ""An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." to the Invisible Condition would result in a rogue who successfully hides becoming "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
Hiding grants the Invisible Condition. In order to hide, a creature makes a stealth roll which must be higher than a DC 15. This number rolled becomes the DC for any search checks for a creature that is hiding.
IF a creature is hiding AND your proposed modification to the Invisible Condition was added then a "hidden" creature with a high enough stealth roll could walk through a crowd of people who were all searching for them and could not be seen (all they need is a high enough stealth roll which is easy enough for a rogue with expertise, high dex and reliable talent), even though there is nothing to hide behind and no cover, because the Invisible Condition made them impossible to see when all the rogue did was duck behind a tree to hide and then later step out into view ... but now tagged with the "Invisible Condition" from successfully hiding - which with your suggestion makes them impossible to see.
Personally, that is not how I will ever run hiding. In my opinion, hiding is a skill, a mundane ability that allows the creature to take advantage of cover to remain unnoticed. It doesn't make them "impossible to be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense". So, as long as WotC chooses to use the Invisible Condition for both the inivisibility spell AND the hidden condition, then, in my opinion, your suggested addition to the Invisible Condition makes no sense to me.
P.S. Your suggestion is fine if the Invisible Condition only applied to effects that actually made the affected creature invisible. Hiding does not make an affected creature invisible, it makes them hidden, so I don't agree with your suggested revision. :)
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 disagree with this because adding ""An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." to the Invisible Condition would result in a rogue who successfully hides becoming "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
Hiding grants the Invisible Condition. In order to hide, a creature makes a stealth roll which must be higher than a DC 15. This number rolled becomes the DC for any search checks for a creature that is hiding.
IF a creature is hiding AND your proposed modification to the Invisible Condition was added then a "hidden" creature with a high enough stealth roll could walk through a crowd of people who were all searching for them and could not be seen (all they need is a high enough stealth roll which is easy enough for a rogue with expertise, high dex and reliable talent), even though there is nothing to hide behind and no cover, because the Invisible Condition made them impossible to see when all the rogue did was duck behind a tree to hide and then later step out into view ... but now tagged with the "Invisible Condition" from successfully hiding - which with your suggestion makes them impossible to see.
Personally, that is not how I will ever run hiding. In my opinion, hiding is a skill, a mundane ability that allows the creature to take advantage of cover to remain unnoticed. It doesn't make them "impossible to be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense". So, as long as WotC chooses to use the Invisible Condition for both the inivisibility spell AND the hidden condition, then, in my opinion, your suggested addition to the Invisible Condition makes no sense to me.
P.S. Your suggestion is fine if the Invisible Condition only applied to effects that actually made the affected creature invisible. Hiding does not make an affected creature invisible, it makes them hidden, so I don't agree with your suggested revision. :)
It looks like you missed a lot of what I said in my previous post, especially the "super-duper important" parts.
As for my suggestion resulting in a rogue who successfully hides becoming "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" . . . YES, exactly! This IS TRUE of hidden creatures! It was true in 2014 and it should still be true in 2024. You can't see a hidden creature who is hiding. That's the whole point of hiding. You would need a special sense to do so. The critical point here is that the creature is actually hiding!
As for the argument that "IF a creature is hiding AND your proposed modification to the Invisible Condition was added then a "hidden" creature with a high enough stealth roll could walk through a crowd of people who were all searching for them and could not be seen" . . . that's where you've missed the super-duper important part.
This really is VERY important. This new system doesn't work at all otherwise. This entire system only functions correctly if we have the understanding that a hidden creature is only hidden while they are hiding. What I've just said there probably deserves a Font Size of 100 but I find it obnoxious when people do that, so I won't use that tool to emphasize the point. But it really does need to be emphasized. It's incredibly important.
When you use the phrase "but now tagged with the "Invisible Condition" from successfully hiding" that seems to indicate to me that you believe that this is a permanent and unconditional acquisition of the Condition. I disagree extremely strongly with that. The particular way that that section is written was extremely intentional. You do not "gain" the condition or "acquire" the condition or "become afflicted with" the Condition. Instead, you "have" the condition "on" a successful check. It's both temporary and conditional on the existence of a successful check. The check provides an ongoing indicator for how well hidden you are while you are hiding. In other words, there are prerequisites that must be in place to attempt to hide. These prerequisites are what allows you to become concealed enough to try to hide in the first place. The stealth check that you make persists through time, so that check only relates to how well hidden you are while these prerequisites remain in place. Nothing else makes any sense for how the stealth checks function. Implicitly, that check no longer exists if you stop hiding. If you make a stealth check and hide for a while . . . then you stop hiding and you spend several weeks doing other things, and then you decide that you want to Hide again . . . you must roll a new stealth check. That other stealth check does not apply to this new effort and in fact it ceased to exist weeks ago. While there is no active stealth check in existence it is impossible to have the Condition via the Hiding mechanic. That's because the Hide Action makes a point to write that mechanic in a very specific way: you "have" the condition "on" a successful check. This is just another way of saying that as long as you remain successfully hidden (because the same stealth check is still active) then you have the Condition. The use of the word "have" here is very important in discerning the proper meaning.
As a consequence of this hiding mechanic, if I move my position so that I now have line of sight on you then you are no longer hidden (because the prerequisites are no longer met), which causes your stealth check to expire and therefore you no longer have the Condition. Because of that, I can now see you without magic or special senses. If instead you have the Condition as a consequence of the Invisibility spell, then you would not lose the Condition in this way because it is not tied to a successful ongoing stealth check. In that case, even if I moved right in front of you I would not be able to see you (assuming that the Condition were fixed to actually make a creature invisible).
Although it's all a bit clunky and unclear, this design really should function. They just forgot to define the Invisible Condition as something that causes invisibility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Correct. And you cannot be seen (because you are concealed) unless the condition ends. In the case of hiding, that happens if they "find" you; otherwise if the spells ends. The DM has a lot of leeway to say if/how they find you if you hide (including various "common sense" options, especially out of combat), but a search action is one clear way. That doesn't apply to the spell.
The Hide action specifically say line of sight and Perception.
The invisibility spell doesn't.
So once again if my stealth is a 30 and no one ever finds me, I would be walking around invisible all day presuming I don't make a noise)
It only says that you have to make the stealth check while you are out of line of sight, not that line of sight ends the condition.
Line of sight is required to start the condition, but it is not listed as something that ends the condition.
Unfortunately, none of this is actually true or correct. The term "concealed" within the Invisible Condition has an explicit and exact definition which actually has nothing to do with actually being concealed. The fact that equipment is also "concealed" changes nothing, since you would need to just substitute in the definition for that word there.
For example, the statement: "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed."
Can be rewritten as: "Any equipment you are wearing or carrying also isn't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen, unless the effect's creator can somehow see it."
None of that actually makes anything concealed in the way that people are thinking.
In fact, regardless of if there was any explicit statement which actually makes a creature invisible, the "concealed" effect technically does absolutely nothing because it simply restates general rules about seeing things. This entire effect should just be removed from the Condition.
It is my theory that a play tester made a suggestion along the lines of "Hey guys, that section of the Condition which states that the creature is concealed is redundant and can just be eliminated", and then the author of the Condition misinterpreted this advice and deleted the wrong thing! He erroneously deleted the statement that "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" instead of the Concealed effect, just due to a miscommunication at the 11th hour.
If they have no other way of finding you, sure. However, "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." and they can easily rule that you lose the condition walking around in front of alert/undistracted people.
Nope, then hiding becomes broken. Which is presumably why it was removed.
I get what you are saying, and your interpretation that only the initial stealth check matters in terms of "gaining" the condition, but not in "losing" it seems to be a popular one. However, I believe that the text does get there if read closely (of course, it should be tweaked to be made clearer). Pay special attention to the small words -- particularly the word "have". That word was chosen extremely intentionally in my opinion. The stealth check does not cause a creature to "gain" the condition. It does not cause the creature to "acquire" the condition. It does not cause the creature to become "afflicted by" the condition. Instead, you "have" the condition "on" a successful check (it's a temporary / conditional thing). So, if there is no successful check in existence, then you don't have it.
The key to all of this is the implicit (which used to be explicit) understanding that a stealth check persists and remains in effect only until you are no longer hidden. If multiple creatures are all rolling Perception checks in an effort to find you, you use that same stealth check for all of those until your stealth check ceases to exist (such as when you are found, or, implicitly, when you stop hiding).
All of which is not said for the spell, which was the point i was making.
What does/doesn't prevent stealth is a different subject of discussion, this thread is specifically about invisibility.
The problem is that the two are connected, because without additional verbiage anything you do to fix one breaks the other.
And with WotC trying to trim wording on rules to remove what they considered "redundant", they only wrote what was enough to convey the implicit intention of the rules. I go back to the term "Good Faith Reading", because it signifies finding the meaning of what an author was trying to convey on a text. The book assumes you understand what most modern meaning of the words say, yet they also used academic language to convey their intent with the least amount of words possible.
It would be helpful if you explained yourself on that point because I strongly disagree with this. The solution that I've suggested above does not break hiding at all. It would all function quite well.
If you assume that you cannot be seen when hidden and you also assume that you are only hidden while you are hiding, then it would make perfect sense to say that a hidden creature is invisible while they are hidden. Because being invisible just means that you cannot be seen. There's nothing broken about that at all. In fact, it's the only solution that fixes this design without a complete overhaul.
Because now you made the Invisible condition gained from Hiding function essentially like an at-will Invisibility spell. That is what they mean. The line you want to add is what effectively will turn you transparent, and that is too potent for an action that has no cost involved. Sure, there are features that allow you to do at-will Invisibility like One with Shadows, but that has an Invocation tax.
Yeah I think the straight forward reading of the text only checks once to see if it's appropriate for hiding. I would need have/gain to be defined as game terms to see any difference in them.
Honestly I think we can all agree that hide and invisible should have remained separate.
No, they removed non-redundant words and wrote less than what was needed to convey the intention of the rules. It wouldn't be terribly hard to write enough, it's a couple sentences, but what they've actually written is just unclear (the proof for which being the multiple threads that have come up debating it; if it was actually clear this thread wouldn't exist).
But that's what hiding is. If you assume that you only have the Condition while you are hidden then it's perfectly acceptable to think of a hidden creature as being an invisible creature. It's conceptually weird but mechanically it works, and this was the entire reason why the design team went in this direction in the first place.
Think of it this way. If you currently have no way to see a creature, does it matter at all if that creature is actually transparent or not? Why would it? It's sort of like the saying of if a tree falls in a forest and you are not anywhere near there, does it matter if the tree actually makes a noise? Can we assign the tree some sort of status or description which assumes that it makes a noise, even if we don't actually know if it does? But if we move into the tree's vicinity then it loses that status such that it would have to now actually make a noise.
If you go back to the 2014 rules, a hidden creature was always mechanically the same as an invisible creature and had the same benefits. In fact, hiding was even stronger than being invisible because it made the creature unseen AND unheard and therefore the location was unknown to other creatures. This is why an invisible creature was allowed to use an action to hide.
In 2014, the Invisible Condition made it so that a creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. Basically, it was unseen in plain sight. But not unheard. But it could attempt to hide in plain sight if an upgrade was desired. While unseen, creatures would have disadvantage to attack us. We would have advantage to attack that creature. Effects such as spells that required seeing the target were unable to target us.
Hiding meant unseen and unheard. Hiding was required to attempt to surprise another creature. While hidden (unseen and unheard), creatures would have disadvantage to attack us and they would also have to "guess the square". We would have advantage to attack creatures while hidden (because we were unseen when hidden). Effects such as spells that required seeing the target were unable to target us.
So, if you go back and review the 2014 rules, there is absolutely nothing broken about considering a hidden creature to be an invisible creature mechanically while they remain hidden. All of the same benefits apply. In fact, if 2014, being hidden was stronger than being invisible.
In the 2024 rules, they relaxed the requirement to surprise other creatures -- now you only have to be invisible (unable to be seen) instead of hidden (unseen and unheard). The other benefits all just apply to an unseen creature anyway, and hidden creatures (by definition) are unseen creatures. It also seems like in 2024 they might be doing away with the "unseen and unheard" concept for hiding, and therefore, instead of hiding being stronger than invisibility, it is basically equivalent to invisibility instead. And if that's the case, you might as well just use the same condition and call them both invisible.
Now, once again (this is super-duper important): This all only functions correctly if we have the understanding that a hidden creature is only hidden while they are hiding. That's incredibly important. This cannot be overemphasized, it's really very important. In the 2024 rules, this concept is not written very clearly -- it comes from the fact that there are a list of prerequisites given for what it means to become hidden and that the stealth roll that makes you hidden is persistent over time until it's no longer being used. In the past, it was more explicitly stated that the stealth check expires when you are found AND when you are no longer hiding. But that really should not have to be stated -- there are prerequisites for hiding and the stealth roll indicates how well hidden you are . . . that mechanic should be self-explanatory. The Hide Action goes out of its way to explain that you "have" the Condition [while you are hiding]. The wording should be tweaked so that this part of the mechanic is clearer and more explicit.
So, the way that all of that works is that a creature that is currently successfully hidden can be treated as an Invisible creature who (theoretically) is "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". This IS TRUE while the creature is hidden! You definitely cannot see hidden creatures! But the trick is, as soon as you move into a position where you now have line of sight on that creature, that creature should simply be losing the Condition due to not meeting the prerequisites for hiding. Once that creature (instantly) no longer has the condition, you can now see that creature without needing any sort of magic or special senses.
The only thing that's actually missing in that entire design is a line within the Invisible Condition itself that says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense". Without that line, none of this even remotely works at all because there is no such thing as an invisible creature without that line.
Except that here's the problem with that interpretation: by definition, it becomes impossible to get sneak attack on a creature if being hidden from it is the only thing granting that sneak attack. You can roll a nat 20 stealth check to become "hidden," but as soon as you get line of sight, under your interpretation, you are no longer hidden and therefore can't get your sneak attack.
Does sneak attack not happen if you are within 5ft of any ally anymore?
As far as I'm aware in 2014 you do not get sneak attack from sneaking once you move out of cover.
I disagree with this because adding ""An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." to the Invisible Condition would result in a rogue who successfully hides becoming "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense."
Hiding grants the Invisible Condition. In order to hide, a creature makes a stealth roll which must be higher than a DC 15. This number rolled becomes the DC for any search checks for a creature that is hiding.
IF a creature is hiding AND your proposed modification to the Invisible Condition was added then a "hidden" creature with a high enough stealth roll could walk through a crowd of people who were all searching for them and could not be seen (all they need is a high enough stealth roll which is easy enough for a rogue with expertise, high dex and reliable talent), even though there is nothing to hide behind and no cover, because the Invisible Condition made them impossible to see when all the rogue did was duck behind a tree to hide and then later step out into view ... but now tagged with the "Invisible Condition" from successfully hiding - which with your suggestion makes them impossible to see.
Personally, that is not how I will ever run hiding. In my opinion, hiding is a skill, a mundane ability that allows the creature to take advantage of cover to remain unnoticed. It doesn't make them "impossible to be seen without the aid of magic or a special sense". So, as long as WotC chooses to use the Invisible Condition for both the inivisibility spell AND the hidden condition, then, in my opinion, your suggested addition to the Invisible Condition makes no sense to me.
P.S. Your suggestion is fine if the Invisible Condition only applied to effects that actually made the affected creature invisible. Hiding does not make an affected creature invisible, it makes them hidden, so I don't agree with your suggested revision. :)
It looks like you missed a lot of what I said in my previous post, especially the "super-duper important" parts.
As for my suggestion resulting in a rogue who successfully hides becoming "impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense" . . . YES, exactly! This IS TRUE of hidden creatures! It was true in 2014 and it should still be true in 2024. You can't see a hidden creature who is hiding. That's the whole point of hiding. You would need a special sense to do so. The critical point here is that the creature is actually hiding!
As for the argument that "IF a creature is hiding AND your proposed modification to the Invisible Condition was added then a "hidden" creature with a high enough stealth roll could walk through a crowd of people who were all searching for them and could not be seen" . . . that's where you've missed the super-duper important part.
This really is VERY important. This new system doesn't work at all otherwise. This entire system only functions correctly if we have the understanding that a hidden creature is only hidden while they are hiding. What I've just said there probably deserves a Font Size of 100 but I find it obnoxious when people do that, so I won't use that tool to emphasize the point. But it really does need to be emphasized. It's incredibly important.
When you use the phrase "but now tagged with the "Invisible Condition" from successfully hiding" that seems to indicate to me that you believe that this is a permanent and unconditional acquisition of the Condition. I disagree extremely strongly with that. The particular way that that section is written was extremely intentional. You do not "gain" the condition or "acquire" the condition or "become afflicted with" the Condition. Instead, you "have" the condition "on" a successful check. It's both temporary and conditional on the existence of a successful check. The check provides an ongoing indicator for how well hidden you are while you are hiding. In other words, there are prerequisites that must be in place to attempt to hide. These prerequisites are what allows you to become concealed enough to try to hide in the first place. The stealth check that you make persists through time, so that check only relates to how well hidden you are while these prerequisites remain in place. Nothing else makes any sense for how the stealth checks function. Implicitly, that check no longer exists if you stop hiding. If you make a stealth check and hide for a while . . . then you stop hiding and you spend several weeks doing other things, and then you decide that you want to Hide again . . . you must roll a new stealth check. That other stealth check does not apply to this new effort and in fact it ceased to exist weeks ago. While there is no active stealth check in existence it is impossible to have the Condition via the Hiding mechanic. That's because the Hide Action makes a point to write that mechanic in a very specific way: you "have" the condition "on" a successful check. This is just another way of saying that as long as you remain successfully hidden (because the same stealth check is still active) then you have the Condition. The use of the word "have" here is very important in discerning the proper meaning.
As a consequence of this hiding mechanic, if I move my position so that I now have line of sight on you then you are no longer hidden (because the prerequisites are no longer met), which causes your stealth check to expire and therefore you no longer have the Condition. Because of that, I can now see you without magic or special senses. If instead you have the Condition as a consequence of the Invisibility spell, then you would not lose the Condition in this way because it is not tied to a successful ongoing stealth check. In that case, even if I moved right in front of you I would not be able to see you (assuming that the Condition were fixed to actually make a creature invisible).
Although it's all a bit clunky and unclear, this design really should function. They just forgot to define the Invisible Condition as something that causes invisibility.