Invisibility shenanigans! (Not a rule discussion)

[Grimjudgment]

So I just started to consider the actually overpowered nature of the normal 2nd level spell invisibility for any player/character that's extremely clever.

So, as everyone knows, invisibility ends when either the concentration ends, the hour is up, or if you attack or spellcast. What if I told you that you could use invisibility to sway an entire combat without ever needing to drop the invisibility?

Now you may ask, "how will you do that, idiot? Everyone relies on spells and attacks!"

Except for ya boi, the bard.
Inspiration and cutting words are not spells, so you can use them every turn, so that's your bonus action for a few turns.

But now, let's get into the actions that are pretty good.

1. So, if you have the healer feat, you can run across combat and heal as you buff, allowing you to go undamaged.

2. The help action is considered a non combat, non attack action, and according to sage advice, your familiar can even do this, if you have one.
Give your frontline troops advantage, bud.

3. Laying caltrops, oil, hunting traps, and marbles do not count as attack actions. Bonus if you cast magic mouth on all of the marbles or caltrops to scream when stepped on before the combat ever begins.

4. Well, you can always move objects in an urban environment or dungeon. In a tavern during a brawl? Somebody using the table as cover? Pull the table Infront of your mages or archers so they have quarter cover and your enemies don't!

5. Pickpocket enemies mid combat, you should have advantage due to them being distracted. Steal a dude's back up dagger and his potions, your front line guy can then disarm the enemy and absolutely cripple their combat capability.

6. Is there anything flammable? Drop a torch on it.

7. Why not take the time to just confuse your enemies by slamming door and windows shut? If you're a bard with the actor feat, you best bet that I'm going to be running around, yelling in the voices of my enemies if I heard them speak.


So I'll put it on record to say that the bard is the most obnoxious guest at the sausage fest.

Of course, if your DM hates creativity, they'll immediately find excuses to screw your ideas up. Although, if your DM doesn't like creativity, why are they in the position that requires the mosr creativity and planning?


Anyone got any cheesier ideas?

Note: This is not a rules discussion, this an ideas discussion.

[Matticusrex]

https://olddungeonmaster.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/dd-5e-stealth-and-hiding/

Being invisible does not make you hidden. Most of that stuff will get you killed very fast.

[Grimjudgment]

https://olddungeonmaster.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/dd-5e-stealth-and-hiding/

Being invisible does not make you hidden. Most of that stuff will get you killed very fast.

The page actually backs up the theory that many of these will not break hidden status due to the fact that the character cannot in fact, be seen. Although, assuming that doing things such as inspiration, yelling and using the help action actually break your hidden nature, your enemies still can't opportunity attack you and they have disadvantage anyways, so assuming you're running a bard with 14 Dex wearing stuffed leather, it's much more unlikely to be hit anyway, since if you cannot see an enemy, you have disadvantage.

"If you move to a location where your opponent can see you, or if your opponent moves into a position where he can see you, or if the object or creature that was providing your total cover moves or is no longer providing cover for some reason, if you make a noise, or do anything that could give away your position, the creature you are hiding from can make another Wisdom (Perception) check to attempt to detect you."

This is the only quote I see that says anything about object interaction. Last I checked though, you yourself already get to be considered invisible, which is pretty much equivalent to being heavily obscured and they'd still be highly unlikely to find you, especially if your initial stealth roll was obscurely high anyways, such as in the case of having an expertise in stealth and a decent Dex score, since bards usually fill the rogue role anyways.


Of course, I'm going to tank you for actually providing that document because now it's another piece to read, scrutinize, and critique.

"Be a good DM and have the players describe what their characters are doing. If it makes logical sense, go for it. Don’t let the players use the rules to turn “hide” into a magical condition."

In the case of invisibility, it kind of is at this point. That one gave me a laugh.

[BiPolar]

As has been discussed before, and search forum rules on sneak and invisibility, in 5e being invisible doesn't completely "cover your tracks". Enemies know exactly where you are if you don't take the hide action and can target you, but do so at disadvantage.

In addition, even if you took the hide action, something like cunning words would still give away your position. You just spoke ;)

[DivisibleByZero]

As has been discussed before, and search forum rules on sneak and invisibility, in 5e being invisible doesn't completely "cover your tracks". Enemies know exactly where you are if you don't take the hide action and can target you, but do so at disadvantage.

No they do not. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/786980481652756480)
This is a common misconception.

calebrus44 @calebrus44
Invis: loc can be determined by... Does that mean that it automatically is, or that it's possible in some circumstances?
Jeremy Crawford Retweeted calebrus44
In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic.

It is possible that they might be able to figure out where you are. It is not automatically so. You "can be detected" does not mean you "are automatically detected."
Invisibility works exactly like you would expect it to, and not like many people would argue that it does.

[MrStabby]

I don't see this as any better than any other trade of offensive power for resilience.

Help action? Less good than just making an attack - sure the enemy will not target you, so that is equivalent to just being sufficiently low impact and high armour that they will target someone else.

Moving tables for cover? A better use of an action maybe but still not something you need to be invisible for. Again it just means that people are attacking your friends instead of you whilst this happens.

If you want to have more limited impact whilst remaining safe you can just keep running back round corners and letting your team-mates take all the hits. It doesn't even need a spell.

I am not sure that there is any activity that is a better use of your action than casting a spell or making at attack most of the time. Some edge cases like slipping through enemies to get to the Big Lever or something - but i would see this as a normal use of the spell.

Invisability is a great condition as it gives you advantage on attack rolls. If you don't make attack rolls then there is much less use to it. Disadvantage on being attacked is less good if enemies have other people to attack instead.

If a player wanted to play this concept in one of my games I wouldn't stop them. It is not a powerful use of one of the slots in the party.

[MrStabby]

As has been discussed before, and search forum rules on sneak and invisibility, in 5e being invisible doesn't completely "cover your tracks". Enemies know exactly where you are if you don't take the hide action and can target you, but do so at disadvantage.

In addition, even if you took the hide action, something like cunning words would still give away your position. You just spoke ;)

The don't automatically know where you are any more than they would know where a non-invisible person is. They have to be looking in your direction and you need to not be obscured by other objects I believe.

[DivisibleByZero]

The don't automatically know where you are any more than they would know where a non-invisible person is. They have to be looking in your direction and you need to not be obscured by other objects I believe.

Once again, incorrect. Read above.

You are invisible.
You may be tracked by scent. It isn't automatic.
You may be tracked by your sound. It isn't automatic.
You may be tracked the sound of your footsteps. It isn't automatic.
You may be tracked by your potentially visible footprints. It isn't automatic.

If I'm invisible, even if you're looking directly at me, you might not know I'm there.
This falls under DM purview/fiat, just like every single other thing about stealth (as invisibility is a magical "stealth-light" without the check).

[Malifice]

Once again, incorrect. Read above.

You are invisible.
You may be tracked by scent. It isn't automatic.
You may be tracked by your sound. It isn't automatic.
You may be tracked the sound of your footsteps. It isn't automatic.
You may be tracked by your potentially visible footprints. It isn't automatic.

If I'm invisible, even if you're looking directly at me, you might not know I'm there.
This falls under DM purview/fiat, just like every single other thing about stealth (as invisibility is a magical "stealth-light" without the check).

Exactly you may be detected while invisible.

Depending on the outcome of your stealth check obtained via taking the hide action after you become invisible.

[RickAllison]

Things I have used invisibility for: Stealing goods and coin from market vendors. Considering you can easily get an hour of it at 3rd-level, when small sums of money are still useful, you can get quite the revenue.

[DivisibleByZero]

Exactly you may be detected while invisible.

Depending on the outcome of your stealth check obtained via taking the hide action after you become invisible.

Hide action is not a factor.
If I am standing right in front of you, invisible, and not moving, you do not know I am there. No hide check needed.
You may be able to locate me if the situation warrants it, but even if I do not Hide, you do not automatically know where I am. That's what some people claim. And that's what JC says is wrong.

JC: In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic.
We weren't discussing Hide. We were discussing Invisibility.

[Grimjudgment]

I don't see this as any better than any other trade of offensive power for resilience.

If a player wanted to play this concept in one of my games I wouldn't stop them. It is not a powerful use of one of the slots in the party.

This is actually the point of it all.
It's not meant to be overpowered, it's just shenanigans that allows the bard to theoretically be useful in a combat encounter if you somehow get into a situation where the party's resources are drained and still need to fight. It's not that much different in effectiveness than a bard that spends their time fighting enemies when there's other things that you're technically better at, and using the invisibility to the fullest capability before eventually having to drop it.


As has been discussed before, and search forum rules on sneak and invisibility, in 5e being invisible doesn't completely "cover your tracks". Enemies know exactly where you are if you don't take the hide action and can target you, but do so at disadvantage.

In addition, even if you try the hide action, something like cunning words would still give away your position. You just spoke ;)

Well, cunning words is a reaction. It ain't that difficult to spend a reaction then use the hide action on your turn. So let's say it goes like this turn order

Enemy -> Bard ->Enemy

Enemy attacks ally, cutting words them, your turn comes around, hide. Speaking does not break invisibility, thus still making use of the theme of invisibility shenanigans.

[Dr.Samurai]

It should be pointed out though that many of the things in the OP would probably warrant detection (dragging a table, dropping caltrops or traps, using Cunning Words, etc).

[Grimjudgment]

It should be pointed out though that many of the things in the OP would probably warrant detection (dragging a table, dropping caltrops or traps, using Cunning Words, etc).

It would warrant a *check* specifically, but not detection itself. The only one that should reveal you would be using cutting words. Although again, the point of this isn't supposed to be a super minmax invisible Terminator. It's literally just to disrupt the enemy's flow of combat and realistically, it can throw your DM off a bit, fiddling around with the dynamic environment that very few people interact with from the start.

[Dr.Samurai]

It would warrant a *check* specifically, but not detection itself.
Right.

The only one that should reveal you would be using cutting words.
It says sound or tracks. I think moving things around the battlefield or dropping caltrops around is in the spirit of that. Even using Aid Another, depending on how it's described, could warrant a check.

Although again, the point of this isn't supposed to be a super minmax invisible Terminator. It's literally just to disrupt the enemy's flow of combat and realistically, it can throw your DM off a bit, fiddling around with the dynamic environment that very few people interact with from the start.
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the premise in the OP. It's just not yes/no in the conversation about detection. Yes, it isn't automatic, but no, you're not being stealthy in some of the examples given.

[NNescio]

Anyone got any cheesier ideas?

An invisible Illusionist using Malleable Illusions in conjunction with a Major Image 6 (which becomes permanent and doesn't require concentration) or Creation (cast the day before). Unlike the Bard tricks, all of these make no sound whatsoever (other than the Creation object being dropped, but you can always palm it off to another teammate instead).

Later on they get to combine Illusory Reality with this. At Wizard 18 they also can pick Invisibility for their Spell Mastery pick to effectively become invisible all the time while they're awake. Possibly dip Rogue 2 for Expertise to Stealth and Cunning Action too if the DM is the sort who let passive perception auto-detect invisible creatures.

And if the Illusionist has a simulacrum? Well, he can pull off all the same tricks too.

--

Clerics can also use Turn Undead (and other Channel Divinities) without breaking invisibility, and Invisibility is good for casters in general to let them achieve Surprise especially against enemy Counterspellers (can't counterspell an invisible target unless you can see him via other senses.)

Other than that, well, the exact reading of Invisibility can also be used for some shenanigans similar to Sanctuary, like using a breath weapon (technically neither an attack nor casting a spell) while Invisible, or to cast Invisibility on an allied caster who's concentrating on a repeating action/bonus action spell that doesn't rely on attacks like Sunbeam or Call Lightning (also neither an attack nor casting a spell; the actual spell has already been cast before. Same interpretation that lets a Wildshaped Druid continue Calling down lightning bolts).

Just be aware that Invisibility still breaks if you grapple (or shove) a target, similar to Sanctuary, as grappling (and shoving) is still considered an attack despite using an ability check instead of an attack roll.


When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a Special melee attack, a grapple.


Using the Attack action, you can make a Special melee attack to shove a creature...

Of course, this isn't really supposed to work by RAI (Crawford sort of made this clear), and the DM can abuse this tactic in a far more dangerous manner by plopping Sanctuary and Invisibility on an actual Dragon (using dragon cultists or similar as casters). Or heaven forbid, a Beholder (using beholder cultists).

[solidork]

Invisibility + Spirit Guardians

[Grimjudgment]

Right.

It says sound or tracks. I think moving things around the battlefield or dropping caltrops around is in the spirit of that. Even using Aid Another, depending on how it's described, could warrant a check.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the premise in the OP. It's just not yes/no in the conversation about detection. Yes, it isn't automatic, but no, you're not being stealthy in some of the examples given.

Well, caltrops and the such aren't necessarily tracks in the sense that I believe the rules meant. I think that they meant that if there was flower on the ground, you'd leave footprints. Caltrops are easily tossed into the ground from any generic location and in a sense, do not become visible until after they leave your possession, so if you essentially throw the caltrops and use cover to ensure that you are not seen throwing said caltrops, therefore, they'd still be hard pressed to pass a perception check.

Moving objects works in a similar way, although, if you carry an object, does it not technically just turn invisible because due to it being on your person? That means that you can pickup and toss objects around if need be.

Also, remember that being prone can allow you to crawl behind a humanoid enemy wearing shoes and tie their laces together, or grabbing their foot or taking off their shoe. (Thus, distraction for help action.)

[Grimjudgment]

Invisibility + Spirit Guardians

At first I was going to tell you that both are concentration spells, but then I remembered invisibility isn't only a self target ability.

You sir, are a genius.

[DivisibleByZero]

At first I was going to tell you that both are concentration spells, but then I remembered invisibility isn't only a self target ability.

You sir, are a genius.

I would argue that the spirits from Spirit Guardians are not creatures, but rather a spell effect (as they can't be attacked, have no HP/Saves/AC, etc), and are therefor not valid targets for an Invisibility spell.

[MrStabby]

Invisibility + Spirit Guardians

But you have to get spirit guardians up first I think, as you will need to see yourself to exclude yourself from it's effects.

[Grimjudgment]

I would argue that the spirits from Spirit Guardians are not creatures, but rather a spell effect (as they can't be attacked, have no HP/Saves/AC, etc), and are therefor not valid targets for an Invisibility spell.


That's... I think you misunderstood.

You use invisibility on a cleric that casted spirit guardians. They now have an active spell effect on them and invisibility. The cleric can then walk within range of the enemies, and unless the enemies have metagame knowledge, then they'd see spirits fly at them and that's it.

[Dalebert]

My goblin bard uses the help action while invisible and then bonus action hides.

My kobold warlock has his invisible imp get near opponents and take the hide action so he can get pack tactics. Depending on the situation, like if I expect him to be detected, I might have him move near a target, then ready an action to fly up out of reach after I attack.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's... I think you misunderstood.

You use invisibility on a cleric that casted spirit guardians. They now have an active spell effect on them and invisibility. The cleric can then walk within range of the enemies, and unless the enemies have metagame knowledge, then they'd see spirits fly at them and that's it.

I guess I don't understand the point of doing that.

In one case, I see a bunch of spirits coming at me. Scary, sure.
in the other case, I see a guy wearing full plate and carrying a big mace coming at me, and he's surrounded by a bunch of spirits.
If I'm a goblin, or whatever, I'd consider the second one far scarier.

[MrStabby]

I guess I don't understand the point of doing that.

In one case, I see a bunch of spirits coming at me. Scary, sure.
in the other case, I see a guy wearing full plate and carrying a big mace coming at me, and he's surrounded by a bunch of spirits.
If I'm a goblin, or whatever, I'd consider the second one far scarier.

Well spirit guardians is a powerful spell, somewhat offset by it's limited range which puts you into the front line where you are more likely to lose concentration. Being invisible significantly offsets this.

[Dalebert]

I guess I don't understand the point of doing that.

A common tactic is to dodge-tank with SG up since you do have to wade up into threat range. With invisibility, you could go a step better and hide-tank. As was pointed out, some enemies might have no idea the cleric is there and thus wouldn't know to attack him in hopes of ending the spell.

[Malifice]

Hide action is not a factor.
If I am standing right in front of you, invisible, and not moving, you do not know I am there. No hide check needed.

Yeah, nah. Sounds like you're trying to be quiet while unseen. Just like if you ducked behind a pillar and stopped moving.

That's the Hide action bro.

If your stealth check result beats my passive perception score, then yes I don't know you're there. If it fails to beat my passive perception score then no, I do know you're there. I can smell you, or hear you breathing, or hear the creak of leather or the jangling of metal of your armour or equipment, or simply spot the foot shaped indentations on the carpet, grass for dirt youre standing on.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yeah, nah. Sounds like you're trying to be quiet while unseen. Just like if you ducked behind a pillar and stopped moving.

That's the Hide action bro.

If your stealth check result beats my passive perception score, then yes I don't know you're there. If it fails to beat my passive perception score then no, I do know you're there. I can smell you, or hear you breathing, or hear the creak of leather or the jangling of metal of your armour or equipment, or simply spot the foot shaped indentations on the carpet, grass for dirt youre standing on.

Hide costs you your action.
Not moving does not.
If I Hide, then we have opposed rolls.
If I do not Hide, then the DM decides how to handle it.
But me not specifically taking the Hide action does not mean that you automatically know where I am.

[RickAllison]

Hide costs you your action.
Not moving does not.
If I Hide, then we have opposed rolls.
If I do not Hide, then the DM decides how to handle it.
But me not specifically taking the Hide action does not mean that you automatically know where I am.

Not true. The PHB assumes you are moving about, shuffling your feet just as all people do when standing in place. Standing perfectly still is an acquired skill, not a natural thing. It certainly doesn't apply to combat where you have to move around not to be whacked by the surging action and the enemies are aware of you, but the DM could set static DCs for things like being asleep, or otherwise hidden while not being, well, Hidden.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hide costs you your action.
Not moving does not.
Right, so if you're not using your action, then you're not hidden.

If I Hide, then we have opposed rolls.
If I do not Hide, then the DM decides how to handle it.
Right, and a DM would be pretty reasonable to say that you know where the invisible guy lugging the table across the battlefield is. Or the invisible guy laying down a trail of caltrops behind him. Or the invisible guy shouting out Cutting Words.

[DivisibleByZero]

Hide costs you your action.
Not moving does not.
If I Hide, then we have opposed rolls.
If I do not Hide, then the DM decides how to handle it.
But me not specifically taking the Hide action does not mean that you automatically know where I am.
Not true. The PHB assumes you are moving about, shuffling your feet just as all people do when standing in place. Standing perfectly still is an acquired skill, not a natural thing. It certainly doesn't apply to combat where you have to move around not to be whacked by the surging action and the enemies are aware of you, but the DM could set static DCs for things like being asleep, or otherwise hidden while not being, well, Hidden.

Emphasis mine.
And yeah, that's what I said. In that case, "If I do not Hide, then the DM decides how to handle it."

If you believe that not specifically taking the Hide action means that your location is automatically known while invisible, then you are wrong, and you can take it up with Crawford.


No they do not. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/786980481652756480)
This is a common misconception.

calebrus44 @calebrus44
Invis: loc can be determined by... Does that mean that it automatically is, or that it's possible in some circumstances?
Jeremy Crawford Retweeted calebrus44
In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic.

It is possible that they might be able to figure out where you are. It is not automatically so. You "can be detected" does not mean you "are automatically detected."
Invisibility works exactly like you would expect it to, and not like many people would argue that it does.

[Malifice]

me not specifically taking the Hide action does not mean that you automatically know where I am.

Yes, generally that's exactly what it means. In combat you are aware of the location of all nearby creatures that are not hidden from you.

In combat if you want to leap behind total cover or become invisible, you are not hidden unless and until you take the hide action.

The hide action represents the opportunity cost, time and effort of you standing totally still for a few seconds (instead of say casting a spell or moving or attacking or helping someone else do something). You are also making efforts to mask your location in other ways (stilling your breathing, treading lightly so as not to disturb the carpet, gravel, floorboards or grass you stand on etc).

An invisible creature standing totally still and trying not to make any noise at all is using the Stealth skill (via the Hide action if in a combat situation), just like a creature trying to convincingly lie to someone is using the deception skill, or a creature that is cartwheeling across the room is using the acrobatics skill.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yes, generally that's exactly what it means. In combat you are aware of the location of all nearby creatures that are not hidden from you.

You believe that, and so you are wrong.
Once again, take it up with Crawford. I conveniently linked the Twitter thread for you to continue the conversation in.

"Generally" being the key word there. Invisible creatures create an exception.
They are not automatically located, as Crawford clearly states with zero room for interpretation.

"It isn't automatic."
End quote.

[ad_hoc]

Preventing yourself from being attacked is not preventing enemies from attacking.

Surviving while the rest of the party gets wiped out isn't good.

This is a common strategy I see on these boards and it makes little sense to me. It comes up most often with the Mobile feat or boosting AC to high numbers.

So what?

Enemies will attack the rest of the party and then they will eventually get you when you don't have any allies left.

You need to defeat the enemies. Sacrificing your ability to do so to survive for a bit longer yourself at the expense of the party doesn't actually help you.

[Malifice]

You believe that, and so you are wrong.
Once again, take it up with Crawford. I conveniently linked the Twitter thread for you to continue the conversation in.

"Generally" being the key word there. Invisible creatures create an exception.
They are not automatically located, as Crawford clearly states with zero room for interpretation.

"It isn't automatic."
End quote.

It isn't automatic I agree. It depends on the outcome of the invisible creatures stealth check via the Hide action.

Presuming the invisible creature is also trying to be silent of course.

[BiPolar]

I'm sure there are more examples, but here is one. It is possible that your tweet and response may have been considered that there may be circumstances where non detection is possible (loud marketplace), but that the general rule is detection.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/20/does-invisibility-spell-auto-hide-you/

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm sure there are more examples, but here is one. It is possible that your tweet and response may have been considered that there may be circumstances where non detection is possible (loud marketplace), but that the general rule is detection.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/20/does-invisibility-spell-auto-hide-you/

Yes.
It doesn't automatically Hide you.
But you aren't automatically located either.

What people who think that you are automatically located fail to realize is that something can be "hidden from you" in plain English without being Hidden from you" using the game terminology for the Hide action.
If something is invisible, it is hidden from you. That's plain English, and that's where the exception is created.

In combat you are aware of the location of all nearby creatures that are not hidden from you is speaking of "hidden from you" in plain English.
That's why In the text of the invisible condition, "can be detected" expresses possibility. It isn't automatic. is not contradictory.
This all falls under DM Fiat in how it would be handled, depending on the situation.... just like pretty much every single aspect of the stealth rules, by design.

[Erys]

The usual way think of Invisibility in 5th is like the Predator cloak. You have an outline, you still make noise, stink, etc.

If I cast Invisibility in combat I am not assumed to be hidden, I have to take an action to hide in order to gain those benefits. Until I do, anyone who knew where I was before I cast the spell => knows where I am after.

Now, if no one knows where I am when I cast the spell, and others come into the room I am in after I have cast the spell- THEN (and really, only then) is my location not already known and my detection is only a "maybe", not a given.

All that said, these rules are vague in this area. House rule as needed and as always, YMMV.

[Zene]

So I just started to consider the actually overpowered nature of the normal 2nd level spell invisibility for any player/character that's extremely clever.

So, as everyone knows, invisibility ends when either the concentration ends, the hour is up, or if you attack or spellcast. What if I told you that you could use invisibility to sway an entire combat without ever needing to drop the invisibility?


Love this idea. I usually play min/maxed, combat-optimized builds. But i just started a character that's focused much more around support, and due to character concept is going down a bit of a skillmonkey path. He's currently Rogue 1 / Knowledge Cleric 1 / Bard 1, and while he's a ton of fun to play, and has lots to do outside of combat, I know I'm going to have to get creative to contribute in combat as I continue to level. I'd also like to play him as being a non-combatant--so the idea of him finding ways to contribute without blasting the enemy or picking up a sword is appealing.

Lots of great suggestions in your original post. One additional suggestion: If you're an Arcane Trickster (which this guy will be at CL7, after getting to Bard 3), you get Mage Hand Legerdemain; an invisible mage hand you can control with your bonus action. So if you cast mage hand before invisibility, you then can do all the usual invisible shenanigans with your actions, and then also have the option of using your action or your bonus action to have your extra ghost hand do things: feed people potions, drop ball bearings, pickpocket the enemy, carry a torch into the enemy lines to set their priest's robes on fire, etc. I'm really looking forward to being able to do this :)

[Jerrykhor]

Yes.
It doesn't automatically Hide you.
But you aren't automatically located either.


I think Invisibility DOES automatically hide you. The 'invisible' condition in the PHB states: '...For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. And Chapter 8 in PHB: A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.

'For the purpose of hiding' indicates that being invisible is equivalent to hiding. You don't have to take the 'Hide' action after being invisible because you are already hidden. If you can't see me, then I am already hidden from you, its common sense.

You can't be seen, but you can be heard, but I think people place too much importance on being heard, as if you are Daredevil with his Radar sense. It really depends on the situation. Footsteps? You can probably hear it if its in a dead silent library. But if there are other people moving around too, why would you suspect anything? If there is a loud battle going on and your party is engaged in it, its unlikely you can hear it, plus you'd be too distracted by the stuff that are going on around you.

[BiPolar]

We've gone over all of this before: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502606-Invisibility-Are-We-Doing-it-Right

The difference that DBZ has included is the tweet he quoted with Crawford. Whether that overrides the other tweet by JC that I provided or the PHB rules quoted in the thread above is the question. Given that the rules and other ruling that JC gave seem to override, it makes me think that the Crawford was saying that there may be circumstances where an invisible creature isn't detected by non-visual means, but that it isn't the norm.

[Malifice]

I think Invisibility DOES automatically hide you. The 'invisible' condition in the PHB states: '...For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. And Chapter 8 in PHB: A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.

'For the purpose of hiding' indicates that being invisible is equivalent to hiding. You don't have to take the 'Hide' action after being invisible because you are already hidden. If you can't see me, then I am already hidden from you, its common sense.

You can't be seen, but you can be heard, but I think people place too much importance on being heard, as if you are Daredevil with his Radar sense. It really depends on the situation. Footsteps? You can probably hear it if its in a dead silent library. But if there are other people moving around too, why would you suspect anything? If there is a loud battle going on and your party is engaged in it, its unlikely you can hear it, plus you'd be too distracted by the stuff that are going on around you.

No, heavy obscurement just creates the precondition that enables you to take the hide action.

If you're invisible, you may take the Hide action at will (as either an action or a bonus action if you are a rogue 2+ or a high-level Ranger).

Being invisible is no different to standing in a patch of total darkness, running behind thick bushes or ducking behind total cover, neither of which makes you automatically hidden.

When you become invisible you gain a number of advantages. Advantage on attack rolls. Enemies have disadvantage to attack you. You become totally immune to attacks of opportunity so you can run around the battlefield with a level of impunity. Many spells and special abilities cannot affect you at all because they require a target 'you can see'. In addition you may attempt the hide action at will, because for the purposes of hiding you are heavily obscured at all times while invisible.

The game assumes that unless and until the invisible creature is actively trying to be stealthy (moving slowly or being still, quieting its breath, concealing signs of its passage etc) its location is generally assumed to be known with sufficient precision to enable attacks in its general direction at disadvantage.

The opportunity cost for standing still, stilling your breath, concealing signs of your passage and generally been quiet is the hide action. It represents the time and effort of you being silent and sneaky instead of attacking, casting spell, helping someone else, dodging, dashing etc

Round one you become invisible. Your enemies now have a single opportunity to attack you (swinging wildly at disadvantage in your general vicinity) before you can attempt the Hide action on round two.

If you're a rogue you can become invisible and hide all on the same turn. Considering you probably have a high dexterity and expertise in stealth you're a very good chance to become hidden straight away. Same deal if you're a sorcerer and you quicken your invisibility spell. Same deal if the Wizard casts invisibility on you on his turn, then on your turn you take the hide action.

[Jerrykhor]

No, heavy obscurement just creates the precondition that enables you to take the hide action.

If you're invisible, you may take the Hide action at will (as either an action or a bonus action if you are a rogue 2+ or a high-level Ranger).

Being invisible is no different to standing in a patch of total darkness, running behind thick bushes or ducking behind total cover, neither of which makes you automatically hidden.

When you become invisible you gain a number of advantages. Advantage on attack rolls. Enemies have disadvantage to attack you. You become totally immune to attacks of opportunity so you can run around the battlefield with a level of impunity. Many spells and special abilities cannot affect you at all because they require a target 'you can see'. In addition you may attempt the hide action at will, because for the purposes of hiding you are heavily obscured at all times while invisible.

The game assumes that unless and until the invisible creature is actively trying to be stealthy (moving slowly or being still, quieting its breath, concealing signs of its passage etc) its location is generally assumed to be known with sufficient precision to enable attacks in its general direction at disadvantage.

The opportunity cost for standing still, stilling your breath, concealing signs of your passage and generally been quiet is the hide action. It represents the time and effort of you being silent and sneaky instead of attacking, casting spell, helping someone else, dodging, dashing etc

Round one you become invisible. Your enemies now have a single opportunity to attack you (swinging wildly at disadvantage in your general vicinity) before you can attempt the Hide action on round two.

If you're a rogue you can become invisible and hide all on the same turn. Considering you probably have a high dexterity and expertise in stealth you're a very good chance to become hidden straight away. Same deal if you're a sorcerer and you quicken your invisibility spell. Same deal if the Wizard casts invisibility on you on his turn, then on your turn you take the hide action.

I was starting to think you may be right, but after some self-debating, its not. You see, this is where you are wrong: Being hidden requires being both unseen and unheard (as stated in Unseen Attackers and Targets). Being invisible means you are unseen, that is a 100% certainty. So that leaves being unheard. If you just stand still and do absolutely nothing, you are not making any sound, so you are unheard, and therefore, hidden. You don't always need to use the Hide action to be hidden. All those sounds you mentioned, like breathing, footsteps etc. are very situational. They are relatively small sounds and can't be heard in any place with any sort of ambient noise.

[BiPolar]

I was starting to think you may be right, but after some self-debating, its not. You see, this is where you are wrong: Being hidden requires being both unseen and unheard (as stated in Unseen Attackers and Targets). Being invisible means you are unseen, that is a 100% certainty. So that leaves being unheard. If you just stand still and do absolutely nothing, you are not making any sound, so you are unheard, and therefore, hidden. You don't always need to use the Hide action to be hidden. All those sounds you mentioned, like breathing, footsteps etc. are very situational. They are relatively small sounds and can't be heard in any place with any sort of ambient noise.

Unless you are choosing to hold your breath, not move an inch, etc. then you are creating noise. The hide action is what adds the removal of sounds. What you're saying is basically the same thing - if you are standing still and doing absolutely nothing, you have basically taken the Hide Action.

[Matticusrex]

ahhh the eternal battle of RAW vs Brew continues on.

[Grimjudgment]

Preventing yourself from being attacked is not preventing enemies from attacking.

Surviving while the rest of the party gets wiped out isn't good.

This is a common strategy I see on these boards and it makes little sense to me. It comes up most often with the Mobile feat or boosting AC to high numbers.

So what?

Enemies will attack the rest of the party and then they will eventually get you when you don't have any allies left.

You need to defeat the enemies. Sacrificing your ability to do so to survive for a bit longer yourself at the expense of the party doesn't actually help you.

I am not sure exactly who or what post you're arguing about specifically, but the point of the post was the find ways to increase the mileage of the bard's abilities to use invisibility and still assist their team.

The point isn't for just survivability, but it is an aspect. Bards are one of the squishy classes in the game and therefore don't have a high AC, HP, or weapon attack damage per turn.


Because if that, granting disadvantage to enemies hitting you, giving others advantage, disrupting enemies and not requiring spells or attacks to do this is one of the best ways to deal with this. This is a theoretical discussion and only works in certain situations. I also created the thread because everyone loves to hate invisibility, since the greater version is only a few levels away and don't have the attack and spells stipulation. Many of these applications require either DM discretion or the wisdom to know when doing certain things would be beneficial. I have said this already at one point in time on this thread: This is not a minmax guide or minmax attempt, that's the reason why it's shenanigans and not "The invisibility solution of cheese"

[RickAllison]

I was starting to think you may be right, but after some self-debating, its not. You see, this is where you are wrong: Being hidden requires being both unseen and unheard (as stated in Unseen Attackers and Targets). Being invisible means you are unseen, that is a 100% certainty. So that leaves being unheard. If you just stand still and do absolutely nothing, you are not making any sound, so you are unheard, and therefore, hidden. You don't always need to use the Hide action to be hidden. All those sounds you mentioned, like breathing, footsteps etc. are very situational. They are relatively small sounds and can't be heard in any place with any sort of ambient noise.

Not moving at all, or moving without noise, IS the Hide action. Otherwise you can be given away by your breath, by the shuffling your feet make as they naturally adjust to keep balance, and even by the cracking of joints as you move. Not enough to directly target you (hence disadvantage) but enough for those who pay attention to find. Just going invisible may be enough for the average peasant and even common soldiers who aren't actively looking, but sentries or experienced soldiers will spot you.

[BiPolar]

I am not sure exactly who or what post you're arguing about specifically, but the point of the post was the find ways to increase the mileage of the bard's abilities to use invisibility and still assist their team.

The point isn't for just survivability, but it is an aspect. Bards are one of the squishy classes in the game and therefore don't have a high AC, HP, or weapon attack damage per turn.


Because if that, granting disadvantage to enemies hitting you, giving others advantage, disrupting enemies and not requiring spells or attacks to do this is one of the best ways to deal with this. This is a theoretical discussion and only works in certain situations. I also created the thread because everyone loves to hate invisibility, since the greater version is only a few levels away and don't have the attack and spells stipulation. Many of these applications require either DM discretion or the wisdom to know when doing certain things would be beneficial. I have said this already at one point in time on this thread: This is not a minmax guide or minmax attempt, that's the reason why it's shenanigans and not "The invisibility solution of cheese"

The problem is that the shenanigans you provide wouldn't work the way you say they would. They require " dm discretion" of Houserule over raw, which is fine, but that's a big stipulation.

[Jerrykhor]

Unless you are choosing to hold your breath, not move an inch, etc. then you are creating noise. The hide action is what adds the removal of sounds. What you're saying is basically the same thing - if you are standing still and doing absolutely nothing, you have basically taken the Hide Action.

There's no guarantee that the Hide action is the removal of sounds, its not stated in anywhere. The Hide action is an attempt to hide. Learn to read. You make a Stealth check, and if you roll a nat 1, I'd say you make so much noise that the whole village heard you, but you think you are perfectly hidden. You only attempt to be silent, but again, if the creatures around you have very high passive perception, you are probably going to be heard.

What I'm saying is, casting the Invisibility spell itself is an attempt to hide (even if the game doesnt say so), and therefore is equivalent to the Hide action. I'm thinking the PHB is silent on this because they probably didn't expect anyone could come to the inane idea that a target is not trying to hide by becoming invisible. Yep, totally not trying to hide from me there, that guy who just suddenly went invisible after I spotted him.

[ad_hoc]

I am not sure exactly who or what post you're arguing about specifically, but the point of the post was the find ways to increase the mileage of the bard's abilities to use invisibility and still assist their team.

The point isn't for just survivability, but it is an aspect. Bards are one of the squishy classes in the game and therefore don't have a high AC, HP, or weapon attack damage per turn.


Because if that, granting disadvantage to enemies hitting you, giving others advantage, disrupting enemies and not requiring spells or attacks to do this is one of the best ways to deal with this. This is a theoretical discussion and only works in certain situations. I also created the thread because everyone loves to hate invisibility, since the greater version is only a few levels away and don't have the attack and spells stipulation. Many of these applications require either DM discretion or the wisdom to know when doing certain things would be beneficial. I have said this already at one point in time on this thread: This is not a minmax guide or minmax attempt, that's the reason why it's shenanigans and not "The invisibility solution of cheese"

It was a response to the OP.

I understand what you're saying, what I'm saying is that you're wrong.

Wasting a 2nd level spell, an action, concentration, and removing the ability to attack or cast spells so that character is harder to kill is folly.

This is a common argument that isn't just limited to this thread.

If the answer to the game is to not have characters with low AC, then a party which is comprised of only characters without low AC would wreak havoc on the game. But they don't.

Getting one character out of harm's way doesn't really do much for the party. If you can do it with little expense, then sure, go ahead. The mistake you and others make is that the opportunity cost is too high. You have made your character so ineffectual that you would actually benefit the team more by taking the hits.

Invisibility is a very strong spell.

How you're proposing to use it in this thread doesn't just make it weak, it makes it worse than not using it at all.

[Malifice]

I was starting to think you may be right, but after some self-debating, its not. You see, this is where you are wrong: Being hidden requires being both unseen and unheard (as stated in Unseen Attackers and Targets). Being invisible means you are unseen, that is a 100% certainty. So that leaves being unheard. If you just stand still and do absolutely nothing, you are not making any sound, so you are unheard, and therefore, hidden. You don't always need to use the Hide action to be hidden. All those sounds you mentioned, like breathing, footsteps etc. are very situational. They are relatively small sounds and can't be heard in any place with any sort of ambient noise.

Lol. So... by this reasoning all I need to do to Hide in combat is to become unseen (walking behind total cover) and 'not move'.

No Hide action required, so Stealth check needed? Bam presto, automatic stealth? What the heck is the Hide action for then?

Dude, attempting to be quiet while obscured (which is what you're doing here) is using Stealth. Concealing your position and then being quiet is using Stealth. Your Stealth check result determines just how quiet (quietening your breathing, not leaving any traces of your passage, being totally still, avoiding the jangling of spell components and armor etc) you are.

When you become unseen (either by leaping behind total cover, entering the radius of total obscurement, or becoming invisible) you are not automatically hidden. You need to also become unheard (and to also mask signs of your passage). The skill to do that is Stealth.

If you want to lie to someone, you're using Deception skill. If you want to climb a slippery rope, that Athletics. If you want to remain silent and mask your location while invisible, thats you using Stealth.

Unsurprisingly Rogues are amazing at being quiet. Paladins with Dex 8 in Full Plate creak, clank and jangle like no tomorrow.

[Jerrykhor]

Lol. So... by this reasoning all I need to do to Hide in combat is to become unseen (walking behind total cover) and 'not move'.

No Hide action required, so Stealth check needed? Bam presto, automatic stealth? What the heck is the Hide action for then?


Is that so overpowered for it to be automatic Stealth? The Hide action costs an action, and can be done from 1st level. Invisibility costs an action AND a 2nd level slot, and can only be learned at 3rd level. It is auto Stealth, but not auto nat 20 stealth.

[Malifice]

Unless you are choosing to hold your breath, not move an inch, etc. then you are creating noise. The hide action is what adds the removal of sounds. What you're saying is basically the same thing - if you are standing still and doing absolutely nothing, you have basically taken the Hide Action.

Exactly. The Hide action represents the opportunity cost (time and effort) required to stand totally still, quieten your breathing, avoid standing on carpet, grass or dirt leaving footprints, hold your jangly spell component pouch, backpack, weapons and armor still, hold your wounds to avoid bleeding on the floor, and so forth.

It represents a few seconds time and effort spent trying to not be heard or otherwise noticed instead of dodging, casting a spell, helping someone else do something, dashing, searching, attacking etc.

Example:

Bob the clumsy (Dex 8) Wizard has his turn. Hes badly injured and melee combat with an Orc. He casts invisibility and moves 30' away from the Orc. While the Orc cannot make opportunity attacks at Bob (due to invsibility preventing them) the game assumes that the Orc can hear or otherwise notice the swooshing of robes as Bob turns and runs away while invisible.

The Orc immediately follows up chasing after Bob, breathing down his neck and swinging his sword before him in wild arcs trying to hit the invisible Wizard. (On the Orcs turn he moves 30' forward and makes an attack at disadvantage against the Wizard).

On Bobs next turn, he cowers and attempts to stay totally still, quieting his panicked and labored breathing and holding his spell component pouch closely to stop it jangling as he moves (while also holding his wounds to avoid dripping blood on the floor). This is represented by Bob taking the Hide action. He rolls his Stealth score and gets... a 7. Not enough to beat the Orcs passive perception of 10. The Orc sniffs the air with his pig like snout, smelling Bobs blood, and swings in Bobs general direction (again at disadvantage).

Next round Bob attempts to Hide again. Lets assume this time he rolls a 15 on his Stealth check as an action (the Hide action). He succesfully defeats the Orcs passive perception of 10 and is now both invisible AND hidden.

The Orc pauses on his turn. He now doesnt know where Bob is. He elects to stop, and scan the area, looking for traces of Bob (blood trail on the ground, Bobs feet scraping on the cobblestones, laboured breathing etc) via the Search action. He rolls a 14 on his Perception check, not enough to locate Bob. His turn now ends.

On Bobs turn, he is still hidden relative to the Orc. He slinks off 30' and then takes the Dash action to move another 30'.

The Orc decides to swing wildly into the square in front of him as an action (guessing Bob is in that space). As Bob is 60' away, the attack has no effect. The Orc howls in rage.

Bob on his next turn again moves away 60' and around a corner, making a beeline to the dungeon exit.

Example two:

Fred the Arcane Trickster (Dec 18, Expertise in Stealth, Cunning action) is in combat with an Orc. He elects to cast invisibility as his action. He then immediately takes the Hide action (as a bonus action via cunning action) rolling a 25 on his Stealth check, and moves 30' away as quiet as a whisper in a thunderstorm.

Our friend the Orc has no idea where Fred is. Its like he totally vanished off the face of the earth.

[Malifice]

Is that so overpowered for it to be automatic Stealth? The Hide action costs an action, and can be done from 1st level. Invisibility costs an action AND a 2nd level slot, and can only be learned at 3rd level. It is auto Stealth, but not auto nat 20 stealth.

Yes it is overpowered. Invisibility grants you disadvantage on all attacks against you, AND advantage to all your attacks (making it as powerful as a 9th level spell Foresight alone). It also makes you immune to AoO (these require a target you can see) and many (many) spells that also require LOS to work (counterspell, power word spells, hold person, etc). In addition it also allows you to Hide at will (as an action or bonus action for Rogues and Rangers) potentially forcing your opponent to guess your location just to get that attack in, or even making it so he doesnt even know youre there.

For a second level spell thats an impressive array of benefits.

The design philosophy of 5E is that spells no longer invalidate other classes. Charm person doesnt invalidate the party face any more than invisibility invalidates the party Rogue.

Remember; you can attempt the Hide action every single round until you make the DC (your enemies passive perception score). Once you do that you are hidden until that enemy uses an action of its own (the Search action) to find you.

Its just unless you are a Rogue 2+ (or a Sorcerer with quickened invisibility) your opponent has one chance to swing wildly in your general direction (at disadvantage) in between you becoming invisible and you attempting to hide.

[Astofel]

I would like to suggest a compromise. Sure, it doesn't make sense that just turning invisible would immediately cause anyone previously fighting you to have no idea where you are, but it also doesn't make sense that in the heat of battle anyone could hear/see small movements well enough to know that the invisible you is in a particular 5-foot square.

Let's revisit Bob the Clumsy Wizard. He's turned invisible and run away from an orc without having taken the hide action. Bob is now 30 feet from the orc, which is a fair distance and it strains belief that the orc could track an invisible creature by hearing and dust swirls alone, especially in the heat of battle where there's a whole lot of other things to worry about. However, Bob made no attempt to be particularly stealthy, so the orc has a general idea which direction Bob fled in, and thinks Bob is probably in one of several 'squares'. On its turn, the orc can target one of these squares, and he may or may not locate Bob by hitting him, depending on whether Bob's actually there and how well the orc rolls on its Disadvantaged attack. Just how many squares Bob 'might' be in could be in someway determined by Bob's 'passive Stealth' score, the orc's passive perception, how noisy the DM feels Bob was being, or any combination of these. Essentially, Bob's location isn't completely known, but it's not completely unknown either.

As for Bob's friend, Fred the Arcane Trickster, when he turns invisible, takes the Hide bonus action and rolls high for Stealth, the orc he's fighting simply has no idea where he is, unless he gets a weirdly high perception roll. Similarly, if Bob were to take the Hide action on a later turn, and he beats the orc's passive perception despite his negative modifier, then his orc also has no idea where he's gone.

[BiPolar]

I would like to suggest a compromise. Sure, it doesn't make sense that just turning invisible would immediately cause anyone previously fighting you to have no idea where you are, but it also doesn't make sense that in the heat of battle anyone could hear/see small movements well enough to know that the invisible you is in a particular 5-foot square.

Let's revisit Bob the Clumsy Wizard. He's turned invisible and run away from an orc without having taken the hide action. Bob is now 30 feet from the orc, which is a fair distance and it strains belief that the orc could track an invisible creature by hearing and dust swirls alone, especially in the heat of battle where there's a whole lot of other things to worry about. However, Bob made no attempt to be particularly stealthy, so the orc has a general idea which direction Bob fled in, and thinks Bob is probably in one of several 'squares'. On its turn, the orc can target one of these squares, and he may or may not locate Bob by hitting him, depending on whether Bob's actually there and how well the orc rolls on its Disadvantaged attack. Just how many squares Bob 'might' be in could be in someway determined by Bob's 'passive Stealth' score, the orc's passive perception, how noisy the DM feels Bob was being, or any combination of these. Essentially, Bob's location isn't completely known, but it's not completely unknown either.

As for Bob's friend, Fred the Arcane Trickster, when he turns invisible, takes the Hide bonus action and rolls high for Stealth, the orc he's fighting simply has no idea where he is, unless he gets a weirdly high perception roll. Similarly, if Bob were to take the Hide action on a later turn, and he beats the orc's passive perception despite his negative modifier, then his orc also has no idea where he's gone.

Not saying I don't agree with the compromise, but that isn't the system. 5e isn't simulationist, it's a simplified system that often isn't realistic.

You can absolutely make it more so, but that's not raw. And that's okay.

[DivisibleByZero]

I would like to suggest a compromise. Sure, it doesn't make sense that just turning invisible would immediately cause anyone previously fighting you to have no idea where you are, but it also doesn't make sense that in the heat of battle anyone could hear/see small movements well enough to know that the invisible you is in a particular 5-foot square.

Let's revisit Bob the Clumsy Wizard. He's turned invisible and run away from an orc without having taken the hide action. Bob is now 30 feet from the orc, which is a fair distance and it strains belief that the orc could track an invisible creature by hearing and dust swirls alone, especially in the heat of battle where there's a whole lot of other things to worry about. However, Bob made no attempt to be particularly stealthy, so the orc has a general idea which direction Bob fled in, and thinks Bob is probably in one of several 'squares'. On its turn, the orc can target one of these squares, and he may or may not locate Bob by hitting him, depending on whether Bob's actually there and how well the orc rolls on its Disadvantaged attack. Just how many squares Bob 'might' be in could be in someway determined by Bob's 'passive Stealth' score, the orc's passive perception, how noisy the DM feels Bob was being, or any combination of these. Essentially, Bob's location isn't completely known, but it's not completely unknown either.

As for Bob's friend, Fred the Arcane Trickster, when he turns invisible, takes the Hide bonus action and rolls high for Stealth, the orc he's fighting simply has no idea where he is, unless he gets a weirdly high perception roll. Similarly, if Bob were to take the Hide action on a later turn, and he beats the orc's passive perception despite his negative modifier, then his orc also has no idea where he's gone.

This guy. He gets it.
This is pretty much exactly what "can be determined" expresses possibility, it isn't automatic means.

That isn't a compromise. It's the rules. It's DM discretion, just like all the rest of the stealth rules.

[Matticusrex]

This guy. He gets it.
This is pretty much exactly what "can be determined" expresses possibility, it isn't automatic means.

That isn't a compromise. It's the rules. It's DM discretion, just like all the rest of the stealth rules.

DMs just need to admit they are home-brewing the stealth rules, and then have wizards power game the balance to hell with invisibility to get a reminder on why RAW stealth rules exist

[DivisibleByZero]

DMs just need to admit they are home-brewing the stealth rules, and then have wizards power game the balance to hell with invisibility to get a reminder on why RAW stealth rules exist

But that's the thing.
The rules for stealth are left intentionally vague. Every DM needs to basically rule on a case by case basis, so every DM is, to use your words, "home-brewing" the stealth rules.
This is by design. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls)
And we've known this since before 5e even officially released.
The people who argue that the rules are cut-and-dry do not understand the rules to begin with.

edit:
To elaborate, RAW stealth rules do not exist. That's the point. That is, once again, by design.

[Corran]

My kobold warlock has his invisible imp get near opponents and take the hide action so he can get pack tactics. Depending on the situation, like if I expect him to be detected, I might have him move near a target, then ready an action to fly up out of reach after I attack.
How do fluff profiting from pact tactics when the enemy your familiar is adjaent to is not aware of it?:smallwink:

[BiPolar]

But that's the thing.
The rules for stealth are left intentionally vague. Every DM needs to basically rule on a case by case basis, so every DM is, to use your words, "home-brewing" the stealth rules.
This is by design. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls)
And we've known this since before 5e even officially released.
The people who argue that the rules are cut-and-dry do not understand the rules to begin with.

That is an unfair generalization dzb. I understand that the stealth, and 5e rules in general, have a lot of leeway. But that doesn't mean there aren't rules. It just means that it gives the dm room to alter as needed for the story.

[DivisibleByZero]

That is an unfair generalization dzb. I understand that the stealth, and 5e rules in general, have a lot of leeway. But that doesn't mean there aren't rules. It just means that it gives the dm room to alter as needed for the story.

Watch the video I just linked.
Start about 10 minutes in.
Mearls clearly states, in no uncertain terms, with zero room for misunderstanding, that the stealth rules were specifically and intentionally designed to be vague and have a "Let the DM decide" attitude.
It was not an unfair generalization. It was a fact.
And so I repeat: Anyone who argues that the rules are cut-and-dry (on either side, for or against) does not understand the rules to begin with.

[Malifice]

Let's revisit Bob the Clumsy Wizard. He's turned invisible and run away from an orc without having taken the hide action. Bob is now 30 feet from the orc

No he's not. Despite the turn based/ cyclical abstraction of DnD combat, combatants are not standing still frozen while other combatants move, attack, cast spells etc.

The Orc followed up Bobs move on his turn that round, meaning that what really happened was Bob started running and the Orc immediately followed him, keeping a few feet behind Bob the whole time, while swinging his sword from side to side in wide swings as he did so.

At no time was Bob 30' away from the Orc.

Dont be fooled by the cyclical turn based abstraction of resolving actions in combat. Combatants dont get a full six seconds to act while everyone waits around for them patiently frozen in place. All actions are all happening more or less simultaneously.


As for Bob's friend, Fred the Arcane Trickster, when he turns invisible, takes the Hide bonus action and rolls high for Stealth, the orc he's fighting simply has no idea where he is, unless he gets a weirdly high perception roll. Similarly, if Bob were to take the Hide action on a later turn, and he beats the orc's passive perception despite his negative modifier, then his orc also has no idea where he's gone.

The Orc only gets a Perception roll if he takes the search action. Otherwise all Fred has to do is beat the Orcs passive perception and he's hidden.

Its an action to Hide, and an action to Search. It balances out the action economy nicely.

[Malifice]

Watch the video I just linked.
Start about 10 minutes in.
Mearls clearly states, in no uncertain terms, with zero room for misunderstanding, that the stealth rules were specifically and intentionally designed to be vague and have a "Let the DM decide" attitude.
It was not an unfair generalization. It was a fact.
And so I repeat: Anyone who argues that the rules are cut-and-dry (on either side, for or against) does not understand the rules to begin with.

Bro, this applies to all the rules. Rulings not rules remember.

Mearls wanted to both appease the MMORPG crowd of young-uns who prefer 'mash the stealth button' approach to hiding, while leaving a more simulationist approach in there for us grognards.

Interpret the rules however you want, and make whatever rulings you want, but the rules to me seem pretty clear that [invisibility] does not = [hidden] any more than [leaping behind full cover] does not = [hidden].

You still need to use Stealth in order to move silently (or to quietly refrain from moving at all) and to effectively conceal traces of your presence (footprints, swirling smoke in the air, dripping blood, smell of your spell components and sweat, etc) and become truly hidden.

Invisibility just fulfils an important precondition that enables the Hide action (it places you in total obscrement for the purposes of hiding) allowing you to take the Hide action at will.

From there, it really just depends on how good your characters is at being quiet and not leaving traces of your passage. Whether he is wearing heavy armor (which imposes disadvantage on Stealth checks) and so forth.

You know; what the Stealth skill is explicitly there for.

[DivisibleByZero]

Bro, this applies to all the rules. Rulings not rules remember.

Mearls wanted to both appease the MMORPG crowd of young-uns who prefer 'mash the stealth button' approach to hiding, while leaving a more simulationist approach in there for us grognards.

Interpret the rules however you want, and make whatever rulings you want, but the rules to me seem pretty clear that [invisibility] does not = [hidden] any more than [leaping behind full cover] does not = [hidden].

You still need to use Stealth in order to move silently (or to quietly refrain from moving at all) and to effectively conceal traces of your presence (footprints, swirling smoke in the air, dripping blood, smell of your spell components and sweat, etc) and become truly hidden.

Invisibility just fulfils an important precondition that enables the Hide action (it places you in total obscrement for the purposes of hiding) allowing you to take the Hide action at will.

From there, it really just depends on how good your characters is at being quiet and not leaving traces of your passage. Whether he is wearing heavy armor (which imposes disadvantage on Stealth checks) and so forth.

You know; what the Stealth skill is explicitly there for.

And that's perfectly fine for you, as DM, to rule. It does not, however, make it RAW. There is no RAW on stealth. Stealth is left in the hands of the DM to adjudicate, as he or she sees fit, for what works in their game.
Do not attempt to claim that the rules tell us how it works, when you can watch a video of the person who designed the game telling us that the rules are left up to each DM.
To quote: "You know what? Let the DM decide."

As far as stealth goes, there is no spoon.
RAW does not exist.
RAI is to let the DM decide on a case by case basis.
That's it. Full stop. So don't try to tell me how it should work for my game. You do you, and I'll do me, and Bob will do Bob, and none of us are wrong. Unless you try to tell me how it's supposed to work. In that case, then yes, you are wrong.

[Grimjudgment]

The problem is that the shenanigans you provide wouldn't work the way you say they would. They require " dm discretion" of Houserule over raw, which is fine, but that's a big stipulation.

That's... That's literally why I asked others to contribute. Not debate Raw on sneaking or the validity of some of these manuevers.

[Malifice]

And that's perfectly fine for you, as DM, to rule. It does not, however, make it RAW. There is no RAW on stealth.

Yes actually there is. Youre actually using RAI here (based of Dev comments and other extrinsic materials).

The RAW says nothing anywhere about . They could, but they dont. What the RAW does state about invisibility and hiding is that when Invisible [I]you are treated as being in heavy obscurement for the purposes of hiding. The RAW also states that not being seen (heavy obscurement, total cover, your foe being blinded etc) is simply a prerequisite that enables one to attempt a Stealth check (via the Hide action) in order to become hidden.

Thats what the RAW states.


Stealth is left in the hands of the DM to adjudicate, as he or she sees fit, for what works in their game.

Everything is left in the hands of the DM to adjudicate. Im not arguing with you there.

Dont think I place RAW on some kind of sacred pedestal mate.


So don't try to tell me how it should work for my game.

Im not; I'm actually doing the exact opposite. Again rule it how you want, and run it how you want.

Im simply pointing out that the rules in the book are pretty clear (while acknowledging they do leave room for interpretation, as does every rule) and expressing why sticking to those rules and requiring an invisible creature to succesfully perform the Hide action (and Stealth) to actually be hidden is the better option.

From a gamist and a simulationist perspective.

[DivisibleByZero]

The RAW says nothing anywhere about [invisibility = auto hidden, infinite Stealth check, no hide action needed]. They could, but they dont. What the RAW does state about invisibility and hiding is that when Invisible you are treated as being in heavy obscurement for the purposes of hiding. The RAW also states that not being seen (heavy obscurement, total cover, your foe being blinded etc) is simply a prerequisite that enables one to attempt a Stealth check (via the Hide action) in order to become hidden.

Thats what the RAW states.
Those are some of the ways. That is not an exhaustive list of the situations under which one may attempt to hide. That is also not an exhaustive list of the ways under which one may become hidden (again, using plain English, not the game term, and people seem to confuse the two).


and expressing why sticking to those rules and requiring an invisible creature to succesfully perform the Hide action (and Stealth) to actually be hidden is the better option.

From a gamist and a simulationist perspective.

.... the better option .... for your table.
Mearls designed the rules to be specifically and intentionally vague so that no one else has to agree with you. And if they don't, that's fine. And they aren't wrong.

I believe that granting Four Elements Monks a bonus to their Ki pool equal to their Wisdom mod is the better option. That doesn't mean that it's the better option for every table.


The problem is that the shenanigans you provide wouldn't work the way you say they would. They require " dm discretion" of Houserule over raw, which is fine, but that's a big stipulation.
That's... That's literally why I asked others to contribute. Not debate Raw on sneaking or the validity of some of these manuevers.

Once again, whether or not these things will work depends entirely upon how your DM rules them to work.
It isn't a matter or Houserule over RAW because there is no RAW on it. It's all DM Fiat, and again, this is by design.
These maneuvers will all be as awesome or as craptastic as your DM makes them.

[Coidzor]

Not true. The PHB assumes you are moving about, shuffling your feet just as all people do when standing in place. Standing perfectly still is an acquired skill, not a natural thing. It certainly doesn't apply to combat where you have to move around not to be whacked by the surging action and the enemies are aware of you, but the DM could set static DCs for things like being asleep, or otherwise hidden while not being, well, Hidden.

I think you dropped some sarcasm tags or we know very different forms of humanity. If one isn't adjacent to melee or a dude who is being shot at, being still enough to not make noise is trivial, unless a creature is present that can hear heartbeats.

Moving around in combat would make sense to be opposed by perception, but simple walking is not going to be anywhere near the level of sound being created by dudes trying to kill one another with pointed metal sticks.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think you dropped some sarcasm tags or we know very different forms of humanity. If one isn't adjacent to melee or a dude who is being shot at, being still enough to not make noise is trivial, unless a creature is present that can hear heartbeats.

Moving around in combat would make sense to be opposed by perception, but simple walking is not going to be anywhere near the level of sound being created by dudes trying to kill one another with pointed metal sticks.

The best part about this, to me, is that these people not only think that it's clearly audible at all times, but that they can still hear it over the ambient sounds of a raging battle, and can pinpoint that sound over the raging noise of battle with zero effort.

Armor clashing, swords ringing, people screaming in pain.
Nope, I heard you breathing 25 feet away so I know where you are....

And somehow, that makes more sense to them than the DM being allowed to make a call based on the situation. You see, this is exactly why there is no RAW about stealth and it's all Fiat.

[RickAllison]

The best part about this, to me, is that these people not only think that it's clearly audible at all times, but that they can still hear it over the ambient sounds of a raging battle, and can pinpoint that sound over the raging noise of battle with zero effort.

Armor clashing, swords ringing, people screaming in pain.
Nope, I heard you breathing 25 feet away so I know where you are....

And somehow, that makes more sense to them than the DM being allowed to make a call based on the situation. You see, this is exactly why there is no RAW about stealth and it's all Fiat.

Except when you are in the middle of that fight, the person trying to Hide without using an action is having to sidestep enemies, dodge errant blows, and otherwise be moving so that others can't definitively tell "Wait, there is something here. The invisible person is right here! He is standing still to be unnoticed, but we are bumping into him constantly because battles are messy!" Standing in one place, even while invisible, is a very nice way to get someone's swinging axe embedded in your belly. That actually would be my ruling as a DM if a player tried doing this in combat, that because they are stationary, they are getting hacked apart by the stray strikes of the fight around them that normally are easily dodged, but that they have forfeited all use of.

And remember that the Hide action only really matters for combat because otherwise the DM will just be calling for a Stealth check anyway as the discrete chunks of time aren't as regulated. Out of combat, if someone is just trying to "hide" without using a Stealth check then it will be either DC 10 or 15 depending on conditions.

[Tanarii]

DivisibleByZero is right in one regard. No-where does it say you automatically detect everything around you at all times. Even the 'Hiding' side-bar (PHB skills chapter, next to stealth) doesn't say that. It says "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." Note, that this is intentionally "wishy-washy" language. It doesn't say 'all creatures automatically know where all non-hiding creatures are'.

It's a fundamental rule of the game that at any time the DM can apply set a DC to determine resolution of something. That's certainly within RAW. So a DM is within the bounds of RAW to determine that pin-pointing an invisible / obscured creature at significant range has a DC associated with it. I mean, IMO it's DC 5 and you can just ignore that check as automatic (per the DMG rules for setting DCs) for a quiet room with nothing to distract someone. But a DC 10 no-action Perception check to pinpoint a creature you know is invisible and present, is not attempting to hide, but is 30ft away from you, and you're in the middle of combat, is not unreasonable. Nor one in a Fog Cloud or otherwise obscured.

[BiPolar]

DivisibleByZero is right in one regard. No-where does it say you automatically detect everything around you at all times. Even the 'Hiding' side-bar (PHB skills chapter, next to stealth) doesn't say that. It says "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." Note, that this is intentionally "wishy-washy" language. It doesn't say 'all creatures automatically know where all non-hiding creatures are'.

It's a fundamental rule of the game that at any time the DM can apply set a DC to determine resolution of something. That's certainly within RAW. So a DM is within the bounds of RAW to determine that pin-pointing an invisible / obscured creature at significant range has a DC associated with it. I mean, IMO it's DC 5 and you can just ignore that check as automatic (per the DMG rules for setting DCs) for a quiet room with nothing to distract someone. But a DC 10 no-action Perception check to pinpoint a creature you know is invisible and present, is not attempting to hide, but is 30ft away from you, and you're in the middle of combat, is not unreasonable. Nor one in a Fog Cloud or otherwise obscured.

ALthough, it also doesn't say anywhere that you detect anything automatically visually either. That's what I was getting at. And there ARE rules for stealth, invisibility, hiding, obscurement, etc.

[Tanarii]

ALthough, it also doesn't say anywhere that you detect anything automatically visually either. That's what I was getting at. And there ARE rules for stealth, invisibility, hiding, obscurement, etc.Yes, and those rules don't override a DM's ability to set a DC for something, like detecting a non-hiding creature in a noisy distracting environment that isn't making a serious attempt to hide (using their action to hide) but also isn't doing anything significant to draw attention to themselves. There aren't too many examples where something like that might be happening in combat of course, most creatures will either be trying to hide or drawing attention to themselves. And a DM who sets the DC higher than the average roll if the creature attempts to take the Hide action is kind of missing the point, especially if he also requires an action to do it. That's why I'd make it relatively low DC with no action if I did it at all, otherwise it's giving away full on free stealth to invisible or otherwise obscured creatures.

[BiPolar]

Yes, and those rules don't override a DM's ability to set a DC for something, like detecting a non-hiding creature in a noisy distracting environment that isn't making a serious attempt to hide (using their action to hide) but also isn't doing anything significant to draw attention to themselves. There aren't too many examples where something like that might be happening in combat of course, most creatures will either be trying to hide or drawing attention to themselves. And a DM who sets the DC higher than the average roll if the creature attempts to take the Hide action is kind of missing the point, especially if he also requires an action to do it. That's why I'd make it relatively low DC with no action if I did it at all, otherwise it's giving away full on free stealth to invisible or otherwise obscured creatures.

In total agreement. There are the rules, but the dm always has the ability to make a change or introduce a DC.

[Dalebert]

The best part about this, to me, is that these people not only think that it's clearly audible at all times, but that they can still hear it over the ambient sounds of a raging battle, and can pinpoint that sound over the raging noise of battle with zero effort.

I'm not taking the hardline position that you must handle it differently by RAW. I've only suggested that game balance is more important than achieving a high degree of realism and invisibility as a 2nd level spell is too powerful if you treat it that way. I'm more inclined to look for ways to reveal their location despite it not seeming very realistic just because it gets very broken otherwise. It doesn't take much imagination to do so. AFter all, none of us has experienced such a thing in real life. We've only imagined it.

Invisibility is very powerful even without being auto-hidden in most scenarios. In battle, all of which are apparently amazingly noisy, is a very common situation to use it in and one in which being able to bonus-action hide is relevant, and decreeing that it's basically an auto-hide in those situations just makes it that much more powerful. It's bad enough that you are untargetable at all by many spells and that everyone has disadvantage to hit you from just a 2nd level spell.

[Tanarii]

In battle, all of which are apparently amazingly noisy,Guy at the gym fallacy time: When I'm exercising hard in my kung fu class and my heart is pounding in my ears, things sure need to be amazingly noisy to get my attention. And that's not even sparring, just in the damn warm up.

Even for PC adventurers (ie 10 steps above me IRL) in hollywood/rule-of-cool, I'd have to make some assumption that the average 6-10 participant battle (counting both sides), hitting each other with weapons, using spells with verbal components, and probably making at least *some* noise both vocally & moving around even if they're not doing battle-yells is still at least as loud as a loud public area, like a mall food court. To assume they can perfectly pinpoint a creature that isn't a visible threat and isn't doing anything to draw undue attention to itself, even without taking the Hide action, isn't particular reasonable.

Nor required by the rules. If an invisible / obscured Orc (or whatever) takes the Dash Action to run away without hiding, assuming you can shoot it with your bow up to 600 ft away seems neither reasonable nor game balanced.

Edit: I'm mixing a couple of ideas here, which irritates me but I'll leave it. As I said up thread, I don't consider it often that you'll have an invisible/concealed creature in your immediate vicinity in combat that is neither trying to Hide nor do something fairly to reveal itself. That's not the same thing as the targeting a distant unseen creature issue IMO.

[Astofel]

No he's not. Despite the turn based/ cyclical abstraction of DnD combat, combatants are not standing still frozen while other combatants move, attack, cast spells etc.

The Orc followed up Bobs move on his turn that round, meaning that what really happened was Bob started running and the Orc immediately followed him, keeping a few feet behind Bob the whole time, while swinging his sword from side to side in wide swings as he did so.

At no time was Bob 30' away from the Orc.

Dont be fooled by the cyclical turn based abstraction of resolving actions in combat. Combatants dont get a full six seconds to act while everyone waits around for them patiently frozen in place. All actions are all happening more or less simultaneously.

Sure, maybe Bob was never really a full 30 feet from the orc, but that's tangential to the point I was trying to make, which is that Invisibility means that your location isn't completely known, but nor is it completely unknown. I have difficulty believing an orc with a PP of 10 could track an invisible creature across a busy battlefield flawlessly while the invisible creature is actively trying to escape, but he could certainly take an educated guess at where the creature went. Let's consider a slightly different scenario.

It's Bob and his orcish aggressor again, but this time they're 30 feet away and the orc has a bow. The orc has been firing arrows, and Bob turns invisible to avoid them, then moves somewhere else. Now that the orc isn't breathing down Bob's neck, he isn't really able to run after him to perfectly chase him down even if he could do that before. Bob's pretty scared, though, and he's breathing heavily and his equipment jangles as he trembles, so the orc has a pretty good idea of the general area Bob's in to shoot at him again, but he still might target the wrong square. If we say that there are four squares that Bob could be in, then this isn't really any more powerful than Mirror Image, another 2nd level spell.



The Orc only gets a Perception roll if he takes the search action. Otherwise all Fred has to do is beat the Orcs passive perception and he's hidden.

Its an action to Hide, and an action to Search. It balances out the action economy nicely.

You're being just a little pedantic. I know it takes an action to Search, my statement simply meant that if the orc does try to do so he's going to need a weirdly high roll to succeed. Impossibly high, even, going off the original stealth roll of 25.

[Coidzor]

Guy at the gym fallacy time: When I'm exercising hard in my kung fu class and my heart is pounding in my ears, things sure need to be amazingly noisy to get my attention. And that's not even sparring, just in the damn warm up.

If we're going to invoke the Guy at the Gym Fallacy here by bringing in how it works in real life, it's more like that fighting typically creates noise unless people are going out of their way to fight in silence. Just in terms of what kinds of noises the people themselves vocalize.

Even just two people punching one another makes some meaty thuds and thunks.

Add in metal weapons and armor and shields and that's going to make some noise unless you make some kind of special effort to all be samurai or ninja dueling in total silence. It's going to get even louder when you have a whole bunch of dudes womping on one another and screaming battle cries and challenges and curses and attempting to intimidate one another while spellcasters cause explosions and thunder to peel out as they unleash lightning and the like.

[Vogonjeltz]

Watch the video I just linked.
Start about 10 minutes in.
Mearls clearly states, in no uncertain terms, with zero room for misunderstanding, that the stealth rules were specifically and intentionally designed to be vague and have a "Let the DM decide" attitude.
It was not an unfair generalization. It was a fact.
And so I repeat: Anyone who argues that the rules are cut-and-dry (on either side, for or against) does not understand the rules to begin with.

I was under the impression from the WoTC statements that only Crawfords statements are official.

In other words, Mearls opinion carries as much rules weight as the next passerby on the internet.

Speaking of which: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/848958972375715841

"Some more Sage Advice segments are on the way for Dragon Talk. We recently recorded one on Wild Shape and one on Stealth. #DnD #WOTCstaff" - Crawford.

So maybe this dispute will get cleared up a bit.

[Coidzor]

I was under the impression from the WoTC statements that only Crawfords statements are official.

In other words, Mearls opinion carries as much rules weight as the next passerby on the internet.

Speaking of which: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/848958972375715841

"Some more Sage Advice segments are on the way for Dragon Talk. We recently recorded one on Wild Shape and one on Stealth. #DnD #WOTCstaff" - Crawford.

So maybe this dispute will get cleared up a bit.

If they actually do it, some will get cleared up, but then we'll also have something said that is mind-numbingly stupid, too, so that there's ample room for rabble-rabble in the future.

[DivisibleByZero]

I was under the impression from the WoTC statements that only Crawfords statements are official.

In other words, Mearls opinion carries as much rules weight as the next passerby on the internet.

First: That decree was made long after the video in question.
Second: That video is not discussing a rules question, that video is discussing why the rules were designed the way that they were. Mearls is more than qualified to speak about it, and some might argue that in these cases his words carry more weight than even Crawford's do.

[BiPolar]

First: That decree was made long after the video in question.
Second: That video is not discussing a rules question, that video is discussing why the rules were designed the way that they were. Mearls is more than qualified to speak about it, and some might argue that in these cases his words carry more weight than even Crawford's do.

Some might argue that, but in terms of Official statements on the Rules, that's Crawford's territory only.

[DivisibleByZero]

Some might argue that, but in terms of Official statements on the Rules, that's Crawford's territory only.

Great job ignoring the meat of that response to nitpick about something irrelevant.

First: That decree was made long after the video in question. (At the time that the video was made, Mearls was indeed fielding rules questions)
Second: That video is not discussing a rules question, that video is discussing why the rules were designed the way that they were. Mearls is more than qualified to speak about it,

Crawford later being named the Rules Guru has no bearing on this, because this was before that, and this isn't a Rules Question. It was not a discussion about what the rules say and how to interpret them, it was a discussion about why the rules were designed the way that they were.
Crawford later being named Rules Sage is not relevant in any way.

[BiPolar]

Great job ignoring the meat of that response to nitpick about something irrelevant.

First: That decree was made long after the video in question. (At the time that the video was made, Mearls was indeed fielding rules questions)
Second: That video is not discussing a rules question, that video is discussing why the rules were designed the way that they were. Mearls is more than qualified to speak about it,

No, I ignored the meat of the response because it was based on a source that WOTC doesn't consider valid for making Rules statements. Yes, he's a designer - absolutely. But using him to support your opinion that there aren't rules for how to treat invisible creatures is false. Only Crawford has been given the capacity to clarify rules.

And DBZ, Yes, I actually agree with how you play invisibility. But no, I don't think that your belief that there aren't stated rules on how to treat invisibility is valid. There are clearly rules. Malifice has put them together in the thread I linked to before and restated them here. They exist. The problem is, they aren't very simulationist. As you have said previously, it doesn't make a ton of sense. My table plays it how you describe. But we do understand that those aren't the rules. There is a system for how to treat it an invisible but unhidden creature in combat. We may not like it, but it's the system - and any table/DM can choose to play it differently.

[DivisibleByZero]

No, I ignored the meat of the response because it was based on a source that WOTC doesn't consider valid for making Rules statements. Yes, he's a designer - absolutely. But using him to support your opinion that there aren't rules for how to treat invisible creatures is false. Only Crawford has been given the capacity to clarify rules.

One last time.
Crawford later being named Rules Sage is not relevant.
This is not a Rules Question.
This is a discussion on the philosophy of the topic. Who was later named as the Rules Sage is not relevant in any way, shape, or form.

[BiPolar]

One last time.
Crawford later being named Rules Sage is not relevant.
This is not a Rules Question.
This is a discussion on the philosophy of the topic. Who was later named as the Rules Sage is not relevant in any way, shape, or form.

My apologies, I thought it the majority of the discussion on this thread was that OPs shenanigan's required a DM that had tables rules different than what the existing rules on invisibility state. If we have decided to drop that particular argument (which it doesn't really seem we have, but maybe i missed that), then sure. The shenanigans are possible. Just like any shenanigans that require DM fiat to overrule rules are possible.

[DivisibleByZero]

My apologies, I thought it the majority of the discussion on this thread was that OPs shenanigan's required a DM that had tables rules different than what the existing rules on invisibility state. If we have decided to drop that particular argument (which it doesn't really seem we have, but maybe i missed that), then sure. The shenanigans are possible. Just like any shenanigans that require DM fiat to overrule rules are possible.

I think you misunderstand.
I was referring to the video when I said "this is a discussion on the philosophy of the topic."
The portion of the video in question was a discussion on the philosophy of the stealth rules. The fact that JC was later named Rules Guru has no bearing on the philosophy, and therefore Mearls, as one of the Lead Designers, can absolutely speak with authority on the matter. So your attempts to diminish his voice on the matter are misplaced.
Does that explain it better?

[BiPolar]

I think you misunderstand.
I was referring to the video when I said "this is a discussion on the philosophy of the topic."
The portion of the video in question was a discussion on the philosophy of the stealth rules. The fact that JC was later named Rules Guru has no bearing on the philosophy, and therefore Mearls, as one of the Lead Designers, can absolutely speak with authority on the matter. So your attempts to diminish his voice on the matter are misplaced.
Does that explain it better?

Sure, but just before that he is talking about the importance of advantage/disadvantage in the mechanics and how it is one of the most powerful aspects of 5 in it's power and in it's simplicity.

With regard to the video, he uses stealth/HIDE as an example of the importance of DM situational decisions. But he also states that there is a mechanic, but that DM can overrule it. This isn't about stealth/hide in particular, but an example of where it could come up.

However, there IS a mechanic described for hiding, and invisibility gives a character the ability to HIDE when they coiuld not normally do so. And without taking that HIDE action (or a DM decision to do something different than the existing ruleset), then the target of an attack that doesn't require sight would do so with the simple and powerful mechanic of disadvantage.

[Grimjudgment]

My apologies, I thought it the majority of the discussion on this thread was that OPs shenanigan's required a DM that had tables rules different than what the existing rules on invisibility state. If we have decided to drop that particular argument (which it doesn't really seem we have, but maybe i missed that), then sure. The shenanigans are possible. Just like any shenanigans that require DM fiat to overrule rules are possible.

I never asked if they were possible. I actually only asked if anyone had any more ideas or stories to add on to it and people started arguing about extremely flexible rules, thus making the post an arguing platform instead of a thread about ideas and funny stories of players using invisibility in combat for shenanigans. I hope nobody mistakes me for being hostile about this, but I'm quite literally sick right now and just want ideas to extend the usefulness of a spell that people constantly hate on for not being greater invisibility rather than invisibility.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't disagree with anything you just said.

[BiPolar]

I never asked if they were possible. I actually only asked if anyone had any more ideas or stories to add on to it and people started arguing about extremely flexible rules, thus making the post an arguing platform instead of a thread about ideas and funny stories of players using invisibility in combat for shenanigans. I hope nobody mistakes me for being hostile about this, but I'm quite literally sick right now and just want ideas to extend the usefulness of a spell that people constantly hate on for not being greater invisibility rather than invisibility.

I will absolutely back off, Grim. My intent wasn't to derail, but only to state that my concern that in order to enable the shenanigans there were other concerns you may not have been aware of.

[Astofel]

I never asked if they were possible. I actually only asked if anyone had any more ideas or stories to add on to it and people started arguing about extremely flexible rules, thus making the post an arguing platform instead of a thread about ideas and funny stories of players using invisibility in combat for shenanigans. I hope nobody mistakes me for being hostile about this, but I'm quite literally sick right now and just want ideas to extend the usefulness of a spell that people constantly hate on for not being greater invisibility rather than invisibility.

Unfortunately Invisibility + stealth rules is just one of those things that's going to trigger a long-winded debate no matter what you do since there are a lot of people with opposing viewpoints on how it should work. Not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, but it tends to bubble up in threads where the OP had no intent of starting it, such as what's happened here.

Personally I've never made great use of Invisibility myself since I use spells and attacks too often for it to be useful in combat, but I do like your idea of an invisible bard. Something else that ought to be checked out is the interaction of psionics with invis, since invis only breaks on an attack or a spell, and psionics is neither of those, in addition to requiring no noise or movement. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works by RAW, although I'd personally never let it work like that in my game.

[BiPolar]

Unfortunately Invisibility + stealth rules is just one of those things that's going to trigger a long-winded debate no matter what you do since there are a lot of people with opposing viewpoints on how it should work. Not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, but it tends to bubble up in threads where the OP had no intent of starting it, such as what's happened here.

Personally I've never made great use of Invisibility myself since I use spells and attacks too often for it to be useful in combat, but I do like your idea of an invisible bard. Something else that ought to be checked out is the interaction of psionics with invis, since invis only breaks on an attack or a spell, and psionics is neither of those, in addition to requiring no noise or movement. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works by RAW, although I'd personally never let it work like that in my game.

Another interesting and fair for all sides is Cutting Words with Warlock ability to communicate telepathically. I see no reason why that wouldn't work!

[Jerrykhor]

To stay on topic, if I were DM I'd probably allow all of the OP's shenanigans, except pickpocketing enemies in combat. You think you should have advantage due to them being distracted? I'd say no, at best, you should have disadvantage instead, against a very high DC. People are constantly moving in combat, weapons are usually sheathed, potions are in pouches/bags that are probably tied up or hidden among other junk. Its pretty hard to yank a person's weapon out of their sheathes without them noticing. Also, they might bump into you.

Even Skyrim/Fallout with their hilarious pickpocket mechanics don't allow it.

[Grimjudgment]

To stay on topic, if I were DM I'd probably allow all of the OP's shenanigans, except pickpocketing enemies in combat. You think you should have advantage due to them being distracted? I'd say no, at best, you should have disadvantage instead, against a very high DC. People are constantly moving in combat, weapons are usually sheathed, potions are in pouches/bags that are probably tied up or hidden among other junk. Its pretty hard to yank a person's weapon out of their sheathes without them noticing. Also, they might bump into you.

Even Skyrim/Fallout with their hilarious pickpocket mechanics don't allow it.

Yeah, that's a legit criticism and I honestly don't know why I said it. I should've specified that it would be best against humanoids using ranged attacks since they don't move a whole lot, other than to reposition and reload. The only things that could possibly work are stealing a few arrows out of their quiver or cutting a coin pouch off them, which both aren't useful and would force your DM to give them an arrow supply and have to count their arrows from then on.

[Asmotherion]

Well, if you go full RAW, you can have plenty of options. The trick would be to use spells the have a longer duration, can be controled/interacted with wile they are still active, and ofcource, that do not use your concentration.

My favorite trick I've used in-game was spawning 2-3 Unseen Servants (who are also Invisible), and perhaps a mage hand on top of that. As long as the Servants were there, I could give off the impression of teleporting (fake steps), moving things stratigically (like the suggested caltrops for example), and a general feel of a Ghost. I was using an Arcane Trickster at the time, and surnamed him "The Ghost" after this trick + his other Ghost-themes spells (like Mirror Image and Blink). All that+a well placed Mage hand were golden.

[Grimjudgment]

I will absolutely back off, Grim. My intent wasn't to derail, but only to state that my concern that in order to enable the shenanigans there were other concerns you may not have been aware of.
I fully understand, it's all good. I like to try to portray the rules in D&D as close as possible, but it's just one of those rules that nobody can agree with and nobody needs to agree with. Even Gygax understood that you don't need rules to roleplay and the only reason why DMs roll dice is because we love the sound they make. Frankly, I don't care much for adventurers league games because I don't need to play games where rules are abided by despite the fact that they are kinda moot, since the DMG specifically states that the rules don't matter unless the DM allows them to matter. Because let's be honest here, as long as everyone is having fun, the rule books could be used as coasters for the sweatiest drinks in the world for all I care.


Another interesting and fair for all sides is Cutting Words with Warlock ability to communicate telepathically. I see no reason why that wouldn't work!

This is actually a wonderful idea and should work. There's no reason why screaming in someone's mind as they swing for your buddy wouldn't throw off their focus.

[Malifice]

Sure, maybe Bob was never really a full 30 feet from the orc, but that's tangential to the point I was trying to make, which is that Invisibility means that your location isn't completely known, but nor is it completely unknown. I have difficulty believing an orc with a PP of 10 could track an invisible creature across a busy battlefield flawlessly while the invisible creature is actively trying to escape, but he could certainly take an educated guess at where the creature went. Let's consider a slightly different scenario.




The Orc isnt tracking Bob across the battlefield. He's just lurching forward swinging his sword wildly in arcs from side to side as Bob backs up. Maybe following the trail of blood Bob left behind, or simply following the jingle jangle of Bobs spell components a he the races off, or the particular smell of terrified man-flesh and the aroma of exotic spell components which is oh so obvious and alien to the orcs snout. Or even just lurching forward wildly making a wild attack at Bobs general vicinity at disadvantage.

For a few seconds at most.

Remember in the above example Bob turned invisible on turn one and managed to hide on turn three (screwing the stealth check on turn two). The Orc was only able to roughly know his general location (enough to enable an attack at disadvantage) for all of about 6 seconds by swinging his sword around wildly. Narratively, simulationist speaking and gamist speaking im perfectly comfortable with that.

Fred on the other hand vanished instantly. It's good to be a rogue.

[Astofel]

The Orc isnt tracking Bob across the battlefield. He's just lurching forward swinging his sword wildly in arcs from side to side as Bob backs up. Maybe following the trail of blood Bob left behind, or simply following the jingle jangle of Bobs spell components a he the races off, or the particular smell of terrified man-flesh and the aroma of exotic spell components which is oh so obvious and alien to the orcs snout. Or even just lurching forward wildly making a wild attack at Bobs general vicinity at disadvantage.

For a few seconds at most.

Remember in the above example Bob turned invisible on turn one and managed to hide on turn three (screwing the stealth check on turn two). The Orc was only able to roughly know his general location (enough to enable an attack at disadvantage) for all of about 6 seconds by swinging his sword around wildly. Narratively, simulationist speaking and gamist speaking im perfectly comfortable with that.

Fred on the other hand vanished instantly. It's good to be a rogue.

Alright, that's fair enough, so I'll give you that one. What about the other situation I mentioned, though, where Bob and the orc are 30 feet away before Bob turns invisible? Not really looking to continue any debate, lest we derail the thread any further, but I'm curious to know how you'd manage that scenario.

[Malifice]

Alright, that's fair enough, so I'll give you that one. What about the other situation I mentioned, though, where Bob and the orc are 30 feet away before Bob turns invisible? Not really looking to continue any debate, lest we derail the thread any further, but I'm curious to know how you'd manage that scenario.

Bob turns invisible on turn one. As he waves his hands in the air and completes the incantations for the spell an arrow is shot at him. Remember Bob was probably even visible when the arrow was fired, or at the very least as the Orc was lining Bob up with his bow over the course of the round. Despite the cyclical turn based nature of D&D combat, actions happen more or less simultaneously. On round one that Orc is shooting while Bob is casting.

It's not that Bob becomes invisible, and then moves away 30 feet while invisible, and then the Orc line lines him up and shoots him. That's all happening more or less simultaneously. Bob is moving and casting while the orc is firing at him.

I have no problem with an Archer tracking and snapping a shot off in the direction of even someone running obliquely to the archer at 30 feet, who becomes invisible midway through that his running. Or even firing the shot immediately following the caster becoming invisible.

He won't be as accurate as if he could see him clearly for the entire round, but that's what disadvantage is for.

The following round Bob now gets to make a stealth check to hide (via the hide action). Depending on the distance and the ambient noise (is this in the middle of a large pitched battle, or is it just the orc shooting Bob?) I may grant Bob advantage on his stealth check. Of course this could be happening outdoors and in the snow in which case Bob would get disadvantage on his Stealth check (the Orc can see his outline in the falling snow, swirling snow as he moves and can also can see his footprints in the snow, and could hear the crunching of the snow as he walks through it).

Like most cases of advantage and disadvantage, it depends on the circumstances.

If Bob passes his stealth check in round two, the Orc can't find him anymore. If he fails his stealth check then he has not adequately concealed signs of his passage, nor is he moving entirely silently. This can be narrated quite easily as the orc scanning the area looking for Bob with his bow up and arrow nocked, noticing branches getting bent back, the snapping of twigs, a foot spashing in a puddle or whatever, and snapping of a shot at Bob (at disadvantage).

After that attack is resolved, its Bobs turn 3 and again he could attempt to hide. Bob can keep attempting to hide every single round - eventually even clumsy old Bob is going to roll over that Orcs passive perception score of 10. Once hidden he stays hidden unless the Orc takes the search action to find him and successfully rolls over Bobs stealth check results on his perception check.

Maybe Bob shouldn't have dumped dexterity and perhaps he also should've gotten stealth proficiency. Even better maybe he should've taken two levels of rogue.

[Astofel]

-snip-

All makes sense to me. Personally I prefer my own way of doing it, but I can definitely see where you're coming from.

[Tanarii]

None of that explains how an longbowman can shoot at someone that is 100 ft away, standing in a Fog Cloud, taking an action that isn't the Hide action but involves no significant noise (lets say the Dash action) , and having moved around from the previous turn so is in a different position from where they were ... And still manage to pick the correct location to get an attack roll with disadvantage.

Or lets just say Bob takes the Dash action on turn two instead of the Hide action, and moves 60ft in a circular pattern around the Orc maintaining his 30ft distance, on a stone floor. And yet the Orc can still pick out bobs location to make an attack?

There's no reason to assume that at all times all combatants know the location of (ie pinpoint) every other creature in combat, even when they haven't taken the Hide action. Nor do the rules require this. Edit: I'm not saying that it should be equal to or harder to pinpoint such a creature than it should be if they *do* take the Hide action. Just that there's no reason to assume that it should be automatic in all cases.

[Malifice]

None of that explains how an longbowman can shoot at someone that is 100 ft away, standing in a Fog Cloud, taking an action that isn't the Hide action but involves no significant noise (lets say the Dash action)

Someone dashing only 30 meters away, who has made no effort to be quiet (hide) but covered in smoke? Leaving aside the noise an armed and equipped (and possibly armored) creature would make sprinting (boots on the floor at least, plus heavy breathing and the jangling of coins/ weapons/ armor/ components/ backpack etc), wouldnt the fog swirl around, possibly causing gaps in the smoke?

It doesnt sound beyond the realms of possibility that an arrow could be fired at that guy (at disadvantage).


Or lets just say Bob takes the Dash action on turn two instead of the Hide action, and moves 60ft in a circular pattern around the Orc maintaining his 30ft distance, on a stone floor. And yet the Orc can still pick out bobs location to make an attack?

Are we putting Bob in a white room now?

Bob is now moving at a pretty brisk pace of 10' per second. Even assuming Bob is wearing soft slippers, and no other jangly stuff (components, coin pouch, weapons, backpack with spell book, rations, waterskin, staff etc) I find it pretty hard that our Orc friend is that oblivious to not notice signs of him running around (footsteps scraping on the ground at least, and quite probably some heavy breathing).

I mean close your eyes. Ill run around you in a 20m circle inside of 6 seconds, and see if you cant hear me. And thats with runners and shorts on. Try it again laden with weapons and camping gear, a spell component pouch and coins. Also, the Orc could possibly smell Bob (as a Soldier I can assure you this is more than possible).

Im pretty confident that in the six seconds Bob is running around in a circle, our Orc friend can snap off a shot at him (at disadvantage).


There's no reason to assume that at all times all combatants know the location of (ie pinpoint) every other creature in combat.

Stop thinking of it in 5' squares. The question is 'do the circumstances allow the Orc to attack (at disadvantage)?' You know, firing a shot or swinging a sword in the general vicinity of Bob.

Unless Bob has spent a second or two trying to actually be quiet and conceal his location (the Hide action) the game presumes he is not trying to be quiet and conceal his location and creatures can attack him (at disadvantage because they cant see him).

Bob, just take the damn Hide action if you want to be hidden.

[Malifice]

Dont forget that in in most of these hypothetical scenarios, Bob is described as doing something to make himself quiet and conceal his location.

In other words, it sounds like Bob is in fact using the Hide action, and that description of Bob (being very quiet, not moving much, masking his location by moving) is just narration of this fact.

[Corran]

....
The following round Bob now gets to make a stealth check to hide (via the hide action). Depending on the distance and the ambient noise (is this in the middle of a large pitched battle, or is it just the orc shooting Bob?) I may grant Bob advantage on his stealth check. Of course this could be happening outdoors and in the snow in which case Bob would get disadvantage on his Stealth check (the Orc can see his outline in the falling snow, swirling snow as he moves and can also can see his footprints in the snow, and could hear the crunching of the snow as he walks through it).

Like most cases of advantage and disadvantage, it depends on the circumstances.

If Bob passes his stealth check in round two
..........



None of that explains how an longbowman can shoot at someone that is 100 ft away, standing in a Fog Cloud, taking an action that isn't the Hide action but involves no significant noise (lets say the Dash action)
........

Emphasis mine.
At DM's discretion there might be cases where a stealth check (via hide action) is not necessary and being invisible results in an auto-successful hide check?
Last time I saw this topic discussed, someone had posted some semi-official stuff from a DM's screen (dont remember which one, but it was 5e product as far as I can remember).
If they're trying to be quiet: 2d6 x 5 feet
Normal noise level: 2d6 x 10 feet
Very loud: 2d6 x 50 feet

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

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

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

So if something is hiding, you won't be rolling perception checks for a long time. If not hiding but invisible, your party could pinpoint the creature from a fair-ish distance assuming the higher roll of 2d6 x 10 feet.
I can see a DM who is concerned with the realism of all of it, rule that an encounter creates enough noise-chaos for being invisible resulting in auto-hide mode, but I think it would break things, and anyway, I see the disadvantage imposed as a big enough penalty to translate it to roughly guessing the invisible enemy's location. Imo, under normal circumastances, I would not let invisibility be auto-hide unless taking the hide action, because that seems the most balanced thing to do, and I would try to find creative and logical ways to explain it (as per Malifice's examples).

------------------------------
@OP: Dont know if that was mentioned, but if you have the healer feat then you can heal allies without breaking stealth, I think. You can do it with healing spell too, I guess.

[BiPolar]

Grim - the other issue with the shenanigans is your action economy. Your actual impact on the battle is minimized with a lot of this. Your bard can very likely be much more impactful. There are likely scenarios where these can be used, but I see a lot of this better for non-combat.

Which makes me think more about the 2nd level invisibility spell and that it's primary use isn't for battle, but for out of combat shenanigans. As was stated earlier, a lot of those shenanigans would be better served to be done by an unseen servant or magehand - although those still use your bonus action(competing against bardic inspiration, heat metal, etc.)

[Grimjudgment]

Emphasis mine.
@OP: Dont know if that was mentioned, but if you have the healer feat then you can heal allies without breaking stealth, I think. You can do it with healing spell too, I guess.

I believe I directly stated the healer feat either in the OP or somewhere here, friend.

And no, with the invisibility spell, casting any type of spell breaks it, including passive cantrips.

[Grimjudgment]

Grim - the other issue with the shenanigans is your action economy. Your actual impact on the battle is minimized with a lot of this. Your bard can very likely be much more impactful. There are likely scenarios where these can be used, but I see a lot of this better for non-combat.

Which makes me think more about the 2nd level invisibility spell and that it's primary use isn't for battle, but for out of combat shenanigans. As was stated earlier, a lot of those shenanigans would be better served to be done by an unseen servant or magehand - although those still use your bonus action(competing against bardic inspiration, heat metal, etc.)

Oh yeah, I'm aware that depending on DM decisions, it would definitely influence how strong this is. Although I've expressed this before, and I'll express this point again:

This is not meant to be optimized or even necessarily incredibly effective. Think of it as a way that I'm trying to figure out ways to use a 1 hour concentration spell while in combat in case I have no other resources such as spell slots to use anymore. Because honestly, once a bard uses up their last slot for the day, you have inspiration, which is still a restrictive resource, and if you're playing a game where you're a squishy bard because your con is 10 and you got some bad rolls against a few enemies that are bound to drop you to 0 and might take an ally down if you don't participate at all, I'd rather save a single 4th for greater invisibility, but let's be honest here, saving a contingency 4th level slot sounds kinda ridiculous at lower levels when you don't even have 4th level slots to save.

So it's all for a hypothetical situation where you use a spell that is usually not used for combat, to have some form of combat presence despite the limits that you can't attack or cast any spells, no matter the nature. As a caster, your imagination is just as much as a weapon as any other object around.

[Tanarii]

Dont forget that in in most of these hypothetical scenarios, Bob is described as doing something to make himself quiet and conceal his location.

In other words, it sounds like Bob is in fact using the Hide action, and that description of Bob (being very quiet, not moving much, masking his location by moving) is just narration of this fact.Alternatively, we're looking at completely reasonable situations in which Bob should not be able to be pinpointed for an attack, despite no attempt to hide or be particularly quiet being involved, and you're contriving a reason why they can be pinpointed.

[Malifice]

Alternatively, we're looking at completely reasonable situations in which Bob should not be able to be pinpointed for an attack, despite no attempt to hide or be particularly quiet being involved, and you're contriving a reason why they can be pinpointed.

Well no, I'm not contriving a reason.

I'm saying that if Bob is doing nothing on his turn other than concealing his position and being very quiet... it sounds to me like he's taking the hide action.

If he's doing something else with his action that is not making any effort concealing his position or attempting to be quiet... then he is not making any attempt to conceal this position or to be quiet.

If hes just taking the dash action to run really fast, then yeah I have no problem allowing nearby opponents to shoot at him at disadvantage.

What I would say to Bobs player is: 'If you want to be quiet and conceal your position in combat while your character is unseen, there is an action for that. It's called the hide action. Its spelt out in the players handbook in the combat section. Until you successfully take the hide action then generally speaking the monsters can attack you at disadvantage. It only takes a few seconds to perform and I suggest you use it. If you want to get better at concealing your position and remaining quiet, you might wanna learn a few tricks from the rogue.'

Assuming a stealth bonus of of +0 and a passive perception of 10 (your average commoner v another average commoner) Commoner one could cast invisibility and be a 50% chance of being hidden relative to the other commoner (who would have no idea where he is) within a few seconds (During which time commoner 2 has only enough time to get in one attack at disadvantage). It's up to around 75% chance after about 10 seconds.

To me that sounds about right.

If commoner one was a instead a lowly second level rogue with Dex 16 and expertise in stealth (+7) He could have cast invisibility on his turn, and used cunning action to hide as a bonus action instantly with an 85% chance of successfully hiding and obscuring his position before the commoner could even react at all.

[Tanarii]

If he's doing something else with his action that is not making any effort concealing his position or attempting to be quiet... then he is not making any attempt to conceal this position or to be quiet.And yet "he is not making any attempt to conceal this position or to be quiet" != "all opponents can pinpoint him to attack him". That's where you're either contriving reasons, or making a non-logical leap. Based on past edition thinking? Not sure why. Because it's certainly not explicit in the rules that a creature must be Hiding or else any opponent can automatically pinpoint them to enable an attack.

(I use pinpoint somewhat generically here, nothing to do with squares, which is also old edition thinking. I'm using it to mean 'sufficient that any attack isn't automatically a miss because the target isn't even there'.)

Edit: In fact, the Unseen Attackers and Targets makes it quite clear that if you are guessing where a target is and they aren't there, you automatically miss. The rules are already in place for non-hidden targets and guessing where they are for targets that are merely unseen, not just hidden, so it must be possible for that situation to arise.

[Segev]

I think the "invisible things aren't automatically located" argument can be backed up sufficiently by answering one question: If Bob does not take the Hide action, but is Invisible, what mechanic is used to determine if Alice can locate him well enough to walk up and swing a sword (with Disadvantage) at Bob? If Bob is visible, obviously we just assume she can do it. If he's invisible, what do we use? Remember: Bob has not taken the Hide action, so there's no Hide-induced DC against which to roll Alice's Perception.



As to shenanigans with invisibility, once you get to levels where you can cast permanent major image, or when you get creative with minor illusion, it could be interesting. Unfortunately, silent image (as well as non-permanent major image) and invisibility both require your concentration, so you can't do both, or that would be perfect. Being an invisible controller of illusions would be great fun.

[Zene]

Kinda wish we could split this thread into two: One for folks that want to debate RAW and rulings minutia; and one for folks that are actually interested in discussing the OP's intent (creative uses of invisibility). This is a lot of noise to scroll through if you're only interested in the latter.

[Tanarii]

If Bob is visible, obviously we just assume she can do it. If he's invisible, what do we use? Remember: Bob has not taken the Hide action, so there's no Hide-induced DC against which to roll Alice's Perception.Actually, we don't assume it if Bob is visible. (Edit: Sorry, we don't have to assume it if they're visible, but it's a reasonable assumption per next paragraph below.) The DM can set any check and DC they want to determine if it's possible. In other words, normal procedures under the standard rules: DM determines check involved, sets DC, and determines if what action if any is required in a combat situation.

IMO as a DM, a reasonable assumption is that it's Wisdom (Perception), and 'automatic, no check needed' under normal circumstances. In other circumstances they might choose to set a DC of 5, 10, or whatever. However, it's also reasonable to assume that in most circumstances, the DC set would be lower than a typical Stealth check would produce in an opposed roll. And that instead of requiring an action on the part of the person (Search action) it would be automatic as part of the attacking action, or done with Passive Perception.

[Coidzor]

None of that explains how an longbowman can shoot at someone that is 100 ft away, standing in a Fog Cloud, taking an action that isn't the Hide action but involves no significant noise (lets say the Dash action) , and having moved around from the previous turn so is in a different position from where they were ... And still manage to pick the correct location to get an attack roll with disadvantage.

Or lets just say Bob takes the Dash action on turn two instead of the Hide action, and moves 60ft in a circular pattern around the Orc maintaining his 30ft distance, on a stone floor. And yet the Orc can still pick out bobs location to make an attack?

There's no reason to assume that at all times all combatants know the location of (ie pinpoint) every other creature in combat, even when they haven't taken the Hide action. Nor do the rules require this. Edit: I'm not saying that it should be equal to or harder to pinpoint such a creature than it should be if they *do* take the Hide action. Just that there's no reason to assume that it should be automatic in all cases.

I'd have gone with drinking a potion as the action myself, since that eliminates the breaking twigs or thudding on the stone floors from running potential issues.

Attacking with disadvantage in that case only really seems like it would work in Theater of the Mind, where things are pared down to reduce work rather than going towards simulating as much, though I'd still say a reasonable theater of the mind DM would have at least some chance of calling for a Perception check to try to visualize or locate them by sound and then attack.

Of course, aside from here online, the place where I first encountered this odious idea of omniscient orcs that can effortlessly pinpoint creatures they cannot see, I've encountered a lot of people for whom suspension of disbelief is damaged by the idea that any kind of skill check requires an action just because you're in combat.

[Malifice]

And yet "he is not making any attempt to conceal this position or to be quiet" != "all opponents can pinpoint him to attack him".

One attack at disadvantage in six seconds is not 'pinpointing' him. It represents the possibility Bob might be hit by a guy racing towards him and waving a sword furiously in his general vicinity or lobbing an arrow towards where he can hear footsteps. Again taking our commoner v invisible commoner example we go from a 55 percent chance of hitting AC 10 and a 1/20 chance of scoring a critical hit down to a 30 percent chance of hitting AC 10 and 1/400 chance of a critical hit.

Thats before you factor in the invisible guy is immune to AoO for moving away (the visible guy isnt).


That's where you're either contriving reasons, or making a non-logical leap. Based on past edition thinking? Not sure why. Because it's certainly not explicit in the rules that a creature must be Hiding or else any opponent can automatically pinpoint them to enable an attack.

Im not contriving reasons. Im saying that you're trying to describe actions that imply Bob is moving silently and taking effort to conceal his position (while doing something else). If Bob wants to move silently or conceal his position to render attacking him an impossibility, he needs to take the Hide action to do so. It literally takes a few seconds of effort to do, and if Bob cant be bothered taking the action, then Bob isnt concealing his position or being particularly silent. His enemies can attack him (at disadvantage).

If Bob wants to stealthily dash on his turn, he needs to get some specialist training. Two levels of rouge is all it takes.


(I use pinpoint somewhat generically here, nothing to do with squares, which is also old edition thinking. I'm using it to mean 'sufficient that any attack isn't automatically a miss because the target isn't even there'.)

Which turns invisibility into 'autofail all attack rolls' in addition to all its other benefits, instead of mechanically representing the guesswork required to target an invisible (but not hidden) creature as disadvantage to the attack roll. No other spell is that powerful, with the possible exception of wish. From a purely gamist perspective, this should be avoided.

Disadvantage is potent enough. If the Wizard wants 'auto fail all attacks' he also needs to use another action to take advantage of his invisible condition and Hide. It only takes a few seconds to do, and represents his skill at being silent and stealthy while unseen.

Even then his opponent gets to counter this by taking the Search action to locate him in order to attack him. The action economy is balanced perfectly.

[Malifice]

I think the "invisible things aren't automatically located" argument can be backed up sufficiently by answering one question: If Bob does not take the Hide action, but is Invisible, what mechanic is used to determine if Alice can locate him well enough to walk up and swing a sword (with Disadvantage) at Bob?

Alice states she advances towards where she [heard sounds of footsteps/ saw footprints in the snow/ noticed the dripping blood pooling on the floor/ saw grass and branches bending back/ heard the creak of leather and jangling of treasure and spell components from Bobs backpack/ heard his heavy breathing/ saw the steam from his breath in the cold air/ heard him stifle a cough/ saw a splash in a puddle/ follows the muddy bootprints etc etc] and swings her sword in a wide arc [makes an attack roll at disadvantage]


If Bob is visible, obviously we just assume she can do it. If he's invisible, what do we use? Remember: Bob has not taken the Hide action, so there's no Hide-induced DC against which to roll Alice's Perception.

No perception roll needed. Bob hasnt taken any effort to mask the signs of his passage or be quiet. He isnt hidden.

All Bob has to do is Hide. It takes a few seconds to do. Even if he's a total clutz and terribad at Stealth he'll eventually crack Alices passive perception and become hidden within a round or two.

That is of course unless he's either very unlucky or Alice is a guru at Perception, and in either case that also totally explains and makes sense of how and why Alice keeps noticing small details that let her know approximately where Bob is.

[Grimjudgment]

Kinda wish we could split this thread into two: One for folks that want to debate RAW and rulings minutia; and one for folks that are actually interested in discussing the OP's intent (creative uses of invisibility). This is a lot of noise to scroll through if you're only interested in the latter.

Yeah, honestly, this is getting a bit out of hand. Asking for ideas and having to deal with people trying to be rules lawyers when honestly, that's not the point of the post to be absolutely RAW, because people ignore the fact that RAI and the rule of fun are necessary just as valid as RAW, since Raw states that a dungeon Master can alter, or make rules on the fly.

Like I actually have an awesome companion system that rewards players for companions, but they don't slow combat. It's not part of RAW, but nobody has complained about it so far, and my players love it to death, because it makes combat much quicker and easier than just forcing myself or the players to fight the enemies with multiple characters.

[Malifice]

Yeah, honestly, this is getting a bit out of hand. Asking for ideas and having to deal with people trying to be rules lawyers when honestly, that's not the point of the post to be absolutely RAW, because people ignore the fact that RAI and the rule of fun are necessary just as valid as RAW, since Raw states that a dungeon Master can alter, or make rules on the fly.

Like I actually have an awesome companion system that rewards players for companions, but they don't slow combat. It's not part of RAW, but nobody has complained about it so far, and my players love it to death, because it makes combat much quicker and easier than just forcing myself or the players to fight the enemies with multiple characters.

Its your thread bro so i'll weigh out. Sounds like youre after suggestions for what to do when invisible.

My suggestion would be 'hide first' of course :)

[Tanarii]

Its your thread bro so i'll weigh out. Sounds like youre after suggestions for what to do when invisible./doh okay replacing my post with: I'll weigh out too then, so as not to be a 'last word' kinda guy. :smallbiggrin:

[BiPolar]

THinking about this more, you're basically turning yourself into an Unseen Servant. It seems the HELP action is really the most impactful thing you can do (other than the caltrop dropping bit). The rest are kinda cute, but if you were in my party I'd be pretty miffed that you weren't doing more to actively defeat the enemy (helping or creating obstacles like caltrops)

The shenanigans of what you could do roleplaying-wise while invisibile would be much more fun :)

[Segev]

The audio version of minor illusion would let you make noises "over there" without revealing your location.

You could also be disarming traps or picking locks while your party fights the guards.

Certain battlefield control spells are not hostile in a sense that would break the invisibility, I think. Grease, for instance. Summoning stuff tends to take concentration, though, so that's out.

[BiPolar]

The audio version of minor illusion would let you make noises "over there" without revealing your location.

You could also be disarming traps or picking locks while your party fights the guards.

Certain battlefield control spells are not hostile in a sense that would break the invisibility, I think. Grease, for instance. Summoning stuff tends to take concentration, though, so that's out.

Love the hidden guy breaking and entering but I don't think invisibility cares if the spell is a harmful or not before it turns off.

And I think OP is looking for non spell slot options, too. The point being what to do when left with no casting options.

Oil slicks, tho!

[Segev]

Still spellcasting options, but with mirror image and invisibility, you could sneak up to somebody and attack or otherwise engage in offensive action, and then have him feel surrounded.


If you've got the feat that lets you mimic voices, you could move near commanders of enemy forces and issue orders.

Setting traps is probably viable, too.

In the juvenile humor department, you could fart near somebody and let them take the blame. Or just make a farting noise, and let suggestion make people think they smell it faintly.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the "invisible things aren't automatically located" argument can be backed up sufficiently by answering one question: If Bob does not take the Hide action, but is Invisible, what mechanic is used to determine if Alice can locate him well enough to walk up and swing a sword (with Disadvantage) at Bob?
Passive perception is the best I can come up with, perhaps with disadvantage if there's a melee going on around them. DM can assign disadvantage based on circumstances. That's a rule. The next question is: what's the DC to passively perceive an invisible being? DC set by ... DM.

Beyond that, I'd best stay out of this scrum.

[Zene]

Like I actually have an awesome companion system that rewards players for companions, but they don't slow combat. It's not part of RAW, but nobody has complained about it so far, and my players love it to death, because it makes combat much quicker and easier than just forcing myself or the players to fight the enemies with multiple characters.

That sounds interesting, I'd love to read about it if you ever feel like writing it up. Allies/summoned creatures/familiars seem like such a huge part of the fantasy setting, but they hinder the actual playtime of players so much that I tend to avoid them --both as a dm and a player.

On a separate note, if you wanted to build a character around invisible shenanigans, what should you include? At-will invisibility seems like a no-brainer--Is the Warlock L5 Invocation One With Shadows the quickest way to get it? What else would be a must-have, or near-must-have? The expertise in stealth you could get from Rogue, along with the Thief's L3 Fast Hands (so you can interact with two objects in a turn) seem like a really valuable pickup too, especially if you take the healer feat early.

[Vogonjeltz]

If they actually do it, some will get cleared up, but then we'll also have something said that is mind-numbingly stupid, too, so that there's ample room for rabble-rabble in the future.

I remain hopeful.


First: That decree was made long after the video in question.
Second: That video is not discussing a rules question, that video is discussing why the rules were designed the way that they were. Mearls is more than qualified to speak about it, and some might argue that in these cases his words carry more weight than even Crawford's do.

Yes, and nothing he says about the rules, in any form, can be construed as official.

It's his opinion that that is how the rules were designed, but actualy intent is literally only the purview of Crawford.

And by RAW, because one can be heard, if they make noise (i.e. do anything) their position is known. By RAW the way to make no noise is to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check with the hide action.

The only thing that Invisibility changes about the hide mechanics is that the character can't break stealth by being seen (obviously, right?).


I never asked if they were possible. I actually only asked if anyone had any more ideas or stories to add on to it and people started arguing about extremely flexible rules, thus making the post an arguing platform instead of a thread about ideas and funny stories of players using invisibility in combat for shenanigans. I hope nobody mistakes me for being hostile about this, but I'm quite literally sick right now and just want ideas to extend the usefulness of a spell that people constantly hate on for not being greater invisibility rather than invisibility.

Several ideas vaguely touched on it, but the Use an Object action doesn't break invisibility (and possibly not stealth either depending on what it is).


Personally I've never made great use of Invisibility myself since I use spells and attacks too often for it to be useful in combat, but I do like your idea of an invisible bard. Something else that ought to be checked out is the interaction of psionics with invis, since invis only breaks on an attack or a spell, and psionics is neither of those, in addition to requiring no noise or movement. I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works by RAW, although I'd personally never let it work like that in my game.

I'd think it depends on what is being done with the psionics discipline (many of the uses are themselves attacks).


None of that explains how an longbowman can shoot at someone that is 100 ft away, standing in a Fog Cloud, taking an action that isn't the Hide action but involves no significant noise (lets say the Dash action) , and having moved around from the previous turn so is in a different position from where they were ... And still manage to pick the correct location to get an attack roll with disadvantage.

Or lets just say Bob takes the Dash action on turn two instead of the Hide action, and moves 60ft in a circular pattern around the Orc maintaining his 30ft distance, on a stone floor. And yet the Orc can still pick out bobs location to make an attack?

There's no reason to assume that at all times all combatants know the location of (ie pinpoint) every other creature in combat, even when they haven't taken the Hide action. Nor do the rules require this. Edit: I'm not saying that it should be equal to or harder to pinpoint such a creature than it should be if they *do* take the Hide action. Just that there's no reason to assume that it should be automatic in all cases.

If it helps, noise carries over an extremely long distance (miles, actually). And without hiding (interrupting the constant stream of sounds), it's fairly easy for a human to pinpoint a location via triangulation in seconds. Yes, there can be very specific circumstances that might cause someone to think sounds made from two different locations were actually from the same spot/person, but that's typically just one single event (i.e. beeps), never, ever, a continuous sound, like say, music, or jangling from movement).


Last time I saw this topic discussed, someone had posted some semi-official stuff from a DM's screen (dont remember which one, but it was 5e product as far as I can remember).

It's the 5th Edition Dungeon Master's Screen that WOTC makes. So I guess that's official...but that seems to be literally the only place that has those sound/sight ranges.

The DMG just lets you know that you can see things up to about 40 miles away if you were on a hilltop, for example, and that if sight ranges are short characters may hear the enemy before they see them. In another part the DMG mentions that sound (from combat, for example) can travel the entire length of a dungeon, alerting enemies everywhere at once.

Strange that the only published location for encounter ranges (sight and sound) is on the screen.

[Grimjudgment]

That sounds interesting, I'd love to read about it if you ever feel like writing it up. Allies/summoned creatures/familiars seem like such a huge part of the fantasy setting, but they hinder the actual playtime of players so much that I tend to avoid them --both as a dm and a player.

On a separate note, if you wanted to build a character around invisible shenanigans, what should you include? At-will invisibility seems like a no-brainer--Is the Warlock L5 Invocation One With Shadows the quickest way to get it? What else would be a must-have, or near-must-have? The expertise in stealth you could get from Rogue, along with the Thief's L3 Fast Hands (so you can interact with two objects in a turn) seem like a really valuable pickup too, especially if you take the healer feat early.

I never actually planned to make a character made just for invisibility, because I didn't want to sacrifice good character design for the sake of a gimmick.


Anyways, the idea is a flexible, changed version of an idea that was created by some dude and put into a drive word document for free, then he released the companion cards for $5. I don't remember the original source on where I found the original document, but it links to the DM guild page.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hXX3mAmmeuejDT-t47YCWoEHRJKFXnAGySXv6F19Now/edit?usp=drivesdk

I myself have made cards for my own personal use and have been working to balance it. Since I do not have all of my alterations on hand and do not wish to derail the topic too far off, I won't explain my modifications in detail.