I will point out that if the designers did not wish See Invisibility to spot characters using Stealth it would have been very easy for them to do so and simply include that in the text of the spell (look at True Seeing which explicitly states that it only sees through magical disguises, making it clear that the spell does not pierce the use of the Disguise kit).
This is a case where I truly do not care what the RAI is. I used the word 'should' for a reason
See Invisibility should not help you spot someone who's merely hiding. That's utterly stupid
And you are absolutely free to houserule that way. I do not in any way, shape, or form mean to imply you are not.
However, when we discuss 'the rules' you need to remember that that is a houserule. It is neither RAW or RAI (or at least you do not care if it is RAI).
That is not to say that your houserules have no place in discussions about rules. They absolutely do. Just as we talk about things such as the interpretations of how True Strike functions (e.g., saying 'my interpretation is X'), stating 'I really hate that the rules lead to this and so houserule differently' is a completely valid point to make.
We just need to remember (myself included) when we are making such statements to try and make it clear that we are stating opinions, interpretations, and houserules rather than making it sound as though 'the rules say X'.
As you yourself point out, "perception rolls to see the character automatically fail" does not exist in 2024.
And you have to either retcon it back in, or render invisibility from effects other than hide totally nonsensical because invisibility is negated if the observer can 'somehow see' the invisible creature, and if you don't assume there's anything to the invisible condition preventing them from being seen, they just get seen and invisibility has no effect.
I will agree that there probably should be a fourth effect to the condition, something along the lines of 'Perception rolls to see the character automatically fail (baring mitigating situations)'. Standing out in the open like a goober after taking the Hide action could then be one of those mitigating situations (along with things like heavy fog, soft sand, standing in a waterfall, etc.).
I will point out that if the designers did not wish See Invisibility to spot characters using Stealth it would have been very easy for them to do so and simply include that in the text of the spell (look at True Seeing which explicitly states that it only sees through magical disguises, making it clear that the spell does not pierce the use of the Disguise kit).
This is a case where I truly do not care what the RAI is. I used the word 'should' for a reason
See Invisibility should not help you spot someone who's merely hiding. That's utterly stupid
And you are absolutely free to houserule that way. I do not in any way, shape, or form mean to imply you are not.
However, when we discuss 'the rules' you need to remember that that is a houserule. It is neither RAW or RAI (or at least you do not care if it is RAI).
That is not to say that your houserules have no place in discussions about rules. They absolutely do. Just as we talk about things such as the interpretations of how True Strike functions (e.g., saying 'my interpretation is X'), stating 'I really hate that the rules lead to this and so houserule differently' is a completely valid point to make.
We just need to remember (myself included) when we are making such statements to try and make it clear that we are stating opinions, interpretations, and houserules rather than making it sound as though 'the rules say X'.
The issue here is that you effectively have to houserule because what’s printed for Hide and Invisible do not create an intuitive or readily comprehensible whole.
No, you don't need to houserule it that way at all. You can just say that See Invisibility spots characters who use the Hide ability and who do not have complete cover, just as the spell description indicates.
See Invisibility is just the name of the spell. Just as True Strike does not mean that the attack automatically 'strikes true' the name See Invisibility is more of a generalization that the specific effect and limitations of the spell.
You houserule it that way because you don't want See Invisibility to be able to spot characters using Stealth, but that is your choice and the game remains completely playable without such a houserule (unless the DM gives everything a constant See Invisibility/Truesight ability).
No, you don't need to houserule it that way at all. You can just say that See Invisibility spots characters who use the Hide ability and who do not have complete cover, just as the spell description indicates.
The problem isn't with see invisibility (it's kind of dumb that it defeats stealth, as it never did that before and that's overtuned for a second level spell, but it's not actually unworkable). The problem is that people can't even agree on what hiding does (there are related problems with other parts of the perception rules, but in most cases it's clear what was intended even if the rules are badly written).
No, you don't need to houserule it that way at all. You can just say that See Invisibility spots characters who use the Hide ability and who do not have complete cover, just as the spell description indicates.
The problem isn't with see invisibility (it's kind of dumb that it defeats stealth, as it never did that before and that's overtuned for a second level spell, but it's not actually unworkable). The problem is that people can't even agree on what hiding does (there are related problems with other parts of the perception rules, but in most cases it's clear what was intended even if the rules are badly written).
I honestly can't understand why there is so much argument as to what the Hide action does. It gives you a Condition that has a certain set of rules (someone blind attacking you has Disadvantage. Certain spells cannot affect you. You gain Advantage on Initiative rolls) and a certain set of circumstances in which you lose that Condition (if you get spotted, if you make too much noise, if you attack, etc.).
There appears to be exactly one part of that which could use clarification; being spotted. I will agree that there could be better definition there, but to me it would seem to be either A) someone makes a Perception Check and it is reasonable that they perceive you (e.g., you are not behind full cover) or B) you move into a situation where it is unreasonable that they would not spot you (e.g., you have to approach two guards standing in front of a door down a well lit corridor with insufficient cover).
People who want to maintain that it takes a Search action for the Perception check and those who want to say that you can use it in situations where it is unreasonable that the character wouldn't be spotted appear (at least in my opinion) to be trying to increase the ability of Stealth and the Hide action in ways that are unsupported.
Yes, there will be disagreement between people as to exactly what constitutes 'unreasonable that they would not spot you' and again, that could be better detailed (if I rush from my hiding location in the middle of combat to stab someone, is it unreasonable that they do not spot me or should they have to make a Perception check?), but we are getting into areas that have way, way too many variables (how many people are attacking the target, what is the lighting like, how am I approaching the target relative to the direction we can expect them to be facing, etc.) and which are the whole reason that we have DMs.
Now, I have become convinced that there could be some additional information added to the Condition which would be good for things such as the Invisibility spell, but that's not an issue with the Hide action and Stealth.
There is nothing in the Unseen Attackers and Targets section that supports your interpretation. Essentially you're trying to argue that all characters have an improved version of Tremorsense and Tremorsense itself is useless.
"When you make an attack roll against a target you can’t see, you have Disadvantage on the roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see." This indicates an either-or: you only have to guess at a creature's location if you can neither see nor hear it.
In both cases, you have to apply the entire paragraph. This means you have Disadvantage on the attack roll and if you don't target the correct space, you automatically miss for both cases - not just one.
If there was a rule for targeting via hearing, there would be a rule for targeting via hearing. There is not. Everything that allows you to directly target an opponent is based on various forms of sight or explicitly calls out the exception (such as Tremorsense).
This is wrong.
The default is that all forms of targeting are possible via hearing alone unless the text explicitly requires sight. When it comes to the general rules for making an attack, sight is never a requirement. However, when you cannot see your target, you have disadvantage. That's it. You can still pinpoint the location of your target and you can directly target that target with your attack without guessing. This is reinforced in many places throughout the rules. For example, the Blinded condition:
While you have the Blinded condition, you experience the following effects.
Can’t See. You can’t see and automatically fail any ability check that requires sight.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Advantage, and your attack rolls have Disadvantage.
Nothing there requires you to guess the square if you have the Blinded condition. You can directly target an enemy as normal in order to make an attack against them. But your attack has disadvantage, that's all.
The actual text: "Concealed. You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.". It's not just spells. It's anything that would require sight - including locating/noticing you. So while it could have potentially been written more clearly, 'Invisible' does actually make you Invisible.
It actually doesn't since that clause only pertains to (created) effects that would affect you. Being seen by someone is not an effect that affects you.
However, in my opinion this point is generally beyond the scope of any discussion about hiding since we all usually start the discussion at a baseline that assumes that the Invisible condition actually makes a creature invisible (and we assume that this will eventually be corrected via errata). If we cannot make this assumption, then pretty much all of the mechanics that were written for hiding become a lot less intuitive. However, as esampson points out with his "Condition 3" example, it still does all sort of work out even if we assume that under the 2024 ruleset there is no longer any such thing as the classic concept of invisibility in existence.
Claiming that Hide trumps unobscured LoS is counterintuitive to existing 5e experience, largely negates the value of the Invisibility spell, and requires extrapolating from negative space that clear LoS is insufficient to meet the “an enemy finds you” criteria on the combat map.
The 2024 ruleset definitely made a clear and conscious change which now includes the possibility that three-quarters cover is good enough to become hidden and maintain being hidden in cases where the DM decides that no one notices you there in that moment just before hiding and if the value of the Stealth roll is high enough. I agree with you that this was not a great way to change things, but it's explicitly written that it works that way now in the RAW. My hunch is that the intention of this change was to allow an actual method for making an attack from a hidden position since you really cannot attack from behind total cover and this was always a problem with how the 2014 rules were written.
Nor is there the confusion with finding someone. You need some form of sight or effect that mimics sight to locate an enemy. This is not absent from the rules but laid out all across the rules.
This is totally incorrect. A Perception check involves "a combination of senses". In D&D 5e, hearing a creature is enough to pinpoint its exact location.
. . . so by RAW alone you have no proof that a character is ever able to be aware of something without making a Search Action. . .
Yes there is. Passive Perception. That is explicitly included to show that characters (especially those with high Perception) can notice things people might have trouble finding without making a Search action.
And we have no RAW for applying that to general awareness . . .
. . . Huh?
Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature’s general awareness of its surroundings.
See Invisibility should not help you spot someone who's merely hiding. That's utterly stupid
In my opinion it's pretty reasonable for this spell to be able to help with spotting a hidden creature that is hiding "only" behind three-quarters cover since there is Line of Sight on that creature. Even an actually invisible creature would not be detected by that spell if located in total Darkness or behind total cover anyway, so this three-quarters cover scenario is really the only relevant case.
As you yourself point out, "perception rolls to see the character automatically fail" does not exist in 2024.
And you have to either retcon it back in, or render invisibility from effects other than hide totally nonsensical because invisibility is negated if the observer can 'somehow see' the invisible creature, and if you don't assume there's anything to the invisible condition preventing them from being seen, they just get seen and invisibility has no effect.
Yep, this is absolutely true and it's honestly pretty shocking that we have not received errata on this yet. The entire playing community really wants the Invisible condition to mean that a creature with that condition cannot be seen. Now that the Hide action has received errata such that hidden creatures only have the condition "while hidden" it would not break anything to put this obvious detail back into the Invisible condition itself.
One small thing about this -- seeing an Invisible creature would not negate the entire Condition (the effect which granted the condition defines the ways in which it can be negated), but it would render the "Concealed" and "Attacks Affected" clauses ineffective. The "Surprise" clause would still be functional. As such, since two of the three clauses do not work correctly as written, this condition is very clearly broken and needs errata immediately.
In my opinion, for the purposes of these discussions which discuss the concepts of hiding, as a starting point we should all try to operate under the assumption that the Invisible condition does actually prevent a creature with that condition from being seen, even though that's not yet what it says.
The default is that all forms of targeting are possible via hearing alone unless the text explicitly requires sight.
This 'default' appears nowhere in the rules. Sight (and the variations thereof) is the only sense that is ever mentioned as permitting you to locate a target.
Nor does it make any sense from a 'realism' standpoint. While senses like hearing or smell may alert you, human beings cannot track or localize very effectively with these senses. That's why when you hear a loud noise, you look to determine where it came from rather than automatically being able to pinpoint it.
This 'default' appears nowhere in the rules. Sight (and the variations thereof) is the only sense that is ever mentioned as permitting you to locate a target.
"This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see" is a binary choice -- either you can hear the target or you're guessing at its position.
This 'default' appears nowhere in the rules. Sight (and the variations thereof) is the only sense that is ever mentioned as permitting you to locate a target.
"This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see" is a binary choice -- either you can hear the target or you're guessing at its position.
Nothing in that sentence states or implies that hearing allows you to automatically know the target's position. The final line is explicit about this: If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss. You're actually citing a paragraph that reinforces the idea - riddled through the entirety of the text - that sight is, in the absence of special abilities that explicit permit locating a target, necessary for the task. Indeed, the heading on the sidebar should clue you in that you're engaged in a bad faith interpretation of rules: "Unseen Attackers and Targets". If the enemy is unseen, you need to apply the entire text - not just cherry-pick portions of it.
Not even getting into the fact that humans can learn to echolocate (and that nothing says the more "fantastical" species can't do it even better), the text quoted says "target a creature" not "target the space where you think a creature is". What about players that don't play with a grid? How does a character who is suddenly blind even begin to target a "space"?
There is nothing in the Unseen Attackers and Targets section that supports your interpretation. Essentially you're trying to argue that all characters have an improved version of Tremorsense and Tremorsense itself is useless.
"When you make an attack roll against a target you can’t see, you have Disadvantage on the roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see." This indicates an either-or: you only have to guess at a creature's location if you can neither see nor hear it.
In both cases, you have to apply the entire paragraph. This means you have Disadvantage on the attack roll and if you don't target the correct space, you automatically miss for both cases - not just one.
If there was a rule for targeting via hearing, there would be a rule for targeting via hearing. There is not. Everything that allows you to directly target an opponent is based on various forms of sight or explicitly calls out the exception (such as Tremorsense).
This is one of those areas where again they should have been clearer. You can read targeting via hearing to either require a perception check or to be automatic, they don't explain it or give a indication what was intended.
Generally I assume a DM will be determining whether they think it making no sense whatsoever someone can automatically pinpoint locate people at 50 feet by sound alone is more important than a gameplay balance concerns they may have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And you are absolutely free to houserule that way. I do not in any way, shape, or form mean to imply you are not.
However, when we discuss 'the rules' you need to remember that that is a houserule. It is neither RAW or RAI (or at least you do not care if it is RAI).
That is not to say that your houserules have no place in discussions about rules. They absolutely do. Just as we talk about things such as the interpretations of how True Strike functions (e.g., saying 'my interpretation is X'), stating 'I really hate that the rules lead to this and so houserule differently' is a completely valid point to make.
We just need to remember (myself included) when we are making such statements to try and make it clear that we are stating opinions, interpretations, and houserules rather than making it sound as though 'the rules say X'.
I will agree that there probably should be a fourth effect to the condition, something along the lines of 'Perception rolls to see the character automatically fail (baring mitigating situations)'. Standing out in the open like a goober after taking the Hide action could then be one of those mitigating situations (along with things like heavy fog, soft sand, standing in a waterfall, etc.).
The issue here is that you effectively have to houserule because what’s printed for Hide and Invisible do not create an intuitive or readily comprehensible whole.
No, you don't need to houserule it that way at all. You can just say that See Invisibility spots characters who use the Hide ability and who do not have complete cover, just as the spell description indicates.
See Invisibility is just the name of the spell. Just as True Strike does not mean that the attack automatically 'strikes true' the name See Invisibility is more of a generalization that the specific effect and limitations of the spell.
You houserule it that way because you don't want See Invisibility to be able to spot characters using Stealth, but that is your choice and the game remains completely playable without such a houserule (unless the DM gives everything a constant See Invisibility/Truesight ability).
The problem isn't with see invisibility (it's kind of dumb that it defeats stealth, as it never did that before and that's overtuned for a second level spell, but it's not actually unworkable). The problem is that people can't even agree on what hiding does (there are related problems with other parts of the perception rules, but in most cases it's clear what was intended even if the rules are badly written).
I honestly can't understand why there is so much argument as to what the Hide action does. It gives you a Condition that has a certain set of rules (someone blind attacking you has Disadvantage. Certain spells cannot affect you. You gain Advantage on Initiative rolls) and a certain set of circumstances in which you lose that Condition (if you get spotted, if you make too much noise, if you attack, etc.).
There appears to be exactly one part of that which could use clarification; being spotted. I will agree that there could be better definition there, but to me it would seem to be either A) someone makes a Perception Check and it is reasonable that they perceive you (e.g., you are not behind full cover) or B) you move into a situation where it is unreasonable that they would not spot you (e.g., you have to approach two guards standing in front of a door down a well lit corridor with insufficient cover).
People who want to maintain that it takes a Search action for the Perception check and those who want to say that you can use it in situations where it is unreasonable that the character wouldn't be spotted appear (at least in my opinion) to be trying to increase the ability of Stealth and the Hide action in ways that are unsupported.
Yes, there will be disagreement between people as to exactly what constitutes 'unreasonable that they would not spot you' and again, that could be better detailed (if I rush from my hiding location in the middle of combat to stab someone, is it unreasonable that they do not spot me or should they have to make a Perception check?), but we are getting into areas that have way, way too many variables (how many people are attacking the target, what is the lighting like, how am I approaching the target relative to the direction we can expect them to be facing, etc.) and which are the whole reason that we have DMs.
Now, I have become convinced that there could be some additional information added to the Condition which would be good for things such as the Invisibility spell, but that's not an issue with the Hide action and Stealth.
This is wrong.
The default is that all forms of targeting are possible via hearing alone unless the text explicitly requires sight. When it comes to the general rules for making an attack, sight is never a requirement. However, when you cannot see your target, you have disadvantage. That's it. You can still pinpoint the location of your target and you can directly target that target with your attack without guessing. This is reinforced in many places throughout the rules. For example, the Blinded condition:
Nothing there requires you to guess the square if you have the Blinded condition. You can directly target an enemy as normal in order to make an attack against them. But your attack has disadvantage, that's all.
It actually doesn't since that clause only pertains to (created) effects that would affect you. Being seen by someone is not an effect that affects you.
However, in my opinion this point is generally beyond the scope of any discussion about hiding since we all usually start the discussion at a baseline that assumes that the Invisible condition actually makes a creature invisible (and we assume that this will eventually be corrected via errata). If we cannot make this assumption, then pretty much all of the mechanics that were written for hiding become a lot less intuitive. However, as esampson points out with his "Condition 3" example, it still does all sort of work out even if we assume that under the 2024 ruleset there is no longer any such thing as the classic concept of invisibility in existence.
The 2024 ruleset definitely made a clear and conscious change which now includes the possibility that three-quarters cover is good enough to become hidden and maintain being hidden in cases where the DM decides that no one notices you there in that moment just before hiding and if the value of the Stealth roll is high enough. I agree with you that this was not a great way to change things, but it's explicitly written that it works that way now in the RAW. My hunch is that the intention of this change was to allow an actual method for making an attack from a hidden position since you really cannot attack from behind total cover and this was always a problem with how the 2014 rules were written.
This is totally incorrect. A Perception check involves "a combination of senses". In D&D 5e, hearing a creature is enough to pinpoint its exact location.
. . . Huh?
A creature in an open well-lit space is not hiding. The benefits of the Hide action are only conferred "while hidden" as per the most recent errata.
In my opinion it's pretty reasonable for this spell to be able to help with spotting a hidden creature that is hiding "only" behind three-quarters cover since there is Line of Sight on that creature. Even an actually invisible creature would not be detected by that spell if located in total Darkness or behind total cover anyway, so this three-quarters cover scenario is really the only relevant case.
Yep, this is absolutely true and it's honestly pretty shocking that we have not received errata on this yet. The entire playing community really wants the Invisible condition to mean that a creature with that condition cannot be seen. Now that the Hide action has received errata such that hidden creatures only have the condition "while hidden" it would not break anything to put this obvious detail back into the Invisible condition itself.
One small thing about this -- seeing an Invisible creature would not negate the entire Condition (the effect which granted the condition defines the ways in which it can be negated), but it would render the "Concealed" and "Attacks Affected" clauses ineffective. The "Surprise" clause would still be functional. As such, since two of the three clauses do not work correctly as written, this condition is very clearly broken and needs errata immediately.
In my opinion, for the purposes of these discussions which discuss the concepts of hiding, as a starting point we should all try to operate under the assumption that the Invisible condition does actually prevent a creature with that condition from being seen, even though that's not yet what it says.
This 'default' appears nowhere in the rules. Sight (and the variations thereof) is the only sense that is ever mentioned as permitting you to locate a target.
Nor does it make any sense from a 'realism' standpoint. While senses like hearing or smell may alert you, human beings cannot track or localize very effectively with these senses. That's why when you hear a loud noise, you look to determine where it came from rather than automatically being able to pinpoint it.
"This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see" is a binary choice -- either you can hear the target or you're guessing at its position.
Nothing in that sentence states or implies that hearing allows you to automatically know the target's position. The final line is explicit about this: If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss. You're actually citing a paragraph that reinforces the idea - riddled through the entirety of the text - that sight is, in the absence of special abilities that explicit permit locating a target, necessary for the task. Indeed, the heading on the sidebar should clue you in that you're engaged in a bad faith interpretation of rules: "Unseen Attackers and Targets". If the enemy is unseen, you need to apply the entire text - not just cherry-pick portions of it.
Not even getting into the fact that humans can learn to echolocate (and that nothing says the more "fantastical" species can't do it even better), the text quoted says "target a creature" not "target the space where you think a creature is". What about players that don't play with a grid? How does a character who is suddenly blind even begin to target a "space"?
Other than the part where it says you only have to guess at the target's location if you can't hear it.
The paragraph literally states the opposite: you need to guess at the location if you can't see it.
I have no idea how you read that sidebar as meaning that.
This is one of those areas where again they should have been clearer. You can read targeting via hearing to either require a perception check or to be automatic, they don't explain it or give a indication what was intended.
Generally I assume a DM will be determining whether they think it making no sense whatsoever someone can automatically pinpoint locate people at 50 feet by sound alone is more important than a gameplay balance concerns they may have.