What are good ways to spot invisible people (and how to break concentration)?

[Douche]

Lets say someone is invisible and hiding somewhere in a room. He has no other allies in there with him, 4 party members searching for him. Instead of stumbling around til we bump into him, or blindly swinging at the air in hopes of hitting someone, could you just yell really loud and hope it breaks his concentration?

Context (if it matters): party goes into a shop through the backdoor, because we're trolling and would rather kick in the door than walk around. Shopkeeper comes to find the source of the ruckus, accuses us of being thieves (even though we were actually going to buy something), casts magic missile. We get a few attacks in. Next round he casts invisibility and runs away. As a half-orc barbarian, could I yell "I will tear out your spine, puny human!" and count that as an intimidate to break invisibility?

It's already past, didn't even think of it at the time... I'm just wondering if there's any basis like that in case the situation comes up again in the future. Alternatively, what are some good methods of finding an invisible guy without using magic or attack rolls?

[Theoboldi]

You could always roll for perception to try and pinpoint him via listening to the sound of his breathing, tracks he has left on the floor, dust he swirls up while running etc. The description of the Invisibility condition explicitly points out sound and tracks as ways to detect invisible creatures. Just because you cannot see them does not mean you cannot find them at all.

[SharkForce]

courtesy of 5e's silly stealth rules, you still know exactly where an invisible person is unless they use the hide action. you take disadvantage to hit them, but no stealth check is required, and in fact turning invisible will probably do nothing at all to hide a person's location until the next round when they have an action available for hiding.

[Dalebert]

There are three specific things that break concentration and yelling at someone is definitely not one of them. There is also a little DM judgment for extreme environmental things like being on a boat and it being hit by a giant wave. AGain, yelling probably nowhere near that. I suggest reading the section on concentrating on a spell, but I believe the three things are taking damage and failing a concentration check DC 10, going unconscious, or casting another spell that requires concentration.

Some things you could do are cast Faerie Fire or throw a bunch of flour into the air in the room. I imagine most DMs would allow for some creativity.

[Kevingway]

courtesy of 5e's silly stealth rules, you still know exactly where an invisible person is unless they use the hide action. you take disadvantage to hit them, but no stealth check is required, and in fact turning invisible will probably do nothing at all to hide a person's location until the next round when they have an action available for hiding.

This. Though it isn't necessarily a dumb rule--think of an invisible person who's breathing heavily without trying to conceal it. He's nervous, gives himself away, whatnot--that's because he isn't trying to hide himself, necessarily. If he were and is still discovered, he wasn't hiding very well (low stealth check).

It works that way, just not many people want to believe it.

[SharkForce]

This. Though it isn't necessarily a dumb rule--think of an invisible person who's breathing heavily without trying to conceal it. He's nervous, gives himself away, whatnot--that's because he isn't trying to hide himself, necessarily. If he were and is still discovered, he wasn't hiding very well (low stealth check).

It works that way, just not many people want to believe it.

uh-huh. tell me, have you ever actually *tried* closing your eyes and locating someone by sound? how about doing that, except in the middle of a pitched battle?

it's a silly rule, implemented because invisibility would probably be more powerful than they're comfortable with otherwise.

i'm not particularly bothered if the rogue who has spent years training his senses (expertise in perception) or the monk who is exceptionally aware of his surroundings (high wisdom) can detect invisible beings when they try (ie make a perception check or have a high enough passive perception to not even need to make a check) but when Grak the reckless, who has no perception skill and dumped wisdom to max out strength dex and con automatically knows without even trying, it's getting a bit silly. at the very least, they could have incorporated a hide check into invisibility... certainly, a person trying to become invisible is attempting to hide, otherwise why would they be going invisible?

[AbyssStalker]

To be honest, it would be so situational to detect invisibility by mere common perception it isn't worth too much white-wall theorizing, if he was wearing clanky armor and not much noise going on, sure, if it is a heated battle and he is wearing leather, most likely not, any attacks he makes that draw blood may splatter on him, yada yada.

Just think about it logically if you don't want to go by RAW.

[SharkForce]

To be honest, it would be so situational to detect invisibility by mere common perception it isn't worth too much white-wall theorizing, if he was wearing clanky armor and not much noise going on, sure, if it is a heated battle and he is wearing leather, most likely not, any attacks he makes that draw blood may splatter on him, yada yada.

Just think about it logically if you don't want to go by RAW.

like i said, a simple "as part of becoming invisible you may make a dexterity(stealth) check" would have made a lot more sense to me. i got no problems with really perceptive people being really perceptive, or really obnoxiously unstealthy people being really obnoxiously unstealthy. and i can absolutely 100% understand that they didn't want to remove the value of skills in being stealthy. but making it so that turning invisible does absolutely nothing to hide your location by itself? that's a bit silly to me.

[Dalebert]

uh-huh. tell me, have you ever actually *tried* closing your eyes and locating someone by sound? how about doing that, except in the middle of a pitched battle?

it's a silly rule, implemented because invisibility would probably be more powerful than they're comfortable with otherwise.

I think that's as good a reason as any to do it. It's only a 2nd level spell. I say fluff it however you want so it makes sense somehow but it shouldn't be an auto-escape-no-matter-what spell at 2nd level. It just means you have to focus your efforts on being stealthful in addition to casting the spell.

[Corran]

I think that's as good a reason as any to do it. It's only a 2nd level spell. I say fluff it however you want so it makes sense somehow but it shouldn't be an auto-escape-no-matter-what spell at 2nd level. It just means you have to focus your efforts on being stealthful in addition to casting the spell.
Allowing a free stealth check when you cast invisibility on yourself is a good houserule imo. You still rely on stealth, and if you want to continue being stealthy in subsequent rounds, you still need to spend your action to take the hide action. But that free stealth check in the round you cast invisibility seems very reasonable to me, and tot overpowered at all.

[AbyssStalker]

like i said, a simple "as part of becoming invisible you may make a dexterity(stealth) check"

Seems like a good solution to me, I just didn't want to see a multi-page inquiry into the nuances of invisibility. I would probably rule that you have no advantage on the initial check (they JUST saw you go invisible) but still have advantage on stealth checks once you have left where you were last seen.

[SharkForce]

invisibility never grants advantage on stealth checks. it simply allows you to make them in the first place.

though you wouldn't need to continue to make stealth checks every round (unless you give away your location or are spotted after hiding the first time). once hidden, you stay hidden until you either give away your location (for example by making an attack or moving to an area where you are not concealed) or someone detects you (for example by removing your source of concealment or by making a spot check).

[AbyssStalker]

invisibility never grants advantage on stealth checks. it simply allows you to make them in the first place.

though you wouldn't need to continue to make stealth checks every round (unless you give away your location or are spotted after hiding the first time). once hidden, you stay hidden until you either give away your location (for example by making an attack or moving to an area where you are not concealed) or someone detects you (for example by removing your source of concealment or by making a spot check).

Oh, I had meant that you have advantage on the other saves if you fail the first save and move location, probably wasn't specific enough on that, my bad, although on second thought I do suppose that having the ability to hide is enough for invisibility, not too much need to give advantage on the stealth checks.

[Corran]

Oh, I had meant that you have advantage on the other saves if you fail the first save and move location, probably wasn't specific enough on that, my bad, although on second thought I do suppose that having the ability to hide is enough for invisibility, not too much need to give advantage on the stealth checks.
I would give advantage in the stealth checks of an invisible character, if he was using invisibility as an extra measure of precaution against enemies that do not know there is an invisible character about. For example, if the character is lurking in the shadows trying to slip the guards' attention, he rolls a stealth check. If that character is also invisible, I would grant him an advantage on his stealth check (assuming he would get to roll a stealth check even without the invisibility). But if he would not be able to roll a stealth chek without being invisible (say he wants to walk straight past the guards, which he would not be able to do without invisibility), then a normal stealth check with no advantage. But this is how I would rule advantage plays in this case as a DM (RAW lets the DM grant advantage and disadvantage according to his judgement).

[AbyssStalker]

I intend to allow invisibility to be represented as advantage on stealth checks out of combat since they won't be alert to an invisible threat (Unless they are already alert to such), although as I thought over it I think the ability to hide in combat is a perfect extension of invisibility, to hide you do have to be out of plain sight, I am going to be pliable if a player gives me additional reasons for advantage on top of invisibility in combat though, like if you had left sight of the enemies and re-emerged somewhere entirely different, or if you had left sight and then cast the spell.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Allowing a free stealth check when you cast invisibility on yourself is a good houserule imo. You still rely on stealth, and if you want to continue being stealthy in subsequent rounds, you still need to spend your action to take the hide action. But that free stealth check in the round you cast invisibility seems very reasonable to me, and tot overpowered at all.

It is a horrible houserule. You are breaking the action economy, making a 2nd level spell over powered, and telling the rogue to go sit in a corner. Plus you are setting a bad precedence.

The entire reason invisibility was brought down to a reasonable level was because in 3.5 the creatures with invisibility were the kings and queens of stealth instead of the rogue.

If you want to boost what Invisibility gives you then you need to do the following.



Make it a third or 4th level spell
Only objects on your person when you have the spell cast on you turn invisible.
Allow the target (who is now invisible) to use the hide action as a bonus action.
If you have cunning action (hide) you may use a reaction when invisibility is cast on you to use the Hide action


This puts it more in line with Haste (bonus action Dash) and shows that an invisible person can hide easier/faster than a normal person.

Note: If you use the RAW of the game invisibility is fine the way it is as a 2nd level spell. People just need to calm down about magic being able to do everything and anything for *reasons*.

[Vogonjeltz]

Lets say someone is invisible and hiding somewhere in a room. He has no other allies in there with him, 4 party members searching for him. Instead of stumbling around til we bump into him, or blindly swinging at the air in hopes of hitting someone, could you just yell really loud and hope it breaks his concentration?

Context (if it matters): party goes into a shop through the backdoor, because we're trolling and would rather kick in the door than walk around. Shopkeeper comes to find the source of the ruckus, accuses us of being thieves (even though we were actually going to buy something), casts magic missile. We get a few attacks in. Next round he casts invisibility and runs away. As a half-orc barbarian, could I yell "I will tear out your spine, puny human!" and count that as an intimidate to break invisibility?

It's already past, didn't even think of it at the time... I'm just wondering if there's any basis like that in case the situation comes up again in the future. Alternatively, what are some good methods of finding an invisible guy without using magic or attack rolls?

To answer your primary question on how to find people who are hiding: Take the Search action.

You then make Wisdom (Perception) check which oppposes their Dexterity (Stealth) check. By default you would also have your Wisdom (Perception) score opposing their check, but unless they rolled phenomenally badly you would probably not automatically notice their locale.

In the context of your scenario, unless that Shopkeeper has a bonus action to hide (or the DM is cheating), you should still know pretty much exactly where he is, because he's unseen, but not unheard. On top of this, he probably plowed through stuff to get to his current location and, not hiding, didn't bother being careful about it. Invisible doesn't mean hidden.

And for your last question: No, that wouldn't break concentration, though as a DM I'd probably say it would frighten the shopkeeper such that they wouldn't approach you that round.

[BiPolar]

Some things you could do are cast Faerie Fire or throw a bunch of flour into the air in the room. I imagine most DMs would allow for some creativity.

This is more the path I was thinking of. You are in a confined space and know that there is someone invisible and hiding. You could back against a wall and faerie fire the remaining spaces and, pending a failed save, he'll light up. The flour idea is great, too. Sleep would also likely work here.

You could also try an illusion that would scare him into movement you could perceive.

Finally, spells that don't require sight (like Dissonant Whispers) would work great.

[Dalebert]

Finally, spells that don't require sight (like Dissonant Whispers) would work great.

Good point. Acid Splash and Campfire are great cantrips for when you're blinded or otherwise can't see someone but know their general location, which you should know if they're not stealthing.

[SharkForce]

on a side note, you really should consider how people will respond when a group of heavily armed murderhobos break into their business. if i take a battering ram to the back entrance of a wal-mart, do you think they're going to respond favourably just because "i was going to actually buy something"? how about if it's me and three other people armed to the teeth with guns, knives, etc?

hope you got what you came for, because frankly you are never going to be allowed into that shop (and if he managed to identify you, probably the city) again.

[BiPolar]

on a side note, you really should consider how people will respond when a group of heavily armed murderhobos break into their business. if i take a battering ram to the back entrance of a wal-mart, do you think they're going to respond favourably just because "i was going to actually buy something"? how about if it's me and three other people armed to the teeth with guns, knives, etc?

hope you got what you came for, because frankly you are never going to be allowed into that shop (and if he managed to identify you, probably the city) again.

Heh, that's probably why they want to find him now :)

[Dalebert]

Also not a fan of a free stealth roll with invisibility. I like the idea that you have a round to do something right after they cast where it's easier to find them, unless they're a rogue, of course.

I am a fan of advantage on stealth in SOME situations as suggested. If it's a situation when stealth is reasonably possible already, generally out of combat, not being possible to see you would obviously make stealth easier. You can focus on just being more quiet, avoiding mud, crunchy leaves, things like that which would reveal footsteps. And the important thing is this doesn't nullify the bennies of being a rogue; quite the opposite. A rogue becomes nigh unfindable with advantage on stealth while the fighter in chainmail just kind of has a chance now when it was hopeless before.

[SharkForce]

i would assume those external factors should apply whether you're invisible or not (so long as you have cover). invisibility won't make fewer leaves on the ground or make the guards distracted. the use of other sources of concealment won't make those things go away.

[Dalebert]

No it doesn't, but you have less things to deal with. That's the point. You can't be seen at all. That's huge. Now you just need to be quiet, avoid patches of mud that would show footsteps, things like that. You don't have to do all of those things AND try to avoid being seen. So it makes sense you'd have advantage on stealth rolls in many circumstances.

Imagine some of the things that could represent a failed stealth roll. You hide behind cover but the tip of your quarter staff mounted on your back or a bit of your rotund behind is poking out into view of some guards. That's something that's eliminated by invisibility altogether. There are still things that can give you away but they're far fewer. In fact, you don't have to find hiding spots at all. You can walk in plain sight if you stay quiet and watch where you step.

[Sitri]

Lets say someone is invisible and hiding somewhere in a room. He has no other allies in there with him, 4 party members searching for him. Instead of stumbling around til we bump into him, or blindly swinging at the air in hopes of hitting someone, could you just yell really loud and hope it breaks his concentration?

Context (if it matters): party goes into a shop through the backdoor, because we're trolling and would rather kick in the door than walk around. Shopkeeper comes to find the source of the ruckus, accuses us of being thieves (even though we were actually going to buy something), casts magic missile. We get a few attacks in. Next round he casts invisibility and runs away. As a half-orc barbarian, could I yell "I will tear out your spine, puny human!" and count that as an intimidate to break invisibility?

It's already past, didn't even think of it at the time... I'm just wondering if there's any basis like that in case the situation comes up again in the future. Alternatively, what are some good methods of finding an invisible guy without using magic or attack rolls?

We don't play by the silly "invisible is not hidden" nonsense some subscribe to. See the current Echolocation thread for details on that argument.

We normally try to deduce where people are based on the position they were last seen or last took a noisy action. Beyond that AoE spells work nice, but it gets a bit harder if the source flies. Our grunts typically use the run where we think it was method to try and bump into them. If the enemy is trying to fight, it is just a matter of time until you get the information you need. If they are trying to flee, you may need some tracking, scouting, or divination. This route will likely lead a later confrontation as opposed to a chase scene.

[Dalebert]

Ugh. Don't go to the echolocation thread. Everything to be said has been said at least a dozen times by people on all sides and it's still going. Folks are entrenched in their positions. This path leads to madness.

[Sitri]

Ugh. Don't go to the echolocation thread. Everything to be said has been said at least a dozen times by people on all sides and it's still going. Folks are entrenched in their positions. This path leads to madness.

I tried to do a summation of arguments which I placed at the end and added to the first post. It cuts out all the real life parallels and impressions of balance, both of which seem to be highly disputed with no true way of providing evidence, and just puts succinct arguments about RAW next to the quotes they are talking about. It makes the whole things a little more manageable if you are only concerned with RAW.

To the OP: Why are you trying to track this guy down? You are so offended that he shot at you for kicking in the back door of his shop that you need to enforce a more serious punishment than hitting him a couple of times and running him out of his shop in terror?

Also, I think it is a good practice for any shopkeepers worth a damn to have some powerful contacts that they can call in when pesky PCs decide that they can own a shop by force.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

We don't play by the silly "invisible is not hidden" nonsense some subscribe to.

You do realize that the "silly" way of playing is not only RAW but not considered silly by countless people right?

Subtly being offensive and going all "badwrongfun" is still offensive.

[Occasional Sage]

To the OP: Why are you trying to track this guy down? You are so offended that he shot at you for kicking in the back door of his shop that you need to enforce a more serious punishment than hitting him a couple of times and running him out of his shop in terror?


He says it's hypothetical in the first post:


Context (if it matters): party goes into a shop through the backdoor, because we're trolling and would rather kick in the door than walk around. Shopkeeper comes to find the source of the ruckus, accuses us of being thieves (even though we were actually going to buy something), casts magic missile. We get a few attacks in. Next round he casts invisibility and runs away. As a half-orc barbarian, could I yell "I will tear out your spine, puny human!" and count that as an intimidate to break invisibility?

It's already past, didn't even think of it at the time... I'm just wondering if there's any basis like that in case the situation comes up again in the future. Alternatively, what are some good methods of finding an invisible guy without using magic or attack rolls?

Emphasis mine.

[Malifice]

like i said, a simple "as part of becoming invisible you may make a dexterity(stealth) check" would have made a lot more sense to me. i got no problems with really perceptive people being really perceptive, or really obnoxiously unstealthy people being really obnoxiously unstealthy. and i can absolutely 100% understand that they didn't want to remove the value of skills in being stealthy. but making it so that turning invisible does absolutely nothing to hide your location by itself? that's a bit silly to me.

But it does do something to hide your location. It heavily obscures you allowing you to take the Hide action at will. If you happen to be really sneaky as well (such as by virtue of being a Rogue 2) you can take the Hide action straight away. You can also Hide straight away if you can cast the spell Quickened. Otherwise you're vulnerable for a few seconds after casting and before slinking off (albeit with some impressive defensive buffs)

It also makes your attacks better (because you can't be seen), and makes you much harder to hit. It also makes you virtually immune to many spells and AoOs.

To answer the OPs question, why don't you just use the Search action? What's this shopkeepers Stealth bonus anyway?

[Mjolnirbear]

like i said, a simple "as part of becoming invisible you may make a dexterity(stealth) check" would have made a lot more sense to me. i got no problems with really perceptive people being really perceptive, or really obnoxiously unstealthy people being really obnoxiously unstealthy. and i can absolutely 100% understand that they didn't want to remove the value of skills in being stealthy. but making it so that turning invisible does absolutely nothing to hide your location by itself? that's a bit silly to me.

Doesn't do absolutely nothing. Can't be targeted by line of sight spells and disadvantage to attack even if pinpoint him.

This is D&D. We're not gonna freeze in shock that someone turned invisible. It is a known tactic. Especially if he disappeared right in front of us. That said in the noise of battle of impose disadvantage on the perception check.

[djreynolds]

I find my wizards approach to most things works. I just throw fireballs and someone is bound to scream.

[coredump]

courtesy of 5e's silly stealth rules, you still know exactly where an invisible person is unless they use the hide action..
No where in the rules is this stated. Some people like to play it this way, but this is *not* stated as such in the rules.

[coredump]

invisibility never grants advantage on stealth checks. it simply allows you to make them in the first place.
The rules do not state that it gives advantage....but.... Dim Light gives *disadvantage* on the contesting perception check. It seems reasonable that being invisible will provide at least as much of a disadvantage as Dim Light.

Do you *really* think it should be just as easy to spot an invisible person as a visible person....??


though you wouldn't need to continue to make stealth checks every round (unless you give away your location or are spotted after hiding the first time). once hidden, you stay hidden until you either give away your location (for example by making an attack or moving to an area where you are not concealed) or someone detects you (for example by removing your source of concealment or by making a spot check).
The HIDING sidebar never makes allowances for movement of any kind, so once you start moving, requiring or not requiring another Stealth Check is completely DM discretion.

[Malifice]

The rules do not state that it gives advantage....but.... Dim Light gives *disadvantage* on the contesting perception check. It seems reasonable that being invisible will provide at least as much of a disadvantage as Dim Light.

Disadvantage on visual perception checks (spot) not on auditory ones (listen). Like how boots of elven kind only grant advantage on auditory stealth checks (they would be perfect on an invisible creature),


Do you *really* think it should be just as easy to spot an invisible person as a visible person....??

Its impossible to spot an invisible person. All such checks automatically fail. However you can still notice signs of the creatures passage (footprints, dust and debris kicking up as it moves) and hear (and smell) it just fine.

[SharkForce]

But it does do something to hide your location. It heavily obscures you allowing you to take the Hide action at will. If you happen to be really sneaky as well (such as by virtue of being a Rogue 2) you can take the Hide action straight away. You can also Hide straight away if you can cast the spell Quickened. Otherwise you're vulnerable for a few seconds after casting and before slinking off (albeit with some impressive defensive buffs)

It also makes your attacks better (because you can't be seen), and makes you much harder to hit. It also makes you virtually immune to many spells and AoOs.

To answer the OPs question, why don't you just use the Search action? What's this shopkeepers Stealth bonus anyway?

i am well aware of what the spell does. i've explained it multiple times in this thread already.

i am nevertheless entitled to have my own opinion regarding what i think it *should* do, and i presented my points quite clearly as such, regardless of what the rules say.

[MaxWilson]

i'm not particularly bothered if the rogue who has spent years training his senses (expertise in perception) or the monk who is exceptionally aware of his surroundings (high wisdom) can detect invisible beings when they try (ie make a perception check or have a high enough passive perception to not even need to make a check) but when Grak the reckless, who has no perception skill and dumped wisdom to max out strength dex and con automatically knows without even trying, it's getting a bit silly. at the very least, they could have incorporated a hide check into invisibility... certainly, a person trying to become invisible is attempting to hide, otherwise why would they be going invisible?

It's not just invisibility. There are a number of things in the game which could plausibly cause your enemies to lose track of your location. I've let my players roll Stealth after a Shadow Jump, for example, and I can imagine doing so for Dimension Door or Misty Step as well. It's not like there's a flashing neon light connecting your new location to the place you teleported from, and the new location could very well be out of your enemy's line of sight.

It's not really an Invisibility problem, it's a situational awareness problem. If you want to solve it for good, you need to work out what characters will notice and when, and when they won't notice anything. And it's tied to the Perception vs. Investigation problem, which is likewise about the boundaries on what can be noticed, and to the "do you know what spell you're Counterspelling?" problem.

Quick ruling, off the top of my head:

1.) Knowing what you're counterspelling requires an Investigation check, DC equal to 10 + spell level, extra +4 DC if it's a spell you've never seen cast.

2.) You can automatically keep track of a single enemy. By default this will be the one you've most recently attacked or cast a spell at, but you can switch your focus with no action required.

3.) Any enemy besides the one you've specifically keeping track of might slip your attention and become hidden from you. But this cannot happen when it is moving in plain sight. When it is moving in the Darkness, or is invisible, or teleports, or relocates while behind total cover, etc., you lose track of it if and only if a Stealth roll beats your Perception score (passive). [maybe should make this passive vs. passive, but that would be too reliable and therefore too powerful]

4.) The Hide action allows you to hide yourself from an enemy even if it is specifically keeping track of you.

5.) Teleportation also allows you to hide yourself from an enemy that is keeping track of you, if and only if you teleport out of its line of sight.

[JackPhoenix]

snip

I think this is the main reason for the 14 pages "Echolocation" thread...5e doesn't have (and doesn't try to have) a rule for every possible situation. RAW lists few hard rules on invisibility, stealth, location pinpoiting, perception, etc., it's not 3.5 with a rule for almost anything you can think of. Malifice and some others are explaining RAW again and again (which is good for the purpose of forum discussion, less good for actually running the game). Sitri tries to twist RAW and find a loopholes in the wording that supports his point of view instead of just going with the 5e motto, "rulings, not rules" and doing what makes most sense in the situation.

Ruling that casting Invisibility during a chaotic battle allows you to roll Stealth as a bonus action or for free opens up the possibility of abuse and imbalance with other abilities (it makes rogue's Cunning Action somewhat redundant, for example)...but it doesn't need 10 pages long list of situation where it is or isn't possible. If it makes sense to you as a GM and you don't mind the potential problems, and it makes the game more fun for players, sure, allow it.

IMO, that's a strength, not a weakness of 5e. If everyone involved is having fun, it doesn't matter if you diverge from RAW somewhat, you're not playing the game wrong. It just needs a different mindset then 3.x rule lawyering (I remember PF game stopping for about a half hour because the GM was sure he saw a rule covering the action player wanted to take *somewhere*, and everyone was looking for it...not a good or fun thing)

[coredump]

Disadvantage on visual perception checks (spot) not on auditory ones (listen). Like how boots of elven kind only grant advantage on auditory stealth checks (they would be perfect on an invisible creature),
Do you really think the typical humanoid relies as much on hearing/smell/etc as sight for pinpointing locations?




Its impossible to spot an invisible person. All such checks automatically fail. However you can still notice signs of the creatures passage (footprints, dust and debris kicking up as it moves) and hear (and smell) it just fine.

Way to completely miss the point.... Lets go ahead and play the semantics game here...

"Do you *really* think it should be just as easy to pinpoint the location of an invisible person as a visible person?


Again folks... there is *nothing* in the rules supporting this idea that everyone will always know where everyone else is....

[MaxWilson]

Ruling that casting Invisibility during a chaotic battle allows you to roll Stealth as a bonus action or for free opens up the possibility of abuse and imbalance with other abilities (it makes rogue's Cunning Action somewhat redundant, for example)...but it doesn't need 10 pages long list of situation where it is or isn't possible. If it makes sense to you as a GM and you don't mind the potential problems, and it makes the game more fun for players, sure, allow it.

The whole point of codifying rulings is for the players' sake, not the DM's. Their ability to act effectively within the game world is predictated upon being able to predict the likely effects of their action. Writing down a simple five-point list of when it is and isn't going to work enhances player agency; maybe you prefer to keep the power in your own hands as a DM, but you don't need to denigrate with hyperbole those who want to give their players a little bit more predictability.

[JumboWheat01]

Fireballs make pretty good ways of finding an invisible person.

"Listen, sir Wizard, we believe there to be an invisible person hiding in this room here. Can you not find him for us?"
"Easily." *chucks Fireball into the room*
"By the Gods! We wanted you to dispel his invisibility, not roast the whole room!"
"Well now he's no longer invisible and dead. I will take the coin needed for the reagents, if you please, plus a hundred more for my time."

[Dalebert]

I totally forgot about bat familiars--60 ft blindsight. Or maybe they've already been brought up and I forgot. *shrug* I'm a fan of having them so they can alert me to invisible things sneaking up on me. Then I have attacks ready that don't require a to-hit or visuals like Campfire or Acid Splash or I have Faerie Fire or pretty much any AoE.

[Sitri]

You do realize that the "silly" way of playing is not only RAW but not considered silly by countless people right?

Subtly being offensive and going all "badwrongfun" is still offensive.

I realize there are lots of people willing to scream until they are blue in the face that it is RAW. After spending hours sifting though their arguments and looking at the published books I am quite certain those assertions are baseless.

If this type of play if fun for you, have a blast, but it isn't RAW. If for some reason this were the only type of game I could find, I think I would have my character put out his own eyes so I could laugh at how awesome he could still be rather than how annoyed I was with how the stealth mechanics were running.


He says it's hypothetical in the first post:


Emphasis mine.

I don't follow? The situation mattered enough to detail it and his motivations, and he said he expected something similar in the future? For all know he plans to go back to the same shop or pull the same stunt at another.


... Malifice and some others are explaining RAW again and again (which is good for the purpose of forum discussion, less good for actually running the game). Sitri tries to twist RAW and find a loopholes in the wording that supports his point of view instead of just going with the 5e motto, "rulings, not rules" and doing what makes most sense in the situation.


Malifice is running far from RAW in that thread, he just keeps using the words RAW. And I very much would like the idea of rulings based on the situation. That is a large part of what I have been shooting for, though I lean in favor of invisibles in most circumstances. I am dead set against the non-existent RULE that you must use the hide action or people automatically know your location in combat.



Ruling that casting Invisibility during a chaotic battle allows you to roll Stealth as a bonus action or for free opens up the possibility of abuse and imbalance with other abilities (it makes rogue's Cunning Action somewhat redundant, for example)...but it doesn't need 10 pages long list of situation where it is or isn't possible. If it makes sense to you as a GM and you don't mind the potential problems, and it makes the game more fun for players, sure, allow it.

One costs spell slots the other doesn't, I don't see the imbalance. Also if you go RAW on the Hide action, the rogue is screwed anyway unless he doubles up with invisibility or darkness regardless how you rule that those spells work. I would personally deviate from RAW to help the rogue.

[MrStabby]

Oh god I had a look at that thread. A big mistake. Just by reading it it felt like my IQ was sinking.

It seems there are three issues, solutions to which which are a bit mutually exclusive:

1) RAW explicitly states how hiding works and the investments in actions/bonus actions needed to do it. Some people want to play by the rules.

2) Things invisible being able to be seen seems pretty odd to a lot of people. Some people want their DM's rulings to make sense. RAW doesn't.

3) balance between classes should suggest that stealth focussed classes are better at stealth than those classes that don't focus on it. Some people wan't all classes to be reasonably playable and be good at their strengths.

I have some sympathy for 1 among novices, or when playing with strangers. Otherwise fun is more important than rules.

I have some sympathy for 2 as well, but I think the problem is with the name. If it was renamed displaced image or similar and just made the PC appear to be nearby then it would be mechanically very similar and no one would actually care as it's name would make more sense.

Issue 3, the balance between classes I have the most sympathy with. People play for fun and nothing sucks the fun out of games like Mary Sue characters who want to be the best at everything. If you want to not be seen get high dex and expertise in stealth. Frankly I don't care half as much about rules or "realism" as much as a I do about having fun. I just don't see why DM's can't work out a campaign rule that lets every player shine as close to equally as possible.



Anyway, to answer the main question - smoke them out. Fill the room with smoke and see the void it doesn't occupy, at the same time listen for coughing.

[SharkForce]

thing is, there's no reason you can't make a wizard (or a cleric, or a fighter, or a barbarian) that is considered good at stealth in 5e.

[Malifice]

Do you really think the typical humanoid relies as much on hearing/smell/etc as sight for pinpointing locations?

Nah man. Hearing and smell just give most peeps a rough idea of where something is (and the fact that its there).

Enough to walk up madly swinging a sword in the general area, or fire off a shot at the source. With disadvantage.


"Do you *really* think it should be just as easy to pinpoint the location of an invisible person as a visible person?

You're not pinpointing them. You're accurate to within about 5 feet. Accurate enough to have a chance of hitting them (at disadvantage) if you wanted to shoot. Not accurately enough to protect yourself from their attacks, make an attack on them if they walk away, cast most spells on them or to stop them from hiding at will.


Again folks... there is *nothing* in the rules supporting this idea that everyone will always know where everyone else is....

There is nothing in the rules that claims that being invisible makes you hidden. In fact the rules clearly state quite the opposite. Rule it how you want at your table man, its your game.

[Sitri]

You're not pinpointing them. You're accurate to within about 5 feet.

I am not going to go into the rest of it again with you, but I would like to point out that WotC has published material using the word pinpoint to mean you know what 5' square they are in. I realize the word doesn't sound good for your argument, but it is what you are doing.

[Kevingway]

Just throwing in my bit again, since it never seems to be mentioned:

On my official DM screen (which has information sometimes that doesn't appear in any of the published books), there's an "audible distance" that enemies have that you could roll either every turn or for the encounter itself. In that case, standing as far away from the invisible enemy as to not hear them, they would truly be undetected--if you are within the audible distance, it would be safe to assume you know their location as they run up to you.

I say "it would be safe," because while the "unrealistic" arguers say it's dumb for you to know the location of somebody invisible, the wording of stealth and other relevant mechanics makes it so there isn't really another way to play it. You can't roll perception with DC of 0 to see something due to lack of a contest roll; that's just silly.

[MaxWilson]

Just throwing in my bit again, since it never seems to be mentioned:

On my official DM screen (which has information sometimes that doesn't appear in any of the published books), there's an "audible distance" that enemies have that you could roll either every turn or for the encounter itself. In that case, standing as far away from the invisible enemy as to not hear them, they would truly be undetected--if you are within the audible distance, it would be safe to assume you know their location as they run up to you.

Out of curiosity, what is the audible distance? I would probably have ruled either 30 or 60 feet.

[Malifice]

Again folks... there is *nothing* in the rules supporting this idea that everyone will always know where everyone else is....

Dungeon masters guide page 243. Heading titled 'Noticing other creatures':

If neither side is being stealthy creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of each other.

Otherwise compare the stealth check results of the creatures in the group that is hiding with the passive perception scores of the other group, as explained [under the rules for stealth and hiding] in the players handbook.

[Kevingway]

Out of curiosity, what is the audible distance? I would probably have ruled either 30 or 60 feet.

If they're trying to be quiet: 2d6 x 5 feet
Normal noise level: 2d6 x 10 feet
Very loud: 2d6 x 50 feet

Very long distance unless the DM rolls low, and only in the former circumstance.

Also possibly of interest to the discussion, normal encounter distance:

Arctic, desert, farmland, or grassland: 6d6 x 10 feet
Forest, swamp, or woodland: 2d8 x 10 feet
Hills or wastelands: 2d10 x 10 feet
Jungle: 2d6 x 10 feet
Mountains: 4d10 x 10 feet

So if something is hiding, you won't be rolling perception checks for a long time. If not hiding but invisible, your party could pinpoint the creature from a fair-ish distance assuming the higher roll of 2d6 x 10 feet.

[MaxWilson]

Also possibly of interest to the discussion, normal encounter distance:

Arctic, desert, farmland, or grassland: 6d6 x 10 feet
Forest, swamp, or woodland: 2d8 x 10 feet
Hills or wastelands: 2d10 x 10 feet
Jungle: 2d6 x 10 feet
Mountains: 4d10 x 10 feet

So if something is hiding, you won't be rolling perception checks for a long time. If not hiding but invisible, your party could pinpoint the creature from a fair-ish distance assuming the higher roll of 2d6 x 10 feet.

That's interesting, because those numbers don't match the DMG. I wonder who wrote what.

[djreynolds]

Perhaps if you guys explain this simply to me, we can work it out.

INVISIBLE
•An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
•Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.

Now stealth in 5E encompasses both hiding and moving silently, but invisibility does not. So an invisible person's location can be detected by the noise they make if they are not trying to stealth, and I would guess if a Eldritch Knight in plate armor who is using invisibility is at a disadvantage to use stealth.

Now a bard, especially, or arcane trickster trying to stealth, I would assume be given at least advantage on their stealth rolls if they were invisible?

[Malifice]

Now a bard, especially, or arcane trickster trying to stealth, I would assume be given at least advantage on their stealth rolls if they were invisible?

Nope; thats what boots of evenkind do.

Those classes are already better at stealth as is. Rogues get cunning action, and both get access to expertise. Rogues also get that 11th level ability that renders all skill checks at least a 10+prof+stat.

Which is genuinely terrifying when you think what an arcane trickster can do with this + greater invisibility. With a dex of 18 he never gets less than a 22 on his stealth checks, and can attempt a stealth check to hide as a bonus action every single round (meaning unless you have a passive perception of 23 or better (or have some kind of special sense or high level class feature), you need to guess where he is every single round unless you waste your turn with the search action. Remember - he's immmune to AoO's and can move 30' every single round so you have next to zero chance of even guessing correctly).

No need to stack advantage on the top of all that.

If youre an illusionist who wants to be good at sneaking around quietly, dip rogue for two levels for expertise in stealth and cunning action. Otherwise youre a clumsy nerd in a pointy hat and dress who never gets out of his book long enough to know how to keep quiet, or how to do it well.

Wizards not invalidating rogues (and instead complementing them by casting invisibility on the rogue to complement the rogues class featurs) is a feature, not a bug.

[djreynolds]

So say I am a wizard and invisible, the only way to find me, mundanely, is through an active perception check versus my stealth check if you saw me prior? You saw me 20 feet away, I turned invisible, and could moved say 30 feet in so many directions and you are now trying to see tracks on the floor and listen to components jingle.

And the only way to even notice me, if you were unaware of my existence, is through your passive perception beating my stealth check? And this passive check could be very high for even a ranger in his favored terrain. And perhaps his beast has scent, etc.

So the big difference between invisibility and hiding, is that I do not need a source for my concealment, where as the hider needs a shadow or cover or foliage? But you still will have an idea of where I could have went, and could just guess and be right and just attack square 9 with at disadvantage?

[Malifice]

So say I am a wizard and invisible, the only way to find me, mundanely, is through an active perception check versus my stealth check if you saw me prior? You saw me 20 feet away, I turned invisible, and could moved say 30 feet in so many directions and you are now trying to see tracks on the floor and listen to components jingle.

And the only way to even notice me, if you were unaware of my existence, is through your passive perception beating my stealth check? And this passive check could be very high for even a ranger in his favored terrain. And perhaps his beast has scent, etc.

So the big difference between invisibility and hiding, is that I do not need a source for my concealment, where as the hider needs a shadow or cover or foliage? But you still will have an idea of where I could have went, and could just guess and be right and just attack square 9 with at disadvantage?

No.

If you turn invisible, that just fulfills the precondition for taking the Hide action (heavily obscured/ you can no longer be seen clearly). As soon as you are able to, you can attempt the Hide action (just as if you ducked behind a low wall, or down into some long grass). Unless you are also a Rogue 2 with cunning action and able to Hide as a bonus action (or you cast your invsibility spell as a bonus action via quicken spell, allowing you to Hide with your action this round) you'll generally have to wait untill your next turn to attempt to Hide after casting invisibility.

Once you take that Hide action, you roll (stealth + dex) vs the passive perception scores of anyone in the combat. You become hidden vs anyone who has a passive perception lower than your stealth check result, and they now can't attack you at all - barring a lucky guess. Anyone who has a passive perception higher than your stealth check notices your general location and can still attack you just fine (at disadvantage, no AoO's and no targetted spells).

Anyone you are hidden from who doesntwant to guess where you are can still look for you, by taking the Search action.

[PoeticDwarf]

You could always roll for perception to try and pinpoint him via listening to the sound of his breathing, tracks he has left on the floor, dust he swirls up while running etc. The description of the Invisibility condition explicitly points out sound and tracks as ways to detect invisible creatures. Just because you cannot see them does not mean you cannot find them at all.

True, you can't break concentration but you can make perception checks (or investigation sometimes).

[djreynolds]

No.

If you turn invisible, that just fulfills the precondition for taking the Hide action (heavily obscured/ you can no longer be seen clearly). As soon as you are able to, you can attempt the Hide action (just as if you ducked behind a low wall, or down into some long grass). Unless you are also a Rogue 2 with cunning action and able to Hide as a bonus action (or you cast your invsibility spell as a bonus action via quicken spell, allowing you to Hide with your action this round) you'll generally have to wait untill your next turn to attempt to Hide after casting invisibility.

Once you take that Hide action, you roll (stealth + dex) vs the passive perception scores of anyone in the combat. You become hidden vs anyone who has a passive perception lower than your stealth check result, and they now can't attack you at all - barring a lucky guess. Anyone who has a passive perception higher than your stealth check notices your general location and can still attack you just fine (at disadvantage, no AoO's and no targetted spells).

Anyone you are hidden from who doesntwant to guess where you are can still look for you, by taking the Search action.

See this good, we all need a level basis to go off of. I hope my questions are of value to this topic?

[Sitri]

The summary of 15 pages of how RAW this all is:

Arguments that pinpointing invisible/dark creatures is not automatic:

BLlNDSIGHT[/B]
A creature with blindsight can perceive its surroundings
without relying on sight, within a specific radius.
Creatures without eyes, such as oozes, and creatures
with echolocation or heightened senses, such as bats
and true dragons, have this sense.

Apologist: If a special ability lets creatures perceive their surroundings to a certain range without sight, it doesn't make sense that all creatures can do it for an effectively unlimited range.

Critic: By "can perceive," it means automatically perceives hidden stuff in addition to the invisible stuff everyone gets. Perception score only matters for things outside the radius of blindsight, if at all? An alternative suggestion: This ability prevents invisible creatures from hiding unless they can qualify another way.

Stealth.
Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you
attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past
guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on
someone without being seen or heard.

Apologist: No mention of Hide Action requirement, just an attempt to conceal yourself. Backed by the idea that the DM can call for a Challenge anytime and/or many checks cannot use an action.

Critic: In combat, anything that has anything to do with stealth requires the hide action.

HIDE
When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity
(Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules
in chapter 7 for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain
benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and
Targets" section later in this chapter.

Apologist: The only stated benefit of the Hide action is in Unseen Attackers and Targets, no reference to masking location or being the sole way to mask location/use stealth in combat.

Critic: In the Unseen Attackers and Targets section, it is generally implied that the hide action is how you mask your location.

Unseen Attackers and Targets pt1
Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice
by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking
in darkness.

Apologist: Three alternatives methods are listed to escape enemy combatants notice. If enemies know where you are standing unless you use the first alternative, the other two do not do what it says they do.

Critic: The book is wrong.

Unseen Attackers and Targets pt2
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. If the target isn’t in
the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but
the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not
whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.
When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on
attack rolls against it.

Apologist: No real assertions, included for completeness.
Critic: See Second portion for assertions.

Unseen Attackers and Targets pt 3
If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when
you make an attack, you give away your location when
the attack hits or misses.

Apologist: “Hidden” is not a mechanical term that means “used the Hide Action.” The word “Hidden” is used in the PHB roughly 50 times; many of which cannot mean “used the Hide Action.”

Critic: In combat, it is assumed or implied that “Hidden” means “used the Hide Action.”

Hiding (Found under Dexterity)
….You can't hide from a creature that can see you [Errata: The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn't whether the creature can see you when you're hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly] and if you
make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a
vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.

Apologist: The examples given should be used as a frame of reference for what types of sounds give away your position. The reference to "can hide," means it can always take the hide action, further reducing the chance of being pinpointed.

Critic: Some say ignore the sound references all together. Some say it can affect roll modifiers, but ignore it for the purpose of figuring out if enough noise is made to give away the location of an invisible/dark creature. The line saying invisible can hide, means they must use the hide action to have any chance of the enemy not knowing their position.

BLINDSENSE
Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are
aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature
within 1O feet of you.

Apologist: You must not automatically know the position of an invisible, unhidden creature. With this ability your hearing becomes precise enough to do this at a very limited range.

Critic: There was a writing/editing error.

FERAL SENSES
At 18th levei, you gain preternatural senses that help
you fight creatures you can't see. When you attack a
creature you can't see, your inability to see it doesn't
impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it.
You are also aware of the location of any invisible
creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the
creature isn't hidden from you and you aren't
blinded or deafened.

Apologist: Yet another example in the PHB of needing a special ability to automatically know the location of an invisible creature that isn't hidden from you.

Critic: No response yet.

Arguments that pinpointing invisible/dark creatures is automatic without the Hide Action:

Unseen Attackers and Targets pt2
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. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.

Apologist: Since you can target a creature you can hear but not see, you can hear invisible/darkness creatures well enough to pinpoint them until they hide.

Critic: Just because you can sometimes hear someone well enough to pinpoint them, doesn’t mean you always can.


Unseen Attackers and Targets pt3
If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

Apologist: In Combat “hidden” means you must have took the Hide Action. Hidden is defined as unseen and unheard. There aren’t details about how to be unheard, so you are always heard unless you are “hidden.” Therefore to mask your location in combat you must use the Hide action.

Critic: There is no written evidence that “hidden” in combat means used the Hide Action. The references regarding what types of sounds give away your location should be used for pinpointing location. Saying you must be “hidden” to have your location masked based on the above statement is rearranging the cause and effect of the sentence.

E.G. If your thumb-the stumpy finger opposable to the others on your hand- is cut off, you have reduced manual dexterity. Therefore, if you have reduced manual dexterity, you must have had your stumpy opposable finger (thumb) cut off.

SOUNDS
A dungeon's enclosed geography helps channel sound.
The groaning creak of an opening door can echo down
hundreds of feet of passageway. Louder noises such
a the clanging hammers of a forge or the din of battle
can reverberate through an entire dungeon. Many
creatures that live underground use such sounds as a
way of locating prey, or go on alert at any sound of an
adventuring party's intrusion.

Apologist: Since you can hear distances far away in some circumstances, you can pinpoint their location at different distances, sometimes extremely far away.

Critic: Hearing something isn’t the same as being able to hear it well enough to pinpoint it without sight. Further, only some creatures are listed as using these sounds to locate prey, not all.

NOTICING OTHER CREATURES
While exploring, characters might encounter other
creatures. An important question in such a situation is
who notices whom.
Indoors, whether the sides can see one another
usually depends on the configuration of rooms and
passageways. Vision might also be limited by light
sources. Outdoor visibility can be hampered by terrain,
weather, and time of day. Creatures can be more likely
to hear one another before they see anything.
If neither side is being stealthy, creatures
automatically notice each other once they are within
sight or hearing range of one another. Otherwise,
compare the Dexterity (Stealth) check results of the
creatures in the group that is hiding with the passive
Wisdom (Perception) scores of the other group, as
explained in the Player's Handbook.

Apologist: This is further evidence that you can hear things far away. Here the term stealthy means using the Stealth Skill. To use Stealth in combat requires the Hide Action.

Critic: Hearing and pinpointing by hearing are different. Stealthy probably refers to use of the stealth skill most of the time. The book does not say all uses of Stealth in combat require the Hide Action.

INVISIBLE
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the
aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of
hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's
location can be detected by any noise it makes
or any tracks it leaves.

Apologist: In this case, "any noise" should be read as not having taken the hide action or being invisible/dark in a silence spell while in combat.

Critic: To pinpoint an invis/dark creature’s location, it should require noise similar to examples given (or tracks in appropriate environments.) The use of "any" without the previous frame of reference leads to absurdity and multiple book contradictions.

[djreynolds]

Thank you, very nice. But as stated, fireballs and ice storms fix many problems for the OP.

Except for dirty Halfling rogues, they need extra

[Sitri]

As to how invisible or dark being able to mask location invalidates the rogue, this is far from the truth. What hurts the rogue's bonus action Hide ability is the fact that as soon as he steps out to attack line of sight immediately breaks his hide by RAW. Letting someone else spend resources to mask their location doesn't really affect this one aspect of one of their abilities at all. Also let's remember this is just one aspect of a second level ability that still has many other good uses.



However, saying you pinpoint invisible creatures until they take the hide action does hurt/invalidate a lot of other abilities:

- Cleric Channel Divinity Cloak of Shadows requires two actions over two rounds to hide your location just long enough to move once and then it immediately ends. Also you could cut out the entire sentence about attacking or casting a spell without consequence.
- The 18th level Empty Body ability that lasts for 10 rounds requires you to spend two actions to hide your location and another full action to hide it again every time you attack.
- The 11th level Shadow Monk Cloak of Shadows requires two full actions to hide your location.
- Half of the 18th level Feral Senses ability is lost.
- Half of the 10th level ability Blind Sense is lost.
- The 6th level Feylock Misty Step ability lets everyone know exactly where you teleported to.
- The 5th level One with Shadows invocation becomes entirely useless because you can never take the hide action while using.
-The 5th level spell Mislead: takes 3 rounds to really start using. R1 cast, R2 hide, R3 move the illusion.
- The 4th level spell MORDENKAINEN'S FAITHFUL HOUND should just say it gets advantage on attack rolls as the rest of invisibility becomes completely irrelevant.

Poor rogue being shut down by invisibility.........rather letting invisibility/dark work would Help the rogue. It would free up his bonus action for other things in many situations. These guys above are just boned.

[Malifice]

Thank you, very nice. But as stated, fireballs and ice storms fix many problems for the OP.

Except for dirty Halfling rogues, they need extra

Thats what those dex saves and evasion is for brother!

[Dalebert]

A cloak of elvenkind gives you advantage on stealth checks to hide so it stands to reason that being invisible would also. Invisibility is at least as good as camouflage though likely superior.

"While you wear this cloak with its hood up, Wisdom
(Perception) checks made to see you have disadvantage.
and you have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks
made to hide, as the cloak's color shifts to camouflage
you."

[Malifice]

A cloak of elvenkind gives you advantage on stealth checks to hide so it stands to reason that being invisible would also. Invisibility is at least as good as camouflage though likely superior.

"While you wear this cloak with its hood up, Wisdom
(Perception) checks made to see you have disadvantage.
and you have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks
made to hide, as the cloak's color shifts to camouflage
you."

Made to see you. Visual checks only. No help to you if youre invisible.

Its no different to light obscurement.

See also the boots; they only work on audditory stealth checks. THEY would certainly work while invisible. The cloak would not.

[Dalebert]

They explicitly point out that they give you advantage on hide checks. You're the one who keeps reminding us that hidden means both unseen and unheard. I'm assuming their reasoning is similar to mine. It's easier when you can focus efforts on only part of the task, i.e. either the unseen or the unheard part.

[Malifice]

They explicitly point out that they give you advantage on hide checks. You're the one who keeps reminding us that hidden means both unseen and unheard. I'm assuming their reasoning is similar to mine. It's easier when you can focus efforts on only part of the task, i.e. either the unseen or the unheard part.

Read the items a bit more closely.

Cloak = only visual Hide checks. When your enemy is deafened, in the radius of a silence spell or similar. It also grants disadvantage on perception checks to see you.

Neither thing is of any benefit to you if youre invisible, and niether help you in any way by being quiet.

Boots = only auditory stealth checks. When youre sneaking up on someone who cant see you, has his back turned, youre invisible etc.

If you wear both, you always get advantage to Hide checks.

[djreynolds]

Thats what those dex saves and evasion is for brother!

Dam your evasion Halfling, next time just you wait.

[JumboWheat01]

Thats what those dex saves and evasion is for brother!

Drop a good ol' Stinking Cloud then. Less fatal (to both target and scenery,) but also more likely to hit those sneaky, high dex evasion rogues.

Or maybe Cloudkill.

[Zalabim]

There is a certain range at which whatever it is you're doing might be heard. That range isn't given in the book. It's up to the DM to tell you what your PC can hear, and when it's in doubt, decide what DC Wisdom (Perception) check is required to hear something. This causes a lot of arguments.

I believe the intention of targeting the location (in combat) of an unseen creature you can hear is that you can target is location only if you can hear it, and can target its location. So if you can't hear it because it's too far away, or can't target it because there's a solid obstacle between the two of you, you can't target its location. Lastly, even when you can target something's location by hearing it, your DM never has to tell you if you succeeded on the perception check. You make a check, or your passive perception is tested, and the DM tells you what you hear. You can't be sure, out of game.

In combat, every combatant is assumed to be alert for danger on all sides. This does give them some unreal awareness of the battlefield. A realistic depiction of hearing between two lone combatants doesn't make sense between 5-15 combatants. I can understand extrapolating the rules for two combatants to cover the larger group battle as the general rule, because the larger group battle is already more complex. Adding in more complex targeting rules for larger battles (like "you can tell that creatures are within a radius based on the number of creatures making noise in that direction, but not which location or which creature is in any given location within that radius" or a simpler "you can hear a creature at this and this and this location, but you don't know which is which. Some might be your allies.") could grind the game to an unfun sluggish crawl. It could also lead to slapstick, hilarity, and fun. It depends on the group.

[Dalebert]

Read the items a bit more closely.

You're invalidating your own previously-made arguments now. You have pointed out again and again, and I agree with you, that "hidden" means unseen AND unheard. Otherwise people still know where you are because they hear you breathing or hear your items rustling, etc.

The cloak does two different things for you. #1 is that if the hood is up, visual perception checks made to spot you are at disadvantage. #2 It grants you advantage on stealth checks made to "hide". The word "and" is explicitly used indicating these are two separate benefits. #1 applies anytime a DM would require a perception check to see you. #2 applies only when you've used an action and made a stealth check to hide. You roll it and you get one result that is your hide number that will be compared against your enemy's senses.

[Malifice]

You're invalidating your own previously-made arguments now. You have pointed out again and again, and I agree with you, that "hidden" means unseen AND unheard. Otherwise people still know where you are because they hear you breathing or hear your items rustling, etc.

The cloak does two different things for you. #1 is that if the hood is up, visual perception checks made to spot you are at disadvantage. #2 It grants you advantage on stealth checks made to "hide". The word "and" is explicitly used indicating these are two separate benefits. #1 applies anytime a DM would require a perception check to see you. #2 applies only when you've used an action and made a stealth check to hide. You roll it and you get one result that is your hide number that will be compared against your enemy's senses.

Yeah, but the color of the cloak is not going to help you one iota if youre invisible, or if you already cant be seen (youre hiding behind total obscurement).

[Dalebert]

Yeah, but the color of the cloak is not going to help you one iota if youre invisible, or if you already cant be seen (youre hiding behind total obscurement).

Of course. You can't stack advantage. You either have it or you don't. I'm presenting it as a precedent established by the designers themselves where magical help with being unseen grants advantage to a hide check. Other cases will obviously be decided by the DM based on the context. I'm simply arguing that being completely invisible should generally grant advantage on a hide check based on this precedent established by the designers.

[Malifice]

Of course. You can't stack advantage. You either have it or you don't. I'm presenting it as a precedent established by the designers themselves where magical help with being unseen grants advantage to a hide check. Other cases will obviously be decided by the DM based on the context. I'm simply arguing that being completely invisible should generally grant advantage on a hide check based on this precedent established by the designers.

And I disagree with you. Being heavily obscured (which is what invisibility does) just grants you the ability to hide. If being invisible was supposed to give you advantage, it would say it does.

[Sitri]

The color of your cloak blends in well = advantage on stealth.
Your entire body and everything you carry can't be seen at all = get wrecked, that doesn't give any extra benefit when hiding. :smallconfused:

[Occasional Sage]

I don't follow? The situation mattered enough to detail it and his motivations, and he said he expected something similar in the future? For all know he plans to go back to the same shop or pull the same stunt at another.


The question at the end is specifically called out as a generic "how-to". That makes me read all of the setup and explanation as extraneous.

Sure, he may go back to this stunt again. But that doesn't change the mechanical, not motivational, nature of the question.

[georgie_leech]

The color of your cloak blends in well = advantage on stealth.
Your entire body and everything you carry can't be seen at all = get wrecked, that doesn't give any extra benefit when hiding. :smallconfused:

The cloak won't do anything at all to help you Hide when you're being watched. Invisibility has a more powerful effect in that regard: it doesn't matter how many people are watching, you can Hide just fine.

[Dalebert]

And I disagree with you.

And that's your prerogative, but the designers clearly don't.

[Malifice]

The color of your cloak blends in well = advantage on stealth.

As long as you have something to hide behind sure.

Otherwise wearing the cloak in the middle of a football pitch doesnt help you at all.


Your entire body and everything you carry can't be seen at all = get wrecked, that doesn't give any extra benefit when hiding. :smallconfused:

Creates something for you to hide behind, meaning you always can. Even in the middle of a football pitch.

[Douche]

on a side note, you really should consider how people will respond when a group of heavily armed murderhobos break into their business. if i take a battering ram to the back entrance of a wal-mart, do you think they're going to respond favourably just because "i was going to actually buy something"? how about if it's me and three other people armed to the teeth with guns, knives, etc?

hope you got what you came for, because frankly you are never going to be allowed into that shop (and if he managed to identify you, probably the city) again.

Hahah, well as I said, it was a troll game.

I pretty much play support to the real insane guy, following him and compensating for the craziness. For instance, the invisible guy escaped onto the street... We were actually there because we believed there was a cult that operated in the basement; so after the shopkeeper ran for his life, crazy guy starts kicking down all the other interior doors while I start barricading the exterior doors. I figured that the town guards would show up soon, but we'd be safe as long as we expose the evil cult before the guards apprehend us.

We also had a druid with mending so we repaired the back door and it didn't look like we broke in. We were gonna claim he attacked us unprovoked.

TL;DR - it was going down one way or the other.

[ryan92084]

Some lamp oil and threats work pretty well I've found. I love lamp...oil.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/684181987150594048

How to spot an invisible creature? Via sound as invisibility doesn't mean you are automatically hidden. You can still be targeted because you are making sound.

[ryan92084]

If they're trying to be quiet: 2d6 x 5 feet
Normal noise level: 2d6 x 10 feet
Very loud: 2d6 x 50 feet

Very long distance unless the DM rolls low, and only in the former circumstance.

Also possibly of interest to the discussion, normal encounter distance:

Arctic, desert, farmland, or grassland: 6d6 x 10 feet
Forest, swamp, or woodland: 2d8 x 10 feet
Hills or wastelands: 2d10 x 10 feet
Jungle: 2d6 x 10 feet
Mountains: 4d10 x 10 feet

So if something is hiding, you won't be rolling perception checks for a long time. If not hiding but invisible, your party could pinpoint the creature from a fair-ish distance assuming the higher roll of 2d6 x 10 feet.

Very interesting. This is exactly the type of info that I've been wishing was in the DMG.

I can't believe i missed that section all this time. I guess i don't use the screen all that often.