Invisibility + Help = ?

[Unoriginal]

Using the Help action in combat is described as "you feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective."

The Invisibility spell breaks if you attack, but I don't see any reason why an invisible ally shouldn't be able to distract a target or the like to help a buddy's attack.

Which would make the invisible being give an advantage to their ally while their foe would have disadvantage to hit the invisible one.

What do you think? Is it worth it? Is there any reason to not allow it?

[nickl_2000]

I say is allowed and you would still be invisible. However, the enemy would know you were there and could attempt to attack you with disadvantage

Is it worth it? Probably in some situations, sure. Keep it in your back pocket as possible

[Millstone85]

Which would make the invisible being give an advantage to their ally while their foe would have disadvantage to hit the invisible one.Also remember that you do not have to stay near the enemy after providing Help, and being unseen means you do not trigger opportunity attacks.

[Ventruenox]

Being unseen does not preclude attacks of opportunity. If you leave a threatened square, it will still trigger with disadvantage.

If you pass through a threatened square without taking the help action; or if the enemy has no reason to suspect your presence at all, then you could justify an argument with your DM to ignore AoO.

[Millstone85]

Being unseen does not preclude attacks of opportunity.Yes it does.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.

[Ventruenox]

Ok. RAW, you are correct. Good luck passing that by your DM. Most will give a "Hell No!"

[Spore]

Opportunity attack no. But I would allow the enemy a wild stab into the square where he felt the distraction coming from. After all you can dodge a visible enemy but I would do my best to kill that pesky invisible mage pulling down my pants for the warrior to get a hit in.

[Millstone85]

If you leave a threatened square, it will still trigger with disadvantage.
Ok. RAW, you are correct. Good luck passing that by your DM. Most will give a "Hell No!"Does your DM also opportunity attacks you when you move between squares threatened by the same enemy? It would be supported by 4e rules, but now that's not leaving the enemy's reach.

[Lombra]

It's hard to distract someone if that someone can't see you, but I guess that there are many distractions that can work when unseen. It works RAW so yeah, why not? There shouldn't be penalties, the invisible charater is giving up his turn to give advantage, it's balanced.

[hymer]

I guess that there are many distractions that can work when unseen.

Oh, how right you are (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhF1qxEC2Ac). :smallbiggrin:

[Jorgo]

I would say you can Help while Invisible by doing something like a loud clap or foot stomp or poking your foes nose.

[RSP]

Ok. RAW, you are correct. Good luck passing that by your DM. Most will give a "Hell No!"

Why? And how are you supporting this statement? I've never even heard of a DM having an issue with this.

[Unoriginal]

I would allow the invisible person to get out without AoO unless the opponent has another way of perception as efficient as sight, in those circumstances.

[Millstone85]

By the way, it means the famous "helpful owl flies by" maneuver can be done with an invisible familiar, such as an imp or quasit.

[Kryx]

Ok. RAW, you are correct. Good luck passing that by your DM. Most will give a "Hell No!"
It's RAW and RAI. By "Most" you mean that you wouldn't allow it.

[Nettlekid]

It's RAW and RAI. By "Most" you mean that you wouldn't allow it.

Not even that, it means he was flat-out proven wrong and is embarrassed to admit it so he's arguing that his incorrect interpretation is the "common sense" approach.

[Mellack]

I think an invisible creature could use the help maneuver, but I agree they would automatically have their square known, so they cannot be hidden while doing that. They do still get to impose disadvantage on attacks for being invisible. They can also move in and out of threatened areas freely. I have never heard before of a DM disallowing that. Becoming unseen somehow is a standard tactic for spellcasters to move away from hostile creatures.

[dnd2016]

How and when do you use your movement after providing the help action?

[Xetheral]

By the way, it means the famous "helpful owl flies by" maneuver can be done with an invisible familiar, such as an imp or quasit.

Against intelligent foes, don't forget to have the Imp or Quasit "Help" by invisibly whispering in the target's ear about how its doom is at hand (with whatever level of graphic detail is appropriate for your table). Works even better if the Imp or Quasit knows personal details such as the target's name, family members, or religious beliefs.

[Mellack]

How and when do you use your movement after providing the help action?

Movement can be split up throughout your turn. You move 10-15' up to the target, perform the help action (pull down their hat, jostle sword arm, etc), and then move 10-15' away again. They will know your location, but you are probably out of reach. If they want to come after you, they would have to leave the person you are helping, so that person will likely get an AoO.

[Ventruenox]

Yes, my interpretation is incorrect. Thank you for proving me wrong.

I do maintain that using the help action ought to give away the position of an invisible entity, and that the opponent is well within their rights to use a reaction for a wild swing in response. If this is not how it is handled your table, that's all well and good.

I am a little surprised that Chainlock 3 is not more widely used for infinite advantage with this approach.

[Unoriginal]

I am a little surprised that Chainlock 3 is not more widely used for infinite advantage with this approach.

Well, how often did you hear about using the Help action with Invisibility, before this thread?

[Mellack]

It is not really that different than using an owl with flyby.

[dnd2016]

Movement can be split up throughout your turn. You move 10-15' up to the target, perform the help action (pull down their hat, jostle sword arm, etc), and then move 10-15' away again. They will know your location, but you are probably out of reach. If they want to come after you, they would have to leave the person you are helping, so that person will likely get an AoO.
So on my turn, I can move 15 ft to the enemy, provide the help action, and then move 15 ft away, all before my ally has attacked yet?

[BurgerBeast]

If you help your teammate by (1) distracting your target in a way that doesn’t give away your location, then you should be able to help and go undetected.

If you help your teammate by teaming up in some other way than distracting your opponent, and this way of teaming up would not cause you to be noticed, then you should be able to help and go unnoticed.

To my mind, there ought to be hundreds of ways.

Let’s go back to the beginning.


Using the Help action in combat is described as "you feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective."

When you use the help action you either:
(a) feint
(b) distract your target, or
(c) in some other way team up


The Invisibility spell breaks if you attack, but I don't see any reason why an invisible ally shouldn't be able to distract a target or the like to help a buddy's attack.

You are 100% correct.


Which would make the invisible being give an advantage to their ally while their foe would have disadvantage to hit the invisible one.

What do you think? Is it worth it? Is there any reason to not allow it?

I think you’re right, and there is no reason to disallow it. And no one in this thread has come up with a reason to refute you.

The enemy would not know that you were there, unless you did something to cause the enemy to know you were there.
There would be no reason for the enemy to “get a stab” at knowing where you are, unless you did something to let the enemy know where you are.


It's hard to distract someone if that someone can't see you, but I guess that there are many distractions that can work when unseen. It works RAW so yeah, why not? There shouldn't be penalties, the invisible charater is giving up his turn to give advantage, it's balanced.

It’s really not that hard. Just cause the distractee to see, smell, hear, or feel something that is not you. Knock something onto him, or into his way, or create a noise that is distracting (and caused by something that is not you), or set fire to the curtains behind him, or whatever else you can think of.

More importantly, you do not need to distract the target to grant advantage. You can team up in some other way. This leaves it up to DM discretion, but opens the possibility of simply assiting the attacker without distracting the target at all.

[Millstone85]

If they want to come after you, they would have to leave the person you are helping, so that person will likely get an AoO.Assuming the person you are helping was next to them. But yeah, if that's not the case, and you are not retreating behind a line of allies or something, there is little point in moving away.


So on my turn, I can move 15 ft to the enemy, provide the help action, and then move 15 ft away, all before my ally has attacked yet?Yes, at least according to Sage Advice.
If you use the Help action to distract a foe, do you have to stay within 5 feet of it for the action to work? No, you can take the action and then move away. The action itself is what grants advantage to your ally, not your staying next to the foe.Remember that the whole round happens within 6 seconds of fictional time, and turn-based combat can only make so much sense.

[Malifice]

Yes, my interpretation is incorrect. Thank you for proving me wrong.

I do maintain that using the help action ought to give away the position of an invisible entity, and that the opponent is well within their rights to use a reaction for a wild swing in response. If this is not how it is handled your table, that's all well and good.

I am a little surprised that Chainlock 3 is not more widely used for infinite advantage with this approach.

Unless the invisible entity has taken the hide action, its position is known in any event.

[Mellack]

So on my turn, I can move 15 ft to the enemy, provide the help action, and then move 15 ft away, all before my ally has attacked yet?

Yep. Same way a rogue can move 15 ft to the enemy, provide the help action, disengage using a cunning action, and then move 15 ft away, all before my ally has attacked yet. Or anyone with the mobile feat can move 20 ft to the enemy, attack (possibly multiple times), and then move 20 ft away, all before my ally has attacked. Those were just some of the ones who can do it without allowing an AoO. Anyone can do it with the cost of possibly being attacked as they leave.

[RSP]

I do maintain that using the help action ought to give away the position of an invisible entity, and that the opponent is well within their rights to use a reaction for a wild swing in response. If this is not how it is handled your table, that's all well and good.

I am a little surprised that Chainlock 3 is not more widely used for infinite advantage with this approach.

The Help Action only gives Advantage on the first attack, so a Chainlock wouldn't have "infinite" advantage. It's an okay use to get advantage on the first blast of EB, but it's not broken or anything.

And just curious, do you allow anyone to take a "wild swing" at any time as a Reaction? If a PC is using Invisibility and then just using the Help Action in combat, the group is losing out in terms of what they could be doing.

[Easy_Lee]

I am a little surprised that Chainlock 3 is not more widely used for infinite advantage with this approach.

It only provides advantage on one attack or ability check. As such, a rogue could make significant use of it, but it wouldn't be a huge deal for a warlock (or fighter for that matter) who would only get the benefit for one attack. That said, a Hexblade Chainlock trying to smite with a weapon cantrip might be quite a thing.

[BurgerBeast]

Unless the invisible entity has taken the hide action, its position is known in any event.

False.


Yep. Same way a rogue can move 15 ft to the enemy, provide the help action, disengage using a cunning action, and then move 15 ft away, all before my ally has attacked yet. Or anyone with the mobile feat can move 20 ft to the enemy, attack (possibly multiple times), and then move 20 ft away, all before my ally has attacked. Those were just some of the ones who can do it without allowing an AoO. Anyone can do it with the cost of possibly being attacked as they leave.

And, as has been discussed ad nauseum in multiple threads, the events of the narrative are not assumed to play out in the exact order that the mechanical turns resolve. All of the turns in any given round must unfold within the same (roughly) six-second timeframe.

[Chugger]

Why? And how are you supporting this statement? I've never even heard of a DM having an issue with this.

I agree. I don't think the poster we're talking about (who seems to think the RAW interpretation will be rejected by over 51% of DMs, if we parse him literally) has a good sense of this.

[Chugger]

What I'm not seeing is when it would make sense for a player character to do this.

A caster is down to his last slot, a lvl 2 spell slot - so he thinks giving help to the meleer with GWM will do more for the party than me casting firebolts - so he does this - he casts his last spell not as SHATTER or SCORCHING RAY or WEB or w/e - he goes invis and helps.

So one party meleer has advantage on one swing per round and probably hits with one attack doing +10 dam plus his other damage.

Maybe the invis guy is lvl 3 and the meleer is lvl 5 - maybe it actually would make sense then. I'm not sure there are many instances where it would - I'm too tired to attempt the math.

[Limited Gish]

What I'm not seeing is when it would make sense for a player character to do this.

A caster is down to his last slot, a lvl 2 spell slot - so he thinks giving help to the meleer with GWM will do more for the party than me casting firebolts - so he does this - he casts his last spell not as SHATTER or SCORCHING RAY or WEB or w/e - he goes invis and helps.

So one party meleer has advantage on one swing per round and probably hits with one attack doing +10 dam plus his other damage.

Maybe the invis guy is lvl 3 and the meleer is lvl 5 - maybe it actually would make sense then. I'm not sure there are many instances where it would - I'm too tired to attempt the math.
Right, it wouldn't be that great to cast on a PC. But your porter who's been helping haul treasure would be a lot more useful this way. And presumably braver too. Or throw it on a familiar. But you're circumstances pretty much cover my thoughts as well.

[BurgerBeast]

What I'm not seeing is when it would make sense for a player character to do this.

Edit: ninja'd.

It's probably fair to say it's not a pre-planned strategy. Maybe someone was invisible for some other reason when a fight broke out, and now decides using the help action to grant guaranteed advantage to a GWM is a better way to spend his efforts than to waste another spell slot... I don't know.

But as has been pointed out, it would be a very good use of a familiar's turn.

Regardless, the question of whether it can be done remains separate from the question of whether it ought to be done. The OP is asking whether it can be done.

[Temperjoke]

I dunno, I guess I'm having trouble picturing how an invisible familiar/PC could Help with another player's attack without being seen. I mean, Owls have a specific ability that allow them to completely avoid AoO, but I would at least give an enemy a chance at an AoO at disadvantage against an invisible familiar or PC who tried this. It'd be like a wild swing in the direction it came from, probably going to miss, but you might get lucky.

[BurgerBeast]

I dunno, I guess I'm having trouble picturing how an invisible familiar/PC could Help with another player's attack without being seen. I mean, Owls have a specific ability that allow them to completely avoid AoO, but I would at least give an enemy a chance at an AoO at disadvantage against an invisible familiar or PC who tried this. It'd be like a wild swing in the direction it came from, probably going to miss, but you might get lucky.

I would guess that you are taking too narrow of a read on the help action.

If you assume that the invisible character must distract the target, then you run into this problem.

But the invisible character is not required to distract the target.

I can guarantee that I am having a lot more trouble than you when trying to imagine how an invisible character who does anything to the target (unless it breaks invisibility) can possibly be seen. Invisible is invisible, after all.

[Malifice]

False.

Rubbish. Find me the rule that says becoming unseen (total cover, total obscurement, invisibility etc) makes you hidden without the hide action being required.

The Hide action is only possible by becoming unseen. Step 1 (become unseen). Step 2 (take the hide action to hide).

You're wrong by RAW. Run your games how you like however though

[BurgerBeast]

@Malifice:

I see what you did, there. You say "blah blah blah." I say "blah blah blah" is false. Then you say "blah blah blah" is true unless you can prove it is not.

Nope.

You are the one making the claim. You must provide the evidence. This is your claim:


Unless the invisible entity has taken the hide action, its position is known in any event.

Where is the evidence for this claim?


Rubbish. Find me the rule that says becoming unseen (total cover, total obscurement, invisibility etc) makes you hidden without the hide action being required.

I never claimed there was such a rule.


The Hide action is only possible by becoming unseen. Step 1 (become unseen). Step 2 (take the hide action to hide).

I never said anything about the Hide action. This is irrelevant.


You're wrong by RAW.

False.


Run your games how you like however though

Likewise.

[Kryx]

Where is the evidence for this claim?
RAW: Refer to page 177 of the Player's Handbook. See the Note on Hiding.
RAI:

The invisibility spell doesn't automatically hide you; you still make noise.

Invisibility = sight only.


That said I, personally, prefer having the invisible creature make a stealth check as part of turning invisible.

[BurgerBeast]

@Kryx:

There is no rule, anywhere, that says that the position of invisible entities are always (i.e. in any event) known.

Malifice is saying that the position of an invisible entity is known in any event, unless it has taken the hide action.

This is false. There is no evidence to support this.


RAW: Refer to page 177 of the Player's Handbook. See the Note on Hiding.

PHB 177 does not say that the position of invisible entities are always (i.e. in any event) known.


RAI: (JC tweet)

This does not say that the position of an invisible entity is always (i.e. in any event) known.


Invisibility = sight only.

Agreed.


That said I, personally, prefer having the invisible creature make a stealth check as part of turning invisible.

There is no need.

[Unoriginal]

Can we not do the Invisibility vs Position known debate in this thread, please?


What I'm not seeing is when it would make sense for a player character to do this.

A caster is down to his last slot, a lvl 2 spell slot - so he thinks giving help to the meleer with GWM will do more for the party than me casting firebolts - so he does this - he casts his last spell not as SHATTER or SCORCHING RAY or WEB or w/e - he goes invis and helps.

So one party meleer has advantage on one swing per round and probably hits with one attack doing +10 dam plus his other damage.

Maybe the invis guy is lvl 3 and the meleer is lvl 5 - maybe it actually would make sense then. I'm not sure there are many instances where it would - I'm too tired to attempt the math.


Right, it wouldn't be that great to cast on a PC. But your porter who's been helping haul treasure would be a lot more useful this way. And presumably braver too. Or throw it on a familiar. But you're circumstances pretty much cover my thoughts as well.



Edit: ninja'd.

It's probably fair to say it's not a pre-planned strategy. Maybe someone was invisible for some other reason when a fight broke out, and now decides using the help action to grant guaranteed advantage to a GWM is a better way to spend his efforts than to waste another spell slot... I don't know.

But as has been pointed out, it would be a very good use of a familiar's turn.

Regardless, the question of whether it can be done remains separate from the question of whether it ought to be done. The OP is asking whether it can be done.


Well, the idea I had in mind was for a NPC who started the fight invisible and wanted to stay unseen as long as possible while still impacting the fight.

Still, it ended up being an interesting way to use a familiar, and maybe people will think of new ways to use it.

I suppose Warlock-Rogue teams or Warlock 3/Rogue X multiclassed people would be the ones who can make the most out of it.

[Kryx]

There is no rule, anywhere, that says that the position of invisible entities are always (i.e. in any event) known.


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

The RAW and RAI on this topic are quite established now. If you don't like them then you're free to houserule (as I do).

Your stance seems to be Invisibility = hidden, no check needed. There is nothing in the rules that supports this.

[Malifice]

Malifice is saying that the position of an invisible entity is known in any event, unless it has taken the hide action

Yes indeed i am. A creature in combat that becomes invisible is not hidden unless it takes the hide action (and defeats my passive perception score).

Until it does that (hides) i can pick up my miniature, move it adjacent to that creature and attack it (at disadvantage).

It's absolutely no different to the creature entering a fog cloud, a patch of darkness or walking behind total cover such as a pillar or around the corner of a coridoor.

Being unseen only is not = hidden. That's RAW and RAI. Being unseen simply lets you attempt the Hide action. Thats also RAW and RAI.

The Hide action includes moving silently and masking your presence (foot prints in the dirt, jangling of armor, footsteps, breathing etc).

You're the only one left who still thinks differently. And you're wrong. RAW and RAI.

Feel free to run it different in your home campaign, but don't lead others into error.

[Xetheral]

You're the only one left who still thinks differently. And you're wrong. RAW and RAI.

He's certainly not the only one left who disagrees with your interpretation of the stealth rules. It is true (and welcome) that there are fewer threads related to stealth these days, but given the nature of internet discussions that cannot be taken on its own as evidence of emerging consensus: it is just is as likely the result of fatigue and restraint to avoid kicking a hornet's nest. Even if there was emerging consensus, it would be hubris to assume that it agrees with any particular interpretation so long as the number of posters on the topic remains so much smaller than it was when the controversy was debated weekly: we simply can't know the position of those who refrain from posting. That you're willing to speak longer than most others on a topic does not mean that others agree with you.

For evidence that the contrversy over the stealth rules is alive and well, check out the recent discussion on the EnWorld forums. There are multiple posters there who define "hidden" differently than you do, including believing it is possible in certain circumstances for a character to be unperceived without having taken the hide action. (Please note that I am not referring to the my own posts in that thread as evidence: I make no claim that the approach I take at my table--and describe in that thread--is required by RAW.)

It's also worth pointing out that any DM who ever calls for a Perception check to notice a non-hidden creature necessarily disagrees with you. Other posters considering whether or not to accept your claim of (near) unanimous agreement may want to consider whether such checks are commonplace at the specific tables with which they are personally familiar.

[Easy_Lee]

Invisibility is a case where I strongly feel that the spell itself should have given some idea of the checks involved to go without being seen. Some examples of things that should reasonably affect whether an invisible character is detected:

Is the character moving or otherwise making noise?
Did the character take the hide action? And is the hide action required to make a stealth check while invisible?
Are foes aware that the character just disappeared, or are they totally unaware that an invisible character is nearby?
Is there a noisy distraction that would inhibit detection?

It would not have been difficult to include some of these things in the Invisibility spell text. For example, I've seen DMs actually rule it similar to the following:
While invisible, you may make Stealth checks with advantage when you take the Hide action. A creature cannot detect you through passive Perception, and must actively look for you.

Alas, 5e gave us nothing like this, so each DM has to decide for themselves how easy / difficult it is to detect an invisible target.

[Malifice]

It's also worth pointing out that any DM who ever calls for a Perception check to notice a non-hidden creature necessarily disagrees with you.

Why would you need a perception check to notice a creature that is not hidden (or trying - intentionally or otherwise - to hide)?

The general rule is that creatures notice nearby creatures that aren't hidden from them.

I can see some cases for it I guess. Spotting a creature in a 'where's Wally" situation in a large crowd perhaps.

Barring corner cases though, a creature that becomes unseen (by whatever means) still needs to take the hide action to hide.

Otherwise the rules for hiding would say 'Being unseen makes you hidden'. They don't say that - they say (paraphrasing) 'in order to take the Hide action you must first become unseen'.

[Xetheral]

Why would you need a perception check to notice a creature that is not hidden (or trying - intentionally or otherwise - to hide)?

The general rule is that creatures notice nearby creatures that aren't hidden from them.

I can see some cases for it I guess. Spotting a creature in a 'where's Wally" situation in a large crowd perhaps.

Barring corner cases though, a creature that becomes unseen (by whatever means) still needs to take the hide action to hide.

Otherwise the rules for hiding would say 'Being unseen makes you hidden'. They don't say that - they say (paraphrasing) 'in order to take the Hide action you must first become unseen'.

(Emphasis added.) For the same reason that you might need any other Perception check: the DM decides that there is a meaningful chance of failure. You interpret the the rules you've quoted as precluding that chance of failure unless someone took the hide action. Others disagree with your interpretation, believe that the outcome can be uncertain, and when it is they call for Perception checks.

(And others might never call for such Perception checks and yet still disagree with your interpretation. The group of DMs who call for such checks are merely an easily-identifiable class that necessarily disagrees with you.)

[Unoriginal]

By all the gods and their angels, can we NOT do this debate again?

I know it is annoying to have people not agree with you, especially when you think the rules are on your side, but this will just lead to people disagreeing and not being convinced by the other side's arguments. Because everyone has heard every argument on the question already and if it was enough to convince them, it'd already have done it.

There is no chance to make this barren waste of a conversation fertile, so let's just not do it, please.

[Xetheral]

By all the gods and their angels, can we NOT do this debate again?

I know it is annoying to have people not agree with you, especially when you think the rules are on your side, but this will just lead to people disagreeing and not being convinced by the other side's arguments. Because everyone has heard every argument on the question already and if it was enough to convince them, it'd already have done it.

There is no chance to make this barren waste of a conversation fertile, so let's just not do it, please.

Could I please get your opinion? I'm doing my best to limit my part in the conversation to a refutation of Malifice's and Kryx's claims (quotes below) that the hiding rules are either "quite established" (Kryx) or subject to nigh-universal agreement (Malifice), rather than reignite a conversation about the hiding rules themselves. First, do you consider that a relevant distinction?

Second, since your plea to drop the topic is predicated on the belief that the conversation will again erupt into debate, I'm inferring that you believe that the hiding rules are still controversial. Is that a reasonable inference?

Finally, when a poster makes a claim (C) tangentially related to the hiding rules, and offers as support for C the separate claim (H) about the hiding rules, how would you recommend one discuss C while avoiding H? I'm assuming you dont think that all topics tangentially-related to the hiding rules should be off-limits, but I'm not sure how you would suggest approaching such topics so as not to reignite debate over the hiding rules.


The RAW and RAI on this topic are quite established now. If you don't like them then you're free to houserule (as I do).


You're [referring to BurgerBeast] the only one left who still thinks differently. And you're wrong. RAW and RAI.

Feel free to run it different in your home campaign, but don't lead others into error.

[Kryx]

"quite established" (Kryx)
There is no RAI debate as Crawford has spoken. If you don't like RAI then play it differently (I do!). RAW is just a perception of RAI which in 5e means RAI > RAW. AL follows the same system for the most part.


I haven't seen any rule quotes from the "no stealth check necessary" crowd. How do you play it? What rules inform that way?

Again, I don't play as RAI - I add a free stealth on top of invisibility and would maybe use Perception vs passive stealth for getting the location of a creature in darkness for example. Though my opinion in how it should work isn't set. Only how it does work via RAI.

[BurgerBeast]

Can we not do the Invisibility vs Position known debate in this thread, please?

Sorry. I'm starting a new thread.

[Xetheral]

There is no RAI debate as Crawford has spoken.

And yet, people still disagree on how to interpret what he said and how to apply it to the game. For evidence, see Easy Lee's last paragraph above, the current EnWorld thread, and (if I'm inferring correctly), Unoriginal's worry that this thread will turn into another hiding debate. How can your claim be true that there is no RAI debate when there evidently is debate?

[Kryx]

Easy Lee's last paragraph above
Easy Lee is saying it'd be nice for more details. He isn't debating RAI. He's talking about GM rulings.


the current EnWorld thread
There is no debate about the Invisibility spell on EnWorld that I can see. There is "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding", but that is not the question this thread is asking or the question that Crawford responded to.

This thread is specifically about Invisibility and it's interaction with the hiding rules. That is what I am referring to. You're attempting to broaden that topic to all hiding rules.


Avoiding topics is because of people being tired of the topic. I actually wanted to avoid this topic as well. Not because there is a RAI debate, but because people will willfully ignore rules. We've had threads with tens of pages of that. It's not so fun.


Again I ask how you rule it. If RAI is wrong please provide rules that inform how you play. Just stating "you're wrong" gets us no where.

[Temperjoke]

I would guess that you are taking too narrow of a read on the help action.

If you assume that the invisible character must distract the target, then you run into this problem.

But the invisible character is not required to distract the target.

I can guarantee that I am having a lot more trouble than you when trying to imagine how an invisible character who does anything to the target (unless it breaks invisibility) can possibly be seen. Invisible is invisible, after all.

Page 192 of the PHB states for the Help action in combat: "You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective."

Please explain to me how an invisible familiar or PC could use the Help action on an enemy and then move out of range without the enemy getting even a basic swipe on the invisible something that did something to him? I'm not talking about a targeted attack of opportunity on the invisible ally, I'm talking just a random swat that probably won't hit but might fend off something. Because I interpret the Help action as doing something noticeable that boosts your ally's attack, like you feel a fly or mosquito around you that you swat at and every so often happen to get lucky and hit.

[Xetheral]

Easy Lee is saying it'd be nice for more details. He isn't debating RAI. He's talking about GM rulings.

Easy Lee said:


Alas, 5e gave us nothing like this, so each DM has to decide for themselves how easy / difficult it is to detect an invisible target.

To my understanding, you and Malifice are taking the position that RAI says an invisible target who doesn't take the hide action is always detected. (Malifice later backtracked slightly allowing for "corner cases".) Easy Lee is directy contradicting that, saying instead that it is up to the GM.


There is no debate about the Invisibility spell on EnWorld that I can see. There is "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding", but that is not the question this thread is asking or the question that Crawford responded to.

This thread is specifically about Invisibility and it's interaction with the hiding rules. That is what I am referring to. You're attempting to broaden that topic to all hiding rules.

I interpreted your claim that the RAI was well-established to apply to all the hiding rules. Apparently I was incorrect. I retract that example of contrversy as it is no longer relevant, although if one were inclined to read the whole thing at least one poster there other than myself states that they are of the opinion that creatures that don't take the hide action might not always be noticed (even in combat). Still, the thread as a whole is less applicable than I'd originally thought.


Avoiding topics is because of people being tired of the topic. I actually wanted to avoid this topic as well. Not because there is a RAI debate, but because people will willfully ignore rules. We've had threads with tens of pages of that. It's not so fun.

This appears self-contradictory. How can there be no RAI debate if there are threads with tens of pages debating it? No matter how wrong you think those who disagree with you are, or how strongly you believe that they're ignoring rules, isn't it still a debate?


Again I ask how you rule it. If RAI is wrong please provide rules that inform how you play. Just stating "you're wrong" gets us no where.

I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of the details. I'm more interested in discussing what I consider to be erroneous claims of consensus. However, so as not to dodge the question completely, the (very) short answer is that I don't interpret the rules as mandating that everything that everyone who isn't hidden is automatically perceived. I believe the RAW and RAI allows for a DM to determine that under the circumstances noticing someone non-hidden may be in doubt, and thus call for a Perception check.

To relate this back to the specific invisibility topic: I believe RAW and RAI permit a DM to rule that under the circumstances then-present in the game world, there is a chance that an invisible creature taking the Help action may not be percieved even if that creature hasn't taken the Hide action. You appear to disagree, considering that in the post I quoted you were disagreeing with BurgerBeast who was saying (approximately) the same thing.

[Unoriginal]

Could I please get your opinion? I'm doing my best to limit my part in the conversation to a refutation of Malifice's and Kryx's claims (quotes below) that the hiding rules are either "quite established" (Kryx) or subject to nigh-universal agreement (Malifice), rather than reignite a conversation about the hiding rules themselves. First, do you consider that a relevant distinction?

The rules are debated, regardless of the validity or lack of validity said the debate. How many people disagree on them is not something I know, but there is enough of them to discuss the interpretation at length in several topics on several sites.


Second, since your plea to drop the topic is predicated on the belief that the conversation will again erupt into debate, I'm inferring that you believe that the hiding rules are still controversial. Is that a reasonable inference?

It is a reasonable inference, and the reasons for this belief are

-The fact I've seen this debate before, with always the same result

-The fact that the debate did erupt in this thread


Finally, when a poster makes a claim (C) tangentially related to the hiding rules, and offers as support for C the separate claim (H) about the hiding rules, how would you recommend one discuss C while avoiding H? I'm assuming you dont think that all topics tangentially-related to the hiding rules should be off-limits, but I'm not sure how you would suggest approaching such topics so as not to reignite debate over the hiding rules.

C and H will always re-ignite the debate as long as two people will disagree on them. I am not saying to avoid discussing C and H entirely, I am simply saying that C and H should be discussed in places where the debate doesn't take over a different discussion and cannibalize an unrelated thread.

[Xetheral]

The rules are debated, regardless of the validity or lack of validity said the debate. How many people disagree on them is not something I know, but there is enough of them to discuss the interpretation at length in several topics on several sites.



It is a reasonable inference, and the reasons for this belief are

-The fact I've seen this debate before, with always the same result

-The fact that the debate did erupt in this thread



C and H will always re-ignite the debate as long as two people will disagree on them. I am not saying to avoid discussing C and H entirely, I am simply saying that C and H should be discussed in places where the debate doesn't take over a different discussion and cannibalize an unrelated thread.

Thank you!

[Saggo]

Please explain to me how an invisible familiar or PC could use the Help action on an enemy and then move out of range without the enemy getting even a basic swipe on the invisible something that did something to him?

Because a random swipe that has any meaningful mechanical impact on combat isn't something you get to do without a DM fiat. If you want to fluff it, you can by all means fluff it.

[Kryx]

How can there be no RAI debate if there are threads with tens of pages debating it?
I know of tens of topics that people like Arial Black or Vogonjeltz will argue until their death. People will debate, no matter the topic. Debate of their opinions does not decide RAI. Rules as Intended. Meaning when an author (Crawford, probably not Mearls) comes along and says "It is meant to be this" then that's RAI. Crawford has made this case clear that an invisible creature is not hidden.


I believe the RAW and RAI allows for a DM to determine that under the circumstances
As a DM you can always make calls and rulings as desired - that's the backbone of 5e. You can decide that there are several exceptions to RAW. In the case of Invis I may even be inclined to agree with you on a personal level. The difference here is we're talking about RAI, not GM rulings.


I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of the details. I'm more interested in discussing what I consider to be erroneous claims of consensus.
I have never claimed community consensus. As I said people will argue to their deaths - there can never be full consensus. I claimed RAI as stated by Crawford.

Though if you read the thread spawned from this RAW does not say that invisible entities are always ("in any event") auto-detected (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?535816-RAW-does-not-say-that-invisible-entities-are-always-(-quot-in-any-event-quot-)-auto-detected)) then you'll see that many people have the same consensus of what is RAI.

[Xetheral]

Kryx, I will reply in the other thread.

[BurgerBeast]

Page 192 of the PHB states for the Help action in combat: "You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective."

Please explain to me how an invisible familiar or PC could use the Help action on an enemy and then move out of range without the enemy getting even a basic swipe on the invisible something that did something to him? I'm not talking about a targeted attack of opportunity on the invisible ally, I'm talking just a random swat that probably won't hit but might fend off something. Because I interpret the Help action as doing something noticeable that boosts your ally's attack, like you feel a fly or mosquito around you that you swat at and every so often happen to get lucky and hit.

Actually, I think you're right. I was not reading the Help Action in full context. It looks like even "in some other way teaming up" would still require some sort of interaction with the target.

I was operating on the assumption that the helper could simply help the attacker (i.e. not actually interfere with the target). I thought there was room for some imaginative possibilities there.

I agree with you, in that the helper, RAW, must interfere with the target.

However, RAW the target still cannot have an attack of opportunity because he cannot see the invisible helper. (I would tell the involved player that he is aware enough to swipe at the helper, but not in a way that would actually count as a true attack.)

[Dimcair]

However, RAW the target still cannot have an attack of opportunity because he cannot see the invisible helper. (I would tell the involved player that he is aware enough to swipe at the helper, but not in a way that would actually count as a true attack.)


Don't mislead your players into thinking they are doing something when they are actually not....

[Malifice]

I'd just want to know 'what' is it doing to help or distract the enemy.

The DM can invervene if he thinks what you're doing isnt (in fact) helpful. Heck; he could impose disadvantage if he thinks it has the opposite effect.

I dislike players dictating 'actions' in mechancinal terms. They tell me what they want to do (I'll distract the Ogre Arnie in Predator style 'DOO EEET - IM HEEEERE! KILL ME! CAM AAAAN!). and I adjudicate it from there.

[Unoriginal]

It could be "I stomp loudly next to the enemy, making them think I'm going to attack and so they brace themselves for a hit that never come" or "I brush next to them without making violent contact" or the like.

[Malifice]

It could be "I stomp loudly next to the enemy, making them think I'm going to attack and so they brace themselves for a hit that never come" or "I brush next to them without making violent contact" or the like.

Not sure stomping next to me is going to distract me enough to warrant granting another creature advantage to hit me.

Maybe jostling me.

Or dacking me.

:)

[Unoriginal]

Not sure stomping next to me is going to distract me enough to warrant granting another creature advantage to hit me.

Maybe jostling me.

Or dacking me.

:)

You're a trained combatant facing an enemy. Suddenly you hear a loud footstep to your right.

Do you turn you head to look at it, or do you just assume "it can't be an enemy readying an attack" ?