Partymember Pulverizer

[Fightmaster]

A player in my campaign just drew the Comet card from a Deck Of Many Things and I vaguely let them know the next encounter they handle alone will offer a great reward. They're a level 7 Sorcerer and I want to design an encounter that will be challenging/almost kill them. I was considering building a bladesinger to duel them, but I'm open to any suggestions.

[Rallicus]

Solo encounters are pretty difficult to pull off in my experience. Bounded accuracy makes it pretty swingy, and it's hard to design an encounter for just one person.

Might be able to help with more information: the sorc's AC, HP, spell selection/healing items, and any magic items he might have. (Deck of Many Things at level 7? Oh man. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x8e8QwPofc&ab_channel=AnOPminion))

Even something with half the PC's level in CR can prove a fatal encounter. Months back the sorcerer in my campaign had a solo encounter with a manticore (CR 3) at level 6; he technically lost, though it was very close.

[Degwerks]

You can always do a MIRROR OF OPPOSITION style of encounter... Just copy his character and make him defeat his exact clone if himself.

[MaxWilson]

A player in my campaign just drew the Comet card from a Deck Of Many Things and I vaguely let them know the next encounter they handle alone will offer a great reward. They're a level 7 Sorcerer and I want to design an encounter that will be challenging/almost kill them. I was considering building a bladesinger to duel them, but I'm open to any suggestions.

If you really want to almost kill the sorcerer, you have to be willing to risk actually killing them, otherwise it wasn't really "almost". My experience is that in order to "almost kill" a party member, you generally want to be up around 3x to 4x Deadly, in conditions unfavorable to the PC. E.g. a cage match between an Iron Golem vs a level 15 Barblock (3.5x Deadly) is a tossup (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472046-Barbarians-Why-not-multiclass/page4&p=6752215#post6752215). Outside of a cage match that is of course a cakewalk.

So it depends on how much you want to challenge them. If you really want to scare them, let them read the MM entry on Intellect Devourers and then give the sorcerer a chance to proceed alone into a room where he hears skittering sounds. Everything will depend on Stealth rolls, initiative rolls, and how well he does on his 3d6 Int check. :)

[Rallicus]

If you really want to almost kill the sorcerer, you have to be willing to risk actually killing them, otherwise it wasn't really "almost". My experience is that in order to "almost kill" a party member, you generally want to be up around 3x to 4x Deadly, in conditions unfavorable to the PC.

This is entirely false in the case of solo encounters.

I wouldn't go much higher than 1x deadly, especially if the PC in question is a caster.

Going 3x-4x deadly would spell instant death. There wouldn't even be any risk; it'd be a sweep before the encounter even started.

[JellyPooga]

This is entirely false in the case of solo encounters.

I wouldn't go much higher than 1x deadly, especially if the PC in question is a caster.

Going 3x-4x deadly would spell instant death. There wouldn't even be any risk; it'd be a sweep before the encounter even started.

I wouldn't be so conservative, myself. Just the other day, I was taken out of a fight by a botched Fort Save in Pathfinder (stupid Drow Poison...), leaving my (level 4) companion to fight a level 4 Druid and level 6 Slayer/Assassin solo. Using good tactics (and a little luck), he won. In that game, as a 2-man party, we've frequently taken on "off-the-chart" encounters and come out alive; the GM hasn't managed to kill us yet!

Now, this was Pathfinder and the premise of the game was that the GM will try to kill us, so we've built our characters accordingly. 5ed is a little different, but if this Sorcerer is decently built and his player is halfway smart, solo encounters can be stupidly easy.

[Rallicus]

Now, this was Pathfinder

Exactly.

I don't know if it's because I've actually run an encounter nearly identical to the one the OP is suggesting, but I feel like I'm more qualified to suggest in this regard. The druid and assassin probably didn't have multi-attacks, cause I'm guessing they were PC classes; the system in question was Pathfinder, which is far less swingy; you specifically built the PCs as a two-man party intent on surviving whatever the GM throws at you.

We're dealing with a 5e sorcerer here. Probably a 5e sorcerer who was created to be in a party of others, so his spell list reflects that. Still, here's to hoping he has some self-defensive spells. Mirror Image is a godsend.

I'd stay in the CR 3-4 range and take into consideration the sorc's spell list, any healing items, etc.

[JellyPooga]

I'd stay in the CR 3-4 range

I appreciate that you've got actual experience of just such a situation as we're talking about, but CR:3-4? Seriously? One Fireball has a decent chance of ending that encounter (depending on what, exactly, the encounter is). I wouldn't go any lower than CR:5 to really be any kind of threat. I'd probably go CR:6 or 7 at least. It does depend on the Sorcerers build, though.

We're not talking about an encounter to use up some resources and leave the PC good for the rest of the days adventuring here; if the Sorcerer comes out of it with 1HP and no spell slots left, it was perfectly designed.

[Rallicus]

I wouldn't go any lower than CR:5 to really be any kind of threat. I'd probably go CR:6 or 7 at least. It does depend on the Sorcerers build, though.

6-7 is suicide. I will relent in regards to the CR 3 being too low, however; I went through my chat logs just now and discovered that I put the Manticore solo fight in an NPC's house, so the sorc didn't use any spells that could potentially burn the house down. Mainly lightning bolt.

I feel 5 is ideal simply because casters are extremely squishy, and concentration spells are severely hampered since it's a solo fight.

I think Cambion might be a good bet, but it's still extremely risky. Tons of resistances plus flying... it could easily prove disastrous.

In the end though CR is terrible in 5th edition, I've gone into detail about this in the past so the best thing the OP can do is look at a monster in a certain range (preferably 4-5, in my opinion), take into account certain variables and go from there.

[Shining Wrath]

The trick is not to have one monster. Have 2 monsters of about CR 1, and then an optional CR 1/2 or 1 monster that will burst into the room on round 2 if things are too easy for the Sorcerer. Design the encounter so that it's not too cheesy that, e.g., the orc has a pet wolf.

[MaxWilson]

This is entirely false in the case of solo encounters.

I wouldn't go much higher than 1x deadly, especially if the PC in question is a caster.

Going 3x-4x deadly would spell instant death. There wouldn't even be any risk; it'd be a sweep before the encounter even started.

Instant death? I'm not seeing it. Ten orcs and an orc war chief would be 494% of Deadly and a sorcerer would pwn that encounter.

Even if you go for solo monsters, a CR 8 Hezrou is 5850 XP for one PC, 344% of Deadly for one seventh-level PC. Against a Dex 14 Sorcerer it does 16.05 DPR. That may not be tiled in the sorc's favor, but it doesn't look like an insta-kill to me. Plenty of time for the Sorcerer to pull off something clever and effective. (If the Sorcerer is combat-specialized, that "something" might simply be "Heightened Polymorph", which ends the fight right there 50% of the time. Then toss the ex-Hezrou mouse off a cliff. Note that Comet doesn't care if the enemy actually dies, only that it is defeated.)

[JellyPooga]

6-7 is suicide.

I just opened the Monster Manual at random and flicked through to the first CR:6 critter and turned up an Invisible Stalker, which is a pretty appropriate "assassin creature" under the circumstances.

A Sorcerer 7 has 30+(7xCon mod) HP. Con being what it is, I expect the Sorcerer has a +2 Con mod, so he's likely got 44 HP (51 if he's got Draconic Bloodline).

Invisible Stalker does 10 damage per hit and has two attacks.

Round 1: Invisible Stalker ambushes the Sorcerer and hits twice (for arguments sake).
Round 2: Sorcerer casts See Invisibility, identifies his assailant and probably has Shield. Invisible Stalker now has a hard time hitting (Sorcerer AC = 13+Dex+5 for Shield, minimum...probably around the 20-21 mark. Invisible Stalker needs at least 15 to hit, assuming the Sorcerer has no other AC buffs).
Round 3: Sorcerer casts Greater Invisibility. Invisible Stalker cannot see invisible, so is now at Disadvantage against the Sorcerer, if it can find him at all (which we'll assume he can through Faultless Tracker).
Round 4-6: Sorcerer blasts Stalker with 3 Lightning Bolts for 24d6 damage (24-144 damage, average: 102.5, Dex save for half). Heightened Spell helps the Stalker fail those Saves.
Round 7+: Sorcerer mops up with 2nd and 1st level spells and Cantrips.

Doesn't sound too much like insta-kill to me and that's a pretty generic blaster Sorcerer...it might be close if the Stalker gets lucky and manages to hit a few times or rolls well on his damage and/or Saves, but hardly instant death for the Sorcerer. My money's on the Sorcerer for this one.

[Fightmaster]

I managed to come up with something, he's a dragon sorcerer with a focus on fire so I had him fight a bearded devil (CR 3). After immediately using his fireball and scorching rays, it ended up being a rather close battle as the sorcerer had used a bag of beans to summon (via the frogs on the table of effects) a spectator beholder and an anhkeg in addition to his lion statuette. He won but the entire conflict put him at 10HP and no spell slots left. And to think I almost put him up against a Balgura :smallbiggrin:

[Rallicus]

Oh wait, a CR 3 creature nearly killed the sorcerer? Why, all my theory crafting pointed to the fact that it would be a fairly easy battle, and that he'd discern the bearded devil's fire immunity within one spell!

Snarkiness aside, good choice Fightmaster.

[JellyPooga]

Snarkiness aside, good choice Fightmaster.

As it happens, I agree. Targeting the Sorcerers focus (in this case, Fire) with something straight up immune to it, will allow you to throw a much lower CR encounter and it still be tricky encounter. The same Bearded Devil against a Fighter or Paladin with a silvered weapon, for example, would be a cake-walk, though. Even without the silvered weapon it'd be moderate at best.

I'd be intrigued to see the Sorcerers build, though. As much as a Bearded Devil is pretty much built to be tough for a magic user to crack (magic resistance, resistance or immunity to multiple damage types, ongoing damage effects and relatively high HD for its CR), unless the Sorcerer was built solely around dealing Fire damage, he still shouldn't have struggled that much without some seriously bad luck/good luck on the Devils part.

[Vogonjeltz]

I just opened the Monster Manual at random and flicked through to the first CR:6 critter and turned up an Invisible Stalker, which is a pretty appropriate "assassin creature" under the circumstances.

A Sorcerer 7 has 30+(7xCon mod) HP. Con being what it is, I expect the Sorcerer has a +2 Con mod, so he's likely got 44 HP (51 if he's got Draconic Bloodline).

Invisible Stalker does 10 damage per hit and has two attacks.

Round 1: Invisible Stalker ambushes the Sorcerer and hits twice (for arguments sake).
Round 2: Sorcerer casts See Invisibility, identifies his assailant and probably has Shield. Invisible Stalker now has a hard time hitting (Sorcerer AC = 13+Dex+5 for Shield, minimum...probably around the 20-21 mark. Invisible Stalker needs at least 15 to hit, assuming the Sorcerer has no other AC buffs).
Round 3: Sorcerer casts Greater Invisibility. Invisible Stalker cannot see invisible, so is now at Disadvantage against the Sorcerer, if it can find him at all (which we'll assume he can through Faultless Tracker).
Round 4-6: Sorcerer blasts Stalker with 3 Lightning Bolts for 24d6 damage (24-144 damage, average: 102.5, Dex save for half). Heightened Spell helps the Stalker fail those Saves.
Round 7+: Sorcerer mops up with 2nd and 1st level spells and Cantrips.

Doesn't sound too much like insta-kill to me and that's a pretty generic blaster Sorcerer...it might be close if the Stalker gets lucky and manages to hit a few times or rolls well on his damage and/or Saves, but hardly instant death for the Sorcerer. My money's on the Sorcerer for this one.

Level 7 sorc only has 8 spells known, there are 64 spells in competition for those slots in the PHB alone, 15 more show up in princes of the apocalypse.

[Shining Wrath]

Level 7 sorc only has 8 spells known, there are 64 spells in competition for those slots in the PHB alone, 15 more show up in princes of the apocalypse.

Once again, Schrodinger's Spellcaster - you never know what is prepared until a scenario is proposed, and then it turns out he knows exactly what he needs to know.

See Invisible in particular is the sort of spell often left to the Wizard.

[JellyPooga]

Once again, Schrodinger's Spellcaster - you never know what is prepared until a scenario is proposed, and then it turns out he knows exactly what he needs to know.

See Invisible in particular is the sort of spell often left to the Wizard.

True enough, but it's not outside the realms of possibility. If the Sorcerer is the only Arcanist in the party, for instance, they may be relying on him for those kind of utility spells.

A Sorcerer 7 may only have 8 spells known; I mentioned 3 by name, one a common blaster spell (lightning bolt), one an arguably essential buff (see invisibility) and the last a game changer (greater invisibility); all spells I think you'd commonly see, if not on a single sorcerer, then at least in many parties that have a Wizard and/or Sorcerer.

Call me out on tailoring the build to the encounter if you will, but give me a little credit for not just crying Banishment or Polymorph as a one-shot win.

[Shining Wrath]

True enough, but it's not outside the realms of possibility. If the Sorcerer is the only Arcanist in the party, for instance, they may be relying on him for those kind of utility spells.

A Sorcerer 7 may only have 8 spells known; I mentioned 3 by name, one a common blaster spell (lightning bolt), one an arguably essential buff (see invisibility) and the last a game changer (greater invisibility); all spells I think you'd commonly see, if not on a single sorcerer, then at least in many parties that have a Wizard and/or Sorcerer.

Call me out on tailoring the build to the encounter if you will, but give me a little credit for not just crying Banishment or Polymorph as a one-shot win.

But if they are the sole arcanist, they may not have Lightning Bolt in preference to, e.g., Fireball which does better AoE damage. Eight spells to cover all the arcane casting; you're going to want Mage Armor if not a Dragon Heritage, probably in preference to Shield because it's up for hours. I'd go look at the Sorcerer guides but all of them seem to have been hosted by WotC and no longer exist. Treantmonk's guide for Wizards ranks Fireball above LB and ranks See Invisibility low.

[Malifice]

Even something with half the PC's level in CR can prove a fatal encounter. Months back the sorcerer in my campaign had a solo encounter with a manticore (CR 3) at level 6; he technically lost, though it was very close.

A single 6th level PC has an XP budget of 600 for medium, 900 for hard and 1400 for a 'deadly' encounter.

A single CR 3 is valued at 700XP so officially a medium encounter. Although due to the action economy similarity and swingy nature of 1v1 encounters and solo play, I'd be tempted to rate a single CR 3 as probably a hard - deadly.


I just opened the Monster Manual at random and flicked through to the first CR:6 critter and turned up an Invisible Stalker, which is a pretty appropriate "assassin creature" under the circumstances.

A Sorcerer 7 has 30+(7xCon mod) HP. Con being what it is, I expect the Sorcerer has a +2 Con mod, so he's likely got 44 HP (51 if he's got Draconic Bloodline).

Invisible Stalker does 10 damage per hit and has two attacks.

Round 1: Invisible Stalker ambushes the Sorcerer and hits twice (for arguments sake).
Round 2: Sorcerer casts See Invisibility, identifies his assailant and probably has Shield. Invisible Stalker now has a hard time hitting (Sorcerer AC = 13+Dex+5 for Shield, minimum...probably around the 20-21 mark. Invisible Stalker needs at least 15 to hit, assuming the Sorcerer has no other AC buffs).
Round 3: Sorcerer casts Greater Invisibility. Invisible Stalker cannot see invisible, so is now at Disadvantage against the Sorcerer, if it can find him at all (which we'll assume he can through Faultless Tracker).
Round 4-6: Sorcerer blasts Stalker with 3 Lightning Bolts for 24d6 damage (24-144 damage, average: 102.5, Dex save for half). Heightened Spell helps the Stalker fail those Saves.
Round 7+: Sorcerer mops up with 2nd and 1st level spells and Cantrips.

Doesn't sound too much like insta-kill to me and that's a pretty generic blaster Sorcerer...it might be close if the Stalker gets lucky and manages to hit a few times or rolls well on his damage and/or Saves, but hardly instant death for the Sorcerer. My money's on the Sorcerer for this one.

There are a ton of assumptions here mate. I just ran a single invisible stalker against a party of 3 x 6th level PCs (a barbarian, EK and swashbuckler) and it was fairly close at the end. The swashbuckler had 2 x magical shortswords, and the Barb compensated with reckless attack.

Unless your Sorcerer has a passive perception of 20 odd, the Stalker gets a surprise round off. It makes 2 x attacks at advantage (no reactions allowed). If it also rolls a better initiative score than your sorcerer (around the 50/50 chance) it probably gets 2 more attacks at advantage as well before your sorcerer acts. Were looking at a 50 percent chance of 4 x attacks at +6 (w advantage) vs a Dragon sorcerer with an AC of around 15 before he gets to act.

Assuming your sorcerer then casts (and knows) see invisibility, he's then got 2 more attacks coming his way, probably allowing him to just be able to see the creature that kills him that round. He'd hopefully have both quicken spell and see invisibility allowing a bonus action see invisibility. Personally (if I was the sorcerer) I'd go with a quickened expeditious retreat, take the disengage action and then run for my life.

I'd have my money on the Stalker in that fight. Every time. Barring a perfect spell selection, awful tactics by the stalker, being fully rested and some downright terrible rolling by the DM, the stalker wins. Seeing as the stalker is worth 2,300XP and the Sorcerer 7s budget for a deadly encoutner is 1700XP, it's well and truly into the 'deadly' region.

Also; Invisible stalkers... stalk you. Invisibly. Any reason it wouldnt wait till the sorcerer was down on slots, wounded etc and then attack?

[MaxWilson]

I'd be intrigued to see the Sorcerers build, though. As much as a Bearded Devil is pretty much built to be tough for a magic user to crack (magic resistance, resistance or immunity to multiple damage types, ongoing damage effects and relatively high HD for its CR), unless the Sorcerer was built solely around dealing Fire damage, he still shouldn't have struggled that much without some seriously bad luck/good luck on the Devils part.

Presumably it has a lot to do with the fact that the sorcerer wasted multiple rounds and spell slots on Fireball and Scorching Ray, according to the OP, to which the bearded devil turned out to be totally immune. So the bearded devil was getting free rounds to attack. (Props for RP to the player if he was RPing ignorance of the monster's traits on purpose for lack of a good Arcana skill or similar.)

In 5E, ignorance is far deadlier than mere high CR or bad luck. It always baffles me that my players don't spend more effort on reconaissance and divination. DMs tend to underestimate encounter difficulty because we know the monster's stats and capabilities--but there is no reason a player can't know that too! And I don't know why. Maybe I should spend more time giving my players infodumps based on passive Arcana checks and stuff to clue them in that information is valuable. I dunno.


Once again, Schrodinger's Spellcaster - you never know what is prepared until a scenario is proposed, and then it turns out he knows exactly what he needs to know.

See Invisible in particular is the sort of spell often left to the Wizard.

Hey. There's a sorcerer at my table who knows See Invisible. (Paladin 7/Sorcerer 4.)

To be fair, it was a randomly-rolled bonus spell from the Wild Magic domain, and now that the Storm Sorcerer has lost bonus domain spells I'm probably going to yoink the wild mage's domain spells as well too. But he does have it.

[JellyPooga]

But if they are the sole arcanist, they may not have Lightning Bolt in preference to, e.g., Fireball which does better AoE damage. Eight spells to cover all the arcane casting; you're going to want Mage Armor if not a Dragon Heritage, probably in preference to Shield because it's up for hours. I'd go look at the Sorcerer guides but all of them seem to have been hosted by WotC and no longer exist. Treantmonk's guide for Wizards ranks Fireball above LB and ranks See Invisibility low.

I won't dispute any of what you say here. Fireball does indeed have better AoE, Mage Armour is generally preferable to Shield if you don't have Draconic Bloodline and See Invisibility does fall low down on the lists in every guide I've seen.

On the other hand, if I was building a Sorcerer to function in a party;
A) I'd assume I was the primary Arcanist; "niche protection" and all that. See Invisibility would be on my list because at level 7 I'm probably the only one who has that option.
B) I'd want to have party friendly AoE. Lightning Bolt might not cover as great an area, but it's more precise; a tactical strike compared to Fireballs shock & awe. In addition, it's less commonly resisted.
C) Draconic Bloodline is, IMO, straight up better than Wild (sticking to PHB options). More HP, free armour and less GM-dependency on your class features.

That's where I was coming from with my hypothetical encounter with the randomly selected Invisible Stalker. I can't prove it, obviously and it might not be an "optimal" build, but in my experience player characters are rarely "optimal" in actual play.

I'm not looking for a fight on this; I just thought it a fairly reasonable selection of spells for a level 7 Sorcerer that's part of a party. I'm still curious as to the build of the actual Sorcerer from the OP.

[Malifice]

Presumably it has a lot to do with the fact that the sorcerer wasted multiple rounds and spell slots on Fireball and Scorching Ray, according to the OP, to which the bearded devil turned out to be totally immune. So the bearded devil was getting free rounds to attack. (Props for RP to the player if he was RPing ignorance of the monster's traits on purpose for lack of a good Arcana skill or similar.)

In 5E, ignorance is far deadlier than mere high CR or bad luck. It always baffles me that my players don't spend more effort on reconaissance and divination. DMs tend to underestimate encounter difficulty because we know the monster's stats and capabilities--but there is no reason a player can't know that too! And I don't know why. Maybe I should spend more time giving my players infodumps based on passive Arcana checks and stuff to clue them in that information is valuable. I dunno.



Hey. There's a sorcerer at my table who knows See Invisible. (Paladin 7/Sorcerer 4.)

To be fair, it was a randomly-rolled bonus spell from the Wild Magic domain, and now that the Storm Sorcerer has lost bonus domain spells I'm probably going to yoink the wild mage's domain spells as well too. But he does have it.

Faerie fire is better than see invisibility in my books. 1st level spell, reveals the critters to everyone AND grants advantage on the whole parties attacks against them. Allows a dex save though.

For a Paladin Sorcerer, its enough to make me select an oath other than vengance. Quickened faeirie fire + cha to hit from devotion + GWM for the win.

Planning a Drow Devotion Paladin/ Sorcerer of Elistraee as we speak.

[JellyPooga]

There are a ton of assumptions here mate. I just ran a single invisible stalker against a party of 3 x 6th level PCs (a barbarian, EK and swashbuckler) and it was fairly close at the end. The swashbuckler had 2 x magical shortswords, and the Barb compensated with reckless attack.

A Barbarian an EK and a Swashbuckler? Any of them even capable of having See Invisibility without a magic item? Of course something that's permanently invisible and flying is going to pound them pretty good. A Sorcerer, on the other hand, has got the potential to do it. Just as a Bearded Devil can pound a solo Fire-focused Sorcerer of much greater level than its CR.


Unless your Sorcerer has a passive perception of 20 odd, the Stalker gets a surprise round off. It makes 2 x attacks at advantage (no reactions allowed).
Did you read my post? Have another look at "Round 1".

If it also rolls a better initiative score than your sorcerer (around the 50/50 chance)
"If" being the operative word there.

He'd hopefully have...quicken spell
Know any Sorcerers that don't?

I'd have my money on the Stalker in that fight. Every time...It's well and truly into the 'deadly' region.
I never said it would be an easy fight, just that my money'd be on the Sorcerer and that it wouldn't be an insta-kill 1-0 win for the CR:6 critter (as Rallicus suggested any CR:6 encounter would be).

Also; Invisible stalkers... stalk you. Invisibly. Any reason it wouldnt wait till the sorcerer was down on slots, wounded etc and then attack?
We're extending the encounter somewhat beyond the realms of a hypothetical single encounter here. You're right, played properly, that's what an Invisible Stalker should do. Then again, Bearded Devils are generally supposed to be harvesting newly hellbound souls on their way "down south" (if I'm remembering my lore correctly), if they're not being used as shock troops (implying that they'd be used in teams). Encountering just one is probably not something that should happen beyond peculiar circumstances (you know, like a Comet card being drawn from a Deck of Many Things...).

Faerie fire is better than see invisibility in my books.
3 Reasons See Invisibility is better than Faerie Fire;
1) It targets you, not an area. Target the wrong area (which is fairly easy to do when facing a flying invisible opponent) and you've wasted a spell slot.
2) It's not a Concentration spell.
3) It lasts an hour.

Definitely worth a 2nd level slot.

[MaxWilson]

On the other hand, if I was building a Sorcerer to function in a party;
A) I'd assume I was the primary Arcanist; "niche protection" and all that. See Invisibility would be on my list because at level 7 I'm probably the only one who has that option.
B) I'd want to have party friendly AoE. Lightning Bolt might not cover as great an area, but it's more precise; a tactical strike compared to Fireballs shock & awe. In addition, it's less commonly resisted.
C) Draconic Bloodline is, IMO, straight up better than Wild (sticking to PHB options). More HP, free armour and less GM-dependency on your class features.

That's where I was coming from with my hypothetical encounter with the randomly selected Invisible Stalker. I can't prove it, obviously and it might not be an "optimal" build, but in my experience player characters are rarely "optimal" in actual play.

I'm not looking for a fight on this; I just thought it a fairly reasonable selection of spells for a level 7 Sorcerer that's part of a party. I'm still curious as to the build of the actual Sorcerer from the OP.

If I were a sorcerer who was going to be the party's primary arcanist, you can bet I would know Web and I would have Quicken and Careful metamagics. Since Careful Web (on self) can stand in pretty well in this scenario for See Invisibility (restrained Stalker attacks at disadvantage which cancels out advantage from invisibility; and there's a good chance (50%) he can't even attack you at all since he gets caught upon first entering the web) and it imposes disadvantage on saves vs. Lightning Bolt, I don't really see the See Invisibility thing as a showstopper.

Assuming Dex 14 Sorcerer with AC 15:

Round 1: Invisible Stalker achieves surprise and hits 1.68 times on average for 18.17 points of damage.
Round 2: Invisible Stalker wins initiative 57% of the time. If he wins, he hits 1.16 times on average (thanks to Shield) and inflicts 12.92 points of damage. If he loses, he fails his DC 15 Dex save against Careful Web 50% of the time and inflicts no damage (caught in the web, 45% chance each round to break free), otherwise he inflicts 12.92 points of damage as before, and has something like a 30% chance of breaking the sorc's concentration on Web. Weighted average is 0.57 * 12.92 + 0.43 * (12.92/2) = 10.14 points of damage.
Round 3+: Lightning Bolt inflicts 21 points of damage on a non-webbed Invisible Stalker, or slightly more (24.5) if it's webbed/restrained. Quickened Fire Bolt will do 11.05 DPR to a restrained Invisible Stalker or 7.38 if it's not. (Probably sets its Web on fire too.) It looks like it takes three rounds to kill the Stalker if it's webbed, four rounds if it's not. Each round the stalker has a roughly 50% chance of getting webbed, and each failure takes it out of commission for slightly over two rounds on average (although it may get to make an opportunity attack at non-advantage in the process), so over the course of four rounds it's going to get three or four attacks off for a total of another 25 points of damage or so.

(All of this assumes that the stalker is not doing tricky and intelligent things like Hiding while it stealthily picks its way through the Web towards the sorcerer. If it does that, all bets are off and the sorc loses.)

If I had to guess I'd say that the Invisible Stalker probably has the edge and will win this fight, mostly on the strength of the initial surprise round. Without that round 1, the sorcerer would have the edge.


A Barbarian an EK and a Swashbuckler? Any of them even capable of having See Invisibility without a magic item? Of course something that's permanently invisible and flying is going to pound them pretty good. A Sorcerer, on the other hand, has got the potential to do it. Just as a Bearded Devil can pound a solo Fire-focused Sorcerer of much greater level than its CR.

Yeah. It can flyby them each round getting free attacks and then fly back out of range without incurring an opportunity attack (because it's invisible). Their only hope is to either fall back on missile weapons or start readying actions to attack (or grapple) when it approaches. The barbarian will quickly lose rage because he's not getting to attack every turn. The swashbuckler can't Sneak Attack. The EK... well, it depends totally on what kind of EK it is. But no wonder those guys lost to an invisible stalker--they're right in its sweet spot. If not for the fact that they have 400% as many HP as a lone sorcerer, their probability of survival would be just about nil.

[Malifice]

A Barbarian an EK and a Swashbuckler? Any of them even capable of having See Invisibility without a magic item?

Nope. It got a surprise round off (Steath +10 and invisible). Attacked the Fighter twice. Won initiative and attacked him twice more.

After that, the PC's just wailed on it (at disadvantage) because it was no longer hidden. I could have had it attempt to Hide again, but I didnt want to blow an action every other round to take the Hide action. It was kind of pointless.

I could have played it more hit and run (attack while party surprised, then on round 2 use my action to Hide again, break contact, and then wait a few minutes and do it again) but I was tired from a big night out the night before.


Of course something that's permanently invisible and flying is going to pound them pretty good.

They were in a dungeon. Flying was a bit of a non option.


I never said it would be an easy fight, just that my money'd be on the Sorcerer and that it wouldn't be an insta-kill 1-0 win for the CR:6 critter (as Rallicus suggested any CR:6 encounter would be).

I'd have my money on the IS. 9/10 it wins that fight - even against a fully rested Sorcerer. Which more often than not, the Sorcerer isnt.


1) It targets you, not an area. Target the wrong area (which is fairly easy to do when facing a flying invisible opponent) and you've wasted a spell slot.

Once a hidden creature attacks it gives its position away regardless of whether it hits or misses (unless it has the Skulker feat, which no monsters have). Unless it can also Hide as a bonus action on its turn (Shadow demons, Rogues and Goblins spring to mind) creatures now know exactly where the monster is until and unless it Hides again via the Hide action (so not until the following round).

So round 1; hidden stalker attacks via surprise. After attack resolves, all PC's now know where it is, and can wail on it (at disadvantage) until it spends its action to take the Hide action again (which it can do whenever it wants seeing as it's permanently invisible).


Yeah. It can flyby them each round getting free attacks and then fly back out of range without incurring an opportunity attack (because it's invisible).

They just ready actions.

It could fly away, take the Hide action on its following turn, and then fly back down (if succesfull) the turn after that, but even then as it doesnt have the Skulker feat, and it always reveals itself once its first attack is resolved, the whole party just wail on it with readied actions.


The barbarian will quickly lose rage because he's not getting to attack every turn.

Th barbarian was already out of rage (he'd ran out for the day). He made good use of Reckless attack though (it cancelled out the disadvantage he got for attacking an invisible critter, and he was already getting attacked at disadvantage so why not?


The swashbuckler can't Sneak Attack.

Yep. Sucked to be him. He was still TWFing with 2 x +1 shortswords at +8 though (1d6+5 damage each) as he has TWF style from a fighter level, so was doing a fair bit of damage.

He also couldnt uncanny dodge the IS's attacks.


The EK... well, it depends totally on what kind of EK it is. But no wonder those guys lost to an invisible stalker--they're right in its sweet spot. If not for the fact that they have 400% as many HP as a lone sorcerer, their probability of survival would be just about nil.

They didnt lose. They won. The EK go dropped, and the Barbarian also got badly messed up.

[MaxWilson]

After that, the PC's just wailed on it (at disadvantage) because it was no longer hidden. I could have had it attempt to Hide again, but I didnt want to blow an action every other round to take the Hide action. It was kind of pointless.*snip*They were in a dungeon. Flying was a bit of a non option.*snip*

Once a hidden creature attacks it gives its position away regardless of whether it hits or misses (unless it has the Skulker feat, which no monsters have). Unless it can also Hide as a bonus action on its turn (Shadow demons, Rogues and Goblins spring to mind) creatures now know exactly where the monster is until and unless it Hides again via the Hide action (so not until the following round).

So round 1; hidden stalker attacks via surprise. After attack resolves, all PC's now know where it is, and can wail on it (at disadvantage) until it spends its action to take the Hide action again (which it can do whenever it wants seeing as it's permanently invisible).

I accept that this is what it did, but you need to accept that it could do much better than that if it had used better tactics. It sounds like you just let it stand there and soak attacks while attacking back, which means it was taking three times as much damage as it needed to.

By RAW you cannot ready both a move and an attack*, so a readied action is limited to something within your reach when the stimulus triggers. There is no configuration you can place three PCs** in such that there is no square from which an invisible stalker can attack one without getting hit by three readied attacks in return. I.e. it can always find a square from which it cannot be attacked by all PCs, often by only one PC. (I believe there's only one configuration that allows two PCs to attack, and that is a 10' wide corridor.) Furthermore, Extra Attack and bonus action (TWF) attacks by RAW cannot be readied. So what happens is that the stalker Hides, gets next to a PC, then attacks twice at advantage, getting attacked at most twice and probably once at disadvantage in return, and then retreats 50' where he cannot be attacked at all next turn. Rinse and repeat.

If your invisible stalker just stood there soaking attacks, he was taking five attacks for every two attacks he made, but with kiting tactics it would have been only one or two.

* As a DM I let you do both, but we're discussing your table right now, not mine.

** Unless you have multiple reach weapons or ranged weapons, or one reach weapon and a narrow 10' passageway. If you do have reach weapons, those reaching over their companions will have to deal with the fact that their companions constitute partial cover for the stalker, and they still don't get Extra Attacks... but at least it's better than getting no attacks at all.

[Malifice]

By RAW you cannot ready both a move and an attack*, so a readied action is limited to something within your reach when the stimulus triggers.

They ready an attack for when the creaure enters, ends or moves through their reach (after it attacks).

I was playing ToTM, and the 3 PC's were all back to back. Assuming it flys down and attacks one PC from above, the other two are adjacent. Its fair to assume in ToTm that 3 blokes standing back to back can swing at it as it flys down to multi-attack before darting back up to the ceiling.


There is no configuration you can place three PCs** in such that there is no square from which an invisible stalker can attack one without getting hit by three readied attacks in return.

Squares are irrelevant in ToTM.


Extra Attack and bonus action (TWF) attacks by RAW cannot be readied.

Agree. Like I said, I could have (fly+attack+fly away) then (next round take the Hide action) and then repeat every other round via hit and run actions. Instead I had the IS elect to fly around them and attacking while invisible' for simplicity sake, (meaning they could attack it back at disadvantage, and it had advantage to attack them).

Like I said, it was late in the evening and I was wrecked from the night before and was trying to speed things up. The combat was dragging on as it was (100+ HP, nonmagic weapon resistance, disadvantage to hit it and only the swashbuckler had magic weapons). Also; the party were out of rages and spells, and down on HD so it felt better balanace wise.


So what happens is that the stalker Hides, gets next to a PC, then attacks twice at advantage, getting attacked at most twice and probably once at disadvantage in return, and then retreats 50' where he cannot be attacked at all next turn. Rinse and repeat.

No, thats not what happens.

Assuming the IS is hidden, it flys down and attacks on its turn. The first attack reveals its position to all PC's after being resolved (hit or miss). Any readied actions are then taken. Then the IS can fly away (no AoO as it cant be seen). No matter where it ends up though, it cant attempt to Hide again until its next turn on the following round (via the Hide action). From the time of its first attack this turn, until its first succesful Stealth check via the Hide action on its following turn, it can be shot at just fine (at disadvantage of course).

So it can only (move+attack+move) on its turn. It then stops being hidden until it can take the Hide action again on its following turn. Assuming on its next turn it does so (and it always can make the attempt seeing as it's invisible) it rolls (at +10) and needs to defeat the PC's passive perception scores (pretty likely). Seeing as they havent gotten much else to do that round (while its wasting its turn taking the Hide action) they could drink potions, shoot it out of the sky or take cover or whatever. If it flubbed its Stealth check result the PC's just all draw bows and shoot it out of the sky.

[MaxWilson]

Assuming the IS is hidden, it flys down and attacks on its turn. The first attack reveals its position to all PC's after being resolved (hit or miss). Any readied actions are then taken. Then the IS can fly away (no AoO as it cant be seen). No matter where it ends up though, it cant attempt to Hide again until its next turn on the following round (via the Hide action). From the time of its first attack this turn, until its first succesful Stealth check via the Hide action on its following turn, it can be shot at just fine (at disadvantage of course).

If it attacks at the end of its turn, after movement, it can't get out of range and it winds up taking far more damage, exactly as you outline here. Poor tactics.

If you do it correctly, staying hidden for an extra turn, then attacking and moving away on your next turn, you take only that single readied attack and cannot be attacked by the PCs on their next turns, so you take about 1/3 as much damage. It's fine that you decided to just tank it out in melee, but you must acknowledge that it could have done about 3x better in the combat by being more patient.

[Malifice]

If it attacks at the end of its turn, after movement, it can't get out of range and it winds up taking far more damage, exactly as you outline here. Poor tactics.

If you do it correctly, staying hidden for an extra turn, then attacking and moving away on your next turn, you take only that single readied attack and cannot be attacked by the PCs on their next turns, so you take about 1/3 as much damage. It's fine that you decided to just tank it out in melee, but you must acknowledge that it could have done about 3x better in the combat by being more patient.

Nah mate, you can only attack every other turn. It needs at least one full turn to Hide again (and it has no guarantee of success, but it is quite likely with its +10 stealth bonus).

It flys down, attacks (losing its hidden status), and then flys away. PC's turn now and it isnt hidden.

So the party get at least one full round of ranged attacks every other round even without holding actions.

[MaxWilson]

Nah mate, you can only attack every other turn. It needs at least one full turn to Hide again (and it has no guarantee of success, but it is quite likely with its +10 stealth bonus).

It flys down, attacks (losing its hidden status), and then flys away. PC's turn now and it isnt hidden.

So DON'T DO IT THAT WAY.

Round 1, Stalker: Hides, stealthily moves adjacent to Barbarian. (+10 to Stealth, disadvantage on Barb's perception checks means he is unlikely to spot it.)
Round 1, Barb: Readies an action.
Round 2, Stalker: Attacks barb twice (triggering barb's readied action for one attack), move 50' away.
Round 2, Barb: Either ready an action or Dash, but in either case cannot attack the Stalker.
Rinse and repeat.

Unless the PCs have reach or ranged weapons, their only real hope is if the barb's readied action was a grapple instead of an attack so they can get out of this cycle.

And if they are using ranged weapons, I hope the EK is a Dexy Sharpshooter type because the Barbarian is going to do very little (cannot Reckless attack with thrown weapons), and the Swashbuckler's magic swords won't even come into play.

[Malifice]

So DON'T DO IT THAT WAY.

Round 1, Stalker: Hides, stealthily moves adjacent to Barbarian. (+10 to Stealth, disadvantage on Barb's perception checks means he is unlikely to spot it.)

Where is this disadvantage coming from?

The Stalker makes a Stealth check v the Barbs passive perception as an action. If it succeeds, it can approach him and attack (from hiding) the following round.


Round 1, Barb: Readies an action.
Round 2, Stalker: Attacks barb twice (triggering barb's readied action for one attack), move 50' away.
Round 2, Barb: Either ready an action or Dash, but in either case cannot attack the Stalker.
Rinse and repeat.

He can attack the Stalker - it revealed itself once it attacked and hasnt taken the Hide action again.

The barbarian can freely peg handaxes at it, move over to it (as long as it isnt in the air) and attack it or whatever.

[MaxWilson]

Where is this disadvantage coming from?

Hmm. I was applying the rules for obscurement (Light = disadvantage, Heavy = effectively blinded, auto-fails) on the theory that invisibility effectively obscures you from the enemy, but the PHB actually doesn't explicitly address the difference between Invisibility and obscurement. Looks like the DM could pick anything between "normal passive Perception" and "auto-success" as the DC for the stalker's Stealth and be within RAW. It's not super important to the scenario because Stealth +10 is plenty and will usually beat any normal perception at 6th level. In practice, "Perception with disadvantage" seems to be a common ruling: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471289-Invisibility-and-Perception


He can attack the Stalker - it revealed itself once it attacked and hasnt taken the Hide action again.

The barbarian can freely peg handaxes at it, move over to it (as long as it isnt in the air) and attack it or whatever.

How's the barbarian going to move 50' over to the Stalker and attack it this turn when he's only got 40' of movement?

[Malifice]

Hmm. I was applying the rules for obscurement (Light = disadvantage, Heavy = effectively blinded, auto-fails) on the theory that invisibility effectively obscures you from the enemy, but the PHB actually doesn't explicitly address the difference between Invisibility and obscurement.

The PHB does explicitly address the difference between Invisibility and obscurement. Its stated right in the invisibile condition 'For the purposes of hiding; you are treated as if you are heavily obscured'.

In other words, you cant be seen, and can always attempt the Hide action.


Looks like the DM could pick anything between "normal passive Perception" and "auto-success" as the DC for the stalker's Stealth and be within RAW.

What? No; invisibiliy just enables the Hide action. It does nothing to the DC or check result.

So the stalker on round 1 goes: (move+[multiattack - breaking hiding after attack 1]+move). From the time of the resolution of attack #1 in its multiattack until the start of its next turn the following round (the earliest time it can re-attempt the Hide action) it is no longer hidden, and can be attacked normally (at disadvantage, and with immunity to AoO and targeted spells).


It's not super important to the scenario because Stealth +10 is plenty and will usually beat any normal perception at 6th level.

I think scores of around 14's were the average passive of the party, so I agree. Its pretty unlikely to flub the Stealth check if it wanted to only attack every other round.


How's the barbarian going to move 50' over to the Stalker and attack it this turn when he's only got 40' of movement?

He moves 40', draws his +1 returning trident, and throws it (twice). He can do that every single round after the IS has moved, and before it has taken the Hide action on its following turn.

The room is 35' x 35' square with 15' ceilings and desks and several worktables scattered about.

Round 1:
IS turn 1: Starts turn hidden in corner. Flys 10' down from ceiling, surprises party, uses multiattack on EK [no longer hidden after attack 1]
Barbarian turn 1: Surprised.
Swashbuckler turn 1 Surprised
EK turn 1: Surprised.
Round 2:
IS turn 2: Uses multiattack on EK and then moves back to ceiling. Still not hidden.
Barbarian turn 2: Uses free object interaction to draw +1 returning trident, throws at IS twice (with disadvantage)
Swashbuckler turn 2: Leaps up on table with acrobatics check; makes 2 x attacks with +1 shortwords (at disadvantage) stabbing up at the IS. Uses cunning action to dash, leaping down off the table and retreating to behind the barbarian with the rest of his movement (no AoO thanks to swashbuckler).
EK turn 2: Moves adjacent to Barb. Uses free object interaction to draw potion of greater healing. Uses action to drink it. Uses second wind to heal as bonus action. Uses action surge to ready attack action with greatsword.
Round 3:
IS turn 3: Still not hidden. Now has the option of attempting to Hide as its action (stealth +10) or of flying around the Barb and EK to get to the swashbuckler (or of just flying to the Barb and Fighter and wearing the attack from the EK). The barbarian missed, and the swashbuckler hurt it. It flies over the warriors (triggering the EK's readied action; he hits, but 1/2 damage as the weapon isnt magical) barely registering on the IS. It multiattacks the Swashbuckler (who cant use uncanny dodge as he cant see the IS) hurting him badly, before flying back up and away. Still not hidden.
Barbarian turn 3: Throws +1 returning trident twice, (with disadvantage)
Swashbuckler turn 3: Drops shortsword. Uses free object interaction to draw healing potion, drinks it. Uses second wind.
EK turn 3: Moves under IS and attacks (15' ceiling, 10' stalker, 5' greatsword) at disadvantage twice.
Round 4:
IS turn 4: Still not hidden. Takes Hide action as its action. Rolls 15 (check result 25). Moves.
Barbarian turn 4: Readies trident attack for when it appears as no longer knows where it is.
Swashbuckler turn 4: Picks up shortsword as free object interaction. Takes Search action to find it. Fails.
EK turn 4: Swings at the same spot it just was. Misses (it's no longer there, but he is not told). Tries again and misses again.
Round 5:
IS turn 5: Moves to barbarian and attacks, revealing itself after attack number 1. Barbarian's readied action kicks in and he stabs it with his trident in between attacks 1 and 2. Barbarian takes damage, IS is also hurt. Stalker moves away back to ceiling.
Barbarian turn 5: Throws trident at it twice.
Swash turn 5: Asks DM for an acrobatics check to flip up from table and attack it. DM agrees. DC10 but only the one attack. Makes checkm single attack.
EK turn 5: Walks under it and attacks twice. Screams at Barbarian to poke it with that trident in melee and stop throwing it at it.
Round 5:
IS turn 6: Stalker takes Hide action again (its badly hurt and has possibly underestimated this party). Rolls an 8 and gets an 18. Moves to opposite corner.
Barb turn: Takes search action. Expends his inspiration. Rolls 7 and 15. Result = 19. Discerns the IS hiding in opposite corner. Calls its location out to rest of party.
Swash turn: Moves to attack it.
EK's turn: Moves to attack it

...And so on.

[MaxWilson]

The PHB does explicitly address the difference between Invisibility and obscurement. Its stated right in the invisibile condition 'For the purposes of hiding; you are treated as if you are heavily obscured'.

In other words, you cant be seen, and can always attempt the Hide action.

What? No; invisibiliy just enables the Hide action. It does nothing to the DC or check result.

Oh, good, so I'm not going crazy then.

Per PHB 183, light obscurement gives disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight, and heavy obscurement makes you effectively blinded with respect to that creature. Per PHB 290, blinded creatures automatically fail Perception checks (and other ability checks) based on sight. Ergo, auto-success on Hide, unless the PCs can somehow use another sense to localize the thing. (Unlikely.)


He moves 40', draws his +1 returning trident, and throws it (twice). He can do that every single round after the IS has moved, and before it has taken the Hide action on its following turn.

I've said repeatedly that ranged and reach weapons are how you get around this tactic, so now you give the barbarian a +1 returning trident. Fine, the barbarian can now attack twice. Now the PCs are getting three attacks at disadvantage (one reaction attack, two thrown tridents) per attack from the Invisible Stalker. Or should be, if the stalker is fighting intelligently, which judging from your combat log it obviously was not. That is okay, it's fine to have enemies not fight like tactical battlecomputers, and an Invisible Stalker has an Int of only 10, plus it's a game and no DM really likes killing off players' characters--but in terms of raw capabilities, the Invisible Stalker was using a suboptimal strategy which made things easier on the players.

For reasons I don't understand your invisible stalker prefers never to leave the room. This results in taking unnecessary damage: two attacks from the Swashbuckler on round 2, two opportunity attacks from the EK and barbarian on round 3 and two regular attacks from EK also on round 3, one attack from swashbuckler and two from EK on round 5, two attacks from swashbuckler and two from EK on round 6, etc. And that assumes that the Barbarian would be willing to chase it into the adjacent room--if not, the barbarian also misses out on two attacks on rounds 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the Invisible Stalker is mostly untouched. (The PCs spend a bunch of their actions Searching instead of readying attacks, and the Search will auto-fail if it's not in the room to be seen at all. There are tricks it could potentially play with cyclic initiative and readied actions to sneak in right before its new turn, attack, and ghost back out without most of the PCs having any chance at all to spot it at all--I dislike cyclic initiative for precisely that reason, it's too easy to game, so I won't detail those tricks.)

Face it, if the Invisible Stalker were played with the same intelligence and tactical awareness we expect from PCs, those PCs would be dead. And if the barbarian didn't have a magical returning ranged attack, they'd be even deader, because ranged >>> melee in 5E.

That doesn't mean you did it wrong, but it does mean you were going much easier on them than you could have, and the players could reasonably conclude from the experience that that Invisible Stalker wasn't very intelligent. Which is fine, BTW.

[Malifice]

Per PHB 183, light obscurement gives disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight, and heavy obscurement makes you effectively blinded with respect to that creature. Per PHB 290, blinded creatures automatically fail Perception checks (and other ability checks) based on sight. Ergo, auto-success on Hide, unless the PCs can somehow use another sense to localize the thing. (Unlikely.)

All being invisible does is allow the IS to take the Hide action at will. It takes an action to do so (the Hide action). It gives no bonuses to Stealth, imparts no advantage or disadvantage or anything else to stealth.

I've said this literally a dozen times now, and you seem to keep missing it. This is my understanding of stealth. I was DMing this encounter, so I dont care what your understanding is. Thats how it was in this encounter.


I've said repeatedly that ranged and reach weapons are how you get around this tactic, so now you give the barbarian a +1 returning trident.

Im not 'giving' him anything. He had it in the encounter. He looted it from the lizard king in the Age of Worms adventure path. This is an actual ecnounter, that I DM'd. Sunday afternoon. That started this whole conversation off.

Remember?


Fine, the barbarian can now attack twice. Now the PCs are getting three attacks at disadvantage (one reaction attack, two thrown tridents) per attack from the Invisible Stalker. Or should be, if the stalker is fighting intelligently, which judging from your combat log it obviously was not. That is okay, it's fine to have enemies not fight like tactical battlecomputers, and an Invisible Stalker has an Int of only 10, plus it's a game and no DM really likes killing off players' characters--but in terms of raw capabilities, the Invisible Stalker was using a suboptimal strategy which made things easier on the players.

For the billionth gazillionth time, your understanding of stealth and hiding is different from mine.


For reasons I don't understand your invisible stalker prefers never to leave the room.


It's magically bound there. By the Wizard Castanamir. The doors are magical teleportation portals.


Face it, if the Invisible Stalker were played with the same intelligence and tactical awareness we expect from PCs, those PCs would be dead.

Rubbish. It was, and they werent.

Here is the module. Room VIII (enchantment room) shows you the map. All rooms 15' high, squares 5' - no-one can leave the room due to the teleportation effects (well - the creature is bound there and the PC's dont want to split up or get randomly teleported).

Lost island of castanamir (http://archmagev.com/1st_Ed/1st%20ed%20Modules%20C-series/AD&D%201st%20-%209110%20-%20C3%20-%20Lost%20Island%20of%20Castanamir.pdf)

[MaxWilson]

All being invisible does is allow the IS to take the Hide action at will. It takes an action to do so (the Hide action). It gives no bonuses to Stealth, imparts no advantage or disadvantage or anything else to stealth.

I've said this literally a dozen times now, and you seem to keep missing it.

And I have quoted to you the page numbers which show that it does, in fact, cause Perception checks to auto-fail. Repeating false information a dozen times does not make it true.

Invisibility makes you heavily obscured for purposes of hiding (PHB 291). Heavy obscurement makes other creatures blind with respect to you (PHB 183). Blind creatures auto-fail perception checks (PHB 290). Ergo, Searching visually and passive Perception both auto-fail against a hidden invisible stalker.


For the billionth gazillionth time, your understanding of stealth and hiding is different from mine.

You keep saying that, and you often say it in response to things that have nothing at all to do with hiding. The relevant datum is, "The invisible stalker was magically bound not to leave the 35' x 35' room." That's pretty dumb of the wizard who bound him there, but okay then. It's the wizard who created a crippled guardian, not the invisible stalker who intentionally crippled himself. By DMG standards that makes the encounter drop one level in difficulty.

[Malifice]

And I have quoted to you the page numbers which show that it does, in fact, cause Perception checks to auto-fail. Repeating false information a dozen times does not make it true.

You're wrong. It does no such thing. A blinded creature cant see anything and fails any visual perception checks to do so. Just like a deaf creature cant hear anything and auto fails perception checks to hear stuff.

'Hidden' in DnD is expressly definied as being unseen AND unheard. In other words if you arent hiding, youre making enough noise to be heard, and if you are in a zone of silence its still assumed that people can see youi unless you are making an effort not to be seen. This is unless you take the Hide action (which is both Hide AND move silently).

Being invisible along doesnt stop perception checks, or grant you an infinite stealth score, any more than being magically silenced alone doesnt stop percepetion checks or does the same. It just blocks a single sense.

If youre invisible, you can always attempt to hide. At will. Thats how it helps with Stealth. You still have to use your action (or cunning action if you are a rogue, goblin, shadow demon etc) to take the Hide action. Once you attack (while hidden) you're revealed again and need to again use another action to again Hide.

That is how hiding works in the RAW, and it is definately how hiding works in my campaign (which is all that bis relevant for this encounter).


"The invisible stalker was magically bound not to leave the 35' x 35' room." That's pretty dumb of the wizard who bound him there, but okay then. It's the wizard who created a crippled guardian, not the invisible stalker who intentionally crippled himself. By DMG standards that makes the encounter drop one level in difficulty.

Why are you being so antagonsitic man? Ive spelled out the encounter, showed you the map, explained the PC's, and done everything I can to get this through to you. In a nutshell: Youre wrong. Youre telling me how this encounter goes down in your head, with different PC's a different room and even your own rules on hiding.

Thats not what happened. Im telling you what happened. Its not exactly something you can argue with me about.

[MaxWilson]

You're wrong. It does no such thing. A blinded creature cant see anything and fails any visial perception checks to do so. Just like a deaf creature cant hear anything and auto fails perception checks to hear stuff.

Hidden in DnD is expressly definied as being unseen AND unheard.

In other words being invisible along doesnt stop perception checks or grant you an infinite stealth score, any more than being magically silenced alone doesnt stop percpetion checks or does the same. It just blocks a single sense.

If youre invisible, you can always attempt to hide. At will. As an action (or cunning action if you are a rogue, goblin, shadow demon etc)

That is how hiding works in the RAW, and it is definately how hiding works in my campaign (which is all that bis relevant for this encounter).

Invisibility makes you heavily obscured for purposes of hiding (PHB 291). Heavy obscurement makes other creatures blind with respect to you (PHB 183). Blind creatures auto-fail [visual] perception checks (PHB 290). Ergo, Searching visually and passive Perception both auto-fail against a hidden invisible stalker.

Visual Perception checks auto-fail against an invisible creature. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I don't know why you're arguing this point. It's valid for you to say, "They weren't looking, they were listening, and I ruled that they got to do it at full Perception instead of disadvantage," but 1.) That ruling would be unusual, and more importantly 2.) You're not even saying that. You're just flatly contradicting the PHB, "You're wrong. It does no such thing," without actually backing your assertions up by refuting the PHB text.

Invisibility makes you heavily obscured for purposes of hiding (PHB 291). Heavy obscurement makes other creatures blind with respect to you (PHB 183). Blind creatures auto-fail [visual] perception checks (PHB 290). Ergo, Searching visually and passive [visual] Perception both auto-fail against a hidden invisible stalker.

Invisibility makes you heavily obscured for purposes of hiding (PHB 291). Heavy obscurement makes other creatures blind with respect to you (PHB 183). Blind creatures auto-fail [visual] perception checks (PHB 290). Ergo, Searching visually and passive [visual] Perception both auto-fail against a hidden invisible stalker.

Invisibility makes you heavily obscured for purposes of hiding (PHB 291). Heavy obscurement makes other creatures blind with respect to you (PHB 183). Blind creatures auto-fail [visual] perception checks (PHB 290). Ergo, Searching visually and passive [visual] Perception both auto-fail against a hidden invisible stalker.

Invisibility makes you heavily obscured for purposes of hiding (PHB 291). Heavy obscurement makes other creatures blind with respect to you (PHB 183). Blind creatures auto-fail [visual] perception checks (PHB 290). Ergo, Searching visually and passive [visual] Perception both auto-fail against a hidden invisible stalker.

x3.

This isn't even controversial. Are you seriously controverting it?

[Malifice]

Invisibility makes you heavily obscured for purposes of hiding (PHB 291). Heavy obscurement makes other creatures blind with respect to you (PHB 183). Blind creatures auto-fail [visual] perception checks (PHB 290). Ergo, Searching visually and passive Perception both auto-fail against a hidden invisible stalker.

Perception isnt just visually seeing the creature. It is also listening, and noticing other signs of its passage.

The PC's can search for it via listening, or looking for/ noticing other traces of the Invisible stalkers passage (such as papers being blown on desks as it flies past, dust being whipped up etc)


Visual Perception checks auto-fail against an invisible creature.

Nope. I disagree. An invisible creature can still leave signs of its passage that could be visually detected.

For example: an Invisible Ogre stands on (or walks through) long grass or heavy carpet.


Invisibility makes you heavily obscured for purposes of hiding (PHB 291). Heavy obscurement makes other creatures blind with respect to you (PHB 183). Blind creatures auto-fail [visual] perception checks (PHB 290). Ergo, Searching visually and passive [visual] Perception both auto-fail against a hidden invisible stalker.

No they dont. They auto fail visual perception checks to see the stalker. Not all perception checks against it; or even all perception checks to notice where it is visually.

A 10' tall invisible invisible stalker flying around a 30' x 30' x 15' enchantment labratory stacked with tables, desks a brazier and other stuff is quite probably going to leave visual clues to its passing and location (disturbing the air around it as it flys about, a trail of dust or other debris etc). Thats just visual clues over and above any noise it makes, or smell it might give off etc.


This isn't even controversial. Are you seriously controverting it?

Yes, I am. The PHB is clear that even when invisible 'you might otherwise leave signs of your presence..'

And importantly, this is an actual encounter in my campaign. So my interpretation of the hiding rules is all that matters for the purpose of the encounter and this discussion. I dont need to argue hiding with you. Im the DM. This is how it works in my campaign., even if you still disagree with me.

Ive been trying to tell you this for literally a page now. I have no idea why youre still arguing it.