Invisible (only when people can't see you anyway) is worthless. If hiding doesn't allow you to remain unseen when you would otherwise be seen, it has no purpose. And with any ability that sees invisible, that's what hiding does.
Honestly, I think the current Hiding rules + Senses + (EDIT:) Invisible condition need a DM to fill in the gaps. RAW, there are some holes each DM ends up adapting for their table.
And I'm not saying that's good or bad, just how I think they are now without extra clarifications, errata or an updated SAC.
If they are behind total cover you can't see them. It is not about them being invisible or visible. But as soon as they pop out of cover to do something they would not be invisible. Even if you fall on the you need a search check to find them side of this discussion, the invisibility is broken as soon as they break cover with see invisible. I assume even the most stringent reading of hiding would normally allow them to pop out to 3/4 cover and fire off a shot before invisibility/hide is broken, well with see invisible their invisible condition would break as soon as they popped out and before the shot was fired. That is a solid buff to a 2nd level spell as hidden/invisible enemies imo are a lot more common than magically invisible enemies.
I don't think that's a good interpretation. See Invisible doesn't tell you where to look. "Hidden" means they don't know where you are; if you just ducked behind cover and they know damn well where you are, you aren't hidden (so "there's only one tree to hide behind and everyone is watching" is a fine example for "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding").
If you believe you can maintain the hidden-invisible condition after leaving cover (as I do), it's because you are using your Stealth skills to stay out of the "view arc" of all the bad guys. The reason you are "invisible" is because they aren't looking at you (ever seen Mystery Men?). See Invisible (and Truesight) do not extend your view arc. Blindsight does, within its usually-limited range, and Tremorsense does, within its range and same-surface limitation.
In combat, See Invisible would not grant auto-success on Search actions, nor would it grant a bonus (or auto-success) to Passive Perception. It would not let you auto-find hidden people. It would let you qualify as seeing invisible-but-not-hidden people, which negates most-but-not-all of the invisible condition.
It would negate the entire invisible condition assuming the DM says they are in line of sight. As sure, you can still be behind them or something assuming your DM uses line of sight/facing concepts which 2024 is silent on in either direction. It is why the simplicity of making it the invisible condition seems off to me, as a spell that counters invisibility counters this as well and fairly explicitly. I am not sure how else to parse, "For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible," I don't assume you are 100% behind them or something while you keep hiding after leaving cover, I assume their focus is maybe on the barbarian in front of them, or you are in the corner of their eye or something and you move stealthily enough that you don't draw their attention and still have the invisible condition and are not seen. But with the spell you still see them as to them you are visible. Sure there can be circumstances where the DM would say they would have 0 chance of seeing you, you maintain invisibility as you are moving quietly enough not to attract their attention. But outside that it would seem to me that see invisible would counter it. I don't think that is a good rule, and I probably wont run it that way and before anyone takes the spell I'll let them know that, but it seems to be designed that way to me.
Honestly, I think the current Hiding rules + Senses + (EDIT:) Invisible condition need a DM to fill in the gaps. RAW, there are some holes each DM ends up adapting for their table.
And I'm not saying that's good or bad, just how I think they are now without extra clarifications, errata or an updated SAC.
This thread is a proof of that.
You are absolutely correct. Part of the reason I made the thread in the first place was to see if anyone had heard of clarifications from the design team that I had missed. Sadly, they don't seem to have given any yet.
Slightly off topic, but I hope they release an errata document -or at least a statement about one- sooner rather than later, since they've already made changes to the digital versions of the books. I'd like some kind of official changelog so I don't have scan every inch of text for unannounced updates, lol.
#4 Same as #2 but also uses passive perception. Removes the sillier stuff. Creatures that are generally aware or actively looking can spot hiders who come out of cover, creatures with poor general awareness and not actively looking don't. Simple. Makes sense. Maps to reality really well. Is in line with the rules.
Seems a no brainer.
I do think that's a step in the right direction, though I'll say that 15 is above the passive perception of nearly all the current (2014) humanoid NPCs, so I'm not certain it's the best solution. In most intrigue situations it still allows just about every one of the silly abuse cases.
For example, a Guard (2014 basic rules) only has a passive perception of 12. A trained member of the city watch... Who still might not see you if you were standing directly in front of them.
He'd see you if you were right in front of him. That's the whole point of the Stealth V Perception check, to see if he is observant enough, or you un-stealthy enough, for him to catch sight of you in front of him. If you succeed your check, you are stealthy enough to NOT get caught in front of him.
It'd just play out like you sneaking up behind him where he isn't looking.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, I think the current Hiding rules + Senses + (EDIT:) Invisible condition need a DM to fill in the gaps. RAW, there are some holes each DM ends up adapting for their table.
And I'm not saying that's good or bad, just how I think they are now without extra clarifications, errata or an updated SAC.
This thread is a proof of that.
It would negate the entire invisible condition assuming the DM says they are in line of sight. As sure, you can still be behind them or something assuming your DM uses line of sight/facing concepts which 2024 is silent on in either direction. It is why the simplicity of making it the invisible condition seems off to me, as a spell that counters invisibility counters this as well and fairly explicitly. I am not sure how else to parse, "For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible," I don't assume you are 100% behind them or something while you keep hiding after leaving cover, I assume their focus is maybe on the barbarian in front of them, or you are in the corner of their eye or something and you move stealthily enough that you don't draw their attention and still have the invisible condition and are not seen. But with the spell you still see them as to them you are visible. Sure there can be circumstances where the DM would say they would have 0 chance of seeing you, you maintain invisibility as you are moving quietly enough not to attract their attention. But outside that it would seem to me that see invisible would counter it. I don't think that is a good rule, and I probably wont run it that way and before anyone takes the spell I'll let them know that, but it seems to be designed that way to me.
You are absolutely correct. Part of the reason I made the thread in the first place was to see if anyone had heard of clarifications from the design team that I had missed. Sadly, they don't seem to have given any yet.
Slightly off topic, but I hope they release an errata document -or at least a statement about one- sooner rather than later, since they've already made changes to the digital versions of the books. I'd like some kind of official changelog so I don't have scan every inch of text for unannounced updates, lol.
He'd see you if you were right in front of him. That's the whole point of the Stealth V Perception check, to see if he is observant enough, or you un-stealthy enough, for him to catch sight of you in front of him.
If you succeed your check, you are stealthy enough to NOT get caught in front of him.
It'd just play out like you sneaking up behind him where he isn't looking.
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.