Invisibility: Are We Doing it Right?

[PeteNutButter]

After a recent thread here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502027-Invisible-Attack!&highlight=invisibility
I trolled the forums to find similar answers everywhere. It seems that everyone is pretty much in agreement that from a RAW perspective everyone that invisibility does not equal hidden, nor anything like it. I get that to a certain extent, but I'm challenging the notion as I don't see it as so clear cut.

Let's break it down.

Unless I am missing something (And I hope I am, due to the majority of people who clearly disagree with me), I believe there are three passages in the players handbook which are causing people to draw this conclusion. I've added emphasis on key words.

The first place to look is Appendix A: Conditions. It reads, (1)"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." Then there's the advantage/disadvantage part.

The second place of note is page 194 on unseen attackers. Notable excerpts: (2)"...disadvantage on the attack roll... whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature that you can hear but not see." and (3)"If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

The third place of note is the box on hiding on page 177. It reads, (4)"An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet."

This lets us draw 3 conclusions RAW that are quite clear:
-An invisible creature is not "hidden" unless they have taken an action to hide.
-Invisible targets (or heavily obscured targets) can be attacked, based on sound, but with disadvantage.
-Attacking while invisible or heavily obscured reveals the attackers location.

Now my point of contention comes in that so many people believe that since an unseen foe can still be heard they are automatically heard and then placed into a specified 5ft square for your convenience to attack them, just with disadvantage. That seems like an incredible leap in logic based on the verbiage of the quoted passages.

They can be heard. They might be noticed. Those sound like key terms in a game like D&D that describe uncertainties or variables that are usually decided by dice rolls. I'm not arguing for any official way of doing it (Probably some kind of perception vs stealth, maybe one or both passive?), just arguing that it is unclear RAW and requires DM adjudication.

Note that attacking reveals their location when they attack, but they can then freely movie around without provoking OAs since you must see a foe to get an OA. This makes their location irrelevant unless you had readied an attack or some such, as they will no longer be there. The passage about guessing the foe's location seems to be hinting that what I am saying is RAI, but you could argue that that passage is specifically for "hidden" foes. All I am saying is just because a foe isn't "hidden" in game terms, does not mean you know exactly where they are. You have to still perceive them.

If in the heat of battle you can accurately place one or more foes in a 5ft square (with no specified distance limit) while blindfolded or in total darkness, based on sound alone... You are Daredevil. (Hint: He has Blindsight.:smalltongue:)

But seriously why does everyone think that is how it works RAW? I must be missing something here. Please educate me folks.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I trolled the forums

Is that even allowed

[Daishain]

If the rules are unclear, as they are with much of the stealth rules, it falls to the DM's judgement. Common sense suggests in this case that detecting someone by sound depends very heavily on how much noise they're making by comparison to the environment. In a noisy combat environment, it would be difficult to pinpoint someone from any but point blank range unless they're moving in noisy gear.

Of course, invisibility doesn't necessarily preclude visible indicators. Bear in mind the environment, people will kick up mud, dust, etc. as they move about. Opponents struck by the invisible dude (and those in a good position to observe) probably have a decent idea of where the blow came from.

[Contrast]

They can be heard. They might be noticed. Those sound like key terms in a game like D&D that describe uncertainties or variables that are usually decided by dice rolls. I'm not arguing for any official way of doing it (Probably some kind of perception vs stealth, maybe one or both passive?), just arguing that it is unclear RAW and requires DM adjudication.


So you're saying you can't discern the location of someone invisible unless you pass a perception vs stealth roll?


-An invisible creature is not "hidden" unless they have taken an action to hide.

...how exactly is this different than an invisible creature being automatically hidden out of interest?

[Aembrosia]

See, the problem you're running into is thinking that there should be a singular truth, everyone should subscribe to it because its the singular truth, and you are capable of working out what that singular truth is. Set aside the concept, IE your well laid out definition of how the authors have written the Invisibility and Stealth mechanics to date, and apply this line of reasoning to, well, everything.

The initial question you wanted answered was "Are we doing it right?" First of all there is no we. There is no reason why I should do anything the same way as you. Second, there is no 'right'. I can remove invisibility from my game if I want to. You do you. I do me. What works for my group does not have to work for yours. Thats the game we're playing. Its all made up and it doesnt matter.

[PeteNutButter]

See, the problem you're running into is thinking that there should be a singular truth, everyone should subscribe to it because its the singular truth, and you are capable of working out what that singular truth is. Set aside the concept, IE your well laid out definition of how the authors have written the Invisibility and Stealth mechanics to date, and apply this line of reasoning to, well, everything.

The initial question you wanted answered was "Are we doing it right?" First of all there is no we. There is no reason why I should do anything the same way as you. Second, there is no 'right'. I can remove invisibility from my game if I want to. You do you. I do me. What works for my group does not have to work for yours. Thats the game we're playing. Its all made up and it doesnt matter.

It was a challenge to the many posters in the linked thread who thoroughly said that that was the way RAW.

My whole point was there is no clear RAW.

[Aembrosia]

Mmm I dont think you get it. You're questioning how anyone has come to a conclusion other than the one you've laid out.

"But seriously why does everyone think that is how it works RAW? I must be missing something here. Please educate me folks."

Gosh golly gee the mechanics are so arse backwards and up to interpretation how could anyone possibly think there is an answer. The answer is obviously that there isnt an answer, as apposed to these other individuals who seem to think the answer is that there is an answer. What weirdos.

They are flawed, oh so very flawed, humans just like you and I. We dont get to decide which arbitrary adjudication is the correct arbitrary adjudication.

What else was the thread about? There might be some other point you had that can be extracted out of this mess. Usually its someone wanting a solid foundation so that they can stand on it like a hill, build a house there and live there forever. Probably not the case with you.

Awareness? Do we want the people doing arbitrary decision 320 to stop doing arbitrary decision number 320 because it bothers us? Arbitrary decision 192 is superior! Stop thinking what you think! My thought is better!

[PeteNutButter]

So you're saying you can't discern the location of someone invisible unless you pass a perception vs stealth roll?

...how exactly is this different than an invisible creature being automatically hidden out of interest?

Well hidden is a defined condition. I suppose the biggest difference would be if a creature is hidden to you, you can't see or hear them at all. An invisible creature that isn't taking the hide action can be heard but your ability to precisely locate said noise is the issue.

Compare it to a party who can hear some orcs in the next room. The orcs aren't hidden, but they are heavily obscured (wall in the way). Determining their exact location via sound would be a matter of perception, passive or active. And getting it exact would likely be very difficult until you kick the door in and see how they are actually set up.

[PeteNutButter]

Mmm I dont think you get it. You're questioning how anyone has come to a conclusion other than the one you've laid out.

"But seriously why does everyone think that is how it works RAW? I must be missing something here. Please educate me folks."

Gosh golly gee the mechanics are so arse backwards and up to interpretation how could anyone possibly think there is an answer. The answer is obviously that there isnt an answer, as apposed to these other individuals who seem to think the answer is that there is an answer. What weirdos.

They are flawed, oh so very flawed, humans just like you and I. We dont get to decide which arbitrary adjudication is the correct arbitrary adjudication.

What else was the thread about? There might be some other point you had that can be extracted out of this mess. Usually its someone wanting a solid foundation so that they can stand on it like a hill, build a house there and live there forever. Probably not the case with you.

Awareness? Do we want the people doing arbitrary decision 320 to stop doing arbitrary decision number 320 because it bothers us? Arbitrary decision 192 is superior! Stop thinking what you think! My thought is better!

Such hostility... I've checked several threads on this topic and they all end with multiple people saying that RAW it works that way.

So I post a counterpoint to argue against it, with the chance for someone to show me why that way was so commonly regarded as THE way per RAW.

Generally if something is the consensus on these forums that it is RAW, then it is RAW. So I am inviting someone to educate me on why so many people believe it is RAW, or failing that to dispel the notion that it is RAW.

I am making no claim that people should do anything in their games or house rule differently. I am merely disputing the claim that RAW an invisible character can be freely attacked if they aren't hidden (just at disadvantage), and that there is no need for perception to determine the location of an invisible foe that didn't take the hide action.

[Malifice]

After a recent thread here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502027-Invisible-Attack!&highlight=invisibility
I trolled the forums to find similar answers everywhere. It seems that everyone is pretty much in agreement that from a RAW perspective everyone that invisibility does not equal hidden, nor anything like it. I get that to a certain extent, but I'm challenging the notion as I don't see it as so clear cut.

Let's break it down.

Unless I am missing something (And I hope I am, due to the majority of people who clearly disagree with me), I believe there are three passages in the players handbook which are causing people to draw this conclusion. I've added emphasis on key words.

The first place to look is Appendix A: Conditions. It reads, (1)"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." Then there's the advantage/disadvantage part.

The second place of note is page 194 on unseen attackers. Notable excerpts: (2)"...disadvantage on the attack roll... whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature that you can hear but not see." and (3)"If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

The third place of note is the box on hiding on page 177. It reads, (4)"An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet."

This lets us draw 3 conclusions RAW that are quite clear:
-An invisible creature is not "hidden" unless they have taken an action to hide.
-Invisible targets (or heavily obscured targets) can be attacked, based on sound, but with disadvantage.
-Attacking while invisible or heavily obscured reveals the attackers location.

Now my point of contention comes in that so many people believe that since an unseen foe can still be heard they are automatically heard and then placed into a specified 5ft square for your convenience to attack them, just with disadvantage. That seems like an incredible leap in logic based on the verbiage of the quoted passages.

They can be heard. They might be noticed. Those sound like key terms in a game like D&D that describe uncertainties or variables that are usually decided by dice rolls. I'm not arguing for any official way of doing it (Probably some kind of perception vs stealth, maybe one or both passive?), just arguing that it is unclear RAW and requires DM adjudication.

Note that attacking reveals their location when they attack, but they can then freely movie around without provoking OAs since you must see a foe to get an OA. This makes their location irrelevant unless you had readied an attack or some such, as they will no longer be there. The passage about guessing the foe's location seems to be hinting that what I am saying is RAI, but you could argue that that passage is specifically for "hidden" foes. All I am saying is just because a foe isn't "hidden" in game terms, does not mean you know exactly where they are. You have to still perceive them.

If in the heat of battle you can accurately place one or more foes in a 5ft square (with no specified distance limit) while blindfolded or in total darkness, based on sound alone... You are Daredevil. (Hint: He has Blindsight.:smalltongue:)

But seriously why does everyone think that is how it works RAW? I must be missing something here. Please educate me folks.

Stop thinking of things in 5' squares; they're an abstraction for the tabletop.

If you're not making any effort to be silent and mask your location (footprints in the carpet or grass, robes swooshing on the floor and disturbing dust, the creaking of leather and jangling of equipment etc) then the assumption is that people near you know your approximate location with sufficient accuracy to be able to fire an arrow at you, or advance to where you are swinging like mad with a chance to hit you (attack roll at disadvantage).

They dont know where you are with sufficient precision to make an AoO against you, or to cast many (most) spells against you.

If you are making an effort to be silent and mask your location, you use the Stealth skill (this is explicitly what the skill does), opposed by any and every potential observers passive perception scores, via the Hide action. If you succeed on your check, then barring them making a lucky guess as to where you are, they cant attack you at all, and may not even be aware of your presence.

There may be extreme outliers that warrant DM intervention around this general rule, but the rule is perfectly fine as it stands for the majority of situations.

I always struggle to see why so many people still have difficulty with this one.

[Breashios]

I want to thank you for starting this thread. We had this very practical concern in our last session. As DM I had to make a ruling that went against how I had previously run invisibility, because the player wanted it to work a certain way for him. Basically we decided to let the invisible character move, attack and then move again. His location was only known when he attacked, meaning the enemy would have to ready an attack to even get to attack the character, if that enemy failed a perception check against the appropriately modified stealth value of the character. I had previously run an invisible stalker. I had assumed and run the stalker as if the party would know its location automatically if it attacked that round even if it moved both before and after the attack. I really didn’t worry about the inconsistency, but Aembrosia’s comments do allow me to fully put it behind me. I think I’ll just ask my group how they want invisibility to work when it comes up. If the flip flopping bothers them, I can fix it then. If not, we’ll just keep having fun.

[Aembrosia]

I hope this isnt too adversarial for you.

"I am merely disputing the claim that RAW an invisible character can be freely attacked if they aren't hidden (just at disadvantage), and that there is no need for perception to determine the location of an invisible foe that didn't take the hide action."

Okay, here is the RAW that should help you; at least for a portion of the interactions.
I promise its stupid but its the sacred holy grail we call RAW

PHB 193/194 Making An Attack: 1- Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

Why does making or being attacked have nothing to do with being hidden or invisible? Because there's a word missing in the sentence - the way it was written by the authors that left rulings on the generic game mechanics to DMS so that the authors wouldn't have to consider every possible scenario - sight. We dont have to see what we're attacking. thats fine, that makes sense even. I can be blindfolded and still swing a bat at a pinata.

The RAW doesnt say you need to perform any checks. The writing on the page does not include a sequence of words calling for any additional checks therefore the RAW doesnt call for those checks; thats self serving circular logic.

[Malifice]

I want to thank you for starting this thread. We had this very practical concern in our last session. As DM I had to make a ruling that went against how I had previously run invisibility, because the player wanted it to work a certain way for him. Basically we decided to let the invisible character move, attack and then move again. His location was only known when he attacked, meaning the enemy would have to ready an attack to even get to attack the character, if that enemy failed a perception check against the appropriately modified stealth value of the character. I had previously run an invisible stalker. I had assumed and run the stalker as if the party would know its location automatically if it attacked that round even if it moved both before and after the attack. I really didn’t worry about the inconsistency, but Aembrosia’s comments do allow me to fully put it behind me. I think I’ll just ask my group how they want invisibility to work when it comes up. If the flip flopping bothers them, I can fix it then. If not, we’ll just keep having fun.

You ran the stalker right.

Unless it takes the Hide action (which it cant do on any round it attacks) it can be attacked in return. The PCs have disadvantage on attack rolls (negating Rogue sneak attack), cant make AoO's against it (it can freely move in, attack and then move away) nor can the target it with most spells (most explicitly require 'a target you can see' to work).

But the assumption is the thing swirls enough dust around, or makes enough noise, or leaves an ever so faint a shimmering in the air to enable the party to launch attacks in its general direction or poke at it when it comes close (combat is more or less simultaneous despite the cyclical nature of turn based initiative).

It could Hide (as an action) whenever it wants though. If it had cunning action (or a similar ability to Hide as a bonus action, like the Shadow Demon posseses) it could move in, Attack (as an action) and then Hide (bonus action) and then move again if it desired.

Then your PCs would be in a lot of strife. Barring a lucky guess, they cant attack it at all.

[PeteNutButter]

Stop thinking of things in 5' squares; they're an abstraction for the tabletop.

If you're not making any effort to be silent and mask your location (footprints in the carpet or grass, robes swooshing on the floor and disturbing dust, the creaking of leather and jangling of equipment etc) then the assumption is that people near you know your approximate location with sufficient accuracy to be able to fire an arrow at you, or advance to where you are swinging like mad with a chance to hit you (attack roll at disadvantage).

They dont know where you are with sufficient precision to make an AoO against you, or to cast many (most) spells against you.

If you are making an effort to be silent and mask your location, you use the Stealth skill (this is explicitly what the skill does), opposed by any and every potential observers passive perception scores, via the Hide action. If you succeed on your check, then barring them making a lucky guess as to where you are, they cant attack you at all, and may not even be aware of your presence.

There may be extreme outliers that warrant DM intervention around this general rule, but the rule is perfectly fine as it stands for the majority of situations.

I always struggle to see why so many people still have difficulty with this one.

You ran the stalker right.

Unless it takes the Hide action (which it cant do on any round it attacks) it can be attacked in return. The PCs have disadvantage on attack rolls (negating Rogue sneak attack), cant make AoO's against it (it can freely move in, attack and then move away) nor can the target it with most spells (most explicitly require 'a target you can see' to work).

But the assumption is the thing swirls enough dust around, or makes enough noise, or leaves an ever so faint a shimmering in the air to enable the party to launch attacks in its general direction or poke at it when it comes close (combat is more or less simultaneous despite the cyclical nature of turn based initiative).

It could Hide (as an action) whenever it wants though. If it had cunning action (or a similar ability to Hide as a bonus action, like the Shadow Demon posseses) it could move in, Attack (as an action) and then Hide (bonus action) and then move again if it desired.

Then your PCs would be in a lot of strife. Barring a lucky guess, they cant attack it at all.

You are stating this as a matter of fact, like it is the RAW. That is what I am disputing. While this ruling is a fine ruling in a game, (although I disagree with it) it is a ruling, and not the only way within the scope of RAW to run this.

It is presuming automatic success to locate or approximate a foe you cannot see. It gets worse if you consider the same rules apply to all heavily obscured foes, such as inside a darkness spell (No swirl of dust etc, just sound to guide you.) The disadvantage to attack them is because you cannot perfectly identify where they are, but with your ruling that is the same if you know exactly where they are--such as readying an attack to attack whoever attacks you. You can't ignore the 5ft squares, as its an integral difference between knowing which 5ft square a foe is in and moving to it, or reacting and lashing back out when you get hit.

Two assumptions are being made by your ruling that around beyond the RAW:
-A creature automatically perceives anything that doesn't take the hide action, even with a passive perception of 5.
-If a creature can hear a foe, that creature automatically can locate that foe within a 5ft variance.
-A creature cannot move quietly without taking the hide action.

Again I'm not arguing for a specific way of running things, just that there is no specific RAW way of running this.

[Malifice]

You are stating this as a matter of fact, like it is the RAW. That is what I am disputing.

Yeah I know you're disputing it, but you're wrong. Its been discussed over and over in this forum and others, and the overwhelming consensus is this is what the RAW says.

Run it however you want though.


It is presuming automatic success to locate or approximate a foe you cannot see.


Yeah. Its no different to if I run behind a pillar on my turn and end my turn there, and you lose sight of me.

I might be able to Hide behind the pillar, but that requires the Hide action.


It gets worse if you consider the same rules apply to all heavily obscured foes, such as inside a darkness spell (No swirl of dust etc, just sound to guide you.) The disadvantage to attack them is because you cannot perfectly identify where they are, but with your ruling that is the same if you know exactly where they are--such as readying an attack to attack whoever attacks you.

No its totally different.


If they are both visible and not hidden relative to me, I know where they are and can attack them normally, make AoOs, hit them with targetted spells etc.
If they are invisible but not hidden relative to me, I have a rough idea where they are, and can attack them with attacks (at disadvantage) I cant make AoO's, and I cant hit them with most spells (they become immune to all the targetted ones like Hold person, Power word kill etc)
If they are invisible and hidden relative to me, I dont know where they are cant attack them at all unless I first make a lucky guess (and am correct). Even then the attack is made with disadvantage (because they are invisible) I cant make AoO's and cant hit them with targetted spells.



You can't ignore the 5ft squares, as its an integral difference between knowing which 5ft square a foe is in and moving to it, or reacting and lashing back out when you get hit.

5' squares arent 'RAW'. They're an abstraction used when not in ToTM, just like 'rounds' and 'turns' are abstractions. 5E defaults to ToTM. Stop thinking in terms of 'grids' and use your imagination and you'll be fine.


A creature automatically perceives anything that doesn't take the hide action, even with a passive perception of 5.

Yeah. If a creature hasnt taken the Hide action (used Stealth) then they are not hidden relative to me.

Just like if they HAVE used it, but their stealth result is less than my passive perception (or they used the Hide action, scored higher than my passive perception score, but I have subsequently taken the Search action and rolled higher than their Stealth result)


-If a creature can hear a foe, that creature automatically can locate that foe within a 5ft variance.

Unseen is expressly defined as unseen and unheard. Invisibility covers one of those conditions. To be unheard (move silently) you need to use what skill exactly?


-A creature cannot move quietly without taking the hide action.

The Hide action is how one uses Stealth during the turn based nature of DnDs cyclical combat rounds. It represents you taking time and effort to conceal your location, move silently, and conceal your presence.

Stealth is a combination of Move Silent and Hide skills. Perception is Listen and Spot all rolled into one. By becomeing invisible, you cover the Hide and Spot elements of the skills, but it says nothing about the Listen and Move silently elements of them.


Again I'm not arguing for a specific way of running things, just that there is no specific RAW way of running this.

There is mate. And there is a very broad consensus that what I am saying is the way it's intended.

Of course, RAW is also 'Ask your DM' and 'The DM sets the conditions for Hiding/ Stealth' so do whatever works in your game.

[Isidorios]

Malifice has the right of it.

[Saggo]

All I am saying is just because a foe isn't "hidden" in game terms, does not mean you know exactly where they are. You have to still perceive them.

As this seems to be the crux of your argument, I'd say that being invisible is peripheral. You would need to devise a system for guessing a creature's location any time you don't have direct vision on them, because for this argument being invisible is no different than averting your eyes, turning your back, blindness, or any other vision obscuring condition or narrative that occurs when have direct line of sight (the abstract concept, not literal vision).

The game assumes that if you have line of sight to a creature that isn't putting effort in being unheard or covering tracks, which we agree is the action of hiding, then you have knowledge of their general location regardless of vision. How or why is just narrative and narrative is malleable. Extraneous situations that serve the story or narrative are adjudicated by the DM like you say, but they're exceptions to the baseline rule.

[Sabeta]

1) Your Target is Visible, and they are not Hidden
->You may interact with the target as normal.

2) You Target is Visible, but they are Hidden
-> Step I) Compare your Passive Perception to their Stealth Check. If you beat it, proceed to Bullet "1", else continue to Step II.
-> Step II) Spend an Action Searching.
-> Step III) If your Target Attacks you, Return to Bullet "1"

3) Your Target is Invisible, and they are not Hidden
-> You have Disadvantage on all Ability Checks and Attack Rolls that rely on Sight which involve your Target. (When in doubt, Fireball)

4) Your Target is Invisible, and they are Hidden
-> Step I) Because your Target is "Heavily Obscured", they have Advantage on their Stealth Roll (I think)
-> Step II) Because your Target is "Heavily Obscured", you have Disadvantage on Passive Perception
-> Step III) If your Passive Perception still beats their Stealth Check, proceed to Bullet "3", else continue to Step IV
-> Step IV) Spend an Action Searching, with Disadvantage. (Fireball is looking really optimal right about now)
-> Step V) If your Target Attacks you, Return to Bullet "3"

I think that just about covers it. Maybe it's the years I spent playing Yu-Gi-Oh, where a single word in Japanese completely changes the viability of some cards. (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Nomi) (Crash Course on the link provided. If a "Nomi" Monster dies you cannot bring it back to life because the card itself says it has exactly one way of being summoned. If you summon a Non-Nomi Monster and it dies, you can bring it back to life because you paid the cost the first time.), but I'm used to being able to pick apart rules like this quite easily.

Anyway TC, what I posted above SHOULD be the RAW. The only part I think I could have gotten wrong is having Advantage on Stealth when Heavily Obscured. If you play it a different way that's probably fine. If you're worried about the action economy of Invisible People, well that's why Cunning Action exists.

[Malifice]

1) Your Target is Visible, and they are not Hidden
->You may interact with the target as normal.

Agreed.


2) You Target is Visible, but they are Hidden
-> Step I) Compare your Passive Perception to their Stealth Check. If you beat it, proceed to Bullet "1", else continue to Step II.
-> Step II) Spend an Action Searching.
-> Step III) If your Target Attacks you, Return to Bullet "1"

Not quite. Your target cant be Hidden unless they have already defeated your passive perception score with a Stealth check. So Step 1 has already happened; its what makes the target hidden from you in the first palce.


3) Your Target is Invisible, and they are not Hidden
-> You have Disadvantage on all Ability Checks and Attack Rolls that rely on Sight which involve your Target. (When in doubt, Fireball)

You also cant make AoO against the target, or cast any spells or use any abilities that rely on sight (most targetted spells in fact).


4) Your Target is Invisible, and they are Hidden
-> Step I) Because your Target is "Heavily Obscured", they have Advantage on their Stealth Roll (I think)
-> Step II) Because your Target is "Heavily Obscured", you have Disadvantage on Passive Perception
-> Step III) If your Passive Perception still beats their Stealth Check, proceed to Bullet "3", else continue to Step IV
-> Step IV) Spend an Action Searching, with Disadvantage. (Fireball is looking really optimal right about now)
-> Step V) If your Target Attacks you, Return to Bullet "3"

No; again the target only becomes hidden via a Stealth check vs your Passive perception. So Steps 1-3 have already occured (this is what makes the target hidden).

And re perception, lightly obscured imposes disadvantage on Wisdom (perception) checks that rely on sight. Heavily obscured (which invisibility 'counts as' for the purposes of hiding) simply auto fails any check requiring sight.

When searching for an invisible critter you're not using your sight (any more than you are when searching for a critter hidden behind total cover). I'd certainly strongly consider imposing disadvantage on a perception check to locate an invisible critter with Perception though. You're really listening intently, smelling the air, feeling the wind move on your skin as he moves past you, looking for signs of his passage (like footprints in the dirt, compressed carpet or grass, creaking floorboards, or boots on cobblestones, dust swirling in the air, flickering torches and swirling smoke) etc.

[Sabeta]

I could have worded that a little better, but that's more-or-less what I meant. He can't hide in the first place if your PP beats his Stealth Check. I was just making sure we understand the differencing between Hiding while Invisible and Hiding while Visible.

[Malifice]

I could have worded that a little better, but that's more-or-less what I meant. He can't hide in the first place if your PP beats his Stealth Check. I was just making sure we understand the differencing between Hiding while Invisible and Hiding while Visible.

Yeah I figured as much mate; just wanted to clarify the steps for others.

Its an intresting one the sight issue.

Most people in hiding are by default at a minimum lightly or (most often) heavily obscured (unseen). You have to be in order to be able to attempt to hide in the first place.

If I impose disadvantage on perception when searching for an invisible creature, then it applies any time a creature is unseen to the searcher (behind cover).

I suppose you could argue youre more likely to have something poking out from behind cover, or be casting a shadow etc if (visible but behind cover) as opposed to (invisible) but still.

[Plaguescarred]

Letting invisible creature's location be unknown weakens stealth rules and empower being unseen a lot since you normally already have advantage (and others disadvantage) and all it entails to not be seen in order to even try to hide, making your location unknown is about the only real benefit hiding normally grant.


For exemple imagine you're not seen because you're heavily obscured, invisible or enemies are blinded, now;

- you have advantage to attacks

- Attackers have disadvantage against you

- Creatures cannot target you with OAs, spells and abilities that target creatures they can see

- You can try to hide.


If you take an action to make a Stealth check and hide, you still have all the same benefit as above, and on top of that now enemies are unaware you're location.

Removing the need to make a Stealth check and instead grant the benefit as being hidden just remove the pertinence of the hide action in general IMHO.

[Contrast]

Well hidden is a defined condition. I suppose the biggest difference would be if a creature is hidden to you, you can't see or hear them at all. An invisible creature that isn't taking the hide action can be heard but your ability to precisely locate said noise is the issue.

Compare it to a party who can hear some orcs in the next room. The orcs aren't hidden, but they are heavily obscured (wall in the way). Determining their exact location via sound would be a matter of perception, passive or active. And getting it exact would likely be very difficult until you kick the door in and see how they are actually set up.

As a minor point, there are rules for hiding but I don't believe hidden is one of the specific defined conditions. This is somewhat relevant is making the break between trying to think of hiding as a status to be bestowed or taken away and rather the rules for hiding just being guidance on how hiding works (it does seem a nonsense that technically someone quietly sitting in a chair on the other side of a wall from you is not hidden from you unless they're specifically trying to be somehow). They're mostly just an abstraction which tries to manage how hiding works in the kind of hyper aware combat situations PCs find themselves in and to keep the game working.

The point I would make here is that hiding isn't some magical thing that makes you immune to being detected. If you take the hide action, pass your test and then your next action is to make a loud noise, you are no longer hidden.

In your proposed system being invisible is better than being hidden because even if you're jumping around and clapping your hands they still need a check to find them, while if someone who is hidden violates the requirements to be hidden they are instantly no longer hidden OR you can use a check to find them.

I agree the way the rules are laid out probably does not make invisiblity as effective as it would actually be in masking your location. There's a reason people have taken to interpreting invisibilty as active camo rather than invisibility. It reflects how the rules work better. Making invisibility function how true invisibility would more logically function would make it significantly more powerful and require house ruling a number of rules. So for me, active camo it is.

[PeteNutButter]

Yeah I know you're disputing it, but you're wrong. Its been discussed over and over in this forum and others, and the overwhelming consensus is this is what the RAW says.
Run it however you want though.
Yeah. Its no different to if I run behind a pillar on my turn and end my turn there, and you lose sight of me.
I might be able to Hide behind the pillar, but that requires the Hide action.
No its totally different.

If they are both visible and not hidden relative to me, I know where they are and can attack them normally, make AoOs, hit them with targetted spells etc.
If they are invisible but not hidden relative to me, I have a rough idea where they are, and can attack them with attacks (at disadvantage) I cant make AoO's, and I cant hit them with most spells (they become immune to all the targetted ones like Hold person, Power word kill etc)
If they are invisible and hidden relative to me, I dont know where they are cant attack them at all unless I first make a lucky guess (and am correct). Even then the attack is made with disadvantage (because they are invisible) I cant make AoO's and cant hit them with targetted spells.

5' squares arent 'RAW'. They're an abstraction used when not in ToTM, just like 'rounds' and 'turns' are abstractions. 5E defaults to ToTM. Stop thinking in terms of 'grids' and use your imagination and you'll be fine.
Yeah. If a creature hasnt taken the Hide action (used Stealth) then they are not hidden relative to me.
Just like if they HAVE used it, but their stealth result is less than my passive perception (or they used the Hide action, scored higher than my passive perception score, but I have subsequently taken the Search action and rolled higher than their Stealth result)
Unseen is expressly defined as unseen and unheard. Invisibility covers one of those conditions. To be unheard (move silently) you need to use what skill exactly?
The Hide action is how one uses Stealth during the turn based nature of DnDs cyclical combat rounds. It represents you taking time and effort to conceal your location, move silently, and conceal your presence.
Stealth is a combination of Move Silent and Hide skills. Perception is Listen and Spot all rolled into one. By becomeing invisible, you cover the Hide and Spot elements of the skills, but it says nothing about the Listen and Move silently elements of them.
There is mate. And there is a very broad consensus that what I am saying is the way it's intended.
Of course, RAW is also 'Ask your DM' and 'The DM sets the conditions for Hiding/ Stealth' so do whatever works in your game.
You spell out how you think it works. And then your biggest argument to say its RAW is: "Everyone agrees with me." Where is the text? It is not rules as written without the written rules.


The game assumes that if you have line of sight to a creature that isn't putting effort in being unheard or covering tracks, which we agree is the action of hiding, then you have knowledge of their general location regardless of vision. How or why is just narrative and narrative is malleable. Extraneous situations that serve the story or narrative are adjudicated by the DM like you say, but they're exceptions to the baseline rule.

Where is the rule showing the game assumes this?

If a guard is sleeping on the other side of the wall or around a corner, do I magically know he is there? Isn't that something that would involve perception? The text mentions that you can be perceived while invisible. What else can be perceived? Traps, items laying on the side of the road, a peculiar bird in the sky, etc. What do all these things have in common? Perception is used to see if your character can notice them.


Letting invisible creature's location be unknown weakens stealth rules and empower being unseen a lot since you normally already have advantage (and others disadvantage) and all it entails to not be seen in order to even try to hide, making your location unknown is about the only real benefit hiding normally grant.

For exemple imagine you're not seen because you're heavily obscured, invisible or enemies are blinded, now;

- you have advantage to attacks

- Attackers have disadvantage against you

- Creatures cannot target you with OAs, spells and abilities that target creatures they can see

- You can try to hide.

If you take an action to make a Stealth check and hide, you still have all the same benefit as above, and on top of that now enemies are unaware you're location.

Removing the need to make a Stealth check and instead grant the benefit as being hidden just remove the pertinence of the hide action in general IMHO.

While I appreciate the input, I am looking for rules as written. I am not currently concerned about the balance aspect. If invisibility is overshadowing stealth in a game, DMs are happy to make this ruling, for that or any other reason. It isn't RAW.

Folks, all I'm asking is for you to put aside your previously conceived notions. Look at the text. Examine where you think there is an automatic success of perception of anything that isn't hidden. If you don't find that, reconsider your position that it is RAW.

If you can't do that. Explain to me what the range limit on this automatic perception is? Are we all professor X in cerebro with the ability to perceive everyone in the whole world that isn't hidden? There has to be some limit. Why does a character with a PP of 5 have the same chance (and distance?) of finding a foe as a one with a PP of 30?

RAW does say on page 178 under perception: "...you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss..."
Would the dust whirling around an invisible persons footsteps be easy to miss?

Anyways thank you all for the debate. I look forward to your responses.:smallbiggrin:

[Plaguescarred]

While I appreciate the input, I am looking for rules as written. I am not currently concerned about the balance aspect. If invisibility is overshadowing stealth in a game, DMs are happy to make this ruling, for that or any other reason. It isn't RAW.You've already quoted the RAW concerning this in the OP it's as close as it can get.



Folks, all I'm asking is for you to put aside your previously conceived notions. Look at the text. Examine where you think there is an automatic success of perception of anything that isn't hidden. If you don't find that, reconsider your position that it is RAW.

If you can't do that. Explain to me what the range limit on this automatic perception is? Are we all professor X in cerebro with the ability to perceive everyone in the whole world that isn't hidden? There has to be some limit.You won't find a range limit of perception in RAW it will be up to each and every DM's ruling.

But here's a few more quotes that can be pertinent to this discussion i think. Under Activities While Traveling it says:

Other Activities: Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.

Under Actions in Combat it says:

Opportunity Attack: In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for enemies to drop their guard.

Under Skills it says:

Hiding: In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you

So at least while you're not travelling but in combat it seems like you're constantly watching for enemies and you're alert of danger all around you. And while you're travelling and focused on tasked other than watching you cannot even detect a hidden enemy.

[Saggo]

Where is the rule showing the game assumes this?
The conjunction of rules, but primarily what the rules don't say. Targeting for attacks doesn't require vision, only range. Total cover and hiding are nearly the only two ways the rules prevent targeting, both break line of sight. Your can actively target while blinded and you can actively target an unseen target.

It can also be turned around. What rule assumes you can't target someone if they're not hiding and don't have total cover?

[Segev]

I share the OP's...discomfort...with the consensus on how the RAW works, but the RAW also lack a satisfying answer to that discomfort.

I think my own problem with it is best illustrated by the following situation:

Bill and Bob are identical twins (with identical statlines) who are both rogues. Bill is an Assassin and Bob is an Arcane Trickster. Both are proficient with Stealth.

Bob casts invisibility on himself. Then Bill and Bob both hide under a table. By sheer coincidence, they get the exact same value on their d20.

Alice is a Ranger bodyguard for a noble who is about to enter the room where Bill and Bob are hiding. She rolls her Perception to search the room for any troublemakers.

My issue arises here: If she rolls above the amount needed to find Bill hiding under the table, she is immediately aware that Bob is also there. Bob's invisibility doesn't make him any harder to "spot" than Bill is. Sure, she has Disadvantage if she attacks Bob, but she knows not just that he's there, but approximately where he is sufficiently that she could shoot a crossbow at him and only have Disadvantage. (Whereas, if she had no idea where he was, she'd have to - mechanically - pick a square to attack and THEN roll with Disadvantage, only being sure she had the wrong square if she rolled 2 20s and still hit nothing.)

But to repeat, the real problem is that Bob, despite being invisible as well as just as good as Bill at hiding even WITHOUT invisibility, is no harder to find than Bill.


The conjunction of rules, but primarily what the rules don't say. Targeting for attacks doesn't require vision, only range. Total cover and hiding are nearly the only two ways the rules prevent targeting, both break line of sight. Your can actively target while blinded and you can actively target an unseen target.

It can also be turned around. What rule assumes you can't target someone if they're not hiding and don't have total cover?

Edit to reply to this part: So, let's say that you want to attack Bob, but he's out of range of your melee weapon. Bob is invisible. Do you automatically get to declare that you move to within range of Bob, or does his invisibility mean you can't make that declaration because you can't see where he is?

[PeteNutButter]

You've already quoted the RAW concerning this in the OP it's as close as it can get.


You won't find a range limit of perception in RAW it will be up to each and every DM's ruling.

But here's a few more quotes that can be pertinent to this discussion i think. Under Activities While Traveling it says:

Other Activities: Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.

Under Actions in Combat it says:

Opportunity Attack: In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for enemies to drop their guard.

Under Skills it says:

Hiding: In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you

So at least while you're not travelling but in combat it seems like you're constantly watching for enemies and you're alert of danger all around you. And while you're travelling and focused on tasked other than watching you cannot even detect a hidden enemy.

I like that we are quoting RAW again. This is what we need to be looking at. You make a good point that people are expected to alert when in combat. It is still a stretch to assume that alert = automatic success on all perception that doesn't involve the hide action. In my opinion, the rules quoted are just there to make sure players don't try and say things like, "That orc shouldn't get an OA. He is distracted." Or, "I leap out of hiding, dash accross the room, and attack him. I get advantage because he didn't see me right?"


The conjunction of rules, but primarily what the rules don't say. Targeting for attacks doesn't require vision, only range. Total cover and hiding are nearly the only two ways the rules prevent targeting, both break line of sight. Your can actively target while blinded and you can actively target an unseen target.

It can also be turned around. What rule assumes you can't target someone if they're not hiding and don't have total cover?

Good angle, but my position is that the RAW is unclear. I am not arguing for anything in specific. I am arguing that RAW are open and require DM adjudication. This is in direct contrast to the multitude of supporters thinking that automatic perception is the RAW way.

So if for instance I rule as DM that an invisible foe is noticed only by a PP of DC 10+(1 per 10 feet distance from the beholder) that is not in anyway contrast to RAW. While yes, any DM is free to rule anything, it is critical that we recognize the difference between what is a conflict with RAW and what is not accounted for in the written rules and requires DM adjudication.

Compare that ruling to a DM ruling that longswords now always deal 1d10 damage, because he likes them. Longswords clearly deal 1d8 or 1d10 when wielded with two hands. This ruling would be in direct conflict with RAW.

You may ask why does it matter? Two Words: Adventurer's League. AL games need to be fair and consistent with RAW as much as possible.

[Plaguescarred]

It is still a stretch to assume that alert = automatic success on all perception that doesn't involve the hide action.
I don't think so taken that these quotes indicate that you make perception check to notice hidden creatures.

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.

What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.

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

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


Invisible doesn't say you need to make perception checks to notice it. It instead says:

Invisible: The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.

[Dalebert]

Two assumptions are being made by your ruling that around beyond the RAW:
-A creature automatically perceives anything that doesn't take the hide action, even with a passive perception of 5.

That's generally true. I forget where I read it, but somewhere (I think the combat section), it says that unless either party is trying to be stealthy, they are aware of each other and there's no surprise at the start of combat.


-If a creature can hear a foe, that creature automatically can locate that foe within a 5ft variance.

You're missing the point. You might not locate it within a 5 ft variance. YOu could fire and miss wildly, firing into completely the wrong square, but 5e is built around the simplicity of resolving such complications with adv & dis. You can always miss wildly and fire into the wrong square even if you see your opponent. If they're invisible, it's just MORE LIKELY, i.e. you fire with disadvantage.

Also, this notion of "you must know exactly which 5ft square your opponent is in to attack them" is not actually a rule anywhere. If it's a melee attack, the enemy must be within range. If you are not hidden (unseen AND unheard) then people know roughly where you are, enough to walk in your general direction, e.g. the sound of your footsteps or heavy breathing from the stresses of combat, and realize when they're close enough to attack because again, you are not hidden. Again, disadvantage might cause you to miss wildly, i.e. swung in the completely incorrect square.


-A creature cannot move quietly without taking the hide action.

Absolutely! What the heck is the point of making bonus action hide a CLASS FEATURE of rogues if hide doesn't normally take an action?


Again I'm not arguing for a specific way of running things, just that there is no specific RAW way of running this.

I respect that different people will interpret RAW differently. Strict RAW is an elusive thing in 5e because they left a lot to DM judgment. That said, this is less about RAW than it is about the flavor of 5e to simplify the rules. In 3.5 there were a myriad of rules and mathematic adjustments of +1 here, -2 there, and the spirit of 5e was to simplify that down while admittedly at the cost of precision and realism. Now you make a normal attack roll OR you roll with adv OR you roll with dis. That's it.

You CAN move away from the design of the game and add more complications but it's not in the spirit of this edition. And here's the thing. Invisibility is already very powerful for something you can get with a 2nd level slot. I posit that running it this way is balanced. It keeps it from being nearly an auto-escape feature.

[Plaguescarred]

Also since only hidden reveal your location when you attack, if being invisible was making your location unknown as well, attacking would never actually break it since its the only passage i think saying so, and its for when hidden.


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


In similar vein since only when hiding it says your making a check to be contested it means that if being invisible was making your location unknown as well, there would be no way given to detect your location.


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.

So to summarize if being invisible was making your location unknown as well, RAW it wouldn't be revealed by perception or when attacking. It'd be pretty powerful isn't?!

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think my own problem with it is best illustrated by the following situation:

Bill and Bob are identical twins (with identical statlines) who are both rogues. Bill is an Assassin and Bob is an Arcane Trickster. Both are proficient with Stealth. *snip*I believe your discomfort is in the lack of granularity in the rules. Clearly Bob shouldn't be impossible to locate by the Ranger, merely more difficult. In a more granular system, Bob would have a higher stealth result, and hence be more difficult to locate. Similarly, in a more granular system, there may be a "baseline" perception check to determine locations of unseen foes who aren't actively hiding. But this is a system that prioritizes speed of play, which sometimes creates weird quirks and details.

[Dalebert]

Bob casts invisibility on himself. Then Bill and Bob both hide under a table. By sheer coincidence, they get the exact same value on their d20.

I think it's reasonable to give advantage on stealth if someone is already unseen OR unheard and is focusing on just the other part. Why? Because both a Cloak of Elvenkind and Boots of Elvenkind set this premise, granting advantage on stealth checks. The boots make you silent but do nothing for you being unseen. The cloak makes you (sort of) invisible but does nothing to make you quieter. I believe the logic here is that one or the other has been magically handled for you and you can focus your efforts completely on the other part, either unseen or unheard. If anything, the invisibility spell is AT LEAST as good as a CoE but likely better.

In your case, Bob shouldn't bother hiding under the table. If anything, he is more likely to make noise squatting, crawling, and then maybe leaves the tablecloth wafting as a clue, etc. than if he were to just take a few steps out of the way and try to stay perfectly quiet and not stir dust, etc., given that he's already unseen. He should generally have a higher stealth roll than Bill who MUST find a hiding spot, possibly being noisy in the process, and thus Bob should be granted advantage on his roll while Bill rolls normally.

So once again, things are simplified and still reasonable (if not achieving an amazing degree of realness) by using advantage and disadvantage to adjust for circumstances.

[Segev]

See, if being Invisible gave Advantage on Hide checks (and possibly let you re-make them upon becoming Invisible), that'd work.

[Dalebert]

See, if being Invisible gave Advantage on Hide checks (and possibly let you re-make them upon becoming Invisible), that'd work.

Well it does, if the DM says it does. He's the ultimate arbitrator of when a particular circumstance helps or hinders a particular check. If invisibility isn't a circumstance that makes hiding easier, I can't imagine a better one.

[SharkForce]

invisibility is total concealment. if you're gonna give advantage for invisibility you should give it for other things that grant total concealment as well.

anyways, i think ultimately the better question to ask, rather than "are we doing it right?" would be "do we like the way we're doing it?"

the way it works in the rules doesn't make a lot of sense, with people basically knowing where you are unless you actively hide. it should probably require more effort to find someone who is invisible from a realism perspective (or at least require a reason that someone would be looking around for someone invisible). i suspect they were really worried about invisibility taking away from rogues, because if it just means nobody can figure out where you are easily, invisibility makes the stealth skill in general (and the rogue's ability to hide as a bonus action in particular) mean a lot less.

ultimately, the whole point is to have fun. if making invisibility stronger makes the game more fun for you, then do it. just be aware that it leads just a little bit closer to the editions where the best solution for every problem that doesn't end with "not including magic" or a similar disclaimer will probably be to use magic.

[Mellack]

I share the OP's...discomfort...with the consensus on how the RAW works, but the RAW also lack a satisfying answer to that discomfort.

I think my own problem with it is best illustrated by the following situation:

Bill and Bob are identical twins (with identical statlines) who are both rogues. Bill is an Assassin and Bob is an Arcane Trickster. Both are proficient with Stealth.

Bob casts invisibility on himself. Then Bill and Bob both hide under a table. By sheer coincidence, they get the exact same value on their d20.

Alice is a Ranger bodyguard for a noble who is about to enter the room where Bill and Bob are hiding. She rolls her Perception to search the room for any troublemakers.

My issue arises here: If she rolls above the amount needed to find Bill hiding under the table, she is immediately aware that Bob is also there. Bob's invisibility doesn't make him any harder to "spot" than Bill is. Sure, she has Disadvantage if she attacks Bob, but she knows not just that he's there, but approximately where he is sufficiently that she could shoot a crossbow at him and only have Disadvantage. (Whereas, if she had no idea where he was, she'd have to - mechanically - pick a square to attack and THEN roll with Disadvantage, only being sure she had the wrong square if she rolled 2 20s and still hit nothing.)

But to repeat, the real problem is that Bob, despite being invisible as well as just as good as Bill at hiding even WITHOUT invisibility, is no harder to find than Bill.




The invisibility is irrelevant as they are both out of sight anyway. The main difference is that if a viewer were to say lie down, Bill would be spotted as he no longer have cover or concealment, where Bob still might have been hidden.

[Plaguescarred]

I think it's reasonable to give advantage on stealth if someone is already unseen OR unheard and is focusing on just the other part. Being not seen wether from invisible, heavily obscured or blindness doesn't grant you advantage to hide specifically it allows you to try hide when you otherwise couldn't.

Hiding: You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly

[Segev]

The invisibility is irrelevant as they are both out of sight anyway. The main difference is that if a viewer were to say lie down, Bill would be spotted as he no longer have cover or concealment, where Bob still might have been hidden.

So... you're saying that somebody searching the room would be unable to find them, regardless of their Perception check? :smallconfused:

[Dalebert]

Being not seen wether from invisible, heavily obscured or blindness doesn't grant you advantage to hide specifically it allows you to try hide when you otherwise couldn't.

Hiding: You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly

I would grant advantage for complete heavy obscurement where there's no chance of being seen whatsoever, with little effort. Any time you're trying to use objects to hide, there's some chance you screw it up. Maybe a bit of you is sticking out or something you're wearing like a longbow on your back. If you go into an area of thick fog or magical darkness, there's basically zero chance of that. You can focus completely on being quiet. That certainly seems like a circumstance that could reasonably grant advantage on the roll.

Yes, you need a hiding place to be able to hide, somewhere where you can be unseen from the vantage of the enemies you're hiding from, but some hiding places are better than others. It's the difference between "I'ma try to squat down and hide behind that crate" and "I'ma go into that area of magical fog that completely conceals everything in it automatically".

If someone says "I'm looking behind that crate" or in the above example "under that table", they WILL find you. If you venture into some thick fog that makes everyone blinded inside, there's no way they will see you. They MIGHT hear you, but again, you can focus your efforts completely on that aspect of hiding if the other part is already guaranteed for you.

I still can't fathom how anyone can reason that a Cloak of Elvenkind grants advantage when it's not even full invisibility and yet not grant advantage for full invisibility.

[Contrast]

invisibility is total concealment. if you're gonna give advantage for invisibility you should give it for other things that grant total concealment as well.

anyways, i think ultimately the better question to ask, rather than "are we doing it right?" would be "do we like the way we're doing it?"

the way it works in the rules doesn't make a lot of sense, with people basically knowing where you are unless you actively hide. it should probably require more effort to find someone who is invisible from a realism perspective (or at least require a reason that someone would be looking around for someone invisible). i suspect they were really worried about invisibility taking away from rogues, because if it just means nobody can figure out where you are easily, invisibility makes the stealth skill in general (and the rogue's ability to hide as a bonus action in particular) mean a lot less.

ultimately, the whole point is to have fun. if making invisibility stronger makes the game more fun for you, then do it. just be aware that it leads just a little bit closer to the editions where the best solution for every problem that doesn't end with "not including magic" or a similar disclaimer will probably be to use magic.

I believe the argument being made what that invisibility could grant advantage where it allowed the person to not have to concentrate both on not making noise AND not being seen but only on not making noise, making the task of remaining stealthy easier (i.e. a person hiding in a bush has to make sure their sword scabbard isn't sticking out and being careful not to snap any twigs, an invisible person just has to concentrate on not snapping any twigs making the task easier). Seems like a DM would have to assess on a case by case basis but I'd buy it. Its easier to freeze in place and hold your breath standing in a room than it is to do the same cramped in an awkard position under a table.

As I said, treating Invisibility as active camo makes the most sense to me.


So... you're saying that somebody searching the room would be unable to find them, regardless of their Perception check? :smallconfused:

Say theres a chest high wall. Two people duck down behind it, one invisible, one not, and proceed to hide.

Situation A
Villain walks into the room and passes his perception, he hears two people behind the wall. Both are no longer hidden.

Situation B
Villain walks into the room and fails his perception check but his route happens to lead him around the other side of the wall anyway. He instantly sees the non-invisible person and they are no longer hidden. However the invisible person is still hidden.


Edit - Ninjad


I still can't fathom how anyone can reason that a Cloak of Elvenkind grants advantage when it's not even full invisibility and yet not grant advantage for full invisibility.

Because its maaaaaaaagic :smalltongue:

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Does the RAW make sense for Invisibility? Not really. But the important thing to remember is THIS IS A GAME

If Invisibility=hidden it would be too OP and game-breaking. That's why it doesn't.

[Dalebert]

Because its maaaaaaaagic :smalltongue:

Sarcasm noted, but I will use this opportunity to point out that both are magic and that the invisibility spell is better magic. :smalltongue:

[Mellack]

So... you're saying that somebody searching the room would be unable to find them, regardless of their Perception check? :smallconfused:

Not at all. I am saying if you have no cover or obscurement, you will be spotted. Invisibility lets you ignore that requirement. I am saying more the opposite of your suggestion, that invisibility allows the chance to hide, where without it, hiding may be impossible.

Edit: what Contrast describe better than I did.

[odigity]

They're an abstraction used when not in ToTM, just like 'rounds' and 'turns' are abstractions.

I can't believe this bold statement flew by without comment.

Rounds and turns are very precisely defined and woven directly into nearly all other rules.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I can't believe this bold statement flew by without comment.

Rounds and turns are very precisely defined and woven directly into nearly all other rules.

What's wrong with it? Malifice said quantifying space is optional, I don't think he meant to imply that quantifying time is.

[Ashdate]

Not much to add here, I agree with those posters that interpret the RAW to suggest that becoming invisible doesn't automatically mean that people don't know where you are (ugh double negative!). There's a check for that (a dexterity related one), and it's appropriate that it be used to completely hide from opponents. I get the uncomfortableness of it all, but it's almost certainly designed for speed of play over realism.

It's basically the same idea as 4e invisibility, where invisible does not equal hidden. I can practically draw a line from 4e to 5e on this edition's rules for invisibility.

[Malifice]

I share the OP's...discomfort...with the consensus on how the RAW works, but the RAW also lack a satisfying answer to that discomfort.

I think my own problem with it is best illustrated by the following situation:

Bill and Bob are identical twins (with identical statlines) who are both rogues. Bill is an Assassin and Bob is an Arcane Trickster. Both are proficient with Stealth.

Bob casts invisibility on himself. Then Bill and Bob both hide under a table. By sheer coincidence, they get the exact same value on their d20.

Alice is a Ranger bodyguard for a noble who is about to enter the room where Bill and Bob are hiding. She rolls her Perception to search the room for any troublemakers.

My issue arises here: If she rolls above the amount needed to find Bill hiding under the table, she is immediately aware that Bob is also there. Bob's invisibility doesn't make him any harder to "spot" than Bill is. Sure, she has Disadvantage if she attacks Bob, but she knows not just that he's there, but approximately where he is sufficiently that she could shoot a crossbow at him and only have Disadvantage. (Whereas, if she had no idea where he was, she'd have to - mechanically - pick a square to attack and THEN roll with Disadvantage, only being sure she had the wrong square if she rolled 2 20s and still hit nothing.)

But to repeat, the real problem is that Bob, despite being invisible as well as just as good as Bill at hiding even WITHOUT invisibility, is no harder to find than Bill.

But Bob has a whole swathe of other advantages over Bill in this situation.

In your example above, Bill and Bob are both noticed by the Ranger. Bill now can't attempt to Hide again (barring an outlier). For him the jig is up. Bob however can (the following round) again Hide again (as he is invisible he meets both preconditions for hiding in that the Ranger both cant see him clearly enough, AND he is always heavily obscured). Meaning Bob can (via cunning action no-less) vanish again the following round taking advantage of his invisibility. Bill is in a pickle and can do no such thing.

There are other advantages for Bob. The Ranger in this example cant apply Hunters Mark to Bob (Hunters Mark requires a 'target you can see') nor can he make AoO against Bob. All his attack rolls against Bob will be made at disadvantage, and all Bobs attack rolls against the Ranger will be made with advantage.

And again, any time Bob wants, he can attempt to hide from the Ranger, making him virtually immune to any attacks.

The Ranger also doesnt know what Bob is armed with, what he looks like, or what he is doing - he only gets a general idea that Bob is there (perhaps he overheard the two whispering to each other under the table).

For a second level spell, thats an impressive swathe of benefits.

[Malifice]

I believe your discomfort is in the lack of granularity in the rules. Clearly Bob shouldn't be impossible to locate by the Ranger, merely more difficult. In a more granular system, Bob would have a higher stealth result, and hence be more difficult to locate. Similarly, in a more granular system, there may be a "baseline" perception check to determine locations of unseen foes who aren't actively hiding. But this is a system that prioritizes speed of play, which sometimes creates weird quirks and details.

Bob is more difficult to locate if you look at it via a compound probability, or the scenario as a whole, rather than as a one round abstraction.

Remember; Bob (due to always being heavily obscured, and it being impossible for the Ranger to see him) can attempt to Hide every single round (as a bonus action no less due to cunning action). Its much easier for Bob to slink away than it is for Bill (who now that he is noticed, cant again attempt to Hide as long as the Ranger is keeping tabs on him).

While its incredibly easy for Bob to take advantage of his invisiblity and for the Ranger to lose track of where he is, its next to impossible for Bill to do so. Ergo: Bob is (all things considered) harder to locate than Bill is.

Imagine if the following round, as a bonus action Bob took the Hide action again, rolling a 25 total on his Stealth check? Unless the Ranger uses the Search action to find him, and cracks a 25 on his Perception check, Bob cant be found.

[Plaguescarred]

I still can't fathom how anyone can reason that a Cloak of Elvenkind grants advantage when it's not even full invisibility and yet not grant advantage for full invisibility.Its a benefit from a magic item so don't try to find reasoning behind it it's magic!


If someone says "I'm looking behind that crate" or in the above example "under that table", they WILL find you. If you venture into some thick fog that makes everyone blinded inside, there's no way they will see you. They MIGHT hear you, but again, you can focus your efforts completely on that aspect of hiding if the other part is already guaranteed for you.How easy you are to be found has nothing to do with how easy you can become hidden, they're two different thing. You can hide as easily from a human in a dense fog than a pitch dark room even if the latter will break stealth when illuminated. Or an adjacent corridor where someone can walk up to and see you.


I would grant advantage for complete heavy obscurement where there's no chance of being seen whatsoever, with little effort. Any time you're trying to use objects to hide, there's some chance you screw it up. Maybe a bit of you is sticking out or something you're wearing like a longbow on your back. If you go into an area of thick fog or magical darkness, there's basically zero chance of that. You can focus completely on being quiet. That certainly seems like a circumstance that could reasonably grant advantage on the roll.While you can give whatever bonus or penalties you see fit, as written being not seen is not an advantage to hide, it's a requirement to even try so, giving no particular bonus. You're either not seen clearly and can hide or you're not and thus can't. The check represent how well you succeed or screw it up, this whatever what concealment was used. In a magical darkness you can still screw as well by not making you silent sufficiently enought for exemple.


Yes, you need a hiding place to be able to hide, somewhere where you can be unseen from the vantage of the enemies you're hiding from, but some hiding places are better than others. It's the difference between "I'ma try to squat down and hide behind that crate" and "I'ma go into that area of magical fog that completely conceals everything in it automatically".Some hiding place/method are better than others to not be found as easily, but any hiding place is as good to try to hide i.e being invisible doesn't give bonus to hide, nor is a wild elf in light fog (Lightly obscured) having any penalty to hide like said, a place does or doesn't makes you not seen clearly. If it does you can hide and if it doesn't you cannot hide.

Once you hide there's place far better to remain hidden than others you're right.

[Saggo]

Edit to reply to this part: So, let's say that you want to attack Bob, but he's out of range of your melee weapon. Bob is invisible. Do you automatically get to declare that you move to within range of Bob, or does his invisibility mean you can't make that declaration because you can't see where he is?
Knowing where a target is isn't limited to seeing.


Good angle, but my position is that the RAW is unclear. I am not arguing for anything in specific. I am arguing that RAW are open and require DM adjudication. This is in direct contrast to the multitude of supporters thinking that automatic perception is the RAW way.
No worries, I understood you. I just disagree. I'm arguing RAW can be clear by what isn't required and that Invisibility is extraneous to your position, it's just vision.

Blinded condition doesn't explicitly make you lose track of anyone, friend or foe, and doesn't require a perception check. Invisibility doesn't explicitly make you lose track of anyone and doesn't require a perception check. Turning your back, closing your eyes, or averting your gaze don't explicitly make you lose track of anyone and doesn't require a perception check. They do explicitly impose disadvantage. The very clear implication is that losing vision but having line of sight doesn't prevent you from discerning general location but does make you less accurate.

Therefore,

So if for instance I rule as DM that an invisible foe is noticed only by a PP of DC 10+(1 per 10 feet distance from the beholder) that is not in anyway contrast to RAW. While yes, any DM is free to rule anything, it is critical that we recognize the difference between what is a conflict with RAW and what is not accounted for in the written rules and requires DM adjudication.

Compare that ruling to a DM ruling that longswords now always deal 1d10 damage, because he likes them. Longswords clearly deal 1d8 or 1d10 when wielded with two hands. This ruling would be in direct conflict with RAW.
Continuing with above, a addition to a system is a change to a system, thus a contrast.


You may ask why does it matter? Two Words: Adventurer's League. AL games need to be fair and consistent with RAW as much as possible.
In addition, RAW is also the only consistent thing across all tables, even if the interpretation isn't. Important when on a world-spanning forum.

[Segev]

Does the RAW make sense for Invisibility? Not really. But the important thing to remember is THIS IS A GAME

If Invisibility=hidden it would be too OP and game-breaking. That's why it doesn't.I am willing to grant a lot for game-based abstraction, but when "this is a game" is used to create genuinely nonsensical outcomes and there were rules in earlier editions that did it better, I lose sympathy for that argument.

I get that the "problem" with 3e and earlier is that Invisibility as a power was "just better" than the rogue's ability to hide, but in 3e, at least, it only granted a very high bonus to hiding. A rogue still is better than a wizard, if both are invisible. Lowering the bonus without eliminating it would have been an option. I like the notion that turning invisible grants you Advantage, and might even allow an immediate Hide check (which would solve the issue in another thread where the Warlock invocation winds up being nearly useless since Bob turning invisible without taking a Hide action means that Alice can immediately detect him upon entering the room...but if he takes the Hide action with the Warlock invisibility, he loses the invisibility!).


Not at all. I am saying if you have no cover or obscurement, you will be spotted. Invisibility lets you ignore that requirement. I am saying more the opposite of your suggestion, that invisibility allows the chance to hide, where without it, hiding may be impossible.

Edit: what Contrast describe better than I did.My problem is that Bob and Bill are both equally easy to find, even though Bob is invisible and Bill is not. The rules of the game are meant to abstract the need to say "I look behind the curtain; I look under the table; I look behind the statue; I look at the ceiling; etc." That's all supposed to be part of a Perception check.

Now, a good point was raised that Bob can just take another Hide action. But why is Alice equally able to notice Bill AND Bob, even though Bill in theory should make Bob harder to spot by drawing her attention and providing explanation for any noises she heard under that table?

5e made a nice try at simplifying Invisibility, but I think it just plain missed the mark. (Maybe the mark was invisible and so they had disadvantage on the roll?)


Knowing where a target is isn't limited to seeing.
That's what I thought, but I wanted to be clear.


It does bug me that Warlock William using the Warlock invisible-in-shadows invocation can do so long before Alice and her crew arrive in the barracks mess hall, but when Alice walks in, she automatically not only notices William sitting on one of many hard wooden chairs at the table, but knows which chair he's in well enough that she can fire a crossbow bolt at him and have no chance of having aimed at the wrong chair.

Now, that's partially the fault of the Warlock invisibility invocation for not allowing the Warlock to take a hide action without breaking invisibility. But the fact that an invisible character is noticed and localized automatically is a flaw in the RAW for invisibility.

[Saggo]

It does bug me that Warlock William using the Warlock invisible-in-shadows invocation can do so long before Alice and her crew arrive in the barracks mess hall, but when Alice walks in, she automatically not only notices William sitting on one of many hard wooden chairs at the table, but knows which chair he's in well enough that she can fire a crossbow bolt at him and have no chance of having aimed at the wrong chair.

I think this is where narrative and mechanics get confused. Mechanically, you would be able to perceive the warlock if he wasn't hidden (otherwise that creates a Stealth/Perception contest). You would be able to target the warlock. But if you miss, the narrative could be many things. Could be you guess the wrong chair. Could be you hit his armor. Could be he leaned slightly to the left. Narrative is malleable.

[Segev]

I think this is where narrative and mechanics get confused. Mechanically, you would be able to perceive Alice if she wasn't hidden (otherwise that creates a Stealth/Perception contest). You would be able to target Alice. But if you miss, the narrative could be many things. Could be you guess the wrong chair. Could be you hit her armor. Could be she leaned slightly to the left. Narrative is malleable.

The probabilities involved don't support a narrative of "could be you aimed at the wrong chair." Disadvantage doesn't equate to "picked one of the 9 empty chairs out of the 10 that are there," for example.

Put another way, you have a SHOCKINGLY high chance of aiming at the right chair if you genuinely don't know which one she's in.

Given, however, that if you're not using a crossbow, but a longsword, you can walk up to exactly the right chair in order to make your attack (with Disadvantage), you clearly aren't confused as to which chair is occupied by your invisible target.

[odigity]

The rules of the game are meant to abstract the need to say "I look behind the curtain; I look under the table; I look behind the statue; I look at the ceiling; etc." That's all supposed to be part of a Perception check.

Is it? I get the sense that if you're walking around thinking of place to check, that'd be investigation. I imagine perception limited to using senses from your current position.

Edit: In other words, a Cleric might be better at noticing the Rogue try to hide, or spotting a Rogue that's already hidden (due to high Wis), but the Wizard will be better at finding the hidden Rogue if he suspects there's one and sets their mind to it if they've got some time (due to high Int).

[Segev]

Is it? I get the sense that if you're walking around thinking of place to check, that'd be investigation. I imagine perception limited to using senses from your current position.

I'm honestly not sure, but the distinction here is irrelevant to my point: the die roll, against a DC set by the Hide check, is what is supposed to determine if you look in the right places.

[Saggo]

The probabilities involved don't support a narrative of "could be you aimed at the wrong chair." Disadvantage doesn't equate to "picked one of the 9 empty chairs out of the 10 that are there," for example.

Put another way, you have a SHOCKINGLY high chance of aiming at the right chair if you genuinely don't know which one she's in.

Given, however, that if you're not using a crossbow, but a longsword, you can walk up to exactly the right chair in order to make your attack (with Disadvantage), you clearly aren't confused as to which chair is occupied by your invisible target.

If you're arguing there's a narrative that doesn't fit the mechanics, I don't disagree, it's just not a failing of the rules. For every narrative that doesn't fit, there is one that does. They're literally infinite sets, pick from one that's appropriate.

Both examples you provide also leave out contributing factors, such as hearing breathing or shuffling or seeing tracks leading to a subset of grouped chairs. Factors that influence the probability and are explicitly called out in the book several times.

With a standard 65% chance to hit, disadvantage effectively gives you a 42.25% chance to hit, a significant magnitude of difference. Probability is fairly representative of what's occurring.

[PeteNutButter]

I don't think so taken that these quotes indicate that you make perception check to notice hidden creatures.

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.

What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.

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

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
Invisible doesn't say you need to make perception checks to notice it. It instead says:

Invisible: The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.

As for surprise, you would certainly notice an unseen but heard creature, neither party would be surprised. That says nothing about you being able to pinpoint their exact location without sight, just that neither party would be surprised.

As I previously mentioned, the wording on invisibility only confuses the situation more as the ability to be heard does not at all ensure that one is heard and then pinpoint located.


Knowing where a target is isn't limited to seeing.

No worries, I understood you. I just disagree. I'm arguing RAW can be clear by what isn't required and that Invisibility is extraneous to your position, it's just vision.
Blinded condition doesn't explicitly make you lose track of anyone, friend or foe, and doesn't require a perception check. Invisibility doesn't explicitly make you lose track of anyone and doesn't require a perception check. Turning your back, closing your eyes, or averting your gaze don't explicitly make you lose track of anyone and doesn't require a perception check. They do explicitly impose disadvantage. The very clear implication is that losing vision but having line of sight doesn't prevent you from discerning general location but does make you less accurate.
Therefore,
Continuing with above, a addition to a system is a change to a system, thus a contrast.
In addition, RAW is also the only consistent thing across all tables, even if the interpretation isn't. Important when on a world-spanning forum.

If I hear enemies in an large empty cavern that is pitch black, can I perfectly place my fireball to hit the maximum amount, since in I know exactly where they are? Can I do this without a possibility of failure?

A DM determining rules/DCs for something that is not accounted for in the RAW, is itself RAW.

Page 7 in the phb: "A class feature, a spell, a particular circumstance, or some other effect might give a bonus or penalty to the check. ...The DM is usually the one who determines target numbers and tells players whether their ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws succeed or fail." Emphasis mine.

So then you ask the question, does the DM need to apply a DC to this? On what basis? Also on page 7 phb: "In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game relies on rolls of the 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success of failure."

So if it possible that a man who is hard of hearing and in total darkness has difficulty locating his foes--i.e. the outcome is uncertain--than RAW it requires a check, a check for which the DM is required to determine the DC.

Let's say Legolas the wood elf ranger in your group decides to slide down the trunk of an dying oliphaunt to avoid taking fall damage on its decent. You don't say, "Well the rules don't you can't use your movement speed to do that, so ok." No, you determine the appropriate skill, probably acrobatics, and set an appropriate DC, probably pretty high. You then laugh maniacally as he botches the roll and falls.

The general consensus on these forums seems to be, "Well its gamey and doesn't make a lot of sense, but the rules don't say you have to make a perception check to locate an unseen creature, so everyone is Daredevil." What a preposterous leap in logic! Consider this: Should a character with a high perception, passive or active, have a greater chance of pinpointing the location of an unseen creature?

Whenever there is a reasonable expectation of failure, it is the DM's job to require a check. If you believe that it is nigh-impossible to lose an unseen target in combat than that is your ruling. If you believe it is unlikely but quite possible, then I'd recommend setting a low DC. If you believe it could go either way, then set a reasonable DC. Doing any of these things is very much in line with the RAW.

As for the balance issue, that is something I'd recommend taking into account on your ruling. Be careful not to set the DC too high, so the rogue remains better than an invisible wizard. Don't forget the additional bonuses of actually being hidden, i.e. they are clueless to your location, other than your last known one. While an unseen but heard target could be generally located at all times, but targets may have to guess the location they wish to attack, per pg 194 in the phb.

[Xetheral]

Blinded condition doesn't explicitly make you lose track of anyone, friend or foe, and doesn't require a perception check.

I don't think there is any need for the blinded condition to explicitly state all the practical consequences of being unable to see. Difficulty navigating, difficulty locating objects (and doors), and difficulty on a host of normally-trivial tasks can all be inferred without specific text.

The question then becomes whether the rules intend locating creatures to belong in that same category of tasks implicitly made difficult by being unable to see, or whether that specific task should be treated differently (as the majority of posters conclude).

Personally, I have no problem with adjudicating on a case-by-case basis. When I do ask for a perception check to locate someone unseen-but-not-hidden, the difficulty is always set lower than a middling hide check could achieve. So until the distance or environment become extreme enough that I'd rule there was no chance of locating the unseen target anyway, taking the hide action is going to be advantageous for that target.

[Segev]

If you're arguing there's a narrative that doesn't fit the mechanics, I don't disagree, it's just not a failing of the rules. For every narrative that doesn't fit, there is one that does. They're literally infinite sets, pick from one that's appropriate.

Both examples you provide also leave out contributing factors, such as hearing breathing or shuffling or seeing tracks leading to a subset of grouped chairs. Factors that influence the probability and are explicitly called out in the book several times.

With a standard 65% chance to hit, disadvantage effectively gives you a 42.25% chance to hit, a significant magnitude of difference. Probability is fairly representative of what's occurring.

I'm sorry, but this isn't a corner case. This is a broad failure of this mechanic to model situations that will arise nearly every time the condition it covers comes up.

Like I said, I'm usually willing to grant a mechanic its corner-case failures for the sake of abstraction. This is just too big a failure.

If a computer program fails on the 31st of December at midnight if the user is trying to save its state to a newly-generated directory at that specific time, that's an acceptable corner case failure. It's not good, but it's not something that fails. If a computer program fails every other day of the week when a user tries to save a file that has the letter "b" in the name, that's not an acceptable failure.

[Contrast]

The general consensus on these forums seems to be, "Well its gamey and doesn't make a lot of sense, but the rules don't say you have to make a perception check to locate an unseen creature, so everyone is Daredevil." What a preposterous leap in logic! Consider this: Should a character with a high perception, passive or active, have a greater chance of pinpointing the location of an unseen creature?

Lets run a thought experiment - there is someone who is hiding but has not taken the hide action. They are unseen and unheard. Do you know they are there?

If you answer no then why would anyone ever take the hide action? It does nothing. Now you're free to rule how you want at your table but the rules for hiding are reasonably clear and there isn't anything written into the invisibility rules that says you get any benefits in this regard. The game arguments aren't necesarily trying to convince you that the rules are sensible - they are trying to convince you that the RAW was written intentionally the way it is (which is to say with the need for hiding) for game balance reasons.

[PeteNutButter]

Lets run a thought experiment - there is someone who is hiding but has not taken the hide action. They are unseen and unheard. Do you know they are there?

If you answer no then why would anyone ever take the hide action? It does nothing. Now you're free to rule how you want at your table but the rules for hiding are reasonably clear and there isn't anything written into the invisibility rules that says you get any benefits in this regard. The game arguments aren't necesarily trying to convince you that the rules are sensible - they are trying to convince you that the RAW was written intentionally the way it is (which is to say with the need for hiding) for game balance reasons.

You are misrepresenting my argument.

Hiding can potentially make you unseen and unheard. If you are unseen, such as via invisibility, you are assumed to be heard under reasonable conditions. It is not assumed that your exact location can be pinpointed based on sound alone. That is a matter of how well you are perceived.

There is a clear delineation. One you know they are there, but are unsure of exactly where, the other you do not detect their presence.

Now in so far as the rules not defining that you can't precisely locate what you cannot see, well that is where comes in the rule of whether or not it deserves a check: Is likely to fail? Are you 100% able to locate things while blinded?

[Dalebert]

Its a benefit from a magic item so don't try to find reasoning behind it it's magic!

Okay, but I could say the same thing about granting adv for being invisible. Why? Magic!


How easy you are to be found has nothing to do with how easy you can become hidden, they're two different thing.

Of course it does. If the DM decides that conditions make it easier to hide and grants you advantage, you're much more likely to roll higher and thus impose a more difficult perception check. If something happens that removes your concealment, e.g. a dark room becomes illuminated, invisibility is dispelled, etc., then you're revealed automatically. That has nothing to do with the difficulty of spotting you via perception checks which is based on how well you hid, and adv impacts that.


While you can give whatever bonus or penalties you see fit, as written being not seen is not an advantage to hide, it's a requirement to even try so, giving no particular bonus...

But some situations require effort and you can mess up the unseen part. The example I gave was your longbow is poking out from behind a crate. With magical full concealment (invis, darkness, fog, etc.) the unseen part is AUTOMATIC. You can't screw that part up. You have only being unheard to deal with.


In a magical darkness you can still screw as well by not making you silent sufficiently enought for exemple.

Right, but that's the only part you can screw up. Once again, effort to be BOTH unseen and unheard is the standard. Unseen already being handled effortlessly leaves only half the job to do. Equally, being unheard automatically via Elven Boots handles half the job the other way.


Some hiding place/method are better than others to not be found as easily, but any hiding place is as good to try to hide i.e being invisible doesn't give bonus to hide

You speak that as if it's RAW. It's not. Circumstantial advantage or disadvantage are judgment calls for the DM. The books pointedly don't list every situation because that's not he flavor of 5e which is to leave much up to DM judgment rather than nit-pick for every possible case. I'm simply making the case, with considerable precedent by things like Elven Cloak & Boots, that granting advantage to a hide check when you are magically already unseen or magically unheard (e.g. Silence) is a perfectly reasonably call.

[Plaguescarred]

If I hear enemies in an large empty cavern that is pitch black, can I perfectly place my fireball to hit the maximum amount, since in I know exactly where they are? Can I do this without a possibility of failure?If they aren't hidden yes you should know where they are and you should be able to attack heavily obscured creature with disadvantage or cast a spell that doesn't require you to see target just fine.

Saying you can't target them or that you must first pass a DC is not in the heavily obscured rules.

[Dalebert]

If you are unseen, such as via invisibility, you are assumed to be heard under reasonable conditions. It is not assumed that your exact location can be pinpointed based on sound alone.

Exactly. That's why you have disadvantage on attacks. It's much harder to hit someone when you're primary targeting sense (sight) isn't helping.

In 5e, it comes down to...

Regular attack roll OR
Advantage on teh roll OR
Disadvantage on the roll OR
Just can't attack with that particular attack option (hidden, outside the range, have to see to target with that particular spell, etc.)

This is to keep things simple and keep the game moving. You can add complications all you want as a DM if you want more realism for instance, but you're moving away from the flavor of this edition by doing so.

[PeteNutButter]

If they aren't hidden yes you should know where they are...


Where does it say in the rules that you automatically know the location of foes if they aren't taking the hide action?

Like anything else in the game if there is a reasonable chance at failure given the circumstance a check should be involved.

This debate has become pointless. I keep pointing out that nothing in the rules ensures it is done this way, and people keep pointing out their version of the rules. I know exactly how you rule it, but it is a ruling nonetheless. It is not RAW.

[Demonslayer666]

Nope. Not in my opinion. The conclusion that automatic detection of an invisible creature not hiding is false. It's a fallacy based on the Hide skill being required to go unnoticed. Hide is one way to go unnoticed, but it is not the only way.

In order for something to go unnoticed, it only needs to be hard to detect. That's all. The fly on the wall. The coin on the sidewalk. Shapes in the clouds. Deer in the timber 100 yards away. The nod the bartender gave the assassin in the corner. The patron drinking from an empty cup. Ants. That stain on your shirt.

None of these are hiding. They are simply hard to notice.

The DC for the perception check should be based on the situation and how easy it would be to hear someone.

In the most ideal situation you can pinpoint location. Watch the Mythbusters episode where they shot the guy behind the wall with audio cues only. If you can listen carefully with no other distractions, a guy in boots walking on a wooden floor makes enough noise to easily detect them, as long as they are close. This is where Hide would need to be used in order to go unnoticed.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, if one were to go invisible in the heat of combat on the battlefield, it would be very difficult to pinpoint their location. There are way too many distractions, and way too much noise.

[Segev]

Okay. Let's say there is somebody present in the room, but you, the DM, have determined for whatever reason (perhaps they're invisible) that a person walking in does not automatically notice them.

How do you determine if this newcomer DOES notice them? Do they roll Perception? Use passive Perception? What is the DC they have to beat? How is this determined? Remember, nobody's made a Hide check, so you can't use that.

[Contrast]

You are misrepresenting my argument.

Hiding can potentially make you unseen and unheard. If you are unseen, such as via invisibility, you are assumed to be heard under reasonable conditions. It is not assumed that your exact location can be pinpointed based on sound alone. That is a matter of how well you are perceived.

In a rush so can't respond fully but this deserves a comment - hiding does not make you unseen and unheard. Being unseen and unheard is a prerequisite for hiding.

[Telok]

What about a guy who is blind and deafened? Do people need to take actions to beat his 16 passive perception in order for him not to know where they are?

What about an invisible statue or an invisible golem waiting form people to enter a specific area? They aren't visible and aren't making noise but they don't make hide checks either.

What about an incorporeal creature that's also invisible? It can't interact with the environment to make noise or move stuff, is it hidden or not?

Why should I buy rulebooks if I keep getting "Make something up" as an answer to my questions?

[Vogonjeltz]

You are stating this as a matter of fact, like it is the RAW. That is what I am disputing. While this ruling is a fine ruling in a game, (although I disagree with it) it is a ruling, and not the only way within the scope of RAW to run this.

Well you would be incorrect in your disagreement, because your supposition hinges on it not being written in the rules. However, it is written in the rules: Invisible is a condition per PHB Appendix A: Conditions.

"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."


In a rush so can't respond fully but this deserves a comment - hiding does not make you unseen and unheard. Being unseen and unheard is a prerequisite for hiding.

No, those are not the prerequisites. The thing you're referencing comes from PHB 195, Part 2: Combat

"If you are hidden -both unseen and unheard- when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

Bolded for your convenience.

In point of fact, the only restriction given on 177 is that "You can't hide from a creature that can see you,".

[Saggo]

A DM determining rules/DCs for something that is not accounted for in the RAW, is itself RAW.
I don't think this in particular was called into question.



The general consensus on these forums seems to be, "Well its gamey and doesn't make a lot of sense, but the rules don't say you have to make a perception check to locate an unseen creature, so everyone is Daredevil." What a preposterous leap in logic! Consider this: Should a character with a high perception, passive or active, have a greater chance of pinpointing the location of an unseen creature?
Unnecessary exaggeration, given the existence of features like Blindsight that actively cancel the existing benefits of being invisible or unseen.


Whenever there is a reasonable expectation of failure, it is the DM's job to require a check. If you believe that it is nigh-impossible to lose an unseen target in combat than that is your ruling. If you believe it is unlikely but quite possible, then I'd recommend setting a low DC. If you believe it could go either way, then set a reasonable DC. Doing any of these things is very much in line with the RAW.
There's a distinction between rulings in extraneous situations with unusual circumstances and the standard operating procedures of generic circumstances.

Disadvantage is clearly the penalty for loss of vision, I'm not convinced yet that that's really arguable. Adding another layer of checks as a rule to the existing benefits of reducing your accuracy by nearly a third, hiding without regard to positioning, and fully preventing a significant portion of your spells (all of which add to a general reasonable chance of failure) I'm arguing is a change to the system.


I'm sorry, but this isn't a corner case. This is a broad failure of this mechanic to model situations that will arise nearly every time the condition it covers comes up.

Like I said, I'm usually willing to grant a mechanic its corner-case failures for the sake of abstraction. This is just too big a failure.

If a computer program fails on the 31st of December at midnight if the user is trying to save its state to a newly-generated directory at that specific time, that's an acceptable corner case failure. It's not good, but it's not something that fails. If a computer program fails every other day of the week when a user tries to save a file that has the letter "b" in the name, that's not an acceptable failure.
I'm not sure what you're responding to by bringing up corner cases.

[Xetheral]

Well you would be incorrect in your disagreement, because your supposition hinges on it not being written in the rules. However, it is written in the rules: Invisible is a condition per PHB Appendix A: Conditions.

"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."

To support your claim, the quote would have to read: "The creature's location is detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." The text of the invisible condition only establishes the possibility that an invisible creature's location is detected, not the certainty.

[PeteNutButter]

To support your claim, the quote would have to read: "The creature's location is detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." The text of the invisible condition only establishes the possibility that an invisible creature's location is detected, not the certainty.

^This. I also specifically point this out in the OP.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

What about a guy who is blind and deafened? Do people need to take actions to beat his 16 passive perception in order for him not to know where they are?Do you still need to take actions to be unnoticed? Maybe. Even a blind deaf fellow might notice a plate-clad dwarf plodding by; but this is the definition of a corner case.

Now on the other hand, does Mr. Blind Deaf Person have 16 passive perception? Not when said perception involves sight or sound. Passive checks are still checks, and a blinded deafened creature would automatically fail any check requiring sight or hearing. In other words, any attempt to remain unnoticed is an auto-win, but you have to actually spend the action to try.


What about an invisible statue or an invisible golem waiting form people to enter a specific area? They aren't visible and aren't making noise but they don't make hide checks either.You're telling me a creature that's literally doing nothing else with their actions, standing perfectly still, isn't hiding?


What about an incorporeal creature that's also invisible? It can't interact with the environment to make noise or move stuff, is it hidden or not?I assume you mean a ghost or the like that's specifically on the border ethereal? Otherwise the question doesn't make much sense, because you don't generally notice things on a different plane unless it specifies otherwise. The border ethereal calls on a specific exception that allows you to see things on the other side of the border, which is then countered by invisibility. So technically the ghost isn't hidden, but it isn't noticed either.


Why should I buy rulebooks if I keep getting "Make something up" as an answer to my questions?It might be heresy on these boards, but you might want crunchier rule books, with complete and easily searched online SRDs, with functional stealth rules that allow for various sensible (and some not so sensible) modifiers and the ability to both hide and perform a (standard) action without any fuss.

[Dalebert]

To support your claim, the quote would have to read: "The creature's location is detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." The text of the invisible condition only establishes the possibility that an invisible creature's location is detected, not the certainty.

That wouldn't be accurate. The detection is not automatic. Your perception roll (or passive) has to exceed their stealth roll. Thus their location can be detected just as it says. A successful hide doesn't mean you are now completely silent or that you leave absolutely no tracks. To do so with 100% reliability would require Pass w/o Trace or Silence. It means you're attempting to be quiet and to avoid leaving tracks. Your degree of success depends on your hide check vs. an enemy's perception.

We're going in circles. Yes, there are things other than hiding creatures that may require a successful perception to discover, like tiny ants. But there's already a standard mechanism for finding creatures which are trying to avoid detection. It's the hide vs. stealth opposed check. You CAN decide to make this more complicated but again, it's not fitting with the flavor of 5e which is built around a certain simplicity of mechanics. I already agree that invisibility makes you harder to detect so I grant advantage on the roll for it. Don't want to bother trying to hide? Then you're still hard to detect so creatures attack with disadvantage. Simple.

[Telok]

with functional stealth rules
I think that might be it. If I end up running 5e I'll have to house rule it into submission because this "invisible isn't really invisible" argument is bloody annoying.

Really, the fog spells and darkness start at level 1, invisibility, blindness, deafness and silence all show up at level 3. This stuff is pretty basic and shouldn't be this controversial.

[Plaguescarred]

Where does it say in the rules that you automatically know the location of foes if they aren't taking the hide action?

Like anything else in the game if there is a reasonable chance at failure given the circumstance a check should be involved.

This debate has become pointless. I keep pointing out that nothing in the rules ensures it is done this way, and people keep pointing out their version of the rules. I know exactly how you rule it, but it is a ruling nonetheless. It is not RAW.It's been shown in this thread what makes your location unknown (hiding) and invisibility, while allowing you to hide, doesn't inherently do so, instead saying your location can be detected. You only need to make a perception check to detect hidden creature, not invisible one. You only give away your location upon attacking when hidden, not invisible. You only fail to notice hidden creature to be surprise, not invisible one. And so on....

[Demonslayer666]

Okay. Let's say there is somebody present in the room, but you, the DM, have determined for whatever reason (perhaps they're invisible) that a person walking in does not automatically notice them.

How do you determine if this newcomer DOES notice them? Do they roll Perception? Use passive Perception? What is the DC they have to beat? How is this determined? Remember, nobody's made a Hide check, so you can't use that.

Like always, you determine difficulty by analyzing the situation. You determine difficulty by what is the person doing and what is going on in the room.

You do not need to hide to go unnoticed. Have you ever had to look for your friend in a crowded bar or do you always walk right up to them by automatically detecting them? Do you really think they are using their hide skill against you?

[Segev]

Like always, you determine difficulty by analyzing the situation. You determine difficulty by what is the person doing and what is going on in the room.

You do not need to hide to go unnoticed. Have you ever had to look for your friend in a crowded bar or do you always walk right up to them by automatically detecting them? Do you really think they are using their hide skill against you?

So how do you set such a DC? Bob is sitting at the bar, and while he's not hiding, he's desperately hoping Alice doesn't notice him. What's the DC for Alice to notice he's there?

Though now we're getting to a different shortcoming in 5e. The lack of reasonable guidance as to what constitutes "easy," "medium," and "hard" tasks.

[PeteNutButter]

So how do you set such a DC? Bob is sitting at the bar, and while he's not hiding, he's desperately hoping Alice doesn't notice him. What's the DC for Alice to notice he's there?

Though now we're getting to a different shortcoming in 5e. The lack of reasonable guidance as to what constitutes "easy," "medium," and "hard" tasks.

You are right that its another problem altogether. The whole point of this is that RAW you very might likely need a DC, NOT that you auto-see things.

It's up to the DM how to do it. For unseen things, I'd recommend DC 10+distance mod, +distraction mods. Meaning that anyone in melee would likely be able to locate something invisible right next to them, but it gets challenging from there out.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

While by RAW I am on the side of the auto-detection folks, stealth and noticing things really could use a few house rules. At the very least, even if you're aware of the existence of creatures who aren't attempting to hide, pinpointing a creature you can't see who isn't hiding might call for a rolled hearing-based DC 10 perception check.

Honestly, the true underlying problem is the excessive cost of hiding. If I were re-writing the stealth rules from the ground up I would just modify the act of hiding to more closely resemble 3e's "reduced movement speed" approach, which solves most of the issues people are having. If stealth comes at the cost of mobility instead of actions then it becomes far clearer that anyone not attempting to hide is making their presence obvious.

[Demonslayer666]

So how do you set such a DC? Bob is sitting at the bar, and while he's not hiding, he's desperately hoping Alice doesn't notice him. What's the DC for Alice to notice he's there?
...

The same way you set any DC as a DM. You determine how difficult it would be by defining the situation.

If it is not difficult at all, it's automatic. In a well-lit, small, one-room bar with no other patrons besides Bob, he has no chance of avoiding detection.

If the bar is crazy busy and dimly lit, the DC would depend on how Alice is looking for him. If she quickly glances from the door and then leaves, I would assign a high DC vs. Perception, 16+. There is little chance she will look directly at Bob in that short of time, but her Perception would help spot him.

If time isn't a factor and she methodically searches person to person there doesn't even need to be a DC, since she will eventually look directly at him sitting at the bar. This of course depends on if Bob stays put. :smallsmile:

[Dalebert]

You do not need to hide to go unnoticed. Have you ever had to look for your friend in a crowded bar or do you always walk right up to them by automatically detecting them? Do you really think they are using their hide skill against you?

You're pointing out a very specific fringe case though. Yes, you're right that in that situation you have other criteria by which to set a DC for the difficulty of a perception check, but we're discussing the case of someone desiring to hide and remain hidden. There's already a mechanic--a hide check, and there are already mechanics for adjusting that roll based on the circumstance. We've been through this. If someone were trying to hide in very ideal circumstances for hiding, like a crowded bar, I'd grant them advantage. That's a reasonable DM call. If they're not trying to hide, maybe even trying to peek above the crowd to find someone themselves, I might grant advantage for the searcher against whatever DC I've set for finding someone in a crowded bar of a certain size.


For unseen things, I'd recommend DC 10+distance mod, +distraction mods. Meaning that anyone in melee would likely be able to locate something invisible right next to them, but it gets challenging from there out.

You could use that argument to make range calculations for to-hit more difficult. 5e has instead chosen two different ranges for ranged weapons--the normal one and the distance beyond which you make the attack with disadvantage. I would instead suggest that you apply disadvantage on the perception roll (or -5 to passive) for trying to perceive someone past a certain distance and leave it at that. Again, that's the 5e way that avoids excessive maths. You can also impose a certain range beyond which you simply aren't going to detect someone by sound alone regardless, just as there is a limit to the range of a weapon beyond which you cannot hit regardless. But if they're within that range and they're not hiding, you know they're there. That's okay. You will already have disadvantage on the attack for not being able to see them, i.e. "pinpoint their location".

[Zalabim]

Unless I am missing something (And I hope I am, due to the majority of people who clearly disagree with me), I believe there are three passages in the players handbook which are causing people to draw this conclusion. I've added emphasis on key words.
I saw how you emphasized these and I just wanted to fix it.


The first place to look is Appendix A: Conditions. It reads, (1)"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." Then there's the advantage/disadvantage part.


The second place of note is page 194 on unseen attackers. Notable excerpts: (2)"...disadvantage on the attack roll... whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature that you can hear but not see." and (3)"If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

The third place of note is the box on hiding on page 177. It reads, (4)"An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet."

This lets us draw 3 conclusions RAW that are quite clear:
-An invisible creature is not "hidden" unless they have taken an action to hide.
-Invisible targets (or heavily obscured targets) can be attacked, based on sound, but with disadvantage.
-Attacking while invisible or heavily obscured reveals the attackers location.


Now my point of contention comes in that so many people believe that since an unseen foe can still be heard they are automatically heard and then placed into a specified 5ft square for your convenience to attack them, just with disadvantage. That seems like an incredible leap in logic based on the verbiage of the quoted passages.
I agree that you're making incredible leaps in logic here. You should stop before you hurt yourself. If you attack, your location is automatically given away. That's a rule. If your enemy already knows your location, going to some place they can't see you doesn't automatically hide your location. You have to use the hide action as well to get that. That's just implied by the hide action in combat. If you're invisible and not being quiet, then anyone who can hear you knows where you are. That's the unclear part, since there aren't any rules on how far away you can hear things like there are for visual encounter distance.

People mix up the awareness that PCs have in combat with the awareness that PCs have in exploration constantly. Invisibility rules are trying to describe all its effects, which covers both areas. The current rules for invisibility in combat are just so that greater invisibility doesn't become immunity to nearly all attacks and spells for the duration automatically or cause an extra half a dozen perception checks to be added to every turn when someone casts darkness or fog cloud. It keeps the game running, same as assuming that you don't visually lose track of any of the 15 goblin ambushers, unless they hide as a bonus action.

[Plaguescarred]

This lets us draw 3 conclusions RAW that are quite clear:
-An invisible creature is not "hidden" unless they have taken an action to hide.
-Invisible targets (or heavily obscured targets) can be attacked, based on sound, but with disadvantage.
-Attacking while invisible or heavily obscured reveals the attackers location.
Correction, Attacking while hidden reveals the attackers location. So if being invisible or heavily obscured really concealed your location attacking would not even reveal it as written....


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

[Demonslayer666]

You're pointing out a very specific fringe case though. Yes, you're right that in that situation you have other criteria by which to set a DC for the difficulty of a perception check, but we're discussing the case of someone desiring to hide and remain hidden. There's already a mechanic--a hide check, and there are already mechanics for adjusting that roll based on the circumstance. We've been through this. If someone were trying to hide in very ideal circumstances for hiding, like a crowded bar, I'd grant them advantage. That's a reasonable DM call. If they're not trying to hide, maybe even trying to peek above the crowd to find someone themselves, I might grant advantage for the searcher against whatever DC I've set for finding someone in a crowded bar of a certain size.
...

What fringe case, Bob hoping not to go noticed at the bar? That's not my fringe case, that's Segev's. :smallsmile:

Bob is not hiding. He's sitting at the bar in plain sight. You do not roll hide to sit at the bar.

Not hiding does not mean automatically detected.

In every situation, the DM should determine difficulty.

As DM, If you think noticing someone's location by sound alone on the battle field is easy, then go ahead and make it automatic, and I will laugh at you.

IMO, The only situation where it should be automatic to pinpoint location is when being invisible doesn't help much, like standing in 2' of water, being very noisy in a quiet room, etc.

[Vogonjeltz]

To support your claim, the quote would have to read: "The creature's location is detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." The text of the invisible condition only establishes the possibility that an invisible creature's location is detected, not the certainty.

The Unseen Attackers and Targets rules cover this; if you can hear the target you know its location, the alternative is trying to attack something that you can't see or hear, in which case you don't know its location and have to guess.


I think that might be it. If I end up running 5e I'll have to house rule it into submission because this "invisible isn't really invisible" argument is bloody annoying.

It's not that they aren't invisible, it's that being invisible doesn't negate sounds or remove the impact of the creature on their surroundings. They still splash through water, they still displace grass and leaves, sticks still crack under their feet and the impression of those feet is shown in sand/mud/etcetera.

If they want to hide the evidence of their presence, they have to actually put in some effort.


As DM, If you think noticing someone's location by sound alone on the battle field is easy, then go ahead and make it automatic, and I will laugh at you.

This is easy, it's called situational awareness.

[Plaguescarred]

It's not that they aren't invisible, it's that being invisible doesn't negate sounds or remove the impact of the creature on their surroundings. They still splash through water, they still displace grass and leaves, sticks still crack under their feet and the impression of those feet is shown in sand/mud/etcetera.

If they want to hide the evidence of their presence, they have to actually put in some effort.That's very well said and sums it up nicely !

[Telok]

That's very well said and sums it up nicely !

If you're talking about a character running around invisible (and only invisible) in short range combat. Once you get beyond that it starts breaking down. Especially once more conditions involving hearing and sight impairments are involved.

[Segev]

The reason that it breaks down is because it's saying that it takes an action - to the extent that it breaks One With Shadows - to stop being so obvious that if you're standing on opposite sides of a room from somebody totally visible, you will be noticed exactly as easily as the totally-visible guy.

[Plaguescarred]

If you're talking about a character running around invisible (and only invisible) in short range combat. Once you get beyond that it starts breaking down. Especially once more conditions involving hearing and sight impairments are involved.To conceal your position you need to make an effort to. Hide says you give away your position if you make noise and also that signs of an invisible creature's passage might still be noticed, and thus has to stay quiet. This is exactly what an invisible creature makes a Dexterity (Stealth) check is for. Being invisible doesn't make you hidden, it allows you to try to hide.

[PeteNutButter]

To conceal your position you need to make an effort to. Hide says you give away your position if you make noise and also that signs of an invisible creature's passage might still be noticed, and thus has to stay quiet. This is exactly what an invisible creature makes a Dexterity (Stealth) check is for. Being invisible doesn't make you hidden, it allows you to try to hide.


It's been shown in this thread what makes your location unknown (hiding) and invisibility, while allowing you to hide, doesn't inherently do so, instead saying your location can be detected. You only need to make a perception check to detect hidden creature, not invisible one. You only give away your location upon attacking when hidden, not invisible. You only fail to notice hidden creature to be surprise, not invisible one. And so on....

That wouldn't be accurate. The detection is not automatic. Your perception roll (or passive) has to exceed their stealth roll. Thus their location can be detected just as it says. A successful hide doesn't mean you are now completely silent or that you leave absolutely no tracks. To do so with 100% reliability would require Pass w/o Trace or Silence. It means you're attempting to be quiet and to avoid leaving tracks. Your degree of success depends on your hide check vs. an enemy's perception.

We're going in circles. Yes, there are things other than hiding creatures that may require a successful perception to discover, like tiny ants. But there's already a standard mechanism for finding creatures which are trying to avoid detection. It's the hide vs. stealth opposed check. You CAN decide to make this more complicated but again, it's not fitting with the flavor of 5e which is built around a certain simplicity of mechanics. I already agree that invisibility makes you harder to detect so I grant advantage on the roll for it. Don't want to bother trying to hide? Then you're still hard to detect so creatures attack with disadvantage. Simple.


Not much to add here, I agree with those posters that interpret the RAW to suggest that becoming invisible doesn't automatically mean that people don't know where you are (ugh double negative!). There's a check for that (a dexterity related one), and it's appropriate that it be used to completely hide from opponents. I get the uncomfortableness of it all, but it's almost certainly designed for speed of play over realism.

It's basically the same idea as 4e invisibility, where invisible does not equal hidden. I can practically draw a line from 4e to 5e on this edition's rules for invisibility.


Knowing where a target is isn't limited to seeing.


No worries, I understood you. I just disagree. I'm arguing RAW can be clear by what isn't required and that Invisibility is extraneous to your position, it's just vision.

Blinded condition doesn't explicitly make you lose track of anyone, friend or foe, and doesn't require a perception check. Invisibility doesn't explicitly make you lose track of anyone and doesn't require a perception check. Turning your back, closing your eyes, or averting your gaze don't explicitly make you lose track of anyone and doesn't require a perception check. They do explicitly impose disadvantage. The very clear implication is that losing vision but having line of sight doesn't prevent you from discerning general location but does make you less accurate.

Therefore,

Continuing with above, a addition to a system is a change to a system, thus a contrast.


In addition, RAW is also the only consistent thing across all tables, even if the interpretation isn't. Important when on a world-spanning forum.


You ran the stalker right.

Unless it takes the Hide action (which it cant do on any round it attacks) it can be attacked in return. The PCs have disadvantage on attack rolls (negating Rogue sneak attack), cant make AoO's against it (it can freely move in, attack and then move away) nor can the target it with most spells (most explicitly require 'a target you can see' to work).

But the assumption is the thing swirls enough dust around, or makes enough noise, or leaves an ever so faint a shimmering in the air to enable the party to launch attacks in its general direction or poke at it when it comes close (combat is more or less simultaneous despite the cyclical nature of turn based initiative).

It could Hide (as an action) whenever it wants though. If it had cunning action (or a similar ability to Hide as a bonus action, like the Shadow Demon posseses) it could move in, Attack (as an action) and then Hide (bonus action) and then move again if it desired.

Then your PCs would be in a lot of strife. Barring a lucky guess, they cant attack it at all.


As this seems to be the crux of your argument, I'd say that being invisible is peripheral. You would need to devise a system for guessing a creature's location any time you don't have direct vision on them, because for this argument being invisible is no different than averting your eyes, turning your back, blindness, or any other vision obscuring condition or narrative that occurs when have direct line of sight (the abstract concept, not literal vision).

The game assumes that if you have line of sight to a creature that isn't putting effort in being unheard or covering tracks, which we agree is the action of hiding, then you have knowledge of their general location regardless of vision. How or why is just narrative and narrative is malleable. Extraneous situations that serve the story or narrative are adjudicated by the DM like you say, but they're exceptions to the baseline rule.


1) Your Target is Visible, and they are not Hidden
->You may interact with the target as normal.

2) You Target is Visible, but they are Hidden
-> Step I) Compare your Passive Perception to their Stealth Check. If you beat it, proceed to Bullet "1", else continue to Step II.
-> Step II) Spend an Action Searching.
-> Step III) If your Target Attacks you, Return to Bullet "1"

3) Your Target is Invisible, and they are not Hidden
-> You have Disadvantage on all Ability Checks and Attack Rolls that rely on Sight which involve your Target. (When in doubt, Fireball)

4) Your Target is Invisible, and they are Hidden
-> Step I) Because your Target is "Heavily Obscured", they have Advantage on their Stealth Roll (I think)
-> Step II) Because your Target is "Heavily Obscured", you have Disadvantage on Passive Perception
-> Step III) If your Passive Perception still beats their Stealth Check, proceed to Bullet "3", else continue to Step IV
-> Step IV) Spend an Action Searching, with Disadvantage. (Fireball is looking really optimal right about now)
-> Step V) If your Target Attacks you, Return to Bullet "3"

I think that just about covers it. Maybe it's the years I spent playing Yu-Gi-Oh, where a single word in Japanese completely changes the viability of some cards. (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Nomi) (Crash Course on the link provided. If a "Nomi" Monster dies you cannot bring it back to life because the card itself says it has exactly one way of being summoned. If you summon a Non-Nomi Monster and it dies, you can bring it back to life because you paid the cost the first time.), but I'm used to being able to pick apart rules like this quite easily.

Anyway TC, what I posted above SHOULD be the RAW. The only part I think I could have gotten wrong is having Advantage on Stealth when Heavily Obscured. If you play it a different way that's probably fine. If you're worried about the action economy of Invisible People, well that's why Cunning Action exists.


Letting invisible creature's location be unknown weakens stealth rules and empower being unseen a lot since you normally already have advantage (and others disadvantage) and all it entails to not be seen in order to even try to hide, making your location unknown is about the only real benefit hiding normally grant.


For exemple imagine you're not seen because you're heavily obscured, invisible or enemies are blinded, now;

- you have advantage to attacks

- Attackers have disadvantage against you

- Creatures cannot target you with OAs, spells and abilities that target creatures they can see

- You can try to hide.


If you take an action to make a Stealth check and hide, you still have all the same benefit as above, and on top of that now enemies are unaware you're location.

Removing the need to make a Stealth check and instead grant the benefit as being hidden just remove the pertinence of the hide action in general IMHO.


The conjunction of rules, but primarily what the rules don't say. Targeting for attacks doesn't require vision, only range. Total cover and hiding are nearly the only two ways the rules prevent targeting, both break line of sight. Your can actively target while blinded and you can actively target an unseen target.

It can also be turned around. What rule assumes you can't target someone if they're not hiding and don't have total cover?


I find it truly hilarious how you, and several others, have repeated this same RULING over and over as if it is the fact as the only way RAW. Saying it again and again does make it the only way to follow the rules. My argument is that the rules have a void here and so we step in with logic and DM adjudication (which is also part of the rules as I've pointed out).

The counterargument seems to be... Keep saying the same thing until we all accept it. Please everyone stop repeating HOW you think the rules work. I am fully aware of the common ruling. The point of the thread was to debate if it is the RAW way, or just a common practice. I argue for the latter, and have put forth several reasons why not hiding =/= automatically perceived.

[Xetheral]

The Unseen Attackers and Targets rules cover this; if you can hear the target you know its location, the alternative is trying to attack something that you can't see or hear, in which case you don't know its location and have to guess.

I was objecting to your use of the text of appendix A to support your interpretation (or, more precisely, to support your rejection of another poster's interpretation) of the hiding rules. It is circular to then use your interpretation of the hiding rules to try to support your reading of appendix A.


To conceal your position you need to make an effort to. Hide says you give away your position if you make noise and also that signs of an invisible creature's passage might still be noticed, and thus has to stay quiet. This is exactly what an invisible creature makes a Dexterity (Stealth) check is for. Being invisible doesn't make you hidden, it allows you to try to hide.

I don't think you addressed Telok's point. Instead, you seem to merely have restated your position on the hiding rules.

[Telok]

I don't think you addressed Telok's point. Instead, you seem to merely have restated your position on the hiding rules.

True. Everyone's all about invisibility letting you make dex checks to hide in combat and assuming that it's all humans running around in a quiet room with a dirt floor. That's fine, the rules everyone quotes cover that quite well.

As soon as you leave that scenario it stops working quite so well. Levitation, blindness, deafness, incorporeality, smoke, fog, loud ongoing noises, crowds, inanimate objects, and almost everything but that first close combat scenario is unaddressed.

AD&D and 3.e had this pretty well solved, I can just go back to those rules that could deal with this.

[Segev]

I find it truly hilarious how you, and several others, have repeated this same RULING over and over as if it is the fact as the only way RAW. Saying it again and again does make it the only way to follow the rules. My argument is that the rules have a void here and so we step in with logic and DM adjudication (which is also part of the rules as I've pointed out).

The counterargument seems to be... Keep saying the same thing until we all accept it. Please everyone stop repeating HOW you think the rules work. I am fully aware of the common ruling. The point of the thread was to debate if it is the RAW way, or just a common practice. I argue for the latter, and have put forth several reasons why not hiding =/= automatically perceived.

I've yet to see anything that contradicts this ruling other than "Well, that doesn't make sense. Clearly they mean you should roll against some DC that is never provided."

If you want to discuss whether something is what the RAW say or not, and you are trying to argue "not," provide some text that supports your view. I honestly would love it if it didn't take a DM pulling numbers out of thin air and having to make an arbitrary call to determine if you should auto-notice something or not. I'd love even a suggestion that that might be the case, since we don't have rules for determining if you have to beat a certain DC to notice somebody standing in a room without hiding.

[Plaguescarred]

I don't think you addressed Telok's point. Instead, you seem to merely have restated your position on the hiding rules.I adddressed it with the rules we have since there's no range at which an not hidden creature's location is not detected anymore that i can find.

[Xetheral]

I adddressed it with the rules we have since there's no range at which an not hidden creature's location is not detected anymore that i can find.

You addressed it with your interpretation of the rules, an interpretation that is highly contested. Since we know what your interpretation is, providing it yet again isn't convincing.

Furthermore, are you really arguing that every character is aware of the location of every non-hidden creature on the entire plane of existence? Surely there is a range beyond which you would agree that is ridiculous?

[PeteNutButter]

I've yet to see anything that contradicts this ruling...

That's my entire point. It's a ruling either way. It requires a ruling. I'm not in anyway saying that this common ruling is invalid RAW, just that it is a ruling, and there are other ways to run it well within RAW.


...other than "Well, that doesn't make sense. Clearly they mean you should roll against some DC that is never provided."

When there is an absence of RAW you typically have only a few things you can fall back on, rules as intended (RAI), rules as makes sense (RAMS), and rules as balance (RAB).

My arguments put forth in the OP, and later suggested solutions are in line with all 3 in my opinion. For example the passage under the invisible condition how it mentions it can be detected, does not say it will be. It merely makes the distinction that it an invisible creature is invisible but not inaudible.

RAMS there are lots of situations where it would be unlikely to pinpoint a foe's location to a 5ft area (otherwise you'd be guessing their location which has RAW).

RAI seems a bit unclear, but it is odd that under blinded condition there is no mention of being still fully aware of the foes around you and being able to locate them. I believe because it states, you "cannot see" that there are a plethora of things that are impaired by that which don't all have game rules spelled out for you. For instance it would be much more difficult to climb a cliff, etc, but there is no mention of it giving disadvantage to athletics checks.

RAB as long as the arbitrary DC is lower significantly lower than what a hide check would be likely to achieve than it is balanced. Plus it pretty much requires Greater Invisibility (a level 4 spell) or darkness+Devil's Sight to operate.

As for them not providing DCs... welcome to 5e. Practically all perception DCs are DM fiat, unless they are a contested roll. In fact all skill check DCs are DM fiat.


If you want to discuss whether something is what the RAW say or not, and you are trying to argue "not," provide some text that supports your view. I honestly would love it if it didn't take a DM pulling numbers out of thin air and having to make an arbitrary call to determine if you should auto-notice something or not. I'd love even a suggestion that that might be the case, since we don't have rules for determining if you have to beat a certain DC to notice somebody standing in a room without hiding.

I provide several counterarguments in the original post, as well as some more in later replies.

Many people would love it if there were more set numbers in 5e, but that is not the design philosophy of this edition. It is rulings not rules, so that the DM has to make up DCs on his own. I suggested before something along the lines of a passive perception DC 10 + a distance mod + or - other sound mods - obvious signs of passage.

Finally I am more than suggesting that you don't automatically notice someone based on this:


Page 7 in the phb: "A class feature, a spell, a particular circumstance, or some other effect might give a bonus or penalty to the check. ...The DM is usually the one who determines target numbers and tells players whether their ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws succeed or fail." Emphasis mine.

So then you ask the question, does the DM need to apply a DC to this? On what basis? Also on page 7 phb: "In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game relies on rolls of the 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success of failure."

So if it possible that a man who is hard of hearing and in total darkness has difficulty locating his foes--i.e. the outcome is uncertain--than RAW it requires a check, a check for which the DM is required to determine the DC.

Let's say Legolas the wood elf ranger in your group decides to slide down the trunk of an dying oliphaunt to avoid taking fall damage on its decent. You don't say, "Well the rules don't you can't use your movement speed to do that, so ok." No, you determine the appropriate skill, probably acrobatics, and set an appropriate DC, probably pretty high. You then laugh maniacally as he botches the roll and falls.

Whenever there is a reasonable expectation of failure, it is the DM's job to require a check. If you believe that it is nigh-impossible to lose an unseen target in combat than that is your ruling. If you believe it is unlikely but quite possible, then I'd recommend setting a low DC. If you believe it could go either way, then set a reasonable DC. Doing any of these things is very much in line with the RAW.

[Plaguescarred]

You addressed it with your interpretation of the rules, an interpretation that is highly contested. Since we know what your interpretation is, providing it yet again isn't convincing.

Furthermore, are you really arguing that every character is aware of the location of every non-hidden creature on the entire plane of existence? Surely there is a range beyond which you would agree that is ridiculous?The citation i've evoked are not my interpretations but the rules. Surprise and Noticing a Threat for exemple cite a check to notice a hidden creature, not an invisible one, this is not my interpretation, but what's written. On the other hand you interpret that you somehow need to also be detected while invisible but did not provide rule citation supporting it as clearly as it does for an hidden creature within the same circumstances.


You not aware of creature outside the encounter or that would be ridiculous i agree.:smallsmile:

[Xetheral]

The citation i've evoked are not my interpretations but the rules. Surprise and Noticing a Threat for exemple cite a check to notice a hidden creature, not an invisible one, this is not my interpretation, but what's written. On the other hand you interpret that you somehow need to also be detected while invisible but did not provide rule citation supporting it as clearly as it does for an hidden creature within the same circumstances.

Even if your reading of the rules was the only interpretation, it would still be an interpretation, by definition. The moment you try to explain what the rules mean, you're engaging in interpretation.

In this case, your interpretation is evidently not the only interpretation, which is, after all, the entire point of this thread. When you simply repeat your interpretation, you're of course not going to convince the people who disagree with that interpretation. When you repeat it repeatedly, you aren't being persuasive, you're simply frustrating the people trying to have a discussion with you. When you insist that when you personally engage in textual interpretation the result is somehow not "[your] interpretation" but is instead "the rules", you imply that your opinion about what the rules mean is somehow more valuable or more important than the opinion of those who disagree with you.

I for one find that hurtful. No matter how much you disagree with me about what the rules mean, please don't denigrate my right to disagree with you as an equal, even implicitly.


You not aware of creature outside the encounter or that would be ridiculous i agree.:smallsmile:

Does it matter the range of the encounter? Encounters beginning at long range for a bow can start with combatants up to 600 feet apart. I think it's quite ridiculous to assume that one can track the location of invisible creatures from 600 feet away. Do you?

And how about outside of an encounter? At what range does it become ridiculous then?

You're willing to apply a "that's ridiculous" threshold at the range of the encounter boundary, despite no rules text supporting that particular boundary. How is that any different than those of us who would choose a different boundary despite no rules text supporting our choice of boundary?

[Segev]

I'm sorry, Xetheral, but by quoting rules citations, Plaguescarred has provided more evidence for his interpretation than you have for yours. Trying to fall back on "it's just an interpretation" reduces the ability to communicate to naught, as it renders all rules meaningless, since the implication is that, since "it's just an interpretation," it is some how no more valid than an "interpretation" that has so far been unsupported by any rules citations.

I'm begging all who say that the RAW allow for a means of declaring that Bob the Invisible But Not Hiding is less easily pinpointed (i.e., harder to know is there and point to the right square to walk up adjacent to to make melee attacks at) than Bill the Visible And Also Not Hiding. I'm begging all of you to please, please provide a rules citation which supports that claim. Because that claim makes sense, but so far, seems unsupported by the RAW. Whereas the contrary "interpretation" - that Bob is, in fact, just as automatically noticed and located as Bill - seems supported by rules citations from the text of the RAW.



You're willing to apply a "that's ridiculous" threshold at the range of the encounter boundary, despite no rules text supporting that particular boundary. How is that any different than those of us who would choose a different boundary despite no rules text supporting our choice of boundary?
What is your alternate boundary? "Not in the encounter" is a valid, rules-supported threshold. If you can seriously argue that Bob is "not in the encounter," I'd be interested in seeing how. That is the burden you must prove, however, if you're going to use this line of reasoning.

[Xetheral]

I'm sorry, Xetheral, but by quoting rules citations, Plaguescarred has provided more evidence for his interpretation than you have for yours. Trying to fall back on "it's just an interpretation" reduces the ability to communicate to naught, as it renders all rules meaningless, since the implication is that, since "it's just an interpretation," it is some how no more valid than an "interpretation" that has so far been unsupported by any rules citations.

You're welcome to find his argument more convincing! That's fine. I'm not trying in any way to dismiss his interpretation as "merely an interpretation". I'm objecting to him elevating his opinion about what the rules mean above that of the opinion of any other poster when he claims that his opinion somehow isn't an interpretation at all, but is instead somehow "correct".

But just because I find it hurtful when he does so doesn't mean I think that all interpretations are equally strong. Knowing that you and other posters whom I respect find his arguments (which I also respect) more persuasive is valuable information to me. But despite the fact that I remain unconvinced by his arguments, I believe I've done a good job of treating them with the same respect with which I treat my own. I don't feel his most recent post extends the same courtesy to me.


I'm begging all who say that the RAW allow for a means of declaring that Bob the Invisible But Not Hiding is less easily pinpointed (i.e., harder to know is there and point to the right square to walk up adjacent to to make melee attacks at) than Bill the Visible And Also Not Hiding. I'm begging all of you to please, please provide a rules citation which supports that claim. Because that claim makes sense, but so far, seems unsupported by the RAW. Whereas the contrary "interpretation" - that Bob is, in fact, just as automatically noticed and located as Bill - seems supported by rules citations from the text of the RAW.

The citations you're looking for are the same citations used by the other side. There is no disagreement of which I am aware regarding which rules apply. Instead, the disagreement is over what those same rules mean, and what implications from those rules are warranted.


What is your alternate boundary? "Not in the encounter" is a valid, rules-supported threshold. If you can seriously argue that Bob is "not in the encounter," I'd be interested in seeing how. That is the burden you must prove, however, if you're going to use this line of reasoning.

I'm not aware of any rule saying (or even implying) that creatures within an encounter and outside of an encounter are treated any differently with regards to noticing their location. The closest is the rule that mentions (paraphrasing) that creatures in combat are aware and alert. But that only covers combat encounters. And so I stand by my claim that any boundary is equally-well supported by the rules.

If you're asking where I personally set the boundary, at my table it depends on environmental conditions and the particular circumstance. If I think a nonhidden creature's location (or even presence) is either definitely noticed or definitely not noticed, I simply rule as such. If I think there is uncertainty, I call for a wisdom (perception) check against a fixed DC.

[Segev]

I suppose the "boundary" argument simply isn't helpful to me because it doesn't resolve invisible/not invisible detection and location. Anywhere you set the boundary - from "there isn't one" to "the square you occupy" - you can place equally Bob and Bill within it, and still run into the problem I have with the RAW.

Can you please try to elaborate further on how you interpret the citations provided such that you can find room for a DM to arbitrarily decide that Bob is actually harder to detect and locate than Bill?

[Xetheral]

Can you please try to elaborate further on how you interpret the citations provided such that you can find room for a DM to arbitrarily decide that Bob is actually harder to detect and locate than Bill?

I'm happy to try to elaborate on how and why I interpret the rules as I do, but I'm not looking to debate them in detail. I joined this particular iteration of the hiding discussion to point out where I believed Vogonjeltz was misinterpreting the text of the invisibility rules, and ended up in a meta-debate with Plaguescarred over whether or not repeating his interpretation of the rules has any persuasive value. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that my perspective below is superior. That said, you've requested I elaborate, so I will:

From the invisibility rules in the appendix, we know that an invisible creature's location "can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves". I interpret the word "can" as establishing the possibility that an invisible creature's locations will be detected regardless of hiding, whereas Plaguescarred and others interpret the word "can" as establishing the certainty that invisible creature's locations will be detected unless they successfully hide. To explain why I consider my interpretation superior, consider the following statement by way of analogy:

"The autumn leaves can be seen by looking through my window."

This statement is true. However, it's truth does not mean that you will see the autumn leaves. For one thing, you don't know where my window is, so looking through it would be very challenging. :smallsmile: Similarly, just because a particular invisible creature makes noise and leaves tracks doesn't mean that every other creature will either hear that noise or see those tracks. Second, if you looked through my window right now, you wouldn't see the autumn leaves even though they can be seen from my window, because it's dark out. Similarly, just because an invisible creature might make noise or leave tracks, doesn't mean that all invisible creatures do make noise or leave tracks.

Therefore I believe that "can" in the analogy is better seen as establishing a possibility rather than a certainty, I believe similarly in the rules for invisibility.

Now, successfully hiding is certainly one way to prevent others from hearing any noises you make or seeing any tracks you leave (this is analogous to me not telling you where my window is). However, the rules for invisibility do not state that hiding is the only way. Indeed, the rules in the same appendix for being blinded and deafened suggest another such way that the noises made might go unheard and the tracks left might go unseen.

Furthermore, the rules for invisibility themselves imply that if you somehow don't make noise and don't leave tracks, then your location won't be detected (this is analogous to trying to see the autumn leaves through my window when it's dark, or me boarding up my window). An invisible creature flying in a zone of silence would meet these requirements, suggesting that it's location would not be detected, even if it didn't take an action to hide.

So in the invisibility rules there is no explicit statement that hiding is the only way for a creature's location to be undetected. Instead, there is implicit evidence to the contrary (blinded/deafened or flying/silenced, as described above). That's enough to convince me that hiding is not the only way for a creature's location to be undetected. If there were an explicit statement elsewhere in the rules that hiding was the only way, that would trump my analysis here. But there is no such explicit statement.

One counter-argument is that the lack of other explicitly-mentioned ways for a creature's location to go undetected implies that no such methods exist. Particularly in 5e where lots goes unmentioned (see, e.g., attribute checks), I think the implication is very weak, and insufficient to overcome my analysis above.

There are other counter-arguments as well, but an exhaustive analysis of them is beyond the scope of this post. Segev, if there is a specific counter-argument you would like me to reply to in order to better understand my position, let me know and I'll do so.

Everyone else, please note that I am well aware that others disagree with me. :smallsmile: As I stated at the beginning of this post, I'm responding to Segev's specific request that I elaborate. I not trying to convince anyone else, and so I have no intention of further defending my viewpoint. It is simply one among many on a very divisive issue.

[Ashdate]

I think the issue I have to many of these interpretations (such as Xetheral's) is that there are rules for being hidden and invisible, and it's clear from the RAW that you can be hidden but not invisible, or invisible but not hidden. There are no rules for dealing with the case that is being presented, that a character is invisible and not hidden, yet exists in a state where other characters don't know where they are. It's being described as being hidden without actually being hidden.

(And none of this "what if they're behind a door or in another city?" nonsense. We are clearly talking about a creature that is in line-of-sight that would be seen under normal means were it not for the invisibility.)

From a RAW adjudication of the hiding and invisibility rules, I have rules for hiding. I have rules for how one detects a creature that is hiding. I have rules for attacking an invisible creature whose location you know. I have rules for how an invisible creature can become hidden.

I don't have rules for detecting an invisible creature that is not hiding. You can certainly create such rules, but in the absence of them I think what the RAW is saying (consistent with how it worked in 4e) is that you gain a number of powerful benefits by being invisible, but one of those benefits isn't automatically becoming hidden. There's a hide action if you want other characters to not know where you are, per RAW.

And to Xetheral's point, there are a large number of situations we could come up with where someone could be unseen and unheard but by RAW, not actually hidden. Heck, per RAW a creature that is in a zone of silence with improved invisibility cast on the who missed an attack against a normal human that is both blind and deaf *gives away their location* to the blind and deaf man. I don't think the suggestion is that the RAW is immaculate.

I think what the suggestion is (which is certainly my suggestion) is that the 5e rules had to make a number of sacrifices in flavour for gameplay purposes. And yes, the rules strongly suggest that DMs work incongruities in the rules out themselves to reflect the nuance of a situation rather than having a strict tome with multiple tables, bonuses and penalties to adjudicate every situation.

This is a case however, where without going into the nuance, we've got a plain reading of how to become hidden, and how invisibility can help you become hidden. If you want to nitpick at wording (interpreting "can be detected" in multiple ways for example) fill your boots, but that cuts both ways. Instead I (as per above) look towards how the rules actually adjudicate hidden and invisibility. And while the RAW can easily support the concept that you can be invisible but not hidden, the rules do not at face value support a means of becoming invisible but not hidden, but actually for all-intensive purposes-hidden.

[PeteNutButter]

I'm happy to try to elaborate on how and why I interpret the rules as I do, but I'm not looking to debate them in detail. I joined this particular iteration of the hiding discussion to point out where I believed Vogonjeltz was misinterpreting the text of the invisibility rules, and ended up in a meta-debate with Plaguescarred over whether or not repeating his interpretation of the rules has any persuasive value. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that my perspective below is superior. That said, you've requested I elaborate, so I will:

From the invisibility rules in the appendix, we know that an invisible creature's location "can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves". I interpret the word "can" as establishing the possibility that an invisible creature's locations will be detected regardless of hiding, whereas Plaguescarred and others interpret the word "can" as establishing the certainty that invisible creature's locations will be detected unless they successfully hide. To explain why I consider my interpretation superior, consider the following statement by way of analogy:

"The autumn leaves can be seen by looking through my window."

This statement is true. However, it's truth does not mean that you will see the autumn leaves. For one thing, you don't know where my window is, so looking through it would be very challenging. :smallsmile: Similarly, just because a particular invisible creature makes noise and leaves tracks doesn't mean that every other creature will either hear that noise or see those tracks. Second, if you looked through my window right now, you wouldn't see the autumn leaves even though they can be seen from my window, because it's dark out. Similarly, just because an invisible creature might make noise or leave tracks, doesn't mean that all invisible creatures do make noise or leave tracks.

Therefore I believe that "can" in the analogy is better seen as establishing a possibility rather than a certainty, I believe similarly in the rules for invisibility.

Now, successfully hiding is certainly one way to prevent others from hearing any noises you make or seeing any tracks you leave (this is analogous to me not telling you where my window is). However, the rules for invisibility do not state that hiding is the only way. Indeed, the rules in the same appendix for being blinded and deafened suggest another such way that the noises made might go unheard and the tracks left might go unseen.

Furthermore, the rules for invisibility themselves imply that if you somehow don't make noise and don't leave tracks, then your location won't be detected (this is analogous to trying to see the autumn leaves through my window when it's dark, or me boarding up my window). An invisible creature flying in a zone of silence would meet these requirements, suggesting that it's location would not be detected, even if it didn't take an action to hide.

So in the invisibility rules there is no explicit statement that hiding is the only way for a creature's location to be undetected. Instead, there is implicit evidence to the contrary (blinded/deafened or flying/silenced, as described above). That's enough to convince me that hiding is not the only way for a creature's location to be undetected. If there were an explicit statement elsewhere in the rules that hiding was the only way, that would trump my analysis here. But there is no such explicit statement.

One counter-argument is that the lack of other explicitly-mentioned ways for a creature's location to go undetected implies that no such methods exist. Particularly in 5e where lots goes unmentioned (see, e.g., attribute checks), I think the implication is very weak, and insufficient to overcome my analysis above.

There are other counter-arguments as well, but an exhaustive analysis of them is beyond the scope of this post. Segev, if there is a specific counter-argument you would like me to reply to in order to better understand my position, let me know and I'll do so.

Everyone else, please note that I am well aware that others disagree with me. :smallsmile: As I stated at the beginning of this post, I'm responding to Segev's specific request that I elaborate. I not trying to convince anyone else, and so I have no intention of further defending my viewpoint. It is simply one among many on a very divisive issue.

+1 To this.

It boils down to multiple interpretations. If you think that your way is the only way (either side), there is not enough evidence to support that. It is ultimately a ruling.

[Segev]

Hm. Where I have issue with your interpretation, Xetheral (and thanks for elaborating on it) is that, if it is dark outside, the statement "autumn leaves can be seen by looking out my window" is actually false. They cannot be. They can be seen by looking out your window and performing another action (such as turning on a light that shines on said leaves).

That said, I find your comments on "not leaving footprints" et al to be useful, because you're right. "Can be...by their tracks" means that we have a list of things that can be used.

Which actually gives us: the difficulty to identify the location of the Invisible person is the difficulty of spotting their tracks or other signs of passage.

Still not great, but this is part of my broader complaints with 5e's skill system's lack of guidance as to how difficult given actions are, rather than a specific problem with invisibility.

So thanks! :smallbiggrin:

[Plaguescarred]

First sorry if you feel i denigrate your opinion or your right to disagree Xetheral i have not been insulting you or anything and if i came across as iritating to you let me apoligise as it's not my intention. The reason i repeat the same argument is because i base them off the same rules here and there and thus keep going back to them.



Does it matter the range of the encounter? Encounters beginning at long range for a bow can start with combatants up to 600 feet apart. I think it's quite ridiculous to assume that one can track the location of invisible creatures from 600 feet away. Do you?If you ask me if it matters rule-wise? No. The rules on surprise do not have a different outcome if the invisible enemy is within 30 feet or 600 feet.

If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. CHECK no one is.

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. CHECK no one is

Result is if no one is hidden they automatically notice each other. In orther to be hidden, which an invisible creature can try being treated as heavily obscured for the prupose of it, it would need to specifically use the Hide action and make a stealth check.

Wether i think it's ridiculous or not is irrevelant with what the rules says but yes i do.

[Demonslayer666]

...
This is easy, it's called situational awareness.

It's called your Perception skill. No matter what you label it, it doesn't make it easy to accomplish.


I adddressed it with the rules we have since there's no range at which an not hidden creature's location is not detected anymore that i can find.

Encounter Distance is listed on the DM screen. Not very official as rules go since it's not in the DMG. When all else fails, you should use real world logic. Distance alone can hide you. Size alone can hide you. Chaos can hide you.


...
If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. CHECK no one is.
...

I love to point out the obvious: that's for visible targets that are not hiding. It does not address targets you cannot see that are not hiding (night, blind, under water, behind a wall). They covered some general steps for combat under normal conditions, and did not cover every situation. That's why there is a DM.

[Plaguescarred]

I love to point out the obvious: that's for visible targets that are not hiding. It does not address targets you cannot see that are not hiding (night, blind, under water, behind a wall). They covered some general steps for combat under normal conditions, and did not cover every situation. That's why there is a DM.Its not for visible targets, its for anyone who's otherwise not hidden, as explained in the passage that follows where the DM contest the check to determine if noticed.

Surprise: 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

[MeeposFire]

So how do the rules cover for situations where it is not possible for one to perceive the other but yet is not using te hide skill.

A blind man Jim in a space suit walks up to a 30 foot long room. Bob is floating in the room (invisible sure not that it matters in this case) and the room is a vacuum. Bob is not using the hide skill though he is standing in the middle of the room not doing anything to attract attention.

How does Jim know that Bob is there. The rules seem to say Jim knows because Bob is not hiding but Bob cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt by Jim so how does Jim knows he is there?


Now the example is being highly specific because I want to eliminate the excuses of "there is dust on the ground" or "he can hear you breathing". If this example holds true that Jim does not know that Bob is there then this argument is arguing the wrong thing in that it is possible to not know where somebody is without using the hide skill but it requires specific circumstances (which do not come up often but can come up) and so the argument should be what kind of circumstances causes this to happen. IN other words the DM would decide when the hide skill is not needed and what that entails in that particular situation.

On the other hand if you say that Jim knows Bob is in the room only because Jim did not use the hide action then I think I am going to have to say that you will have to defend how that is possible and why we should think that is a good rule.

[Vogonjeltz]

If you're talking about a character running around invisible (and only invisible) in short range combat. Once you get beyond that it starts breaking down. Especially once more conditions involving hearing and sight impairments are involved.

What are you saying exactly?


The reason that it breaks down is because it's saying that it takes an action - to the extent that it breaks One With Shadows - to stop being so obvious that if you're standing on opposite sides of a room from somebody totally visible, you will be noticed exactly as easily as the totally-visible guy.

On the bright side, if your opponent has darkvision, for example, they could already see you, but now you're harder to hit being Invisible.


I was objecting to your use of the text of appendix A to support your interpretation (or, more precisely, to support your rejection of another poster's interpretation) of the hiding rules. It is circular to then use your interpretation of the hiding rules to try to support your reading of appendix A.

I used the cition of the Invisible condition to point out that it doesn't negate the rules for detection by sound made or visible signs of by allowing them to continue to exist (i.e. through 'can be'). So it's more like this:

1) The combat rules already dictate that non-hidden creatures are automatically noticed.
2) Being hidden means being unseen and unheard; and the rules on hiding state that making any noise reveals the character.
3) Invisible does not remove the necessity to obscure sounds or signs of passage, only provides the conditions under which a character can always attempt to hide.
4) It follows that creatures remain automatically detected as they are not also negating the visible signs of passage and the sound emitted.

That's not circular reasoning.


Furthermore, are you really arguing that every character is aware of the location of every non-hidden creature on the entire plane of existence? Surely there is a range beyond which you would agree that is ridiculous?

That would be within the range of detection based on method, which is an entirely separate argument to be made, but presumably depends on the circumstances involved. With no attempt made to hide ones existence an invisible creature would be detectable at basically the same ranges as any other creatures.


Does it matter the range of the encounter? Encounters beginning at long range for a bow can start with combatants up to 600 feet apart. I think it's quite ridiculous to assume that one can track the location of invisible creatures from 600 feet away. Do you?

And how about outside of an encounter? At what range does it become ridiculous then?

You're willing to apply a "that's ridiculous" threshold at the range of the encounter boundary, despite no rules text supporting that particular boundary. How is that any different than those of us who would choose a different boundary despite no rules text supporting our choice of boundary?

The rules on determining encounter distance are in the DMG. It's dependent on a variety of factors in the environment.


From the invisibility rules in the appendix, we know that an invisible creature's location "can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves". I interpret the word "can" as establishing the possibility that an invisible creature's locations will be detected regardless of hiding, whereas Plaguescarred and others interpret the word "can" as establishing the certainty that invisible creature's locations will be detected unless they successfully hide. To explain why I consider my interpretation superior, consider the following statement by way of analogy:

Plaguescarred is just taking the next logical step.

Premises:
A) Non-hidden creatures are detected by sight and sound
B) Invisible negates sight, but not sound or sight of signs of passage

Conclusion:
C) Invisible non-hidden creatures are detected by sound and signs of passage.

Invisible makes it easy to hide, it doesn't make it automatic.

[Plaguescarred]

The rules on determining encounter distance are in the DMG. It's dependent on a variety of factors in the environment.



Plaguescarred is just taking the next logical step.

Premises:
A) Non-hidden creatures are detected by sight and sound
B) Invisible negates sight, but not sound or sight of signs of passage

Conclusion:
C) Invisible non-hidden creatures are detected by sound and signs of passage.

Invisible makes it easy to hide, it doesn't make it automatic.The DMG Cover are just guidelines to randomly select the distance between creatures encountering and has nothing to do with wether one notice the other.

I agree with this conclusion indeed and Hiding goes in the same direction when saying it still has to stay quiet.

Most of the scenario coming up that would justify the concealment of an invisible creature's location by an effort made to do so (not moving or making noise etc) could be just as explained by taking the Hide action.


Hiding: An invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I believe the argument being made what that invisibility could grant advantage where it allowed the person to not have to concentrate both on not making noise AND not being seen but only on not making noise, making the task of remaining stealthy easier (i.e. a person hiding in a bush has to make sure their sword scabbard isn't sticking out and being careful not to snap any twigs, an invisible person just has to concentrate on not snapping any twigs making the task easier). Seems like a DM would have to assess on a case by case basis but I'd buy it. Its easier to freeze in place and hold your breath standing in a room than it is to do the same cramped in an awkard position under a table.

As I said, treating Invisibility as active camo makes the most sense to me.



Say theres a chest high wall. Two people duck down behind it, one invisible, one not, and proceed to hide.

Situation A
Villain walks into the room and passes his perception, he hears two people behind the wall. Both are no longer hidden.

Situation B
Villain walks into the room and fails his perception check but his route happens to lead him around the other side of the wall anyway. He instantly sees the non-invisible person and they are no longer hidden. However the invisible person is still hidden.


Edit - Ninjad



Because its maaaaaaaagic :smalltongue:


B: No. He only sees them if he SEES them. Which means he succeeds his perception check.Hidden is a condition. It remains, until changed. It is right there, in the rules.


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.

PAGE 177. Player's Handbook.



It keeps the game running, same as assuming that you don't visually lose track of any of the 15 goblin ambushers, unless they hide as a bonus action.

This. IRL, there is no chance of you keeping an eye on the actions of 15 attackers. The human brain can't do it. In in the Real world, it is not an Infantry Lieutenant's job to fight, it is to keep tract of what is going on and provide direction. It is the Same with any NCO above the level of squad leader, really. The idea that a rogue could not make a "hide check" and "disappear" in the heat of battle is crazy. In game this is represented by a faint, and then a hide check.

It is hard enough to keep track of your own men, let alone the bad guys. Lots of guys have died in war because someone on the other side decided to be sneaky in the middle of a firefight.

[DivisibleByZero]

The rules for stealth are intentionally vague. Intentionally, as in, purposefully, as in, there aren't strict rules about it.
The rules are intentionally vague so that DMs can make sensible rulings on the fly based on individual situations and circumstances.
Mearls has expressly stated this to be so.

The wording for invisibility, as in "can be detected" expresses the possibility that exists, it does not mean that detection is automatic.
JC has expressly stated this to be so.

Bottom line:
Stealth/hiding/invisibility/perception/investigation pertaining to anyone attempting to be stealthy (whether actually hiding or not) is entirely the purview of the DM.
Those are the rules.
The rules are: Make Rulings, Not Rules.

[Plaguescarred]

The wording for invisibility, as in "can be detected" expresses the possibility that exists, it does not mean that detection is automatic.
JC has expressly stated this to be so. Its very surprising that it would be without giving a check or difficulty to do so when the rules always usually do. If it did conceal your location attacking would not reveal it being not hidden since the rules only says its revealed when attacking while hidden!! Weird isn't it?

JC also expressed that Hiding was the by-the-book way to conceal your location when specifically asked about this very question. Funny that he didn't mention invisible as one.

Why would invisible or hiding would say that an invisible creature can always try to hide if his location was concealed sinc eits about the only benefit hiding confer over it?


This Sage Advice also shows again that you must take the Hide action to hide, even when invisible;

If I’m invisible and I shoot an arrow at a target, is hiding again an action? Without a special ability, hiding in combat requires the Hide action.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

The rules for stealth are intentionally vague. Intentionally, as in, purposefully, as in, there aren't strict rules about it.
The rules are intentionally vague so that DMs can make sensible rulings on the fly based on individual situations and circumstances.
Mearls has expressly stated this to be so.

The wording for invisibility, as in "can be detected" expresses the possibility that exists, it does not mean that detection is automatic.
JC has expressly stated this to be so.

Bottom line:
Stealth/hiding/invisibility/perception/investigation pertaining to anyone attempting to be stealthy (whether actually hiding or not) is entirely the purview of the DM.
Those are the rules.
The rules are: Make Rulings, Not Rules.

Even in 3.0/3.5 invisible creatures were not hidden.

They just had a +40 modifier.

[Segev]

Even in 3.0/3.5 invisible creatures were not hidden.

They just had a +40 modifier.

That modifier applied to a blanket DC to spot something. In 3.5, spotting was never "automatic." It could have a DC of 0, but you technically had to roll if you didn't have a bonus that made it automatic. And distance made spot harder.

That +40 turns a 0 into a 40, making it much less likely that Bob will be spotted by Jim.

[Breashios]

Ok, I’m just gonna try to walk through what I’ve learned here: (I’m encouraging clear correction of any point I have gotten wrong)

0) Since Hidden is not a condition, I will refer to it as a status.
1) By RAW, anything that is not specified in the rules is mine as DM to determine.
2) It does not directly say in the rules that a character cannot be hidden if he did not hide. (Taking the Hide action is the only clear way a character can do so aside from using magic or due to a special ability and it is also clearly implied to be the only way based on all the other rules that have been discussed in this thread.)
3) Invisibility does not grant the Hidden status.

Situation: A character did not take the hide action. He is invisible, standing still and remaining silent at the center of the room. He is under a Pass without Trace spell active before he entered the room. There is no wind in the room and the character does not need to breathe. An enemy walks in. Common sense would say the character is just as hidden as a character that took the hide action. By RAW, however, it would seem the enemy would automatically know he is standing at the center of the room, even though as DM I see no difference.

As DM I will refer to point 1 and state that the status of Hidden applies to the character. This is a DM ruling based on the circumstances at this moment and not a rule or ruling on a rule. It is simply doing what a DM does. If I want to give advantage on this particular hide roll, I can do so. This is a ruling as PeteNutButter has somewhat set out in his OP, though it will not set a precedent or modify RAW. It is within RAW to do so.

After this it just becomes a matter of degrees. At what point of changed circumstances do I not give advantage to the roll to hide? At what point, do I as DM decide, an invisible character is no longer hidden during an encounter? The default would still be the apparent rule that invisible is not hidden until the hide action. If a loud noise fills the combat area do invisible flying characters and enemies become hidden automatically until someone throws a bag of flour into the air? I believe the DM can apply whatever condition or status they want based on the story. In this case 30 feet is not necessarily the same as 600 feet, by RAW, because, by RAW the DM can apply a status as he sees fit to match the specific circumstances in play. (It is a separate matter, whether that DM can maintain a harmonious table when a player feels slighted by the application of status in various circumstances over time. I would recommend doing so sparingly.)

To summarize: What DivisibleByZero said, “Make Rulings, Not Rules.” And to answer the OP, I feel the DM should make rulings in obvious cases where logic conflicts with mechanics, but on the whole, after reviewing every considered argument in this post, I do feel it has been clearly demonstrated that there are RAW for the standard combat situation and they are clear that “normally” being invisible does not give hidden without a special ability or the hide action.

The good news is RAW allows for the DM to give out the Hidden status to a character when appropriate without breaking anything. When Bob and Bill are hiding under a table the DM is free to give Bob advantage (for two layers of heavily obscured; invisible and table). IF they still both roll the same net result, it could indicate that Bob is making more noise, though invisible while Bill is quiet and using the shadows under the table well.

[CursedRhubarb]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/786980481652756480

For those who can't click the link, Crawford states:

"In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic."

(Didn't see this in this invisible thread so thought I'd toss it in)

[Segev]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/786980481652756480

For those who can't click the link, Crawford states:

"In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic."

(Didn't see this in this invisible thread so thought I'd toss it in)

For once, his ruling actually seems in line with the RAW and doesn't look like it has any obvious points of contradiction with prior rulings he's made. I will happily accept that idea.

[Demonslayer666]

Its not for visible targets, its for anyone who's otherwise not hidden, as explained in the passage that follows where the DM contest the check to determine if noticed.

Surprise: 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

Stealth is not the only way to go unnoticed. You can be inside a castle. Your opponent could be blind. It's nighttime. There's fog.

You need to widen your scope. It is much too narrow to think that "not hiding" includes all situations and gives people Daredevil abilities to auto-detect combatants.

These are general rules for general combat using sight - the primary sense used to detect combatants. It included the skill used to thwart sight. That does not mean there are no other combat situations.

[DivisibleByZero]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/786980481652756480

For those who can't click the link, Crawford states:

"In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic."

(Didn't see this in this invisible thread so thought I'd toss it in)

I referenced it earlier, but I was at work and didn't link it at the time.
Thanks for linking my tweet for me.
:smallwink:

[Plaguescarred]

Stealth is not the only way to go unnoticed. You can be inside a castle. Your opponent could be blind. It's nighttime. There's fog.

You need to widen your scope. It is much too narrow to think that "not hiding" includes all situations and gives people Daredevil abilities to auto-detect combatants.

These are general rules for general combat using sight - the primary sense used to detect combatants. It included the skill used to thwart sight. That does not mean there are no other combat situations.I believe you confuse untonice with unseen. Being behund full cover, heavily obscured by obscurity or in a dense fog or in front of blind creature doesn't necessarily mean they won't notice you, just that they can't see you. We know that not being seen is not automatic hide but rather requirement to try to.

[Plaguescarred]

IMO Invisibility having the possibility to conceal your location is inconsistent since it doesn't provide a check or difficulty to achieve it (most game element do), is not said to reveal your position when attacking (hidden does) and does not extend to other ways to be not seen (such as heavily obscred or vs blinded).

If its not the by-the-book way to conceal your location as per JC (he said Hide was) then we could say Invisible is the by-the-twitter way to conceal your location :smallsmile:

[Sitri]

After about a 17 page discussion on this on Echolocation for All (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454895-Echolocation-for-All) I summed up the arguments for both sides.


Summary of RAW only arguments as I understand them from post 400 and something.


Arguments that pinpointing invisible/dark creatures is not automatic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critic: The book is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critic: There was a writing/editing error.

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

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

Critic: No response yet.

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

Unseen Attackers and Targets pt2
When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



I took a lot of this above and built a twitter account to question Crawford. The seven word limit on each post twitter made it hard to have any real discussion, so I started typing out my questions. with textual references, in Word and taking pictures of it to post. He avoided directly answering my questions about the first 4 or so times, but kind of talked about stuff that was a little related to what I was directly asking. Then when I compared his replies to some of his other replies and text, trying to get some continuity, he stopped replying to me all together. Once or twice I chimed in with something like "Can you please answer this?" after a few weeks, but never got a response. I finally gave up.

Taking all this into consideration, I believe it is a few people's desire to have Invisibility be irrational and weak for the sake of speed and simplicity, but that was not the desire or intent of many people who put ink to the page when writing the core books.

[Zalabim]

Taking all this into consideration, I believe it is a few people's desire to have Invisibility be irrational and weak for the sake of speed and simplicity, but that was not the desire or intent of many people who put ink to the page when writing the core books.
Crawford probably stopped responding because there's better things to do with one's time than argue with someone with an obvious agenda who's looking for proof that you've slipped up.

As for people thinking the designers chose speed and simplicity, they probably got that idea from reading the fast, simple rules in the book and listening to interviews with the designers about how they went with simple rules that could be adjudicated quickly by a DM instead of comprehensive rules that try to cover every possible situation.

[Plaguescarred]

Unseen Attackers and Targets pt 3
If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when
you make an attack, you give away your location when
the attack hits or misses.If invisible conceal your location, it doesn't provide any check or difficulty to detect you, and attacking doesn't give away your location not being hidden. Wouldn't that be too powerful?!

Why would only being invisible conceal your location and not while unseen in other ways such as heavily obscured or vs blinded?

[Sitri]

If invisible conceal your location, it doesn't provide any check or difficulty to detect you, and attacking doesn't give away your location not being hidden. Wouldn't that be too powerful?!

Why would only being invisible conceal your location and not while unseen in other ways such as heavily obscured or vs blinded?

I am not sure I follow your first paragraph. I firmly believe there can always be circumstances that could give away your location or provide a chance to give away your location; attacking being an obvious one. It is just my contention that you invalidate a lot of the book, as well as abilities, verisimilitude, and legacy understandings of the effect, if pinpointing an unseen creature's position is a default ability for everything. Having it not be the default position just requires you to ignore twitter and don't ignore the types of sounds the book says gives away a location when you are considering "any" sounds your character makes.

I wouldn't argue your second paragraph either. It has been a while since I looked at the wording on heavily obscured, but I know I would not assume a blind creature owns a HUD for everyone else on the battlefield.

Either way, I barely play anymore so my interest in the matter has waned severely. I just added the summary of the other thread as a potential aid for people going through this one. I didn't read all this thread, but from what I did, I noticed some echo chamber assertions I have read in past. When I am reading something so contentious, I would much rather see information referenced and concisely argued if possible.

[Plaguescarred]

I am not sure I follow your first paragraph. I firmly believe there can always be circumstances that could give away your location or provide a chance to give away your location; attacking being an obvious one. It is just my contention that you invalidate a lot of the book, as well as abilities, verisimilitude, and legacy understandings of the effect, if pinpointing an unseen creature's position is a default ability for everything. Having it not be the default position just requires you to ignore twitter and don't ignore the types of sounds the book says gives away a location when you are considering "any" sounds your character makes. What i was saying is if being invisile meant to say that the creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any
tracks it leaves as a possibility and not an automatism, it doesn't provide a DC or check whatsoever to do so, when normally a mechanic with an uncertainity does. And if it did, attacking would not give away your location since the only rule addressing that specifically mention being hidden and not invisible.


Unseen Attacker & Target: If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.



I didn't read all this thread, but from what I did, I noticed some echo chamber assertions I have read in past. When I am reading something so contentious, I would much rather see information referenced and concisely argued if possible.If you read the entire thread you will see multiple rules reference.

[PeteNutButter]

What i was saying is if being invisible meant to say that the creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves as a possibility and not an automatism, it doesn't provide a DC or check whatsoever to do so, when normally a mechanic with an uncertainity does.

It's 5e. In order to do a proper perception DC for invisible foes, or anything else it'd require a chart with various modifiers to apply to both sides. There is no single DC, one size fits all that would make any sense, so it's up to the DM to determine it... like every other skill check in 5e.

So instead of giving you that chart with DC mods(it'd be against the religion of 5e) they just said if you're invisible you can be detected by sound and tracks, and make the DM figure it out.

The tweets clearly show that is the RAI.

[Aembrosia]

Premise of thread: "But seriously why does everyone think [that] is how it works RAW?"

[that] Invisible things can be pinpointed to a 5ft square.

5 pages of literally not a single person supporting that point of view in this thread or the linked thread.

How is this dumpster fire still burning

[PeteNutButter]

Premise of thread: "But seriously why does everyone think [that] is how it works RAW?"

[that] Invisible things can be pinpointed to a 5ft square.

5 pages of literally not a single person supporting that point of view in this thread or the linked thread.

How is this dumpster fire still burning

I think the majority of people on this thread were arguing for just that... ?

At any rate the fire rages on...

[Plaguescarred]

It's 5e. In order to do a proper perception DC for invisible foes, or anything else it'd require a chart with various modifiers to apply to both sides. There is no single DC, one size fits all that would make any sense, so it's up to the DM to determine it... like every other skill check in 5e.

So instead of giving you that chart with DC mods(it'd be against the religion of 5e) they just said if you're invisible you can be detected by sound and tracks, and make the DM figure it out.

The tweets clearly show that is the RAI.When an ability have some uncertainity it gives a way to resolve it if you look throughout the game, be it a check, DC or other roll of some sort. Invisible's concealment, if was a possibility, is giving no guidelines, which would be very odd. We can say the same thing of hiding, that the creature's location can be detected but we'd know how to do so. We don't say it of invisible (or visible) creatures, because its taken for granted and automatic. They instead can be detected and it tells you how it happens (by noise it makes and tracks it leaves. If an invisible (or visible) creature don't want to be detected this way it has to take the hide action and make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when unseen.

RAI? The same guy said Hiding was the by-the-book way to conceal your location so not sure what can be considered intended anymore, but RAI is irrelevant here anyway, since we're discussing what the rules actually says despite that...

[Sitri]

Crawford probably stopped responding because there's better things to do with one's time than argue with someone with an obvious agenda who's looking for proof that you've slipped up.

As for people thinking the designers chose speed and simplicity, they probably got that idea from reading the fast, simple rules in the book and listening to interviews with the designers about how they went with simple rules that could be adjudicated quickly by a DM instead of comprehensive rules that try to cover every possible situation.

I was going to try and not get sucked back into this, I avoided it the last time I read it. Will save failed this time around.

I really can't think of much better things a person can do with one's time than come to a realization they have been wrong. Rarely will you see much more clear cut mental growth. I admit, I don't typically admit to being wrong easily, but when incontrovertible evidence is in my face, I take a little pride in saying "I am now a better person; my former way of thinking was wrong."

[Vogonjeltz]

That modifier applied to a blanket DC to spot something. In 3.5, spotting was never "automatic." It could have a DC of 0, but you technically had to roll if you didn't have a bonus that made it automatic. And distance made spot harder.

That +40 turns a 0 into a 40, making it much less likely that Bob will be spotted by Jim.

If that were actually true, then the big difference between 5th and 3.5 would be that noticing things is automatic.


standing still and remaining silent at the center of the room.

You can stop right there, that's descriptive of the hide action.




For those who can't click the link, Crawford states:

"In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic."

(Didn't see this in this invisible thread so thought I'd toss it in)

Yes, Invisibility does not prevent the automatic noticing of the creature by the normal means.

i.e. Invisibility does not prevent auditory detection, or detection by sense of smell.

Pointing to that tweet is not evidence, in any way, that creatures who are not hiding are not automatically noticed.


The tweets clearly show that is the RAI.

No, the tweet clearly shows that the rule for Invisibility doesn't contradict the basic rules which state that creatures are automatically noticed when they aren't hiding.

Crawford rightly notes, the possibility remains to detect the creature by sound or visual signs of its presence.

[Xetheral]

Pointing to that tweet is not evidence, in any way, that creatures who are not hiding are not automatically noticed.

Why isn't that evidence? The tweet explicitly says that invisible creatures are not automatically detected.

[DivisibleByZero]

Pointing to that tweet is not evidence, in any way, that creatures who are not hiding are not automatically noticed.

No, the tweet clearly shows that the rule for Invisibility doesn't contradict the basic rules which state that creatures are automatically noticed when they aren't hiding.

Why isn't that evidence? The tweet explicitly says that invisible creatures are not automatically detected.

I know, right?
I purposefully asked the question in a way which would likely make him give an explicit answer.
He did exactly that.
And somehow, even though he specifically says, and I quote, "It isn't automatic, " somehow some people still think that it is. And then they even go so far as to state that the tweet isn't evidence, when that's literally the only thing that it is.

[Warpiglet]

Stop thinking of things in 5' squares; they're an abstraction for the tabletop.

If you're not making any effort to be silent and mask your location (footprints in the carpet or grass, robes swooshing on the floor and disturbing dust, the creaking of leather and jangling of equipment etc) then the assumption is that people near you know your approximate location with sufficient accuracy to be able to fire an arrow at you, or advance to where you are swinging like mad with a chance to hit you (attack roll at disadvantage).

They dont know where you are with sufficient precision to make an AoO against you, or to cast many (most) spells against you.

If you are making an effort to be silent and mask your location, you use the Stealth skill (this is explicitly what the skill does), opposed by any and every potential observers passive perception scores, via the Hide action. If you succeed on your check, then barring them making a lucky guess as to where you are, they cant attack you at all, and may not even be aware of your presence.

There may be extreme outliers that warrant DM intervention around this general rule, but the rule is perfectly fine as it stands for the majority of situations.

I always struggle to see why so many people still have difficulty with this one.

First, this description of invisibility clarified things for me. It is the most concise explanation of invisibility simply allowing one to hide in plain sight.
Second, the reason for confusion is that the new rules differ starkly with earlier editions. Hundreds upon hundreds of hours playing one way are hard to reprogram. People are biased to the point of not seeing what they read at times. I too found these methods counterintuitive. It will take a while for it to truly sink in.

[Ashdate]

First, this description of invisibility clarified things for me. It is the most concise explanation of invisibility simply allowing one to hide in plain sight.
Second, the reason for confusion is that the new rules differ starkly with earlier editions. Hundreds upon hundreds of hours playing one way are hard to reprogram. People are biased to the point of not seeing what they read at times. I too found these methods counterintuitive. It will take a while for it to truly sink in.

As I've said here before, the 5e invisibility rules (by RAW) are basically the 4e invisibility rules, which work similarly. The reason for confusion is (like the 4e rules) it's not intuitive. It's good gameplay mind you! Just not intuitive.

My advice to RAI/table rule, would it come up, is different, but simple: by default, players can roughly track (i.e. Attack with disadvantage etc.) a creature that is invisible, but not hidden. If there are circumstances where it wouldn't make sense that a creature could track the movement of an invisible one (I.e. the creature is in a zone of silence, flying, and the whole room smells like garlic) then have the newly invisible creature make a dex (stealth) check as a free action. Then proceed as normal.

(And for the love of Bahamut, if you're a DM and your players walk into a room with an invisible monster, save everyone a rules discussion and just have the monster have made a dex (stealth) check preemptively.)

[Sitri]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/786980481652756480

For those who can't click the link, Crawford states:

"In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic."

(Didn't see this in this invisible thread so thought I'd toss it in)


I know, right?
I purposefully asked the question in a way which would likely make him give an explicit answer.
He did exactly that.
And somehow, even though he specifically says, and I quote, "It isn't automatic, " somehow some people still think that it is. And then they even go so far as to state that the tweet isn't evidence, when that's literally the only thing that it is.

Maybe I should have read this whole thread. I spent hours trying to get him to admit this before. Good on you.