Devil's Sight isn't Broken/Overpowered

[Kevingway]

In trying to comprehend the rules of stealth and perception, I've come across a few valuable examples that I feel negate the argument of Devil's Sight being overpowered/disadvantageous to the party. If any of these explanations are wrong in their core interpretation of the rules, feel free to correct me; however, this is the only way I can compile all of the scenarios present in the core rulebooks consistently with each other. I will start with an explanation that is unrelated to Devil's Sight to better explain Devil's Sight's ultimate functionality. Apologies for redundancy. Read carefully:

The main perk to invisibility is having advantage on attack rolls and attacks having disadvantage against you; however, your exact location while invisible during combat can still be pinpointed through your own heavy breathing unless you use the hide action to completely disguise any and all sounds, which would then be contested by their perception check to see if they can find where you're standing (though their attacks would still have disadvantage against you due to their not being able to see you, regardless of the result). Therefore, hiding while invisible is an attempt to keep them from attacking you at all. You are normally safe from attack without hiding unless the opponent gets lucky.

The rogue's Blindsense ability will always pinpoint a creature's location even if it's trying to hide within 10 feet of the rogue, invisible or not, assuming the rogue has the ability to hear. Monstrous Blindsight, on the other hand, will allow the creature to ignore the disadvantage within the radius of its Blindsight (also negating your advantage), but if you attempt to hide (legal because the creature still can't "see" you) you can reimpose this disadvantage/advantage on top of them not being able to pinpoint your location. Tremorsense should (I think) detect any creature, hiding or not, standing on the same ground, and Truesight should (I think) see any creature who is invisible or using darkness to hide, but not any other method of being heavily obscured. If you attack while hidden, you give away your true location to all creatures.

Now comes Darkness + Devil's Sight. See, many people on these forums feel that it is a disadvantage to the rest of your entire party to use Darkness + Devil's Sight; however, you must remember that while the rest of your party has disadvantage on attack rolls due to being effectively blinded, your party still has advantage on their attack rolls due to the monsters being effectively blinded toward them, these attributes canceling each other out. Your party still knows the monsters' true locations unless these monsters are actively making an effort to hide, in which case the party will need to roll a perception check only to pinpoint their true location through sound. Remember, the party will always fail a sight-based perception check, but the check they're making is only to pinpoint the monsters' location, which is the only perk that hiding grants the monsters, as the disadvantages/advantages for blindness are always in effect. Remember, all advantages/disadvantages are canceled, so if a barbarian is using Reckless Attacks to gain advantage on its attack rolls, this advantage is lost in the darkness, as is the advantage other creatures gain on attacks made against the barbarian.

So, here you are, Mr. Devil's Sight Warlock. You gain a few perks for Devil's Sight as well as a few drawbacks, which are as follows:

1. Creatures will always have disadvantage on attacks against you (because you are hidden in regard to them, and they aren't hidden in regard to you).

2. You will always have advantage on attacks against creatures (because they aren't hidden in regard to you, but you are hidden in regard to them).

3. Your true location will still be known, just like everyone else's, unless you use your action to hide.

4. You are using your concentration spell to create this darkness, therefore negating other useful spells such as Hex that are key to the warlock's ultimate success (barring Glyph cheese).

5. The party has absolutely no disadvantages to you using this strategy, because you're ultimately leveling the playing field and negating all perks that give advantage/disadvantage on both sides (remember again, as an example, that 1 disadvantage + 2 advantages still = 0).

Some things your party should remember:

1. Anyone who can use a bonus action to hide, go ahead and attack a creature. Then bonus action hide and move somewhere else. Next round, if your DM knows the rules, that monster should be attacking the square it was just attacked from, as it was never able to realize that you moved; in fact, it can't even use its opportunity attack against you for having moved because you were smart and hid beforehand.

2. AoE blasters still don't care.

3. Opportunity attacks in the darkness are still possible assuming nothing tries to hide, so if the creatures panic for any reason and try to move out of the darkness, they're meat.
Only one rather small correction to the OP. Opportunity attacks are gone for most of the party and enemies. To get an AO it specifically says that it must be a "creature that you can see." (PH 195)

4. The dodge action becomes useless, as do all methods of gaining disadvantage/advantage. If you can do anything that places disadvantage on your attacks or advantage on the enemy's attacks in turn for a damage buff or whatnot, please do it. You actually lose nothing.

In summary, Devil's Sight gives the warlock some perks (advantage on all attacks, disadvantage to all attacks against it) but ultimately gives it nothing that can't be accomplished through other means. The main complaint I've been seeing is that Devil's Sight is screwing the party, but it really levels the playing field and allows for some creative methods of attacking that take away the negatives that would normally have been imposed, on both sides.

Please feel free to dispute.

[Ralanr]

It amazes me how little the dodge action is brought up. Both in game and forums.

[Giant2005]

So, here you are, Mr. Devil's Sight Warlock. You gain a few perks for Devil's Sight as well as a few drawbacks, which are as follows:

1. Creatures will always have disadvantage on attacks against you (because you are hidden in regard to them, and they aren't hidden in regard to you).

2. You will always have advantage on attacks against creatures (because they aren't hidden in regard to you, but you are hidden in regard to them).

3. Your true location will still be known, just like everyone else's, unless you use your action to hide.

4. You are using your concentration spell to create this darkness, therefore negating other useful spells such as Hex that are key to the warlock's ultimate success (barring Glyph cheese).

5. The party has absolutely no disadvantages to you using this strategy, because you're ultimately leveling the playing field and negating all perks that give advantage/disadvantage on both sides (remember again, as an example, that 1 disadvantage + 2 advantages still = 0).

Some things your party should remember:

1. Anyone who can use a bonus action to hide, go ahead and attack a creature. Then bonus action hide and move somewhere else. Next round, if your DM knows the rules, that monster should be attacking the square it was just attacked from, as it was never able to realize that you moved; in fact, it can't even use its opportunity attack against you for having moved because you were smart and hid beforehand.

2. AoE blasters still don't care.

3. Opportunity attacks in the darkness are still possible assuming nothing tries to hide, so if the creatures panic for any reason and try to move out of the darkness, they're meat.

4. The dodge action becomes useless, as do all methods of gaining disadvantage/advantage. If you can do anything that places disadvantage on your attacks or advantage on the enemy's attacks in turn for a damage buff or whatnot, please do it. You actually lose nothing.

In summary, Devil's Sight gives the warlock some perks (advantage on all attacks, disadvantage to all attacks against it) but ultimately gives it nothing that can't be accomplished through other means. The main complaint I've been seeing is that Devil's Sight is screwing the party, but it really levels the playing field and allows for some creative methods of attacking that take away the negatives that would normally have been imposed, on both sides.

Please feel free to dispute.

These are right on all accounts.
The only thing I'd dispute is something fairly unrelated that you mentioned earlier about Blindsight. I'm pretty sure you can't hide from Blindsight - the description in the Monster Manual isn't very good (It basically just lists a bunch of animals that have the ability) but the Rogue's version does specify that it functions against foes hidden from you. Although whether or not the two abilities are the same thing is up for debate.

[Kevingway]

These are right on all accounts.
The only thing I'd dispute is something fairly unrelated that you mentioned earlier about Blindsight. I'm pretty sure you can't hide from Blindsight - the description in the Monster Manual isn't very good (It basically just lists a bunch of animals that have the ability) but the Rogue's version does specify that it functions against foes hidden from you. Although whether or not the two abilities are the same thing is up for debate.

I'm bringing in RAW to discuss Blindsight.

1. Page 177 of the PHB: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you. and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position." Page 194 of the PHB: "When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." Blindsight allows you to "perceive" aka notice, but not "see." This would apply specifically to attack rolls against all creatures regardless of being heavily obscured, but not to pinpointing the locations of hidden creatures. Therefore, if a creature is hidden, its true position is not only obscured but also the creature regains its advantage to attack rolls because it's not making any sounds for the blindsight to sense.

2. Blindsense is something else. Page 96 of the PHB: "...you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature." Unlike Blindsight, Blindsense will give a rogue the ability to pinpoint a creature's location, but it will still have disadvantage on attack rolls against that creature. Therefore, it is the opposite of and superior to Blindsight, which negates these disadvantages against obscured creatures but does not help against ones that are already hidden, as hiding encompasses not only sight but also sound. Tremorsense would be a good means of finding these creatures assuming being stealthy doesn't negate vibrations from movement.

For emphasis, Blindsight from page 8 of the MM: "A monster with blindsight can perceive its surroundings without relying on sight, within a specific radius."

The point of this distinction:

1. Blindsight negates Darkness (and other forms of heavy obscurity), but does not negate hiding. (Ignores sight-based blockage, but gains no advantage against creatures actively hiding).
2. Blindsense negates hiding, but does not negate Darkness (or other forms of heavy obscurity). (Can pinpoint location, still has disadvantage for not being able to "see").

[Kevingway]

Oh, and here's a good one that warrants another post:

So, ranged attackers. Want to hit something beyond your weapon's normal range? Go right ahead; no disadvantage.

So, ranged attackers. Want to hit something within 5 feet of you? No disadvantage. Have at it.

Thanks, Devil's Sight!

Come up with all kinds of strategies, guys. :) Darkness effectively nulls them all, barring blindsight/truesight/maybe tremorsense.

[BW022]

still[/B] knows the monsters' true locations unless these monsters are actively making an effort to hide, in which case the party will need to roll a perception check only to pinpoint their true location through sound. Remember, the party will always fail a sight-based perception check, but the check they're making is only to pinpoint the monsters' location, which is the only perk that hiding grants the monsters, as the disadvantages/advantages for blindness are always in effect. Remember, all advantages/disadvantages are canceled, so if a barbarian is using Reckless Attacks to gain advantage on its attack rolls, this advantage is lost in the darkness, as is the advantage other creatures gain on attacks made against the barbarian.


Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in practice. Even if a DM rules that creature magically know the location of creatures they can't see and the only penalty if disadvantage (rather than simply not being able to target them entirely)... players won't accept this in most parties.

The idea of three other players sitting on their rears for an hour of combat (likely drawn out to two hours) while the warlock is now dishing out four times the damage as anyone else simply doesn't fly with most groups.

The fighter, rogue, and cleric are now missing round after round after round, while the warlock is hitting round after round after round. Ignoring that many monsters will simply flee or yell for reinforcements.. most players find this a boring a snot. The fight itself draws out since the monsters now miss most attacks and the part, except for the warlock, now miss most attacks. Something the fighter and rogue could beat down in three rounds, now takes six or more considering that they may not have flanking, the fighter isn't going to waste abilities with a large chance of missing, creatures may be repeatedly moving to avoid darkness, etc. A one hour combat takes two. You get less adventuring, less XP, less time for roleplaying, etc. The other players don't feel they are contributing -- since they aren't. And they get to look forward to this the next combat also.

There are lots of times when groups simply don't utilize optimal techniques because it is boring, wastes time, or has serious real world effects of balance. This applies in lots of situations. A wood-elf ranger in the woods might be able to sniper two hill giants down. How often do the other players actually sit there for four hours while the DM roles the ranger going solo and doing this. Likewise a druid might be able to wildshape into a bird, fly ahead of the bandits, animal friendship three tigers, and speak with animals to them to attack the bandits. How many parties are going to sit there and listen to this? A fast-talking bard could go into a down, charm some key council members, and get them to send the town guard to clear out the caves. Again, how many parties are going to accept this?

Even if the players know such tactics are in their favor... most will avoid using them unless it is the only way. The rest of the party will join the ranger and charge the giants on the ground. The rest of the party will march trying to catch up with the bandits. The party will clear out the caves themselves. Optimal or not, most groups would rather have everyone participating and contributing rather than playing spectator for hours at a time.

D&D is a social game in which players need to participate to keep the game fun. It is fine for most parties that one character might be contribute more over a few adventures (a druid in the wilderness, a rogue in a trap-fill dungeon, or a dwarf when dealing with some other dwarves in his home city) or even exclusively for a short period of time -- a one-on-one combat for the paladin or the rogue caught while sneaking ahead. However, no party I know of can accept this encounter after encounter.

I played a warlock with devil's site in our previous campaign. Combat after combat, I'd ask... do you want me to put up darkness. Every time they said No.

[PoeticDwarf]

For 1 opportunity attack, I'd run away out of the darkness. Maybe you still have disadvantage, but the darkness caster doesn't have every turn advantage. Only if the warlock has war magic, you have a more serious problem.

[Kevingway]

For 1 opportunity attack, I'd run away out of the darkness. Maybe you still have disadvantage, but the darkness caster doesn't have every turn advantage. Only if the warlock has war magic, you have a more serious problem.

You can bet that the warlock has cast darkness on his weapon and will be moving up to you next turn, though.

On an unrelated note, my official DM screen (because lord knows I can't find it anywhere in the DMG) states that the minimum audible distance for encounters is 20 feet, max being the high end of 2d6 x 10 assuming a creature isn't also trying to hide. I'd roll this audible distance every turn as a DM.

So maybe darkness isn't abusable for ranged attackers. Just trying to think of every possible way a party can take advantage of darkness.

Of course, how a table plays it is up to them, but I'm trying to keep it RAW, as I know I was confused regarding perception rules and so are many other people.

[Mellack]

Only one rather small correction to the OP. Opportunity attacks are gone for most of the party and enemies. To get an AO it specifically says that it must be a "creature that you can see." (PH 195)

[Psikerlord]

It's broken in my view and we changed that ability to not work for magical darkness. Eliminates all worries on this front.

[Kryx]

It's broken in my view and we changed that ability to not work for magical darkness. Eliminates all worries on this front.
Did you make any other alterations? It's a bit weak w/o it.

[Giant2005]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in practice. Even if a DM rules that creature magically know the location of creatures they can't see and the only penalty if disadvantage (rather than simply not being able to target them entirely)... players won't accept this in most parties.

I disagree - the whole reason you get disadvantage in the first place is because you are relying on senses other than sight to target the enemy and they are less reliable than sight. If it worked the way you are suggesting, the game wouldn't give you disadvantage due to that being pointless considering the opponent is virtually immune to harm.
If your DM is giving you trouble on the issue, simply ask to make a perception check to hear where the enemy is standing. The opposed check is your perception vs his stealth, and considering he isn't stealthing at all, the DC will be 0 and you will be fine.

[Xetheral]

Your interpretation that characters always know the location of non-hidden enemies was contested even pre-errata. (Unlike 4e, the rules don't say either way, and posters have been bitterly divided.) The errata had two tangentially-relevant changes:

Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when
circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, the question isn’t whether a creature
can see you when you’re hiding. The question
is whether it can see you clearly.

Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily
obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you
are effectively blinded when you try to see
something obscured by it.

The first change basically takes the already-heavily DM fiat nature of hiding in 5e and goes whole hog with it, while providing context that appears to advocate allowing people to hide even if they're (unclearly) seen. Some people have interpreted this that light obscurement is now sufficient for anyone to hide (in which case Wood Elves and Skulkers weep), but I've not seen any consensus.

The second change I would wager was simply to remove the Blinded condition imposed by darkness, that technically prevented you from seeing a torch if you were 5' outside of its light radius (not that anyone played that way). Some posters, however, have interpreted it to mean that you can see out of a darkness spell just fine, so long as what you are looking at is itself outside of the spell's radius. (I'm not advocating this interpretation. I don't think it is what was intended and it makes the darkness spell amazingly more powerful.)

The point is, hiding/invisibility/obscurement in 5e is explicitly supposed to vary from table to table. I'm not sure why that's a good thing, but it makes it hard to argue that any interpretation other than "DM's choice" has RAW support.

Edited to reply to Giant2005:

If your DM is giving you trouble on the issue, simply ask to make a perception check to hear where the enemy is standing. The opposed check is your perception vs his stealth, and considering he isn't stealthing at all, the DC will be 0 and you will be fine.

The DC might well be non-zero if environmental factors (e.g. ambient noise) would make success difficult.

[rollingForInit]

I can see two issues with Devil's Sight+Darkness is that other players will feel trivialised when it's used. If it's used often, and if it affects the rest of the party. That's a valid concern, and one that should be handled out of character. If one player is powergaming to the extent that it affects other people's experience, then that person has to stop powergaming, or the group needs to come up with ways to use this so that everyone has fun.

The other issue is that of the characters. Why would a party tolerate the presence of a guy who effectively blinds them every single time they fight? This should bring all sorts of interparty drama, and if the character persists, they should just kick him out. Preferably, they should find a way to use this to their common advantage. "Okay, so if cast Darkness here, and we'll be over here, seeing this, but you'll be protected and prevent those enemies from seeing us ..." or whatever. Work at it as a group. A character that's douche to the rest of the party will probably be kicked out. Or should be. Because why would the rest put up with it?

Start discussing out of character how to deal with then. Come up with a solution. Implement it in-game.

[Mellack]

A lot of situations exist in which having the party in darkness is not a detriment, and even an advantage for those even without devil's sight. Since the advantage and disadvantage cancel to normal attacks, in many cases it is just a wash. If you are in a situation where many of you have disadvantage, such as fighting invisible creatures or displacer beasts, this is a benefit to the party. Conversely, if many of your opponents have advantage, such as pack tactics, fighting is darkness removes that and again is a benefit to the party as a whole. If party is gaining advantage more than the opponents during the battle, it is a poor choice. I can see many, perhaps most fights where darkness causes no lessening of party ability or is a bonus to it.

[Xetheral]

A lot of situations exist in which having the party in darkness is not a detriment, and even an advantage for those even without devil's sight. Since the advantage and disadvantage cancel to normal attacks, in many cases it is just a wash. If you are in a situation where many of you have disadvantage, such as fighting invisible creatures or displacer beasts, this is a benefit to the party. Conversely, if many of your opponents have advantage, such as pack tactics, fighting is darkness removes that and again is a benefit to the party as a whole. If party is gaining advantage more than the opponents during the battle, it is a poor choice. I can see many, perhaps most fights where darkness causes no lessening of party ability or is a bonus to it.

In some situations, darkness-as-the-great-equalizer makes sense tactically from an RP point of view. Against invisible opponents, for example, rendering everyone equally unable to see is obviously helpful. In other situations, such as deliberately casting darkness on yourself to avoid range penalties, I'm inclined to add a house rule that permits the DM to interpret multiple simultaneous sources of advantage or disadvantage as resulting in automatic success or failure. (Or maybe I'll just throw the rulebook at the player for being disruptive.)

[Psikerlord]

Did you make any other alterations? It's a bit weak w/o it.

Gave it adv on initiative checks too, refluffed it as seeing in dark plus flashes of future danger.

[coredump]

Much of your analysis is based on a large assumption that is not stated in the rules.

There is nothing in the rules that states you 'just know' where everyone is automatically. Yes you *can* find an invis creature via hearing.... just like I *can* make a half court jump shot. Does not mean it is automatic, does not mean it is even likely, just that it is possible.

If someone is singing 10' away in an otherwise empty room... sure you can pinpoint their location. If someone is singing 100' away while other people are shouting and banging on pots...not gonna happen.

If you want to play the game with the assumption that every creature automatically 'just knows' exactly where everyone is at all times.... go for it. But the rules do not make that assumption.




I disagree - the whole reason you get disadvantage in the first place is because you are relying on senses other than sight to target the enemy and they are less reliable than sight. If it worked the way you are suggesting, the game wouldn't give you disadvantage due to that being pointless considering the opponent is virtually immune to harm. You are conflating two different things.

We rely so heavily on sight that even if you *know exactly* where the enemy is, you will have disadvantage on hitting him if you can't see him.

But if you don't know exactly where he is, hearing/smell/etc is so much weaker that it is very hard to figure out where he is.


If your DM is giving you trouble on the issue, simply ask to make a perception check to hear where the enemy is standing. The opposed check is your perception vs his stealth, and considering he isn't stealthing at all, the DC will be 0 and you will be fine.You are making more assumptions.
First, you don't get to 'make checks', you get to take actions and the DM calls for a check if the outcome is uncertain.
Second, you are assuming your perception is unaffected by not being able to see the target.
Third, you are assuming that the DC would be 0. The DC is determined by the DM based on how "difficult" it is to succeed on the attempt.

[ryan92084]

Could someone with access to the book quote the relevant portions (in the combat section I believe) for attacking invisible targets? Having no/DC 0 perception check to locate the target when they are unseen but not using a full hide action seems generous. That could just be previous editions/table rulings tainting my memories of 5e RAW.

For the darkness users here are a few ways to reduce the party annoyance factor pending DM approval

Use your great old one telepathy to tell party members where the enemy is if they are all in the darkness
Hang back with some other ranged members and they can duck in and out for a defensive bonus
Cast darkness on a small object on the ground so you can move about to LoS without having to worry about the darkness positioning
Use your familiar to carry the darkness object and move it about as needed


I personally only use this tactic when I'm out of/conserving spell slots by using the racial. I prefer to use my concentration for hex since it will generally last several encounters.

[Giant2005]

Could someone with access to the book quote the relevant portions (in the combat section I believe) for attacking invisible targets? Having no/DC 0 perception check to locate the target when they are unseen but not using a full hide action seems generous. That could just be previous editions/table rulings tainting my memories of 5e RAW.

There isn't a section on attacking invisible targets. The closest thing is the "Hiding" sidebar on page 177 but even that is barely relevant (It never actually states whether or not being "hidden" is the difference between being a valid target and not). The only thing that is really relevant to invisibility within that section is the following line "An invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide." that heavily implies that being invisible is not enough to be considered hidden but again, it does not specifically make that statement and the section doesn't define whether being hidden or not is even relevant when being targeted. The main point of thought is that there would be no point in an invisible creature trying to hide if being invisible and being hidden offered the same benefits, so the inclusion of that line must have meaning. It is assumed that that meaning is the difference between having a known but unseen position and being genuinely hidden.

[coredump]

The main point of thought is that there would be no point in an invisible creature trying to hide if being invisible and being hidden offered the same benefits, so the inclusion of that line must have meaning.
Yes, it is clear there is a difference between being invisible and being hidden.



It is assumed that that meaning is the difference between having a known but unseen position and being genuinely hidden.That is a huge leap from 'some difference' to 'you always automatically know where everyone is"

If you are hidden, it means you have actively tried to make it difficult for anyone to detect you... and have been successful.

Being invisible means you can't be seen, but have otherwise not actively tried to make it difficult for someone to hear/smell/detect you. But that does not mean they automatically just know where you are

For instance, someone that is invisible and walking across a carpeted floor will still be very hard to detect, even if they are not trying to be hard to detect. Of course, if they are singing, or wearing heavy armor, or something similar... that would make it much easier to detect them.

[Mellack]

The check to be considered hidden I believe is against the perception of whomever possibly can sense you. Things such as your thick carpet would reasonably grant advantage on the check. That said, if they fail it does mean they are perceived and their location is known. If they did not even try to hide, then they have failed to hide and are known.

[Xetheral]

The check to be considered hidden I believe is against the perception of whomever possibly can sense you. Things such as your thick carpet would reasonably grant advantage on the check. That said, if they fail it does mean they are perceived and their location is known. If they did not even try to hide, then they have failed to hide and are known.

That is a possible interpretation of the 5e rules, but it is not the only one. It's just as valid to interpret the rules such that invisible creatures are hard to locate even if they have not taken an action to hide. Which approach is more reasonable will depend entirely on personal taste.

The explicit lack of explicitness means no one interpretation can be correct by RAW here, and every interpretation is correct by RAI. Personally I think that makes the 5e hiding rules spectacularly useless to the DM, but many others appreciate the flexibility.

[Gryndle]

I have utilized the Devil's Sight/Darkness combo as a player and dealt with it as a DM.

the truth is, it isn't any more overpowered or broken than any other creative combo my group members have thrown at the DM. it is a situational tactic that is great when it works, but if the DM is using his brain it isn't game breaking at all.

It really comes down to the group dynamic as to whether this is an actual problem in play, or just theory-crafting drama generation.

But then again, all but one member of my group have actual tactical training in some form or another, so we are used to coming up with creative solutions.

This isn't a criticism and I don't mean it to be offensive to anyone, but I have to wonder about the DMs that see this a game breaking tactic. Good players, ones that actually get involved in the game, are always coming up with ideas and tricks that were unexpected or maybe not intended to be used the way the players apply them. SO how do these DMs deal with those players?

One half of a player's responsibility at the table is to challenge the DM. just like it's the DMs job to challenge the players.

If your players are using tricks like this, they will become known for it. if they have ongoing enemies, those enemies should adapt their tactics to match.

I apologize if I'm not being clear. too many meds.

[mr_odd]

It amazes me how little the dodge action is brought up. Both in game and forums.

Which is odd considering the Dodge action is our group's favorite action.

[coredump]

The check to be considered hidden I believe is against the perception of whomever possibly can sense you. Things such as your thick carpet would reasonably grant advantage on the check. That said, if they fail it does mean they are perceived and their location is known.

Of course, it is possible to detect someone via hearing, or smell, or some other method. I am just saying it is not automatic.


If they did not even try to hide, then they have failed to hide and are known.I am sorry, but that is absurd. The idea that you automatically "just know" exactly where every person is, even if you can't see them... makes no sense.

You walk into a ballroom, there is an invisible person sitting in the corner meditating, but not trying to hide. According to you, since they did not even try to hide, they are automatically 'known' by everyone walking into the ballroom.... Just doesn't make sense.

[Kevingway]

Of course, it is possible to detect someone via hearing, or smell, or some other method. I am just saying it is not automatic.

I am sorry, but that is absurd. The idea that you automatically "just know" exactly where every person is, even if you can't see them... makes no sense.

You walk into a ballroom, there is an invisible person sitting in the corner meditating, but not trying to hide. According to you, since they did not even try to hide, they are automatically 'known' by everyone walking into the ballroom.... Just doesn't make sense.

I think the problem is that you're trying to apply real-life scenarios to a rule that is supposed to generalize most encounters. In cases like what you describe, the DM can easily say "you don't detect them"; however, D&D characters aren't like real-life numpties like us. Unlike us, D&D characters have fine-honed their senses to perceive what we can't, because they live in a dangerous world and they're, well, heroes. Obviously if you're invisible and attacking something and making grunting and ****ting noises, you're going to be noticed. You aren't making any effort to conceal these things nor keep your armor from making noises, so you're not "hidden" and will be known. The point of being stealthy is to hide, therefore roll a stealth check if you don't want to be noticed doing whatever things you'd normally do in a strenuous situation, as per the above spew fecal matter all over the ground in the process of swinging a sword.

The only way these rules make sense in context, I believe (and without DM fiat), is by separating when you are invisible (or effectively blinding/blinded via heavy obscurity) from when you are hidden via true location.

[Mellack]

Kevinway pretty much covered it in the post above. I will just ass that if your invisible guru has not made any attempt to hide himself (a stealth check) then he is doing things that obviously let it be known he is there. He is letting out constant "ohm" sounds while he meditates. He is crumpling up the carpet where he sits and pushing back into the tapestry behind him. A hundred other possible things. What if he is not doing those things? That is because he took a moment to make sure there were no give aways, which is what the stealth check is.
Now you may play your table as you wish. The stealth rules are so titanically unspecific that every table has to basically create their own. Saying that heros can spot the clues of people who haven't put any effort into trying to hide I do not think is absurd.

[Kryx]

This isn't a criticism and I don't mean it to be offensive to anyone, but I have to wonder about the DMs that see this a game breaking tactic. Good players, ones that actually get involved in the game, are always coming up with ideas and tricks that were unexpected or maybe not intended to be used the way the players apply them. SO how do these DMs deal with those players?
This is the same kind of topic as wall of force. Some DMs and players like the old school style where some spells break encounters. Sure there are ways that it can be handled, but those all involve massively limiting choices. In wall of force's example you'd put your players against people who can teleport or disintegrate - casters. Any time that you don't then the PCs just wreck the encounter.

The same is true for darkness and devil's sight: you should send creatures that don't need sight, can cast spells, are able to move out of range, etc. And if you don't then the player(s) who have devils sight will dominate while players who don't will twiddle their thumbs.

I don't have to balance encounters around scorching Ray, fog cloud, haste, mirror image, hold person, etc. If I have to balance whole encounters around a feature then that feature is too strong - plus the disruption issues and technical issues of making it work on roll20.

Some people like encounter breaking features. Others don't.

[rollingForInit]

This is the same kind of topic as wall of force. Some DMs and players like the old school style where some spells break encounters. Sure there are ways that it can be handled, but those all involve massively limiting choices. In wall of force's example you'd put your players against people who can teleport or disintegrate - casters. Any time that you don't then the PCs just wreck the encounter.

The same is true for darkness and devil's sight: you should send creatures that don't need sight, can cast spells, are able to move out of range, etc. And if you don't then the player(s) who have devils sight will dominate while players who don't will twiddle their thumbs.

I don't have to balance encounters around scorching Ray, fog cloud, haste, mirror image, hold person, etc. If I have to balance whole encounters around a feature then that feature is too strong - plus the disruption issues and technical issues of making it work on roll20.

Some people like encounter breaking features. Others don't.

You have to balance all encounters against spells like Fireball. Group the monsters too tightly, and they're dead before it even starts.

Which is fine sometimes. And sometimes the monsters will go first, and it won't matter. Just like with Darkness. Sometimes the monsters will go first, and the Warlock will have trouble anyway.

[eastmabl]

Which is odd considering the Dodge action is our group's favorite action.

I feel like the reason we don't talk about Dodge as an action is because (1) it's very hard to quantify the benefit and (2) time spent dodging is time not spent killing.

Situationally, it's an amazing ability. Last session, my sorcerer was in a tight spot with six thugs charging into a tavern to harm him as he was busy serving as party face. I spent a turn Dodging their attacks so they would all surround me before dropping a Sleep spell and putting all but one to sleep.

But because it's situational, we don't talk about it so much.

[Kryx]

All aoe spells require GMs to not be lazy and actually consider where enemies would be on the map - that's not unique to fireball.

In the end everyone has different experiences with encounters and spells. Some may find it easy to escape darkness, others maybe not. In my case Darkness can be combined with spike growth which makes it brutal to escape. Same with Hunger of Hadar (Though by RAW that is blackness, not darkness).

The golden rule for me is "would the PCs find this trick used on them to be fair?" The answer is likely no in most cases so it isn't fair to use in the other direction. (The devils in the MM don't seem to have darkness as a spell)

[coredump]

Unlike us, D&D characters have fine-honed their senses to perceive what we can't, because they live in a dangerous world and they're, well, heroes. There is nothing in the rules that indicates that every adventurer is a DareDevil equivalent, capable of automatically 'just knowing' exactly where every creature is..... You are giving every 1st level PC the equivalent of superhuman powers. "just because"


Obviously if you're invisible and attacking something and making grunting and ****ting noises, you're going to be noticed. You aren't making any effort to conceal these things nor keep your armor from making noises, so you're not "hidden" and will be known. Congratulations on picking one extreme example. What if you are 50' away attacking something? What if you are just standing around? What if there are other fights or noises in the area?


The point of being stealthy is to hide, therefore roll a stealth check if you don't want to be noticed doing whatever things you'd normally do in a strenuous situation, as per the above spew fecal matter all over the ground in the process of swinging a sword. (Wait, you let people "hide" while fighting? If not, this 'example' of yours makes no sense.)
*OF COURSE* there are plenty of times when detection is very easy or automatic. But that is not every time. What if they aren't making loud noises? What if they are not in a strenuous situation?
And lets not forget, this is not only hearing them, but knowing exactly which 5' square they are in .
Stand on a basketball court, have 3 people also stand on the court and all start talking....can you even hear them? IF so can you automatically tell exactly where each person is? What if a 4th person isn't talking, can you tell where they are too?

separating when you are invisible (or effectively blinding/blinded via heavy obscurity) from when you are hidden via true location.I have never said anything differently. There is a difference between being hidden and being invisible. You are claiming that even while invisible, every body knows exactly where you are.


. I will just ass that if your invisible guru has not made any attempt to hide himself (a stealth check) then he is doing things that obviously let it be known he is there. He is letting out constant "ohm" sounds while he meditates. He is crumpling up the carpet where he sits and pushing back into the tapestry behind him.
Really? Every time? automatically? No one meditates without making lots (or any) noise? No one sits on a carpet without crumpling up the carpet? No one ever stands still without messing with the tapestries? That seems like a very strange place.

And not only are they making noise, according to you they are making *so much* noise that everyone that walks in will automatically hear them.
And not only will they hear them, but they will automatically know exactly where each and every creature in the room is.


What if he is not doing those things? That is because he took a moment to make sure there were no give aways, which is what the stealth check is.Sorry, but no. I am sitting in my room reading (well now typing, but work with me)
If you were 5' away you still would not hear me. If 15' away there would be no chance. While my kids are also making noise nearby?? Only DareDevil can pull that off.
Now I am typing, within 5' you should be able to hear, and likely know exactly where I am (DC5?)
15' away? YOu have a decent chance if there is no other noise...... but pinpointing the exact location will be pretty tricky
If my kids are playing nearby? You will be lucky to hear anything, and very lucky to figure out which room I am in, let alone within 5'
And I am not doing anything to try and be stealthy.

Saying that heros can spot the clues of people who haven't put any effort into trying to hide I do not think is absurd.The fact that it is possible makes sense. The fact that it is automatic, needs no roll, has pin point accuracy, even at range, happens regardless of what the target is doing, independent of other noises...... does seem absurd.

[Kevingway]

There is nothing in the rules that indicates that every adventurer is a DareDevil equivalent, capable of automatically 'just knowing' exactly where every creature is..... You are giving every 1st level PC the equivalent of superhuman powers. "just because"


Congratulations on picking one extreme example. What if you are 50' away attacking something? What if you are just standing around? What if there are other fights or noises in the area?

This comes down to audible distance, which as I stated earlier, seems to be a very minimum of at least 20 feet every turn. This is going off of my official DM screen, which makes non-stealthy audible distance into 2d6 x 10 feet, which I would require be rolled every round as a DM for such scenarios. Do you hear them this round? Yes/no. If you're within a closer range, wouldn't matter--there's also an audible distance for a creature being stealthy, which I would then either impose disadvantage on perception checks to locate them or simply say you don't hear them at all, depending on your location in relation to theirs. This distance is 2d6 x 5.


(Wait, you let people "hide" while fighting? If not, this 'example' of yours makes no sense.)
*OF COURSE* there are plenty of times when detection is very easy or automatic. But that is not every time. What if they aren't making loud noises? What if they are not in a strenuous situation?
And lets not forget, this is not only hearing them, but knowing exactly which 5' square they are in .
Stand on a basketball court, have 3 people also stand on the court and all start talking....can you even hear them? IF so can you automatically tell exactly where each person is? What if a 4th person isn't talking, can you tell where they are too?

Yes, I let them hide while fighting. Some scenarios may warrant a flat "no," but as the hiding rules state, you can do so when it is hard for someone to see you. If they're not distracted, however, the hide will fail unless it is impossible for sight.


Really? Every time? automatically? No one meditates without making lots (or any) noise? No one sits on a carpet without crumpling up the carpet? No one ever stands still without messing with the tapestries? That seems like a very strange place.

They're not trying not to make noise. If they were, they'd be rolling stealth checks. DM fiat for advantage/disadvantage on their roll depending on the circumstance.