Invisibility

[SpawnOfMorbo]

How would you prefer your invisibility in 5e?

Personally I like the 4e take on invisibility, more like predator type of concealment and such. If you move around to much people will see a bend in the light.

You could still give advantage on attacks or whatever but finding a moving invisible target should be easier than a standing invisible target.

How about it? How would you prefer invisibility to work? Will you homebrew if it works a certain way?

[rlc]

I prefer the cloaking version, like you do, but other than that, it's mostly a non-issue for me.

[captpike]

I prefer the 4e way.

invisible does not mean hidden, because you are not silent just because your invisible, and you can be attacked at a penalty because you only need to know where someone is to 5 feet to attack them.

besides in a world where its known that invisible creatures exist, if you hear what sounds like a footstep and don't see anyone there, you stab them you don't ignore it.

[obryn]

I prefer the "camouflage" style mostly because it keeps Wizards from stomping all over Rogues' feet. However, the rules about stealth and hiding need to be way clearer than they were in 3e or 4e. And they need to get it right the first time, unlike with 4e.

[captpike]

I prefer the "camouflage" style mostly because it keeps Wizards from stomping all over Rogues' feet. However, the rules about stealth and hiding need to be way clearer than they were in 3e or 4e. And they need to get it right the first time, unlike with 4e.

very true.

I think a half page of clear stealth rules should be the goal, maybe as much as one page if they have to. no more then that

[SpawnOfMorbo]

very true.

I think a half page of clear stealth rules should be the goal, maybe as much as one page if they have to. no more then that

For the basic rule rules? Yes 1 page should be fine. But about a page or two more full of examples and weird things that may come up to help explain it to the player.

I know that sounds like a lot but it is very very very much needed.

Or you get players who hide in each other shadows... Which is cool for a high level game I must admit bit probably not for a basic or run of the mill game.

[Person_Man]

I believe that Invisibility should not be a spell or ability that players can access at all.

The Stealth Skill exists.

The Rogue's entire niche is probably going to revolve around using Stealth. Rogues are going to be much better at using the Stealth Skill then other classes. Rogues can sometimes use Stealth to gain Advantage in order to trigger Sneak Attack. Rogues can use Stealth to scout ahead without alerting enemies. Rogues can use Stealth to set up ambushes, which are very very important in 5E because combat is quick and deadly.

I won't know for sure until we see the actual Advanced rules, but so far it seems like Stealth is pretty much the whole reason to play a Rogue in 5E.

So I don't think the Wizard or anyone else should get that niche, or even some major portion of that niche.

Having said that, it clearly is in the game. So I hope that it is as limited as possible.

[A Stray Cat]

I never minded 1e/2e invisibility. In our gaming group, invisibility was most often either used on the rogue or ranger to improve his stealthy actions or used to hide members of the party that were accompanying them. I'm not a fan of the "cloaking field" you all are describing that would give an opportunity to perceive the invisible person because it just doesn't seem as magical to me. But that is just a personal opinion.

[Kurald Galain]

I prefer Invisibility as a mental "ignore me" effect, similar to VTM's Obfuscate and HHGTG's SEP field. I'm aware that in D&D it doesn't actually do that, though.

[rlc]

Well, I think I prefer the cloaking method because it's more realistic and sounds a little cooler to me, but I don't really care how they do invisibility, especially if it's "magical" (so it'll explain all of the implied secondary abilities as being magical, too).

[Thrudd]

Invisible creatures can't be detected by normal sight. They can still be heard (this was also the case in 1e), so a perception roll could still identify their presence, they still need to make a stealth or dex check if they are moving past enemies, probably with advantage (since moving silent and hiding are rolled into one check, as well as sight and hearing). An attacker should be at disadvantage to attack a detected but still invisible creature (1e had a -4 to attack invisible creatures). An invisible attacker gets advantage on their first attack, as soon as they attack invisibility is dispelled.

Wizards only get to "step on toes" maybe once a day, I don't see it as a problem at all. They might be better off using the spell on the rogue in the first place, since they would likely benefit the party most from being invisible (back stabbing attacks, having the best dex and stealth skill to get past enemies and into places). That's assuming there even is a rogue in the party (which admittedly there probably should be).

[A Stray Cat]

Invisible creatures can't be detected by normal sight. They can still be heard (this was also the case in 1e), so a perception roll could still identify their presence, they still need to make a stealth or dex check if they are moving past enemies, probably with advantage (since moving silent and hiding are rolled into one check, as well as sight and hearing). An attacker should be at disadvantage to attack a detected but still invisible creature (1e had a -4 to attack invisible creatures). An invisible attacker gets advantage on their first attack, as soon as they attack invisibility is dispelled.

Wizards only get to "step on toes" maybe once a day, I don't see it as a problem at all. They might be better off using the spell on the rogue in the first place, since they would likely benefit the party most from being invisible (back stabbing attacks, having the best dex and stealth skill to get past enemies and into places). That's assuming there even is a rogue in the party (which admittedly there probably should be).

This is what I meant to say but did a poor job of expressing. I never meant that there shouldn't be a perception check or need for stealth. Sincere thanks! I like magic to seem magical, and the cloaking device shimmer just seems too sci-fi for my taste.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I prefer Invisibility as a mental "ignore me" effect, similar to VTM's Obfuscate and HHGTG's SEP field. I'm aware that in D&D it doesn't actually do that, though.

Hmmm... Move illusion over to enchantment? I like that. You could actually merge a lot of illusion over to enchantment and it could make sense.

You cast illusionary Terrain on a rock, that rock projects an enchantment that confuses the mind, sort of like hideous laughter but you think you see something that isn't really there.

I think this has a lot of potential and could work very well.