Is It Impossible To Benefit From 'One With Shadows'? [Archive]

Arial Black

2016-10-01, 07:34 AM

The warlock invocation, 'One With Shadows' reads,"When you are in an area of dim light or darkness, you can use your action to become invisible until you move or take an action or a reaction."

Brilliant! So, I just take my action to do this and I'm invisible, hidden from view and able to attack from hidden to get advantage on my attack. Right?

No. being invisible is not enough. To be hidden, you have to take the Hide action while in cover, and if your cover goes away then you are no longer 'hidden'. Invisibility counts as that cover, but you still have to take the Hide action in order to count as 'hidden'.

Okay, I move to an area of dim light, use my Action to use One With Shadows to become invisible, then use my bonus action to Hide, congratulating myself on being a multiclass rogue/warlock.

As soon as you use your bonus action to Hide, your One With Shadows ends. It ends because it says that you are invisible until you use an Action, ans a bonus action counts as an Action. Since your invisibility ends, you no longer have cover so you are not 'hidden'.

Okay, I'll do it the other way around! I'll move to an area of dim light, use my bonus action to Hide and then....

No! You can't use your bonus action to Hide at this point because you don't have cover! You're not invisible yet.

What? Then how can One With Shadows actually work? Maybe we could say that the dim light I move to counts as enough cover to use a Hide action to become 'hidden'?

Yes, we could.

Er...if I can become 'hidden' without becoming invisible...then what's the point of One With Shadows?

Anyone?

Dominosh

2016-10-01, 07:49 AM

You already have advantage from attacking when invisible, so you'll get sneak attack without using your action to hide.
under invisible condition:

Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.

Arial Black

2016-10-01, 07:56 AM

You already have advantage from attacking when invisible, so you'll get sneak attack without using your action to hide.
under invisible condition:

How does being invisible without having used an action to Hide interact with Perception/Stealth?

lunaticfringe

2016-10-01, 08:01 AM

You are heavily obscured, enemies would have to spend an Action to Search for you or take a pot shot which is hit(ie they guess right & the Attack Roll is made w/ Disadvantage) or miss. If an enemy uses the Search action on its turn & they don't have Keen Smell or Hearing or Whatever that Check Has Disadvantage.

Soooo against say human mooks it is Situationally Useful. Won't help you against a pack of Dire Wolves I'm guessing.

Or it won't help at all if you're DM Meta Games.

It's is a more Defensive True Strike that only works in low light conditions basically.

Tanarii

2016-10-01, 09:33 AM

Aw man. I've always assumed it was possible to Hide with it. I've never seen it ruled otherwise either. Damn you, now I can't unsee the real rule!

Still, being invisible is useful in itself.

How does being invisible without having used an action to Hide interact with Perception/Stealth?Assuming you're talking about a combat use or a creature that saw you turn invisible: It doesn't. They know where you are, assuming they knew it in the first place.

If you turned invisible before they ever came along, it's more questionable. It's possible you could still use it my favored way: to lurk in the shadows waiting for your prey.

(There's also the question of if hiding out of combat even constitutes an action. But I'm just talking about detecting an invisible creature you didn't know was there to begin with, but isn't hiding. Rules for that aren't clear.)

lunaticfringe

2016-10-01, 09:39 AM

Yeah in Narrative Time it takes no more than 6 seconds so it is way more useful outside of Combat. It's in Combat where things get more complex.

Socratov

2016-10-01, 09:54 AM

I'd say ask your DM how he would see this happen. Also, please do remember that you become invisible unitl you move or take an action or reaction (note the bonus action is left out, take that as you will). Strictly speaking you can't take the hide action since it takes an action and invalidates your invisibility. You can, however, muse that since it directly bestows the invisible condition on you that it grants the effects of teh invisibility spell.

Also, you need to stand still. So enemies will know where you are (location, if they are looking for you) but won't be able to see you. Be wary of AOE spells/items being slung around.

I could see great potential for tactical desicions on maintaining spells for concentration (disadvantage on being hit is a great thing) or by waiting for the right time to fire a macguffin or one-use item at the BBEG while the rest of the party allows him to line up the shot.

another use woudl be as a spy while eaves dropping in the room: find a shadowy niche, turn invisible, and wait for your source of information to reveal all while s/he thinks s/he is safe and unheard.

Tl;dr - it could potentially be very useful in teh right situations, but over all to be considered situational at best

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-01, 09:55 AM

Hide first. Then use one with shadows.
Congratulations. You aren't moving, you're hidden, and you're invisible. You are impossible to detect without magic (or some special ability such as scent).

Tanarii

2016-10-01, 10:24 AM

Yeah in Narrative Time it takes no more than 6 seconds so it is way more useful outside of Combat. It's in Combat where things get more complex.Thats assuming combat is something different from narrative time. Ie you accept the idea of a combat swoosh. But yeah, if you do, there's potentially a pretty major difference there, since afaik there's no action associated with out of combat hiding.

Hide first. Then use one with shadows.
Congratulations. You aren't moving, you're hidden, and you're invisible. You are impossible to detect without magic (or some special ability such as scent).Only possible to hide in Dim Light if you have the skulker feat.

beargryllz

2016-10-01, 10:29 AM

Mellack

2016-10-01, 10:36 AM

Only possible to hide in Dim Light if you have the skulker feat.

But I believe it does work in darkness.

Giant2005

2016-10-01, 10:41 AM

Only possible to hide in Dim Light if you have the skulker feat.

You can hide in any kind of light if there is no-one around to observe you.

Tanarii

2016-10-01, 10:46 AM

If you are invisible you *are* hiddenThats your house rule then. Because under the rules, invisibility doesn't make you hidden. Just not seen.

But I believe it does work in darkness.Yes but that's the equivalent of being invisible anyway.

You can hide in any kind of light if there is no-one around to observe you.Debateable. But regardless, you can't use One With Shadows then.

Giant2005

2016-10-01, 10:52 AM

Debateable. But regardless, you can't use One With Shadows then.

Not really - if whatever you are hiding from isn't even around, you are certainly heavily obscured from it.
The point is to treat it like an improved Hide in Plain Sight. You hide and wait for your prey to come to you. It is the same deal except you add an extra layer of invisibility to your hiding.

NecroDancer

2016-10-01, 10:58 AM

Assuming you summon a elemental/fey and lose control one with the shadows is great

Shining Wrath

2016-10-01, 10:59 AM

I can think of lots of situations, like shadowy inns, where being functionally invisible so long as you don't do anything overt is quite handy. Being able to stand in the dark corner near the underworld boss' favorite table and wait for him to arrive. Or run into an alley and disappear, much to the frustration of the pursuing guards. That sort of stuff.

Tanarii

2016-10-01, 11:09 AM

Not really - if whatever you are hiding from isn't even around, you are certainly heavily obscured from it.No, you are not. And it's irrelevant, because One With The Shadows requires Dim Light or Darkness.

pwykersotz

2016-10-01, 11:22 AM

I don't see it as a problem, because my use of skill checks is to wait until something would be relevant before pointing it out. For example, an invisible guy and a man in a packing crate are in a room, staking it out. In comes a crime boss. He doesn't get to find either person unless he either declares he's searching the room or until he or one of the people in the room do something to cause an interaction. If he just comes in, picks up a paper from the table and leaves, he doesn't spot either. The benefit to invisibility is that a low stealth roll won't have your feet sticking out from under the curtain or cause you to leave the lid of the crate askew and so be picked up by passive perception.

That's just one way to deal with it, though under this interpretation the move is useful.

lunaticfringe

2016-10-01, 11:24 AM

Thats assuming combat is something different from narrative time. Ie you accept the idea of a combat swoosh. But yeah, if you do, there's potentially a pretty major difference there, since afaik there's no action associated with out of combat hiding.

It was an approximation because they still have the feature in & out of combat. The widely used concept is that 10 rounds equal a minute 1 round equals 6 seconds. So if a Warlock w/ OwtS in a game I run is trying to sneak into a fort and hears a guard coming from around the corner And the Player says "I jump into the Shadowy Alcove and use OwtS to turn Invisible" I have an inkling of how to judge how quickly he could do that without having to roll dice.

The Guard is Human with no special sense abilities and low passive perception and His name is Bob and no one really likes him so they stuck him in night shift blah blah blah. The trick works, Bob walks right on by.

DKing9114

2016-10-01, 02:05 PM

Tanarii

2016-10-01, 02:45 PM

The Guard is Human with no special sense abilities and low passive perception and His name is Bob and no one really likes him so they stuck him in night shift blah blah blah. The trick works, Bob walks right on by.
But if hiding out of combat still takes an action, doing it would still break One With The Shadows, even in that situation. There'd be no way to do both at once without doing it in total darkness or cover, or having the skulker feat, or using the Wood Elf / Halfling ability in conjunction with Dim Light.

Otoh, I believe but am not 100% that the rules allow you hide out of combat if you're using it against someone that is merely distracted, as opposed to needing total concealment or cover.

I mean, that's all a technical mechanical thing. Like I said, I've never seen a DM rule that you can't hide with One With The Shadows.

Fflewddur Fflam

2016-10-01, 03:05 PM

If you are invisible you *are* hidden

At least, that is how I would rule it

You're not thinking of the combat implications of what you are saying. The whole reason "invisible" does not equate being "hidden" in 5e is because it would be ridiculously OP. A "hidden" creature in 5e can't be targeted by most spells and any physical attack has to be done by "guessing" where they are. Even if you do guess correctly where a hidden creature is, you still attack with disadvantage. Let's say you have an Invisible Stalker or a PC be invisible and that equates to being constantly "hidden", then you could just attack and hardly ever be attacked back, making the creature virtually invulnerable to harm. Game-breaking. That's why they didn't make "invisible"="hidden" and also why attacking while hidden always reveals your location.

"Invisible" in 5e is really more like "transparent", like the Predator's cloaking device or something. If you don't take the hide action while invisible, you can be seen and can be attacked, just at disadvantage because you are hard to make out.

Mellack

2016-10-01, 03:34 PM

A rather niche use that I think works RAW would be to run into darkness, hide, then use One with Shadows to become invisible. Then, as long as you stay still, you are hidden and invisible even if they bring in a light that would otherwise destroy the darkness you were hiding in. Makes your hiding a bit more secure.
A use of it in combat is if you really need advantage or are going against casters with lots of targetted spells. Invisiblity gives you advantage regardless of being hidden. Good if you have a really hard time hitting or have something else needing it like sneak attack. Against speelcasters, lots of spells specify that you have to be able to see the target, not just know their location.

Tanarii

2016-10-01, 04:20 PM

Good point. One with the Shadows doesn't stop working just because the darkness/dim light goes way. So yeah, hide in the darkness, go invisible, stay invisible hidden even when they get rid of the darkness.

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-01, 09:51 PM

DKing9114

2016-10-02, 12:12 AM

You're not thinking of the combat implications of what you are saying. The whole reason "invisible" does not equate being "hidden" in 5e is because it would be ridiculously OP. A "hidden" creature in 5e can't be targeted by most spells and any physical attack has to be done by "guessing" where they are. Even if you do guess correctly where a hidden creature is, you still attack with disadvantage. Let's say you have an Invisible Stalker or a PC be invisible and that equates to being constantly "hidden", then you could just attack and hardly ever be attacked back, making the creature virtually invulnerable to harm. Game-breaking. That's why they didn't make "invisible"="hidden" and also why attacking while hidden always reveals your location.

"Invisible" in 5e is really more like "transparent", like the Predator's cloaking device or something. If you don't take the hide action while invisible, you can be seen and can be attacked, just at disadvantage because you are hard to make out.

per the rules, invisible means invisible. No heat shimmer, no active camo, just invisible. You can't be seen, unless they have truesight, and locating you will require using other senses. That's why the unseen attackers says that when attacking anyone you can't see, you guess the general area where they are, and the GM will only tell you whether or not you hit, not if you were attacking the right place. If you don't move when invisible, and they don't see you turn invisible right there, other creatures will have to listen for your breathing, smell you, or just be really lucky and/or deductive to have a chance at hitting you. Also, the targeting restriction in those spells says "creature you can see", which rules out invisible creatures.

Saggo

2016-10-02, 12:50 AM

That's why the unseen attackers says that when attacking anyone you can't see, you guess the general area where they are, and the GM will only tell you whether or not you hit, not if you were attacking the right place.

It says you have disadvantage whether you're guessing or not, not that Unseen requires guessing:

"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. (p194)"

rollingForInit

2016-10-02, 07:11 AM

If you are invisible you *are* hidden

At least, that is how I would rule it

How can you *not* be considered hidden if you're literally invisible? Obviously a creature with True Sight won't be fooled, but anything else is fighting with disadvantage if they go wildly flailing around trying to hit you, and likewise any attack you make has advantage because they can't realistically defend against you

If you're invisible, you cannot be seen. You cannot be targetted by any spells that require the spellcaster to see the target. Not all spells have that requirement, but many do. If you are invisible, enemies also get disadvantage on attack rolls against you, because they cannot see you.

However, that doesn't mean they are unaware of where you are. Even if you're invisible, enemies can hear your breathing, your footsteps or the sounds of your equipment as you move. You also leave footprints. So it's certainly possible to know where you are. If someone attacks you, they get disadvantage because they can't see you, but they can swing a sword at the location they know you are in. You also get advantage on attack rolls against enemies, because while they could potentially hear you, that's not as good as seeing.

If you make a Stealth check to be Hidden, you negate all enemy senses, not just sight. You move too silently for them to hear, so lightly that your footsteps don't make any sounds. You manage to avoid stepping on twigs, walk discreetly enough that you don't leave obvious tracks. You are Hidden, so enemies that don't beat your Stealth check have literally no idea where you are (except for what they could deduce from your last known location).

So:
Invisible = no one can see you (but they can hear you, smell you, see your effects on the environment).
Hidden = Failing to beat your Stealth check, enemies don't you where you are, period.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-02, 07:55 AM

If you're in darkness you don't benefit much from One With Shadow since you're already unseen being heavily obscured (perhaps except from game elements working with such condition i.e the third eye) except you now cannot be seen in normal darkness from darkvision for exemple, but you'll benefit more from it by becoming heavily obscured in dim light if using it in the latter though.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-02, 07:59 AM

Hide first. Then use one with shadows.
Congratulations. You aren't moving, you're hidden, and you're invisible. You are impossible to detect without magic (or some special ability such as scent).Why would you be impossible to detect without magic? Taken the Stealth rules don't say an invisible creature that hide cannot be detected with Perception so i'm not sure why you say that. Perhaps you meant seen?

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-02, 08:45 AM

Why would you be impossible to detect without magic? Taken the Stealth rules don't say an invisible creature that hide cannot be detected with Perception so i'm not sure why you say that. Perhaps you meant seen?

I said what I meant.
You are hidden (and pass the opposed check to become so), and you are also not moving (which negates any attempts to hear you, reinforcing being hidden), and you are invisible (which negates any attempt to see you, reinforcing being hidden yet again).

Simply being hidden (and winning the opposed roll) means that you cannot be detected by the creature(s) in question without a change that allows another roll or a change that reveals you. That's what hidden is. So you are already undetectable unless something changes. And now on top of it you are also motionless and invisible.
So you are motionless, you are invisible, and you are hidden via the rules for hiding.
You simply cannot be detected by any means other than magic or special sense. No rolls needed. No rolls even allowed. You cannot be found. Period.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-02, 09:08 AM

I said what I meant.
You are hidden (and pass the opposed check to become so), and you are also not moving (which negates any attempts to hear you, reinforcing being hidden), and you are invisible (which negates any attempt to see you, reinforcing being hidden yet again).

Simply being hidden (and winning the opposed roll) means that you cannot be detected by the creature(s) in question without a change that allows another roll or a change that reveals you. That's what hidden is. So you are already undetectable unless something changes. And now on top of it you are also motionless and invisible.
So you are motionless, you are invisible, and you are hidden via the rules for hiding.
You simply cannot be detected by any means other than magic or special sense. No rolls needed. No rolls even allowed. You cannot be found. Period.

Wether you're invisible, in darkness or unseen by a different way you still contest the Stealth check against Perception and can still be detected. Being invisible by magic doesn't make you undetecteable.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-02, 09:23 AM

Wether you're invisible, in darkness or unseen by a different way you still contest the Stealth check against Perception and can still be detected. Being invisible by magic doesn't make you undetecteable.

And once you pass that contested roll you are hidden, and therefore undetectable unless something changes. That's why you're hidden. That's how you become hidden. You can't be hidden without that part.

So you've already won the contested roll to become hidden. So you are now and undetectable by normal means unless something changes. You are also motionless and invisible, meaning that most changes don't even matter any longer. You are undetectable as long as you stay motionless and invisible and hidden.

What part of this are you having a hard time understanding?

Zalabim

2016-10-02, 09:47 AM

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-02, 10:18 AM

A creature wouldn't need any new conditions to attempt to search for you and roll a perception check. As long as they're searching close enough to be able to detect you with a sense other than sight, the roll would be allowable. I'm pretty sure searching for a hidden creature is normal.

One more time. Say it with me.

That.
Roll.
Has.
Already.
Been.
Made.

That's how you became hidden.

As for repeated checks, what indication would they have that you were there to begin with?
You're already hidden. You've already beaten their (probably passive) perception roll with your stealth.
They would need some reason to look for you in the first place.
Sight? You're literally invisible.
Sound? You're motionless. You aren't making any noise.

So once again, you're hidden, you're motionless, and you're invisible.
They don't know that you're there. They have no reason to suspect that you're there. Unless they have superhuman senses such as scent, or magic, they have no way of finding you at all, and no reason to look for you to begin with. You are completely undetectable by normal means as long as your stay motionless, invisible, and hidden.

The fact that a Warlock can potentially do this at will, at 2nd level, without using the spell slot for a 2nd level invisibility, is extremely powerful.
Situational, sure.
But extremely powerful. And that's why the stipulation on actions/reactions/movement exists.

Zalabim

2016-10-02, 11:06 AM

You stumble into a guard on patrol. Thinking quickly, you douse his lantern and Hide in the darkness. Your Stealth check exceeds the guard's passive perception, so you're hidden. While he fumbles around to relight his lantern, you step aside and use One With Shadows. You're now hidden and invisible. The guard aims his bullseye lantern this way and that, Searching for whoever startled him. He makes a perception check. If he rolls over your stealth result, he finds you. Get it? You'd probably call that a change in situation, but he couldn't see you when you hid (darkness) and he can't see you with the light (invisibility).

When you hide, you just have to beat their passive perception to become hidden. So the roll for searching has not been made. If they suspect someone is there for some reason, they could search and they could find you. Perfectly normal.

Also, not moving doesn't automatically mean you're motionless and being motionless wouldn't make you silent and being silent wouldn't make you imperceptible to human senses. You'd still breathe, show footprints in the right material, take up some space, and even your smell could tip someone off. Your tiefling randomly rolled "smells of brimstone," right? You're still able to dodge spells and attacks like normal. You aren't restrained. You can't move, as in use movement, but you aren't effectively paralyzed.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-02, 11:11 AM

In that situation, you aren't hidden to begin with, because his perception beat your stealth.
Invalid example.

Beleriphon

2016-10-02, 11:59 AM

In that situation, you aren't hidden to begin with, because his perception beat your stealth.
Invalid example.

I think the point is that a creature using passive perception is affected, but even if hidden the creature can intentionally search multiple times the same area to see if there is something there they missed.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-02, 12:02 PM

, but even if hidden the creature can intentionally search multiple times the same area to see if there is something there they missed.

Why is that being allowed in a skill contest?

"sure, just keep on rolling until you're satisfied with the result."
Nope

I generally don't allow it at all, but absolutely, certainly, 100% NEVER in a contest.
It's the Warlock's stealth versus the guard's perception. Not the Warlock's stealth versus the guard's infinite perception rolls until he gets a good one that he likes.
That's not how skill contests work.
My roll versus yours.
One of us wins.
Done.
No do-overs on a contest.

The guard can keep searching until the cows come home. But if the situation doesn't change then neither does his perception roll.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-02, 01:15 PM

You might not allow it, but by the rule one can use the Search action to try to find a hidden creature by making a Perception check. Hidden people are not undetecteable wether invisible or unseen by other means, at least by RAW.

Millstone85

2016-10-02, 01:18 PM

You'd still breathe, show footprints in the right material, take up some space, and even your smell could tip someone off. Your tiefling randomly rolled "smells of brimstone," right?Now, assuming the guard isn't knowledgeable on invisibiliy and tieflings, that means they have just noticed strange footprints and an unseen presence with a hellish breath. They may be more likely to run away than say "Ha ha, found you!".

CantigThimble

2016-10-02, 01:21 PM

Why is that being allowed in a skill contest?

"sure, just keep on rolling until you're satisfied with the result."
Nope

I generally don't allow it at all, but absolutely, certainly, 100% NEVER in a contest.
It's the Warlock's stealth versus the guard's perception. Not the Warlock's stealth versus the guard's infinite perception rolls until he gets a good one that he likes.
That's not how skill contests work.
My roll versus yours.
One of us wins.
Done.
No do-overs on a contest.

The guard can keep searching until the cows come home. But if the situation doesn't change then neither does his perception roll.

I mean, it takes more time for him to roll perception again but he CAN do it. Just like a grappled creature can spend their turn doing a second opposed athletics check to try to escape a grapple after they fail the first time. A grappled creature isn't just stuck with his 1 on athletics until the grappler decides to let him go.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-02, 02:42 PM

I mean, it takes more time for him to roll perception again but he CAN do it.

Maybe.
Maybe not.

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.

Impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Location can be detected by any noise it makes (which is not happening because he's not moving) or tracks (which there may or may not be depending on the environment).
If there are no tracks, and there is no movement and thus no noise, and he can't be seen.... He cannot be found. Keep looking all you want, you won't find him.

CantigThimble

2016-10-02, 02:57 PM

Maybe.
Maybe not.

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.

Impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Location can be detected by any noise it makes (which is not happening because he's not moving) or tracks (which there may or may not be depending on the environment).
If there are no tracks, and there is no movement and thus no noise, and he can't be seen.... He cannot be found. Keep looking all you want, you won't find him.

If he is breathing the air will be moving in his vicinity and some small amount of noise will be generated. In addition dust moving in the air might interact with him (either by sticking to him or disappearing when it touches him, both could be noticed). In addition remaining so still and calm that you will not make noise or disturb the environment around you is difficult for long periods.

Regardless of how you would common-sense rule it the RAW is pretty clear. Invisible creatures can be detected via a perception test (whatever that entials) that beats the creature's stealth roll. A creature can roll a perception test by taking the observe in detail action. They won't see the creature, like the invisibility rule states, without magical means , but they will be aware of its presence and location.

georgie_leech

2016-10-02, 03:01 PM

Maybe.
Maybe not.

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.

Impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.
Location can be detected by any noise it makes (which is not happening because he's not moving) or tracks (which there may or may not be depending on the environment).
If there are no tracks, and there is no movement and thus no noise, and he can't be seen.... He cannot be found. Keep looking all you want, you won't find him.

It's actually surprisingly difficult to breathe completely silently for any length of time, what with it being less efficient as breathing normally. It's also rather difficult to remain totally motionless. Your Stealth Check while Invisible is representing your ability to do those. If they rolled well enough to beat your check, they happened to hear your breathing, or the creak of leather as your arm shifts a little, or maybe they kicked up a bit of dust and they noticed how it either clung to or disappeared in your location.

What the invisibility accomplishes is ensuring you can't be found by removing your obscurment, like by lighting a torch.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 12:37 PM

Why is that being allowed in a skill contest?

"sure, just keep on rolling until you're satisfied with the result."
Nope

I generally don't allow it at all, but absolutely, certainly, 100% NEVER in a contest.
It's the Warlock's stealth versus the guard's perception. Not the Warlock's stealth versus the guard's infinite perception rolls until he gets a good one that he likes.
That's not how skill contests work.
My roll versus yours.
One of us wins.
Done.
No do-overs on a contest.

The guard can keep searching until the cows come home. But if the situation doesn't change then neither does his perception roll.
So once someone is grappled, they can no longer spend an action to attempt to escape?

Because it's the exact same thing. Spend an action, make another attempt.

Edit: Whether or not it's reasonable for a PC or NPC to keep searching is up to the Player or DM in question. But by the rules, they can keep it up as long as they like.

Segev

2016-10-03, 12:48 PM

Saggo

2016-10-03, 12:53 PM

The trouble I think people are having which is not being addressed is the underlying question of what, exactly invisibility DOES for you. Mechanically, it seems only to allow you to take an action to become Hidden without needing additional cover. There is no bonus to the Dexterity check you make to do so. Therefore, if you already could become Hidden, what does becoming Invisible do for you on top of that?

Technically, if you hide under a table and its floor-length tablecloth with a 20 on your check, somebody who searches for you needs to get a 20 on their Perception check whether you take the effort to become Invisible as well or not.

Multiple spells require you to see the target, down to the venerable Magic Missile, and will no longer work. It also gives you the Unseen Attacker and Unseen Target advantage/disadvantage benefits (also expressly called out in the Invisible condition). Invisible isn't just about Hiding, it's a very defensive condition even if everyone on the board knows your exact location.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 12:58 PM

So once someone is grappled, they can no longer spend an action to attempt to escape?

Because it's the exact same thing. Spend an action, make another attempt.

It's not the same thing, though.

In a grapple contest, if you wish to escape there has to be another contest. You're actively trying to escape, he's actively trying to hold you. Another contest.
In regards to a hidden enemy, there isn't another contest. The contest has already happened. The stealthed character isn't hiding again, he's already hidden, and you've already lost the contest against that hide action.
So like I said, you can search all you want, but unless something changes your perception roll remains what it was.
To do it otherwise is like giving the opposing party unlimited rolls against your one roll, and that isn't fair, nor is it a contest any longer.

I do the same with pretty much all checks. If you fail, you fail. That lock is too complicated for you, no retry. That knowledge is too obscure for you, no retry. That guard cannot be persuaded by you, no retry. That trap is hidden too well for you, no retry.
Consequences.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 12:59 PM

The trouble I think people are having which is not being addressed is the underlying question of what, exactly invisibility DOES for you. Mechanically, it seems only to allow you to take an action to become Hidden without needing additional cover. There is no bonus to the Dexterity check you make to do so. Therefore, if you already could become Hidden, what does becoming Invisible do for you on top of that?

Technically, if you hide under a table and its floor-length tablecloth with a 20 on your check, somebody who searches for you needs to get a 20 on their Perception check whether you take the effort to become Invisible as well or not.
Its important to note that for One With The Shadows, the invisibility (and being hidden) doesn't end if the darkness goes away. At least, that's how I read it. So to use the previous example of the Guard flashing his lantern around trying to find someone, the Warlock would not automatically be revealed. As long as he didn't move or take any actions, she is still invisible even if the light would normally expose her. So the Guard still needs to make a Perception check, as opposed to just automatically seeing her.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 01:00 PM

Is not the same thing, though.It is exactly the same thing. The person is spending an action and initiating a new contest. Either to escape the grapple, or searching to find you.

CursedRhubarb

2016-10-03, 01:02 PM

One nifty use for it:

Find a shady area to have a seat and get that short rest in while being invisible. Let's you get your precious few slots in when in dangerous areas or very useful when your DM throws a puzzle or trap in that forces the party to split.

Also fun for when chased and jumping in a crate, pull the lid shut, guy chasing you opens it only to find it empty...

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 01:03 PM

Is not the same thing, though.

In a grapple contest, if you wish to escape there has to be another contest. You're actively trying to escape, he's actively trying to hold you. Another contest.
In regards to a hidden enemy, there isn't another contest. The contest has already happened. The stealthed character isn't hiding again, he's already hidden, and you've already lost the contest against that hide action.
So like I said, you can search all you want, but unless something changes your perception roll remains what it was.
To do it otherwise is like giving the opposing party unlimited rolls against your one roll, and that isn't fair, nor is it a contest any longer.

I do the same with pretty much all checks. If you fail, you fail. That lock is to complicated for you, no retry. That knowledge is too obscure for you, no retry. That trap is hidden too well for you, no retry.
Consequences.

So the way you would rule it there's no diffrence in spending 6 seconds giving an area a quick once over and spending an hour triple and quintuple checking an area until you are absolutely certain you haven't missed anything?

Have you ever played hide and seek or hidden object games?

To be fair most people wouldn't spend an hour checking the same area, they'd assume there was nothing and move on to another area. But if they have no time pressure and they were sure they had missed something then they would recheck.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 01:07 PM

In my games, I don't let players roll until they win, and I don't hand out participation metals. There are consequences.

Saggo

2016-10-03, 01:11 PM

In my games, I don't let players roll until they win, and I don't hand out participation metals. There are consequences.

"1 strike and you're out" is a consequence, sure, but it's still heavy-handed. Nor is it the baseline.

CursedRhubarb

2016-10-03, 01:12 PM

In my games, I don't let players roll until they win, and I don't hand out participation metals. There are consequences.

When I fail a lockpick I don't get to try a second lockpick attempt, but I can apply a barbarian to the lock and that usually works, if a bit noisy.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 01:27 PM

In my games, I don't let players roll until they win, and I don't hand out participation metals. There are consequences.
Non-sequitur comparisons for the win.

If players have all the time they need to do something that doesn't have consequences (picking a lock, searching for someone or something) they will eventually succeed (edit: provided they can succeed on a 20). That's because you as a DM failed to have the initial check have an in-game consequences for failure. Just saying "sorry you only get to try once" without an in-game reason for that consequence is just doubling down. Now you're just making it a whim-based mechanical consequence, instead of actually having an in-game consequence for failure making it impossible to try again.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 02:05 PM

. Just saying "sorry you only get to try once" without an in-game reason for that consequence is just doubling down. Now you're just making it a whim-based mechanical consequence, instead of actually having an in-game consequence for failure making it impossible to try again.

You want to talk in game reasons?
Give me an in game reason why the searcher should get to roll again and again and again until they find it, effectively gaining UBERadvantage against a single roll.
My in game reason for not allowing it is simply that he's already searched knowing exactly what he was looking for, and nothing has changed, so why would his next search yield different results than before? Is he suddenly looking HARDER? No, he isn't. And no, he doesn't get another roll.

What's your in game reason for allowing this HUGE buff to perception?

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 02:06 PM

In my games, I don't let players roll until they win, and I don't hand out participation metals. There are consequences.

Okay, so give them a consequence for spending an hour searching for a creature. That's not too hard, maybe the creature slips out of the room and warns someone else then returns with renforcements. There are lots of potential consquences for spending a long time doing something. I don't advocate this because it makes things easy and the players get to 'win' I advocate it because it makes sense and it breaks immersion to have it work otherwise.

One rule that might help is making additional perception checks take significantly longer than the first one. 1 round for the initial check, 1 minute to repeat it, 10 minutes for every check after that. That gives you a lot more room to punish players for trying to get something right while still making sense.

EDIT: This isn't a buff to perception at all, this is the Search action plain and simple. The cost: 1 action The benefit: Roll perception or investigation to find something.

Addaran

2016-10-03, 02:32 PM

You want to talk in game reasons?
Give me an in game reason why the searcher should get to roll again and again and again until they find it, effectively gaining UBERadvantage against a single roll.
My in game reason for not allowing it is simply that he's already searched knowing exactly what he was looking for, and nothing has changed, so why would his next search yield different results than before? Is he suddenly looking HARDER? No, he isn't. And no, he doesn't get another roll.

What's your in game reason for allowing this HUGE buff to perception?

You're searching for your car keys. First you check the little table near the door. Then the dirty laundry pile. Then the counter near the washing machine. Then your bedroom table. Since you haven't found them, you swear a lot check everywhere else in the house. After that, you start again, taking a little more time at the door, the dirty laundry pile, the counter, etc.

If you know something is sure to be there, you'll check multiple time. Quickly at first, then more carefully. Sure it's not always that the NPC/PC will check multiple times, but there is common reasons to do it.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 02:36 PM

You're searching for your car keys. First you check the little table near the door. Then the dirty laundry pile. Then the counter near the washing machine. Then your bedroom table. Since you haven't found them, you swear a lot check everywhere else in the house. After that, you start again, taking a little more time at the door, the dirty laundry pile, the counter, etc.

If you know something is sure to be there, you'll check multiple time. Quickly at first, then more carefully. Sure it's not always that the NPC/PC will check multiple times, but there is common reasons to do it.

What happens when those keys are literally invisible?
Lost/hidden, immobile, invisible.
You couldn't find them the first time.
Good luck on your next go around.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 02:41 PM

What's your in game reason for allowing this HUGE buff to perception?
It's not a buff. It's working as expected. If you can do something (ie possibly win the check), given enough time you will do something. Just as with things like picking a lock, or searching against a static DC, or opposed grapple checks.

It behoves the person attempting to hide to be aware of this and not allow the person searching unlimited time to do so, if they believe the person searching will not give up. Unless they are confident they cannot be found (ie it is impossible for the searcher to win a check).

What happens when those keys are literally invisible?
Lost/hidden, immobile, invisible.
You couldn't find them the first time.
Good luck on your next go around.
Keys are not a person. A person must maintain stealth every round. They must continue to be immobile, quiet, and if invisible not disturb their environment. So unlike an invisible person, invisible keys might be harder to find than an invisible person. Or they might not, the DM might leave the DC the same. Up to the DM.

However, despite that the same principle applies. If it's possible for the person searching for invisible keys to find them (ie they can beat the DC the DM sets for finding invisible keys) eventually they will.

Segev

2016-10-03, 02:47 PM

You want to talk in game reasons?
Give me an in game reason why the searcher should get to roll again and again and again until they find it, effectively gaining UBERadvantage against a single roll.
My in game reason for not allowing it is simply that he's already searched knowing exactly what he was looking for, and nothing has changed, so why would his next search yield different results than before? Is he suddenly looking HARDER? No, he isn't. And no, he doesn't get another roll.

What's your in game reason for allowing this HUGE buff to perception?

Hardly a huge buff. If they're willing to literally try something new each time, to the point where they're finally feeling around inch-by-inch with careful cordoning to make sure no cubic inch goes unpoked and nothing could scurry to the "searched" area, then they deserve to find it. That's what 3e used to call "take 20."

The consequences are that they spend an enormous amount of time on it. If that time isn't consequence enough, then why shouldn't they go ahead and spend it?

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 02:48 PM

Eventually you will have run your fingers over every surface in the house and you can find the keys given enough time.

Are you saying you only rule perception this way for invisible immobile things? I thought you implied it was a general principle for you that repeating perception tests was bad.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 02:50 PM

It's not a buff. It's working as expected. If you can do something (ie possibly win the check), given enough time you will do something. Just as with things like picking a lock, or searching against a static DC, or opposed grapple checks.

It behoves the person attempting to hide to be aware of this and not allow the person searching unlimited time to do so, if they believe the person searching will not give up. Unless they are confident they cannot be found (ie it is impossible for the searcher to win a check).

Right.
Participation medal.
Just keep rolling until you win.
Got it.

I don't know why you guys even bother with stealth vs perception checks then. Perception always wins, no exceptions. We worst they just need a little more time.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 02:55 PM

Right.
Participation medal.
Just keep rolling until you win.
Got it. repeatin non-sequiturs don't make them any less a non-sequitur.

I don't bother with ANY check the players can win given enough time and if there are no consequences for failure, if they have all the time they need. They automatically succeed with a check. Because that's how the game is designed to work.

Edit: I mean, it's your game. House-rule as you see fit, of course.

Edit2: when I say it's how it's designed to work, I mean it. DMG pg 237:
"Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one."

It then goes on to talk about actual consequences for failure making future successes impossible.

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 02:56 PM

Right.
Participation medal.
Just keep rolling until you win.
Got it.

I don't know why you guys even bother with stealth vs perception checks then. Perception always wins, no exceptions. We worst they just need a little more time.

.....We use that extra time to make our players lives much harder. I've been over this already. Failure has consequences, those consequences just aren't "your eyes don't work until you enter the next room and I hit the reset button on them".

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 03:14 PM

In 3e/4e, when specialists could easily reach levels where failure was impossible, rechecks were fine.
In 5e, with bounded accuracy, rechecks are what makes failure impossible, they just take time.

Nope. In 5e it's one and done. To do it otherwise and allow rechecks breaks bounded accuracy.
That's why it's the participation medal.

Addaran

2016-10-03, 03:23 PM

For my exemple, the keys aren't invisible. You implied that you never let players reroll a failed check, not just in the invisible warlock case.

In 3e/4e, when specialists could easily reach levels where failure was impossible, rechecks were fine.
In 5e, with bounded accuracy, rechecks are what makes failure impossible, they just take time.

Nope. In 5e it's one and done. To do it otherwise and allow rechecks breaks bounded accuracy.
That's why it's the participation medal.

What you're doing is basically an archery test with only one arrow ever. The situation is the same, but with a lot of skill, the more you do it, the better you can calibrate your effort or if it's luck based, eventually you'll get lucky.

If a player wants to hit an unmoving target with a ranged attack, do you allow multiple tries or it's a one and done deal? Assuming he have multiple ammunition and all the time he wants.

Maybe your houserule works for your group, but they make absolutly no sense fluff wise.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 03:30 PM

Maybe your houserule works for your group, but they make absolutly no sense fluff wise.

1) It's not an houserule. I haven't changed any rules. It's a ruling based on the situation.
2) It makes perfect sense, you just need to change your PoV a bit.
3) The players love it because the game doesn't grind to an halt every time I ask for a check. Instead the game moves on, either they found something or they didn't. Move on.

Anyone is free to try to refute the claim that rechecks break bounded accuracy.

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 03:44 PM

1) It's not an house rule. I haven't changed any rules. It's a ruling based on the situation.
2) It makes perfect sense; you just need to change your PoV a bit.
3) The players love it because the game doesn't grind to a halt every time I ask for a check. Instead, the game moves on, either they found something or they didn't. Move on.

Anyone is free to try to refute the claim that rechecks break bounded accuracy.

Of course rechecks make things easier than if you decide to ban them arbitrarily. If your group has as much time as they need to succeed at a task they will succeed. Just like if you play where's Waldo with a 6 second time limit you will fail a LOT more often than if you just look until you find him.

And even with rechecks being allowed I still won't allow players to metagame and spend ten minutes rolling perception something unless their players have an in-game reason that they would think something was there to find. If a scene involves no tension because there is no danger or time pressure, then I don't see the need to insert tension into the situation just because otherwise the PCs might *gasp* succeed! It's not a participation trophy because there aren't trophies for doing things that anyone could have done, (like making a leisurely thorough search under no pressure) you just say 'Yup, that's done, lets move on to the interesting things.' The challenge in these situations is figuring out that there MUST be something your missing and then making sure you actually have the time to find it, which is a roleplaying challenge not a skill test.

Saggo

2016-10-03, 03:49 PM

In 5e, with bounded accuracy, rechecks are what makes failure impossible, they just take time.
Only if you allow infinite rechecks. The converse of "allow no rechecks" is just "allow a subset of rechecks", not "allow all rechecks". As quoted above, even the DMG has the expectation that some rechecks are allowed. And given that subsequent attacks in a given combat are just rechecks against a DC of the target AC, bounded accuracy isn't hurt by allowing a subset of rechecks.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 03:49 PM

In 5e, with bounded accuracy, rechecks are what makes failure impossible, they just take time.

Nope. In 5e it's one and done. To do it otherwise and allow rechecks breaks bounded accuracy.
That's why it's the participation medal.
You're wrong. The DMG p 237 tells you to allow automatic success if it's possible to succeed without a consequence for failure, given enough time. Specifically 10 times the amount of time.

1) It's not an houserule. I haven't changed any rules. It's a ruling based on the situation. It's a house-rule. See DMG p 237.

Anyone is free to try to refute the claim that rechecks break bounded accuracy.DMG p 237. Done and done.

Segev

2016-10-03, 04:30 PM

Right.
Participation medal.
Just keep rolling until you win.
Got it.

I don't know why you guys even bother with stealth vs perception checks then. Perception always wins, no exceptions. We worst they just need a little more time.

Look, if you're going to be insulting, I'm going to mimic your tone. Here we go:

Just because you're not capable of making use of all the time and noise the PCs are putting into searching this room sixty ways to Sunday doesn't mean the rest of us are. Most competent DMs are quite happy of their players are going to stay put, making noise and finding all the traps to trigger while their villains advance their plots, their monsters prepare to ambush them, and other time-sensitive things advance while the PCs aren't accomplishing anything save finding every last fleck of gold dust littering the room.

In terms less designed to demonstrate how belittling only opens you up to counter-criticism, the penalty for taking more time to search is that more time passes each time you make a check. If you roll 'til you get a 20, sure, you've managed to give a "huge boost" to your Perception...but what has the time you've been spending cost you in terms of preparedness and initiative in other areas? If your DM is doing his job right, this is a non-trivial cost.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 04:54 PM

You're wrong. The DMG p 237 tells you to allow automatic success if it's possible to succeed without a consequence for failure, given enough time. Specifically 10 times the amount of time.

It's a house-rule. See DMG p 237.
DMG p 237. Done and done.

Possible to succeed without a consequence for failure given enough time does not apply.
There is a consequence for failure, and it is not guaranteed that they will ever succeed in the first place.
DMG237 does not apply here.

Unless you're trying to tell me that there is no reason to even roll perception against a hidden creatures that you're looking for, because success is automatic according to DMG237, in which case I agree that this is exactly what rerolls simulate.
One and done, or auto-success. those are the options at my table.

Still waiting for attempted refutation that rechecks break bounded accuracy.

Segev

2016-10-03, 05:06 PM

Still waiting for attempted refutation that rechecks break bounded accuracy.

Bounded accuracy is on a single check.

Given that there is a consequence for failure for any single check (even if that consequence is just wasted time), bounded accuracy applies as intended in driving how long one must spend on "taking 20" when that means "keep trying until you roll a 20."

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 05:07 PM

Possible to succeed without a consequence for failure given enough time does not apply.
There is a consequence for failure, and it is not guaranteed that they will ever succeed in the first place.
DMG237 does not apply here.Yeah, no, you don't get to say the thing specifically telling you it applies doesn't apply.

Unless you're trying to tell me that there is no reason to even roll perception against a hidden creatures that you're looking for, because success is automatic according to DMG237, in which case I agree that this is exactly what rerolls simulate. Needing 10 times as long to find something that you can find given enough time != automatic success. Failure at logic on your part.

One and done, or auto-success. those are the options at my table. That's fine. It's your table, you can rule however you like. Just stop trying to argue that your table rulings are in any way the 5e rules, when the 5e DMG specifically tells you they aren't.

Still waiting for attempted refutation that rechecks break bounded accuracy.DMG p237.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 05:31 PM

"without consequence of failure"
There IS a consequence for failure, so that simply does not apply.
End of story.

Segev

2016-10-03, 05:34 PM

"without consequence of failure"
There IS a consequence for failure, so that simply does not apply.
End of story.

Since there is consequence of failure, how is allowing re-tries "boosting" it or breaking bounded accuracy?

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 05:34 PM

"without consequence of failure"
There IS a consequence for failure, so that simply does not apply.
End of story.

What is the consequence other than wasted time?

If you were trying to climb a cliff the consequence would be falling damage, so the rule wouldn't apply. If you were trying to disable a trap the consequence would be setting off the trap so the rule wouldn't apply. If you were rolling persuasion the consequence would be the NPC getting angry at you and refusing to talk so the rule would not apply. What is the consequence for failing a perception check other than wasting time?

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 05:37 PM

"without consequence of failure"
There IS a consequence for failure, so that simply does not apply.
End of story.Are you just being deliberately obtuse at this point because you want to be correct? If your position were true, p237 would never, ever apply. Either you're right and they wrote a meaningless section in the DMG. Or you're wrong, and for some reason sticking to your guns in the face of proof you're wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I've stuck to my guns in the face of proof I was wrong plenty of times. That's why I recognize what you're doing.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 05:47 PM

So I have someone asking me if I allow rerolls on archery attack rolls and asking me what the consequences are for failing a perception check, and another hypocritically calling me obtuse while simultaneously not admitting that failing that roll has any consequences.

I'm done with you guys.

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 06:00 PM

Dude, all I want is for you to show me that the rules of D&D fifth edition state that when you fail to beat a perception DC to find something you cannot try again. Or a rule that states that whenever you fail a perception test SOMETHING happens as opposed to NOTHING happening. If when you fail a perception test NOTHING happens and the roller just acts as if he had never rolled the perception test at all (because his situation has not changed) then the rules state that you can try again.

It would be incredibly easy for you to prove to me that the rules work the way you think they do because there would be a rule saying so. If you show it to me I will completely agree with you.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 06:00 PM

I'm done with you guys.I'm dying over here. :smallbiggrin: I could use your posts in this thread as a textbook case of how people react in the face of being proven wrong and refusing to accept it.

Zorku

2016-10-03, 06:04 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 06:07 PM

Before you go, can you spell out what the consequences you've been picturing are?

Oh, I don't know, maybe....just maybe....that you didn't find the creature hiding in the shadows who probably wants to kill you?
I'd call that a pretty hefty consequence for falling a perception roll.
People rave about the Assassin's level 3 ability to auto-crit a surprised target. This is the kind of thing that creates that situation.

If you roll perception for any reason, any reason at all, failure has consequences.
Every time.

Tanarii

2016-10-03, 06:22 PM

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 06:27 PM

Saggo

2016-10-03, 06:58 PM

Still waiting for attempted refutation that rechecks break bounded accuracy.

Ignoring all the quips, if your assertion is that all rechecks break bounded accuracy then to refute it one would only need to prove that at least one recheck doesn't break bounded accuracy, not that all rechecks break bounded accuracy.

If at least one recheck is acceptable, then the discussion can only be at what point in any given situation does rechecking stop being acceptable (I would argue that there existing at least one situation where at least one perception recheck was valid is self-evident). That is very different then saying that all rechecks are not acceptable.

The problem is bounded accuracy is less a mathematical model and more a collection of design philosophies. Breaking bounded accuracy is too nebulous of a claim without describing which part is actually failing.

pwykersotz

2016-10-03, 07:04 PM

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 07:11 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 07:26 PM

Are you friggin kidding me right now?

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 07:33 PM

Are you friggin kidding me right now?

Could we have some context on this?

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 07:38 PM

Could we have some context on this?

I say that it's one and done unless the situation changes, and everyone is up in arms, yourself included.
P says it and your first words are "I think that's fair."

Are you friggin kidding me right now?

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 07:44 PM

I say that it's one and done unless the situation changes, and everyone is up in arms, yourself included.
P says it and your first words are "I think that's fair."

Are you friggin kidding me right now?

Dude I made this same point on the last page if you had read it. I don't let people recheck perception without a reason for their characters to think something is hidden. That's not the RAW but that's how I choose to run my games because I dislike metagaming.

I was only opposed to your claim that perception checks cannot be repeated according to the rules. Not only is pwykersotz aknowledging how the RAW work but he is also pointing out that in the circumstance where someone was aware that there was something they hadn't found he would allow rechecks.

georgie_leech

2016-10-03, 07:46 PM

I say that it's one and done unless the situation changes, and everyone is up in arms, yourself included.
P says it and your first words are "I think that's fair."

Are you friggin kidding me right now?

Context is everything. I disagree with his ruling and wouldn't run it that way, but I can see the rationale behind his ruling. You have not done so. He tried a Persuasion Check and got a higher result. Rather than trying again, you've mostly taken the 11 you rolled initially and insisted it should be high enough. :smalltongue:

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 07:53 PM

I was only opposed to your claim that perception checks cannot be repeated according to the rules.

Point me to the post where I said that, if you please.

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 07:55 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 07:57 PM

Here's the bit I have a problem with.

What part of it do you have a problem with? The part where I explain what the hidden condition entails, or the part where I explain what the hidden condition entails?

Take what I said, including the clause about something changing, and apply P's post.
It is literally the same exact thing.
I spoke in generalities. P gave a specific example.
They are literally the same exact thing.
You call P's fair, and you have a problem with mine.
They are literally the same exact thing.

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 08:03 PM

What part of it do you have a problem with? The part where I explain what the hidden condition entails, or the part where I explain what the hidden condition entails?

The part where you claim that there would need to be a change in the situation to allow another roll. You go on stating that you wouldn't allow another roll pretty clearly for the next two pages if you'd like another quote.

Edit: He also pretty clearly pointed out that he did not believe that he did not think the rules of the game worked in that way, just that he chose to suspend the rules in that way for the purposes of the game. You seem to be insisting that your method of running the game is the correct interpretation of the rules. I think that is false.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 08:05 PM

The part where you claim that there would need to be a change in the situation to allow another roll. You go on stating that you wouldn't allow another roll pretty clearly for the next two pages if you'd like another quote.

So you have a problem with it when I say it, but when P says it you think it's fair.
Gotcha.
I'll ask again, are you friggin kidding me right now?
Now I really am done with you.

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 08:08 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-03, 08:21 PM

Pwykersotz did not claim his interpretation was aligned with how the rules work. He only claimed he ran it that way because he thought it was more fun and made more sense to him. If that had been your attitude and you had recognized that your method was not RAW I would not have had a problem.

Once again :

I was only opposed to your claim that perception checks cannot be repeated according to the rules.
Point me to the post where I said that, if you please.
Show me where I said that the rules do not allow another roll.
If you cannot do that, then read my sig.

CantigThimble

2016-10-03, 08:39 PM

People quoted rules at you regarding stealth and perception, and you repeatedly asserted that they were wrong without at any point:
1. Acknowledging that they were correct by RAW.
2. Saying that your own view was a houserule.

In fact, you did the opposite and stated that your view was not a houserule even though it ignores the function of the "Search" action and the way that detecting creatures who have rolled stealth works.

I aknowledge that the way I run hiding creatures is not RAW, so does pwykersotz. You do not. That was the only source of disagreement I ever had with you.

Personally, I really don't feel any spite over this but you are free to block me if you like.

Zalabim

2016-10-03, 11:01 PM

At the risk of taking the side with the fewest supporters on an internet forum...I'm mostly with Divisible on this one.

Here's how I run it. An invisible foe cannot be seen, and most people search primarily with their eyes. Assuming you have no idea that the creature you're looking for is invisible, you're going to search assuming you can spot the darned thing. As long as you do this, you get one check. Searching again and again won't prompts a new check unless the person who is invisible does something or the searcher attempts a method that could reasonably find an invisible person.
I would say if that is what you're doing, you would automatically fail. If you're only looking, and there is nothing you can possibly see, then you don't see anything. You only get a check if there's something you could detect, like trampled grass, the smell of an assassin's poison, or the heavy breathing of someone struggling to stand perfectly still in the middle of a game of "red light, green light" with their patron who grants the power of invisibility as long as the patron doesn't see them move.

Visual range perception checks automatically fail, but maybe you can make an investigation check to notice a clue to their location or get close enough to detect them with a different sense.

Now if the person searching knows that the target is invisible, then it's fair game. Their search will automatically include things like throwing powder into the air, checking for footprints, listening for sounds, etc. They can try to search again and again, and they'll get a new check each time. Alternately, they would get the same if they had a bloodhound with them or some other creature or method that primarily detected without sight.

I run invisibility as an auto-hide IF the person being hidden from has no assumption that their target might be invisible. My reason is that I believe the rules of the game service the simulation, not that a simulation should be extracted from the rules of the game. I believe what I stated above gives the most fun and use and narrative sense with regards to invisibility.

Edit: I say auto-hide, but that first check would of course have the chance of finding the invisible foe, such as by accidentally wandering over and bumping into them.
A lot of good methods. And actually searching an area, repeatedly or not, would have a chance to reveal an unknown invisible creature or object for even as simple a reason as bumping into it on accident. Happened to me all the damn time playing multiplayer games with invisibility (Nox).

Plaguescarred

2016-10-04, 05:20 AM

To try and get this thread back on topic ... I've said a couple of times that the way I read it, One With The Shadows allows you to stay invisible even once you are no longer in Dim Light or Darkness, assuming you didn't move or take an action in the meantime. Anyone else got input on my interpretation?

I'm just wondering because it seems like the kind of interpretation people would jump all over. :smallyuk:It is also my undertanding that being in dim light or darkness is what enables you to take the action to become invisible, without needing to remain in it thereafter. But conceptually speaking, the title, while bearing no mechanical weight, seem to imply to me that you have to remain in dim light or darkness in order to remain One With Shadows.

Zalabim

2016-10-04, 08:33 AM

It is also my undertanding that being in dim light or darkness is what enables you to take the action to become invisible, without needing to remain in it thereafter. But conceptually speaking, the title, while bearing no mechanical weight, seem to imply to me that you have to remain in dim light or darkness in order to remain One With Shadows.

Nonsense. The title means that when the shadows you are one with disappear, you disappear too. That means that shining a bright light in the area either makes you extra invisible, or kills you, like that one movie.

Segev

2016-10-04, 09:06 AM

What is the consequence other than wasted time?Wasted time is a consequence. Things happen while you're searching. Take the time to search MORE when you haven't found anything, and more time passes and more things can happen.

So I have someone asking me if I allow rerolls on archery attack rolls and asking me what the consequences are for failing a perception check, and another hypocritically calling me obtuse while simultaneously not admitting that failing that roll has any consequences.

I'm done with you guys.The trouble is that you seem to be dancing between two positions. I could be misreading you.

Where I think you're wrong for not allowing re-tries on Perception is simply that if you roll poorly the first time, that's no reason you couldn't do better if you kept looking. Have you never played anything similar to Where's Waldo? The longer you look, and the more techniques you try for methodical searching, the higher your chances of finding him are. Each "method" you try could be one roll, or each minute you're looking (which is the easier metric in gaming). The penalty is that it takes you much longer because you keep looking and looking when you're not yet succeeding.

Oh, I don't know, maybe....just maybe....that you didn't find the creature hiding in the shadows who probably wants to kill you?
I'd call that a pretty hefty consequence for falling a perception roll.That is, indeed, a consequence! And it's a perfect example why re-tries should be fine.

If that sneaky git in the shadows is not found, and you take another few minutes to look around, that gives him time to stab you in the back while you're looking.

Nobody is claiming you get unlimited retries while the whole world waits for you. Only that re-trying is perfectly sensible as a thing you CAN do. If you're on a timer - say, because you have to find that bomb before it goes off, or notice the assassin before he assassinates you - then the failure is its own consequence because you will run out of time before the Bad Thing happens.

But if you're looking for your keys, but you're in no particular hurry, there's no reason why a roll of "1" on your first glance about your apartment should mean you can't roll a "20" after enough attempts.

If you roll perception for any reason, any reason at all, failure has consequences.
Every time.Yep. That consequence could be just "it took longer," though, if there aren't other things happening against which you're racing. And there's nothing wrong with that. If the DM wants the consequences to be dire, make finding it quickly important.

Tanarii

2016-10-04, 09:18 AM

Wasted time is a consequence. Things happen while you're searching. Take the time to search MORE when you haven't found anything, and more time passes and more things can happen.I agree that time is a consequence, and it's explicitly one that doesn't prevent rerolls. DMG p237 notes that it's a cost in allowing success without re rolling over and over again. It says "In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes."

It is also my undertanding that being in dim light or darkness is what enables you to take the action to become invisible, without needing to remain in it thereafter. But conceptually speaking, the title, while bearing no mechanical weight, seem to imply to me that you have to remain in dim light or darkness in order to remain One With Shadows.I know I always assumed it required shadows to stay present. It was only on reading it in context of 'how do I make this useful' that I noticed the way it is worded looks like it's a trigger to allow the ability to start, not an ongoing requirement.

Nonsense. The title means that when the shadows you are one with disappear, you disappear too. That means that shining a bright light in the area either makes you extra invisible, or kills you, like that one movie.
Oh I like that. Good visualization. Probably not so much if someone drops a daylight spell on you and the surrounding area, but certainly in the case of someone shining a torch or lantern around.

Of course, I'm not sure how that'd work for the other reason the feature works in darkness: it counters darkvision.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-04, 09:38 AM

Zorku

2016-10-04, 09:38 AM

Oh, I don't know, maybe....just maybe....that you didn't find the creature hiding in the shadows who probably wants to kill you?
I'd call that a pretty hefty consequence for falling a perception roll.
People rave about the Assassin's level 3 ability to auto-crit a surprised target. This is the kind of thing that creates that situation.

If you roll perception for any reason, any reason at all, failure has consequences.
Every time.

Ah, ok, that's at least cogent. The trouble I see with it comes in applying it more broadly though. The consequence for failing any roll is thus not succeeding at what you were trying to do, in which case this version of "take 20" never comes into effect. We can assume the trivial rule that the book doesn't include any rules that are meant to never take effect, so there is at least some friction between these ideas.

The interpretation of consequences that I naturally fell into, and I assume quite a few of the other posters fell into, is that of active consequences rather than passive consequences. If failing to pick the lock breaks the tumblers and leaves a broken shard of lock pick bound in the key slot then you clearly cannot try that method again. If you try to pick the lock, nothing breaks, but your hands are getting sweaty and cramped and jeez this lock is difficult... well, you can rule that the character deems this task to be beyond them, but if they're desperate enough to sit down for ten hours trying and taking short breaks as often as they need to I don't see why they shouldn't be able to try- aside from external time constraints.

That they were allowed to try the check in the first place means that the DM decided that it was a possible task in the first place ("I wanna make a climbing check to phase through the ceiling onto the roof." "The ceiling is solid." "Yeah, I wanna phase through it." "You don't have any abilities like that, so no.") and if you've got all day to waste you can pretty much eventually do possible things... unless you break them in the process.

I'm all for stepping in and telling the players that what they're trying to do is metagaming or simply not realistic behavior, but if an invisible creature needs to stay hidden for ten minutes in a room with multiple parties that have a good reason to think that there's an invisible assassin in the room, I'm not even going to make them roll a check as soon as they decide to fling fistfuls of flour into the air.

But hey, I'm glad you've got a system that works well for you.

To try and get this thread back on topic ... I've said a couple of times that the way I read it, One With The Shadows allows you to stay invisible even once you are no longer in Dim Light or Darkness, assuming you didn't move or take an action in the meantime. Anyone else got input on my interpretation?

I'm just wondering because it seems like the kind of interpretation people would jump all over. :smallyuk:

Yeah, seems like they remain invisible. Sounds decently like warlock magics to me. Thematically? The brighter a light you shine on something the deeper the shadow it casts. We haven't been saying that they blend into the dimly lit area, we've been saying that when they're bathed in shadow they become invisible, that they... become one with the shadows. It doesn't really matter what happens with the light after that, they're already invisible. The ranger class (and rewrites of it,) have all kinds of language for being undetectable if you find the right environment and stay still, so the writers know how to describe blending into the environment, but they chose not to use that kind of language here.

Are you friggin kidding me right now?

No, they made a different case, and they explicitly included rechecks for characters that want to check in a different, generally more thorough way.

Point me to the post where I said that, if you please.

Wow. You really believe nobody thought you were saying that ability checks need to be one and done, lest you break bounded accuracy.

Wow.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-04, 09:45 AM

Wow. You really believe nobody thought you were saying that ability checks need to be one and done, lest you break bounded accuracy.

Wow.
Unless something changes.
I said it multiple times in many different posts.
And he keeps telling me that I said the RULES don't allow it, when I never said that. And when I ask him repeatedly to point me to where I did it, he keeps avoiding doing so, probably because I never actually said it.

Putting words in my mouth and ignoring things that I actually did say. I'm done with him.

Tanarii

2016-10-04, 09:49 AM

Great job editing to concur that wasted time is one consequence, while completely glossing over the fact that the same exact post also agreed that there are other consequences not related to spent time.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I edited to add responses to other people, rather than posting multiple times in a row, so as not to break forum guidelines.

And I see you're still deciding to stick with classic "internet poster who has been proven wrong but got but hurt and so refuses to admit it" techniques.

Edit: look dude, just be clear it's a house rule you're using, and we can all move on to discussing the actual topic of the thread.

Segev

2016-10-04, 10:04 AM

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-04, 11:35 AM

DivisibleByZero, can you please elaborate on why "you fail to find the assassin trying to kill you" means that you shouldn't let somebody keep looking for their keys for 20 minutes if they want to keep re-trying?

I already have.
It was lost amidst my being hypocritically called obtuse, and my hypocritically being called an Internet Tough Guy, and words being put in my mouth, and my actual words being ignored, and my exact stance being called unfair when I type it and fair when someone else types it.

Have fun with the rest of this thread.

Segev

2016-10-04, 12:30 PM

I already have.
It was lost amidst my being hypocritically called obtuse, and my hypocritically being called an Internet Tough Guy, and words being put in my mouth, and my actual words being ignored, and my exact stance being called unfair when I type it and fair when someone else types it.

Have fun with the rest of this thread.

A link to the post in question would be appreciated. I cannot find it.

ClintACK

2016-10-04, 02:22 PM

What happens when those keys are literally invisible?
Lost/hidden, immobile, invisible.
You couldn't find them the first time.
Good luck on your next go around.

I once lost my glasses (knocked them off the night table, under the bed, on hardwood floors, so they went skittering away).

It was dark, especially under the bed, and I'm blind without my glasses anyway.

I didn't find them the first time I looked.

So I kept at it, and eventually found them -- by touch. In a place I thought I'd searched once or twice before.

Alas, no one gave me a "participation trophy" -- but I did get to see my way down the hall to the bathroom in the middle of the night, rather than stubbing my toe on the door frame. So there's that.

True Story.

Re: Guards searching for a hidden thief...

It's *all* about the context.

Scenario 1: City guards pursue a thief into a closed room with no other exit and are terrified of going back empty handed... they're going to keep searching until something *conclusive* happens.

I'd say that the Skill Contest hasn't ended until the thief escapes or is caught. Make a new set of opposed skill checks every minute -- or when the thief tries to do something, like move to a different hiding place while the guards are searching.

Scenario 2: The same city guards pursue a thief who manages to hide in a dumpster after turning the corner into an alleyway... if the guards fail their first Perception check, they will probably go running on past. The thief will have plenty of time to get out and depart the area before the increasingly panicked guards come back through, retracing their steps and search the (now empty) dumpster again.

Scenario 3: The stealthy hidden thief has to make it past a guard post. He picks an opportune moment when they are distracted, rushes past, and hides in the shadows at the far side of the guard post. They make one perception check to see if they heard something or caught sight of him out of the corner of their eye. A failure leaves them with no reason not to go back to discussing the sex lives of their fellow guards, or last week's chariot races.

DivisibleByZero- Can you comment on Scenario 1? Some of your comments seem to be saying that you wouldn't let the guards roll a second time in Scenario 1, because nothing has changed. What would you consider necessary for a "change" to permit a second Perception check?

Re: OP...

The fact that you can't even move without breaking invisibility makes One with Shadows a *really* underpowered invocation. I can't see ever taking it over some of the incredibly useful invocations you could be spending your slots on.

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-04, 02:25 PM

What the invisibility accomplishes is ensuring you can't be found by removing your obscurment, like by lighting a torch.

Definitely useful if you're sneaking through the dark and see people approaching with torches;

Step off the path (still stealthing) and then turn invisible.

tieren

2016-10-04, 02:56 PM

Definitely useful if you're sneaking through the dark and see people approaching with torches;

Step off the path (still stealthing) and then turn invisible.

That would only be useful if you could hide your location by not making noise. Unfortunately if you try to stop making noise you take the Hide Action and the invisibility breaks. The invisibility requires your constant revealing of your location.

Tanarii

2016-10-04, 03:27 PM

That would only be useful if you could hide your location by not making noise. Unfortunately if you try to stop making noise you take the Hide Action and the invisibility breaks. The invisibility requires your constant revealing of your location.There's a number of ways you can Hide first, then use One with Shadows after.

If you are in darkness (and you're not within darkvision range) to begin with, you can hide first then use One With Shadows to turn invisible. In Dim Light, you'd have to have some other way to hide, such as Skulker Feat, Wood Elf's Mask of the Wild, Halfling's Naturally Stealthy, cover, etc.

That's not even considering if trying to Hide out of combat is an action or not.

tieren

2016-10-04, 04:01 PM

There's a number of ways you can Hide first, then use One with Shadows after.

If you are in darkness (and you're not within darkvision range) to begin with, you can hide first then use One With Shadows to turn invisible. In Dim Light, you'd have to have some other way to hide, such as Skulker Feat, Wood Elf's Mask of the Wild, Halfling's Naturally Stealthy, cover, etc.

That's not even considering if trying to Hide out of combat is an action or not.

I know, I was just being facetious to prove a point. The idea that you can't just stop making noise is silly to me.

Even in combat, while I might let someone use their action to try to remain quiet (ie take the Hide Action) I wouldn't consider it the type of action that should break the invisibility. Its sort of the act of taking no action at all.

It kind of reminds me though of that one guy in the Mystery Men movie who could turn invisible only when no one was looking. I would totally give that power with this invocation.

Tanarii

2016-10-04, 04:03 PM

Even in combat, while I might let someone use their action to try to remain quiet (ie take the Hide Action) I wouldn't consider it the type of action that should break the invisibility. Its sort of the act of taking no action at all.For sure. I'd definitely allow it as a house-rule, since it's already what I was already doing without realizing it was a house-rule. :smallbiggrin: Nor have I ever seen a DM object to it.

Arial Black

2016-10-05, 07:22 AM

It kind of reminds me though of that one guy in the Mystery Men movie who could turn invisible only when no one was looking. I would totally give that power with this invocation.

True story: I was playing in a Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game and one guy made a hero whose power was to create light, but his weakness is that it didn't work if there was no ambient light.

"Wait, are you saying that you can create light....except when it's dark...?"

"..Um...yes..."

Another player made a hero that could control fire. Could she create fire? No. Did she carry a lighter or some petrol or anything? No.

Segev

2016-10-05, 09:07 AM

Another player made a hero that could control fire. Could she create fire? No.Neither can Pyro from the X-Men comics, but he's still a pretty serious threat.

Did she carry a lighter or some petrol or anything? No.
That's...just kind-of dumb, honestly. "My power has a seemingly self-contradictory limitation," is okay as a humorous thing or an opportunity for clever application. "I have a power that needs a catalyst or fuel I can easily provide to be useful, but I don't carry it," is a poor choice on the part of the character, not a "curious limitation."

Zorku

2016-10-05, 12:30 PM

Unless something changes.

I still don't see how what you're saying is supposed to be the same thing as what he said. Like maybe in the same way that that I can't tell two cows apart without my glasses from thirty yards, but there are entire shifts in tense and active vs passive distinctions going on here.

The way that I've read yours is that the players can make the check, and that represents the entirety of their interaction with what they were checking, and they have to then wait for some other opportunity to come along and make it into a different situation before they can check again. If you did not mean that then you communicated horribly over a long series of posts and you don't seem to give a damn about bounded accuracy.

Please clear this up for me.

As for him not quoting you, fine, I have an enormous amount of time to waste while I wait on a lab machine today, so here goes:

From your first damn post on the matter

So you are motionless, you are invisible, and you are hidden via the rules for hiding.
You simply cannot be detected by any means other than magic or special sense. No rolls needed. No rolls even allowed. You cannot be found. Period.

Your second post seems to be saying that a perception check to spot an invisible hidden creature isn't possible in the first place, but I'll withhold judgement until you've retract the statement or call me a liar.

So you've already won the contested roll to become hidden. So you are now and undetectable by normal means unless something changes. You are also motionless and invisible, meaning that most changes don't even matter any longer. You are undetectable as long as you stay motionless and invisible and hidden.

Third post doesn't add anything new to this topic, but I just want to point out how obtuse you were being.

They would need some reason to look for you in the first place.
Sight? You're literally invisible.
Sound? You're motionless. You aren't making any noise.

So once again, you're hidden, you're motionless, and you're invisible.
They don't know that you're there. They have no reason to suspect that you're there. Unless they have superhuman senses such as scent, or magic, they have no way of finding you at all, and no reason to look for you to begin with. You are completely undetectable by normal means as long as your stay motionless, invisible, and hidden.

Unless, say, somebody was chasing the warlock, knew them to be a warlock, and they vanished at during a short dip round the corner, but you know there aren't any doors or doodads they could have used to stay out of your sight, especially if their footprints abruptly stop a couple steps off the path.

Very few instances of play are going to be like what I just described, in exactly the same way that very few instances of play are going to be like what you just described. Congratulations on fleshing out a scene with details that distract from the point you have been trying to make.

Next quote from page 2.

Why is that being allowed in a skill contest?

"sure, just keep on rolling until you're satisfied with the result."
Nope

I generally don't allow it at all, but absolutely, certainly, 100% NEVER in a contest.
It's the Warlock's stealth versus the guard's perception. Not the Warlock's stealth versus the guard's infinite perception rolls until he gets a good one that he likes.
That's not how skill contests work.
My roll versus yours.
One of us wins.
Done.
No do-overs on a contest.

The guard can keep searching until the cows come home. But if the situation doesn't change then neither does his perception roll.
Using your later logic against you: the situation has changed. The guard has now suffered the consequence of lost time.

Next quote just repeats the argument against making a perception check at all, so I'll omit it.

In regards to a hidden enemy, there isn't another contest. The contest has already happened. The stealthed character isn't hiding again, he's already hidden, and you've already lost the contest against that hide action.
So like I said, you can search all you want, but unless something changes your perception roll remains what it was.
To do it otherwise is like giving the opposing party unlimited rolls against your one roll, and that isn't fair, nor is it a contest any longer.
So again, nothing can happen unless the guy moves or stops being invisible. Do you mean something else by "something changes"?

I do the same with pretty much all checks. If you fail, you fail. That lock is too complicated for you, no retry. That knowledge is too obscure for you, no retry. That guard cannot be persuaded by you, no retry. That trap is hidden too well for you, no retry.[b/]
Consequences.
Unless something changes, yeah?

My in game reason for not allowing it is simply that he's already searched knowing exactly what he was looking for, and nothing has changed, so why would his next search yield different results than before? [b]Is he suddenly looking HARDER? No, he isn't. And no, he doesn't get another roll.

What's your in game reason for allowing this HUGE buff to perception?
Looking harder is exactly what most of us have been talking about, and probably the key component of that "seems reasonable" reply that so upset you.

That's most of it down, but on to page 3.

In 3e/4e, when specialists could easily reach levels where failure was impossible, rechecks were fine.
In 5e, with bounded accuracy, rechecks are what makes failure impossible, they just take time.

Nope. In 5e it's one and done. To do it otherwise and allow rechecks breaks bounded accuracy.
That's why it's the participation medal.

The players love it because the game doesn't grind to an halt every time I ask for a check. Instead the game moves on, either they found something or they didn't. Move on.

Anyone is free to try to refute the claim that rechecks break bounded accuracy.

After this we're pretty much into "There is a consequence" topics, and hopefully that's recent enough for memory.

For reference my interpretation of the pwykersotz post goes:
Invisible only applies to sight, use your judgement if players are looking for visible things or not. The hidden invisible entity can change the situation or inventive players can change the situation in ways that prompt another check. If you -know- that there is an invisible thing to find then you can search over and over until you find it, using whatever methods are available for that kind of thing.
I run being invisible as being hidden until the existence of an invisible creature is made known to the party somehow.

This seems to run counter to a lot of your take on the invisible and hidden situation. If it does not then, again, you communicated terribly (and your sour attitude didn't help.) If there is a difference between all those quotes I dredged up (over multiple break periods at work mind you, this was inconvenient and it's inconsiderate to expect people to do this when you request it,) then I guess the issue is settled.

Please point out any mistakes or make any relevant clarifications. I do want to know if I've jumped the gun somehow, and would prefer that to the unfavorable picture this seems to paint.

e: Forgot to put this at the top: all bolding is my own emphasis.

Segev

2016-10-05, 12:45 PM

Very nice summary, Zorku.

I've tried to address the last thing you quoted DivideByZero asking for. I'm still awaiting a reply that isn't simply dismissing my request for one.

I'll provide the quick version once more, though, so DivideByZero can respond to that if he likes:

Bounded accuracy applies to each check. Repeat checks don't break it because there is a consequence for each failed check. Repeat checks meaning you eventually do find the hidden switch to the secret door means you spent a lot of time looking for it. The more you checked the longer you took. If Sir Evilton has been fleeing via that secret door's secret passage this whole time, he's now much further ahead and may have gotten away entirely. If it takes you more than one search to find that assassin hiding in shadows, he probably already assassinated somebody. Re-checks aren't likely to happen, here, because there isn't time for a second check before the assassin does something taking advantage of having won the stealth contest.

Bounded accuracy is thus not violated. It ensures that you neither auto-succeed nor auto-fail on any PARTICULAR check. It means you eventually will succeed, most likely, if you can afford the time and time doesn't run out on the success being relevant. But it also means you can't auto-succeed the first time, necessarily.

So, bounded accuracy is not violated by repeated checks for the reasons given above. DivideByZero, I invite you to address this answer to your request for an explanation as to why this is.

Tanarii

2016-10-05, 01:27 PM

This article by Angry DM on Adjudicating actions is relevant:
http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

In particular:
"The Outcome is a direct result of the Intention and whether or not the action itself succeeded or failed. If you have the word SUCCESS, the character reached their stated Intention (or made progress, more on this in a second). If you have the world FAILURE, the character did not reach their stated intention AND something has changed so that they either can’t try again or must decide whether to try again. Because, remember, if they can keep trying again and again without any cost or risk, the action CAN’T FAIL."

If the person hiding is just sitting there hiding, the the action can't fail. Which matches up perfectly with what DMG p237 is saying.

If nothing is changes, the person hiding takes no action and continues to hide, and nothing is making time a pressing issue, there is no consequence for failing the check. You can and SHOULD be able to try again. Because it's not possible to fail. And because DMG p237 tells you to allow it. This clearly doesn't break 5e bounded accuracy, because the DMG tells us to allow it.

If you introduce some consequence for failure ... time does not allow for some reason (edit: or the person hiding takes some action other than doing nothing) ... then DMG p237 doesn't apply. But that wasn't claim being made. (edit2: The initial claim being made was that once you are hidden, you remain hidden until something changes, in direct contradiction to what DMG 237 tells us.) The (edit2: follow-up) claim being made was that allowing rechecks would break bounded accuracy. And the related implied claim being made is that allowing rechecks is not RAW.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-05, 01:40 PM

Tanarii

2016-10-05, 01:47 PM

But what makes you think that when you failed to find a hidden creature that there's one is find, which you're failing to, that would prompt you to retry over and over? Couldn't you come to the conclusion that there's no hidden creature to find, especially if you arrive in an area and have no prior knowledge that there is a creature hiding, as opposed to looking for a creature you know is in there hiding somewhere.I agree with that. But whether or not you'd choose to retry is a different thing from whether or not you CAN retry mechanically. Not allowing it when there is no consequence for failure other than time, because "nothing has changed", goes against the stated principle in the DMG.

Segev

2016-10-05, 01:48 PM

The only thing that i think merit questioning is if the task failure is obvious for it to be retried. Failing to pick a lock is obvious and thus retrying over and over until you succeed because there's no consequence make sense.

But what makes you think that when you failed to find a hidden creature that there's one is find, which you're failing to, that would prompt you to retry over and over? Couldn't you come to the conclusion that there's no hidden creature to find, especially if you arrive in an area and have no prior knowledge that there is a creature hiding, as opposed to looking for a creature you know is in there hiding somewhere.

The only metagame knowledge that should be around is that you know you rolled low on the die. That could be something you could justify your character having a sense for. "I know I can do this better." Maybe your search was perfunctory, or you feel like you didn't check things as thoroughly as you could have, or you know you got distracted partway through.

Regardless, given that re-checks take time, you should always be measuring the possible gain of "success" against the extra time spent. If you don't know there's anything to find, all you're going on is the meta-game knowledge of the die roll, and you can choose to justify that however you like. If you do know it's possible the retreating warlock is hiding in here, it's up to you to decide if you think it's worth the time to keep looking (while he might be getting away elsewhere) or if you think you should keep pursuing where you think he might have gone.

Dalebert

2016-10-05, 02:11 PM

Tanarii

2016-10-05, 02:21 PM

I'm not inclined to allow someone a recheck just because they rolled badly the first time. Depends on whether the result is clear or not. You know if you failed to pick a lock. You don't know that you failed to find something. If anything, I'd suggest someone say "I'm going to spend three rounds searching" before they've seen any results. Okay, roll three times then.Why aren't they saying "I spend ten rounds (one minute) searching"? Technically that's meta-gaming. But if the rules have you succeed if you can after a minute, unless you realize that you can't succeed after a round, that's the natural time that people should spend before they stop. About a minute.

Edit: ie I interpret the DMG p237 rule as saying that you should default to players doing stuff for a minute and succeeding if they can, provided there's no special reason they'd stop before then.

CantigThimble

2016-10-05, 02:43 PM

Why aren't they saying "I spend ten rounds (one minute) searching"? Technically that's meta-gaming. But if the rules have you succeed if you can after a minute, unless you realize that you can't succeed after a round, that's the natural time that people should spend before they stop. About a minute.

Edit: ie I interpret the DMG p237 rule as saying that you should default to players doing stuff for a minute and succeeding if they can, provided there's no special reason they'd stop before then.

I think a better way to think about that rule might be: It takes a minute to do most difficult tasks properly. If you want to do it in less than a minute then you need to make an exceptional effort and risk wasting your time, i.e. rolling.

Tanarii

2016-10-05, 02:47 PM

I think a better way to think about that rule might be: It takes a minute to do most difficult tasks properly. If you want to do it in less than a minute then you need to make an exceptional effort and risk wasting your time, i.e. rolling.There ya go. Thanks for putting it succinctly. With the additional caveat: provided you don't run into an obstacle that stops you from continuing. ie fail a check that changes things so you cannot continue to try.

Edit: I'll be clear though, this is totally entering personal interpretation (and some extension) from the DMG p237 rule. Not saying it's the one way to do it.

ad_hoc

2016-10-05, 03:25 PM

The framing of the issue seems off.

It's not that you can reroll.

It's that you shouldn't have rolled in the first place.

I don't allow rerolls either, but then I never call for a roll unless there is a consequence for failure.

For example, the characters decide to climb a small cliff. They succeed and we move on with the game. However, if in the middle of their climb a storm suddenly breaks out and they are buffeted by winds and rain, then they might need to make some checks. The consequence for failure is that they might take some falling damage and now the cliff side is too slippery/precarious to climb up.

Zorku

2016-10-05, 03:39 PM

I do want to say that I actually rather like the "your skill check rolls define the world" approach. "One and done" speeds things up, and the whole possibility of failure is really tightly woven into what keeps things interesting for me...

But you've got to step up your descriptions of what's going on if you want that to make sense. With picking a lock it's not just "the tumblers fall back into their resting position for the eighth time and you've just wasted so much time that nobody thinks you can pick this lock anymore" but rather "as you wiggle your lock pick and lift a tumbler one of the others shifts down despite how you had held it into place. There's some kind of strange trick to the make of this lock that you're unfamiliar with, and as there are still necromancers in the dungeon you don't have time to figure it out just now."

I think I mentioned this before, but you should just give people things without even having them roll the dice if it is something they should be competent at doing, and there's nothing pressuring them to try and do it faster than normal. The way that critical rolls prompt you to describe an extra good or extra bad execution of a task kind of lures people into rolling dice every single time, and rolling extra dice so that players don't automatically know that they're walking into a trapped situation is nice, but if that's why you have them rolling dice then you need to be mindful about how you do that, and if you're creating failure consequences where they shouldn't have been a possible outcome.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-06, 04:11 AM

Also a DM could always use passive perception when attempting to search over and over instead of automatic success since that's a result passive checks can represent;

Passive Check: Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again

I agree with that. But whether or not you'd choose to retry is a different thing from whether or not you CAN retry mechanically. Not allowing it when there is no consequence for failure other than time, because "nothing has changed", goes against the stated principle in the DMG.You can always take the Search action to look for something. the real question is, will you think about it?

The only metagame knowledge that should be around is that you know you rolled low on the die.But here's the thing, most of the time, when a creature failed to notice a hidden creature, they don't know about it because you don't tell him his passive perception failed to notice something and thus they don't bother to search again.

So bottom line is, while trying again after Search action failed is possible, retrying after passive perception failed is unlikely.

Tanarii

2016-10-06, 08:12 AM

Also a DM could always use passive perception when attempting to search over and over instead of automatic success since that's a result passive checks can represent;

Passive Check: Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over againPassive perception already does that. Unless you're doing something else (per adventuring rules for 'other activities') or not in a position to see it (per adventuring rules on 'noticing threats').

Perception checks are typically on top of passive perception. (Edit: for detecting creatures and traps that is. For finding a hidden object, the rules make no mention of passive perception IIRC. It just talks about rolling the checks. But One with Shadows is a creature, so I'm focusing on that part of finding things.)

You can always take the Search action to look for something. the real question is, will you think about it?For sure. But if that has been declared for some reason (typically the player is absolutely certain something is there, for example saw a creature disappear), they're no reason to expect they'd stop in less than a minute of checks unless there was a consequence for failure other than time that stops them, or they don't have that much time (ie in combat or something similar). In which case, as a DM you can go straight to comparing the check as if they had rolled a 20 and spent 10x as long (1 minutes) once they tell you they are making an extra effort to search (equivalent of spending actions in combat).

Plaguescarred

2016-10-06, 08:49 AM

But if that has been declared for some reason (typically the player is absolutely certain something is there, for example saw a creature disappear), they're no reason to expect they'd stop in less than a minute of checks unless there was a consequence for failure other than time that stops them, or they don't have that much time (ie in combat or something similar). In which case, as a DM you can go straight to comparing the check as if they had rolled a 20 and spent 10x as long (1 minutes) once they tell you they are making an extra effort to search (equivalent of spending actions in combat).WHile there would be no reason to stop searching, it doesn't mean there would be a reason to use the Search action and make a new perception check since passive perception can also represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again...

Segev

2016-10-06, 10:02 AM

But here's the thing, most of the time, when a creature failed to notice a hidden creature, they don't know about it because you don't tell him his passive perception failed to notice something and thus they don't bother to search again.

Sure, if you used passive perception. Good way to sidestep the problem.

I still haven't found a good metric for delineating whether something should be passive or active perception. "Done repeatedly over time" is a nice guideline...but every time I come up with an example I think qualifies, somebody says "no, that's active Perception because you're looking for somebody."

Tanarii

2016-10-06, 10:05 AM

WHile there would be no reason to stop searching, it doesn't mean there would be a reason to use the Search action and make a new perception check since passive perception can also represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again...Oh, I agree with that. It's totally dependent on what the player declares they are doing.

Most common reason to make rolled perception checks is in Combat, when the player has seen a creature disappear or hide and is trying to find it, and uses it's actions to do so.

Segev

2016-10-06, 10:18 AM

Oh, I agree with that. It's totally dependent on what the player declares they are doing.

Most common reason to make rolled perception checks is in Combat, when the player has seen a creature disappear or hide and is trying to find it, and uses it's actions to do so.

Due to flaws in the implementation of invisibility in 5e, they wouldn't need to take actions to search for a creature they just saw disappear unless that creature ALSO took a Hide action. So, for instance, that warlock invocation which started this thread would not PERMIT them to disappear from sight in a useful fashion. Everybody who walks into the room knows exactly where they are just as if they were visible.

Tanarii

2016-10-06, 10:45 AM

Due to flaws in the implementation of invisibility in 5e, they wouldn't need to take actions to search for a creature they just saw disappear unless that creature ALSO took a Hide action. So, for instance, that warlock invocation which started this thread would not PERMIT them to disappear from sight in a useful fashion. Everybody who walks into the room knows exactly where they are just as if they were visible.

Yes, sorry, I should have said AND hide.

Edit: And "everyone who walks into the room knows where exactly where they are just as if they were visible" is up for discussion. But if they turn invisible in combat, they should.

tieren

2016-10-06, 10:48 AM

Segev

2016-10-06, 11:08 AM

Yes, sorry, I should have said AND hide.

Edit: And "everyone who walks into the room knows where exactly where they are just as if they were visible" is up for discussion. But if they turn invisible in combat, they should.It really isn't up for discussion. The rules are that you are aware of and can locate creatures if they're not hiding. So you enter the room with invisible William the Warlock reading in the corner and you automatically know he's there, because he hasn't taken a Hide action. You know he's there equally well regardless of whether he's invisible or visible.

"And the wheel in the sky keeps on turning..."

I literally have no idea what you're trying to convey with this quote.

tieren

2016-10-06, 12:06 PM

It really isn't up for discussion. The rules are that you are aware of and can locate creatures if they're not hiding. So you enter the room with invisible William the Warlock reading in the corner and you automatically know he's there, because he hasn't taken a Hide action. You know he's there equally well regardless of whether he's invisible or visible.

I literally have no idea what you're trying to convey with this quote.

I was trying to humorously indicate that the argument has gone full circle and is likely to keep circling back to this point forever.

1. It doesn't seem like I can use One with Shadows unless I'm hidden and hiding is an action that breaks One with Shadows what gives?
2. Insert a couple of pages on hiding and invisibility comments
3. Narrow argument to distinction between being invisible and being hidden
4. Somebody points out if you're not hidden we know where you are
5. Insert couple of pages of hiding and invisibility comments
6. etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum

Segev

2016-10-06, 12:10 PM

I was trying to humorously indicate that the argument has gone full circle and is likely to keep circling back to this point forever.

1. It doesn't seem like I can use One with Shadows unless I'm hidden and hiding is an action that breaks One with Shadows what gives?
2. Insert a couple of pages on hiding and invisibility comments
3. Narrow argument to distinction between being invisible and being hidden
4. Somebody points out if you're not hidden we know where you are
5. Insert couple of pages of hiding and invisibility comments
6. etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum

The take-away seems to be that the rules for invisibility are flawed, and that One With Shadows is nearly useless because of its limitations not understanding just how flawed invisibility is. It will take house rules to make it work in a worthwhile fashion.

Tanarii

2016-10-06, 12:14 PM

It really isn't up for discussion. The rules are that you are aware of and can locate creatures if they're not hiding. So you enter the room with invisible William the Warlock reading in the corner and you automatically know he's there, because he hasn't taken a Hide action. You know he's there equally well regardless of whether he's invisible or visible.Your second sentence isn't explicit in the rules outside of combat. Edit: I think it is heavily implied. I think it's the general assumption of playgrounders and on other forums. I tend to run it that way myself. I just think there's a lot of assumption and extension in ruling it that way, so I can see why someone would want to rule otherwise. That's why I threw out a sheet anchor statement about it.

Segev

2016-10-06, 12:22 PM

Your second sentence isn't explicit in the rules outside of combat. Edit: I think it is heavily implied. I think it's the general assumption of playgrounders and on other forums. I tend to run it that way myself. I just think there's a lot of assumption and extension in ruling it that way, so I can see why someone would want to rule otherwise. That's why I threw out a sheet anchor statement about it.

It is an inescapable consequence of the rules.

When you enter a room, by default, you are aware of every creature that is not hidden. A warlock in a room with no cover or obstructions could not hide prior to using One With Shadows. Upon using One with Shadows, he still cannot hide without ending the invisibility it grants. Therefore, a warlock using One With Shadows is not hidden. Anybody who enters that room will automatically know the warlock is there and be able to locate him well enough that they could drop a 5 ft. AoE on his location and catch him in it.

This is because he is not hidden.

There are literally no mechanics to cover how hard it is to detect him if you declare you don't automatically know he's there. Mechanics for perception would need a DC, but without him being hidden, Invisibility provides no default DC, so at best it's a DC 0...which is right back to "automatic."

georgie_leech

2016-10-06, 12:33 PM

It is an inescapable consequence of the rules.

When you enter a room, by default, you are aware of every creature that is not hidden. A warlock in a room with no cover or obstructions could not hide prior to using One With Shadows. Upon using One with Shadows, he still cannot hide without ending the invisibility it grants. Therefore, a warlock using One With Shadows is not hidden. Anybody who enters that room will automatically know the warlock is there and be able to locate him well enough that they could drop a 5 ft. AoE on his location and catch him in it.

This is because he is not hidden.

There are literally no mechanics to cover how hard it is to detect him if you declare you don't automatically know he's there. Mechanics for perception would need a DC, but without him being hidden, Invisibility provides no default DC, so at best it's a DC 0...which is right back to "automatic."

In point of fact, visual obstructions and cover aren't room-specific. The Warlock indeed had cover from everything outside of the room when they were the only one in the room. That lets them hide. They wouldn't have been able to hide from anyone in the room with them when they tried to become hidden, but that's beside the point.

Tanarii

2016-10-06, 01:06 PM

When you enter a room, by default, you are aware of every creature that is not hidden.As far as I know, this is never specified. Rather, it's an assumption based on reversing the mechanics for hiding.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-06, 01:24 PM

I still haven't found a good metric for delineating whether something should be passive or active perception. "Done repeatedly over time" is a nice guideline...but every time I come up with an example I think qualifies, somebody says "no, that's active Perception because you're looking for somebody."That's true that we don't really have much guideline to know when to use between;

1. Passive Check
2. Active Check repeatedly
3. Automatic success.

Tanarii

2016-10-06, 03:03 PM

I still haven't found a good metric for delineating whether something should be passive or active perception. "Done repeatedly over time" is a nice guideline...but every time I come up with an example I think qualifies, somebody says "no, that's active Perception because you're looking for somebody."

I missed his. Why do you need a metric. The rules already tell you when to use passive perception and when to use a check. Per my laid out list a few pages back.

Edit:
Oops, it was in a different thread. Here ya go:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21273492&postcount=58

Segev

2016-10-06, 03:35 PM

In point of fact, visual obstructions and cover aren't room-specific. The Warlock indeed had cover from everything outside of the room when they were the only one in the room. That lets them hide. They wouldn't have been able to hide from anyone in the room with them when they tried to become hidden, but that's beside the point.

I believe if that which provides your obscurement to permit the hiding goes away, your hide check goes away, as well. Unless you can keep the same hide check for different obscurments, the invisibility can't take over for the walls of the room once those walls are no longer obscuring you from the observer.

Still, it's probably the most straight-forward house rules to make it work that we've yet had. Doesn't address "Bob the Wizard isn't taking any action to hide other than casting invisibility," but it's better, anyway.

I missed his. Why do you need a metric. The rules already tell you when to use passive perception and when to use a check. Per my laid out list a few pages back.

Edit:
Oops, it was in a different thread. Here ya go:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21273492&postcount=58
I'm afraid that even that doesn't really help. It comes down to "how does the DM feel today?" Because there STILL isn't a good metric. "Okay, so use Passive Perception when they walk through a room, but not when they say they're searching it, right?" "No, when they enter a room, call for a Perception check; it's a one time thing. Only Passive when they're noticing something in an ongoing path." "But...what's the difference?" "Dunno."

pwykersotz

2016-10-06, 04:03 PM

I'm afraid that even that doesn't really help. It comes down to "how does the DM feel today?" Because there STILL isn't a good metric. "Okay, so use Passive Perception when they walk through a room, but not when they say they're searching it, right?" "No, when they enter a room, call for a Perception check; it's a one time thing. Only Passive when they're noticing something in an ongoing path." "But...what's the difference?" "Dunno."

I use Passive Perception whenever there is a specific thing or things that would ordinarily stand out to the character that are actively concealed. It also needs to be possible to find or notice a trace of without disturbing anything in the room.

So a patrol of orcs that isn't trying to hide? Automatically gets noticed at a certain distance, escalating active perception checks at further ranges.
An assassin hiding in the trees above the camp? Passive perception.
A secret book that opens a passage? The character wouldn't know to look for it, so active perception only.
The players learned some time ago that there is a black book with silver lettering upon a shelf somewhere in the mansion that opens a passage? Passive perception.

Hopefully either this will help you build a metric or else you can point out holes in my method. Both outcomes would interest me.

Segev

2016-10-06, 04:19 PM

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-06, 04:29 PM

That would only be useful if you could hide your location by not making noise. Unfortunately if you try to stop making noise you take the Hide Action and the invisibility breaks. The invisibility requires your constant revealing of your location.

You're presumably in darkness/dim light and totally unobserved, that's all the conditions you'd need to hide, once hidden you turn invisible and it doesn't matter if the conditions which originally enabled hiding go away, you've maintained invisibility.

Starting to not make noise is hiding, which is an action, which if taken while One With Shadows is active disables it. So for order of operations purposes, the Warlock would have to use it first.

pwykersotz

2016-10-06, 04:43 PM

I'm fuzzy as to why "secret book" gets active Perception, since noticing that the book is important sounds like it's something you should either be able to do with the same kind of Perception you'd notice the hiding ambushers, OR like it's an Investigation check (because you have to think to flip through books to discover their significance and recognize this one's significance).

But it sounds like you, at least, have an idea how you'd run it. It just...bugs me that it is as fuzzy as it is.

As a quick corner case: They know they're supposed to be looking for a black book with silver edges. Their passive perception is too low. If one of the players asks, "Do I see such a book in here?" do you give it to him automatically, let him roll active perception, or tell him he didn't notice any such book ("auto-failure" based on having failed passive perception already).

For your corner case: I would let them roll an active perception check once they started digging through the room. The passive is more to see if you notice it when you know what you'd be interested in finding on sight, but aren't expecting it. This is why the "secret book" would be an active check, because you wouldn't know at first glance that it's relevant. Once you know that you're looking for the black book with silver edges, then it becomes passive.

Segev

2016-10-06, 04:55 PM

For your corner case: I would let them roll an active perception check once they started digging through the room. The passive is more to see if you notice it when you know what you'd be interested in finding on sight, but aren't expecting it. This is why the "secret book" would be an active check, because you wouldn't know at first glance that it's relevant. Once you know that you're looking for the black book with silver edges, then it becomes passive.

Reasonable. The problem that gets raised here is that now you've made passive checks a "floor" on the active check.

But it probably works well enough.

georgie_leech

2016-10-06, 05:18 PM

I believe if that which provides your obscurement to permit the hiding goes away, your hide check goes away, as well. Unless you can keep the same hide check for different obscurments, the invisibility can't take over for the walls of the room once those walls are no longer obscuring you from the observer.

Still, it's probably the most straight-forward house rules to make it work that we've yet had. Doesn't address "Bob the Wizard isn't taking any action to hide other than casting invisibility," but it's better, anyway.

Source? My reading was that you need some manner of concealment to remain hidden, not that it had to be the same source of concealment.

Segev

2016-10-06, 05:47 PM

Source? My reading was that you need some manner of concealment to remain hidden, not that it had to be the same source of concealment.

I could be wrong. If so, great! :smallsmile:

pwykersotz

2016-10-06, 06:26 PM

Reasonable. The problem that gets raised here is that now you've made passive checks a "floor" on the active check.

But it probably works well enough.

True, but I'm not sure if there's a downside to having a floor of that kind. The only effect is that a player might know the minimum DC to find something (which I am generally fine with). Failure by degrees isn't really relevant in the rules, so whether you have a passive perception of 12 or a roll of 2, you still failed either way, and it doesn't give you any sort of special advantage to have failed by less barring houserules.

And yeah, I haven't had any issues yet. :smallsmile:

huttj509

2016-10-06, 06:31 PM

Honestly? I'd just houserule that the Hide Action specifically does no break One With Shadows. So the round after you start blending into the shadows you can then attempt to Hide, allowing the Warlock to be Hidden if he had time to set up.

Tanarii

2016-10-07, 06:07 AM

I'm afraid that even that doesn't really help. It comes down to "how does the DM feel today?" Because there STILL isn't a good metric. "Okay, so use Passive Perception when they walk through a room, but not when they say they're searching it, right?" "No, when they enter a room, call for a Perception check; it's a one time thing. Only Passive when they're noticing something in an ongoing path." "But...what's the difference?" "Dunno."Your example of DM feeling today strongly reads like you've never read the rules and didn't read my link. Otherwise you'd know that neither of those are by the rules. You use Passive perception to detect a creature attempting to hide, or if they can possible note a threat (ie creature or trap and they are in a party rank where they can see it). They use active perception if they spend an action to do so in combat, or are looking for a hidden object.

Edit: and for other circumstances than those, you use the same rules as anything else: use passive if it's something being done repeatedly, or it is a secret check. Otherwise use active. And set the DC per difficulty of the task.

If you think determining that is a problem for a DM, you have a problem as a DM deciding what kind of check and DC to use for ANY skill check. Not just perception checks.

Segev

2016-10-07, 08:44 AM

Your example of DM feeling today strongly reads like you've never read the rules and didn't read my link. Otherwise you'd know that neither of those are by the rules. You use Passive perception to detect a creature attempting to hide, or if they can possible note a threat (ie creature or trap and they are in a party rank where they can see it). They use active perception if they spend an action to do so in combat, or are looking for a hidden object.

Edit: and for other circumstances than those, you use the same rules as anything else: use passive if it's something being done repeatedly, or it is a secret check. Otherwise use active. And set the DC per difficulty of the task.

If you think determining that is a problem for a DM, you have a problem as a DM deciding what kind of check and DC to use for ANY skill check. Not just perception checks.

I did read your link, and that's not what I got from it; sorry. But if I'm understanding this post correctly, you're saying that the DM should never spontaneously call for a roll. Any time the DM would call for a roll, it's a passive check because it's something the PCs would have been doing constantly that's just now hitting a relevant detail. Only when the players take a particular action does the DM call for a roll, because he's now telling them what kind of roll determines the success or failure of that action.

Is this an accurate understanding of what you're saying? (If so, I like it; it looks consistent and without weird gaps.)

Tanarii

2016-10-07, 09:14 AM

I did read your link, and that's not what I got from it; sorry. But if I'm understanding this post correctly, you're saying that the DM should never spontaneously call for a roll. Any time the DM would call for a roll, it's a passive check because it's something the PCs would have been doing constantly that's just now hitting a relevant detail. Only when the players take a particular action does the DM call for a roll, because he's now telling them what kind of roll determines the success or failure of that action.

Is this an accurate understanding of what you're saying? (If so, I like it; it looks consistent and without weird gaps.)
Are we talking about Perception specifically, or the theory for checks in general. Because Perception (like Survival, and Social skills, and probably others I'm missing) have specific call-out rules on how to use them.

The specific call-out rules are for:
1) Creatures Hiding. Opposed by passive perception.
2) Finding hidden objects. Roll perception check.
3) Noticing threats while adventuring. Use passive perception, if you're in position (party rank) to do so, and not doing an 'other activity'.
4) Searching in combat. Takes an action. Roll perception check.
5) Traps. Use passive or roll. (This is the only one that's less than clear, but you already have rules for noticing threats while adventuring and searching in combat to cover most of it.)

Any other time, the DM can follow the general advice for if a check is needed at all, and if so setting a DC and deciding if it's passive or rolled.

BUT ... and this is a big BUT ... they've already given you specific rules for the majority of times you'll need to make Perception checks. It covers creatures hiding, finding hidden objects, noticing threats while adventuring, searching in combat, and traps. That's the majority of D&D right there, as regards using perception to find things.

About the only thing that isn't covered are situations like your personal favorite: What happens if a PC walks into a room where someone is invisibly sitting in the corner, not making any particular attempt to be quiet but not making a lot of noise either, and the PC either doesn't or does say they're checking out the room. In that case, DM needs to adjudicate making use of the normal rules: Is a check needed? If a check is needed, what DC, or is it opposed? If so, passive, or is there a rolled check?

Edit: Personally as a DM, if a player tells me they're checking out a room, they don't need a check to find a invisible creature making no attempt to hide it's presence. It's automatic. Because the player is checking out the room. If they don't tell me that, and they've said anything to indicate that they might be occupied doing something other than looking around, I'd probably set a DC. But how often do players enter rooms in which there is an invisible creature not attempting to hide? Or vice versa? Not that common in my experience.

Edit2: I think part of the problem is folks wanting to make general rules from the specific rules. I was doing that, and realized that's what I was doing. The key here is realize there are some general guidelines and rules for if checks are needed, checks, passive checks, and settings DCs. And then there are some concrete rules for how to handle Perception specifically in common adventuring situations. (Or maybe it's an attempt to turn these rules, which are for resolution & adjudicating specific types of D&D adventuring, into an in-game simulator / physic's engine.)

Plaguescarred

2016-10-07, 09:51 AM

What happens if a PC walks into a room where someone is invisibly sitting in the corner, not making any particular attempt to be quiet but not making a lot of noise either, and the PC either doesn't or does say they're checking out the room. In that case, DM needs to adjudicate making use of the normal rules: Is a check needed?Taken that being invisible doesn't conceal your location nor require a perception check to detect your presence, then no check should be required unless you're also hidden.

Hiding is the by-the-book way to conceal your position both RAW and RAI.

@wax_eagle can you target a creature who is obscured but not hidden? More precisely, is hidden the only way to conceal position?
@JeremyECrawford Being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position. The DM may decide that other methods can also conceal it

Segev

2016-10-07, 10:20 AM

While I don't give a lot of credence to his rulings due to inconsistency, if we're asking Mr. Crawford, we may as well ask him about this thread's specific question: What is the intended interaction of One With Shadows and the Hide action?

Tanarii

2016-10-07, 10:26 AM

Taken that being invisible doesn't conceal your location nor require a perception check to detect your presence, then no check should be required unless you're also hidden.

Hiding is the by-the-book way to conceal your position both RAW and RAI.

@wax_eagle can you target a creature who is obscured but not hidden? More precisely, is hidden the only way to conceal position?
@JeremyECrawford Being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position. The DM may decide that other methods can also conceal it

Note that this is a question about targeting in combat. And that's what I was saying earlier about people extending a specific circumstance (Invisibility not making you impossible to determine location for targeting or other use in combat) and extending it generally to "you automatically detect invisible but not hidden creatures at any time".

Edit:
While I don't give a lot of credence to his rulings due to inconsistency, if we're asking Mr. Crawford, we may as well ask him about this thread's specific question: What is the intended interaction of One With Shadows and the Hide action?Good thinking.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-07, 10:32 AM

Note that this is a question about targeting in combat. And that's what I was saying earlier about people extending a specific circumstance (Invisibility not making you impossible to determine location for targeting or other use in combat) and extending it generally to "you automatically detect invisible but not hidden creatures at any time".? The entire Q&A has nothing to do specifically (or exclusively) with combat what makes you think that?

Tanarii

2016-10-07, 10:36 AM

? The entire Q&A has nothing to do specifically (or exclusively) with combat what makes you think that?

The question is about targeting. Ergo it's about combat.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-07, 10:39 AM

The question is about targeting. Ergo it's about combat.You're kidding right? If you can only target when out of combat, how are most spells and suppsoed to operate?? Targeting is not exclusive for combat just think of buffs and healing :)

Zorku

2016-10-07, 01:01 PM

I could be wrong. If so, great! :smallsmile:
*This quote is referring to hide checks becoming invalid when the original source of cover is invalidated.

Quick reality checks: I hide behind a car, a few feet back from it. Someone casts darkness on the space I'm standing in. The car drives off. Do people automatically realize that I was hiding behind the car?

Somebody casts wall of stone, and I use it to hide. A large tree falls between me and the wall. The wall goes away but nobody has clear sight of me. Do they know where I am?

I use normal invisibility to hide (not OwtS.) A creature I am hidden from walks into the room, but falls back out of the room via trap door. An antimagic field removes my invisibility. Does the creature that fell out of the room know that I was there?

If you have answered yes to all of these questions... wtf dude.

Segev

2016-10-07, 01:33 PM

*This quote is referring to hide checks becoming invalid when the original source of cover is invalidated.

Quick reality checks: I hide behind a car, a few feet back from it. Someone casts darkness on the space I'm standing in. The car drives off. Do people automatically realize that I was hiding behind the car?

Somebody casts wall of stone, and I use it to hide. A large tree falls between me and the wall. The wall goes away but nobody has clear sight of me. Do they know where I am?

I use normal invisibility to hide (not OwtS.) A creature I am hidden from walks into the room, but falls back out of the room via trap door. An antimagic field removes my invisibility. Does the creature that fell out of the room know that I was there?

If you have answered yes to all of these questions... wtf dude.

The only one I can definitively answer "no" to based strictly on the RAW is the last one, and that's because he's not in the room to perceive you when you become "unhidden." He doesn't gain retro-active knowledge of the room.

Verisimilitude-wise, all but the "darkness cast where I am" one SHOULD be "no, they don't know you're there." (The darkness one raises questions because there's a blob of darkness in the middle of nowhere.)

Per the RAW...? It is possible that they say that people know you're there if you've lost the "hidden" condition by virtue of your original cover going away. Ideally, this is clear enough a situation that a DM would just rule you're still hidden by the same DC as before.

So I suppose, ideally, if you hide then go invisible, and that which let you hide goes away, your DM should let you keep using the same Hide check to set the DC to find you.

Zorku

2016-10-07, 02:57 PM

The only one I can definitively answer "no" to based strictly on the RAW is the last one, and that's because he's not in the room to perceive you when you become "unhidden." He doesn't gain retro-active knowledge of the room.

Verisimilitude-wise, all but the "darkness cast where I am" one SHOULD be "no, they don't know you're there." (The darkness one raises questions because there's a blob of darkness in the middle of nowhere.)

Per the RAW...? It is possible that they say that people know you're there if you've lost the "hidden" condition by virtue of your original cover going away. Ideally, this is clear enough a situation that a DM would just rule you're still hidden by the same DC as before.

So I suppose, ideally, if you hide then go invisible, and that which let you hide goes away, your DM should let you keep using the same Hide check to set the DC to find you.

I suspected you might be this mechanical in your thinking, but the ruling on the creature that leaves the room doesn't make any sense to me- maybe falling is a distracting activity, but other than that how is this meaningfully different than just summoning a new wall between them?

As for RAW, where's the phrase that actually states that invalidating the original cover breaks stealthy behavior? I've read the stealth rules rather extensively, and kept up on the errata, but I can't figure out what you're referring to. I already gave you quotes for why this isn't the case (albeit without page number. My phone has died mysteriously so I cannot access the pdf. This stuff is right at the top of chapter 7 in the basic online rules though.)

The blob of darkness raises suspicion, which is a good reason to prompt passive or active perception rolls, but the party shouldn't intrinsically know that a creature, which already went to the trouble to stop being noisy, and generally not do things to give away where it is, is present in that darkness. They should obviously investigate or avoid whatever dangers might be in the darkness, but they shouldn't know detailed information about the creature that is actually in the darkness. If you were to judge this situation without rules, but just based on what you know about the senses of humanoids, is there any way that they would know that the creature was in the darkness after the car moved out of the way? With whatever mechanics you're using, what is supposed to actually be happening, when removing the car un-conceals a hiding creature in magical darkness?

Segev

2016-10-07, 03:46 PM

I suspected you might be this mechanical in your thinking, but the ruling on the creature that leaves the room doesn't make any sense to me- maybe falling is a distracting activity, but other than that how is this meaningfully different than just summoning a new wall between them?Generally, if discussing something in 5e, I try to be clear whether I am discussing the RAW strictly or how I would run it, because 5e is designed for DMs to disregard the strict reading in favor of those which make more sense. I apologize that I was not clear in this case.

As for the "falling out of the room," the distinction is that it's no longer a matter of "there's somebody in the room with you but something's blocking your line of sight." It's now a matter of "you're not there to detect it." The "falling out of the room" situation is the same as why I wouldn't let somebody know that, back in their room at home, there's a thief burgling them right now. They're currently out at the tavern, not in their room back home, so they don't know about it (barring magical sensors or the like).

As for RAW, where's the phrase that actually states that invalidating the original cover breaks stealthy behavior? I've read the stealth rules rather extensively, and kept up on the errata, but I can't figure out what you're referring to. I already gave you quotes for why this isn't the case (albeit without page number. My phone has died mysteriously so I cannot access the pdf. This stuff is right at the top of chapter 7 in the basic online rules though.)Like I said, I could be wrong. I just wasn't sure that it allowed for it.

If you were to judge this situation without rules, but just based on what you know about the senses of humanoids, is there any way that they would know that the creature was in the darkness after the car moved out of the way? With whatever mechanics you're using, what is supposed to actually be happening, when removing the car un-conceals a hiding creature in magical darkness?

The trouble isn't these situations. Without rules, they're still pretty clear. The trouble is when you get to things like Invisible Bob Who Hasn't Taken A Hide Action just standing around in a room when Alice walks in - how hard is it for Alice to notice Invisible Bob? Does she detect and locate him just as easily as Visible Bill Who Also Has Not Taken A Hide Action, who is also in the same room (i.e. with no check; she automatically knows where he is)?

MeeposFire

2016-10-07, 09:47 PM

Well you could just take away everything that could show somebody is there and see what the rules say and whether we are still happy with it.

Invisible Bob can survive in a vacuum. Bob is floating in the middle of a 30 foot room. He did not take the hide action but he is also not doing anything in particular to call attention to himself.

Blind Larry walks up to the door and approaches but does not enter the room. He also does not specifically use any sort of declared investigate or perception actions.

Does he know that Bob is there?

Bob cannot be seen by Larry. He cannot be smelled, tasted, touched, or heard. How does he know that Bob is there.

Can Bob be hidden without using the hide action and if not how is he being discovered?

Plaguescarred

2016-10-08, 05:44 AM

Can Bob be hidden without using the hide action and if not how is he being discovered?
Since being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position, he would need to yes wether using an action or passive stealth etc.. Some DC would be required in order to be detected one way or another.

Dalebert

2016-10-08, 10:02 AM

Can Bob be hidden without using the hide action and if not how is he being discovered?

Hidden is defined as being unseen and unheard. There are other ways than the hide action to achieve this. Elven boots, for instance, make you unheard so you would only need to become unseen to be hidden. The Silence spell makes everything within unheard. Your enemies being deaf makes you unheard so the Blindness/Deafness spell could achieve that part, at least making you hidden with respect to that enemy. Being hidden with respect to some and not others is possible, just as if you hid behind some crates and would be hidden to enemies opposite the crates. If an enemy ran past the crates, you're obviously now in view and no longer hidden from that particular enemy.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-08, 10:30 AM

Dalebert

2016-10-08, 11:00 AM

While Unseen Attacker evoke being hidden as both unseen and unheard, i don't think any rules say that simply being both unseen and unheard effectively make you hidden without taking the Hide action. Like i said, you need a DC to contest perception against which would be missing in such scenario.

It defines hidden as meaning that in game mechanics terms.

If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard— PHB p.195

Hiding is just the typical method to attain that. This is specified just a paragraph earlier than the definition where it gives examples of other ways.

Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness. PHB p. 194

If you become unseen and unheard, it follows that you now meet the definition of hidden. If as a DM, you think there is some sense by which they might detect the creature anyway, come up with a DC that you think is reasonable. Imagine that the wizard casts Fog and the cleric casts Silence and the whole party is in there. There is no visual cue and no audible cue WHATSOEVER to tell who is in there or where they are. I think I might give them a nat 20 stealth roll because I can't imagine how you would ever be even more unseen or unheard that to be completely invisible and completely quiet. If a creature has a special targeting sense, then it might ignore these effects altogether but otherwise, most humanoids have nothing else to go on. Maybe an extremely perceptive creature would fail to be fooled by 20 + stealth modifier and feel an eddy in air currents to let him sense the rough location of something. *shrug*

Plaguescarred

2016-10-08, 11:32 AM

It defines hidden as meaning that in game mechanics terms.

If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard— PHB p.195

Hiding is just the typical method to attain that. This is specified just a paragraph earlier than the definition where it gives examples of other ways.
I don't think it defines hidden or else it would mention it in the Hiding entry itself. I think it's just a clarification that attacking won't reveal your location if you are hidden—both unseen and unheard and simply not just the latter.

If as a DM, you think there is some sense by which they might detect the creature anyway, come up with a DC that you think is reasonable.Another proof it's not hiding. You don't come up with a DC for stealth, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. If you think there's other way to become hidden than this the burden is on you to quote the rule saying so.

Hiding: When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence

Plaguescarred

2016-10-08, 11:46 AM

A = B doesn't necessarily mean B = A. For exemple;

While an opportunity attack is a melee weapon attack as a reaction, a melee weapon attack as a reaction is not necessarily an opportunity attacks.

Segev

2016-10-08, 04:06 PM

A = B doesn't necessarily mean B = A. For exemple;

While an opportunity attack is a melee weapon attack as a reaction, a melee weapon attack as a reaction is not necessarily an opportunity attacks.

"All crows are blackbirds; not all blackbirds are crows," is how I usually hear this concept phrased.

And to go with the scenario presented... per the rules, it sounds like Bob's location is known to Larry, at least the way the interpretations around here seem to run. Bob hasn't Hidden, so there's no DC to set against Larry's passive perception. We have no DC to notice somebody who isn't hiding, to my knowledge.

pwykersotz

2016-10-08, 04:19 PM

And to go with the scenario presented... per the rules, it sounds like Bob's location is known to Larry, at least the way the interpretations around here seem to run. Bob hasn't Hidden, so there's no DC to set against Larry's passive perception. We have no DC to notice somebody who isn't hiding, to my knowledge.

This right here is why I flat out reject pure RAW as the explicit rules of the universe. We have a perfectly sensible interpretation of "The DM generates the DC just like any other skill check and can also decide if it's an auto-success or an auto-fail" and it's rejected by a not insignificant number of posters in favor of all people auto-knowing location unless the particular skill of Stealth is used.

I guess I just don't understand the point.

RickAllison

2016-10-08, 07:52 PM

Some thoughts I had on this thread and in no particular order.

1) It ends on actions and reactions. Combos well with spells that allow continued damage using bonus actions from a multiclass (Flaming Sphere is a good low-level one, though better ones exist that take more input). Two levels of Rogue for Cunning Action make for a brutal one-two stealth punch. Finally, object interactions are not banned either. Pick up keys, pocket some coins or small items off a merchant's counter, any other way that you use objects that wouldn't require an object.

2) It ends when you move, not when you are moved. Use it to blend in on a wagon, a horse, or any other number of transportation methods. Combine it with Phantom Steed for a spectral horse or Find Steed with permission for a demonic or angelic steed. Get on it, use One With Shadows while in darkness, move around on what looks to be a supernatural being. Additionally, movement within a square does not count as moving for the rules (otherwise numerous aspects of the system are very weird). Actually, standing completely still requires something like a Stealth check to prevent the shifting of sand and pebbles that give the user away.

3) On the question of when to use passive skills and when to take 20, I think it boils down to accomplishing a specific goal versus preemptively using a skill to accomplish an as-of-now unknown goal. With passive Perception, it is keeping a weather-eye out for any danger without knowing what you are looking for. A passive Strength check could be pushing a mine cart and thus setting the DC for when someone tries to push it back. When repeatedly trying to get a horse to go through a gate using Animal Handling under normal circumstances, the worst that can happen is you don't get her through. So you coax her again. Eventually you succeed (take 20) so long as you have enough animal empathy to convince her at all. In muddy conditions where the horse could get hurt, the person would have to roll because a particularly bad failure means future checks don't have a chance to succeed.

Just some of my thoughts for the thread.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-09, 04:54 AM

"All crows are blackbirds; not all blackbirds are crows," is how I usually hear this concept phrased.

And to go with the scenario presented... per the rules, it sounds like Bob's location is known to Larry, at least the way the interpretations around here seem to run. Bob hasn't Hidden, so there's no DC to set against Larry's passive perception. We have no DC to notice somebody who isn't hiding, to my knowledge.Exactly. No only that, we have numerous place in the rules where it state the method to notice something hidden. while the heavily obscured rule or the invisible condition don't say you must make a check to notice them. Oh and the Devs also confirming it.

Noticing Threats: Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat.

Hiding: When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

Surprise: The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter

Plaguescarred

2016-10-09, 05:05 AM

This right here is why I flat out reject pure RAW as the explicit rules of the universe. We have a perfectly sensible interpretation of "The DM generates the DC just like any other skill check and can also decide if it's an auto-success or an auto-fail" and it's rejected by a not insignificant number of posters in favor of all people auto-knowing location unless the particular skill of Stealth is used.

I guess I just don't understand the point.The DM can generate the DC for anything, at anytime, even if for a ranger half submerged in a river wanting to use Whirlwing Attack for exemple if he want. But when the rules already handle something and mention or doesn't mention what requires a check, it means a guideline is already provided for this kind of situation. Of course the DM can always decide to do differently if he wants.

General rule is that unless you're hiding you're automatically noticed as confirmed in Hiding or Surprise rules. If the DM decide than an invisible creature is also not automatically noticed, he will have to generate a DC for it to be possibly noticed. If said DC is using Dexterity (Stealth) check, he's basically giving a free Hide check, houseruling the Invisible condition, since it doesn't automatically grant you a free Hide action normally.

Surprise: The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter

Zorku

2016-10-10, 02:19 PM

As for the "falling out of the room," the distinction is that it's no longer a matter of "there's somebody in the room with you but something's blocking your line of sight." It's now a matter of "you're not there to detect it." The "falling out of the room" situation is the same as why I wouldn't let somebody know that, back in their room at home, there's a thief burgling them right now. They're currently out at the tavern, not in their room back home, so they don't know about it (barring magical sensors or the like).So the walls that determine the border of the room are characteristically unlike other walls in some way?

I did not specify that they fall particularly far out of the room. There's still basically just a wall between them and the other creature, except now that wall is the floor.

The trouble isn't these situations. Without rules, they're still pretty clear. The trouble is when you get to things like Invisible Bob Who Hasn't Taken A Hide Action just standing around in a room when Alice walks in - how hard is it for Alice to notice Invisible Bob? Does she detect and locate him just as easily as Visible Bill Who Also Has Not Taken A Hide Action, who is also in the same room (i.e. with no check; she automatically knows where he is)?
I'm well aware of where the topic started, but I find it to be really important to know if you can hide using one source of cover and then remain hidden so long as you have some any source of cover relative to the observing creature. Some fairly early errata (more a year ago at this point,) seemed to heavily favor the "any cover is fine once you are hiding" mechanism,

and that solves the issue of this thread,

but you seem to have doubled down on this idea of hiding being tied to specific cover, which leaves OwtS in a really weird place, and I still want to understand why.

Invisible Bob &Blind Larry
Bob isn't hidden, but Larry is unaware of him, and thus still surprised if Bob initiates combat.

You've smuggled in a hidden trait here though- the vacuum situation means that invisible Bob doesn't breathe. Much of the contention here has been about if holding your breath (or otherwise quieting it,) counts as taking a the hide action.

Surprise: The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter[/I]

Isn't being stealthy vs hiding another one of those crows vs black birds situations?

Tanarii

2016-10-10, 02:48 PM

General rule is that unless you're hiding you're automatically noticed as confirmed in Hiding or Surprise rules.
The surprise rules reference stealth in general, not hiding in particular.

So they, along with several other stealth rules, show your point to be somewhat incorrect. It is entirely possible to be stealthy, but not specifically hiding, and still evade detection.

Furthermore, the surprise rules are for determining surprise, not detection. It's true that you cannot achieve surprise without attempting to be stealthy. But technically that doesn't mean that you can't avoid detection without being stealthy. That said ...

The stealth skill is explicitly for "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". But that's not the same as saying that the person doing the detecting perfectly detects everything around them. Outside of combat, at least.

Edit: reread what I said after coming back to this thread for the latest posts, and holy cow I went in circles there. Basically, I agree the surprise rules strongly imply that creatures need to be attempting to use stealth if they are trying to evade detection. But, outside of combat at least, it wouldn't be completely outside the rules for a DM to set a Perception vs fixed DC check just to notice they were there, even if they weren't being particularly stealthy, depending on things like visibility & ambient noise. (Note that's a change in my position from a previous thread a few months ago, in which someone was arguing they first do a Perception check to see if their group even spots the enemy. I still think that's double dice from what's needed/fair, but the rules could conceivably allow for it.)

Segev

2016-10-10, 03:56 PM

but you seem to have doubled down on this idea of hiding being tied to specific cover, which leaves OwtS in a really weird place, and I still want to understand why.

I assure you, I've not doubled down on it. I don't know if the rules go that way or not. I answered your hypotheticals as best I could with what understanding I have.

In truth, I'd probably house rule a LOT about Invisible that is flagrantly not according to its RAW were I running, so what I think SHOULD be, and how I WOULD run a game, don't match up with how I understand the RAW to work. Frankly, I am not positive I have how the RAW work 100% correct. It is almost too ambiguous.

georgie_leech

2016-10-10, 04:44 PM

I assure you, I've not doubled down on it. I don't know if the rules go that way or not. I answered your hypotheticals as best I could with what understanding I have.

In truth, I'd probably house rule a LOT about Invisible that is flagrantly not according to its RAW were I running, so what I think SHOULD be, and how I WOULD run a game, don't match up with how I understand the RAW to work. Frankly, I am not positive I have how the RAW work 100% correct. It is almost too ambiguous.

Which bit of the rules is leading you to think that RAW is you can only hide behind the initial bit of obscurement or cover? I genuinely can't find the rules in my version to suggest that. Nat 1's aren't uncommon for my perception checks though, so I could just be missing it.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-11, 03:52 AM

The surprise rules reference stealth in general, not hiding in particular.Surprise specifically reference hiding, as underlined below;

Surprise: The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side.

Segev

2016-10-11, 08:57 AM

Which bit of the rules is leading you to think that RAW is you can only hide behind the initial bit of obscurement or cover? I genuinely can't find the rules in my version to suggest that. Nat 1's aren't uncommon for my perception checks though, so I could just be missing it.

It's more that I haven't been able to find rules that suggest to me that you can change what is providing your obscurement without having to re-make the Hide check. I don't see it as an unreasonable ruling, but "it doesn't say I can't, therefore I can" isn't the strongest argument, so I would be more comfortable if it were made clear, somehow, that it doesn't matter whether what you Hide behind is what continues to provide you with obscurement or not.

Again: I'm not making a "strong" rules-based argument, here. I'm saying "I can't tell whether it's valid in the RAW or not."

Tanarii

2016-10-11, 09:09 AM

metaridley18

2016-10-11, 03:28 PM

Wouldn't this be a pretty good case for passive Stealth? As in, you didn't specifically take the Hide action, but there's a reasonable assumption of stealthiness, so let's compare your passive Stealth vs the passive Perception of the opponent. If you wanted to try and Hide, you should have taken the Hide action.

Zorku

2016-10-11, 04:58 PM

Surprise specifically reference hiding, as underlined below;

Surprise: The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side.

Come on man, I already pointed this out.

"If neither side tries to be stealthy" =/= "If neither side is hidden."

It's more that I haven't been able to find rules that suggest to me that you can change what is providing your obscurement without having to re-make the Hide check. I don't see it as an unreasonable ruling, but "it doesn't say I can't, therefore I can" isn't the strongest argument, so I would be more comfortable if it were made clear, somehow, that it doesn't matter whether what you Hide behind is what continues to provide you with obscurement or not.

Again: I'm not making a "strong" rules-based argument, here. I'm saying "I can't tell whether it's valid in the RAW or not."
I'd say it is implicit in the cover rules (which is what hiding refers to. "Obscured" is always used in reference to perception.)
"If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies"

Mechanically this is akin to the "you can only have one armor equation" thing (I don't recall what the book refers to that as.) You're not adding up cover, so only the most useful cover applies.

The one (two?) situation where cover and obscured seem to overlap is those small folks "obscured by a creature one size larger," which is a specific case of half cover, and the hiding in heavy rain or mist types

Do you think that the (three quarters) cover is supposed to make hiding possibly in some way other than "covering up" the character? In some way other than interrupting line of sight?

Wouldn't this be a pretty good case for passive Stealth? As in, you didn't specifically take the Hide action, but there's a reasonable assumption of stealthiness, so let's compare your passive Stealth vs the passive Perception of the opponent. If you wanted to try and Hide, you should have taken the Hide action.

Sounds like a sensible enough way to run things, but I don't think the RAW tells you to do this, and I don't think the RAI particularly point you towards this idea.

Sicarius Victis

2016-10-11, 10:32 PM

Also, please do remember that you become invisible unitl you move or take an action or reaction (note the bonus action is left out, take that as you will).

The "Incapacitated" condition states that you can't take actions. It doesn't outright state that you can't take bonus actions. However, something that restricts you from taking actions also restricts you from bonus actions.

In the same way, if you've got an effect that triggers off of you taking an action, such as the "One With Shadows" effect, it will also trigger off of you taking a bonus action so long as that bonus action is applicable there. With "One With Shadows", there's no restrictions on what SPECIFIC actions or reactions triggers it. Because of these factors, then using a bonus action would also trigger it.

Short Version: Yeah, taking a bonus action WOULD dispel the effect.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 04:09 AM

Come on man, I already pointed this out.

"If neither side tries to be stealthy" =/= "If neither side is hidden."Yes it is. It literally says

If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other.

Otherwise*

the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side.

Which means you don't compare Stealth vs Perception if no one is hiding since they automatically notice each other.

*Otherwise used as a conjunction means "or else; if not" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/otherwise http://www.thefreedictionary.com/otherwise

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 07:39 AM

Which means you don't compare Stealth vs Perception if no one is hiding since they automatically notice each other.Agreed. But my other point in my rambling post #190 above (and just reiterated in another thread) still applies. This is the rules for surprise. It doesn't apply generally, it applies for determining surprise.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 07:48 AM

Agreed. But my other point in my rambling post #190 above (and just reiterated in another thread) still applies. This is the rules for surprise. It doesn't apply generally, it applies for determining surprise.Multiple place in the rules evoke a check to notice a hidden creature, but not for heavily obscured or invisible condition. Coupled with JC confirming hiding was the by-the-book way to conceal your position leaves no place for debate, so i'm not sure what there is still left to argue here?

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 07:57 AM

Multiple place in the rules evoke a check to notice a hidden creature, but not for heavily obscured or invisible condition. Coupled with JC confirming hiding was the by-the-book way to conceal your position leaves no place for debate, so i'm not sure what there is still left to argue here?Tangents! Obviously. :smallbiggrin:

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 08:10 AM

Tangents! Obviously. :smallbiggrin:By that you mean?

RickAllison

2016-10-12, 09:31 AM

By that you mean?

It is a sine of the derailment that plagues every minute and every secant of this thread :smallwink:

secant mispronounced as "second" for the purposes of the joke.

Xetheral

2016-10-12, 12:11 PM

Coupled with JC confirming hiding was the by-the-book way to conceal your position leaves no place for debate, so i'm not sure what there is still left to argue here?

Wait, what? JC explicitly said there can be methods other than hiding to conceal your location. RAI, those methods have been left up to the DM, just as so much else in this edition is.

Are you interpreting the second sentence of the tweet as merely a perfuntory reference to rule zero rather than an operative explanation that hiding isn't necessarily the only way to conceal one's location?

Zorku

2016-10-12, 01:11 PM

Yes it is. It literally says

If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other.

Otherwise*

the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side.

Which means you don't compare Stealth vs Perception if no one is hiding since they automatically notice each other.

*Otherwise used as a conjunction means "or else; if not" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/otherwise http://www.thefreedictionary.com/otherwise

The definition of otherwise isn't tight enough to make this the knock down drag out case that you're acting like it is.

I can make as strong of a case as you have with the perception entry:

Perception. Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you
spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.
It measures your general awareness of
your surroundings and the keenness of your senses.
For example, you might try to hear a conversation through
a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear
monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try
to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether
they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in
the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed
secret door.

Likewise in the Vision and Light entry we have the sentence "noticing
danger... (relies) heavily on a character’s ability to see."

So detection is based on this ability, and you need it to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss. Invisibility makes you heavily obscured as far as hiding is concerned. A perception check is required.

Good argument? Maybe. Case closed? Obviously not. This brings us back to "An invisible creature... can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves."

Definitions of can:
1. be able to.
2. be permitted to.

Definitions of is:
3rd person singular of be (occur/take place.)

Guess basic English makes this not automatic either.

The closest we get to automatic noise without a hide action is in the stealth entry explaining that you make one of these checks if you want to "sneak up on
someone without being seen or heard."

The rogue's blindsense skill gets us a lot closer with an 'exception to the rule proves the rule' case: "if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any... invisible creature within 10 feet of you." but that's still talking about being aware of locations rather than the mere presence of a creature.

And you know what? I didn't have to equivocate between "notification or warning of something, especially to allow preparations to be made" and "become aware of" at any point in that.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 01:45 PM

JC explicitly said there can be methods other than hiding to conceal your location.Citation please?

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 01:49 PM

The definition of otherwise isn't tight enough to make this the knock down drag out case that you're acting like it is. Are you really arguing otherwise is not a conjonction here? You automatically notice people that aren't stealthy. Otherwise it tells you exactly how you can notice them and if you'll be surprised.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 02:00 PM

Are you really arguing otherwise is not a conjonction here? You automatically notice people that aren't stealthy. Otherwise it tells you exactly how you can notice them and if you'll be surprised.It's amazing how often people try that kind of thing.

But that said, can you share the JC quote again you believe extends noticing automatically for surprise purposes applies to all stealthy/hiding activity? Or are you saying it applies to all perception related activity?

Edit: Because I still think it's possible for a PC to need to make a perception check (or passive perception) vs a static DC set by the DM to notice something, creature or not, if the DM decides they might not have noticed it because reasons. Probably reasons along the lines of "I'm not sure if the PC is paying attention" or "I'm not sure if the thing is that noticeable" and is using a die roll to cover their not-sure-ness.

Edit: Also, hi xetheral. If you pay attention, you'll see this is me no longer disagreeing that your groups method of something doing a perception check prior to determining surprise is automatically 'wrong'. :smallwink:

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 02:45 PM

can you share the JC quote again you believe extends noticing automatically for surprise purposes applies to all stealthy/hiding activity? JC quote is not specifically for Surprise only but for any hiding. Noticing a Threat, Surprise and Hiding rules basically mention about noticing something hidden and what check if any.

Invisible on the other hand says a person's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves and neither heavily obscured nor invisible says your location is concealed or that a perception check is needed to notice you, like being hidden says.

Jeremy didn't give other way to conceal your location when asked neither, instead saying being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position....

@wax_eagle can you target a creature who is obscured but not hidden? More precisely, is hidden the only way to conceal position?
@JeremyECrawford Being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position. The DM may decide that other methods can also conceal it.

Mitth'raw'nuruo

2016-10-12, 02:47 PM

So have we determined that someone hiding, is hidden (or not noticed) until a perception check succeeds? Rules as Written. Even if the effect that allowed the stealth check is then gone?

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 02:51 PM

So have we determined that someone hiding, is hidden (or not noticed) until a perception check succeeds? Rules as Written. Even if the effect that allowed the stealth check is then gone?Yeah you're generally hidden until discovered or stop hiding. This will depend of the circumstances allowing you to hide are maintained as well. If what made you heavily obscured is gone is no longer obscuring you for exemple, you won't be hidden anymore being clearly seen. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 02:52 PM

Okay, but that (edit: JC's tweet) answers (actively) concealing your position. Not anything about awareness, or lack thereof, causing someone not to be noticed. Nor ambient concealment etc.

In other words, if two creatures happen to walk down a street discussing where they are going to drink tonight, and another goes down a side alley as they pass making no attempt to conceal it, then the DM could theoretically call for Perception vs some set DC to see if it was noticed.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 03:02 PM

Okay, but that answers (actively) concealing your position. Not anything about awareness, or lack thereof, causing someone not to be noticed. Nor ambient concealment etc.That clarify that you must hide to conceal your position since the question was if you could you target a creature who is obscured but not hidden? or more precisely, was hidden the only way to conceal position?

If you can cite a rule letting awareness, or lack thereof, causing someone not to be noticed. Nor ambient ...that is not specifically using hidden feel free to quote it. I think JC would have touched it if there was one.

In other words, if two creatures happen to walk down a street discussing where they are going to drink tonight, and another goes down a side alley as they pass making no attempt to conceal it, then the DM could theoretically call for Perception vs some set DC to see if it was noticed.The DM can call for any check of course but based on the rules for Surprise or Noticing a Threat, they would normally automatically notice each other since no one is hidden.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 03:09 PM

The DM can call for any check of course but based on the rules for Surprise or Noticing a Threat, they would normally automatically notice each other since no one is hidden.
If it became a combat situation where you're determine surprise, or was traveling in the wilderness or dungeon keeping an eye out for threats, I'd agree completely. Since those are the rules for determine surprise & noticing threats.

But all I'm saying is it doesn't necessarily follow that there might not be certain situations (combat not beginning, not traveling in an adventuring environment) where it doesn't apply. Admittedly, I consider it an edge case ... Basically something adventurers aren't likely to run into often.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 03:20 PM

May be it would be considered an edge case, personally i wouldn't see a reason to treat it differently that out in the wilderness, since travelling & combat are the only guidance we're provided on how you notice things. Other than that, noticing creatures not hidden should still applies anyway so again i'd go business as usual.

Xetheral

2016-10-12, 03:55 PM

Citation please?

The same twitter exchange you're quoting: "Being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position. The DM may decide that other methods can also conceal it."

So unless you're dismissing the quotes' second sentence as a reference to rule zero, hiding isn't the only way to conceal your location--the others have just been left up to the DM.

Edit: Also, hi xetheral. If you pay attention, you'll see this is me no longer disagreeing that your groups method of something doing a perception check prior to determining surprise is automatically 'wrong'. :smallwink:

I noticed that. :) At first I wasn't sure you were referencing our conversation, but then I paused and reread it and decided you probably were.

Zorku

2016-10-12, 04:28 PM

Are you really arguing otherwise is not a conjonction here? You automatically notice people that aren't stealthy. Otherwise it tells you exactly how you can notice them and if you'll be surprised.

Not at all. I've never heard of these 'conjonctions' before.

Back in the land of people that use real words (and spellcheck before they click submit, or at least make edits reasonably soon after,) "otherwise" is a conjunction in that sentence, but this does not lock us into 100% equivalence, and even if it did the word game you are playing here has not escaped my notice.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 04:54 PM

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 04:42 AM

The same twitter exchange you're quoting: "Being hidden is the by-the-book way to conceal your position. The DM may decide that other methods can also conceal it."

So unless you're dismissing the quotes' second sentence as a reference to rule zero, hiding isn't the only way to conceal your location--the others have just been left up to the DM.The DM may decide to do anything including using other methods of course. But were not discussing what DM can or can't decide aren't we? We're discussing what rules as written says about location awareness.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 04:54 AM

Not at all. I've never heard of these 'conjonctions' before.

Back in the land of people that use real words (and spellcheck before they click submit, or at least make edits reasonably soon after,) "otherwise" is a conjunction in that sentence, but this does not lock us into 100% equivalence, and even if it did the word game you are playing here has not escaped my notice.Back in the land of people that use real words they know what otherwise means and don't argue just for the sake of it. Otherwise is a real word that means or else there's no word game played here buddy Surprise simply tells us that unless anyone is hidden, they automatically notice each other basically.

Xetheral

2016-10-13, 05:42 AM

The DM may decide to do anything including using other methods of course. But were not discussing what DM can or can't decide aren't we? We're discussing what rules as written says about location awareness.

So then you are dismissing the second sentence of the tweet as merely a reference to rule zero. Why do you think that's the best interpretation?

In my opinion, a rules question was asked of JC, so we should assume he gave a rules-based answer, and that includes both sentences of the tweet. Your interpretation requires assuming he spent half the tweet not answering the question asked.

Tanarii

2016-10-13, 06:26 AM

So then you are dismissing the second sentence of the tweet as merely a reference to rule zero. Why do you think that's the best interpretation?His first sentence says by the book. Strongly implying that it's the only way to do it within the rules. Context, based on the first sentence. Not dismissing.

Edit: in case you're unaware, By the Book (or BtB) is grognard code for 'not house ruled'. So in that context, the second sentence must mean 'house ruled'. However I have no idea if JC is a grognard, so I merely see it as strongly implied by the context. Possibly that's my grognard bias kicking in.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 06:43 AM

Mitth'raw'nuruo

2016-10-13, 11:00 AM

Yeah you're generally hidden until discovered or stop hiding. This will depend of the circumstances allowing you to hide are maintained as well. If what made you heavily obscured is gone is no longer obscuring you for exemple, you won't be hidden anymore being clearly seen. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

Than how does this play with the lightfoot halfings racial.

Naturally Stealthy. You can attempt to hide even
when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least
one size larger than you.

As I read it, you're hidden until you are perceived. Period. You might say "I know he just ran behind that human", but he is NOT behind the human, where you thought. This happens all the time in real life.

You set your keys down. 5 minutes later you need your keys. You did no hide your keys, but you spend 2 minutes looking for your keys, because you are failing your perception checks, Additionally, wikipedia tells me that a human (or any other race with eyes in the front of their head) has a field of view of ~ 180 degrees, with only 114 degrees being binocular, and color perception being vastly focused to the front. IF you've ever done nursery duty at church, you'll know there is a 100% chance at children are going to succeed in a hide check, without cover, once you get more than 5 kids.

I've yet to read the rule, although perhaps I missed it, where it says you need cover to remain hidden. Only to make the check. The lightfoot halfiling seems to make this clear (to me).

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 11:05 AM

Than how does this play with the lightfoot halfings racial.The halfling is exceptional since Naturally Stealthy let you attempt to hide when obscured by a larger creature and you'd stop being hidden when no longer obscured by such creature.

Zorku

2016-10-13, 11:17 AM

people that use real words they know what otherwise means

I'm tempted to complain about comma usage, but it's probably just going to side track from issues with substance.

The problem I really want to address is the bait and switch where you've manipulated your quote to make it look like it is talking about something it is not.

That rule is for determining surprise, as in, "is somebody surprised through the first round of combat?" This is the getting caught flat footed circumstance from earlier editions, which is to say that somebody from one group is attacking somebody from another group. This is about one group approaching or shooting at another group, not about general awareness of the presence of creatures.

I've already provided definitions that show how this instance of the word 'notice' is not the same word as the other instances of 'notice' we have been looking at, in a post you chose not to take seriously and distract by editing it down to a single line. I do the same thing, but hopefully people can draw some distinction in how I don't do it in order to ignore points directed at me. Masking that context is more egregious than than any of the facetious word games I've put on display, and I was trying to be unreasonable with those.

Xetheral

2016-10-13, 11:26 AM

His first sentence says by the book. Strongly implying that it's the only way to do it within the rules. Context, based on the first sentence. Not dismissing.

Edit: in case you're unaware, By the Book (or BtB) is grognard code for 'not house ruled'. So in that context, the second sentence must mean 'house ruled'. However I have no idea if JC is a grognard, so I merely see it as strongly implied by the context. Possibly that's my grognard bias kicking in.

Your interpretation of the tweet is dismissing the second sentence because a reminder of the existence of rule zero isn't relevant to the question asked. It's never "contextual" to infer a sentence is non-operative, as you are doing, unless there is some other text implying so. I see nothing in the first sentence to imply that the second is non-operative. That you interpret the first sentence as sufficient to answer the question isn't evidence that the second sentence is non-operative. To the contray, the existence of the second sentence implies that both are needed to answer the question, which weighs against any interpretation (like yours) that the first sentence is sufficient.

It seems more likely to me that the use of "by the book" (instead of "RAW") is simply referring to the case provided in the text, similar to referring to (e.g.) the written examples of what ability checks are used for. Just as the book makes clear that those examples are non-exclusive and that others are up to the DM, Crawford's second sentence makes clear that using stealth to conceal one's location is non-exclusive and that other methods are up to the DM.

To make my comparison more specific: a DM can call for an intelligence check to win a game of chess. It's not "by the book" because it isn't similar to any of the examples provided on page 178, but it's still RAW. Similarly, deciding that ambient noise is loud enough to prevent automatic detection of the location of an invisible-yet-unhidden creature is not "by the book" because there isn't specific text saying you can do that, but Crawford's second sentence says that it's still RAI.

I'm not saying one interpretation is better than the other, but one is rule-based, while the other is houseruling and we're discusisng the rules here.

If you don't believe your interpretation of the tweet is superior to mine, why are you using the tweet as "definitive" proof that hiding is the only way one's location can be unknown?

Based on the rules when you are unseen, either heavily obscured or invisible, you location can still be located unless you're also hidden. Of course a DM can always determine otherwise if he wants.

A (non-AL) DM can do anything he wants even without Crawford's permission. That isn't relevant to the question Crawford was asked. Why would Crawford spend half his tweet saying something irrelevant?

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 11:38 AM

I'm tempted to complain about comma usage, but it's probably just going to side track from issues with substance.

The problem I really want to address is the bait and switch where you've manipulated your quote to make it look like it is talking about something it is not.

That rule is for determining surprise, as in, "is somebody surprised through the first round of combat?" This is the getting caught flat footed circumstance from earlier editions, which is to say that somebody from one group is attacking somebody from another group. This is about one group approaching or shooting at another group, not about general awareness of the presence of creatures.

I've already provided definitions that show how this instance of the word 'notice' is not the same word as the other instances of 'notice' we have been looking at, in a post you chose not to take seriously and distract by editing it down to a single line. I do the same thing, but hopefully people can draw some distinction in how I don't do it in order to ignore points directed at me. Masking that context is more egregious than than any of the facetious word games I've put on display, and I was trying to be unreasonable with those.Bait & Switch & manipulation... Wow you now trying to attribute me real nefarious aims really?

Surprise is just one exemple among many that evoke the same thing, noticing something hidden. I'll just let you keep arguing on the use of simple words such as "otherwise", and "notice" if you prefer. When you start attacking the person rather than his post is where it's no longer enjoyable sorry.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 11:43 AM

If you don't believe your interpretation of the tweet is superior to mine, why are you using the tweet as "definitive" proof that hiding is the only way one's location can be unknown?Because i think the tweet is where JC says that is right. If you think JC is wrong, please give another by-the-book method of concealing your location.

A (non-AL) DM can do anything he wants even without Crawford's permission. That isn't relevant to the question Crawford was asked. Why would Crawford spend half his tweet saying something irrelevant?Because i believe he do it to remind people that the DM can still do something that could run contrary to what he said.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 11:51 AM

If being unseen wether heavily obscured or invisible said it conceals your location this thread wouldn't run that long. JC tweet would have also been different when asking about it. :smallsmile:

The rules instead say that you still leave traces of your passage and that you make noise and leave tracks but that you can try to hide.

Xetheral

2016-10-13, 11:55 AM

Because i think the tweet is where JC says that is right.

I'm confused... first you say you don't think your interpretation of the tweet is better than mine, but you're willing to use your interpretation of the tweet as definitive proof anyway? That makes no sense to me.

If you think JC is wrong, please give another by-the-book method of concealing your location.

I don't think he's wrong. I think he's saying something very different than you think he's saying.

Because i believe he do it to remind people that the DM can still do something that could run contrary to what he said.

First, that isn't always true, because AL exists where DMs don't have that freedom. Second, while reminders are all well and good, including one in a tweet seems like a waste of the character limit.

Is it possible it's merely an (unlabled) reminder? Sure. But I think that's far less likely than the alternative interpretation where he used his character limit to provide a functional answer that includes two sentences.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-13, 12:10 PM

The rules instead say that you still leave traces of your passage and that you make noise and leave tracks but that you can try to hide.

Jumping back in here for a moment, because that is not true.
You guys have been going on and on about the fact that unless you are hiding, your location is automatically known.
That, again, is untrue.

It says that you can be located that way. It does not say that it is automatic.
It's possible, given the right circumstances. That's all it says.
"Can be" does not mean "automatically is."
And that's why JCs second sentence is relevant.

The Devs intentionally left the rules for stealth vague. Rulings, not Rules. This is 100% by design.
Go ahead and do a Google search about it. Mearls gave a lengthy interview a couple of years ago wherein a large portion of it was him explaining exactly WHY the rules for stealth are left intentionally vague.
When you try to apply strict RAW to something intentionally left vague so that rulings would be made in a sensible manner, you're going to fail.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 01:52 PM

If you could be detected (rather than can) it would say how with either a DC or some other way and if it really was a Stealth vs Perception that it would give hiding for free. JC would not answer the tweet this way if being invisible or heavily obscured concealed your location.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-13, 02:15 PM

Segev

2016-10-13, 02:21 PM

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls

Watch that video.
And THEN, for the love of all that is holy, stop trying to adhere to a strict RAW reading of something that was left intentionally vague.

You've yet to provide evidence of intentional vagueness. The RAW seem to say outright that you can pinpoint anybody who isn't hiding and is within your sensory realm. Period. Provide some quote, any quote, from the rules which indicates that the DM is supposed to sometimes treat people who aren't hiding as if they're nevertheless difficult to spot, and you have a case. But right now, "there's intentional vagueness!" isn't helpful because this supposedly intentional vagueness is not in evidence.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 02:34 PM

If being invisible really concealed your location automatically, it would say you cannot be detected by the tracks you leave etc... and not that you can. (can be here is an ability possibility)

For the prupose of hiding, invisible make you heavily obscured, not hidden.

If being invisible gave the benefit of being hidden for free, Hiding also wouldn't say an invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide, it would say it's hidden.

Xetheral

2016-10-13, 02:45 PM

You've yet to provide evidence of intentional vagueness. The RAW seem to say outright that you can pinpoint anybody who isn't hiding and is within your sensory realm. Period. Provide some quote, any quote, from the rules which indicates that the DM is supposed to sometimes treat people who aren't hiding as if they're nevertheless difficult to spot, and you have a case. But right now, "there's intentional vagueness!" isn't helpful because this supposedly intentional vagueness is not in evidence.

Segev, I think the lack of explicit rules either way can be taken as evidence of vagueness (intentional or otherwise). There is no rule saying that all non-hidden creatures are automatically noticed, just as there is no rule saying that all non-hidden creatures might not be automatically noticed. It's vague.

For external evidence we have the video DivisbleByZero linked, and the tweet whose second sentence explicitly says methods other than hiding are up to the DM. (Although Plaguescarred and Tanarii prefer to interpret that sentence as a non-operative reminder of rule zero, so if you agree with them, you may not find it convincing. It is vaguely amusing/ironic/despairing that even the tweet supposed to answer the question has multiple, valid, diametrically-opposed interpretations.)

There's also the rule on page 174 that if an outcome is uncertain, use an ability check to resolve it. So we know that, at a given table, if a DM rules someone non-hidden might nevertheless not be noticed (which no rule prevents), it calls for ability check.

Edit to respond to Plaguescarred:

If being invisible really concealed your location automatically, it would say you cannot be detected by the tracks you leave etc... and not that you can. (can be here is an ability possibility)

For the prupose of hiding, invisible make you heavily obscured, not hidden.

If being invisible gave the benefit of being hidden for free, Hiding also wouldn't say an invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide, it would say it's hidden.

I don't think anyone is arguing that invisibility automatically conceals your location. Rather, the claim is that there are ways other than being hidden (range, environment, etc.) where a DM can decide someone's location is unknown, even if they're not hidden. (Which is, in my opinion, exactly what JC said in his tweet.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 03:01 PM

There are multiple rules dealing with checks to notice hidden enemies and none to notice invisible creature, instead saying they can be detected by tracks they leave or noise they make.

Also any mention about DM can X is again rule 0. Especially following a claim about rules or book way of handling a certain mechanic.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-13, 03:11 PM

I don't think anyone is arguing that invisibility automatically conceals your location. Rather, the claim is that there are ways other than being hidden (range, environment, etc.) where a DM can decide someone's location is unknown, even if they're not hidden. (Which is, in my opinion, exactly what JC said in his tweet.No one should argue that a DM cannot decide someone's location is unknown, even if they're not hidden and i agree JC's second comment was going in this direction.

What is discussed is that the rules actually say and they say hiding is the by-the-book way to conceal your location, so JC saying it. If you can find another by-the-book way to conceal your location without being hidden you can cite it. I really think JC answer would have not been the same in his tweet if there was another way to do so.

Segev

2016-10-13, 03:30 PM

Segev, I think the lack of explicit rules either way can be taken as evidence of vagueness (intentional or otherwise). There is no rule saying that all non-hidden creatures are automatically noticed, just as there is no rule saying that all non-hidden creatures might not be automatically noticed. It's vague.

There isn't? I seem to have seen people quoting just such a rule. Or, rather, the converse of it: only hidden creatures are not automatically spotted. (I am possibly wrong or misreading what's been quoted.)

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-13, 03:43 PM

You've yet to provide evidence of intentional vagueness.

You watched a 25 minute video and responded, claiming that no evidence had been provided, in.... 6 minutes?

How about you try actually watching the video before you discount it 6 minutes after I post the link?

Segev

2016-10-13, 03:54 PM

You watched a 25 minute video and responded, claiming that no evidence had been provided, in.... 6 minutes?

How about you try actually watching the video before you discount it 6 minutes after I post the link?
1) because I can't watch videos on the network I'm on at the moment, and
2) because the video isn't going to be covering the RAW.

I can guess - and admit it's a guess - that it's a discussion of the philosophy behind "rulings, not rules," and that it has many salient points.

The point I am raising is that I've actually only seen rules support for one side of this debate. The other is saying "no, no, see, it's vague, so it can be anything." But the point I'm making is that it is NOT vague. It says flat out that you detect creatures that aren't hiding. That's not "a ruling."

Rulings are for when things ARE vague.

Honestly, I really would run it such that an invisible person is harder to see than "automatic pinpointing" even if all they're doing is sitting on a chair, not trying to hide. But I acknowledge that's a house rule, not a ruling on the RAW. Unless - to my delight, I might add - you can provide text that shows that it is, in fact, vague on this point.

Tanarii

2016-10-13, 04:07 PM

First, that isn't always true, because AL exists where DMs don't have that freedom. Second, while reminders are all well and good, including one in a tweet seems like a waste of the character limit.AL doesn't use Sage Advice.

I'm not sure what it is you think JC said. I understand you don't think he said "here's the book rule, and of course you can house-rule it." But I'm not sure how you are choosing to interpret it.

Edit: Never mind, I found it where you responded to me hahaha

It seems more likely to me that the use of "by the book" (instead of "RAW") is simply referring to the case provided in the text, similar to referring to (e.g.) the written examples of what ability checks are used for. Just as the book makes clear that those examples are non-exclusive and that others are up to the DM, Crawford's second sentence makes clear that using stealth to conceal one's location is non-exclusive and that other methods are up to the DM.

To make my comparison more specific: a DM can call for an intelligence check to win a game of chess. It's not "by the book" because it isn't similar to any of the examples provided on page 178, but it's still RAW. Similarly, deciding that ambient noise is loud enough to prevent automatic detection of the location of an invisible-yet-unhidden creature is not "by the book" because there isn't specific text saying you can do that, but Crawford's second sentence says that it's still RAI.Okay, so you're saying "by the book" = by specific example given. And that the second sentence means something like 'but the general rule discussing use of DM judgement also covers it'

I can see that. If and only if there were clear cut sections where there is a specific example being given, and couched in a language where it's clearly an example. And another more vaguely worded section saying otherwise.

I can't recall anything like that off the top of my head but we've all seen so many rules quotes thrown back and forth at this point it's totally possible it's there.

DivisibleByZero

2016-10-13, 04:30 PM

1) because I can't watch videos on the network I'm on at the moment, and
2) because the video isn't going to be covering the RAW.
So basically, you're saying that you think it's permissible to dismiss evidence out of hand without actually examining it first. Got it. I'll remember that for our future interactions.

I can guess - and admit it's a guess - that it's a discussion of the philosophy behind "rulings, not rules," and that it has many salient points.

The point I am raising is that I've actually only seen rules support for one side of this debate.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you apparently don't see the irony of those two statements coming back to back.

Zorku

2016-10-13, 04:40 PM

Bait & Switch & manipulation... Wow you now trying to attribute me real nefarious aims really?

Surprise is just one exemple among many that evoke the same thing, noticing something hidden. I'll just let you keep arguing on the use of simple words such as "otherwise", and "notice" if you prefer. When you start attacking the person rather than his post is where it's no longer enjoyable sorry.
No, I've attributed them to those actions. It's your call whether these actions are characteristic of you or not.

I'll skip the exemple joke to point out that surprise is specifically NOT noticing a hidden threat, and remind you that I've already pointed out that these are different words. I guess I have to repeatedly present definitions before they will stick, so,

Notice: notification or warning of something, especially to allow preparations to be made.

In the context of combat this definition is obviously applicable, but if you'll put your pedantic abilities to good use here I think you can actually contest me on that. I'm a little worn down to be making your arguments for you right now though, so you can decide if there's a case for you to make here or not.

Meanwhile, in the case of overcoming attempts to hide, we have,

Notice: become aware of.

You aren't warned of something when you notice your misplaced car keys, there is no announcement (except possibly your own) for noticing a secret door, yet that's exactly what kind of notice pertains to combat and trying not to get caught flat footed.

e: Sorry about the double post. Got a little overzealous.

1) because I can't watch videos on the network I'm on at the moment, and
2) because the video isn't going to be covering the RAW.

I can guess - and admit it's a guess - that it's a discussion of the philosophy behind "rulings, not rules," and that it has many salient points.

The point I am raising is that I've actually only seen rules support for one side of this debate. The other is saying "no, no, see, it's vague, so it can be anything." But the point I'm making is that it is NOT vague. It says flat out that you detect creatures that aren't hiding. That's not "a ruling."

Rulings are for when things ARE vague.

Honestly, I really would run it such that an invisible person is harder to see than "automatic pinpointing" even if all they're doing is sitting on a chair, not trying to hide. But I acknowledge that's a house rule, not a ruling on the RAW. Unless - to my delight, I might add - you can provide text that shows that it is, in fact, vague on this point.

"Specific beats general."

Noticing people that aren't hiding is very general. The rules for invisibility are about a much more specific case, and you only detect invisible creatures by the noise they make, the tracks they leave, and the attacks they make, barring special senses and improvised actions.

This should have been simple.

Segev

2016-10-13, 04:47 PM

So basically, you're saying that you think it's permissible to dismiss evidence out of hand without actually examining it first. Got it. I'll remember that for our future interactions.
I think it permissible to make certain assumptions, yes. I had planned to watch it later; or you could provide a summary explaining that I'm wrong in my guess about what it's about.

Does it, in fact, have discussion of the rules regarding noticing invisible creatures in that video? Or at least discussion of rules regarding perception in general that contradict the rules so far cited that indicate that creatures which are not hiding are automatically detected?

I am open to being pleasantly surprised. I don't like the RAW.

If you're more concerned with "winning" an argument online than actually presenting your case after it's been made clear that I cannot watch the video at this time, and I have made plain my best guess as to the nature of it given what you HAVE said about it, as well as my willingness to be corrected if that guess is wrong...well, I'll remember that in my future discussions with you, too.

The really sad thing is, gameplay wise, I'd like to agree with you. I'd love it if you could prove your point, because it is one fewer hole in the RAW.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you apparently don't see the irony of those two statements coming back to back.
I'm afraid you'll have to enlighten me. For once, I honestly don't see how anybody could see "irony" in that. (Even here, I am forced to guess that you mean "those statements are inherently contradictory to each other, and Segev is showing what a bad or stupid person he is by placing them there." I am not certain that's what you mean, but given the snide nature of your post, it seems a reasonable inference.)

So please, enlighten me as to what "irony" you see in that, because I legitimately am not getting what you're suggesting. Beyond the snide implied ad hominem.