RAW does not say that invisible entities are always ("in any event") auto-detected [Archive]

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 01:05 PM

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).

The RAW and RAI are established and I agree with them. They just never say that invisible entities are always auto-detected.

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

No, this is not my stance. Invisibility does not equal hidden.

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).

This is RAW. A creature that turns invisible in combat is not necessarily hidden. But that’s the end of the story.

Invisible entities are always auto-detected. <- This is your invention. It does not follow and it is never mentioned in the RAW.

Being unseen only is not = hidden. That's RAW and RAI.

Agreed. You still have not justified your claim.

Being unseen simply lets you attempt the Hide action. Thats also RAW and RAI.

Being unseen lets you attempt to hide. Agreed. So what? I’m saying that invisible creatures are not always auto-detected.

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

Understood. This is RAW.

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

Show me. Where, in the rules, does it say that invisible entities are always auto-detected?

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

Oh, the irony.

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

You need a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice something that is not hidden if there is a chance that you will not notice it. That’s why.

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

No, it is not. Evidence please.

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

So which is it then? RAW, do you automatically notice him or not?

You seem to be saying that RAW, Wally is automatically noticed.

I am saying that RAW he is not automatically noticed.

We can’t both be right on this.

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

This is a different point. And it’s still false. You have to qualify it with in combat. The rules say that if a creature turns invisible in combat, it is not automatically hidden. The rules do not say that creatures that are unseen are automatically noticed always.

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'.

Being unseen does not make you hidden. That’s why the rules don’t say that.

In order to take the hide action, you must be unseen. The rules say that because those are the rules.

But the rules do not say: unseen entites are automatically detected.

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 do like the RAI. I think that you and Malifice are misunderstanding the RAI.

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

I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, but I require stealth checks when players attempt to (1) do something, and when (2) doing that thing would usually cause them to become noticed.

As a result, there are a multitude of out-of-combat situations in which an invisible person would not need to make a stealth check to go unnoticed.

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.

My suspicion is that you actually do play by RAI, but that someone has convinced you that the RAI are different than they actually are.

Now, for the Comments on this thread:

Being invisible lets a creature attempt to Hide anywhere, but the existence of that line suggests that they are not automatically hidden.

Good, because they are not automatically hidden. We agree.

Unless the DM rules that the noise of combat is drowning out any sound the character is making and that they are not kicking up any dust/disturbing any grass/etc., there will usually be some clue that gives away their position.

Yes, this is true in combat. But that’s not the claim. The claim is that this is always true.

Yeah, you're considered aware of where everyone in a combat is by default, unless they are Hiding.

Agreed. This is RAW.

Invisibility does allow for hiding pretty much anywhere and everywhere, but does not automatically hide you.

Agreed.

My point remains. Invisible creatures are not always auto-detected.

Varlon

2017-09-10, 01:25 PM

I thought the hill you were dying on was the distinction between "always" and "by default". But, it seems it's actually between "always" and "when in combat".

Really? The other thread is about combat. Whenever people are talking about taking the Hide action, that's in combat. The description of the Hide action is in chapter 9, "Combat", subsection "Actions in Combat".

But even when not in combat, an invisible creature will only be hidden if they are attempting to be stealthy (and probably succeed on a Stealth check). If they are undetected, it is because they are hiding. If they're not attempting to be stealthy...they're going to be detected, because they're going to be stomping and clanking around.

Unoriginal

2017-09-10, 02:32 PM

Entities are auto-detected if they are not hidden. Entities that are hidden are not auto-detected. Being invisible does not prevent you from being hidden.

Therefore, you can be both invisible and not auto-detected, as you can be both invisible and hidden.

Easy_Lee

2017-09-10, 02:35 PM

But even when not in combat, an invisible creature will only be hidden if they are attempting to be stealthy (and probably succeed on a Stealth check). If they are undetected, it is because they are hiding. If they're not attempting to be stealthy...they're going to be detected, because they're going to be stomping and clanking around.

That's the part that I think people struggle with. Let's say an invisible gnome is asleep in the corner of a room. For the sake of argument, let's further say that he's not snoring. Should he be auto detected?

And what about the warlock invocation One with Shadows that lets the warlock use his action to become invisible as long as he doesn't move or act? When he becomes invisible, is he then auto detected by everything? If he has to use his action to hide, he's using his action and is thus no longer invisible. But if invisible creatures are auto detected unless they hide, then this invocation is completely useless as written.

smcmike

2017-09-10, 02:51 PM

It seems to me that the rules are pretty confusing on this point, and that this is an area where a bit of common sense may be a good gap-filler.

The sleeping invisible gnome is a good example. Personally, I'd be ok with an assumption that an invisible creature who isn't doing anything else in particular is considered to be hiding by default, since just standing in one place, quietly, is all that it takes to hide while invisible.

Out of combat, this should all be handled with narration and checks depending on the circumstances. When the heroes enter the dwelling of the sleeping gnome, perhaps they hear a faint whistling noise. A perception check can lead them to the specific spot where the noise comes from, even a natural 20 won't give them "there is a sleeping gnome at z8."

pwykersotz

2017-09-10, 02:59 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-09-10, 03:05 PM

Not that RAW has any meaning outside of forum arguments.

That's a good point. DMs are going to rule what seems right to them regardless of anything else. This is part of the reason why I wish the text of the spell itself was more detailed. At least that way we'd have a better, clearer idea of the developers' assumptions and intent.

ThePolarBear

2017-09-10, 03:08 PM

[...]

I do not think that's a rule anywhere in the 5 edition published materials.

The closest thing i can remember is that, when determining surprise, "if neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other".
The second closest thing is, when talking about hiding and approaching a creature: "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."

Now. for how i see it:

There's an underlying assumption that, considering only combat as a factor, creatures that do not try to hide are noticed, and even when trying if the conditions are not good enough being noticed is still what ends up as a result.

This is the only thing that should matter. If the condition is simply "an invisible creature", then no - there's no automatic detection. There's also no one to notice it ;)

That's the part that I think people struggle with. Let's say an invisible gnome is asleep in the corner of a room. For the sake of argument, let's further say that he's not snoring. Should he be auto detected?

Should it be automatically hidden? The answer is no to both. Assuming someone is there, obviously.

And what about the warlock invocation One with Shadows that lets the warlock use his action to become invisible as long as he doesn't move or act? When he becomes invisible, is he then auto detected by everything? If he has to use his action to hide, he's using his action and is thus no longer invisible. But if invisible creatures are auto detected unless they hide, then this invocation is completely useless as written.

Already been in a discussion like this one. The solution is "the warlock can hide first and then become invisible."
While out of initiative sequencing, there's no need to track actions. Otherwise the DM would have called for initiative.

Strill

2017-09-10, 03:31 PM

Invisible creatures are neither automatically hidden nor are they automatically detected. The GM rules whether they have revealed themselves or not based on innumerable other factors with sight being the only auto fail condition.

As far as I have seen, anyone who believes otherwise is extrapolating. Not that RAW has any meaning outside of forum arguments.

Exactly right.

I'd also like to point out that it is possible for a creature to know your general location, but not your exact location.

Foxhound438

2017-09-10, 03:33 PM

But even when not in combat, an invisible creature will only be hidden if they are attempting to be stealthy (and probably succeed on a Stealth check). If they are undetected, it is because they are hiding. If they're not attempting to be stealthy...they're going to be detected, because they're going to be stomping and clanking around.

I think this is where a "passive stealth" would come in handy. A paladin not trying to be stealthy would definitely be detected between stomping, plate armor, and never shutting up about how cool their god is, but a reserved, 130lb monk might not be notice without trying to hide... Some people just don't make a lot of noise as their default.

How you would make that work is probably a bit harder than just 10+skill bonus though, since it -should- be a lot harder to accidentally sneak up on someone than to accidentally notice someone in the open.

Easy_Lee

2017-09-10, 03:57 PM

1: Should it be automatically hidden? The answer is no to both. Assuming someone is there, obviously.

2: Already been in a discussion like this one. The solution is "the warlock can hide first and then become invisible."
While out of initiative sequencing, there's no need to track actions. Otherwise the DM would have called for initiative.

1: can't speak for others, but that confuses me personally. Is the gnome hidden, or not hidden? Reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat. I know the answer: ask the DM. But that's my point. It's up to the DM only because the mechanics are unspecific, deliberately so or not.

2: I'm aware of this workaround, but what if a player doesn't know to do that? Is he just screwed because he didn't know the mechanics well enough? As many others have said, the mechanics are there to loosely simulate the world and create rules that govern it. So, would his character have known to hide first? What does said hiding entail doing, exactly, when one is invisible? And is this worth stopping the game to discuss? To the last, I think we can agree it's not. And I have a feeling that the average DM would either ask him for a stealth check (possibly with modifiers or advantage) and not break invisibility, or just let him be hidden as long as he's not moving. But that isn't technically RAW, but the DM judging what he thinks is appropriate.

By now, I think that last is a theme of 5e.

Unoriginal

2017-09-10, 04:01 PM

On the topic of the Invisible Sleeping Gnome (ISG):

An ISG would be hidden if he makes no noise that can be perceptible by passive Perception. If the ISG does make such noise, by breathing for exemple, then he is not hidden.

I think this is where a "passive stealth" would come in handy. A paladin not trying to be stealthy would definitely be detected between stomping, plate armor, and never shutting up about how cool their god is, but a reserved, 130lb monk might not be notice without trying to hide... Some people just don't make a lot of noise as their default.

How you would make that work is probably a bit harder than just 10+skill bonus though, since it -should- be a lot harder to accidentally sneak up on someone than to accidentally notice someone in the open.

What would it add to the game, both from the mechanic and the narrative standpoints? Someone who wants to be stealthy can try. Someone who doesn't want to be stealthy has no reason to wish to not be detected, and so it doesn't matter.

What would the purpose of "passive stealth" be? To make so that people might accidentally miss each others? All it'd do is slog down the game with the DM having to determine which people who aren't trying to be discreet you can see.

ThePolarBear

2017-09-10, 05:21 PM

1: can't speak for others, but that confuses me personally. Is the gnome hidden, or not hidden? Reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat. I know the answer: ask the DM. But that's my point. It's up to the DM only because the mechanics are unspecific, deliberately so or not.

The gnome is neither. It's not AUTOMATICALLY anything. That's the whole point of this thread. There's no automatism involved - there's a conscious decision by someone, be the DM or a player, to have a gnome in a corner that is sleeping while under the effects of invisibility. We know little else and thus we lack the decisional material to make a mechanical universal decision. Should it be me as a DM, then the gnome, in the situation i'm imagining, would be described as " you hear very faint murmurs and rustlings coming from that corner". A conscious, deliberate decision factoring all the informations that you gave and the one i filled in as a DM in my imagination - be it distance, ambiental noise, actual movement and noise level of party and gnome...

It sort of is the famous cat. The breaking point is the DM decision on how to run the "encounter". And this mechanic is universal. Lack of guidelines is not an excuse to forget that this mechanic exist. And it's not like guidelines do not exist at all - if you are unsure, roll. In the above example, i imagined a situation, weighted factors, decided on how to handle it, resolved it. It might have been an unspoken perception roll against DC. It might have been considered "not hard enough to warrant a roll". Or whatever.

Do you disagree that at a table the "gnome situation" will not remain unresolved for long?

2: I'm aware of this workaround, but what if a player doesn't know to do that? Is he just screwed because he didn't know the mechanics well enough? As many others have said, the mechanics are there to loosely simulate the world and create rules that govern it. So, would his character have known to hide first? What does said hiding entail doing, exactly, when one is invisible? And is this worth stopping the game to discuss? To the last, I think we can agree it's not. And I have a feeling that the average DM would either ask him for a stealth check (possibly with modifiers or advantage) and not break invisibility, or just let him be hidden as long as he's not moving. But that isn't technically RAW, but the DM judging what he thinks is appropriate.

By now, I think that last is a theme of 5e.

Spoiler tags since it really isn't thead related.

What if a player believed that Fireball didn't hit friendlies? What if someone tries to cast Hold Person on a succubus? Some "mechanics" describe something that quite simply does not exist in our world. Those are the ones to which we truly should not expect to have a complete and omniversal understanding of and where common sense can only bring us so much towards a true shared "common". Heck, even something like hiding that's TOTALLY possible in our world has so many "but this way is the way that makes more sense!" that it shouldn't really be a surprise that "magic" is not really that easy to understand.

One With Shadows is clearly one of those cases where we need to pay attention. There's nothing wrong in making things go "wrong" once. And with wrong i mean "not how the DM expects things to run". Just make sure that things can proceed smoothly from that point on for your group, no matter what is the solution that is applied. Maybe the warlock will ask to change the invocation. Maybe the Warlock will still think the invocation is useful. Maybe the invocation is used "non raw" for the rest of the campaign. It's at the very least partly player's fault for assuming/not reading the limits of the abilities.

The game is not "play to follow mechanics". It's play to have fun. That's why there's a DM there that has the judging power and some guidelines to follow, too.
And yes... 5e is not 3e. The DM gets to chose, sometimes heavily and on the fly, what happens. Mechanics included. Because it's not the mechanics that rule how the world is created and how it's run... it's the DM job to do so. Mechanics are a DMs' tool. The DM is not a mechanics' slave. Those tools can be used to make the simulation run smoothly. Or, if found unsuitable, can be replaced.

In 5e, mechanics are not descriptive nor prescriptive ( i think it's the correct term. At least i hope). And talking about raw should be taken as a point to reach satisfaction on a personally developed understanding and resulting mechanic, not as a holy scripture issued command holy flame war of right and wrong.

So yeah, the DM can handle it as it sees fit, remembering that there's fun involved and should be considered. No, it's not worth stopping a session to discuss, but it's worth a post session or inter session discussion to make things clear and eventually come to an agreement, since it is possible such a discussion will degenerate into "hiding" and more. But personally i think i would ask the player to be, for the rest of the session, more upfront about the intention behind his actions while trying to pay more attention into asking those very same intentions should something even remotely pings on my radar. And i could see miself go for a time rewind, if there's the opportunity.

Adding: Did not really check for grammar nor re read to catch possible unintended misinterpretable points, hopefully it's understandable and not inflammatory. I'm just tired, hopefully it's all fine :D

Lombra

2017-09-10, 05:22 PM

Not being mechanically hidden doesn't mean that people know where you are, people will hear or feel through other senses that something or someone is in your position, if there are no things that suggest where an invisible creature is standing, then nobody will be able to detect it, common sense > RAW any time of the day.

Creatures behind opaque walls in dungeons, buildings, whatever, can't be seen if you are on the other side of the wall, and are not taking the hide action. It would be silly, though, to allow anyone to pinpoint the position of such creatures just because they are not trying to hide, wouldn't it? Rules call it "heavy obscurement", while invisible, mechanically you are heavily obscured, so you can hide anywhere from something that relies on sight to see (tremorsense and blindsense are exceptions, for example) and that's it. Casually walking while invisible? Guards may spot you through the sound of boots on the ground, the dust that you move, the sound of your clothing, etc... but if you take the hide action and succeed, you will be able to stay quiet enough to not alert the guards.

Obviously everything depends from the familiarity that your target has with invisible people, a generic farmer may not react the same way as a vampire lord when noticing dust moving on the floor in a windless room.

That's why rules are not covering everything, because there's too much to cover. But the common sense of the DM should make up for it.

Puh Laden

2017-09-10, 05:24 PM

The PHB says something to the effect of "creatures in combat are on the alert and are more aware of their surroundings." I take that principle's converse and say that if you're invisible, and potiential hostiles aren't aware of any threats and aren't looking for invisible enemies, you go unnoticed. So if the party sneaks into a goblin lair unnannounced while invisible, I'll only make them roll for stealth when some particular circumstance warrants it, like trying to sneak past a goblin in a narrow tunnel or walking through a room full of crunchy leaves.

Saggo

2017-09-10, 06:51 PM

That's the part that I think people struggle with. Let's say an invisible gnome is asleep in the corner of a room. For the sake of argument, let's further say that he's not snoring. Should he be auto detected?

An invisible sleeping gnome would be a specific, extraneous circumstance. Asking for an acrobatics check while attacking on top of a loose boulder to keep from falling on your butt would be a ruling, but making a check before every attack would be a houserule to the underpinning mechanic. In the same regard, requiring a perception check for every invisible creature (without an extraneous circumstance) is a housrule mechanic.

Not that RAW has any meaning outside of forum arguments.

RAW is a baseline, so it has a place any time two or more people from different tables talk about the game. Forum, shop, or anywhere in between.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 07:41 PM

I think a creature being aware that you're nearby and invisible ought to have something to do with it. That's a case where I'd definitely be using perception vs hide and require that action.

Assuming the target is trying to hide, sure. But if he’s just standing still, it’s no different than searching a room for a hidden statue. There is no hole in the RAW, here.

I'm more interested in what happens when an invisible player wanders into a dungeon or camp or similar. The rules are less clear on that, and RAW invisibility doesn't even give a bonus to stealth checks. The spell Pass Without Trace is often more useful depending on how the DM rules, and it can be cast on a group.

I do not see there being any gap in the rules, here, either. If you are sitting in camp and an invisible person walks past, you will not notice them. However, if they make noises or leave visible signs of their passage, then you might detect those sounds or signs. Assign the DC as appropriate. There is no hole in the rules, here, either.

A reasonable house rule, I think, would be to allow a Stealth check as either a bonus action or a reaction when you become invisible. But as written, the default state is 'unless you use the Hide action, people know exactly where you are' even when invisible. That leaves room for DM interpretation, of course. Would an invisible guy 600 feet away from the party doing hand-stands on top of a boulder be instantly spotted? That seems to stretch credibility to me.

And it's of course worthy to mention that it's possible to miss something in plain sight if you're suitably distracted. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY)

That's all outside RAW, though. 5e is meant to provide a really simple framework to build on top of. If your table wants to add extra rule nuance to smooth over the admittedly really wonky stealth/perception mess then go for it.

You of course have the right to think so, but I’m fine with the RAW, which tell us that when you become invisible, you’re not automatically hidden and your location might be known. This makes sense to me.

I thought the hill you were dying on was the distinction between "always" and "by default". But, it seems it's actually between "always" and "when in combat".

It might be both, I’m not entirely sure on how you’re making the distinctions. Invisible things are not detected by default under any circumstances unless otherwise indicated.

As it turns out, when combat is occurring, not much else is indicated. Just: being invisible doesn’t automatically make you hidden. This is true, because being invisible never makes you automatically hidden.

Really? The other thread is about combat. Whenever people are talking about taking the Hide action, that's in combat. The description of the Hide action is in chapter 9, "Combat", subsection "Actions in Combat".

Agreed. But there isn’t any disagreement over how it works in combat. There’s some disagreement, and it is rooted in Malifice’s insistence on importing a false inference about how invisibility works in combat into the context of the game in general.

But even when not in combat, an invisible creature will only be hidden if they are attempting to be stealthy (and probably succeed on a Stealth check).

False. Evidence, please.

If they are undetected, it is because they are hiding.

False. Evidence, please.

If they're not attempting to be stealthy...they're going to be detected, because they're going to be stomping and clanking around.

False. When not in combat, there is no reason to assume a character is “stomping and clankng around.” If you want to know if a character is stomping and clanking around, consider whether there is a reason why he would be stomping and clanking around.

Entities are auto-detected if they are not hidden.

This is strictly false. Even in combat. However, they are generally assumed to be detected. This does not guarantee that they are. Invisibility is different than the general case. Invisibility does not guarantee that you are hidden, but it doesn’t make you auto-detected, either.

Entities that are hidden are not auto-detected.

True.

Being invisible does not prevent you from being hidden.

True.

Therefore, you can be both invisible and not auto-detected, as you can be both invisible and hidden.

This doesn’t follow but is true. It also misses the point.

The point I am making is different.

That's the part that I think people struggle with. Let's say an invisible gnome is asleep in the corner of a room. For the sake of argument, let's further say that he's not snoring. Should he be auto detected?

Absolutely not. This is my point. The RAW do not say that this gnome is auto-detected. Period. End of story.

@Malifice (or anyone): Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

And what about the warlock invocation One with Shadows that lets the warlock use his action to become invisible as long as he doesn't move or act? When he becomes invisible, is he then auto detected by everything? If he has to use his action to hide, he's using his action and is thus no longer invisible. But if invisible creatures are auto detected unless they hide, then this invocation is completely useless as written.

Obviously, this warlock is not auto-detected. He may be detected for a number of reasons, but he is not auto-detected.

It seems to me that the rules are pretty confusing on this point, and that this is an area where a bit of common sense may be a good gap-filler.

The sleeping invisible gnome is a good example. Personally, I'd be ok with an assumption that an invisible creature who isn't doing anything else in particular is considered to be hiding by default, since just standing in one place, quietly, is all that it takes to hide while invisible.

Out of combat, this should all be handled with narration and checks depending on the circumstances. When the heroes enter the dwelling of the sleeping gnome, perhaps they hear a faint whistling noise. A perception check can lead them to the specific spot where the noise comes from, even a natural 20 won't give them "there is a sleeping gnome at z8."

I agree with all of this, except where you think this is not RAW. This is the RAW.

Invisible creatures are neither automatically hidden nor are they automatically detected. The GM rules whether they have revealed themselves or not based on innumerable other factors with sight being the only auto fail condition.

As far as I have seen, anyone who believes otherwise is extrapolating. Not that RAW has any meaning outside of forum arguments.

Exactly right.

I'd also like to point out that it is possible for a creature to know your general location, but not your exact location.

Exactly. It’s this simple.

@ThePolarBear: You’re still missing my point. Things that are not hidden are not auto-detected. Sometimes a perception check is required to notice something that is not hidden. That’s all.

It is wrong to assume that something must be either (1) hidden or (2) auto-detected. That’s a false dichotomy. Sometimes a thing is neither hidden not auto-detected. That’s my point.

A warlock does not need to hide first if noone saw him before he went invisible. If someone enters a room with an invisible warlock in it, then that person does not auto-detect the warlock. This is RAW.

1: can't speak for others, but that confuses me personally. Is the gnome hidden, or not hidden? Reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat. I know the answer: ask the DM. But that's my point. It's up to the DM only because the mechanics are unspecific, deliberately so or not.

This gnome is decidedly not hidden. This gnome is unnoticed. There is a difference.

In the same way, a person might be wearing a ring with a symbol of Orcus that goes unnoticed. He’s not hiding the ring, and the ring is not hidden, but nobody notices it.

2: I'm aware of this workaround, but what if a player doesn't know to do that? Is he just screwed because he didn't know the mechanics well enough? As many others have said, the mechanics are there to loosely simulate the world and create rules that govern it. So, would his character have known to hide first? What does said hiding entail doing, exactly, when one is invisible? And is this worth stopping the game to discuss? To the last, I think we can agree it's not. And I have a feeling that the average DM would either ask him for a stealth check (possibly with modifiers or advantage) and not break invisibility, or just let him be hidden as long as he's not moving. But that isn't technically RAW, but the DM judging what he thinks is appropriate.

By now, I think that last is a theme of 5e.

The workaround is totally unnecessary. The warlock is not noticed unless he was noticed before he turned invisible. Once he is invisible, people might notice him, but it is not automatic.

On the topic of the Invisible Sleeping Gnome (ISG):

An ISG would be hidden if he makes no noise that can be perceptible by passive Perception. If the ISG does make such noise, by breathing for exemple, then he is not hidden.

False. The gnome would not be hidden (he did not take the hide action). He would simply be unnoticed.

The gnome is neither. It's not AUTOMATICALLY anything. That's the whole point of this thread. There's no automatism involved - there's a conscious decision by someone, be the DM or a player, to have a gnome in a corner that is sleeping while under the effects of invisibility. We know little else and thus we lack the decisional material to make a mechanical universal decision. Should it be me as a DM, then the gnome, in the situation i'm imagining, would be described as " you hear very faint murmurs and rustlings coming from that corner". A conscious, deliberate decision factoring all the informations that you gave and the one i filled in as a DM in my imagination - be it distance, ambiental noise, actual movement and noise level of party and gnome...

It sort of is the famous cat. The breaking point is the DM decision on how to run the "encounter". And this mechanic is universal. Lack of guidelines is not an excuse to forget that this mechanic exist. And it's not like guidelines do not exist at all - if you are unsure, roll. In the above example, i imagined a situation, weighted factors, decided on how to handle it, resolved it. It might have been an unspoken perception roll against DC. It might have been considered "not hard enough to warrant a roll". Or whatever.

You’re right about the gnome being strictly not auto-detected. But there is no problem here, at all. All the DM has to do is consider the environment. If there is noise coming from the gnome, then what is the DC to hear it? It is not appropriate to use the gnome’s Dexterity (Stealth) here. The gnome is not hiding. There is noise. The DC is whatever the DC ought to be to hear that noise.

Not being mechanically hidden doesn't mean that people know where you are, people will hear or feel through other senses that something or someone is in your position, if there are no things that suggest where an invisible creature is standing, then nobody will be able to detect it, common sense > RAW any time of the day.

Creatures behind opaque walls in dungeons, buildings, whatever, can't be seen if you are on the other side of the wall, and are not taking the hide action. It would be silly, though, to allow anyone to pinpoint the position of such creatures just because they are not trying to hide, wouldn't it? Rules call it "heavy obscurement", while invisible, mechanically you are heavily obscured, so you can hide anywhere from something that relies on sight to see (tremorsense and blindsense are exceptions, for example) and that's it. Casually walking while invisible? Guards may spot you through the sound of boots on the ground, the dust that you move, the sound of your clothing, etc... but if you take the hide action and succeed, you will be able to stay quiet enough to not alert the guards.

Obviously everything depends from the familiarity that your target has with invisible people, a generic farmer may not react the same way as a vampire lord when noticing dust moving on the floor in a windless room.

That's why rules are not covering everything, because there's too much to cover. But the common sense of the DM should make up for it.

You are completely right about all of this. The point that you are mistaken on is this:

This is the RAW.

This is not common sense that opposes the RAW. This is the RAW.

Some people (Malifice in particular) are taking a rule that applies in combat only, and using it to make a false inference: every unseen thing in the game is auto-detected. This is not a rule (and rightly so).

The PHB says something to the effect of "creatures in combat are on the alert and are more aware of their surroundings." I take that principle's converse and say that if you're invisible, and potiential hostiles aren't aware of any threats and aren't looking for invisible enemies, you go unnoticed. So if the party sneaks into a goblin lair unnannounced while invisible, I'll only make them roll for stealth when some particular circumstance warrants it, like trying to sneak past a goblin in a narrow tunnel or walking through a room full of crunchy leaves.

Bingo.

smcmike

2017-09-10, 08:02 PM

I agree with all of this, except where you think this is not RAW. This is the RAW.

I'm not really arguing with you on this one. I hope you're right, but haven't looked at the rules closely enough to be sure, and don't care enough to do so now. Whatever the rules say, the DM should always take circumstances into account.

....

Here's a question for those who say you are always and automatically aware of everyone's position in combat, unless they are hiding: how far does this extend? Let's say I'm involved in a fight against a pack of wolves in a dark forest. I can't see anything past 60'. None of the wolves are using actions to hide, and mostly they are howling, with occasional sorties into the light. Do I know the exact location of wolves outside the light? How far out does this sense extend - do I know the location of every wolf within 1000 feet? A mile?

Foxhound438

2017-09-10, 08:05 PM

*el big snip*

you keep putting in bold "THIS IS RAW", but you don't have a quote or series of quotes from the PHB or DMG to support that... rules as written means that there's a rule or combination of rules in official print that tell you exactly what to do for something. You can argue whether or not something is a way, but it's not RAW unless it's printed as such. If you have a quote from the books that says so, post it.

Xetheral

2017-09-10, 08:05 PM

(Moving this discussion from the original thread...)

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.

And, being familiar with the same evidence you are (including the podcast), I and others disagree with you about how to interpret what Crawford said. Specifically, you (among others), interpret Crawford as saying that an invisible creature is necessarily detected if they don't take hide action. I (among others) interpret Crawford as saying that an invisible creature isn't necessarily detected even if they don't take the hide action.

(Even more specifically, I interpret Crawford as saying that, RAI, the DM can freely choose to take either approach: either choose to assume unhidden invisible creatures are detected, or choose to decide based on the environment.)

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 interpret Crawford as saying that, RAI, it's up to the DM to determine which approach to take.

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.

So, if you didn't mean the RAW and the RAI was established in the community, then in the quote below who were you claiming your interpretation was established among?

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).

----------

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.

There isn't any consensus at all in (this) thread. There are many people putting forth several different viewpoints.

pwykersotz

2017-09-10, 08:39 PM

RAW is a baseline, so it has a place any time two or more people from different tables talk about the game. Forum, shop, or anywhere in between.

Not the way people talk about it here, it's not. RAW is VERY limited in use because people make assumptions beyond the written that are not explicitly contradicted and claim them as part of the RAW. If the books have written "Most sticks on Faerun are brown," then you'll have camps that say that this means 51% are brown, camps that say 99% are brown, and camps that say 20% are brown and that brown sticks are just the largest mono-colored subset of sticks available. And then there will be the camp that points to another page that says "Ironbark trees are the most populace in Faerun," and people will say, well the previous rule can't be right because Ironbark trees are gray-ish, not brown. The only way to reconcile this is for Ironbark trees to have no branches. And other people will say "That's stupid, the rules don't say that Ironbark trees DON'T have branches. And each camp will claim 100% authority of RAW and say that others are wrong because of extrapolations from other rules that imply they might be right.

If RAW were a legitimate thing that could be argued, if it were the holy grail that it is often hailed as, then these threads would not persist so long. This one has been going since the game came out, and there are a lot of people willing to die on this hill. (Evidently, I'm included in that.) RAW is largely pointless, the only thing that matters is a discussion of what varieties of interpretations a rule has and what is best for a given table overall.

TLDR: People filter things through their existing worldview and are darned stubborn about it. Who knew? :smalltongue:

Malifice

2017-09-10, 09:05 PM

I'm more interested in what happens when an invisible player wanders into a dungeon or camp or similar. The rules are less clear on that, and RAW invisibility doesn't even give a bonus to stealth checks.

A player who wandered into an enemy camp invisible in order to scout it out, is no different to if the player wandered into an enemy camp flitting from shadow to shadow, from cover to cover etc to scout it out.

You pit the PCs Steath check v the passive perception of the camps guards.

The effect of this rule is that you're better of casting Invisibility on the Rogues. This is a feature and not a bug. Just like how Charm person doesnt make Wizards automatically the best faces anymore (charm person is better cast to buff the party face).

Wizards cant just click their fingers and win. Spells like invisibility and charm person are better used on the parties skill monkeys to make their jobs easier.

A reasonable house rule, I think, would be to allow a Stealth check as either a bonus action or a reaction when you become invisible.

If that were the case, then a Creature who is heavily obscured by any means (and thus unseen) could also Hide as a bonus action (or reaction). They cant (unless they have sufficient levels in Rogue or Ranger).

The RAW is:

Step 1: Become unseen (or close enough to it)
Step 2: Take the Hide action to (mask your sound, footprints in the dirt, breathing, move silently etc)

Note that a creature can always become invisible and hide straight away. Despite the stop-start nature of cyclic turn based combat rounds, actions are largely simultaneous, and player turns follow from their own turns.

A Wizard who casts invisibility on themselves in combat, instantly becomes immune to many spells (charm person, power word kill, dominate person, magic missile, hex, couterspell) and is immune to many class features and attacks of opportunity (requires a 'target you can see'). Attacks against him are at disadvantage, and his attacks are made with advantage. He can walk away with impunity the same round he casts the spell.

A nearby creature gets one chance to attack him (at disadvantage) before the Wizard can attempt the Hide action. One last swing at the Wizard chanting and waving his hands in the air as he casts his spell.

In effect the creature advances forward in amazement at his foe dissapearing, swinging his sword from side to side in wide arcs (makes an attack at disadvantage).

Then the Wizard gets to attempt the Hide action on his next turn if he wants. If succesful he masks his position from the creature entirely, forcing it to guess the square he is in in order to have any chance of targetting him at all (with disadvantage).

Alternatively the creature can attempt the Search action (pausing to look around for footprints in the dirt, listen for the Wizards jangling equipment or footsteps etc) to locate the invisible wizard.

If a Wizard wants to [become invisible] and [Hide] in the same turn, he needs either 2 levels of Rogue, or access to the Quicken spell metamagic (enabling casting Invisiblity as a bonus action with a single word, and then using the rest of his time that round to conceal his position via Hiding as an action).

Its a feature and not a bug that the rules work this way. There is simply no need to house rule anything.

But as written, the default state is 'unless you use the Hide action, people know exactly where you are' even when invisible. That leaves room for DM interpretation, of course. Would an invisible guy 600 feet away from the party doing hand-stands on top of a boulder be instantly spotted? That seems to stretch credibility to me.

Exactly. Its a general rule only, and doesnt apply to outliers. An invisible Pixie, motionless and peeking around from behind a tree 1000' away from the PCs doesnt need a Stealth check to Hide. The DM simply sets the Perception DC as 'impossible'.

But barring any outliers, the general rule is that simply being unseen (invisible, total cover, total obscurement etc) does not make you hidden by default.

Becoming unseen (or close enough to being unseen) is simply the prerequisite that enables the Hide action to begin with.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 09:09 PM

you keep putting in bold "THIS IS RAW", but you don't have a quote or series of quotes from the PHB or DMG to support that... rules as written means that there's a rule or combination of rules in official print that tell you exactly what to do for something. You can argue whether or not something is a way, but it's not RAW unless it's printed as such. If you have a quote from the books that says so, post it.

The Short Answer:

Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door. (emphasis added)
By RAW, a Wisdom (Perception) check may be required to spot something that is easy to miss but not hidden. The example of the candlelight is candlelight that is visible. It is visible, but you may be required to succeed at a Wisdom (Perception) check just to spot it.

The candelight, which is visible, is not auto-detected. Therefore things that are visible are not auto-detected.

Since things that are visible are not hidden, you do not need to be hidden to go unnoticed. A Wisom (Perception) check can be required to notice something that is not hidden. Therefore, things that are not hidden are not auto-detected.

I said this is the RAW twice.

Let’s look at each case (they actually are mostly the same, but I will treat them differently.

Case 1: (Originally posted by smcmike) When the heroes enter the dwelling of the sleeping gnome, perhaps they hear a faint whistling noise. A perception check can lead them to the specific spot where the noise comes from, even a natural 20 won't give them "there is a sleeping gnome at z8."

-- From the PHB:

Perception. Your Wisdom (Perception)checklets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
So, if the DM dedides that the gnome is making noises that might be heard, he can call for a Wisdom (Perception) check to hear the noise, and he can set the DC.

---

Case 2: (originally posted by Lombra) Not being mechanically hidden doesn't mean that people know where you are, people will hear or feel through other senses that something or someone is in your position, if there are no things that suggest where an invisible creature is standing, then nobody will be able to detect it, common sense > RAW any time of the day.

-- The problem here is that this is more of a refutation than a claim. Lombra is saying that not being mechanically hidden does not mean that people know where you are. This is a denial that such a rule exists. The onus is actually on you to prove that not being mechanically hidden does mean that people know where you are.

Since the way to become mechanically hidden is to take the hide action while in combat, then if something is not in combat, it is impossible for that thing to take the hide action and is therefore impossible for it to become hidden. Therefore nothing in the game is hidden unless it has taken the hide action in combat. Therefore Wisdom (Perception) checks always auto-succeed because anything that is not mechanically hidden is auto-detected, unless the thing in question has taken the Hide action. If this is true, then the PHB is wrong when it says:

For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
Because:
if the characters behind the closed door did not take the hide action, they are not hidden and are auto-heard. So there hould be no check. Just auto-success.
if the characters on the other side of the window did not take the hide action, they are not hidden and are auto-heard. No check. Auto-success.
Things that are obscured are not hidden, so they should be auto-seen. No check. Auto-success.
Things that are easy to miss are not hidden, so they should be auto-seen. No check. Auto-success.

The candellight through the secret door is not hidden, so it should be auto-seen. No check. Auto-success.

But then this would contradict the PHB. This would be the PHB contradicting the PHB, so it’s a reductio ad absurdum.

Malifice

2017-09-10, 09:15 PM

That's the part that I think people struggle with. Let's say an invisible gnome is asleep in the corner of a room. For the sake of argument, let's further say that he's not snoring. Should he be auto detected?

When standing in a dark room with someone sleeping in it, you can generally hear them breathing even if they are not snoring. If in a bed you can see the indentation on the matress and the blankets covering something.

As a general rule, the game assumes that you'll notice the invisible sleeping Gnome when you enter the room (the DM narrates you as hearing some snuffling, snoring or slow breathing from the corner of the room, or that you see a bedroll that still has the indentation of something lying on it as if it is well used or maybe for some other reason...).

A DM (like in all aspects of the game) is free to rule otherwise of course. He is free to rule that the Gnome is a quiet sleeper and that the actions of the Gnome in being asleep counts as him (effectively) hiding - allowing the Gnome a Stealth check vs the Passive perception scores of people who enter the room to detect him (how I would rule it).

If a creature is unseen and has narrated to me that they have taken some time, precautions or actions to mask thier sound/ movement, then I would allow them a Stealth check to Hide.

And what about the warlock invocation One with Shadows that lets the warlock use his action to become invisible as long as he doesn't move or act?

As written you get all the benefits of being invisible, but cant Hide when invisible. I would simply narrate it as you effectively stepping into your shadow and becoming one with it in form (so you're obvious, but hard to pinpoint so imposing disadvantage, and immune to most spells and attacks of opportunity).

At will [disadvantage to be hit and immunity to many spells and AOO] is a pretty potent at will ability.

IMG I allow Warlocks with that invocation to Hide without breaking the invocation.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 09:21 PM

A player who wandered into an enemy camp invisible in order to scout it out, is no different to if the player wandered into an enemy camp flitting from shadow to shadow, from cover to cover etc to scout it out.

Of course it's different. One of them is visible and the other is invisible. One of them can potentially be seen. The other cannot.

You pit the PCs Steath check v the passive perception of the camps guards.

False. Totally incorrect. Invention.

Exactly. Its a general rule only, and doesnt apply to outliers. An invisible Pixie, motionless and peeking around from behind a tree 1000' away from the PCs doesnt need a Stealth check to Hide. The DM simply sets the Perception DC as 'impossible'.

Nice try. You would have us believe that your rule is the correct rule, but you can pick and choose when it applies? Sorry. You lose.

By your rules, that pixie must be auto-detected because it is not hidden. Reductio ad absurdum.

The truth of the matter, found on p. 177 of the PHB, is that Wisdom (Perception) checks are required to notice things that are easy to miss. The Pixie at 1000 feet is easy to miss. An invisible person that is not making noise is also easy to miss. There is no auto-detect rule. Period.

But barring any outliers, the general rule is that simply being unseen (invisible, total cover, total obscurement etc) does not make you hidden by default.

That's right. Being unseen does not make you hidden.

However, you do not need to be hidden to go unnoticed, which is the actual point.

Becoming unseen (or close enough to being unseen) is simply the prerequisite that enables the Hide action to begin with.

This is a false inference that you have mistakenly introduced. This is never once mentioned in the rules.

smcmike

2017-09-10, 09:25 PM

But barring any outliers, the general rule is that simply being unseen (invisible, total cover, total obscurement etc) does not make you hidden by default.

Becoming unseen (or close enough to being unseen) is simply the prerequisite that enables the Hide action to begin with.

How does this play out at the table?

Let's say the party does not have dark vision, and is stupidly wandering around a pitch-black cave system without torches or any other form of light. They enter a large room (let's say 300' x 100'), where a group of orcs is camping. Some of the orcs are sitting around talking. Some are sleeping quietly. Some are playing hide and seek among some stalagmites.

A guard notices the party and attacks silently, initiating combat. What information does the DM give the party?

Malifice

2017-09-10, 09:28 PM

By RAW, a Wisdom (Perception) check may be required to spot something that is easy to miss but not hidden.

Perception isnt just visual. Stealth isnt just 'hiding'.

If you're unseen but not taking any time or effort to be quiet or mask your location (footprints etc) the game assumes that creatures can still attack you (at disadvantage, and you're immune to AOO and many spells and special abilities). This remains the case (as a general rule) untill you take the time and effort to take advantage of your invisiblity or hiding spot and Hide.

If you're unseen and taking time to make an effort to be quiet and mask your location to other senses, you're taking the Hide action. If you're successful, you cant be attacked at all unless they can guess your location correctly, get lucky with a fireball, or succesfully use the Search action to find you.

The Hide action represents the opportunity cost of an unseen creature taking a few seconds to be quiet, tip toe around, still themselves and their breathing, still the jangling of armor and gear, mask their footprints and avoid puddles in the ground, not step on creaky floorboards etc etc etc.

The action economy evens out. If you're hidden, they need to use the Search action to locate you. Being invisible, you can attempt to Hide every single round if you want (you're always unseen) so eventually you're going to become virtually impossible to find.

I know you cling to some kind of 'invisible = auto hide' ruling, and as I've said before its your game so go nuts. But the general rule of 5E is that nearby (combat distance) invisible creatures are not 'auto hidden' any more than are creatures behind total cover, or in shadows or fog.

For a 2nd level spell, invisiblity grants a ton of potent benefits. On a Rogue greater invisiblity is particularly deadly (the Rogue can attack and Hide with a massive Stealth bonus and Move all in the same round totally foiling any attacks in return).

Just stick with the general rule. If there is some kind of outlier (an invisible rogue in a feild of magical silence) or whatver, then feel free to make a ruling at that point.

Consensus is against you mate. But its your game, rule how you want.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 09:35 PM

RAW, a Wisdom (Perception) check is required to spot things that are "easy to miss." (PHB 178)

Invisible people are easy to miss.

/endthread

Malifice

2017-09-10, 09:35 PM

How does this play out at the table?

Let's say the party does not have dark vision, and is stupidly wandering around a pitch-black cave system without torches or any other form of light. They enter a large room (let's say 300' x 100'), where a group of orcs is camping. Some of the orcs are sitting around talking. Some are sleeping quietly. Some are playing hide and seek among some stalagmites.

I would rule that a party that is stumbling around in the dark and making no effort at being quiet is likely noticed by the Orcs first. The Orcs (or at a bare minimum the silent Orc giuard) would hear the party (armor, adventuring equipment, weapons, packs etc) stumbing around a cave well before darkvision kicked in.

I may allow the PCs a Perception check to hear the Orcs talking (echoing through the cave) to avoid surprise.

An Orc guard notices the party and attacks silently, initiating combat. What information does the DM give the party?

'As you stumble around in the darkness, noise from your gear echoing around the cave walls around you, you hear voices in a language you dont understand (unless some PCs know Orcish). Suddenly you hear screaming and the twang of a crossbow. Roll initiative, you're all surprised on round one.'

Malifice

2017-09-10, 09:39 PM

RAW, a Wisdom (Perception) check is required to spot things that are "easy to miss." (PHB 178)

Invisible people are easy to miss.

/endthread

What if that thing was making a crap load of noise or I was touching it?

Perception isnt just visual. Stealth isnt just masking yourself from visual detection.

A rogue sneaking up on a creature in a totally pitch black room still needs to make a Stealth check (via the Hide action in combat sequencing) to sneak up on that creature, even though the creature cannot see him.

Get it yet? They rolled [move silently] and [hide in shadows] into one skill. They also rolled [spot] and [listen] into one skill.

smcmike

2017-09-10, 09:39 PM

I would rule that a party that is stumbling around in the dark and making no effort at being quiet is likely noticed by the Orcs first. The Orcs (or at a bare minimum the silent Orc giuard) would hear the party (armor, adventuring equipment, weapons, packs etc) stumbing around a cave well before darkvision kicked in.

I may allow the PCs a Perception check to hear the Orcs talking (echoing through the cave) to avoid surprise.

'As you stumble around in the darkness, noise from your gear echoing around the cave walls around you, you hear voices in a language you dont understand (unless some PCs know Orcish). Suddenly you hear screaming and the twang of a crossbow. Roll initiative, you're all surprised on round one.'

Then what? The attacking orc has clearly given her position away, but what about the rest. Let's assume the other orcs continue doing whatever they were doing.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 09:41 PM

Perception isnt just visual. Stealth isnt just 'hiding'.

No sh@t.

If you're unseen but not taking any time or effort to be quiet or mask your location (footprints etc) the game assumes that creatures can still attack you (at disadvantage, and you're immune to AOO and many spells and special abilities). This remains the case (as a general rule) untill you take the time and effort to take advantage of your invisiblity or hiding spot and Hide.

This is only true in combat.

If you're unseen and taking time to make an effort to be quiet and mask your location to other senses, you're taking the Hide action. If you're successful, you cant be attacked at all unless they can guess your location correctly, get lucky with a fireball, or succesfully use the Search action to find you.

This is only true in combat.

The Hide action represents the opportunity cost of an unseen creature taking a few seconds to be quiet, tip toe around, still themselves and their breathing, still the jangling of armor and gear, mask their footprints and avoid puddles in the ground, not step on creaky floorboards etc etc etc.

In combat, where characters are generally assumed to be making noise.

The action economy evens out. If you're hidden, they need to use the Search action to locate you. Being invisible, you can attempt to Hide every single round if you want (you're always unseen) so eventually you're going to become virtually impossible to find.

In combat. No argument from me.

I know you cling to some kind of 'invisible = auto hide' ruling, and as I've said before its your game so go nuts.

False. I have said repeatedly that being invisible does not make one hidden. No honest representation of my stance would accuse me of this.

But the general rule of 5E is that nearby (combat distance) invisible creatures are not 'auto hidden' any more than are creatures behind total cover, or in shadows or fog.

The general rule of 5e is that invisible creatures are never auto hidden under any circumstances. We agree about this.

Just stick with the general rule. If there is some kind of outlier (an invisible rogue in a feild of magical silence) or whatver, then feel free to make a ruling at that point.

I don't need to make a rule. I apply the RAW.

You need to make a rule because you think the RAW do not cover this, but the RAW do cover this.

Consensus is against you mate. But its your game, rule how you want.

The truth is not determined by consensus. Also, I think the consensus is actually on my side.

Easy_Lee

2017-09-10, 09:43 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 09:44 PM

What if that thing was making a crap load of noise or I was touching it?

Noise: The DM assigns a DC to hear the noise. The same way he always determines whether a noise is heard.

Touching it: auto-detect.

Perception isnt just visual. Stealth isnt just masking yourself from visual detection.

No sh@t.

A rogue sneaking up on a creature in a totally pitch black room still needs to make a Stealth check (via the Hide action in combat sequencing) to sneak up on that creature, even though the creature cannot see him.

If the rogue is making noise, yes. Presumably he is. What is the chance that he will be heard? It's based on the amount of noise he makes.

Get it yet? They rolled [move silently] and [hide in shadows] into one skill. They also rolled [spot] and [listen] into one skill.

I've always gotten this. Straw man much?

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 09:47 PM

I see a lot of "this is how I would rule things" in this thread, but not much RAW or even RAI. The text is pretty sparse on the subject of invisible creatures. In contrast, 3.5e specified an opposed Listen check versus Move Silently to detect invisible creatures. In short, Invisibility acted like automatically passing your hide check, which made sense, and meant you wouldn't be detected unless you made noise.

5e doesn't make that as clear, as has combined Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, leading to situations where people don't know what they're going to be asked to roll, or when, while invisible. It's purely what the DM thinks is reasonable.

If you agree that it's purely what the DM thinks is reasonable, then you are denying that RAW the invisible creature is auto-detected.

If, RAW, the invisible creature is auto-detected, then, RAW, it's not up to the DM. The RAW force auto-detect.

This is my point.

Fortunately, the RAW say that a Wisdom (Perception) check is required to notice anything that is easy to miss.

Malifice

2017-09-10, 09:55 PM

This is a false inference that you have mistakenly introduced. This is never once mentioned in the rules.

Right here - in the rules for Hiding:

'The GM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.

An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.'

My character (who is invisible) is not 'automatically hidden'. Being invisible simply fulfills the 'in order to attempt to Hide, you must first render yourself unseen/ unable to be seen clearly from that creature'.

I can TRY to hide. In order to 'try to Hide' I need to use the Hide action. Invisiblity (like all methods of becoming unseen - total cover, obscurement, the creature I want to hide from is blind etc) simply enables the Hiding attempt.

I could fail the Stealth check (and make noise, knocking over the vase mentioned above, coughing, stepping on a twig, my armor jangling etc) and not be hidden (but remain unseen).

You're being stubborn at this point. You're wrong here and I wont waste my breath arguing with you anymore.

Its your game. Run it how you want. The rules are clear enough for me (and virtually everyone else in this thread) to understand.

Malifice

2017-09-10, 09:59 PM

Noise: The DM assigns a DC to hear the noise. The same way he always determines whether a noise is heard.

If the rogue is making noise, yes. Presumably he is. What is the chance that he will be heard? It's based on the amount of noise he makes.

Its based on his Stealth check to Hide!

Not making noise while unseen is Stealth (Hide action) vs Perception.

The Hide (and the Stealth skill) action ISNT JUST HIDING! Its also moving silently and going unnoticed.

Malifice

2017-09-10, 10:03 PM

Then what? The attacking orc has clearly given her position away, but what about the rest. Let's assume the other orcs continue doing whatever they were doing.

So only one Orc is attacking the PCs, but the rest remain sitting around casually chatting with each other?

Then the PCs can casually stumble over towards those voices and attack them swinging around in the darkness like crazy (at disadvantage). The Orcs are immune to attacks of opportunity from the PCs and are immune to many spells. If they decide to attack in return, they get advantage on their attack rolls, and can attempt to Hide from the PCs at will (as an action). Or they just toss a fireball in the Orcs general direction.

Eventually the Orcs will get slaughtered unless they decide to do something. It'll take much longer than if the Orcs were visible (the PCs get disadvantage to all attacks, and cant target the Orcs with many spells).

If thats what the PCs want to do. If I was a PC I would be more concerned with why arent these Orcs attacking us (we're blind at at a massive disadvantage) and just sitting around chatting to each other while we slaughter their guard who just attacked us.

smcmike

2017-09-10, 10:15 PM

So only one Orc is attacking the PCs, but the rest remain sitting around casually chatting with each other?

Then the PCs can casually stumble over towards those voices and attack them swinging around in the darkness like crazy (at disadvantage). The Orcs are immune to attacks of opportunity from the PCs and are immune to many spells. If they decide to attack in return, they get advantage on their attack rolls, and can attempt to Hide from the PCs at will (as an action). Or they just toss a fireball in the Orcs general direction.

Eventually the Orcs will get slaughtered unless they decide to do something. It'll take much longer than if the Orcs were visible (the PCs get disadvantage to all attacks, and cant target the Orcs with many spells).

If thats what the PCs want to do. If I was a PC I would be more concerned with why arent these Orcs attacking us (we're blind at at a massive disadvantage) and just sitting around chatting to each other while we slaughter their guard who just attacked us.

My question is what information the PCs get about the various orcs in the room, and when they get it.

I assume they hear the conversing orcs, who are being fairly noisy. Do they automatically know exactly how many there are and their precise locations? What if there is a weird echo?

And what about the orcs who are quietly sleeping? In a small, silent room, perhaps they would be detectable, but this room is neither. Do the PCs nevertheless immediately know about all of them, including their precise number and locations? If so, how do you convey this information?

Finally, what about the orcs who are hiding from one another? They are taking the hide action, but not because of the PCs, and some of them are doing it rather poorly, walking around on crunchy gravel and giggling. They are drunk, after all. If the noiseless sleepers were automatically noticed, it seems odd that the drunken hiders weren't, since they are almost certainly making more noise.

greenstone

2017-09-10, 10:18 PM

I think a bit part of RAW that is often missed is "commonsense".

Invisible statue? Not going to be perceived unless you walk into it. Sleeping invisible gnome? Might be perceived, depending on how far away it is and how good the listener's hearing is. Invisible elf walking in the snow? Almost certainly going to be perceived based on their footprints. Smelly dwarf singing and dancing in an inn in another city? Undetectable.

Detection requires perception - you cannot detect detect something unless you can perceive some sign of its presence. That doesn't have to be sight - you could touch it or hear it or feel heat coming off it or smell it or see its tracks or notice the way it disturbs the breeze or see floorboards bowing under its weight or something else. You might also just be told by someone, "There is an invisible statue in front of the fireplace."

All invisibility does is guarantee you can't perceive it by sight. It says nothing about the other perceptions, or about perceiving the external evidence of something's presence.

Hiding is an active attempt to mask perception. You walk quietly, muffle your equipment, take care to travel downwind, mask your scent, etc. There is no such thing as "passive stealth". Attempting to hide involves use of a skill (probably Dex\Stealth, perhaps INT\Survival for a camouflage attempt of an inanimate object, perhaps CHA\Deception or DEX\Sleight of Hand or even DEX\Disguise Kit for an attempt to hide by misdirection).

Being unseen is a prerequisite for an attempt to hide. This can be satisfied by being invisible.

jas61292

2017-09-10, 10:24 PM

Invisible creatures are neither automatically hidden nor are they automatically detected. The GM rules whether they have revealed themselves or not based on innumerable other factors with sight being the only auto fail condition.

As far as I have seen, anyone who believes otherwise is extrapolating. Not that RAW has any meaning outside of forum arguments.

This. This is the answer. This is RAW. Stop trying to make the rules say more than they do. That is not how it works. This is all there is too it. End of discussion.

Malifice

2017-09-10, 10:28 PM

My question is what information the PCs get about the various orcs in the room, and when they get it. I assume they hear the conversing orcs, who are being fairly noisy. Do they automatically know exactly how many there are and their precise locations? What if there is a weird echo?

A general description is enough.

'You hear the sound of Orc voices in the cavern. Around half a dozen. For some reason they arent attacking you. The nearest one is around 30' away. The appear to be conversing amongst each other normally in a language you dont understand. What do you want to do?'

And what about the orcs who are quietly sleeping? In a small, silent room, perhaps they would be detectable, but this room is neither. Do the PCs nevertheless immediately know about all of them, including their precise number and locations? If so, how do you convey this information?

As I said above, I'd probably rule those Orcs (both the ones actively hiding, and the ones being quiet by default via sleeping) to have used the Hide action (either intentionally during the game of Hide and Seek, or passively via falling asleep) setting a Perception DC of 10+Stealth to notice them - effectively using the 'passive use of skill' rules (or I'd roll it for them). An Orc that is passively being quiet while unseen is (Hiding). There are rules for that.

DC 11 to notice the Orcs (they snore and breath heavily from those brutish snouts). I'd also impose disadvantage on the PCs perception checks (due to the noise that both they - and the Orcs talking among themselves - are making).

So a PC with a Passive perception of 16+ not only hears the half a dozen Orcs talking, but also detects the sleeping (and hiding) Orcs.

90sMusic

2017-09-10, 10:44 PM

The reason dungeon masters exist is to arbitrate these sorts of situations. It's why you can't just have a "choose your own story" book version of D&D, because when something happens that isn't expected, someone has to step up and say "ok, so it happens like this..."

In one of my games, if you are invisible, no one is going to see you or even detect you unless they have a reason to. You aren't just auto-detected and have your presence automatically known because that is stupid. Rules be damned. You're only going to be detected if you make noise. If you start talking, start walking, start fidgeting in your armor, there's a chance something may hear you. But even if they do hear a wooden board in the floor creak or hear a subtle clink of armored plates bumping into each other, they aren't going to automatically say "OH MY GOD, THERE IS AN INVISIBLE PERSON IN THIS ROOM AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE" because again, that is STUPID. Old houses creak and make noise all the time.

Sometimes i'll be in my house and hear some sound and have no idea what it was. I might look for a minute or two, then say "oh well, i dont really care" and go back to what I was doing. Sometimes something in another room will fall and I hear the crash/clatter/whatever when it hits the ground. I'll go in there and look, see what hit the floor and maybe spend a minute figuring out what knocked it off or how it fell off, then go back to what I was doing. I have never once, in my entire life, suspected there was a person sneaking around in my house and accidentally knocked it off. Never happened. **** just falls, houses make noises, it happens all the time. The very idea that every single living being in the entire world is so paranoid of their environment that they immediately not only suspect INVISIBLE intruders, but know exactly where they are is so far into the realm of ridiculousness that I can barely stomach to contemplate it.

Now if you're literally running, talking, or otherwise making noise you will be detected. If you're trying to hide from creatures that don't rely on sight to locate things, you're gonna be detected. But if you're just standing around, or even walking through a crowded area with a lot of other people who are walking and talking, there is no conceivable way someone will know you're there without a reason for them to know you're there like if you smell like ass or something, but even then in a crowded room, they might just think its another person there. You won't be really, genuinely "detected" unless you take absolutely no steps to avoid people who might be halfheartedly searching for you.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 10:49 PM

@Malifice:

I’m not sure that you’ve even read what I’ve written. You’re certainly not responding to it.

We agree that invisibility does not imply hidden. I’ve re-stated this multiple times, now. Yet you keep re-stating it as if I disagree.

We agree that, in combat, invisibility is one way to become unseen, which opens up the option of using the Hide Action. But you seem to think this also applies outside of combat. It does not.

I’m not being stubborn. You are failing to understand what I’m saying. I agree with most of the combat situations. Where you are wrong is where you apply the combat rules outside of combat.

Outside of combat, nothing is RAW auto-detected. RAW, the DM decides which things (sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations) are easy to miss and which things are automatically detected.

End of story.

Its based on his Stealth check to Hide!

No sh@t. However, there’s no RAW reason to insist that the Stealth check when invisible is exactly the same as when visible.

So, we agree that it is based on a Stealth check. But that’s not the whole story.

Not making noise while unseen is Stealth (Hide action) vs Perception.

Agreed. However, surely you agree that it’s easier to perceive someone whom you can see and hear than it is to perceive someone who is invisible, but whom you can hear… do we not?

The Hide (and the Stealth skill) action ISNT JUST HIDING! Its also moving silently and going unnoticed.

I’ve never said anything to the contrary.

---

The original point of this thread remains:

You said: “Unless the invisible entity has taken the hide action, its position is known in any event.”

I say: In the event that there is no combat, even if an invisible creature has not taken the hide action, its position might not (indeed usually would not) be known. Therefore you are wrong.

I justify this with p. 178 of the PHB, which says: “Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.”

Since your Wisdom (Perception) check is what lets you detect the presence of something, you do not auto-detect things. You use Wisdom (Perception) to detect things.

So, you lose. You can keep talking about combat and hiding, but that is oblique to the point, and you know it.

Rebonack

2017-09-10, 10:50 PM

If that were the case, then a Creature who is heavily obscured by any means (and thus unseen) could also Hide as a bonus action (or reaction). They cant (unless they have sufficient levels in Rogue or Ranger).

Not necessarily. I'm suggesting a specific clause here as part of the casting of Invisibility rather than a general rule. Part of the reason I would consider suggesting it in the first place is because of the existence of Pace Without a Trace. A plus 10 bonus to Stealth in addition to making tracking impossible without magic? And to a large group of people? That's pretty amazing.

The two spells make an interesting contrast. PWaT gives you peerless stealth ability. A +10 is absolutely insane in a game with bounded accuracy. But it doesn't let you hide anywhere you wouldn't normally be able to hide. Invisibility, on the other hand, basically gives you the old Hide in Plain Sight ability without actually making you better at hiding. And to only one person at a time, to boot. This is a pretty huge nerf from old versions of the spell, which I suspect was likely the intention.

In Ye Olde D&D, you could cast Invisibility and without doing anything else it now takes a DC 20 spot check for a foe to figure out what space you're in. And that stacked with whatever Hide prowess you might have had if you decided to sneak as well. Of course, you still had Move Silently to flub, but that would only alert someone that there might be someone 'around here somewhere' rather than pinpointing a locations.

With all that in mind, I feel like a boost to Invisibility's power when cast defensively in combat isn't wholly unreasonable. Rather than gradually fading out, giving time for that last wild parting attack, the Wizard simply vanishes about as abruptly as they would if they cast Misty Step. This gives Invisibility and PWaT two clearly defined niches. The former as a spell to gain advantages in combat and the latter as a spell to avoid combat.

Exactly. Its a general rule only, and doesnt apply to outliers. An invisible Pixie, motionless and peeking around from behind a tree 1000' away from the PCs doesnt need a Stealth check to Hide. The DM simply sets the Perception DC as 'impossible'.

But barring any outliers, the general rule is that simply being unseen (invisible, total cover, total obscurement etc) does not make you hidden by default.

Becoming unseen (or close enough to being unseen) is simply the prerequisite that enables the Hide action to begin with.

The real fun questions come up when you've got a PC with a class feature that lets them try to hide in lightly obscured areas. Lightly obscured imposes disadvantage on all visual Perception checks, so seeing them is going to be pretty difficult. But hearing them works fine I guess? So do they have to beat the guard's straight passive perception to slip by, or their passive perception minus five? I suppose if they beat one but not the other, the guard would be able to pinpoint them ("Who goes there!") but if they fired a crossbow bolt into the dark it would still be at disadvantage since the target is now unseen but not hidden.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 10:51 PM

This. This is the answer. This is RAW. Stop trying to make the rules say more than they do. That is not how it works. This is all there is too it. End of discussion.

Agreed. As far as I can see, Malifice does not understand this.

Also, is it clear that I share this view, or do I appear to be trying to make the rules say more than they do?

Malifice

2017-09-10, 10:51 PM

In one of my games, if you are invisible, no one is going to see you or even detect you unless they have a reason to. You aren't just auto-detected and have your presence automatically known because that is stupid. Rules be damned.

Dude - NO ONE IS SAYING THIS!

You're only 'auto detected' if you are not attempting to be quiet and conceal your presence - using Stealth. If your invisible PC is trying to be undetected while invisible, he makes a Stealth check (via the Hide action, if actions are important and we're in the turn based combat sequence) and compares the result to the passive perception of those nearby.

An Invisible rogue with expertise in Stealth is harder to detect that an invisible Paladin in heavy armor who dumped Dex.

If your PCs are foolish enough to make no effort to be quiet and conceal their location when invisible, then yes, the game assumes they get detected.

If they're invisible and tell you (the DM) that they now want to sneak into the bandit camp, you call for a Stealth check.

Are they trying to be quiet and leave no trace of their passage? Stealth check required.

Are they not trying to be quiet and leave no trace of their passage? No Stealth check required, but they get noticed.

You're only going to be detected if you make noise.

And there is a skill for moving about unseen without making noise. Its called Stealth.

Malifice

2017-09-10, 10:55 PM

@Malifice:

See above. Im not arguing with you anymore. You're not only wrong, but stobbornly so, and I cant be bothered.

If it works in your games do what you want. The rules are clear for mine and most others.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 11:08 PM

Dude - NO ONE IS SAYING THIS!

Yes, you were. It's great that you've changed your stance now, but there is a plethora of evidence with your name attached to it in which you did this very thing.

You're only 'auto detected' if you are not attempting to be quiet and conceal your presence - using Stealth. If your invisible PC is trying to be undetected while invisible, he makes a Stealth check (via the Hide action, if actions are important and we're in the turn based combat sequence) and compares the result to the passive perception of those nearby.

And here, you've done it again. You say: You're only auto-detected if you do not attempt to be quiet.

So, you say: the default is that you are auto-detected, unless you attempt to be quiet.

An Invisible rogue with expertise in Stealth is harder to detect that an invisible Paladin in heavy armor who dumped Dex.

But if neither is "in stealth"? Both auto-detected! <- according to you

If your PCs are foolish enough to make no effort to be quiet and conceal their location when invisible, then yes, the game assumes they get detected.

And making no effort is the default state. Making effort is using the Dexterity (Stealth) skill, which is not the default state.

So, in your view, by default (not using Stealth), they are auto-detected.

If they're invisible and tell you (the DM) that they now want to sneak into the bandit camp, you call for a Stealth check.

And if they do not - auto-detected! <- according to you

Are they trying to be quiet and leave no trace of their passage? Stealth check required.

And if not, you guessed it... auto-detected! <- according to you

Are they not trying to be quiet and leave no trace of their passage? No Stealth check required, but they get noticed.

And "NO ONE IS SAYING THIS!" But you just did... again.

And there is a skill for moving about unseen without making noise. Its called Stealth.

So which is it? Is stealth the default state or must players declare it?

Stealth is not the default state, so by default invisible creatures are not using Stealth, so by default, according to you, they are auto-detected.

That's your application, and according to you that is RAW.

/endthread

Saggo

2017-09-10, 11:16 PM

Not the way people talk about it here, it's not. RAW is VERY limited in use because people make assumptions beyond the written that are not explicitly contradicted and claim them as part of the RAW. If the books have written "Most sticks on Faerun are brown," then you'll have camps that say that this means 51% are brown, camps that say 99% are brown, and camps that say 20% are brown and that brown sticks are just the largest mono-colored subset of sticks available. And then there will be the camp that points to another page that says "Ironbark trees are the most populace in Faerun," and people will say, well the previous rule can't be right because Ironbark trees are gray-ish, not brown. The only way to reconcile this is for Ironbark trees to have no branches. And other people will say "That's stupid, the rules don't say that Ironbark trees DON'T have branches. And each camp will claim 100% authority of RAW and say that others are wrong because of extrapolations from other rules that imply they might be right.

If RAW were a legitimate thing that could be argued, if it were the holy grail that it is often hailed as, then these threads would not persist so long. This one has been going since the game came out, and there are a lot of people willing to die on this hill. (Evidently, I'm included in that.) RAW is largely pointless, the only thing that matters is a discussion of what varieties of interpretations a rule has and what is best for a given table overall.

TLDR: People filter things through their existing worldview and are darned stubborn about it. Who knew? :smalltongue:

I agreed until you implied it couldn't be argued and said it was pointless. Difficulties in coming to an agreement doesn't preclude the value that commonality or a baseline provides. It's simply easier to discuss variations across tables when there's commonality to begin with.

As for agreeing on RAW, there can be a concensus. Such as if someone were to tell me that an attack roll that matches an AC is a miss, that wouldn't be an interpretation, they'd just be wrong.

90sMusic

2017-09-10, 11:19 PM

Dude - NO ONE IS SAYING THIS!

You're only 'auto detected' if you are not attempting to be quiet and conceal your presence - using Stealth. If your invisible PC is trying to be undetected while invisible, he makes a Stealth check (via the Hide action, if actions are important and we're in the turn based combat sequence) and compares the result to the passive perception of those nearby.

An Invisible rogue with expertise in Stealth is harder to detect that an invisible Paladin in heavy armor who dumped Dex.

If your PCs are foolish enough to make no effort to be quiet and conceal their location when invisible, then yes, the game assumes they get detected.

If they're invisible and tell you (the DM) that they now want to sneak into the bandit camp, you call for a Stealth check.

Are they trying to be quiet and leave no trace of their passage? Stealth check required.

Are they not trying to be quiet and leave no trace of their passage? No Stealth check required, but they get noticed.

And there is a skill for moving about unseen without making noise. Its called Stealth.

The first few posts in this thread were saying you're automatically known where you are unless hiding and you aren't automatically hidden.

Say some guy is wearing plate armor and he snuck into a kitchen with invisiblity. He is in this room, invisible, when a guard patrol starts opening the door and walks through the room. Realistically, all he has to do is hold still and not move and those guys will never have a single reason to detect him or even believe he is there. But by D&D silliness, instead of just holding still, he will have to make a stealth check, with disadvantage which will very likely end up with him being "spotted" despite him doing absolutely nothing but standing still.

That is stupid. Even if plate armor sounds like a musical instrument from one of Dr Seuss's books, it isn't going to make noise if you aren't moving. Being able to hold still isn't a difficult skill and it is certainly not comparable to the plethora of skills employed by using proper stealth techniques. And again, even if he failed that roll and made a subtle, uncontrollable shift in his stance or whatever to cause a slight clink of two plates against each other, that guy patrolling isn't going to immediately suspect there is an invisible person standing there and he isn't going to know exactly where they are all at once. That is exactly what the rules say will happen just because that guy's passive perception beat a disadvantaged stealth roll.

It is a bad call and shouldn't happen like that. On the other hand if he is trying to sneak by a couple of guards at their post and they keep hearing this metal clinking moving closer and closer to them, that is going to throw up red flags even if an invisible person isn't what immediately pops in their head.

Also note the part I bolded. MOVING while unseen, by your own definition. What if you just want to remain motionless and do nothing while someone passes by you?

BurgerBeast

2017-09-10, 11:28 PM

@90sMusic: I'm with you all the way, with one minor nitpick.

But by D&D silliness, instead of just holding still, he will have to make a stealth check, with disadvantage which will very likely end up with him being "spotted" despite him doing absolutely nothing but standing still.

I do not think that "D&D silliness" actually says this. I think the RAW work exactly as you described (the sensible way).

It's "Malifice silliness" that calls for the nonsense. It is not RAW at all.

90sMusic

2017-09-10, 11:35 PM

I do not think that "D&D silliness" actually says this. I think the RAW work exactly as you described (the sensible way).

It's "Malifice silliness" that calls for the nonsense. It is not RAW at all.

I've seen it happen in a lot of games unfortunately. And because it IS so absolutely ridiculous, unrealistic, and unjustifiable, i've seen DM's narrate the situation as the person hiding just randomly farts or burps or something because there is no actual way they could've made sound otherwise by holding still.

Just makes me shake my head.

Xetheral

2017-09-10, 11:36 PM

Some pertinent quotes from Crawford's stealth podcast:

Now in some cases a DM will decide that even an invisible person’s location is unknown to the combatants, ah, because this goes back to what we were saying before of the environment and characters’ attentiveness, it’s really up to the DM. The DM might decide that, alright, the wizard who cast invisibility on herself, ah, the orcs they’ve lost track of where she is, even though she never bothered to hide...

But we assume, that, uh, it’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules, for a group to assume that unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat...

As I interpret the first quote, a DM can, RAI, decide that a non-hidden, invisible creature may be undetected. Indeed, Crawford appears to be explicitly endorsing that possibility.

As I interpret the second quote a DM can, RAI, alternatively choose to adopt an assumption that non-hidden invisible creatures are automatically detected. Crawford appears to be implicitly saying that while it is "in keeping with the rules" to assume that non-hidden invisible creatures are automatically detected, that assumption isn't required by those rules.

For those posters who believe that non-hidden, invisible creatures are always automatically detected, how do you interpret the above quotes?

Astofel

2017-09-10, 11:52 PM

Several of the situations in this thread are pretty extraneous. How often is there actually going to be an invisible quietly sleeping gnome in a corner? In almost every situation in which a character is turned invisible, the player is going to say something that precludes the DM calling for a Stealth check. For instance, the wizard turns the rogue invisible so he can sneak into the enemy camp and scout. Stealth check, and personally I'd give it advantage since the enemies probably aren't expecting invisible spies and are relying on sight. Realistically, no-one is ever going to say "I turn invisible then stand around doing nothing, but also making no attempt to make myself hidden." In the rare case that something is both invisible and inaudible, it isn't noticed until you walk into it. A Wall of Force, for example.

In the case of the invisible paladin who fails his Stealth check, there are a lot of things that could lead to that failure. Sure, he could sneeze, fart, or burp or something. But perhaps he couldn't manage to quiet his breathing, or maybe he positioned himself poorly and the guards walk into him as they patrol. Potentially silly though it might be, the paladin tried to make himself unnoticed, calling for a Stealth check, which he failed. That means the guards know something is around, even if they can't see it. To say otherwise is to remove any consequence for failing a skill check. Personally, in just about all cases that don't involve the guards walking into the paladin, I'd have them yell "Who goes there?" and begin to search the room, giving the paladin a few moments to do something before they bump into him, but of course this varies from DM to DM.

Malifice

2017-09-11, 12:10 AM

The first few posts in this thread were saying you're automatically known where you are unless hiding and you aren't automatically hidden.

Yep. As a general rule, in order to become Hidden you must use the Hide action and the Stealth Skill.

Say some guy is wearing plate armor and he snuck into a kitchen with invisiblity.

Stealth check required. See why. I bolded and underlined it for you.

He makes the check at disadvantage (due to the Plate armor). That crap makes a lot of noise.

He is in this room, invisible, when a guard patrol starts opening the door and walks through the room. Realistically, all he has to do is hold still and not move and those guys will never have a single reason to detect him or even believe he is there.

'HOLDING STILL AND NOT MOVING' WHILE IN PLATE ARMOR AND INVISIBLE IS USING STEALTH.

He has walked into a room invisible and is attempting to hold himself still and quiet (in plate mail). He is using Stealth via the Hide action.

Its no different than if he was 'holding still and not moving' while out of sight behind a stove in the kitchen.

But by D&D silliness, instead of just holding still, he will have to make a stealth check, with disadvantage which will very likely end up with him being "spotted" despite him doing absolutely nothing but standing still.

That's not silliness. The guy is trying to be quiet in full plate armor. Armor that imposes disadvantage on Stealth checks because its noisy, with creaking leather, jangling buckles and rings of metal rubbing against each other, metal hinges and steel rubbing on steel.

Put on a set of the crap and stand in my kitchen with the lights off. I'd probably notice you when I walked in there. I might not notice you of course - but it depends on my passive perception to hear you, and your skill at being quiet (Stealth).

Being able to hold still isn't a difficult skill and it is certainly not comparable to the plethora of skills employed by using proper stealth techniques.

Here we go again.

Im standing in a room invisible, and being totally quiet, trying to conceal my presence from nearby guards, and trying not to make any noise... but I'm not using stealth?

Im lying to the King, trying to decieve him into letting me go... but I'm not using Deception?
Im running a 100m hurdle race, and trying to win, but I'm not using Athletics?
Im cartwheeling around the room and then vaulting onto a set of rings... but Im not using Acrobatics?
Im trying to tell if the guy is lying to me... but I'm not using Insight?
Im stuck in the desert and trying to find water... but Im not using Survival?

You (the player) narrate what you are doing. If you're standing invisible and still in a kitchen, trying to be quiet while wearing full plate armor, and hide yourself from Guards you're using the Stealth skill.

If you happen to be a Rogue with expertise and wearing no armor and little gear (and better yet; boots of elvenkind which expressly grant advantage on Stealth checks to be quiet) then you're probably going to succeed.

If you're a clumsy (Dex 8) Fighter in Full Plate without skill in Stealth, you're going to need some luck.

And again, even if he failed that roll and made a subtle, uncontrollable shift in his stance or whatever to cause a slight clink of two plates against each other, that guy patrolling isn't going to immediately suspect there is an invisible person standing there and he isn't going to know exactly where they are all at once.

It depends. If the guards in the room are not alert, or are distracted, then they might not even get to apply their passive perception to notice you (or they could be at disadvantage).

The DM narrates it accordingly if they do hear you (you flub your Stealth check). 'Your scabbard scrapes against the pots nearby, knocking one to the ground. The guards stop suddenly and start looking around the room intently (taking the Search action) weapons drwan... what do you do?'

Varlon

2017-09-11, 12:12 AM

For those posters who believe that non-hidden, invisible creatures are always automatically detected

Nobody in this thread has made that claim. But the default is that an invisible creature is not hidden and, in the vast vast majority of cases, will have its position known (especially in combat) unless it hides.

I think some people want invisibility to be very strong and think that being hidden is the only benefit of being invisible, which leads to nonsensical posts like

And what about the warlock invocation One with Shadows that lets the warlock use his action to become invisible as long as he doesn't move or act? When he becomes invisible, is he then auto detected by everything? If he has to use his action to hide, he's using his action and is thus no longer invisible. But if invisible creatures are auto detected unless they hide, then this invocation is completely useless as written.
as if disadvantage on all attacks against you, negation of opportunity attacks, and immunity to spells that require you to see your target to cast are completely useless.

The only people using the phrase "automatically detected" in this thread are the people accusing the other side of making claims that they're not making, which is preventing actual understanding from sinking in. Avoid the phrase entirely and you'll be better off.

Malifice

2017-09-11, 12:34 AM

Nobody in this thread has made that claim. But the default is that an invisible creature is not hidden and, in the vast vast majority of cases, will have its position known (especially in combat) unless it hides.

Exactly. This is the general (default) rule. Being invisble does not (in and of itself) make you hidden. You also need to use Stealth via the Hide action (if action economy and 'actions' are important) if you wish to become hidden (mask your sounds and presence and signs of your passage) and move about or remain silent and unnoticed.

In other cases, thats what he have the DM for.

An invisibe statue isnt a creature (no stealth score) and makes no noise and gives no signs of its presence (aside from dust coating it, or a PC bumping into it). Perception DC assigned by the DM.

An invisible Gnome sleeping in the corner, under the effects of a Silence spell isnt noticed (unless there is some other sign of his presence) unless the PCs interact with him in some manner.

But a Wizard who is locked in melee with an Orc who casts invisiblity? The Orc gets one last swing in (as the spell is being cast in the same turn) at disadvantage before the Wizard gets to attempt to Hide.

90sMusic

2017-09-11, 01:24 AM

Malfice you seem super bitter and overly grasping at straws. When I mentioned the paladin sneaking into the kitchen, that was saying what happened before the scenario I described played out. I would've thought that would be obvious to ANYONE reading it, I could've just as easily said he simply appeared in the kitchen via magic before the scenario played out, but I never expected to have to explicitly explain that to someone, i'm actually rather shocked here.

Again, moving around quietly without being seen or heard is an entire set of skills. Holding still isn't rocket science. You could still be seen while hiding behind a stove because part of you may not be completely covered behind it or there could be a reflection of you somewhere that you didn't notice. Being invisible makes things like that impossible. And unless you're playing an overweight adventurer with asthma or severe allergies, no one is going to hear you breathing. Even in the dead of night in a completely silent room where the faintest sounds become more prominent, I still can't hear my significant other laying right next to me breathing unless they are sick or in the middle of stirring.

If you think someone who is invisible and is holding still should be significantly easier to notice with passive perception than a guy in tight leather pants who is actively moving around the room, then I honestly don't know what to say to you. They are two completely different situations and should be handled in a completely different way, but by your logic it's the same situation. You can try to justify that sort of craziness all you want just like some people in mental institutions are wholly convinced they are prominent historical figures reborn, but it doesn't make it any less crazy.

I mean, we can take it a step further and say the guy who is actively sneaking around the room is wearing a white and yellow neon jumpsuit with an enormous fuzzy purple hat, and still, by the rules and your unrelenting dedication to following rules as written without any exception for circumstance, it would still be significantly harder to detect this guy than an INVISIBLE person who is remaining motionless. You could even make the stealthy rogue smell like a corpse and it wouldn't matter, because he rolls higher, they just wouldn't notice his intense body odor because... reasons....?

This is one of the big differences between your mentality of roll playing and my mentality of role playing. Circumstances and situations can change. You can get advantage, disadvantage, or even handwave rolls for a lot of reasons.

In your silly examples, lets go with those. Let's say someone is lying to you. You don't HAVE to roll insight if you already KNOW the person is lying to you. I've seen that kind of stupidity in games as well where someone knows someone is lying to them but the dm forces them to roll insight, fails the roll, and DM demands they act as if they don't know the person lied, despite having evidence than they are lying or having witnessed them do whatever they said they didn't do. In those situations, you don't need to roll because you already know the truth.

I've seen DMs like you force players to roll survival while FOLLOWING A ROAD. To stay on the road. And i'm not talking about some overgrown, poorly maintained, middle of the forest kind of dirt trail either, i'm talking about a major stone road that is commonly traveled.

You can and should handwave things if it makes sense to do so. You don't have to roll for everything, especially when there is no reason to.

Making someone roll stealth to hold still when they are invisible is like making them roll survival to find water when they're standing in front of a lake. It is just pointless and should be automatic. They SHOULD roll stealth if they're moving around, trying to sneak by people and so on, but just holding still? No way. Again, by the rules, mister neon jumpsuit frilly hat man with expertise in stealth and high dex would be harder to detect while he is belly dancing 5 feet from these guards than the low dex plate wearing guy who is invisible and being motionless.

But hey, you do you.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 01:24 AM

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 01:26 AM

'HOLDING STILL AND NOT MOVING' WHILE IN PLATE ARMOR AND INVISIBLE IS USING STEALTH.

Ridiculous.

Is a thief standing still in the middle of a room using stealth, too? No. Standing still is not using stealth. Everyone knows this, including you.

You just don't want to lose an argument.

Jerrykhor

2017-09-11, 01:36 AM

imanidiot

2017-09-11, 01:44 AM

lperkins2

2017-09-11, 01:52 AM

Lets put this to bed. To make it clear as day how stupid Malefice's stance is, lets replace creatures with objects. Obviously, objects cannot take the Hide action. They also cannot be invisible, or are usually not invisible. Yet, sometimes we walk into a room being 100% sure a particular object is somewhere in here, but we still can't find it. Like keys (always the damn keys). They are not trying to hide from you, but you think you should auto-detect them because they didn't take the Hide action.

I admire your attempt (and totally agree with your line of reasoning), but Malefice is not going to ever admit the absurdity of his position. Previous threads on this topic have covered creatures behind walls, in zones of silence, and being sought by blind guards (the blind guards obviously cannot see any footprints or other signs of the invisible non-hider's passage). Unfortunately, none of these examples have persuaded any of the 'must-use-an-action-to-hide' folks.

Even the JC interview, where he explained that they were intentionally vague with how stealth and hiding work, so that DMs could run it how they like, and how fits particular circumstances, does not convince them. Why? Because JC says that at a minimum, a player can know that if he successfully takes the Hide action, he is hidden. They then conclude that taking the Hide action is the only way to be hidden, aside from house rules, since it is the only specific positive way for a player to control the situation. They take the absence of evidence for evidence of absence of other ways to be hidden.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 02:21 AM

Well, perhaps, despite our inability to clarify the RAW, and since he seems to give weight to consensus...

Perhaps we can at least make it clear that the consensus is against him. It shouldn't matter one iota, but I think it matters to him. I think that he thinks the majority agree with him, when they do not. We could at least lay that to rest.

Zalabim

2017-09-11, 02:59 AM

The Short Answer:

By RAW, a Wisdom (Perception) check may be required to spot something that is easy to miss but not hidden. The example of the candlelight is candlelight that is visible. It is visible, but you may be required to succeed at a Wisdom (Perception) check just to spot it.

The candelight, which is visible, is not auto-detected. Therefore things that are visible are not auto-detected.

Since things that are visible are not hidden, you do not need to be hidden to go unnoticed. A Wisom (Perception) check can be required to notice something that is not hidden. Therefore, things that are not hidden are not auto-detected.
I bolded the part that you have wrong. It is possible to be visible and hidden, such as when a creature is only partially obscured by cover or dim light.

I see a lot of "this is how I would rule things" in this thread, but not much RAW or even RAI. The text is pretty sparse on the subject of invisible creatures. In contrast, 3.5e specified an opposed Listen check versus Move Silently to detect invisible creatures. In short, Invisibility acted like automatically passing your hide check, which made sense, and meant you wouldn't be detected unless you made noise.

5e doesn't make that as clear, as has combined Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, leading to situations where people don't know what they're going to be asked to roll, or when, while invisible. It's purely what the DM thinks is reasonable.
Invisibility still says attempts to see you automatically fail. I don't know why people have so much trouble with adjudicating hearing now. It was simply unrealistically punitive in 3.5.

Well, perhaps, despite our inability to clarify the RAW, and since he seems to give weight to consensus...

Perhaps we can at least make it clear that the consensus is against him. It shouldn't matter one iota, but I think it matters to him. I think that he thinks the majority agree with him, when they do not. We could at least lay that to rest.
Since you cannot find support in the RAW or RAI, you think maybe you can bully the opposition with numbers instead? Try to have the least bit of class.

Battlebooze

2017-09-11, 03:20 AM

Malifice

2017-09-11, 03:21 AM

Lets put this to bed. To make it clear as day how stupid Malefice's stance is, lets replace creatures with objects. Obviously, objects cannot take the Hide action.

And youre calling me stupid. What a ridiculous and obvious strawman.

Lets replace creatures with objects!

Objects cant take the Hide action, and dont have Stealth scores. The DM sets the DC to discover a hidden object. The rules for Hiding in the PHB dont apply to objects.

Unoriginal

2017-09-11, 03:27 AM

Malifice

2017-09-11, 03:34 AM

Malifice says that you are automatically detected when you are invisible unless you specifically take the hide action.

As a general rule, yep. Thats what I am saying.

You want to use Stealth skill to hide from someone while unseen (and action sequences count, like in Combat)? You must take the Hide action.

If you're not in combat, you dont need to take any 'actions'. You just tell the DM you want to sneak past the guards while invisible. He calls for a Stealth check to see if they hear (or otherwise notice) you.

PCs are not assumed to be using stealth unless they say so.

Yep. Like with any skill.

The player tells me what he is doing. The DM then calls for a skill check (maybe, if there is a relevant skill and a chance of failure and/or success).

The relevant skill for [trying to be unnoticed while unseen] is.... take a guess?

PCs are assumed to not be using stealth.

I'm happy for the PCs to (outside of combat) all tell me they are advancing down the coridoor being quiet (I'll take the lowest Stealth score as the Passive perception DC for my monsters).

Why is this relevant?

In combat the assumption of the game is that creatures are aware of all nearby creatures that are not hidden. As a general rule. If you're not hidden relative to a monster in combat, and you want to become hidden relative to that monster you must:

1) Become unseen (or close to it) relative to that monster. Invisiblity works, as does total cover, a blind enemy, total concealment etc
2) Take the Hide action (as an action or bonus action for Rogues)
3) Roll higher on your Stealth check than the monsters passive perception score.

Therefore, under Malifice's view, a PC who is only invisible but not using the stealth skill is auto-detected.

Yep. As a general rule (there are exceptions; as determined by the DM) a creature that is invisible (or otherwise unseen) but who is not also hiding, is auto-detected.

Thats the general rule. Again, for outliers, the DM is there to adjudicate.

Being 'unseen' he is immune to all attacks of opportunity, targetted spells and special abilities, and you have disadvantage to hit him as you dont know exactly where he is. Furthermore he can attempt to Hide (become hidden) meaning you cant attack him at all at will.

Youre fighting an unseen creature, that you are aware of, and who isnt making any effort to be quiet.

If he is making an effort to be quiet (while unseen) HE'S TAKING THE HIDE ACTION.

Malifice

2017-09-11, 03:41 AM

So if I'm moving through a dungeon quietly and beat the Passive Perception of the Invisible Stalker in the next room it doesn't have an opportunity to use the Hide action. So I'm automatically aware of its presence because it isn't Hidden, right?

What? Why isnt the Stalker trying to be quiet?

If its not trying to be quiet and conceal its presence, then yes - when you walk into the room you notice 'something' flying around the room as the dust in the room swirls about and it brushes against your face, and you hear a dull moaning from the creature buzzing about.

If it is trying to be quiet (while unseen) then it gets its stealth score (it used 'the Hide action' outside of combat where action sequences dont matter).

Its no different than if (instead of a stalker) there was an Ogre behind a statue standing there totally quiet trying hard not to make any noise.

I dont know about you, but as DM I say 'The Ogre is standing beind a statue, unseen and trying not to make any noise. It is therefore using the Stealth skill. I now compare its Stealth check result to the passive perceptions of the PCs on them entering the room. Any PCs that dont detect the Ogre are surprised on round one when it races out from behind the statute and attacks them'

Malifice

2017-09-11, 03:44 AM

To everyone who says "standing still is not stealth!"

Are you saying that in this scene, the humans that are staying still aren't trying to be stealthy?

https://youtu.be/mm83FTA89AY

If the goal of standing still is to be unnoticed, then you are attempting to hide.

If you are not trying to be unnoticed, then why the hells and high waters do you care if you are noticed despite being invisible?

Im not using stealth. I'm just trying to stand stand totally still and not make any sounds at all from my gear, weapons and equipment, while I cover any other signs of my passage such as footprints in the dirt or depressions on the carpet, and stifle any coughs and dont move... while invisible.

Its not Stealth DM. Honest!

Kryx

2017-09-11, 04:50 AM

Now in some cases a DM will decide that even an invisible person’s location is unknown to the combatants, ah, because this goes back to what we were saying before of the environment and characters’ attentiveness, it’s really up to the DM. The DM might decide that, alright, the wizard who cast invisibility on herself, ah, the orcs they’ve lost track of where she is, even though she never bothered to hide...

But we assume, that, uh, it’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules, for a group to assume that unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat...
Thanks for providing sources! Quote #2 was the RAI point I was making in the other thread. Quote #1 has been alluded to by posters and it's nice to see it written - that's pretty much how I play anyways.

Note: Malifice's stance is being heavily strawmanned. He's only talking about quote #2 above. We would have less bickering if people understood this.

Thanks again for providing sources! I hope more people read this and stop creating pages of bickering.

djreynolds

2017-09-11, 05:01 AM

First off I love this.

Stealth is two parts, hiding and being silent. Take Bilbo Baggins with the dragon, I hear you breathing... and I can smell you. Bilbo is invisible though, but Smaug still has a very good idea of where he is.

smcmike

2017-09-11, 05:01 AM

Some pertinent quotes from Crawford's stealth podcast:

As I interpret the first quote, a DM can, RAI, decide that a non-hidden, invisible creature may be undetected. Indeed, Crawford appears to be explicitly endorsing that possibility.

As I interpret the second quote a DM can, RAI, alternatively choose to adopt an assumption that non-hidden invisible creatures are automatically detected. Crawford appears to be implicitly saying that while it is "in keeping with the rules" to assume that non-hidden invisible creatures are automatically detected, that assumption isn't required by those rules.

For those posters who believe that non-hidden, invisible creatures are always automatically detected, how do you interpret the above quotes?

If this is the language Malifice has been relying on for "RAI," I'm shocked that he believes it definitively supports his case. I agree with your interpretation that Crawford was indicating that the rules were intentionally left vague to allow DM flexibility.

Malifice seems to think that the rules demand that any character be able to display Daredevil-level senses on a good roll. Instantly dectecting the number and location of quietly sleeping orcs scattered across a noisy pitch-black room the size of a football field, for example. The rules do not demand this.

Let's try another example. The party walks into a room. On the other side of the room there is an area of magical Darkness and magical Silence, in which a warlock is standing, preparing a ritual with no verbal components, along with his assassin friend, who is hiding, and his paladin friend, who is also hiding, but very badly, since he is in platemail and has a dexterity of 6.

What do the players know?

Astofel

2017-09-11, 07:19 AM

Let's try another example. The party walks into a room. On the other side of the room there is an area of magical Darkness and magical Silence, in which a warlock is standing, preparing a ritual with no verbal components, along with his assassin friend, who is hiding.

What do the players know?

Unless someone is particularly odorous, the players only know that there is an area of darkness on the other side of the room. All three NPCs are unseen and unheard, so the players cannot know they are there. Remove Silence from the equation, and the warlock might be noticed automatically depending on the size of the room due to the noise he makes manipulating the components of the ritual. If he wants to be hidden, he needs to make a Stealth check to perform his ritual while minimizing the sound he makes. Because that's what a Stealth check is for: lowering the amount of noise you make so you remain undetected in your hiding place. If you make no attempt to be quiet or stealthy, then you make enough noise to be detected by someone who is within a reasonable distance, with 'reasonable distance' obviously being up to the DM to determine, dependent on factors like the ambient noise level of the area, etc.

The assassin without Silence has already made his Stealth check. If he beats all the PC's passive Perceptions, then they don't notice him, otherwise he fails to be quiet enough and they know he's there. The paladin has probably failed his stealth roll, so he is almost certainly noticed. His low dexterity makes him a bit shaky; he doesn't have precise control of his body so as he shakes his armour makes noise, causing him to be detected.

I don't think that anyone here is saying that not Hiding while invisible = auto detect 100% of the time always without fail. Some people seem to think that's what Malifice is saying, but that's not how I at least interpret him. I think that sure, there are some situations where a non-hiding invisible creature goes unnoticed, but most of these are extraneous and unlikely to come up in real play.

As for the whole 'does standing still equal hiding' debate, it depends on the circumstances. Is the assassin standing visible in the middle of the room using Stealth? Of course not, he's in plain sight. You can't use Stealth if you're being seen by the thing you want to hide from. What about the invisible paladin who's standing still because he doesn't want the guards to notice him? He is using Stealth. Why? Because he doesn't want the guards to notice him. Any time a character wants to do something without being seen or heard is grounds for the DM to call for a Stealth check, including standing still.

smcmike

2017-09-11, 07:38 AM

As for the whole 'does standing still equal hiding' debate, it depends on the circumstances. Is the assassin standing visible in the middle of the room using Stealth? Of course not, he's in plain sight. You can't use Stealth if you're being seen by the thing you want to hide from. What about the invisible paladin who's standing still because he doesn't want the guards to notice him? He is using Stealth. Why? Because he doesn't want the guards to notice him. Any time a character wants to do something without being seen or heard is grounds for the DM to call for a Stealth check, including standing still.

I agree that it may be appropriate to have an invisible Paladin make a stealth check even if he's just standing still. I just don't think Malafice's position, as stated, gives enough weight to circumstance. Standing quietly while invisible should not be exactly as difficult as walking across a room quietly while invisible. An invisible creature 300 feet away is unlikely to be perceptible unless it is consciously try to be perceived.

Honestly, the rule is just very weird. Not being seen is a precondition to attempt not to be seen.

Kryx

2017-09-11, 07:57 AM

the rule is just very weird. Not being seen is a precondition to attempt not to be seen.
There are multiple senses to detect someone. Sight, sound, and smell being the primary ones.

So in the case of hiding while invisible the sight part is already covered for you, but perhaps there is water or flour on the floor. Sound covers things like moving and breathing. Scent there isn't much to cover up with a stealth check.

smcmike

2017-09-11, 08:10 AM

There are multiple senses to detect someone. Sight, sound, and smell being the primary ones.

So in the case of hiding while invisible the sight part is already covered for you, but perhaps there is water or flour on the floor. Sound covers things like moving and breathing. Scent there isn't much to cover up with a stealth check.

Yes, I know. It still doesn't seem to work very well without the assumption that the DM fills in a lot.

Let's say a guard is exclusively using his sight for a perception check. Maybe he's hard of hearing and has a stuffed up nose, or maybe he's watching an area too far away for noises or smells. Mr. Invisible Paladin walks into the area, which is paved in cobblestones, so no footprints. Does the guard get a perception roll? Is it measured directly against the paladin's stealth check? Was that stealth check made at disadvantage? Doesn't that seem... odd? The guard can't hear, see, or smell the paladin. What is the check for, then?

Or, let's imagine a rogue is hiding in a cupboard. He uses stealth to be silent as a guard walks by. All good so far. The next guard has a bloodhound. Does he get to use his stealth against scent?

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 08:37 AM

I bolded the part that you have wrong. It is possible to be visible and hidden, such as when a creature is only partially obscured by cover or dim light.

Thank you. Amend "visible" to "seen."

Since you cannot find support in the RAW or RAI, you think maybe you can bully the opposition with numbers instead? Try to have the least bit of class.

What are you talking about?

Malifice has repeatedly told me that consensus is against me. I think he is factually incorrect. As I pointed out, it makes no difference to me where the consensus lies, but it obviously makes a difference to him.

Nice try though.

pwykersotz

2017-09-11, 08:49 AM

I agreed until you implied it couldn't be argued and said it was pointless. Difficulties in coming to an agreement doesn't preclude the value that commonality or a baseline provides. It's simply easier to discuss variations across tables when there's commonality to begin with.

As for agreeing on RAW, there can be a concensus. Such as if someone were to tell me that an attack roll that matches an AC is a miss, that wouldn't be an interpretation, they'd just be wrong.

Then we agree far more than we disagree. I have a predisposition to dispense with heavily loaded terms in conversations so that people carry in fewer biases. Hence the dislike of the term RAW, of quoting fallacies, etc. You appear to be taking the term in its idealized form, which I consider to be a grounded and viable position as well, just not one to my taste. :smallsmile:

Kryx

2017-09-11, 08:54 AM

Let's say a guard is exclusively using his sight for a perception check. Maybe he's hard of hearing and has a stuffed up nose, or maybe he's watching an area too far away for noises or smells. Mr. Invisible Paladin walks into the area, which is paved in cobblestones, so no footprints. Does the guard get a perception roll? Is it measured directly against the paladin's stealth check? Was that stealth check made at disadvantage? Doesn't that seem... odd? The guard can't hear, see, or smell the paladin. What is the check for, then?
Humanoid guard? Humans normally don't smell other creatures unless there are special circumstances like strong scents or very close proximity so I'd cross that off for the vast majority of circumstances.
Stuffed up nose or hard of hearing = disadvantage
Too far to hear = no roll necessary

These are all assuming the Paladin has rolled a stealth check. I have no idea how to adjudicate it otherwise. Passive Stealth?

Or, let's imagine a rogue is hiding in a cupboard. He uses stealth to be silent as a guard walks by. All good so far. The next guard has a bloodhound. Does he get to use his stealth against scent?
Stealth has no example of covering up scent. That is true historically in D&D as well. The bloodhound would roll a flat DC determined by the GM based on the circumstances imo.

Saggo

2017-09-11, 09:08 AM

As I interpret the first quote, a DM can, RAI, decide that a non-hidden, invisible creature may be undetected. Indeed, Crawford appears to be explicitly endorsing that possibility.

As I interpret the second quote a DM can, RAI, alternatively choose to adopt an assumption that non-hidden invisible creatures are automatically detected. Crawford appears to be implicitly saying that while it is "in keeping with the rules" to assume that non-hidden invisible creatures are automatically detected, that assumption isn't required by those rules.

For those posters who believe that non-hidden, invisible creatures are always automatically detected, how do you interpret the above quotes?
The nuance is that adjudicating specific, extraneous circumstances doesn't change underpinning mechanics. Being Invisible itself isn't an extraneous circumstance, it's a mechanical condition, with its own affects on targeting including the ability to Hide anywhere. In the same regard, a DM can add an additional check to making an attack based on circumstance (such as perhaps acrobatics on a loose boulder), that doesn't mean making an attack always or even usually requires an additional check.

In short, I don't think anyone disagrees that DMs make rulings on specific situations, but Invisible is a mechanical condition that absent an extraneous circumstance does not hide you.

Easy_Lee

2017-09-11, 09:43 AM

So I'm not talking RAW here, but in my opinion, an invisible creature shouldn't need to Hide. It's already hidden. What it should need to do is Move Silently, if it's moving. Yes, I know that's 3.5e and not 5e, but 3.5e made a lot more sense in this regard. In fact, the invisibility rules in general were much more clear and robust in 3.5e.

What I've seen done, and how I handle it, is to just ask the player for a stealth check (possibly with advantage) opposed by enemy perception, if the player is moving or otherwise doing something that could make noise. Because it's really only the Move Silently part of Stealth that's in question. The player is already hidden.

Unoriginal

2017-09-11, 09:44 AM

Yes, I know. It still doesn't seem to work very well without the assumption that the DM fills in a lot.

Let's say a guard is exclusively using his sight for a perception check. Maybe he's hard of hearing and has a stuffed up nose, or maybe he's watching an area too far away for noises or smells. Mr. Invisible Paladin walks into the area, which is paved in cobblestones, so no footprints. Does the guard get a perception roll? Is it measured directly against the paladin's stealth check? Was that stealth check made at disadvantage? Doesn't that seem... odd? The guard can't hear, see, or smell the paladin. What is the check for, then?

Look, it's very simple. Let's assume you are in a hall with a clean stone floor where a guard standing at his post :

To be hidden is to be both unseen and unheard (and unperceived by other senses, but those are more specific rules).

If you are not invisible, and wants to hide from a guard who is capable of seeing and hearing, you have to find a spot where the guard can't see you clearly, then attempt a Dexterity (Stealth) check to make sure you are not seen nor heard. This roll is opposed to the guard's passive Perception or Wis (Perception) check, and if your result beat his you are hidden.

If you are invisible and wants to hide from a guard who is capable of hearing, you can attempt a Dexterity (Stealth) check anywhere to make sure you are not heard. This roll is opposed to the guard's passive Perception or Wis (Perception) check, and if your result beat his you are hidden.

If you are not invisible, and wants to hide from a guard who is capable of seeing, but cannot hear you because he's deaf, you have to find a spot where the guard can't see you clearly, then attempt a Dexterity (Stealth) check to make sure you are not seen. This roll is opposed to the guard's passive Perception or Wis (Perception) check, and if your result beat his you are hidden.

If you are invisible and wants to hide from a guard who is capable of seeing, but cannot hear you because he's deaf, the guard literally cannot succeed any check involving hearing or seeing you, and so you are already unseen and unheard, and so hidden.

If you are not invisible, and do not want to hide from a guard who is capable of seeing and hearing, you are seen and heard by the guard, because there is no reason for the guard to not notice you, and you do not care because you are not trying to hide.

If you are invisible, and do not want to hide from a guard who is capable of hearing, you are heard by the guard, because there is no reason for the guard to not notice you, and you do not care because you are not trying to hide.

If you are invisible, and do not want to hide from a guard who cannot hear, then the guard literally cannot succeed any check involving hearing or seeing you, and so you are already unseen and unheard, and so hidden, even if you do not care about it because you are not trying to hide.

Or, let's imagine a rogue is hiding in a cupboard. He uses stealth to be silent as a guard walks by. All good so far. The next guard has a bloodhound. Does he get to use his stealth against scent?

The rules are that the hound would have advantage on Wis (Perception) for hearing and smell. If you are in a situation where you can hide your smell (ex: the cupboard's door is thick/hermetic enough the hound can't easily catch your smell (but is still able to), the cupboard is full of spice or of something that can mask your odor, or you took precautions before) then your Dex (Stealth) check count without a problem, except you are against a foe with advantage. If you have nothing to hide your smell, then you are noticed. If the cupboard is somehow able to conceal your smell at 100%, then you just have to be silent, ergo your Dex (Stealth) check will go against a foe that has advantage on Wis (Perception) (since the hound is also keen of hearing).

If the cupboard is somehow able to hide your smell as well as your noise, then you are automatically hidden.

So I'm not talking RAW here, but in my opinion, an invisible creature shouldn't need to Hide. It's already hidden. What it should need to do is Move Silently, if it's moving. Yes, I know that's 3.5e and not 5e, but 3.5e made a lot more sense in this regard. In fact, the invisibility rules in general were much more clear and robust in 3.5e.

What I've seen done, and how I handle it, is to just ask the player for a stealth check (possibly with advantage) opposed by enemy perception, if the player is moving or otherwise doing something that could make noise. Because it's really only the Move Silently part of Stealth that's in question. The player is already hidden.

5e considers hidden to be both unheard and unseen, so no, the PC is not already hidden. On the other hand, succeeding an hiding check means you are both unseen and unheard, aka that you are moving silently if you are moving.

I know you are not talking about RAW, but I don't consider that 3.5's way made more sense or was more elegant, and I don't consider the invisibility rules were more robust there.

Xetheral

2017-09-11, 09:45 AM

Nobody in this thread has made that claim. But the default is that an invisible creature is not hidden and, in the vast vast majority of cases, will have its position known (especially in combat) unless it hides.

I think some people want invisibility to be very strong and think that being hidden is the only benefit of being invisible, which leads to nonsensical posts like

as if disadvantage on all attacks against you, negation of opportunity attacks, and immunity to spells that require you to see your target to cast are completely useless.

The only people using the phrase "automatically detected" in this thread are the people accusing the other side of making claims that they're not making, which is preventing actual understanding from sinking in. Avoid the phrase entirely and you'll be better off.

Malifice did make that argument, as quoted in the OP, sparking the discussion that led to this thread. He since appears to have backed away from that absolutist position, now contending (as you do) that it is only a "default". But he still offered the absolutist position to address a tangentially-related rules question, and then defended it by claiming that everyone except BurgerBeast agreed with him.

So I must respectfully disagree. Malifice may currently be saying that the rules permit more nuance, but that has not always been his stated position.

Thanks for providing sources! Quote #2 was the RAI point I was making in the other thread. Quote #1 has been alluded to by posters and it's nice to see it written - that's pretty much how I play anyways.

Except, quote #2 doesn't seem to support your claim? You claimed that that it is "established" (in the community?) that the assumption is that non-hidden, invisible creatures are detected. But quote #2 implies that's only true at tables that choose to adopt that assumption. Could you please elaborate on how you're interpreting quote #2?

Even if you disagree with my interpretation, does it make sense to you? Is my reasoned disagreement (let alone the controversy in this thread) enough to convince you that the assumption that non-hidden, invisible creatures are detected is not "established" in the community?

Note: Malifice's stance is being heavily strawmanned. He's only talking about quote #2 above. We would have less bickering if people understood this.

Malifice's position appears to have changed from the quote that sparked this conflagaration. So, I'm not sure it's strawmanning so much as trying to describe a moving target. Do you agree that in the quote in the OP, he explicitly denied that there could be any situations where a non-hidden, invisible creature might be undetected? Isn't that what "in any event" means?

Regardless, as I mentioned above, I don't interpret quote #2 as supporting even his new positon that there is a "default" that non-hidden, invisible creatures are detected. As I read the quote, that default would only exist at tables that choose to adopt it, meaning it isn't a default at all. Instead it's merely an option supported by the rules. (I don't think there *is* a default--as I read it, groups can freely choose beteen the different approaches in the 2 quotes.)

Thanks again for providing sources! I hope more people read this and stop creating pages of bickering.

You're welcome, although since you and I don't seem to agree on how to interpret those quotes, I'm not sure it will stop the arguing. :) Hopefully it will at least add more direction to it.

(I should also add that those aren't the only two relevant quotes from the podcast. Both sides to this debate will find support with other quotes too, but in general the additional support appears to be repetition or reinforcement of the quotes I provided. That is, however, necessarily only my opinion.)

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 09:50 AM

And youre calling me stupid. What a ridiculous and obvious strawman.

That’s not what Jerrykhor did. She said the argument is stupid. Plenty of intelligent people put forward stupid arguments.

As you are fully aware, I think your argument is flat out wrong. That does not mean I think you are stupid.

Lets replace creatures with objects!

This is actually a straw man. Nobody is suggesting that an object is a creature. However, you are suggesting that the only way to become hidden is to take the Hide Action. This must mean that anyone or anything that cannot take the Hide Action cannot become hidden. Since objects cannot take the Hide Action, they cannot be hidden.

That is a valid logical argument. It does not require equating objects to creatures.

The point is that, if a statue can be hidden while “doing” nothing, then so to can a creature. A creature is capable of doing what a statue does in this case – standing still.

Objects cant take the Hide action, and dont have Stealth scores. The DM sets the DC to discover a hidden object. The rules for Hiding in the PHB dont apply to objects.

And this is central to my point. When a creature is not “doing” anything, and there is a question about whether someone can see it, the answer can be resolved in exactly the same way as for an object. If the creature is small, medium, or large this is probably an auto-detect. If the creature is small or tiny it might require a flat DC Wisdom (Perception) check.

It is perfectly reasonable to treat a sleeping creature (one that is not making enough noise to be perceivied based on noise) exactly as if it were a corpse of the same size. A corpse is an object. The only difference between a corpse and a creature (of the same species) is that the creature can do things.

To everyone who says "standing still is not stealth!"

Are you saying that in this scene, the humans that are staying still aren't trying to be stealthy?

https://youtu.be/mm83FTA89AY

If the goal of standing still is to be unnoticed, then you are attempting to hide.

If you are not trying to be unnoticed, then why the hells and high waters do you care if you are noticed despite being invisible?

Thank you for bringing this up, because this is where my side of the argument is being misunderstood.

Yes, it is 100% true that you can be stealthy by standing still. However, this does not mean that every time you stand still, you are being stealthy.

So, you can be stealthy be staying still. But this does not mean that when you stay still because you are trying to hear something, you’re being stealthy. Likewise, you can be stealthy by crouching. But this does not mean that you’re being stealthy when you tie your shoe.

Being stealthy requires intent. Being “stealthy,” in this particular way, is analagous to “attacking.” They both require intent.

You can attack by punching. But this does not mean that when you shadow box, you’re attacking.

As a general rule, yep. Thats what I am saying.

And this is where you have no RAW to back you up.

The passage that you cite as evidence applies to combat only. It does not apply as a general rule. Therefore, RAW, this is not a general rule. This is the crux of our disagreement. I say you are wrong to say that this is the general RAW.

You want to use Stealth skill to hide from someone while unseen (and action sequences count, like in Combat)? You must take the Hide action.

By strict RAW, you cannot use the Hide Action outside of combat. You can make Dexterity (Stealth Checks) to hide, though. This is why it is not true that you must take the Hide Action in order to become hidden. If it were, it would be impossible to become hidden outside of combat.

If you're not in combat, you dont need to take any 'actions'. You just tell the DM you want to sneak past the guards while invisible. He calls for a Stealth check to see if they hear (or otherwise notice) you.

What? Why isnt the Stalker trying to be quiet?

For any of a multitude of reasons. The point is a simple one: you don’t have to try to be quiet in order to be quiet. This is true.

Granted, D&D RAW tell us to make the baseline assumption that creatures are not being quiet while in combat, which is perfectly reasonable. But the fact that creatures are RAW being noisy while in combat does not imply that creatures are RAW being noisy while not in combat.

If its not trying to be quiet and conceal its presence, then yes - when you walk into the room you notice 'something' flying around the room as the dust in the room swirls about and it brushes against your face, and you hear a dull moaning from the creature buzzing about.

So we’re back to what ought to be a self-evident point. Sometimes, an invisible stalker can be quiet and have a concealed presence even though it is not trying to be quiet or to conceal its presence.

You can change the example and add that “dust swirls” and “dull moaning” is occurring. But there is no necessity for the invisible stalker to be swirling dust or moaning. The invisible stalker could be performing a plethora of tasks that do not announce its presence.

If it is trying to be quiet (while unseen) then it gets its stealth score (it used 'the Hide action' outside of combat where action sequences dont matter).

I agree with you, except for the technicality that, RAW, the Hide Action cannot be used outside of combat. It’s just a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Its no different than if (instead of a stalker) there was an Ogre behind a statue standing there totally quiet trying hard not to make any noise.

Again, you are adding in “trying hard not to make any noise.” What if the ogre is not trying hard at all, but is still not making any noise? The perception of these two situations is identical to the observer, because the observer cannot see the ogre’s frame of mind. However, you are claiing that these two situations, which are physically identical, are mechanically treated in ways that are so different that they are more-or-less opposites: one situation is an auto-success but the other has a chance of failure.

I dont know about you, but as DM I say 'The Ogre is standing beind a statue, unseen and trying not to make any noise. It is therefore using the Stealth skill.

You can do this. I prefer not to do this precisely because it leads to the species of misconception that I believe you are applying. It leads you to think that if he is not trying to hide, but is hidden in exactly the same way (without trying to be), then the PCs automatically detect him. This is absurd to me. Furthermore, the RAW do not require me to do it your way. The RAW allow me to resolve it my way.

I now compare its Stealth check result to the passive perceptions of the PCs on them entering the room. Any PCs that dont detect the Ogre are surprised on round one when it races out from behind the statute and attacks them'

You are playing by RAW. I don’t recommend this method, but it is RAW. If, however, you insist that RAW require that you play this way, you are mistaken. That is why I’m arguing with you.

Im not using stealth. I'm just trying to stand stand totally still and not make any sounds at all from my gear, weapons and equipment, while I cover any other signs of my passage such as footprints in the dirt or depressions on the carpet, and stifle any coughs and dont move... while invisible.

Its not Stealth DM. Honest!

See my argument above. The fact that you can be still as a part of, or indeed as the sole mehtod of, being stealthy does not mean that every time you stay still you are being stealthy. Using the stealth skill depends on your intent.

---

Note: Malifice's stance is being heavily strawmanned. He's only talking about quote #2 above. We would have less bickering if people understood this.

I am not straw-manning Malifice’s argument (and I would say that I’m not bickering, either). Posts 65 and 75 are evidence of this. Malifice, himself, has verified that I have faithfully represented his argument.

Malifice seems to think that the rules demand that any character be able to display Daredevil-level senses on a good roll. Instantly dectecting the number and location of quietly sleeping orcs scattered across a noisy pitch-black room the size of a football field, for example. The rules do not demand this.

This. This is not a straw man. I think some clarity is required, though.

I don’t think Malifice is necessarily claiming that this makes sense (but he might be). Malifice is claiming that this is the RAW (whether or not they make sense).

So, some people are aligning themselves with Malifice, I think, because they think he is being unfairly attacked for simply stating the RAW. Arguments about the absurdity of the RAW are not relevant to the question of what the RAW actually are.

But I am trying to clarify that I don’t care so much about the absurdity of the RAW. I care that Malifice is misrepresenting the RAW, regardless of whether such a representaton is reasonable or absurd.

ThePolarBear

2017-09-11, 10:00 AM

[...]

@ThePolarBear: You’re still missing my point. Things that are not hidden are not auto-detected. Sometimes a perception check is required to notice something that is not hidden. That’s all.

It is wrong to assume that something must be either (1) hidden or (2) auto-detected. That’s a false dichotomy. Sometimes a thing is neither hidden not auto-detected. That’s my point.

A warlock does not need to hide first if noone saw him before he went invisible. If someone enters a room with an invisible warlock in it, then that person does not auto-detect the warlock. This is RAW.

I stated my opinion on Malefice's phrase. That was the point. The Warlock example came afterwards. I wrote my opinion on what are the assumptions made by the writers in the book. I quoted a couple of lines that could be the ones that inspired Malefice and have inspired me.

However, an invisible warlock that wasn't trying to sneak at the beginning of a combat encounter would be automatically noticed, by RAW. I also quoted the relevant part of the PHB. So it's not an entirely false dichotomy, at least ihmo when considering pure RAW and excluding DM. The fact that, FOR HOW I SEE IT (and i'm going to read it as "i think it is" in your comment) the way i described is how i do it. MY take on it. A simple baseline that has only a couple of elements to start building with. The baseline. Like when in some cases a judge is required by law to think of the actions of someone in the best possible light or in the worst possible light.

More on "RAW" later.

The only thing that matters it's "DM choice". And really should be, since each group has its own fun and it's a DM's job to find the right balance - even if it means prehaps lowering a little bit of realism and rolling with it.

And yes, i think that detect and notice, while different, are used pretty much interchangeably as far as meaning goes in the book in consideration of hiding, invisibility and such.

[...]
You’re right about the gnome being strictly not auto-detected. But there is no problem here, at all. All the DM has to do is consider the environment. If there is noise coming from the gnome, then what is the DC to hear it? It is not appropriate to use the gnome’s Dexterity (Stealth) here. The gnome is not hiding. There is noise. The DC is whatever the DC ought to be to hear that noise.

And not even automatically undetected. Whatever i used as a method i used to resolve a possible "uncertainity" - notice that you can't even be sure i ruled there WAS an uncertainity - it was not specified. DC might have not been a factor at all. You are only aware of the end result, and the fact that there are methods that i consider valid to resolve such a situations. Mechanical tools that i might or might have not used.

"It's appropriate". I very much read it that "you think that it would be". And as a matter of fact, i sort of agree. Not completely, tho. However, it's not but a DMs' sensibility to approach to what "is" or "isn't" for a game. And i think we can agree on this.

Entities that are hidden are not auto-detected.
Being invisible does not prevent you from being hidden.
Therefore, you can be both invisible and not auto-detected, as you can be both invisible and hidden.

This doesn’t follow but is true.

The third follows. Hidden -> not auto detected: Invisible -> can be hidden.
Therefore it exist at least one instance in which you can be both Invisible and not autodetected - when you are invisible and hidden.

It doesn't say "if you are invisible YOU ARE not autodetected". Just that you CAN BE. Which is a logical conclusion on the two premises.

I'm sorry, but there's a rule that states clearly that any creature that is not trying to be stealthy is automatically noticed in a particular situation - when surprise is determined.

I know, i take it is after the logical "DM chooses". But it does exist, RAW, even if i agree that RAW is nothing but a tool.

I think it's a stupid rule RAW. If someone is not TRYING TO BE STEALTHY, no matter the situation, then it's noticed. Yeah, a "non-smelling, levitating in a zone of no air under the silence spell while completely undetectable via magical means and invisible to boot while covering every other possibility of detection" creature is still noticed if that creature is shouting its lungs out in effort to be detected, since it's not TRYING, even if common sense would say otherwise. Luckily, it's right after "the DM chooses".
But it's still RAW. So, for anyone out there... there is at least a situation where RAW there's automatic "noticing" of a creature that is, specifically, not trying to be stealthy.

It still is obviously not "has rolled stealth", but... yeah. It is a specific attempt to.

@Xerathal thanks for the transcript.
However i would decouple #2 from "DM to adopt" to "player and DM alike to expect to". It refers to assumptions for a group. It might really be a player that simply says "but in the rules it doesn't say that an invisible creature is automatically hidden! And it say i do not need sight to target someone!" - I think it's also saying that due to how open this matter is, it's entirely possible to read it this way - and not be wrong for it.

Saggo

2017-09-11, 10:02 AM

What I've seen done, and how I handle it, is to just ask the player for a stealth check (possibly with advantage) opposed by enemy perception, if the player is moving or otherwise doing something that could make noise. Because it's really only the Move Silently part of Stealth that's in question. The player is already hidden.

I'd say it's more appropriate to have perception at disadvantage (with the appropriate -5 to passive), given that they're effectively blind to you and per RAW that gives disadvantage. Reasoning is that you're not necessarily more skilled at hiding, you've just made it hard for them to percieve you; that you've effectively taken away the "Spot" of the "Spot and Listen" that is Perception.

Easy_Lee

2017-09-11, 10:08 AM

I'd say it's more appropriate to have perception at disadvantage (with the appropriate -5 to passive), given that they're effectively blind to you and per RAW that gives disadvantage. Reasoning is that you're not necessarily more skilled at hiding, you've just made it hard for them to percieve you; that you've effectively taken away the "Spot" of the "Spot and Listen" that is Perception.

That's another way of doing it with basically the same result. But with advantage on stealth, the player knows he's getting something for using invisibility. Also, fewer dice to roll.

smcmike

2017-09-11, 10:16 AM

If you are invisible, and do not want to hide from a guard who cannot hear, then the guard literally cannot succeed any check involving hearing or seeing you, and so you are already unseen and unheard, and so hidden, even if you do not care about it because you are not trying to hide.

This is the interesting case, and where circumstances come in. Imagine the guard is capable of hearing, but the circumstances render hearing extremely unlikely, even though the invisible person is not trying to be quiet. It is not hard to think of such circumstances - distance + background noise can muffle or disguise sounds very easily.

The rules don't mandate that the guard hears the invisible person under all circumstances, right?

I'd also like to point out that, although the perception skill covers a number of different sensory abilities, that does not mean that every perception check is an attempt to use all of those abilities. You can make a perception check to see someone, or a perception check to hear them. If you succeed on a perception check to hear them, it does not automatically follow that you know their precise location. The classic example is listening at a door, which will usually give you a snippet of conversation, and maybe a general sense of numbers and distance.

Unoriginal

2017-09-11, 10:20 AM

That's another way of doing it with basically the same result. But with advantage on stealth, the player knows he's getting something for using invisibility. Also, fewer dice to roll.

By RAW, the player knows he's getting something for using invisibility because he's capable of attempting Dex (Stealth) (aka be silent, in this case) no matter where.

Xetheral

2017-09-11, 10:23 AM

@Xerathal thanks for the transcript.
However i would decouple #2 from "DM to adopt" to "player and DM alike to expect to". It refers to assumptions for a group. It might really be a player that simply says "but in the rules it doesn't say that an invisible creature is automatically hidden! And it say i do not need sight to target someone!" - I think it's also saying that due to how open this matter is, it's entirely possible to read it this way - and not be wrong for it.

Sure, it can be the table's decision just as easily as the DM's. But unless they've decided to make the assumption in #2, I see no reason to assume it's the default at that table. Hence, it certainly doesn't seem appropriate to assume it's the default at all tables.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 10:36 AM

However, an invisible warlock that wasn't trying to sneak at the beginning of a combat encounter would be automatically noticed, by RAW.

This is false. If the warlock turned invisible during combat, then this would be true. However, since before the combat starts, the warlock is not “in combat,” and since after combat officially starts, the warlock may choose to not engage, it is perfectly within RAW to say that the warlock is not automatically noticed.

Note that if this were true, then PCs could auto-detect invisible enemies by attacking each other. (Because, once combat starts, all enemies in range are auto-detected.)

I also quoted the relevant part of the PHB. So it's not an entirely false dichotomy,…

It is not a dichotomy that is provided by the RAW, then.

The third follows.

Hidden -> not auto detected: Invisible -> can be hidden.
Therefore it exist at least one instance in which you can be both Invisible and not autodetected - when you are invisible and hidden.

Yes, you’re right. I got tripped up by the negatives in the second premise, which could be stated as “It is possible to be invisible and hidden.” Thank you.

However, this concluson is still uncontested, and I don’t think it ever was contested.

I'm sorry, but there's a rule that states clearly that any creature that is not trying to be stealthy is automatically noticed in a particular situation - when surprise is determined.

Granted. Surprise is determined in Combat (PHB 189: Combat Step by Step). So I concede that this is a rule, and that it applies in Combat. But, there is no evidence to suggest that this rule applies out of combat.

I think it's a stupid rule RAW. If someone is not TRYING TO BE STEALTHY, no matter the situation, then it's noticed. Yeah, a "non-smelling, levitating in a zone of no air under the silence spell while completely undetectable via magical means and invisible to boot while covering every other possibility of detection" creature is still noticed if that creature is shouting its lungs out in effort to be detected, since it's not TRYING, even if common sense would say otherwise. Luckily, it's right after "the DM chooses".
But it's still RAW. So, for anyone out there... there is at least a situation where RAW there's automatic "noticing" of a creature that is, specifically, not trying to be stealthy.

So most of this is incorrect because this RAW only applies in combat. So, it’s not a stupid rule, the alluded-to creature (levitating and silenced) is not auto-detected, etc. because it is not in combat and so this rule does not apply.

Unoriginal

2017-09-11, 10:41 AM

This is the interesting case, and where circumstances come in. Imagine the guard is capable of hearing, but the circumstances render hearing extremely unlikely, even though the invisible person is not trying to be quiet. It is not hard to think of such circumstances - distance + background noise can muffle or disguise sounds very easily.

The rules don't mandate that the guard hears the invisible person under all circumstances, right?

No, but if the guard is capable of hearing you despite the circumstances, he does so, because you are not trying to hide the noise you make and don't care if you are heard or not.

Ex: if Andrew the Bard is playing next to the guard, it makes his job harder (disadvantage to Wis (Perception)/passive Perception. However, if Buckland the Invisible Paladin is walking in the hall without trying to hide, the guard will notice him.

You could also rule out that circumstances diminishes the hearing range of the guard, and that the invisible person would not be noticed unless they step within said hearing range, but we're stepping away from RAW here.

I take it that you agree with my other cases, yes?

I'd also like to point out that, although the perception skill covers a number of different sensory abilities, that does not mean that every perception check is an attempt to use all of those abilities.

No, but a Wis (Perception) check can be an attempt to use all of those abilities, and generally are at least sight + hearing, as it is how most humanoids check their surroundings. Passive Perception includes all the senses the being has.

You can make a perception check to see someone, or a perception check to hear them.

Indeed, but you can also make a check to do both at the same time, and it's generally what happens

If you succeed on a perception check to hear them, it does not automatically follow that you know their precise location.

By RAW and RAI, if you succeed on a perception check to hear someone, you will know their location precisely enough to determine which 5-by-5ft square they are standing in, although if you don't see them you will be unable to aim most spells at them, would count to be under total cover, and if you are still able to attack them despite all this you would have a disadvantage because you are unable to pinpoint their locations more than "inside this general area".

The classic example is listening at a door, which will usually give you a snippet of conversation, and maybe a general sense of numbers and distance.

Listening through a door would limit what you can hear, but if you succeed your check and some of the people on the other side are making noise than can be heard, you would be able to tell their general locations.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 10:42 AM

Saggo

2017-09-11, 10:43 AM

That's another way of doing it with basically the same result. But with advantage on stealth, the player knows he's getting something for using invisibility. Also, fewer dice to roll.
It's a RAW mechanic for the same result, that has value.

Fewer dice if you have a mixed group of invisible/visible players stealthing, sure. Otherwise, in the more common use case, a 2d20 roll is the same effort as a 1d20.

As for percieved player value, watching the DM have to roll at disadvantage for a change can be just as satisfying. Percieved value is by nature subjective.

Unoriginal

2017-09-11, 10:58 AM

You’ve made a mistake here, and it’s one that comes up over and over again. It’s a tricky one.

If you are unseen and unheard, this does not imply that you are hidden. It goes the other way.

If you are hidden, you are definitely unseen and unheard.

It is possible to be unseen and unheard, but not hidden. So, "you are already unseen and unheard, so hidden..." is false.

Is there anything in the game that demonstrate a difference between the state "unseen and unheard" and the state "hidden"? In term of their effects on the game, that is.

In any case, since this is the only mistake you've pointed out in my post, I am assuming you consider the rest of the post is correct, right?

smcmike

2017-09-11, 11:04 AM

No, but if the guard is capable of hearing you despite the circumstances, he does so,

In other words, there is a preliminary question that the DM must answer: is this particular act of perception possible? Applying this question answers all of my problems. The quietly sleeping Orc 100 yards away in a pitch-black, moderately noisily room? Impossible to hear. The invisible Paladin standing on the other side of a busy market square? Impossible to hear. The stinky ghouls who happen to be downwind from the party on a breezy day? Impossible to smell.

You could also rule out that circumstances diminishes the hearing range of the guard, and that the invisible person would not be noticed unless they step within said hearing range, but we're stepping away from RAW here.

Are we? Is there a rule regarding how far one can see and hear?

No, but a Wis (Perception) check can be an attempt to use all of those abilities, and generally are at least sight + hearing, as it is how most humanoids check their surroundings.

Indeed, but you can also make a check to do both at the same time, and it's generally what happens

But quite often is not. Your (human) perception check on a dark night cannot include sight, because you can't see anything. Your perception check to spot a person at great distance cannot include hearing, because normal sounds won't travel that far. In an area of light obscurement, sight checks are made at disadvantage, while hearing checks are made normally.

Listening through a door would limit what you can hear, but if you succeed your check and some of the people on the other side are making noise than can be heard, you would be able to tell their general locations.

Making a noise that can be heard (through the door) - again, the preliminary question. In every case, the amount of information that can be received through the senses is based upon the specific circumstances.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 11:25 AM

Is there anything in the game that demonstrate a difference between the state "unseen and unheard" and the state "hidden"? In term of their effects on the game, that is.

This is the wrong question to be asking. Unseen plus unheard is not the same thing as hidden. The onus is not on the game to clarify things that should not need clarification. [edit: see the Dawkins gorilla basketball video]

In any case, since this is the only mistake you've pointed out in my post, I am assuming you consider the rest of the post is correct, right?

Wrong. I’m not saying this to be rude, but only since you asked: I didn’t read your post, and only noticed the mistake because smcmike quoted it.

JackPhoenix

2017-09-11, 11:29 AM

To be hidden (i.e. not having your position known), you must be both unheard and unseen. That much is RAW. Let's ignore special senses for now, rules don't pay that much attention to them, because characters (for whom the rules are written) generally lack good enough sense of scent to use it to detect something, and rules assume enough common sense that touching something also means you're detecting it. And non-direct evidence of your presense is another can of worms entirely.

Being either unheard or unseen, but not both, means that you aren't hidden and your position is known, i.e. you're "auto-detected".

Easiest way to achieve both is through Stealth check, but it's not the only way.

There are more ways to be unseen: heavy concealment (darkness, smoke or just blind observer amongst other options), full cover between you and observer, Invisibility or (obvious, though not mentioned in the rules) simply sufficient distance between you and the observer (what is sufficient distance? Rules don't say, up to the GM). If neither of these conditions apply, you can be seen and thus are not hidden. But being simply unseen without being unheard doesn't make you hidden.

Being unheard is somewhat harder: Silence, deaf listener or (not mentioned in the rules, but let's use common sense as we're supposed to) sufficient distance from the listener or enough background noise to cover any noise you are causing. If neither of these conditions apply, you can be heard and thus are not hidden. Again, being only unheard without also being unseen doesn't make you hidden.

Notice how Invisibility only affects one condition of being hidden (unseen) and not the other? Unless it's also unheard, invisible creature is *not* hidden, and is thus, as OP so insistently calls it, "auto-detected". Beyond enviromental conditions (usualy) beyond creature's control, only RAW way to be unheard is taking a Stealth check, otherwise, rules assume the creature makes enough noise to be heard by default.

What about the key example? Keys, like most objects, are silent by default. So they already fulfill the condition of being unheard. If they are also unseen, for whatever reason, they are hidden (as keys are objects and not a creature, they can't move on their own[citation needed] or take Stealth check).

D&D characters doesn't seem to have the ability to miss something in plain sight some people possess in real world.

Aaand I've noticed that between opening the message to write this and (after being AFK) actually finishing and sending this message, Unoriginal already explained it, but I'm going to post this anyway.

Tanarii

2017-09-11, 11:55 AM

You need a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice something that is not hidden if there is a chance that you will not notice it. That’s why.

Invisible creatures are neither automatically hidden nor are they automatically detected. The GM rules whether they have revealed themselves or not based on innumerable other factors with sight being the only auto fail condition.

As far as I have seen, anyone who believes otherwise is extrapolating. Not that RAW has any meaning outside of forum arguments.This sums it up for me. RAW is DM can set a DC to resolve any task or action. This includes noticing, becoming aware of, or even pinpointing creature location, for creatures that may not be noticed due to any reason, including not being able to be seen or not being able to be heard.

None of those are stated as always being automatic. Not even in combat. Creatures in combat are usually aware of creatures that come out of Hiding. This doesn't mean it's automatic under all circumstances. Nor does it mean pinpointing. (The latter is a separate issue from what you're addressing, of course.)

That's /thread as far as I am concerned, regarding RAW.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, but I require stealth checks when players attempt to (1) do something, and when (2) doing that thing would usually cause them to become noticed.That's an important distinction in terms of DM adjudication. A Stealth check is the creature attempting not to be noticed. A Wisdom (Perception) check might be used (for example, vs a fixed DC) to resolve the question of if a creature notices something. It is worth noting that if both are in play for the same situation, the DC the DM sets to notice something becomes an effective floor for a creature's stealth check. So if you're going to rule this way, be consistent and select DC's appropriately.

If a DM is regularly setting DC 10 when someone isn't Hiding, but in the exact same circumstances but someone isn't hiding forcing Dex 8 HA characters to roll Stealth at -1 (disadvantage) without a DC 10 floor just because they said they are trying to Hide, that's not consistent.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 12:01 PM

It seems to me that the fundamental problem here is contained within blanket statements such as “always X” or “always Y.” Such statements are rarely fundamentally justifiable. However, since we are discussing RAW, if the RAW say that something is a blanket assumption, then RAW it is a justified blanket assumption.

So when the RAW say (I'm paraphrasing): in combat, the blanket assumption is that characters involved in the combat are making sufficient noise that hiding is impossible… well, then RAW the blanket assumption is required. [edit: RAW do not say this, as Tanarii points out, but if they did, this would be true and the rest would follow]

RAW call for a blanket assumption in combat, which restricts the ability to hide based on the assumption that characters are too noticeable to hide. This is not arguable. This is the RAW, as stated. [edit: see above. This is not true, but I will grant it for the sake of this argument]

But other blanket assumptions are not automatically required just because the one is.

That should be the end of the story.

---

It only gets worse because, beyond the fact that RAW do not generally state that you must be hidden to be undetected, and combining this with the fact that the RAW make it clear that this is not the case (PHB description of the Perception skill on either 177 or 178 - AFB), it is plainly RAW that things that are not hidden are not automatically detected.

The only reason that anyone (Malifice et al.) thinks that this is the case is because they are taking Combat rules into new contexts, where they do not belong.

So here are a few absurdities, which would arise if they were correct, regardless of the fact that they are plainly not correct:

(1) If a party is travelling through a forest, according to Malifice’s view, every single creature that is going about its daily business in the forest is auto-detected. Every single frog, every single lizard, every single rat, every single owl. Every. Single. One. Noticed. Automatically.

(2) Since every creature, unless it tries to hide, is auto-detected, this presents the problem of wanting to be noticed*. Waving your hands and shouting, jumping up and down, etc… all do nothing in the game, in Malifice’s view. You can’t increase your probability of detection beyond “automatic” through direct action (you could do so indirectly by building a fire or writing S.O.S. in the sand).

The only reasonable stance, when considering any situation in which the RAW are silent, is to not blanket rule. This has been pointed out repeatedly.

It is wrong to say: you are always auto-detected.

It is wrong to say: you are never auto-detected.

The reasonable approach is to consider the circumstances, and decide if noticing any particular individual is an auto-success, or requires a check/contest, or is an auto-fail.

You have to consider the circumstances. You do not make up blanket rules (however, if RAW provides blanket rule, you acknowledge and use it). You use common sense to apply the rules that are provded. You do not invent new ones.

* note that no one has put forward the view that, RAW: All creatures are auto-hidden unless they take measures to be detected. That's because this is equally absurd to claiming that all creatures are auto-detected unless they take measures to hide. The DM determines the difficulty. There is no RAW blanket statement.

---

@JackPheonix: Just to add:

Just because you can be seen does not mean that you are seen. If you agree with that statement, then you disagree with Malifice.

(This is the point of contention. In Malifice’s view, the moment you are not hidden, regardless of context, you are auto-detected.) [edit: except for some limits that he sets on this rule, for which there is also no RAW evidence]

tieren

2017-09-11, 12:39 PM

I've tried contributing to these threads before, and doubt I can rephrase whats already been said in a way to make everyone happy.

Personally (and I recognize completely unhelpfully) I think you are both right.

In combat unhidden invisible creatures are auto-located. Even if you don't like any of the reasons for it, it is a mechanical necessity. Otherwise you are giving too much power to invisibility and stepping too hard on the toes of the rogue who has the class feature to hide as a bonus action.

To some sensible degree determined by the DM that has to be limited to a reasonable range, most likely attributable to what the DM considers hearing range. Wolves running around in the darkness beyond your lightsource, archer can still attack at disadvantage, pixie at 1000 feet, can't be heard moot.

Outside of combat the argument becomes one of taking the hide action intentionally or by accident. There is no such thing as passive stealth so by accident shouldn't be possible (standing silently without trying).

I think the big problem here is taking an action sounds like such a deliberate choice. You can't accidentally take the dodge action or use a magic item action, but doing nothing seems like something you can do at any point without an action being needed. Out of combat actions don't count, so whether you think it should be labeled one way or the other, the distinction appears to be between spotting them with a passive perception roll against a DC set by the DM or a contested skill check perception vs. stealth.

My guess in most instances the numbers won't be off by more than a couple of points and isn't worth fighting over.

As a DM I would not let an invisible character traipse through an enemy camp without drawing some perception checks to notice their passing; by the same token I can imagine some circumstances where a perception check to notice things that might easily go unnoticed could be appropriate.

Keltest

2017-09-11, 12:41 PM

Just because you can be seen does not mean that you are seen. If you agree with that statement, then you disagree with Malifice.

(This is the point of contention. In Malifice’s view, the moment you are not hidden, regardless of context, you are auto-detected.) [edit: except for some limits that he sets on this rule, for which there is also no RAW evidence]

Honest question, why wouldn't you be detected? If youre making no efforts to remain quiet, youre making noise (clothes shuffling, creaking floorboards, breathing, etc...), which people will then use to detect you with. They might not learn anything about you other than your existence, but you will be detected.

smcmike

2017-09-11, 12:49 PM

As a DM I would not let an invisible character traipse through an enemy camp without drawing some perception checks to notice their passing; by the same token I can imagine some circumstances where a perception check to notice things that might easily go unnoticed could be appropriate.

Agreed, but I would allow that same invisible character to observe the camp from the top of a hill 1,000' away without any perception check.

Honest question, why wouldn't you be detected? If youre making no efforts to remain quiet, youre making noise (clothes shuffling, creaking floorboards, breathing, etc...), which people will then use to detect you with. They might not learn anything about you other than your existence, but you will be detected.

Doesn't this depend on the circumstances? Specifically, hearing range?

If I play hide and seek in my house, I can almost always hear where my kid hides. It's a small, creaky house, and she doesn't know enough to be quiet while hiding. If, on the other hand, we are playing in the house and the yard, I'll hear her go out the door, but won't hear where she goes in the back yard. The sound doesn't carry that far.

Tanarii

2017-09-11, 12:52 PM

To some sensible degree determined by the DM that has to be limited to a reasonable range, most likely attributable to what the DM considers hearing range. Wolves running around in the darkness beyond your lightsource, archer can still attack at disadvantage, pixie at 1000 feet, can't be heard moot.I just recently set my 'standard' as DC 10 to hear and recognize combat at 60ft. That's automatic success with passive for any creature that's not somewhat distracted nor in an area with noise (think monsters having conversations in their common room) due to the -5 penalty. And automatic failure if you are distracted or in an area with noise.

A creature doing something significant enough that they don't get passive (equivalent to Mapping, Navigating or Foraging in focus) should not get to use Passive Perception at all, per the adventuring chapter. These are the guys that will walk into a Trap or Ambush and automatically be surprised, so setting a DC to realize you're about to walk into a brick wall might even be appropriate, let alone a invisible creature walking past them making no attempt to hide itself. Although they'd probably notice if someone set off a Thunderwave 20 ft away without a check. :smallamused:

Keltest

2017-09-11, 12:56 PM

Doesn't this depend on the circumstances? Specifically, hearing range?

If I play hide and seek in my house, I can almost always hear where my kid hides. It's a small, creaky house, and she doesn't know enough to be quiet while hiding. If, on the other hand, we are playing in the house and the yard, I'll hear her go out the door, but won't hear where she goes in the back yard. The sound doesn't carry that far.

Yes, but at that point its more a property of the would-be detector being unable to perceive the signals being sent out than from a lack of signals.

You could also ask "but what if they were deaf? They couldn't hear you then" to which I would respond "yes, obviously, but youre deliberately ignoring the point of the exercise if you don't include anybody who can actually detect them in it."

Unoriginal

2017-09-11, 01:06 PM

In other words, there is a preliminary question that the DM must answer: is this particular act of perception possible? Applying this question answers all of my problems. The quietly sleeping Orc 100 yards away in a pitch-black, moderately noisily room? Impossible to hear. The invisible Paladin standing on the other side of a busy market square? Impossible to hear. The stinky ghouls who happen to be downwind from the party on a breezy day? Impossible to smell.

Yes, the DM must determine if the perception is possible, just like any other check.

Are we? Is there a rule regarding how far one can see and hear?

The DM's screen table for Encounter Distance suggest this:

Audible Distance
Trying to be quiet 2d6 x 5 feet

Normal noise level 2d6 x 10 feet

Very loud 2d6 x 50 feet

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 02:06 PM

Honest question, why wouldn't you be detected?

Because the person might not hear you, see you, or otherwise detect you. Note that I have always maintained that you may be detected. I only refute the claim that you are always automatically detected. I think that sometimes you might not be, and Malifice insists that this assertion is a violation of RAW (except in those cases that he deems are exceptions).

If, according to the view presented, the person who is not actively using Stealth is making noise that is audible, then it stands to reason that the listener is also making noise that is audible (unless he has declared that he is hiding); and since this is the baseline rule that applies to all creatures, then on averge the observer and the sneaker are making the same (i.e the baseline) amount of noise. Since the noise made by the listener is closer, it will, on average drown out the noise of the sneaker.

If youre making no efforts to remain quiet, youre making noise (clothes shuffling, creaking floorboards, breathing, etc...), which people will then use to detect you with. They might not learn anything about you other than your existence, but you will be detected.

So long as this makes sense, yes. But if the DM determines that, under the circumstances, these noises cannot be heard, then it makes no sense to declare that you are auto-detected. I contend that you are not always auto-detected. That’s all.

As I said in another thread, you could be making a lot of noise. You could be running in circles screaming. But if the listener is in a situation where something louder drowns out that noise (a battle, or a shouting match, for example), then he will not automatically hear you over the noise. It depends on the relative noise levels. But by Malifice's argument I am violating RAW if I play this way, because (according to him) RAW this is an auto-detection.

Do you automatically see a mountain goat on any mountain within your sight? No. You notice some and you don’t notice others. It would be absurd to sugget that RAW you auto-detect every mountain goat within your visual field unless it tries to hide from you (but this makes hunting relatively easy).

As a separate point, if Malifice is allowed to say “it is impossible to go unseen unless you take the hide action,” then anyone else ought to be allowed to say “it is impossible to see unless you take the search action. Therefore, unless the players actively declare that they are searching, they auto-fail.” That is literally the same arbitrary logic used to create an unjustified blanket ruling.

Yes, but at that point its more a property of the would-be detector being unable to perceive the signals being sent out than from a lack of signals.

That's the point. If a creature is not hidden, first of all it may not be emitting any detectable signals, but second of all: the observer still needs to perceive the signals. The observer does not automatically perceive signals just because they occur. The observer must detect them. This really is the whole point. Malifice says that the signals, if they exist, are always automatically detected, by RAW.

You could also ask "but what if they were deaf? They couldn't hear you then" to which I would respond "yes, obviously, but youre deliberately ignoring the point of the exercise if you don't include anybody who can actually detect them in it."

Except that this is, truly, a consequence of Malifice’s view. In Malifice’s view, if a creature is in sight range (range – not even necessarily within your visual field) then a deaf person auto-detects that creature’s presence (because that's how it works in combat). Likewise, if a creature is within hearing range (range – not even necessarily accounting for volumes of the noises near the creature or near the hearer), a blind person auto-detects the creature (because that's how it works in combat).

Unless Malifice has adjusted his stance, this detection allows the observer to pinpoint the location of the creature, as well, in his view.

Yes, the DM must determine if the perception is possible, just like any other check.

And this (reasonable) assertion puts you in conflict with Malifice. Under Malifice’s view, you are violating RAW, because RAW prescribe that it must be an auto-success.*

*Unless he deems this to be one of his arbitrary exceptions to his rule. I do not know the process by which he makes those decisions.

Unoriginal

2017-09-11, 02:22 PM

And this (reasonable) assertion puts you in conflict with Malifice. Under Malifice’s view, you are violating RAW, because RAW prescribe that it must be an auto-success.*

*Unless he deems this to be one of his arbitrary exceptions to his rule. I do not know the process by which he makes those decisions.

My assertion is:

If person A can be perceived by person B in the current circumstances, and is not trying to avoid being perceived by person B, then person A is automatically perceived by person B.

If A can be perceived by B in the current circumstances, is trying to avoid being perceived by B, and can attempt to hide their presence, A has to attempt a Dex(Stealth) check against B's Wis(Perception)/passive Perception. A's success means A avoid being perceived.

If A cannot be perceived by B in the current circumstances, and is trying to avoid being perceived by B, then A is not perceived.

If A cannot be perceived by B in the current circumstances, and is not trying to avoid being perceived by B, then A is not perceived.

So if A is an invisible person who is doing something that can be heard by B, is not trying to avoid being perceived by B, then A is automatically perceived by person B.

Tanarii

2017-09-11, 03:27 PM

My assertion is:

If person A can be perceived by person B in the current circumstances, and is not trying to avoid being perceived by person B, then person A is automatically perceived by person B.RAW is the DM can decide that determining whether or not B perceives A is a check, and set the DC (among various types of checks). So while you're statement is RAW, it's also is your personal determination that it should be an automatic success. Any other DM might decide it requires resolution vs a fixed DC. (Edit: and those other DMs would be running a RAW ruling.)

Also, party members Navigating, Mapping, or Foraging do not get to use passive perception to notice threats. It's completely reasonable for a DM to extend this to any other task that requires that level of focus, as opposed to smaller distractions which just give -5 to Passive Perception. So unless you're counting that as "cannot be perceived", your statement fails to match that.

So if A is an invisible person who is doing something that can be heard by B, is not trying to avoid being perceived by B, then A is automatically perceived by person B.Unless the DM sets a DC to determine if B can do that. Or decides the person automatically fails to do so, because they're focused on another task.

ThePolarBear

2017-09-11, 03:38 PM

Sure, it can be the table's decision just as easily as the DM's. But unless they've decided to make the assumption in #2, I see no reason to assume it's the default at that table. Hence, it certainly doesn't seem appropriate to assume it's the default at all tables.

Sorry. I went ahead and re-listened to the Podcast around the minutes that you listed and compiled an (incomplete) transcript of what i heard and what i understood is being said. I did it because i could not really answer that question without really having a bit of context on what when and how things were said.
I think i have a better understanding now even if i admittedly did not listen again to the whole podcast, and stopped more or less when the transcript ends.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

25:20 - start of the Invisibility corner case.

(27:07)
JC:
[...so for the invisible person] stealth, and more precisely hiding, can still be important if you REALLY want to make sure that people do not realize you are there; because, again, as soon as you are making that Dex(stealth) check it's going beyond "Do they see me?".
It's: "Do they hear me?", "do they just notice my presence in general?".
Because perception goes even beyond... uuh.. sight and sound...

Host:
That's why it's a wisdom modifier... (JC: Yeah!) [That weights in?] because they got some almost intuitive... you know, feeling that there's someone in the room or something in the room they are trying to look at...

JC:
Exactly! And that also why we call it "perception", not... it's not "did you spot something" "did you hear something". It's a.. [...] It's a holistic expression of your characters' perceptivness.
And so when you... when you are using stealth ...you are opposing... that... holistic perception with a holistic stealth. You are NOT just trying to stay out of sight. (Host: Right...)
If you are just staying out of sight... well the you have the... you have the benefits provided by the invisible condition.
Or often a person is out of sight not because they are invisible but because they are behind total cover; well then you have the benefits of total cover.
And so you are already reaping the benefit of being out of sight either it's because you are behind total cover or because you are benefitting of the invisible condition - those things already have ..an.. a lot of great built in benefits.

What, again, hiding does is that it pushes you a little beyond, it means that they might not even KNOW i'm here. (- Right.) Or they have no idea WHERE i am and they gonna need to guess.

Now in some cases a DM will decide that even an invisible person’s location is unknown to the combatants, ah, because this goes back to what we were saying before of the environment and characters’ attentiveness, it’s really up to the DM. The DM might decide that: "alright, the wizard who cast invisibility on herself. The orcs... Mh!... they’ve lost track of where she is, even though she never bothered to hide. But because the barbarian is screaming in their face... and... you know the... the rogue lit the gunpowder barrels nearby on fire and they just exploded... They are just not even paying attention. And they don't know where she is."
And that's [...] a call for the DM. (Host: Yeah)
Just to say "Uhm! They are not paying attention".

Host:
They are in the thick of fighting it doesn't... it doesnt [(29.29 more or less) wadda wadda bang bang for all that i can understand. If someone can chime in, i really have no clear idea of what is being said.]

JC:
But we assumed that, uh..., it’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that, unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat because of just their movements, their swords swings...you know their seeing the effect, you know, in the environment - again either because their weapon is clipping through bushes or they bumped against the table as they walked by... you know see the [...] (Host: drinks wobble...) Yeah the drinks wobble...

And we purposefully do not get into the "nitty 'n' gritty" of this.

We just assumed you know because... because, also, in D&D there is no facing; ya'know we already... Our combat system is already abstract, you know. Characters don't have a front and a back, you know. [...] We dont talk about ,you know... you only see the things in front of you.
We assume in our abstract combat that... that characters are looking in every direction, that, you know, their passive perception is still on...

Host:
They're situationally aware of what's happening...

JC:
They are situationally aware unless something in the game has said "well now you are not".

Host:
And most combatants in the D&D universe are ones that need that 360 awareness in order to survive (JC: Right!) at that point, it's part of the fact that they are a levelled opponent, almost

(30:52)

JC:
Right. Now, again, some people who are aware of this rule will then ponder: "Well does this make invisibility useless if we are going to assume someone knows where the invisible person is?"
Absolutely it does not make invisibility useless...

(31:09)

EDIT: The parts in Italics are the original quotes from Xerathal. Where i changed something because i think punctuation or something i underlined the part. (but i might have missed some changes i made - minor stuff, really). I cleaned it up a bit. The [...] Is where JC rambles, and it does it A LOT, and there are still lots of dots and pauses that i'm not sure to touch or not. There's a moment where he rambles A LOT. Hopefully it's readable.

In the end? Yes. It WAS assumed by Wotc that people would rule about knowing where invisible people are in general and that this is the assumption taken in the design. Same as the choice of the DM to rule that there's a specific. I also think to hear a bit of intended limited use of the DMs' ability to rule differently to something that actually is extraordinaire, something that should not be mundane or "general".

It goes as far as calling it a "rule". It goes far more into the "This is the actual intention" than you give it credit for initially, while not disregarding the ability of a DM to do as they please. I would not say that this is the default of how things are played - i have no data - and i clearly take my vision before RAI, since it works for my group and it's fine.

edit: adding - ^IN COMBAT.

Obviously, take it with 600 grains of salt. I can't really be trusted on the correctness of the transcript - English/american is not my first language.
Also, i stopped at a particulary interesting moment. I'm going to listen to a bit more of it, again, just cause. - edit and spoilers: Yes, it is interesting. Still think that what i wrote above it's true-ish, but tells about how DMs often allow for invisible characters to be "narratively" not being taken into consideration by adversaries.

This is false. If the warlock turned invisible during combat, then this would be true.

And here i thought i wrote:

However, an invisible warlock that wasn't trying to sneak at the beginning of a combat encounter would be automatically noticed, by RAW

Oh, wait... it is the beginning of a combat encounter. So yeah, you ARE in combat. And i IS an encounter. Such is the "trying to sneak" true - all are a given. The warlock might not even know that he is under attack: he might not notice its aggressors. It isn't even needed for him to be alone, the rule works regardless.

What happens DURING combat is unrelated. It all happens after initiative, which is after the place in time i'm referring to.

However, since before the combat starts, the warlock is not “in combat,”

Who cares. By premise, it's not trying to sneak. It can be travelling by running, for all it matters. And banging skillets. It completely does not matter for this scenario. It starts when the combat is beginning.

and since after combat officially starts, the warlock may choose to not engage

Even before initiative is rolled, before anyone can take any action, the rule states that the Warlock is noticed. He can wait to be killed or react by running. He is already noticed. How he reacts it's absolutely of no importance.

I have not the concept of "officially starting", do you mean "when actions can be taken"?

it is perfectly within RAW to say that the warlock is not automatically noticed.

No. It isn't. It is perfectly in the rights of a DM to rule differently on any of the premises. But once those rulings are made, either the DM decides to not follow the rule, or the rule is followed. RAW however does not change. In this situation, RAW, the Warlock is noticed automatically.

Note that if this were true, then PCs could auto-detect invisible enemies by attacking each other. (Because, once combat starts, all enemies in range are auto-detected.)

But the enemies are the ones that you are attacking, not the one you'll attack in half an hour. Your enemies are those who are fighting - the two sides in combat. Now you know where your invisible but not sneaking ex party member. And even if making the call, which i might see being RAW, i've already stated that i find this rule stupid. Making it stupid-er doesn't change a thing for me (not true. It simply makes me laugh harder at the idea :D. The Radar-punch, new monk's ability. Only usable on unsuspecting allies.). What i think doesn't make the rule disappear from the book, however.
And i'm certainly not saying to follow this rule in a "as written" way for your games - or to follow it at all.

Granted. Surprise is determined in Combat (PHB 189: Combat Step by Step). So I concede that this is a rule, and that it applies in Combat. But, there is no evidence to suggest that this rule applies out of combat.

And? It exists and it's valid for at least one scenario. That one scenario can include an invisible creature. Therefore is incorrect stating that RAW an invisible creature is never automatically detected.

I dunno why, but you see that there's a lot of free space at the top of the spoiler? There were meant to be quotes of a couple of users ( @jas61292 for example) that have stated that "no autodetection and no autoundetectability" are RAW. Others (like @pwykersotz), that it is this way and that RAW and its discussions are pretty much unuseful. I agree and i think it's the best way. However, it was meant as a spoiler to make RAW known. Nothing important or really worth discussing it over, just making it known and extremizing the thing to a "UBER" levels for funzies. And since it was connected to your statement, i just rolled everything in one. I dunno why the quoting didn't work. But eh.

So most of this is incorrect because this RAW only applies in combat. So, it’s not a stupid rule, the alluded-to creature (levitating and silenced) is not auto-detected, etc. because it is not in combat and so this rule does not apply.

It is not incorrect. The fact that it applies to combat is enough to make the statement "an invisible creature is never automatically undetected" false. That's all i'm saying, and it is true. And again, a combat encounter is called by the DM, not by anyone else, and the DM calls who is involved. That character could very well be involved into combat: It might be able to interfere with it. You saying that YOU would not consider it does not mean that it could be concievably be part of combat, or that could there be a creature that is completely unperceivable that wants to enter combat and does so without trying to be stealthy. The end result is the same: It would end up being noticed. Because basing this rule only on INTENT and not on PERCEIVABILITY makes the results unrealistic to the maximum. It is a case of "apply abundant doses of common sense to raw".

Foxhound438

2017-09-11, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by PHB 178, the Perception description
Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door. (emphasis added)

That's actually pretty convincing, thanks

RSP

2017-09-11, 03:51 PM

By RAW and RAI, if you succeed on a perception check to hear someone, you will know their location precisely enough to determine which 5-by-5ft square they are standing in, although if you don't see them you will be unable to aim most spells at them, would count to be under total cover, and if you are still able to attack them despite all this you would have a disadvantage because you are unable to pinpoint their locations more than "inside this general area".

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is Invisibility equaling counting as "under total cover?"

MeeposFire

2017-09-11, 04:48 PM

What makes this discussion really crazy is that most of the people in it are arguing about this all wrong. Look at the rules and what has been said about it by the writers and do not try to take it further than it needs to.

Hidden needs to be unseen and unheard (possibly other things in strange circumstances but let us keep it more simple).

Invisible covers unseen for most purposes though of course not all (I will have an example if you do not know what I am talking about). It does not cover unseen.

Now Crawford did say that generally unless hiding you do know where everybody is in a fight. Some people are taking that as you need to hide in order to be hidden but that is actually NOT true though to be fair in execution it is VERY OFTEN TRUE.

Now what do I mean about that? Well I use these as an example.

A levitating creature meditating (definitely not using the hide action) is invisible and is in an area that is under a silence spell. Just in case there is also safeguards against him being sensed in any way (just to keep the argument simple). A second character walks by the room. I would say that the meditating creature is hidden from the second creature despite not using the hide action because the example has no way for the second creature to detect the meditating creature so it does not matter that the hide action was never used.

Now in the second example we will have exactly the same situation except instead of meditating in a room the it is now sitting on a deep snow patch. Now I could say that yes the meditating creature is now detected if it does not use the hide skill because even though the creature is invisible the large indent of the snow could be seen as a very obvious clue that something is over there in the snow.

Essentially the RAW banks on the DM deciding whether you have any indicators that can potentially reveal your presence and if there are then in order to be hidden you must deal with that either by using the hide action or systematically eliminating all ways of detecting you (the vast majority of the time using the hide action is the easier and ONLY viable way of doing this). The reason Crawford can say that generally combatants know everybody's location unless using the hide action is that generally THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SOME SORT THAT WILL REVEAL YOU IN SOME WAY THAT INVISIBILITY ALONE WILL NOT COVER. You are not auto detected it is that generally invisibility alone will not be enough and so you will need to hide to be hidden but in rare circumstances where you are invisible and somehow you cannot otherwise be detected then it could be enough.

Now that is the great thing the way the rules are devised you can look at the situation and make a decision which is very flexible. If the DM sees no way of detecting you then you are hidden but if he can (which is true the vast majority of the time) then you better e action or you will be detected.

Xetheral

2017-09-11, 05:22 PM

Now Crawford did say that generally unless hiding you do know where everybody is in a fight.

I don't think he did. In the podcast quotes I provided above, he appears to be saying that a group can choose to assume that non-hidden invisible creatures are always noticed, as an alternative to the GM deciding on a case-by-case basis. If that approach is merely an option a group can choose, it can't be "generally true".

Do you interpret those quotes differently? If so, could you please elaborate?

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 05:47 PM

@PolarBear: Apologies, but what you wrote is a little bit difficult for me to folow. It appears some clarification is needed. When you said:

However, an invisible warlock that wasn't trying to sneak at the beginning of a combat encounter would be automatically noticed, by RAW.

You made it clear that the warlock was not trying to sneak at the beginning of the combat. However, what is not clear is whether the warlock was invisible before the combat started or whether he turned invisible once it had started. This is important, because the relevant RAW only applies in combat, and only applies to characters who turn invisible during combat.

Oh, wait... it is the beginning of a combat encounter. So yeah, you ARE in combat. And i IS an encounter. Such is the "trying to sneak" true - all are a given. The warlock might not even know that he is under attack: he might not notice its aggressors. It isn't even needed for him to be alone, the rule works regardless.

See above. The problem is that outside of combat, the warlock is not auto-detected. Even if you take the view that once combat begins, an invisible warlock who was not detected before combat began becomes auto-detected once combat begins, there is wiggle room, here.

If combat starts around someone, and they choose not to enter the fray, the DM is free to rule that they are not a part of combat. Otherwise, as I alluded to earlier, the best anti-stealth technique in the multiverse is starting fights wvery 5 seconds so that all invisible creatures become auto-detected. That is absurd.

What happens DURING combat is unrelated. It all happens after initiative, which is after the place in time i'm referring to.

What matters is whether the warlock turned invisible before or after combat. I am saying that the rules about default assumptions are different inside and outside of combat. Also, that initiating a combat is not a magical invisiblity-detector.

Even before initiative is rolled, before anyone can take any action, the rule states that the Warlock is noticed. He can wait to be killed or react by running. He is already noticed. How he reacts it's absolutely of no importance.

So, you ascribe to the “starting combat magically locates invisible characters” school of thought? I don’t.

I have not the concept of "officially starting", do you mean "when actions can be taken"?

At some point, the DM makes the transition into round-by-round combat rules. That’s what I mean.

No. It isn't. It is perfectly in the rights of a DM to rule differently on any of the premises.

Agreed. Why are you saying “no?”

But once those rulings are made, either the DM decides to not follow the rule, or the rule is followed. RAW however does not change. In this situation, RAW, the Warlock is noticed automatically.

According to what rule? Citation, please.

[The next it was very hard for me to follow. I think you’re saying that you think the RAW say something different than I am claiming. I still disagree with you.]

And? It exists and it's valid for at least one scenario. That one scenario can include an invisible creature. Therefore is incorrect stating that RAW an invisible creature is never automatically detected.

You are misunderstanding my point of view.

I do not say: An invisible creature is never automatically detected.

I do say: It is not true that an invisible creature is always automatically detected.

If you scroll back, you’ll see that I have always said this: Not never. Not always.

Malifice says always, and I simply disagree with that.

(snip)

Pretty much this.

I don't think he did.

you're probably right. However, I do think the either the PHB or JC strongly implies this (going from memory).

smcmike

2017-09-11, 05:47 PM

Thanks for the added transcript. It makes it pretty clear that the rules are designed to allow the DM a free hand.

Now in some cases a DM will decide that even an invisible person’s location is unknown to the combatants, ah, because this goes back to what we were saying before of the environment and characters’ attentiveness, it’s really up to the DM. The DM might decide that: "alright, the wizard who cast invisibility on herself, aaaah, the orcs they’ve lost track of where she is, even though she never bothered to hide...

....But we assumed, that, uh..., it’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that, unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat

It's "also" within the rules to assume that people generally know where invisible people are in combat. Either method is fine, and within the rules as Crawford understands them.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-11, 06:02 PM

It's "also" within the rules to assume that people generally know where invisible people are in combat. Either method is fine, and within the rules as Crawford understands them.

But this is not what is being argued about. I have always agreed that, in combat, people generally (but not always) know where invisible creatures all. Malifice and I agree on this. [edit: I think. Apologies to Malifice if I misrepresented him, here.]

What is being argued about is whether, out-of-combat, invisible creatures are auto-detected unless they try to hide.

Malifice says they are. I say they are not.

MeeposFire

2017-09-11, 07:04 PM

I don't think he did. In the podcast quotes I provided above, he appears to be saying that a group can choose to assume that non-hidden invisible creatures are always noticed, as an alternative to the GM deciding on a case-by-case basis. If that approach is merely an option a group can choose, it can't be "generally true".

Do you interpret those quotes differently? If so, could you please elaborate?

I took that as being the general standard is that the DM decides but if your DM or group would rather not have to make a choice you could alternatively choose to see it as you notice everything. The reason for this as I see it is that being able to be hidden without actually trying to hide is a situation that is much more an exception and so to potentially ease the burden you play it as if you auto detect and then the DM rules when that does not occur instead if it ever comes up (rare). You end up with the same result (you almost always know where somebody is unless they are trying to hide) but you do not have to technically rule as much. In practice you get much of the same results (how often will there really be times where there can be no clues to perceiving somebody who is not trying to hide?) but have to rule less. Also assume does not mean that it is always true just that you can expect it to be true the most of the time and like all assumptions there can be times when it is wrong. YOu can also choose to see this as my standard of the DM ruling but in this case you made a blanket pre ruling (rather than waiting for each situation) and will choose to revisit it whenever you see a situation that merits it (once again to keep you from officially ruling on stealth quite as often).

The designers want the rules to be flexible but want to balance it with it being not too much of a hassle. I can see how it might be easier to assume you detect things unless they are hiding and then rule otherwise on the few exceptions that possible arise.

It reminds me of people back in the day using all sorts of mathematically valid ways of using THAC0 but not the one described in the initial book. The method may not be exactly the way described in the book but it can be an easier way to get the outcome you want to get to that fits what the original rules were trying to do. Now in that example some people really liked the alternative ways of using THAC0 but for others like me the way described in some of the books (essentially subtraction) worked best for me.

RSP

2017-09-11, 07:38 PM

What is being argued about is whether, out-of-combat, invisible creatures are auto-detected unless they try to hide.

Malifice says they are. I say they are not.

I always like to refer to the first line of Hiding in the PHB:

"The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

I've always taken this to mean the DM, RAW, can opt to have characters, PCs or NPCs, be hidden even though they didn't expressly take the Hide Action.

This means "not hidden=auto noticed" could be correct at the same time as "Invisible creatures are not auto-detected if they don't hide." This is because, though the character didn't take the Hide Action, the DM determined they are still Hidden.

This also makes sense intuitively, as any time the DM needs to call for a Perception check, it must be because something is hidden (that is not obviously noticed).

Also, this holds true in combat or out as the first line of the Hiding rules does not restrict itself to in combat or out of combat.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-11, 07:58 PM

*snip*
A levitating creature meditating (definitely not using the hide action) is invisible and is in an area that is under a silence spell. Just in case there is also safeguards against him being sensed in any way (just to keep the argument simple). A second character walks by the room. I would say that the meditating creature is hidden from the second creature despite not using the hide action because the example has no way for the second creature to detect the meditating creature so it does not matter that the hide action was never used.
*snip*

You don't need to take the hide action to become hidden. However, as others have stated, you do need to make the check. Out of combat, this is handled by just stating your intent and making the roll. That roll is not optional.

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Not "you may" but "you do." The meditating mage made a stealth check when he went through all that bother to become hidden outside of combat. The result of that stealth check is now the DC for active searchers who have a credible means of detection.

A DM running an NPC may choose to have that character violate / ignore the RAW, the same way we all do when, for instance, we just narrate the results of NPC-on-NPC violence instead of rolling for every orc in the off-screen army, because making NPCs following all the rules would be burdensome and pointless. However, in a situation where it suddenly becomes relevant, we can retroactively make them rules compliant. In the case of the meditating mage, we should do this by making a roll for their initial attempt to hide to be contested by the clever player's perception check.

Xetheral

2017-09-11, 08:38 PM

I took that as being the general standard is that the DM decides but if your DM or group would rather not have to make a choice you could alternatively choose to see it as you notice everything.

I agree. But doesn't that contradict your earlier assertion that: "Now Crawford did say that generally unless hiding you do know where everybody is in a fight."? If the general standard is that the DM decides, how can it also be true that the general standard is that non-hidden is automatically detected?

smcmike

2017-09-11, 08:49 PM

I always like to refer to the first line of Hiding in the PHB:

"The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

This is a great line! What page is it from?

You don't need to take the hide action to become hidden. However, as others have stated, you do need to make the check. Out of combat, this is handled by just stating your intent and making the roll. That roll is not optional.
....Not "you may" but "you do."

Ability rolls are only made when an action has a chance of failure, as determined by the DM.

The meditating mage made a stealth check when he went through all that bother to become hidden outside of combat. The result of that stealth check is now the DC for active searchers who have a credible means of detection.

The meditating mage is not trying to hide, so the language you quoted doesn't even apply. Realistically, whether the mage is spotted or not is determined entirely by whether the searchers have a credible means of detection, with no roll needed. If they cast See Invisibility, they spot him. If they have Truesight, they spot him. If they have blindsense... well, that depends on how the DM interprets the interaction with silence. If they have scent, the DM may set a specific DC, but a stealth check isn't appropriate, since the Wizard isn't trying to hide his scent.

MeeposFire

2017-09-11, 09:11 PM

I agree. But doesn't that contradict your earlier assertion that: "Now Crawford did say that generally unless hiding you do know where everybody is in a fight."? If the general standard is that the DM decides, how can it also be true that the general standard is that non-hidden is automatically detected?

I have two ways in my mind.

1. Auto detect is an assumption based around ease of resolving the issue. It is the practical way of dealing with it rather the technical way of dealing with it. Potentially like all assumptions it could lead you astray but due to how rare it is to find situations where a character that is not actively hiding is hidden it is really unlikely and so it makes for a good standard to use in practice (so far the only time I have seen it "fail" is if the situation is really contrived and designed to make it fail which really only fails if you forget that while an assumption you can always not follow it when it makes sense for those rare times).

2. I can also look at it as if a DM wants to opt to have everybody auto detect everybody on the battlefield then they have decided to pre-rule that everybody is detected and then effectively retract the ruling whenever there is an exception to it (such as when somebody uses the hide action). In effect you are choosing before the situation rather than at every situation.

MeeposFire

2017-09-11, 09:41 PM

You don't need to take the hide action to become hidden. However, as others have stated, you do need to make the check. Out of combat, this is handled by just stating your intent and making the roll. That roll is not optional.

Not "you may" but "you do." The meditating mage made a stealth check when he went through all that bother to become hidden outside of combat. The result of that stealth check is now the DC for active searchers who have a credible means of detection.

A DM running an NPC may choose to have that character violate / ignore the RAW, the same way we all do when, for instance, we just narrate the results of NPC-on-NPC violence instead of rolling for every orc in the off-screen army, because making NPCs following all the rules would be burdensome and pointless. However, in a situation where it suddenly becomes relevant, we can retroactively make them rules compliant. In the case of the meditating mage, we should do this by making a roll for their initial attempt to hide to be contested by the clever player's perception check.

First I would say your quote of the rules do not actually argue against my point. The rule you posted says "when you try to hide, make a stealth check" but I am not talking about people trying to hide I am talking about being hidden which is not always the same thing. Being hidden means being unseen and unheard (or more finely put undetectable) hiding would be the action to try to make yourself undetectable but if you were already undetectable and were not trying to hide (and somehow the nature of not trying does not render you detectable which is exceedingly not common) then the hide check never comes not play because it is not trying to hide. If somebody was actively trying to hide in some fashion then absolutely you Must make a check that is what it is for but you must actually try to hide.

As for the example let us make it absolutely bare bones so we do not get lost in trying to out imagine the other in the details.

Person A for whatever reason you can come up with cannot be seen, heard, smelt, touched, or tasted. Person A cannot be sensed by anybody else for any reason whatsoever. Person A is also explicitly not trying to hide in any way but even so Person A still cannot be sensed in any way by anything else. How can we roll? What do you really roll that makes sense whatsoever? In fact you really should not roll because actions that are completely impossible to succeed or fail should just be declared rather than rolled. It is like asking "what is the DC for an athletics check for shoving the vacuum of space?".

Of course this situation is completely contrived and not something that you would typically see in a game. The vast majority of the time auto detection as an assumption works just fine and when something strange comes up you make it an exception and move on and that is the easiest course.

There are also times where something is not completely undetectable but are not trying to hide and so I would not have it use a hide check but rather assign a DC for the perception or investigation check based on how difficult I believe the situation warrants. If I decided that now person A is detectable somehow but is certainly not trying to hide in any way I then would choose how difficult I think it is to detect person A and in this case I decide it is a hard check. While this is simlar to rolling against a stealth check it is not actually the same. Why should somebody who is not trying to be stealthy get their prof bonus and dex to a check to create a DC if the situation does not involve them using their dexterity or their skill in any way?

RSP

2017-09-11, 09:57 PM

This is a great line! What page is it from?

Pg 177 I believe. The first line of the Hiding box.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-11, 10:21 PM

Ability rolls are only made when an action has a chance of failure, as determined by the DM.

Yes. That is the much shorter version of what I was getting at with my third paragraph.

The meditating mage is not trying to hide, so the language you quoted doesn't even apply.

Yes he is. He went out of his way to make himself invisible and inaudible. That is hiding, regardless of his other motives. Trying to argue otherwise reminds me of all those attempts to say things like, "it's not really a harmful spell".

In order for him to plausibly not be trying to hide, and not need to make the roll, he'd need to have done something to make knowing his location plausible such as having left blaringly obvious tracks, cast a huge dust shadow, or placed a little sign indicating his presence.

Either he hid or he isn't hidden. Trying to argue that he should be hidden but didn't hide is silly.

Realistically, whether the mage is spotted or not is determined entirely by whether the searchers have a credible means of detection, with no roll needed. If they cast See Invisibility, they spot him. If they have Truesight, they spot him. If they have blindsense... well, that depends on how the DM interprets the interaction with silence. If they have scent, the DM may set a specific DC, but a stealth check isn't appropriate, since the Wizard isn't trying to hide his scent.

If he loses his obscuration, sure, his hiding fails, just like if you knocked down the wall someone was hiding behind. But the scent check is still going to be opposed by his stealth check.

If my rogue hides from a wolf from behind a wall, I haven't told the DM that I'm taking a shower, but I still expect it will be resolved by having the wolf roll Wis(Perception) with advantage against my stealth check.

Also, having extra senses isn't the only way to detect invisible and inaudible creatures. RAW, there's tracks, and at the same level of RAI-ness as saying scent can defeat it, there's also a number of other logical clues that are possible but not technically "tracks".

EDIT:

*snip*
Person A for whatever reason you can come up with cannot be seen, heard, smelt, touched, or tasted. Person A cannot be sensed by anybody else for any reason whatsoever. Person A is also explicitly not trying to hide in any way but even so Person A still cannot be sensed in any way by anything else. How can we roll? What do you really roll that makes sense whatsoever? In fact you really should not roll because actions that are completely impossible to succeed or fail should just be declared rather than rolled. It is like asking "what is the DC for an athletics check for shoving the vacuum of space?".

*snip*

If he's genuinely not trying to hide, you shouldn't roll anything. His presence should be detected by means such as the tracks he leaves, objects he disrupts, et cetera. If he's not leaving obvious tracks, interacting with objects, et cetera, he's hiding.

There's a narrow third option, where, say, a person in a coma had these spells cast on him. In that case, the caster hid him.

You're right that PCs will likely get no roll to detect. But that doesn't rely on some outside-the-RAW invention. It's just plainly in the rules for perception checks.

My point is that the rules here work just fine with the intuitive result. These invisible men aren't auto-detected, because they're hidden.

Tanarii

2017-09-11, 10:53 PM

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-11, 11:39 PM

Hiding isn't the only component of not being detected. The other component is the person doing the detecting.

If they're distracted, they're at disadvantage on rolled checks and thus at -5 to passive checks.
If they're doing something that required their focus, such as navigating, foraging, tracking or mapping, they're not using passive perception at all. This may preclude detecting things that are hidden as well as those that aren't.
If the DM determines, for whatever reason, they may not perceive or detect something or someone, they can have them automatically fail, or require a passive check (if they can use it) or rolled check vs a fixed DC instead of an opposed Stealth check.
That's all RAW.

I agree with everything but the bolded point. Arbitrary fixed DCs are for hidden objects, not people hiding.

You may end up having to guess the location of a target 100 ft away that moved through a 20ft radius of fog cloud and is somewhere in it or on the other side, that isn't attempting to hide. Because the DM determines there's no way you could reasonably pinpoint it in the circumstances, or requires a check of some kind first.

I mean a DM can do whatever they want (I've probably done something like that to save an NPC), but RAW that's not true. I've run and played in combats where that exact scenario happened, and people get attack rolls at targets in the effect of Fog Cloud.

If you don't try to hide (by, e.g. janking left or right) you can be attacked through obscuration.

You might not detect a creature entering the room (totally visible and just walking normally), because you're busy Mapping the dungeon. Although hopefully someone in the party was on lookout duty. :smallamused:

Totally.

To use an example that's happened to me plenty of times: reading a book, someone enters the room. I totally don't realize they're there until they speak. Not likely to come up while adventuring, but still easily rules under RAW by DM as a DC 10 check to notice.

I mean, that's RAW in that a DM can RAW call for any check they want. But following written procedure, you don't make a active wisdom(perception) check, because you just weren't actively searching.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-12, 12:59 AM

I agree with everything but the bolded point. Arbitrary fixed DCs are for hidden objects, not people hiding.

But we're talking about a person who is not hiding. Therefore there is no opposed roll. It's just a Wisdom (Perception) check to see if you notice him.

Scenario: a party is travelling along the road, and there is a keep in view some 400-500 feet away. A sentry is standing in plain sight next to the gate. He's a little hard to notice because he's standing still and dressed in mostly grey in front of a grey stone wall.

The DM determines there is a chance that he goes unnoticed, so it's not an auto-detect.

He's not hiding, so it's not an opposed contest.

In such a case, the DM can choose to simply assign a DC. It's roughly the same DC he'd use to allow a character to notice a similar-sized stone statue of the same size (maybe slightly easier since presumably there is some movement from the sentry).

---

As an aside, it's really beyond me why people think a creature must be either hiding or auto-detected. It seems logical to me that, as you approach anything, it is initially so far away that you can't detect it at all (auto-fail), and as you approach it, it becomes difficult but not impossible, to moderate, to easy, to auto-success.

Granting that in-combat we generally assume creatures are auto-detected, so what? The above still applies to everything (including creatures) when out of combat.

djreynolds

2017-09-12, 01:37 AM

Would it be possible for someone kind enough... to re-summarize this argument?

BurgerBeast

2017-09-12, 02:14 AM

Would it be possible for someone kind enough... to re-summarize this argument?

Malifice: an invisible character is always auto-detected in all circumstances.*

Me: False.

*with very rare exceptions. One has been given: an pixie that is 1000 feet away

---

I contend that, out of combat, even visible creatures are not auto-detected. As per PHB 177 or 178 (AFB), under Perception, the DM may call for a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice anything (I would include creatures here) that is "easy to miss."

Therefore, it is not even true that every creature is auto-detected when out of combat. If it is not even true that every creature is auto-detected, then it can't be true that every Invisible creature is auto-detected.

As a final point, there is a section in the PHB about surprise (I'm AFB but it came up in another thread) where the DM is advised about how to determine surprise if neither side is hiding. (I'm going from memory so I might be incorrect here.) If Malifice were correct, this text would not exist because surprise would be impossible if auto-detection always happens. <- This is incorrect. Surprise occurs within the context of combat, a situation in which all sides both Malifice and I agree that auto-detection is in effect.

Zalabim

2017-09-12, 03:08 AM

Malifice

2017-09-12, 03:55 AM

Malifice seems to think that the rules demand that any character be able to display Daredevil-level senses on a good roll. Instantly dectecting the number and location of quietly sleeping orcs scattered across a noisy pitch-black room the size of a football field, for example. The rules do not demand this.

And neither did I. Dont misquote me.

As I said above, the hiding and sleeping Orcs are entitled to use Stealth actively (hiding) and passively respectively (sleeping) as they are being quiet while unseen. Both have taken some time to be quiet, and still themselves while unseen. Due to the noise made by the party and the other Orcs, I also imposed disadvantage to the Perception of the party to detect them.

As I said above, only PCs with a passive perception of (10+Dex+5) 16 or higher would detect them.

Passive perception of 16 is only hit by a creature with a wisdom of 10, 17 or more class levels and proficiency in Perception. 80 percent of creatures in the Monster Manual wouldnt detect them.

Let's try another example. The party walks into a room. On the other side of the room there is an area of magical Darkness and magical Silence, in which a warlock is standing, preparing a ritual with no verbal components, along with his assassin friend, who is hiding, and his paladin friend, who is also hiding, but very badly, since he is in platemail and has a dexterity of 6. What do the players know?

As an outlier (and again, as I said above, in the case of outliers, that's why we have the DM) in the absence of any other information, I would rule that none of the creatures in the [silence+darkness] are noticed, and are all hidden (Hide action or otherwise).

Unless I ruled that there is some other evidence of their presence (footsteps in the mud leading to the darkness+silence for example, blindsense, they smell bad - how often do your adventurers take baths after all - spell components etc) the party get no information they're there.

Malifice

2017-09-12, 04:10 AM

Humanoid guard? Humans normally don't smell other creatures unless there are special circumstances like strong scents

Not true actually.

Ask any Soldier. After a few weeks on exersize or operations without showering or using any deodorant you start to smell like the bush. You can smell 'city' people from a quite a distance away. The perfumes in deodorant, soaps and shampoo are very obvious even up to 10m away without wind (more with wind, and even more under the jungle canopy).

The inverse is also true. After spending several weeks in the bush, not showering or using shampoo, scented soaps and deodorant, you can be smelt around 10m away by a civilian.

Other scents are also really obvious. Cigarettes under the canopy, cooking smells and so forth.

Plenty of ambushes have been foiled by the enemy smelling you before you can initiate the ambush.

Animals also. If a tiger is foolish enough to approach other than downwind (they never do), you'll often smell it coming (they smell like concentrated cat urine).

Dont forget, many adventurers are carrying around things like spell compontent pouches (containing incense, sulphur and other quite pungent ungents) and spellcasters frequently burn incense and similar for spell casting (leaving residual scents). They are also often diseased, wounded, frightened (and maybe drenched in urine), filthy, crawling through mud, blood and guts (and rifling through the pockets of corpses on a routine basis), dealing with undead bodies, monsters and all sorts of smelly things.

When was the last time your PCs told you they bathed, or stopped to get out of their armor? I hazard a guess they plate mail around in town when shopping (which no sane person would).

Civilised humans dont use scent as a sense (we rely on scent less than sight and hearing). Once you're in conflict, you'll be surprised how your scent really sharpens up (like how a blind mans hearing sharpens to extraordinary levels).

smcmike

2017-09-12, 04:48 AM

Malifice

2017-09-12, 05:35 AM

I guess I should have said "two good rolls," then.....

And they dont know precisely where the Orcs they can hear/smell are either.

They know precisely enough to launch attacks at disadvantage (swinging a sword around madly for 6 seconds while blindly advancing). Roughly within a few metres.

They dont know precisely enough to cast many (many) spells on the Orcs (all that require a 'target you can see') counterspell the Orcs spells, power word kill or dominate or charm them, hit them with magic missiles, Hex them, hellish rebuke them etc etc, or make attacks of opportunity against them (the Orcs can freely move around in the darkness without risk).

And any of the Orcs can - at any time - simply take the Hide action, and (presuming they crack the passive perception of any PCs) be lost track of by the PCs completely. From there, the only way the PCs can locate them is stop, be quiet, and listen intentily - i.e. take the Search action - (and succeed in the opposed Perception v Stealth check).

If the Orcs were not just sitting around chatting to each other, and were making some kind of effort to keep quiet and on watch (i.e. the Hide action) it would likely be a different story.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-12, 05:38 AM

And neither did I. Dont misquote me.

As I said above, the hiding and sleeping Orcs are entitled to use Stealth actively (hiding) and passively respectively (sleeping) as they are being quiet while unseen. Both have taken some time to be quiet, and still themselves while unseen. Due to the noise made by the party and the other Orcs, I also imposed disadvantage to the Perception of the party to detect them.

So, under your view, a character is not quiet unless he uses the Hide action, however in this case you rule that sleeping orcs are using Dexterity (Stealth)...

Are the sleeping orcs entitled to not use stealth?

The problem is that this is entirely arbitrary. If a player is reading a book, but not trying to be quiet, you rule that he is automatically heard specifically because he is making no attempt to be quiet. The fact that he is exactly as quiet as a sleeping orc, one whom you insist is employing the Dexterity (Stealth) skill precisely because of how still and quiet he is being while sleeping, has no bearing on this decision. Why is it that a sleeping orc can unconsciously use Dexterity (Strealth) but an awake orc cannot? What is the relevant difference?

Sleeping orcs, who could quite reasonably be making the same amount of noise, or even more noise (many people snore while sleeping but not while reading), are not heard... because... well, because Malifice says they are capable of hiding while asleep?

What is the difference, in the physical narrative world, between (1) an orc that is fast asleep and (2) the exact same orc with his eyes open and a book in front of him?

What is your justification for the tangible difference in their noise levels that creates this difference? Because it seems to me that it is entirely arbitrary.

Edit: where is the RAW justification that says one makes a Dexterity (Stealth) check when one goes to sleep? I'm AFB at the moment, so I used the 5e compendium to look up Stealth. It lists four uses of the skill. The most suitable option is "attempt to conceal yourself from enemies."

The example said the orcs were sleeping. It appears to me that you either (1) changed the example by adding that the orcs attempted to conceal themselves before going to sleep, or (2) think that every time a creature sleeps this means they are automatically attempting to conceal themselves, or (3) think that sleeping enemies are capable, while asleep, of concealing themselves.

I see no basis for any of these. What am I missing?

smcmike

2017-09-12, 05:48 AM

And they dont know precisely where the Orcs they can hear/smell are either.

They know precisely enough to launch attacks at disadvantage (swinging a sword around madly for 6 seconds while blindly advancing). Roughly within a few metres.

They dont know precisely enough to cast many (many) spells on the Orcs (all that require a 'target you can see') counterspell the Orcs spells, power word kill or dominate or charm them, hit them with magic missiles, Hex them, hellish rebuke them etc etc, or make attacks of opportunity against them (the Orcs can freely move around in the darkness without risk).

And any of the Orcs can - at any time - simply take the Hide action, and (presuming they crack the passive perception of any PCs) be lost track of by the PCs completely. From there, the only way the PCs can locate them is stop, be quiet, and listen intentily - i.e. take the Search action - (and succeed in the opposed Perception v Stealth check).

If the Orcs were not just sitting around chatting to each other, and were making some kind of effort to keep quiet and on watch (i.e. the Hide action) it would likely be a different story.

My objection is the range and scope - quiet sleepers across the area of a football field, all detected in an instant.

Imagine, instead, that a character walks up to a army camp, with neat rows of tents set up over a football field sized area, let's say a couple hundred men, some sleeping, some doing other camp stuff, both in and out of their tents. Standing at the edge of the field, and listening hard, with a 20 on the check, can a character point to each tent on the field and correctly state how many people are within?

I agree that, in close combat, players should generally know where any combatants are, unless they successfully hide. The DM sets the scope of combat, though, and the scope of possible perception.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-12, 06:09 AM

@Malifice:

My objection is the range and scope... (snip).

[edit: regarding this quote from smcmike, which I believe accurately captures your take on this situations:]

It's one thing for you to play this way. It's something different, in my opinion, to claim that it is the RAW. There is simply no justification for saying this is RAW.

In my opinion, when you say this is RAI, you are essentially insulting the designers. In my opinion, to assume it is even possible for them to have so blatantly disregarded reality, is to more-or-less call then stupid. I say this not to be rude, nor to actually accuse you of giving insult because you most certainly did not, but in an attempt to explain just how divorced from reality such a rule set would need to be.

If things are as they appear, and you:
1. Think this is the RAW
2. Think this is the RAI
3. Think that as presented, these RAW and RAI are defensible

Then I dare say the third charge is the most damning against you.

Xetheral

2017-09-12, 06:40 AM

To paraphrase the quote: We assumed, that, unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat. It’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that.

Fascinating. We interpret the quote entirely differently.

I wonder if that is because there was no way for me to include the surrounding context? If you have a few minutes, would you mind listening to the podcast starting at 28:43 and continuing through just after 33:00? I'm curious as to whether, after listening to the context, you would still paraphrase the second quote the same way.

Personally, I would paraphrase the second quote as: "It's, alternatively, perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to decide to assume that, unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat." The key differences are that I interpret quote #2 as an alternative to quote #1, and that I interpret the assumption in quote #2 as a valid election for a group rather than an assumption on the part of the designers.

If you don't have the time (or interest) to listen to that five-minute segment, here's a third excerpt that I believe supports my interpretation:

Now, again, to now flip back to the other side, let’s say a group wants to just sort of run the rules as barebones as possible, with, um, as little DM interpretation as possible with stealth. A group is going to be on really firm ground if they just decide: “oh, we just assume combatants always know, uh, where invisible characters are, unless those characters have hidden themselves, ah, you know, by making a dexterity (stealth) check”.

(Emphasis added.)

Whether you have time to follow-up or not, thank you for explaning how you interpret the quote. I still disagree, but knowing how you'd paraphrase it makes it much easier to understand where you're coming from.

Hopeless

2017-09-12, 06:46 AM

Has anyone suggested a Hide bonus due to being invisible then add 10 to that to indicate their Passive Stealth just like Passive Perception so in the very unlikely event a character or NPC's passive is greater than the invisible character's effect Passive Hide skill of Hide skill modifier +20 (Note +10 for Passive reaction and +10 for being invisible)?
Unless they have a legitimate reason to suspect someone's out there like using a detect magic on loot then realising there's something enchanted nearby because of whatever medium you use to detect magic(for example sound only you hear)?

Zalabim

2017-09-12, 07:06 AM

Fascinating. We interpret the quote entirely differently.

I wonder if that is because there was no way for me to include the surrounding context? If you have a few minutes, would you mind listening to the podcast starting at 28:43 and continuing through just after 33:00? I'm curious as to whether, after listening to the context, you would still paraphrase the second quote the same way.

Personally, I would paraphrase the second quote as: "It's, alternatively, perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to decide to assume that, unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat." The key differences are that I interpret quote #2 as an alternative to quote #1, and that I interpret the assumption in quote #2 as a valid election for a group rather than an assumption on the part of the designers.

If you don't have the time (or interest) to listen to that five-minute segment, here's a third excerpt that I believe supports my interpretation:

Now, again, to now flip back to the other side, let’s say a group wants to just sort of run the rules as barebones as possible, with, um, as little DM interpretation as possible with stealth. A group is going to be on really firm ground if they just decide: “oh, we just assume combatants always know, uh, where invisible characters are, unless those characters have hidden themselves, ah, you know, by making a dexterity (stealth) check”.

(Emphasis, necessarily, obviously changed.)

Whether you have time to follow-up or not, thank you for explaning how you interpret the quote. I still disagree, but knowing how you'd paraphrase it makes it much easier to understand where you're coming from.
I'm actually just working off of PolarBear's writeout, in this post:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
since I don't have access to the interview itself where I'm at. I might come back to this when I do. For now, I would emphasize "as little DM interpretation as possible" and "A group is going to be on really firm ground." Sometimes something different is appropriate, but most of the time this "barebones" rule of thumb will be accurate, or functional, or intended. Whatever firm ground is supposed to mean. This is kinda fun as an experiment.

@Malifice:

[edit: regarding this quote from smcmike, which I believe accurately captures your take on this situations:]

It's one thing for you to play this way. It's something different, in my opinion, to claim that it is the RAW. There is simply no justification for saying this is RAW.
Well, there's the Rules. That were written. That would justify saying it's RAW.

It'd be justifiable to use if it works for gameplay purposes. Which it does. Most of the time.

Your illiteracy, your incredulity, and your insincerity are not actually counterarguments.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-12, 07:12 AM

But we're talking about a person who is not hiding. Therefore there is no opposed roll. It's just a Wisdom (Perception) check to see if you notice him.

Scenario: a party is travelling along the road, and there is a keep in view some 400-500 feet away. A sentry is standing in plain sight next to the gate. He's a little hard to notice because he's standing still and dressed in mostly grey in front of a grey stone wall.

The DM determines there is a chance that he goes unnoticed, so it's not an auto-detect.

He's not hiding, so it's not an opposed contest.

He is hiding. He's wearing camouflage, minimizing movement, et cetera. No different from a hunter in a blind.

Maybe if you continue with this long enough, you'll come up with an example that's actually tricky. But again, a lot of players have come up with tricky ways of trying to getting around "harmful spell" restrictions.

If a warlock PC with low dex, no proficiency in stealth, eldritch spear, and either spell sniper or MC into sorc for metamagic, tried that trick and argued "I'm not hiding, I've just made myself hard to spot until the enemies get well into EB range" I'd say, "Nice try. Roll for stealth." You don't get to be hidden without hiding.

In such a case, the DM can choose to simply assign a DC. It's roughly the same DC he'd use to allow a character to notice a similar-sized stone statue of the same size (maybe slightly easier since presumably there is some movement from the sentry).

The DM can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it's the way the rules procedurally lay it out.

As an aside, it's really beyond me why people think a creature must be either hiding or auto-detected. It seems logical to me that, as you approach anything, it is initially so far away that you can't detect it at all (auto-fail), and as you approach it, it becomes difficult but not impossible, to moderate, to easy, to auto-success.

That's not an aside, it's the entire topic of the thread.

And I agree that it makes a certain logical, out of game sense to have more gradation. It also makes sense for there to be more than two range increments for ranged weapons. It makes sense for there to actually be multiple separate Wisdom(Perception) checks, first to notice that there's something going on, then to determine the rough location, then the broad strokes of what it is, and then the details. But none of that is the RAW.

Kane0

2017-09-12, 07:20 AM

Unoriginal

2017-09-12, 07:49 AM

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-12, 08:22 AM

If you automatically register the presense of invisible creatures unless they're hidden doesn't that sort of devalue blindsight?
I always thought blindsight was fairly powerful, given how rare and late-game it is.

No, because pretty much all invisible creatures are hiding.

It's like saying, "if you automatically register the presence of creatures crouched down behind the bushes unless they're hiding, doesn't that devalue tremorsense?" No, because the only time that's coming up are either super-explicitly covered situations, like someone who was hiding and then revealed themselves with an attack, or, say, an ally pooping while holding a conversation. An enemy sneaking through the bushes is hiding.

Blindsight, truesight, tremorsense, et cetera are advantageous in that they can allow you to auto-succeed in finding a hidden creature (or, well, make the creature auto-fail at hiding). They're not necessary if the invisible creature isn't hiding, such as an ally holding a conversation while invisible.

If you logically shouldn't be able to tell where a creature is, it is hidden, and that's the result of someone hiding.

Astofel

2017-09-12, 08:27 AM

He is hiding. He's wearing camouflage, minimizing movement, et cetera. No different from a hunter in a blind.

Personally I would argue that in this case, the guard isn't hiding. He's standing guard, and guards usually aren't hidden while they're doing that. After all, you want potential intruders to know the place is being guarded. It just so happens that in this particular scenario his armour is similar in colour to the wall he's standing in front of, making him hard to notice at a distance, unless he's actively patrolling instead of standing in place. It's perfectly reasonable for the DM to assign a DC to noticing the guard instead of having him make a Stealth check. That's what the Perception skill is for, noticing things that are easy to miss.

Let's use a more common, real-world example to illustrate. I own a cat. I also own a blanket for my couch that happens to have similar colouration to my cat. My cat likes to sit on this blanket. She does so not because she wants to hide, but because it's a nice, warm thing to sleep on. Therefore I have to be careful when I sit down, otherwise I might not notice my cat and sit on her by mistake, even though she has made no effort to hide from me and just wants a nice place to nap. Yes, this is a real example and I have almost sat on my cat in the past.

Malifice

2017-09-12, 08:29 AM

What am I missing?

The post where I said I wasn't talking to you anymore because you're stubbornly not listening to anything I'm saying, and I don't want to waste my time with you anymore.

ThePolarBear

2017-09-12, 08:34 AM

@PolarBear: Apologies, but what you wrote is a little bit difficult for me to folow. It appears some clarification is needed.

It really does seem so. Also, remember we are talking about a rule that i consider stupid, so take "stupid" into account.

You made it clear that the warlock was not trying to sneak at the beginning of the combat. However, what is not clear is whether the warlock was invisible before the combat started or whether he turned invisible once it had started. This is important, because the relevant RAW only applies in combat, and only applies to characters who turn invisible during combat.

Prehaps you are missing at what part of the PHB i'm referring to, otherwise you would have not replied this way.
I am NOT referring to "in combat creatures are generally aware...".
I am referring to a VERY specific rule that is used in determination for surprise.
PHB, page 189, Surprise section, "If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other." It then goes on to determine if one side is being stealthy how to handle the situation, but it takes the situation before combat is called to translate it into a combat situation. Is the phase in between. Combat is beginning and the group has to take the mechanical approaches to be able to handle it.

Surprise is determined before initiative (as such it is impossible to have an action to become invisible during combat, since actions cannot be taken yet.).
Logically, it follows that the invisible warlock has to be invisible before combat.

See above. The problem is that outside of combat, the warlock is not auto-detected.

To make the rule have any reason of existing you have to assume that, before determination of "there's a combat encounter beginning", creatures can be unaware of each other. Which is a pretty realistic assumption. To make the rule relevant the warlock MUST have been unnoticed before it becomes noticed via this rule. If it is already noticed, then it is irrelevant to be noticed by this rule. Since you really can't be not noticed and noticed at the same time, or neither of the two, then it follows than the warlock HAS to be unnoticed. The fact that the warlock is not auto-detected normally while out of combat is therefore irrelevant, it is unnoticed.

If combat starts around someone, and they choose not to enter the fray, the DM is free to rule that they are not a part of combat.

If there's a creature that wants to kill you and attacks you, you are in combat even if you do not want to. What you say is true only if a creature does not notice you and/or does not care about you. But, as the rule states, the moment your side is part of determination of surprise for a combat encounter you are noticed, and if that creature wants to also kill you, you are in combat. The DM is free to do anything, agreed. But that's not a question of how one plays, but what RAW says. It's pointless, but i'm only answering to others speculating and discussing RAW because i thought it would be interesting in pointing this anomaly out.

Otherwise, as I alluded to earlier, the best anti-stealth technique in the multiverse is starting fights wvery 5 seconds so that all invisible creatures become auto-detected. That is absurd.

EXACTLY. THIS IS ABSURD. Remember, for me the rule is stupid because it is not based on perception and intent, just on intent. You saying that it is absurd is in no way disproving that the rule exists, however. For me it is AS BAD as the old "if you are in an heavily obscured area you are blind" scenario. It was stupid. But it was still a rule. I think no one really applied it in a serious situation or could argue that that was how real life worked. Nevertheless, it was RAW.

To repeat myself, since there was confusion in previous points about this part:
It's so stupid that, no matter the conditions of a situation in which the rule is applicable , a creature that is not trying to sneak is ALWAYS detected, no matter what else can be there/can be happening. If for you it was already this way? Good! RAW makes you right to be part of the "automatic" crowd, in a specific instance: When surprise is determined. You just called the situation absurd, however, si i think you are probably moderating the detection with perception of characters - distance, ambiental sounds...
The rule, however, ignores that part. It is just pure INTENT on sneaking that makes or breaks.

So, you ascribe to the “starting combat magically locates invisible characters” school of thought? I don’t.

I'm not explaining how i play. I'm pointing to a part of RAW that is stupid for me and pointing the reasons why it is stupid for me. Do not confuse how i play with what i say raw says. I actually posted in the first post what is my baseline for judgment as a DM on invisibility in combat, if you are interested.

Agreed. Why are you saying “no?”
Because, RAW, this rule exists. So the Warlock cannot be "unnoticed" by RAW in such a situation.
Re reading, i think you misinterpreted my "no matter the situation" as intending "including combat and not combat". This was not the intention. I should have specified that i mean "when the rule is applicable", like i did above.

According to what rule? Citation, please.

Already did. In the first post i made, non-the-less, and that you already quoted. And i wrote it multiple times that i already quoted it. I've requoted it, again, with indications on where it is found. Hopefully this is due to the problem above.

You are misunderstanding my point of view.

I do not say: An invisible creature is never automatically detected.

I do say: It is not true that an invisible creature is always automatically detected.

Quoting you:

Agreed. As far as I can see, Malifice does not understand this.

Also, is it clear that I share this view, or do I appear to be trying to make the rules say more than they do?

This is you agreeing on a post from a user stating that it is RAW what another user wrote: "invisible creatures are neither automatically hidden nor automatically detected".
This is provably false because invisible creatures CAN be automatically noticed in RAW.

It does not help that you yourself are quoting things, agreeing to them when you really do not agree with them, so your point seems all over the place and in persistent fluctuation, no matter how clear it's for you. I'm also guilty of this. It happens, but it's not helping anyone. That particular part, as otherwhere stated, was meant for the user you quoted and another user, really.

It doesn't even help that a reply you gave me was "my point: is wrong to assume that hidden and auto detected are a dichotomy" When it's provable that it's is is, when the rule states that unless you are trying to be sneaky, you are "automatically" detected. - Notice, i've also said the the famous gnome isn't automatically anything. I was wrong by RAW, since it can be automatically detected in some circumstances. Being wrong or incorrect or thinking something is in a way but really isn't it's not a problem, but continuosly "my point is" makes it difficult to track what point you are referring to, expecially if one does not read the whole thread but only the replies. Points should be clear and few at at time, Imho.

It doesn't even help that what you said (not a direct quote) "if a person enters a room with an invisible warlock in it the warlock is not auto-detected" IS GENERAL, and can assume a combat situation since none is stated, and therefore follow what you think about invisibility in combat, making it detected if not hiding. It does not help when i do the same, too, since it creates confusion. It obviously does not help if, in criticizing, we fail at being precise and then we act on those imprecisions.

And certainly does not help disagreeing on principle, even more if there are problems following the discussion.

In the end:
Do you agree that the rule i state exist and can lead to at least one situation where, passing from an out of combat situation to a combat situation, there is an unnoticed invisible creature that automatically gets noticed because it is not trying to sneak?
Do you agree that the rule would better save its purpose if it included a check on perceivability?
Do you agree that that rule does, in fact, mean that it exist an instance in RAW of clearly spelled out automatic notice, therefore is incorrect stating that RAW does never support automatic noticing or detection?
Do you agree that in the discussion of the rule there's nothing more about how i play than the reason of why i think the rule is stupid?

Hopefully this makes the situation clearer.

I already did not want to go on on this discussion on RAW. It was, for me, just a way to inform. Prehaps a nerdish "uhhh you are wrong since chapter x subsection y...." way of doing it, but i hope you can believe it was really just because i thought it was in the interest of all to know that the rule existed. I hope there's no confusion left.

Keltest

2017-09-12, 08:55 AM

Personally I would argue that in this case, the guard isn't hiding. He's standing guard, and guards usually aren't hidden while they're doing that. After all, you want potential intruders to know the place is being guarded. It just so happens that in this particular scenario his armour is similar in colour to the wall he's standing in front of, making him hard to notice at a distance, unless he's actively patrolling instead of standing in place. It's perfectly reasonable for the DM to assign a DC to noticing the guard instead of having him make a Stealth check. That's what the Perception skill is for, noticing things that are easy to miss.

Let's use a more common, real-world example to illustrate. I own a cat. I also own a blanket for my couch that happens to have similar colouration to my cat. My cat likes to sit on this blanket. She does so not because she wants to hide, but because it's a nice, warm thing to sleep on. Therefore I have to be careful when I sit down, otherwise I might not notice my cat and sit on her by mistake, even though she has made no effort to hide from me and just wants a nice place to nap. Yes, this is a real example and I have almost sat on my cat in the past.

Frankly, unless the guard was wearing stone armor or something, I wouldn't even require the check. The light is going to play very differently off of his metal armor than it would off the stone walls, to say nothing of the parts of him that aren't visibly metallic (even metal armor usually has some cloth or something over it to allow for the identification of the wearer). If they are close enough to be able to see the guard, he would be noticed.

RSP

2017-09-12, 08:56 AM

Look at two situations:

Jack takes the Hide Action. Without having been noticed, an hour later he's standing against a wall, not moving or making noise, observing the people moving around him.

Jill is Invisible, but never had the chance to take the Hide Action. However, for almost an hour she's been standing against a wall, not moving or making noise, observing the people moving around her.

According to the RAW, because Jack took the Hide Acion an hour ago, he's still hidden.

However, Jill is doing the exact same thing as Jack for nearly an hour, but never took the Hide Action. She still could be hiding though. Why? Because, "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

If the DM decides what Jill is doing equals their personal determination of what is required to be hiding, then they're hiding, per RAW (again pg 177 of the PHB for the quoted rule).

Now why doesn't Jill just take the Hide Action? Because she's controlling an illusion created by Mislead, and as such, every Action since she cast the spell has been used to control the illusion (and she didn't multiclassing Rogue for Cunning Action).

This, in my opinion, very much depicts the devs intent behind "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

The game is going to have situations where PCs shouldn't auto notice other creatures so they added that line to make it RAW for a DM to decide someone is hidden.

Hope that helps clear up some confusion.

Astofel

2017-09-12, 09:07 AM

Frankly, unless the guard was wearing stone armor or something, I wouldn't even require the check. The light is going to play very differently off of his metal armor than it would off the stone walls, to say nothing of the parts of him that aren't visibly metallic (even metal armor usually has some cloth or something over it to allow for the identification of the wearer). If they are close enough to be able to see the guard, he would be noticed.

In fairness, the guard example isn't mine and personally I wouldn't call for a check either. I just saw what BurgerBeast was trying to say and carried the idea through. It's also worth noting that the metal armour is an accidental invention of mine, in the original example the guard is wearing 'grey clothes'. That's why I used the example of my cat to illustrate the same point in a different way.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-12, 09:07 AM

Personally I would argue that in this case, the guard isn't hiding. He's standing guard, and guards usually aren't hidden while they're doing that. After all, you want potential intruders to know the place is being guarded. It just so happens that in this particular scenario his armour is similar in colour to the wall he's standing in front of, making him hard to notice at a distance, unless he's actively patrolling instead of standing in place. It's perfectly reasonable for the DM to assign a DC to noticing the guard instead of having him make a Stealth check. That's what the Perception skill is for, noticing things that are easy to miss.

Let's use a more common, real-world example to illustrate. I own a cat. I also own a blanket for my couch that happens to have similar colouration to my cat. My cat likes to sit on this blanket. She does so not because she wants to hide, but because it's a nice, warm thing to sleep on. Therefore I have to be careful when I sit down, otherwise I might not notice my cat and sit on her by mistake, even though she has made no effort to hide from me and just wants a nice place to nap. Yes, this is a real example and I have almost sat on my cat in the past.

Inventing corner-case IC motivations doesn't allow you to avoid the rules (though being the DM does). "I'm not angry with the Cleric of Hextor, so I'm not hostile, so I shouldn't be affected by his Spirit Guardians." "X spell I cast on a charmed creature isn't really harmful. Sure, it's going to make it easier to kill them in the upcoming combat, but it didn't do HP damage! The charm effect should remain."

The guard put on a uniform he knew blended into the walls, and then stood in such a way as to make that blending obscure him, and not create sufficient movement to draw attention. That's hiding. "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered" (Dictionary.com).

In the cat example, at least in my real-life experience, what's happening is that (1) the cat actually is hiding. I'm pretty sure most animals, but cats especially, take some measures to reduce their visibility to potential predators before falling asleep. (2) I'm not perceiving. I'm engaged in "Other Activities" as described in page 188 of the PhB.

Tanarii

2017-09-12, 09:13 AM

I agree with everything but the bolded point. Arbitrary fixed DCs are for hidden objects, not people hiding.I wasn't talking about a hidden anything. A DM can, at any time, set a DC for a creature to detect/notice/perceive a non-hidden creature or object. Which may be difficult due to size, coloration, distance, or generally being hard to see.

I mean a DM can do whatever they want (I've probably done something like that to save an NPC), but RAW that's not true. I've run and played in combats where that exact scenario happened, and people get attack rolls at targets in the effect of Fog Cloud.

If you don't try to hide (by, e.g. janking left or right) you can be attacked through obscuration.Its absolutely RAW. The PHB even backs up that you may need to guess the location of unseen creatures. Not unseen and hidden. Unseen. PHB p194.

I mean, that's RAW in that a DM can RAW call for any check they want. But following written procedure, you don't make a active wisdom(perception) check, because you just weren't actively searching.
Rolled checks vs passive passive score does not necessarily line up with actively searching vs not actively searching. For Wisdom (Perception) in particular, it often does. But it's not required. As you say, DM RAW can call for any check they wants, with any action type they think it takes. If they want a Wisdom (Perception) rolled check vs a fixed DC they have set, no action required, to determine if you can pinpoint an unseen (obscured) but not hiding target at long range distance in the chaos of battle, that would be following written procedures.

Keltest

2017-09-12, 09:14 AM

RSP

2017-09-12, 09:21 AM

It is certainly within the GM's prerogative to declare her hidden, but without having actually taken the Hide action, I'm pretty sure by RAW there would still be signs like footprints, dirt clouds, the sounds of her feet shuffling and her breathing that can be used to detect her and determine her approximate location without a GM ruling otherwise.

Those are all ways to detect a hidden character (whether from taking the Hide Action or from DM decision). The RAW is that a DM can decide someone has met the criteria to be hidden, regardless of whether a character takes the Hide Action.

Edit: whether someone detects those things, regardless of how the character became hidden, is what Perveption is for.

Xetheral

2017-09-12, 09:23 AM

I'm actually just working off of PolarBear's writeout, in this post:

since I don't have access to the interview itself where I'm at. I might come back to this when I do. For now, I would emphasize "as little DM interpretation as possible" and "A group is going to be on really firm ground." Sometimes something different is appropriate, but most of the time this "barebones" rule of thumb will be accurate, or functional, or intended. Whatever firm ground is supposed to mean. This is kinda fun as an experiment.

I somehow overlooked PolarBear's post. I'm having a hard time following his transcript, which makes it difficult to check it for accuracy. I also (probably needless to say) disagree with his interpretation of what was said.

Doesn't saying "a group is on really firm ground" merely mean that making such an assumption would be (for groups that choose to make it) a valid choice under the rules? I really don't see how the "firm ground" language supports saying "most of the time this "barebones" rule of thumb will be accurate".

From my standpoint you seem to be ignoring the part about how making the assumption that non-hidden, invisible creatures are detected is explicitly a decision for a group to make. If it's "in keeping with the rules" for a group to choose to adopt that interpretation, doesn't that imply that it's also "in keeping with the rules" for a group to decline to adopt that assumption?

smcmike

2017-09-12, 09:31 AM

Inventing corner-case IC motivations doesn't allow you to avoid the rules (though being the DM does). "I'm not angry with the Cleric of Hextor, so I'm not hostile, so I shouldn't be affected by his Spirit Guardians." "X spell I cast on a charmed creature isn't really harmful. Sure, it's going to make it easier to kill them in the upcoming combat, but it didn't do HP damage! The charm effect should remain."

The guard put on a uniform he knew blended into the walls, and then stood in such a way as to make that blending obscure him, and not create sufficient movement to draw attention. That's hiding. "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered" (Dictionary.com).

In the cat example, at least in my real-life experience, what's happening is that (1) the cat actually is hiding. I'm pretty sure most animals, but cats especially, take some measures to reduce their visibility to potential predators before falling asleep. (2) I'm not perceiving. I'm engaged in "Other Activities" as described in page 188 of the PhB.

No, man, the guard is not hiding. He just happens to own a gray coat. Stop saying that people are hiding. The cat isn't hiding either. My cat sleeps all over the place.

Perception is not limited to hiding or hidden things. It's an all purpose skill, used any time you may or may not be able to perceive something. The barrier to perception could simply be distance. Let's say you are observing an army marching at significant distance. You want to get a count of their numbers, and, if possible, identify their insignia and their leaders. This could involved a perception check, even though no one is hiding (except, perhaps, you).

Keltest

2017-09-12, 09:32 AM

Those are all ways to detect a hidden character (whether from taking the Hide Action or from DM decision). The RAW is that a DM can decide someone has met the criteria to be hidden, regardless of whether a character takes the Hide Action.

Edit: whether someone detects those things, regardless of how the character became hidden, is what Perveption is for.

And the hide skill is, in part, attempts to diminish the effects of those ways to detect you. Making no effort (ie by not attempting to hide) means that they are fully obvious and can be detected with minimal effort unless the would-be detector has some circumstantial handicap. An auto-success on perception, if you prefer it phrased that way.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-12, 09:47 AM

I wasn't talking about a hidden anything. A DM can, at any time, set a DC for a creature to detect/notice/perceive a non-hidden creature or object. Which may be difficult due to size, coloration, distance, or generally being hard to see.

Yes, you were talking about something hidden. If you cannot perceive something, it is hidden. "concealed; obscure; covert:" An object can become hidden in a way that procedure calls for a set DC, e.g. a hidden key, or a diamond in the rough. People don't. They become hidden by hiding.

Its absolutely RAW. The PHB even backs up that you may need to guess the location of unseen creatures. Not unseen and hidden. Unseen. PHB p194.

1) Fog cloud doesn't make you unseen. It makes you obscured.

2) In no case do those rules don't call for an arbitrary fixed DC perception check.

3) Trying to bring up that section is begging the question. It says, "When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see." There are unseen combatants that you know the location of. Those are the ones that aren't hidden.

Rolled checks vs passive passive score does not necessarily line up with actively searching vs not actively searching. For Wisdom (Perception) in particular, it often does. But it's not required. As you say, DM RAW can call for any check they wants, with any action type they think it takes. If they want a Wisdom (Perception) rolled check vs a fixed DC they have set, no action required, to determine if you can pinpoint an unseen (obscured) but not hiding target at long range distance in the chaos of battle, that would be following written procedures.

No it wouldn't. Unless you count any extension of rule 0 as a written procedure.

Besides, the section you quoted was a response to a different scenario - someone reading a book. That's an "other activity" covered on page 183. The procedure there is simply that you don't contribute your perception.

RSP

2017-09-12, 09:47 AM

And the hide skill is, in part, attempts to diminish the effects of those ways to detect you. Making no effort (ie by not attempting to hide) means that they are fully obvious and can be detected with minimal effort unless the would-be detector has some circumstantial handicap. An auto-success on perception, if you prefer it phrased that way.

Except they are hiding, if that's what's determined by the DM. The RAW doesn't make a DM determined Hide less effective than a Hide Action one. They're the same state of being once the determination is made (aside from how the DM adjudicates the Hide, that is, they may decide to use a DC, a Passive score, or have the character roll their Stealth).

Once the DM determines a character has met the criteria for being hidden, then they're hidden just like any other character.

Also, the Hide Action doesn't remove footprints or stop you from breathing: those things are still in existence. A character may try to mitigate how noticible these things are but it's not like a hidden character is carrying a broom and sweeping behind them as they traverse an area.

The take away is: being hidden is being hidden and the DM, RAW, can decide someone is hidden.

Sindeloke

2017-09-12, 09:48 AM

And the hide skill is, in part, attempts to diminish the effects of those ways to detect you. Making no effort (ie by not attempting to hide) means that they are fully obvious and can be detected with minimal effort unless the would-be detector has some circumstantial handicap.

A handicap like, say, the thing you might detect being invisible?

I sort of understand the argument here that, since "the DM decides what's hidden," it makes sense to the auto-reveal group that things that are obviously not in any way Hiding (a conscious choice and action) might still be Hidden (a DM-determined state of being) and somehow that backports to creatures making the choice to Hide even when they haven't, because if there's any reason to think they might not be detected the DM obviously would just declare them Hidden, which therefore theoretically means they consciously Hid, in an A->B thus B->A sort of way.

But even then it still means that creatures aren't automatically detected, because the DM is randomly assigning them the Hidden status based on what she thinks is reasonable and therefore any given creature might be hidden after all.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-12, 09:52 AM

No, man, the guard is not hiding. He just happens to own a gray coat. Stop saying that people are hiding. The cat isn't hiding either. My cat sleeps all over the place.

So, you've stopped trying to make any logical arguments, and are just trying telling me to stop?

No. I will continue to advocate for the correct position.

Perception is not limited to hiding or hidden things. It's an all purpose skill, used any time you may or may not be able to perceive something. The barrier to perception could simply be distance. Let's say you are observing an army marching at significant distance. You want to get a count of their numbers, and, if possible, identify their insignia and their leaders. This could involved a perception check, even though no one is hiding (except, perhaps, you).

I've never argued otherwise. That's completely irrelevant.

You can also probably use perception to discern whether or not there's cinnamon in a cookie. It just has nothing to do with invisible creatures.

Tanarii

2017-09-12, 09:54 AM

An auto-success on perception, if you prefer it phrased that way.my thinking is the majority of 'hard to spot' situations should be a DC 5 check. Which, per the DMG, is usually not worth rolling. (I take that to mean unless it's really important. :smallwink: )

Tanarii

2017-09-12, 09:57 AM

StuffOkay, if you're going to attempt to redefine what I'm talking about, and define rules in the book as rule 0, in the famous and arrogant phrase of the Internet, "you're done here."

Keltest

2017-09-12, 10:00 AM

A handicap like, say, the thing you might detect being invisible?

I sort of understand the argument here that, since "the DM decides what's hidden," it makes sense to the auto-reveal group that things that are obviously not in any way Hiding (a conscious choice and action) might still be Hidden (a DM-determined state of being) and somehow that backports to creatures making the choice to Hide even when they haven't, because if there's any reason to think they might not be detected the DM obviously would just declare them Hidden, which therefore theoretically means they consciously Hid.

But even then it still means that creatures aren't automatically detected, because the DM is randomly assigning them the Hidden status based on what she thinks is reasonable and therefore any given creature might be hidden after all.

I fully recognize that the DM has the ability to declare any creature to have any status at will, with or without a good reason. But DM ruling or fiat is a terrible way to resolve questions of RAW because rulings, by definition, are made when the rules do not adequately cover a situation, and will vary from DM to DM.

The RAW says that invisible creatures can still be detected and need to attempt the Hide action if they want to be hidden. If a DM declares that to be unnecessary, then that is outside the RAW.

Cybren

2017-09-12, 10:09 AM

I fully recognize that the DM has the ability to declare any creature to have any status at will, with or without a good reason. But DM ruling or fiat is a terrible way to resolve questions of RAW because rulings, by definition, are made when the rules do not adequately cover a situation, and will vary from DM to DM.

The RAW says that invisible creatures can still be detected and need to attempt the Hide action if they want to be hidden. If a DM declares that to be unnecessary, then that is outside the RAW.

Or, alternatively, rulings are made when the rules know that they cannot cover a situation, and that the needs of the game will vary from DM to DM. Even here, your text says they can be detected, not that they will be. Your PAW seems to agree with RAW, which is, there are situations where you would not notice an invisible person that isn't explicitly hiding. That's not a "ruling", that's an understanding of what the verb "can" means in english

smcmike

2017-09-12, 10:13 AM

So, you've stopped trying to make any logical arguments, and are just trying telling me to stop?

No. I will continue to advocate for the correct position.

Your answer to every scenario in which someone who is making no attempt to hide is nevertheless hard to see is to say that the person is hiding. That isn't correct or logical.

The guard is only difficult to see because of the distance. If you were 100' from him, you'd see him easily, and a perception check would be inappropriate - he isn't hiding.

I've never argued otherwise. That's completely irrelevant.

You can also probably use perception to discern whether or not there's cinnamon in a cookie. It just has nothing to do with invisible creatures.

Is the cinnamon hiding?

The point is that there are situations where perception can be used to detect people who are not hiding. The general in the marching army is not hiding. The guard at the gate is not hiding. The orcs behind the thick door are not hiding. They are just hard to see (or hear) because of the circumstances.

The second step is to point out that every act of perception is done in the context of some sort of circumstance. The Stealth v Perception check is appropriate in a fairly wide range of those circumstances, but it doesn't make much sense in others, and the information you are able to glean from that check also varies, depending on the check.

ThePolarBear

2017-09-12, 11:07 AM

I somehow overlooked PolarBear's post. I'm having a hard time following his transcript, which makes it difficult to check it for accuracy. I also (probably needless to say) disagree with his interpretation of what was said.

Doesn't saying "a group is on really firm ground" merely mean that making such an assumption would be (for groups that choose to make it) a valid choice under the rules? I really don't see how the "firm ground" language supports saying "most of the time this "barebones" rule of thumb will be accurate".

From my standpoint you seem to be ignoring the part about how making the assumption that non-hidden, invisible creatures are detected is explicitly a decision for a group to make. If it's "in keeping with the rules" for a group to choose to adopt that interpretation, doesn't that imply that it's also "in keeping with the rules" for a group to decline to adopt that assumption?

I think "a very firm ground" means that the game would run smoothly, with a set of rules that would not hamper the flow of the game but facilitate it.
It's not addressing the validity of the choice, but the strenght of the system. It's not a podcast about validation of a particular gameplay style, but about clarification of the usage of the rules. So, should a group have such an assumption, the system would still work because the system was thought with that assumption taken into consideration. They ASSUMED that the group could assume when the system was created and as such is capable of supporting it.

They left the decisions on when to make exceptions to the DM specifically, and JC does say that (not quoted) one will find that a DM might often rule on particular situations.

That's why i think it's more "rule as intended" than what you gave it credit for(in the original transcript post) to run a game with "invisibility and combat = detected unless" - the rules were built to address that possible scenario as a base, were intended for D&D to work with that playstyle. This does not discount the intention to also leave the matter to a DM to adjudicate, built on top of the previous base, for which they did not give any more than few guidelines to leave to each person sensibility and imagination what is possible or not in each situation. To avoid "dc and such" they do not even give guidelines for objects or hearing distance!

I quite literally mean that it was a design decision, and that's how i think it should be "read" from the podcast, for the rules to be that way. # 2 It's not about the choice of a DM, but the choice WOTC made to make it possible for people to adopt a playstyle. And that is what is being expressed here. That's why i said that #2 is about expectations and not choice. How i expressed myself, looking back is... well.. not even english :D.

It was about assumptions made when designing the system, so that each playstyle, from the fastest to the one that does rely more on each granular situation, could be, one way or another, be represented and enjoyed.

I think that i can't really say that RAI is either one or the other, because it's both at the same time, on top of each other.
I always liked the stealth and hiding rules, even if i think are a little bit too sprinkled across the book.

I'll try to clean up the trascript a bit. It's... horrible, i suppose. :D Edit: Done a bit. It's better, it's still incomplete, it still is full of ramblings, but it should be way clearer.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-12, 11:35 AM

Your answer to every scenario in which someone who is making no attempt to hide is nevertheless hard to see is to say that the person is hiding. That isn't correct or logical.

It is definitional. These scenarios clearly describe people who acted "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered:". If they didn't hide, then they're not hidden, and nothing is preventing them from being seen or discovered.

The guard is only difficult to see because of the distance. If you were 100' from him, you'd see him easily, and a perception check would be inappropriate - he isn't hiding.

He is difficult to see because he is standing still, put on a camouflage outfit, and positioned himself to make that outfit effective.

If a hiding character loses their obscuration, whether because closing distance makes camouflage ineffective, or closing distance gets you within your darkvision radius, or because you activate truesight, the hiding character automatically fails.

Is the cinnamon hiding?

No, it's not a person. There are separate rules for detecting hidden objects.

The point is that there are situations where perception can be used to detect people who are not hiding.

No there aren't. If you can't detect someone, they are hidden. The way you become hidden is by hiding. This is definitional.

The general in the marching army is not hiding.

Nor is he undetected. A casual viewer may not notice that he is a general. But they don't think nobody is there.

Circling back to the main topic, an invisible creature that is not hiding is detected, but the people who detect him don't know his social rank. They just know, "There's an invisible presence humming a song over there."

The guard at the gate is not hiding.

Yes he is. Or else, he is not hidden, and his location is detected.

The orcs behind the thick door are not hiding.

If orcs behind a thick door are not hiding, but are eavesdropping, they are detected by anyone who is perceiving. Loudly slamming your head against the door will do that for you. Going up to a door and covertly placing your ear up to it is hiding. A DM may not bother determining their stealth check if he figures the PCs will not be able to make opposing perception checks, but by definition, yes, they are hiding.

If the orcs are just behind a thick door, not interacting at all, such as I am currently presumably multiple thick doors away from you, and many miles to boot, they simply aren't interacting. That's irrelevant to the topic of invisible creatures.

They are just hard to see (or hear) because of the circumstances.

What you're describing is obscuration, as has its own separate rules.

The second step is to point out that every act of perception is done in the context of some sort of circumstance. The Stealth v Perception check is appropriate in a fairly wide range of those circumstances, but it doesn't make much sense in others, and the information you are able to glean from that check also varies, depending on the check.

Sure. I 100% agree. But this thread is only about a narrow subsection of those checks. Specifically, detecting the location of invisible creatures.

Tanarii

2017-09-12, 12:02 PM

The orcs behind the thick door are not hiding. They are just hard to see (or hear) because of the circumstances. This is a great example. I can't see anyone arguing that it's okay for the DM to set a perception DC to clearly understand the words of a creature through a thick door.

Nor should one argue if the DM decides that under certain circumstances, a DM sets a DC to pinpoint a target so you don't have to guess where they are, as a free action. For example, a long range shot against an enemy that you can't see because they're in an obscured area (fog, darkness), and could be anywhere in it because it fairly large. IMO that's acceptable, and it's definitely within RAW.

As long as the DM is aware that he's also setting a floor for stealth checks if the target were actively attempting to hide. (Detecting a hidden creature would also pinpoint said enemy, I'd assume.)

smcmike

2017-09-12, 12:27 PM

It is definitional. These scenarios clearly describe people who acted "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered:". If they didn't hide, then they're not hidden, and nothing is preventing them from being seen or discovered.

Sure there is. Distance.

He is difficult to see because he is standing still, put on a camouflage outfit, and positioned himself to make that outfit effective.

He just happens to be standing still and his coat just happens to be grey. You are adding the part about positioning himself - this is what I asked you to stop doing, taking other people's hypotheticals and adding details so they fit your outcome. That is not how hypotheticals work. He is not intentionally hiding in the hypothetical.

If a hiding character loses their obscuration, whether because closing distance makes camouflage ineffective, or closing distance gets you within your darkvision radius, or because you activate truesight, the hiding character automatically fails.

You could say the same for a character that is not hiding. That's the point.

Let's say that there is a person sitting in a dark forest, singing. Another person with dark vision approaches, starting from well outside hearing range. At this point, the singer is undetected, but not hiding, right?

At some point, while outside the range of darkvision, the DM may decide that the approacher is close enough to potentially hear the singing, but that he also might not hear it. At this range, a perception check to hear the singer is appropriate. The singer is still not hiding, right? He's singing at the top of his lungs, after all, which is not the sort of thing you do while you are hiding. If it is possible to make such a perception check, it must therefore be possible for a DM to assign a DC to perceive a person, based upon the circumstances rather than a stealth check.

If the approacher passes the check, or when he gets close enough to clearly hear the singing without a check, he will have detected the singer, who remains unseen, but not hiding.

At some point, the singer notices the approacher, and decides to hide himself behind a tree, but continue singing. He is how hiding, and unseen (because he is out of darkvision range - no roll necessary), but detected.

The approacher now walks within darkvision range, and tries to spot the singer. Now, finally, we have a stealth v. perception.

No there aren't. If you can't detect someone, they are hidden. The way you become hidden is by hiding. This is definitional.
.....
If the orcs are just behind a thick door, not interacting at all, such as I am currently presumably multiple thick doors away from you, and many miles to boot, they simply aren't interacting.

I can't detect you, so you are hidden. This is definitional.

Malifice

2017-09-12, 10:08 PM

jill is invisible, but never had the chance to take the hide action. However, for almost an hour she's been standing against a wall, not moving or making noise, observing the people moving around her.

Jill has taken the hide action!

The instant she tells the DM 'I'm standing quietly against the wall, while invisible, and I am not moving or making any noise' the DM tells her she is taking the Hide action persuming actions are important, and she rolls her Stealth vs the Passive perception of nearby creatures.

It's no different to if she told the DM 'I am going to look around and listen cafefully for enemies'. The DM tells her she takes the Search action, and she then rolls her Perception vs Stealth.

Tanarii

2017-09-12, 10:31 PM

Jill has taken the hide action!
Got to agree with this. There's a difference between the perceived possibly not noticing due to the difficulty of something being detected and/or their own attentiveness, and a creature making an effort to be less noticed. And standing quietly and not moving while you're invisible is the very definition of trying to be less noticed. While your not invisible for that matter.

Wait, did I just agree with Malifice about something? I'm on a roll with pigs flying today. :smallbiggrin:

Malifice

2017-09-13, 12:15 AM

Got to agree with this. There's a difference between the perceived possibly not noticing due to the difficulty of something being detected and/or their own attentiveness, and a creature making an effort to be less noticed. And standing quietly and not moving while you're invisible is the very definition of trying to be less noticed. While your not invisible for that matter.

For mine I think the problem really lies with the name of the action [Hide] and the term [Hidden]. 'Hiding' includes moving silently and sneaking about (while unseen).

During a fight, the Rogue player has just been made invisible via greater invisiblity. On his turn tells me (the DM) he wants to move up to a creature 20' away, attack that creature, then sneak off 10' away from that creature. He is not currently hidden from that creature (has yet to take the Hide action).

As a DM I determine he (mechanically):

1) First moves up to the target 20' (the creature is assumed to hear his footsteps on the way in).
2) Uses the attack action to stab the creature (with advantage because he is invisible)
3) Uses a bonus action to 'Hide' (he can do this as he is currently unseen by his target).
4) Silently moves 10' away from the creature, 'hidden' the whole way.

On the creatures turn (it goes next) it has no idea where the Rogue is (as he is hidden). It can choose a square to target (and maybe get lucky) or it can take the [Search] action to try and find the Rogue.

If it is an investigator Rogue itself, or has the Perceptive feat, or enough levels in Ranger, it can attempt to Search for the Rogue as a bonus action, and if succesful it has enough time to attack the rogue as an action.

A Frenzy barbarian could also [search] as an action (and use its bonus action to smack the Rogue if succesful). A Sorcerer could [search] as an action, and then cast a quickened spell on the Rogue as a bonus action. A Fighter could Action surge [search] action for the rogue with the first action, and if succesful, [attack] the rogue with his second action.

Wait, did I just agree with Malifice about something? I'm on a roll with pigs flying today. :smallbiggrin:

Its RAW that the game makes no mention of unseen creatures becoming 'auto-hidden'. The rules are clear that a creature that is unseen can always try to Hide however. The rules are also clear that the creature may not be succesful, and signs of its passage might still be noticed (dependent on how good it is at hiding, and how perceptive nearby creatrures are). Crawford stated as much in the podcast that this is also RAI.

And hiding in 5E is resolved via the Hide action. Attacking is done with the Attack action (and reactions via special abilities and attacks of opportunities that expressly allow it). Casting a spell is done via the Cast a spell action. Searching is done via the Search action. And so forth.

There are corner cases when this general rule is not applicable and the DM steps in (the RAW says as much, and this was also confirmed by the RAI with Crawford in the podcast). The DM determines when you can or cannot hide, and determines corner cases (such as an invisible pixie standing in a zone of magical silence 500' away).

This is surely beyond debate now. Its as settled as settled can be.

RSP

2017-09-13, 01:38 AM

Jill has taken the hide action!

The instant she tells the DM 'I'm standing quietly against the wall, while invisible, and I am not moving or making any noise' the DM tells her she is taking the Hide action persuming actions are important, and she rolls her Stealth vs the Passive perception of nearby creatures.

It's no different to if she told the DM 'I am going to look around and listen cafefully for enemies'. The DM tells her she takes the Search action, and she then rolls her Perception vs Stealth.

Got to agree with this. There's a difference between the perceived possibly not noticing due to the difficulty of something being detected and/or their own attentiveness, and a creature making an effort to be less noticed. And standing quietly and not moving while you're invisible is the very definition of trying to be less noticed. While your not invisible for that matter.

I think you both missed the second part of that post. Here it is:

"Now why doesn't Jill just take the Hide Action? Because she's controlling an illusion created by Mislead, and as such, every Action since she cast the spell has been used to control the illusion (and she didn't multiclassing Rogue for Cunning Action)."

Jill couldn't have taken the Hide Action due to using her Action continuously to control an illusion. As she can't Bonus Action Hide, it's impossible for her to have taken the Hide Action and control her illusion, and she chose the illusion.

I agree the DM can determine she's hidden, but its not because she took the Hide Action.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-13, 01:40 AM

Sure there is. Distance.

If distance, combined with clothing style and location are making you undetected, then you are hidden, and got that way by hiding.

He just happens to be standing still and his coat just happens to be grey. You are adding the part about positioning himself - this is what I asked you to stop doing, taking other people's hypotheticals and adding details so they fit your outcome. That is not how hypotheticals work. He is not intentionally hiding in the hypothetical.

Intention is irrelevant.

If he didn't put on the coat and stand still in front of the wall, who put the coat on him and stood him there? That person would then have hid him.

You could say the same for a character that is not hiding. That's the point.

That the not-hiding character automatically fails? What.

Let's say that there is a person sitting in a dark forest, singing. Another person with dark vision approaches, starting from well outside hearing range. At this point, the singer is undetected, but not hiding, right?

In the same way that people on the other side of the world are undetected, and also don't need to roll for initiative when a combat breaks out. At this point, he just doesn't matter. He's not in the scene.

At some point, while outside the range of darkvision, the DM may decide that the approacher is close enough to potentially hear the singing, but that he also might not hear it. At this range, a perception check to hear the singer is appropriate. The singer is still not hiding, right? He's singing at the top of his lungs, after all, which is not the sort of thing you do while you are hiding. If it is possible to make such a perception check, it must therefore be possible for a DM to assign a DC to perceive a person, based upon the circumstances rather than a stealth check.

It is possible for a DM to call for any check they want.

That is not written procedure. The rules do not tell you to do that. Senses other than darkvision don't have even half-ranges, and dark vision has only a very clunky border. It's clunky, you can make up ways to increase verisimilitude, but the RAW is simple and sufficient.

If the approacher passes the check, or when he gets close enough to clearly hear the singing without a check, he will have detected the singer, who remains unseen, but not hiding.

Yes.

At some point, the singer notices the approacher, and decides to hide himself behind a tree, but continue singing. He is how hiding, and unseen (because he is out of darkvision range - no roll necessary), but detected.

First off, whenever you hide, you need to make a roll.

Second, as soon as he makes noise, he gives away his position, and stops being hidden. "if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position."

The approacher now walks within darkvision range, and tries to spot the singer. Now, finally, we have a stealth v. perception.

No, there's no check. "When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence." The singer was discovered. The approacher doesn't need to roll perception.

I can't detect you, so you are hidden. This is definitional.

Sure. Or whatever you want to call what they're doing. It just doesn't matter if they're not interacting. It's arguably less relevant than the cinnamon in a cookie.

If they are interacting in any way, such as by eavesdropping, or trying to cast a spell that works without LoS, or readying an ambush, then yes, they're totally either hiding or detected.

RSP

2017-09-13, 01:45 AM

Its RAW that the game makes no mention of unseen creatures becoming 'auto-hidden'.

Except the whole RAW: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

Edit: in case people are unaware, this rule was added as part of one of the erratas, so some with earlier editions of the PHB may not be familiar with it.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 01:52 AM

I think you both missed the second part of that post. Here it is:

"Now why doesn't Jill just take the Hide Action? Because she's controlling an illusion created by Mislead, and as such, every Action since she cast the spell has been used to control the illusion (and she didn't multiclassing Rogue for Cunning Action)."

In that case Jill is making noise. She's moving about, muttering arcane words to herself quietly, and moving her hands around like a puppetteer, magically controlling the illusion (if it takes an action to control the illusion, she cant use other actions including Dodge, Search, Disengage, Attack etc - she's obviously very preocupied controlling the illusion, which takes up much of her time and concentration, and likely involves convoluted movement and sound).

She doesnt have the time to Hide. and its rendered impossible on account of her controlling a magical illusion (for whatever narrative reason the DM wishes to impose). She could (if she choose) drop the spell and instead remain totally still and quiet (take the Hide action) but she has choosen not to.

She hasnt taken the Hide action. At no stage has she 'remained quiet and still, and ceased moving'. She in fact has instead been using her action to do something totally different. For an hour.

She could have taken the Hide action simply by not moving the Illusion for 1 round (and using her action that round to Hide), and then gone back to controlling it in subsequent rounds. She has choosen not to.

Get it yet?

Malifice

2017-09-13, 01:57 AM

Except the whole RAW: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

Which is exactly what I said above.

Its RAW that the game makes no mention of unseen creatures becoming 'auto-hidden'. The rules are clear that a creature that is unseen can always try to Hide however. The rules are also clear that the creature may not be succesful, and signs of its passage might still be noticed (dependent on how good it is at hiding, and how perceptive nearby creatrures are). Crawford stated as much in the podcast that this is also RAI.

And hiding in 5E is resolved via the Hide action. Attacking is done with the Attack action (and reactions via special abilities and attacks of opportunities that expressly allow it). Casting a spell is done via the Cast a spell action. Searching is done via the Search action. And so forth.

There are corner cases when this general rule is not applicable and the DM steps in (the RAW says as much, and this was also confirmed by the RAI with Crawford in the podcast). The DM determines when you can or cannot hide, and determines corner cases (such as an invisible pixie standing in a zone of magical silence 500' away).

The general rule is that as Jill has not yet taken the Hide action (has not taken any time to be quiet, still herself, and stop moving) she is not yet hidden.

She's had plenty of opportunity to do so (over an hour's worth of actions).

The reality of the situation is that she wouldnt be in combat for 1 hour. The DM would assume that during the 1 hour she was mucking about with the Mislead illusion, she (at some point) tried to be quiet, still herself, and conceal her location [took the Hide action].

Thats what she said she was doing wasnt it?

BurgerBeast

2017-09-13, 03:52 AM

The post where I said I wasn't talking to you anymore because you're stubbornly not listening to anything I'm saying, and I don't want to waste my time with you anymore.

You said you were done with me in Post 53. You then replied to me in post 75.

Also, for someone who is supposedly not listening to you, I have articulated your argument to your confirmed satisfaction. You have never articulated my argument, so far as I remember.

@ThePolarBear: So, I think I see what you’re saying. You’re saying that, once combat starts, even if the warlock was invisible, the very event of combat starting causes the warlock to become visible by RAW.

I do not think this is correct. If the warlock is invisible, he is not auto-detected, so there is no mechanism by which the DM could justifiably move into “combat mode” and invoke Combat Step By Step (PHB 189).

If the warlock’s allies are detected and the DM decides to enter combat mode, I think he would be wrong to forcibly nsist that the warlock is now in-combat, and therefore auto-detected. After all, the warlock still has the choice to remian hidden and not participate in the combat. I see no RAW reason to deprive him of this opportunity/autonomy.

However, Jill is doing the exact same thing as Jack for nearly an hour, but never took the Hide Action. She still could be hiding though. Why? Because, "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

The DM, RAW decides when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding. This does not imply that the DM can force Jill to hide. He decides if the possibility exists and what the probability of success is, but he RAW can’t take control of the character without some other justification.

If the DM decides what Jill is doing equals their personal determination of what is required to be hiding, then they're hiding, per RAW (again pg 177 of the PHB for the quoted rule).

I disagree with this. Which part, exactly. (In fact, on re-reding the side-bar, Malifice’s argument is all but destroyed by its content. The case is stronger than I thought.)

Now why doesn't Jill just take the Hide Action? Because she's controlling an illusion created by Mislead, and as such, every Action since she cast the spell has been used to control the illusion (and she didn't multiclassing Rogue for Cunning Action).

This presents major problems for Malifice. Malifice’s whole argument for why an invisible creature is auto-detected while in combat is precisely because, according to him, an invisible creature is not hidden unless it takes the hide action. By this logic, Jill cannot be hidden unless she takes the hide action. However, if she is using her action to do something else, she cannot take the hide action, so she cannot hide.

Hope that helps clear up some confusion.

You and I disagree on what it means to be hidden, which discuss alter in this post.

The guard put on a uniform he knew blended into the walls, and then stood in such a way as to make that blending obscure him, and not create sufficient movement to draw attention. That's hiding. "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered" (Dictionary.com).

You hve added in details about the guard’s state of mind which were not part of the original example. If the guard does not know that his clothes blend in, and is not only coinceidentally standing in a way that obscures him, would you still say he is hiding?

In the cat example, at least in my real-life experience, what's happening is that (1) the cat actually is hiding. I'm pretty sure most animals, but cats especially, take some measures to reduce their visibility to potential predators before falling asleep. (2) I'm not perceiving. I'm engaged in "Other Activities" as described in page 188 of the PhB.

I totally disagree with this. I’m planning to discuss it in more detail below. I hope I get there.

It is certainly within the GM's prerogative to declare her hidden, but without having actually taken the Hide action, I'm pretty sure by RAW there would still be signs like footprints, dirt clouds, the sounds of her feet shuffling and her breathing that can be used to detect her and determine her approximate location without a GM ruling otherwise.

I disagree that the DM can declare her hidden. The DM can declare her unnoticed. To my mind this is not semantic. There is a relevant difference.

Whether someone is hidden is determined by whether they actively attempted to hide. It is totally independent of how visible they are. A young child can hide, and be ridiculously easy to notice. But the child is still hidden. He’s just very poorly hidden. It’s entirely possible to have a hidden creature that is DC 6 to spot. The creature is hidden. It’s just poorly hidden.

On the other hand, there is a fork in the drawer in my kitchen. It is not hidden. However, anyone standing in my living room cannot possibly notice it. It’s just impossible to notice.

I could literally hide that fork from my wife by placing it in plain view on the sofa. If I asked her to fetch the fork, she would go looking in the drawer and it would not be there. She’d have to perform a relatively easy search to find that fork. It might legitimately take her a few minutes to find it though.

* Actualy, I’m undecided on whether this boils down to semantics. This is probably worth discussing more.

Those are all ways to detect a hidden character (whether from taking the Hide Action or from DM decision). The RAW is that a DM can decide someone has met the criteria to be hidden, regardless of whether a character takes the Hide Action.

Edit: whether someone detects those things, regardless of how the character became hidden, is what Perveption is for.

The DM can determine that something is unseen and unheard. But this is not the criteria for being hidden. This sentence: “If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.” (PHB 195) does not mean:
Hidden = unseen + unheard
It means this: hidden -> unseen AND hidden -> unheard

So, while it is true that a DM can rule that a PC is both unseen and unheard, this does not necessarily mean that he can rule a PC is hidden. A PC is under the control of a player, and therefore only the player can make decisions about the mindset of the PC. Hiding is a matter of intent, and therefore the DM cannot override in this way.

No, man, the guard is not hiding. He just happens to own a gray coat. Stop saying that people are hiding. The cat isn't hiding either. My cat sleeps all over the place.

This point is not being granted the weight it deserves. I’ll try to re-state it in different terms, below.

And the hide skill is, in part, attempts to diminish the effects of those ways to detect you. Making no effort (ie by not attempting to hide) means that they are fully obvious and can be detected with minimal effort unless the would-be detector has some circumstantial handicap. An auto-success on perception, if you prefer it phrased that way.

This is directly contradicted by the RAW given on p. 178, which states “Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.” Your check lets you do it. Therefore it is not automatic. Factors such as distance from the viewer, size of the target, and environment, all may come into play.

Yes, you were talking about something hidden. If you cannot perceive something, it is hidden.
This is false. It’s worth discussing, I think.

Once the DM determines a character has met the criteria for being hidden, then they're hidden just like any other character.
I think it’s worth pointing out that, one of the criteria for being hidden is that you made an effort to hide. In the case of PCs, only the player can supply this. The DM cannot.

Also, the Hide Action doesn't remove footprints or stop you from breathing: those things are still in existence. A character may try to mitigate how noticible these things are but it's not like a hidden character is carrying a broom and sweeping behind them as they traverse an area.
It’s also worth pointing out that you can notice the footprints but still not have any idea if the creature who made them is anywhere near you, since those footprints could be days old. Noticing footprints does not allow you to auto-detect anyone. A creature can remian hidden despite its footprints being discovered. (This is true even if you consider “presence known” to mean not hidden, because, as I pointed out, the presence of the footprints do not guarantee that the creature is present.)

The take away is: being hidden is being hidden and the DM, RAW, can decide someone is hidden.
I agree that the DM can do this for any creature except a PC, unless the player has made the PC’s intention to hide known.

It is definitional. These scenarios clearly describe people who acted "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered:". If they didn't hide, then they're not hidden, and nothing is preventing them from being seen or discovered.
No, they do not clearly describe people who acted to conceal (themselves) from sight. They do not necessarily provide the intent at all. And that is the point. Hiding implies intent. A guard who acts with the exact opposite intent – to be seen – may still go unnoticed due to circumstance.
Real life scenarios exist in which people go unnoticed despite trying to be seen. Imagine telephoning a friend, who is at the same concert as you, and telling describing where they look to see you waving. Your friend does not automatically see you, despite your attempts to make yourself seen. In some cases, your friend may even fail, after tens of minutes, or more, to ever see you.

He is difficult to see because he is standing still, put on a camouflage outfit, and positioned himself to make that outfit effective.
By adding he word “effective,” you’re alluding to an intent that is not present in the example. It’s your invention. The outfit blends with the background. It makes him more difficult to see. But it cannot be effective unless it is intended toward a goal.

If a hiding character loses their obscuration, whether because closing distance makes camouflage ineffective, or closing distance gets you within your darkvision radius, or because you activate truesight, the hiding character automatically fails.
This is (1) false by RAW, (2) contradicted by RAW, and (3) simulates in a way that is counter to reality.

No, it's not a person. There are separate rules for detecting hidden objects.
False. The rules for described under Perception on page 178 are for detecting objects and creatures. It is true that creatures can use the Dexterity (Stealth) skill and use the hide action, but this is a separate point.

No there aren't. If you can't detect someone, they are hidden. The way you become hidden is by hiding. This is definitional.
False. See page 178 and see the comments above (and maybe below) about intent.

Nor is he undetected. A casual viewer may not notice that he is a general. But they don't think nobody is there.
He may go undetected. That’s the point. An observer watching the army will, generally, be able to identify the army at a distance from which they cannot identify the general; likewise they will be generally be able to identify the general before they can confirm the presence of Gulthag, one of the soldiers in the army who may or not be one of the 500 men. Also note that Gulthag is technically visible and “seen” (in the field of view but unrecognized) from the moment they see the army.

Yes he is. Or else, he is not hidden, and his location is detected.
False by RAW. False by RAI. False by common sense.

If the orcs are just behind a thick door, not interacting at all, such as I am currently presumably multiple thick doors away from you, and many miles to boot, they simply aren't interacting.
If the orcs are playing poker, they may or may not be heard. They are not hiding but they may not be heard. Clling for a Wisdom (Perception) check to determine whether they are heard is RAW.

If the orcs are just behind a thick door, not interacting at all, such as I am currently presumably multiple thick doors away from you, and many miles to boot, they simply aren't interacting. That's irrelevant to the topic of invisible creatures.
The point is that the DM uses a Wisdom (Perception) check to determine whether they are interacting. If they are so far away that they cannot be heard, then they are automatically not detected (despite not hiding). If they are within reaosnable hearing range, the DM can use a Wisdom (Perception) check to determine if they are heard and therefore detected and therefore an interaction can begin if the PCs so choose. If the PCs do not hear them but stumble upon them by opening the door, then they are auto-detected and interaction ensues.

What you're describing is obscuration, as has its own separate rules.
No, he’s not. He’s describing somehting in plain view that still may go undetected. If you are walking down a street, and within ten feet of you, a spider is eating a fly in its web, you might not notice. If, in a game of D&D, the DM knows that a spider is within ten feet of a PC, and knows that this may or may not be noticed, and detemrines that the spider is in plain view, but cannot possibly account for the exact direction the PC happens to be looking at any given time, then how does the DM decide whether the PC notices the spider? Answer: a Wisdom (Perception) check. The result is that some PCs will notice the spider and others will not.

Sure. I 100% agree. But this thread is only about a narrow subsection of those checks. Specifically, detecting the location of invisible creatures.
And it it turns out that a visible creature is not auto-detected, then it stands to reason that the exact same creature, under the exact same circumstances, would not be auto-detected were he invisible. And it turn out this is a rather easy thing to prove. Its written into the RAW.

Nor should one argue if the DM decides that under certain circumstances, a DM sets a DC to pinpoint a target so you don't have to guess where they are, as a free action. For example, a long range shot against an enemy that you can't see because they're in an obscured area (fog, darkness), and could be anywhere in it because it fairly large. IMO that's acceptable, and it's definitely within RAW.
Malifice and MinotaurWarrior cannot grant this or they lose the argument. The enemy in the fog is auto-detected.

Jill has taken the hide action!
The instant she tells the DM 'I'm standing quietly against the wall, while invisible, and I am not moving or making any noise' the DM tells her she is taking the Hide action persuming actions are important, and she rolls her Stealth vs the Passive perception of nearby creatures.
It's no different to if she told the DM 'I am going to look around and listen cafefully for enemies'. The DM tells her she takes the Search action, and she then rolls her Perception vs Stealth.
Got to agree with this. There's a difference between the perceived possibly not noticing due to the difficulty of something being detected and/or their own attentiveness, and a creature making an effort to be less noticed. And standing quietly and not moving while you're invisible is the very definition of trying to be less noticed. While your not invisible for that matter.
Wait, did I just agree with Malifice about something? I'm on a roll with pigs flying today. :smallbiggrin:
That’s because Malifice changes the example to a situation in which the PC describes this behaviour to the DM, and he has subtly tried to make it appear that the DM can reasonably assume this is hiding. But that is not a necessary part of the example.
In the example, Jill never took the hide action (in the example she explicitly never had the chance), and Malifice is the one who adamantly insists that no one can hide unless they take the hide action. This is his entire reason for justifying that invisible people are automatically seen.
Hiding requires intent. If you are going to say that every person who is quiet and unseen is “hidden” by definition, despite the person making no attempt to hide, then you might as well say that every person who is moving in water is “swimming” despite making no attempt to swim; or that every person who is humming a tune is “performing,” despite not trying to perform; or every person who speaks a mistruth is “deceiving” despite actually tinking he’s speaking the truth.
Intention matters. This is obvious. These claims are ridiculous.
Likewise, no one (not Malifice, and not the DM) gets to use enviromental factors to overrule the player and make declarations about a PC’s state of mind. If an action counts as hiding, it’s because the person is attempting to hide, not because the environment forces him to hide.
You can stand there silently in an attempt to be unnoticed (see the Jurassic park clip), which would be hiding. You can stand there silently because you’re thinking about a movie while at a bus stop, which would not be hiding.
You can climb into a dumpster in the hopes that street thugs lose your trail, which would be hiding. You can climb into a dumpster because you’re homeless and want a warm place to sleep, which would not be hiding.
A child can hide behind a couch, with half her body sticking out in plain sight. She is hiding despite being visible to everyone in the room. A child can wander into the toy section at Wal-Mart because she wants to look at toys, so that her mother loses track of where she is. She’s lost but not hidden.

Intention is irrelevant.
You could not be more wrong.
“Stabbed” is a word that does not imply intent.
“Attacked” is a word that does imply intent.
If I am holding a kitchen knife, get startled and turn around, and accidentally stab my wife, then I have undeniably stabbed her. But I haven’t attacked her. This is a relevant difference.
“Unseen” is a word that doesn’t imply intent.
“Hidden” implies intent.
If Malifice can say that the guard is hidden whether he means it or not, then he can also say that I attacked my wife, since I stabbed her.
We can play this game into the ends of absurdity:
Example: If you leave a surface and arrive at a different location on a surface, then you have jumped. That’s what “jump” means. Therefore, when Joe fell off the top of the roof, by definition he jumped. The DM must call for a Strength (Athletics) check.
Example: If you move in the water, you are swimming. That’s what swimming means. Therefore, when Sally got carried downstream by the cureent, she was swimming, by defintion. The DM must all for a Strength (Athletics) check.
Example: If you tackle someone, then by defintion you are attackig them. Therefore, when Mr. Adams tackled Mrs. Blaine, knocking her out of the way of an oncoming car, he attacked her, by defintion.
Nobody buys this B.S.
Hiding is what someone does when they try to not be seen. Intention is all that is relevant. Outcome is not relevant at all. You’ve got it precisely backward.

Its RAW that the game makes no mention of unseen creatures becoming 'auto-hidden'.
1. Nobody has ever claimed that being invisible makes you auto-hidden. You really have no idea what my argument is.
2. It is impossible for it do be RAW that the rules make no mention of X. It’s RAW, not RANW.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 04:01 AM

Long rambling post that makes no sense and contradicts itself

Yeah nah.

Rules are rules bro.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-13, 04:28 AM

Yeah nah.

Rules are rules bro.

And words have meanings. Hiding requires intent.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 04:48 AM

Hiding requires intent.

Source for this?

Unoriginal

2017-09-13, 04:54 AM

And words have meanings. Hiding requires intent.

So you agree that Jill needs to take the Hide action to be hidden in combat, and cannot take the Hide action while casting her illusion?

Or that an invisible person needs to actively use Dex (Stealth) to hide, even if unseen due to said invisibility?

smcmike

2017-09-13, 06:06 AM

If distance, combined with clothing style and location are making you undetected, then you are hidden, and got that way by hiding.

Intention is irrelevant.

Intention is irrelevant for the Perception roll. It is quite relevant for the Hide roll. If a character is not trying to hide, how can their skill at hiding have any bearing whatsoever on someone's perception check? The rules indicate that stealth checks are used when a character tries to go unnoticed, so you are well outside the rules to argue otherwise (PHB/177).

If he didn't put on the coat and stand still in front of the wall, who put the coat on him and stood him there? That person would then have hid him.

His wife made him the coat. She thinks he looks very handsome in it. His boss told him to stand there. He doesn't much like the coat, because it doesn't really pop against the rocks like he'd like it to, but Bob the Guard is kind of an intimidating fellow, and it wouldn't be smart to badmouth a present from his wife.

No one intended for him to be hidden.

It is possible for a DM to call for any check they want.

That is not written procedure. The rules do not tell you to do that. Senses other than darkvision don't have even half-ranges, and dark vision has only a very clunky border. It's clunky, you can make up ways to increase verisimilitude, but the RAW is simple and sufficient.

As far as I know, other than vision in the dark, senses aren't given ranges at all. There is no rule on "hearing range." There is, however, an ability check that is used to "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." As with all of the ability checks, the circumstances and the difficulty of this check is left up to the DM. This is the rule on perception. You don't even need to refer to the rule on stealth, because no one in this scenario is using this skill.

First off, whenever you hide, you need to make a roll.

Second, as soon as he makes noise, he gives away his position, and stops being hidden. "if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position."

You're right, I used the wrong language here. I meant to say that the hiding, singing Bard is unseen while the approacher is outside of darkvision range. No need for a roll. I agree that he is detected - he's using his stealth roll to remain unseen, not unheard, but it isn't necessary at this point.

No, there's no check. "When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence." The singer was discovered. The approacher doesn't need to roll perception.

The perceiver hears the singer, but wants to see him as well, without moving any closer. How is this resolved without a stealth/perception check? Assume for this hypothetical that the circumstances make this a relevant question - if you need mechanical backing, he is a wood elf in light foliage.

If they are interacting in any way, such as by eavesdropping, or trying to cast a spell that works without LoS, or readying an ambush, then yes, they're totally either hiding or detected.

The way you refer to eavesdropping indicates that you may not understand my orcs-behind-a-door scenario. In this scenario, the party is being stealthy and eavesdropping. The orcs are doing whatever orcs do behind closed doors, and are not attempting to be stealthy. The perception roll I'm interested in is the characters' attempt to glean information about the non-stealthy orcs.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that 5e, in general, is not designed as a symmetrical system. In the published adventures, out of combat perception is very often given a flat DC, rather than a stealth check. For example, in CoS, a group of scouts is detected with a passive perception of 16 or higher, while an NPC with Greater Invisibility initiates an encounter by tapping a character on the shoulder - no roll mentioned. It's true that these characters are trying to be stealthy, but interesting nonetheless.

Unoriginal

2017-09-13, 06:45 AM

At some point, the singer notices the approacher, and decides to hide himself behind a tree, but continue singing. He is how hiding, and unseen (because he is out of darkvision range - no roll necessary), but detected.

The approacher now walks within darkvision range, and tries to spot the singer. Now, finally, we have a stealth v. perception.

Actually, no:

You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.

If the singer keeps singing, and the approacher can hear, the singer's position is known. No Dex (Stealth) check vs Wis (Perception).

smcmike

2017-09-13, 06:49 AM

Actually, no:

If the singer keeps singing, and the approacher can hear, the singer's position is known. No Dex (Stealth) check vs Wis (Perception).

You're right about the position. But what if the approacher wants to SEE the Bard.

Unoriginal

2017-09-13, 07:05 AM

You're right about the position. But what if the approacher wants to SEE the Bard.

The approacher would be able to see where the Bard stands as soon as they are at a distance and angle where it is possible for them to do so. The approacher might have troubles distinguishing the Bard's appearance, but not enough to count as unseen.

If the Bard moved to stay out of the approacher's field of vision (ex: walking behind thick bushes or outside of the darkvision's range), then they would remain unseen, but the approacher would still know where they are.

djreynolds

2017-09-13, 07:34 AM

Glorthindel

2017-09-13, 07:55 AM

And words have meanings. Hiding requires intent.

To be fair, anyone explicitly claiming they can't be detected through some convoluted series of "coincidence" in order to become both silent and unseen, but also while explicitly not taking the Hide action has failed under this statement. If you have put the effort into contriving such a situation, and care enough to argue the point, then clearly your intention is to be hidden.

All this really boils down to is an attempt to claim the benefits of a successful hide test without actually being forced to roll the dice (and potentially fail). That wont generally fly with any GM paying attension.

Keltest

2017-09-13, 08:03 AM

I'm unsure how this helps the arguments.

But bear with me, I'm dumb about hiding.

I'm in a party, and the ranger cast pass without a trace on me. +10 stealth "checks" right?

Do I need to be actively hiding to get that +10 stealth bonus?

Or even if I'm doing jumping jacks, do I still retain this bonus to stealth?

You retain the bonus, but since you aren't doing anything that would actually call for a check from any side, it doesn't really help you much. If you think somebody is trying to track you by non-magical means its kind of nice, but that's explicitly a separate effect from the bonus to stealth checks.

Unoriginal

2017-09-13, 08:04 AM

I'm unsure how this helps the arguments.

But bear with me, I'm dumb about hiding.

I'm in a party, and the ranger cast pass without a trace on me. +10 stealth "checks" right?

Do I need to be actively hiding to get that +10 stealth bonus?

Or even if I'm doing jumping jacks, do I still retain this bonus to stealth?

You need to be actively trying to be stealthy.

It applies to everything the DM says deserve a Dex(Stealth) check, including hiding your presence.

EDIT:

Like Keltest said, you retain the bonus, you're just not using it.

It's like asking "If the Bard cast a spell to give me +10 to Cha (Diplomacy) checks, do I have to be diplomatic or does it work even if I'm insulting the king's whole family to his face?"

Keltest

2017-09-13, 08:27 AM

I disagree that the DM can declare her hidden. The DM can declare her unnoticed. To my mind this is not semantic. There is a relevant difference.

Whether someone is hidden is determined by whether they actively attempted to hide. It is totally independent of how visible they are. A young child can hide, and be ridiculously easy to notice. But the child is still hidden. He’s just very poorly hidden. It’s entirely possible to have a hidden creature that is DC 6 to spot. The creature is hidden. It’s just poorly hidden.

On the other hand, there is a fork in the drawer in my kitchen. It is not hidden. However, anyone standing in my living room cannot possibly notice it. It’s just impossible to notice.

I could literally hide that fork from my wife by placing it in plain view on the sofa. If I asked her to fetch the fork, she would go looking in the drawer and it would not be there. She’d have to perform a relatively easy search to find that fork. It might legitimately take her a few minutes to find it though.

* Actualy, I’m undecided on whether this boils down to semantics. This is probably worth discussing more.

Lets say undetected instead of unnoticed, to keep our terms consistent. There may be a semantic difference between those two, but for practical purposes they mean the same thing in the game.

Anyway, the DM can call for checks whenever they like (or just straight up declare things like being Undetected), even if the rules don't normally allow people to do that. But when they do that, its a deviation from the RAW, even if not the RAI.

This is directly contradicted by the RAW given on p. 178, which states “Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.” Your check lets you do it. Therefore it is not automatic. Factors such as distance from the viewer, size of the target, and environment, all may come into play.

A good rule of thumb is that for situations where failure or success is simply not possible, you don't call for a check at all and just narrate the success/failure. I want to say that's an actual recommendation in one of the books, but I don't know off hand where it would be.

If your argument is that it wont always be automatic, yeah, sure, but that's for the DM to decide any circumstantial bonuses or penalties, and not exactly helpful in a RAW discussion unless there are specific modifiers based on distance, ambient noise level, etc...

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-13, 08:30 AM

And words have meanings. Hiding requires intent.

No it doesn't.

verb (used with object), hid, hidden or hid, hiding.
1.
to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered:
Where did she hide her jewels?
2.
to obstruct the view of; cover up:
The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3.
to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret:
to hide one's feelings.

Intention is irrelevant for the Perception roll. It is quite relevant for the Hide roll. If a character is not trying to hide, how can their skill at hiding have any bearing whatsoever on someone's perception check? The rules indicate that stealth checks are used when a character tries to go unnoticed, so you are well outside the rules to argue otherwise (PHB/177).

They are trying to hide. They are not guaranteed to hide. If they were not trying to hide, they wouldn't take actions that can result in hiding.

His wife made him the coat. She thinks he looks very handsome in it. His boss told him to stand there. He doesn't much like the coat, because it doesn't really pop against the rocks like he'd like it to, but Bob the Guard is kind of an intimidating fellow, and it wouldn't be smart to badmouth a present from his wife.

No one intended for him to be hidden.

My Dex 8 Fighter in Plate Armor has a fear of being in the middle of things, and so he always sticks to the walls. He also loves matching the decor, because of a sense of style ingrained in him by his mother, so he swaps out different cloth coverings to match the color and pattern of the walls, not because he wants to hide, but because he loves his mom. This incidentally makes him very hard to see. The DC to notice me shouldn't be the result of an ability check made with disadvantage -1. It should be at least 10.

That's what you're doing.

As far as I know, other than vision in the dark, senses aren't given ranges at all. There is no rule on "hearing range." There is, however, an ability check that is used to "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." As with all of the ability checks, the circumstances and the difficulty of this check is left up to the DM. This is the rule on perception. You don't even need to refer to the rule on stealth, because no one in this scenario is using this skill.

I have been crystal clear in my support that this is up to the DM. A DM can call upon any check they want to. I'll even say that DM improvisation of checks often makes the game better. But it isn't necessary to handle the situation of invisible creatures.

AsYou're right, I used the wrong language here. I meant to say that the hiding, singing Bard is unseen while the approacher is outside of darkvision range. No need for a roll. I agree that he is detected - he's using his stealth roll to remain unseen, not unheard, but it isn't necessary at this point.

There's no such thing defined in the rules as using stealth to be unseen. In fact, the rules require that you already be unseen to make the one well-defined stealth check. You use stealth to hide. He isn't hidden, he's detected (automatically), and his being unseen doesn't matter. RAW, the approacher can now attack the hider if he has some means of doing so, but has disadvantage on any involved attack rolls, and there's no check he can make to somehow see through the tree.

Circling back, this is the whole point. There's absolutely no way for a creature without extra senses to see an invisible creature.

The perceiver hears the singer, but wants to see him as well, without moving any closer. How is this resolved without a stealth/perception check? Assume for this hypothetical that the circumstances make this a relevant question - if you need mechanical backing, he is a wood elf in light foliage.

In that case, he just sees him. The wood elf gave away his location, and doesn't have a special rule saying that light foliage makes him unseen. He just has a special rule allowing him to try to hide in it.

The way you refer to eavesdropping indicates that you may not understand my orcs-behind-a-door scenario. In this scenario, the party is being stealthy and eavesdropping. The orcs are doing whatever orcs do behind closed doors, and are not attempting to be stealthy. The perception roll I'm interested in is the characters' attempt to glean information about the non-stealthy orcs.

What information? That they're there? If the orcs aren't hiding then the PCs have that info. Open door, roll for initiative, nobody is surprised. p189, pretty uncontroversial, we've all done this a hundred times.

If the information is some thing, like hearing their conversation, then yes, the rules tell you to make a perception check.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that 5e, in general, is not designed as a symmetrical system. In the published adventures, out of combat perception is very often given a flat DC, rather than a stealth check. For example, in CoS, a group of scouts is detected with a passive perception of 16 or higher, while an NPC with Greater Invisibility initiates an encounter by tapping a character on the shoulder - no roll mentioned. It's true that these characters are trying to be stealthy, but interesting nonetheless.

Again, DMs and adventure writers can do whatever they want.

RSP

2017-09-13, 08:30 AM

In that case Jill is making noise. She's moving about, muttering arcane words to herself quietly, and moving her hands around like a puppetteer, magically controlling the illusion (if it takes an action to control the illusion, she cant use other actions including Dodge, Search, Disengage, Attack etc - she's obviously very preocupied controlling the illusion, which takes up much of her time and concentration, and likely involves convoluted movement and sound).

No. You completely made that up with zero reference to the rules. Nowhere does it state you must move your hands around like a puppeteer or mutter arcane words. She can absolutely stand still and be quiet while using her Action on the illusion.

If Jill took one round before casting Mislead to Hide, then she'd still be hidden the entire time while directing the illusion. The rules for maintaining the illusion don't change whether you've taken the Hide Action (or to suit Malifices' argument).

However, your makeshift "it must be she's moving and mumbling" to try and save your theory would mean anyone who's using their Action to control an illusion automatically breaks stealth, which isn't stated anywhere in the rules at all.

She doesnt have the time to Hide. and its rendered impossible on account of her controlling a magical illusion (for whatever narrative reason the DM wishes to impose). She could (if she choose) drop the spell and instead remain totally still and quiet (take the Hide action) but she has choosen not to.

She doesn't have the Action to Hide. That's different than her making noise.

She hasnt taken the Hide action. At no stage has she 'remained quiet and still, and ceased moving'. She in fact has instead been using her action to do something totally different. For an hour.

She could have taken the Hide action simply by not moving the Illusion for 1 round (and using her action that round to Hide), and then gone back to controlling it in subsequent rounds. She has choosen not to.

Get it yet?

For an hour she's remained quiet and still and ceased moving and used her Action for something else. The fact she used her Action for something else does not mean she also has to mutter something or clap her hands: those are addition things she could be doing, but she chose not to.

Again, if it was impossible to stay hidden while controlling an illusion, that would be stated in the rules. Do you rule Mislead is played as "DM: okay, Jill, you cast Mislead. Everyone else, you all see Jill standing there but also you know Jill is Invisible standing there...?"

Keltest

2017-09-13, 08:56 AM

No. You completely made that up with zero reference to the rules. Nowhere does it state you must move your hands around like a puppeteer or mutter arcane words. She can absolutely stand still and be quiet while using her Action on the illusion.

If Jill took one round before casting Mislead to Hide, then she'd still be hidden the entire time while directing the illusion. The rules for maintaining the illusion don't change whether you've taken the Hide Action (or to suit Malifices' argument).

However, your makeshift "it must be she's moving and mumbling" to try and save your theory would mean anyone who's using their Action to control an illusion automatically breaks stealth, which isn't stated anywhere in the rules at all.

She doesn't have the Action to Hide. That's different than her making noise.

For an hour she's remained quiet and still and ceased moving and used her Action for something else. The fact she used her Action for something else does not mean she also has to mutter something or clap her hands: those are addition things she could be doing, but she chose not to.

Again, if it was impossible to stay hidden while controlling an illusion, that would be stated in the rules. Do you rule Mislead is played as "DM: okay, Jill, you cast Mislead. Everyone else, you all see Jill standing there but also you know Jill is Invisible standing there...?"

This reads like an exceptionally complex way of saying "I'm Hiding without actually having to make the check for it." If youre trying to be still and silent, then youre taking the Hide action. If you cant/wont take the Hide action, you aren't actually being still and silent, because that's what the Hide action represents.

Its like declaring that you decapitate somebody on a successful hit without actually rolling for damage done. Yeah, you can say you do that, but that doesn't mean its what the rules say happens.

Tanarii

2017-09-13, 08:56 AM

To be fair, anyone explicitly claiming they can't be detected through some convoluted series of "coincidence" in order to become both silent and unseen, but also while explicitly not taking the Hide action has failed under this statement. If you have put the effort into contriving such a situation, and care enough to argue the point, then clearly your intention is to be hidden.

All this really boils down to is an attempt to claim the benefits of a successful hide test without actually being forced to roll the dice (and potentially fail). That wont generally fly with any GM paying attension.the DM can (and per the DMG p 237, should) declare any test an automatic success or failure if circumstances warrant it. Likewise, they can set any test they feel is appropriate to resolving a situation.

Obviously there's a standard way to resolve attempts at Hiding, and a DM should consider that first.

Anyway, the DM can call for checks whenever they like (or just straight up declare things like being Undetected), even if the rules don't normally allow people to do that. But when they do that, its a deviation from the RAW, even if not the RAI.No, it's not a deviation from RAW. It is RAW. Per the chapter on Ability Checks in the PHB, and the DMG Section on Ability Checks in the chapter entitled Running the Game. This is, to put it plainly, the DMs primary job. To determine the appropriate way to adjudicate resolution of a player action or other situation.

Now Hiding has special detailed rules, when the DM feels they should apply. We can call them the default RAW, and you'd certainly be right. But that does not stop all the rest of RAW on adjudicating things from being RAW. Setting a DC to notice something or pinpoint something is entirely within RAW, should the DM decide its appropriate. So is deciding it's not possible at all, or automatically successful.

A good rule of thumb is that for situations where failure or success is simply not possible, you don't call for a check at all and just narrate the success/failure. I want to say that's an actual recommendation in one of the books, but I don't know off hand where it would be.DMG 237, Using Ability Scores.

RSP

2017-09-13, 09:09 AM

The DM, RAW decides when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding. This does not imply that the DM can force Jill to hide. He decides if the possibility exists and what the probability of success is, but he RAW can’t take control of the character without some other justification.

...

I disagree that the DM can declare her hidden. The DM can declare her unnoticed. To my mind this is not semantic. There is a relevant difference.

Whether someone is hidden is determined by whether they actively attempted to hide. It is totally independent of how visible they are. A young child can hide, and be ridiculously easy to notice. But the child is still hidden. He’s just very poorly hidden. It’s entirely possible to have a hidden creature that is DC 6 to spot. The creature is hidden. It’s just poorly hidden.

The DM can determine that something is unseen and unheard. But this is not the criteria for being hidden. This sentence: “If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.” (PHB 195) does not mean:
Hidden = unseen + unheard
It means this: hidden -> unseen AND hidden -> unheard

So, while it is true that a DM can rule that a PC is both unseen and unheard, this does not necessarily mean that he can rule a PC is hidden. A PC is under the control of a player, and therefore only the player can make decisions about the mindset of the PC. Hiding is a matter of intent, and therefore the DM cannot override in this way.

...

I think it’s worth pointing out that, one of the criteria for being hidden is that you made an effort to hide. In the case of PCs, only the player can supply this. The DM cannot.

The DM can do this by determining someone has met the criteria for hiding. Hiding doesn't necessarily require intent: no item (that is not also sentient) can have intent, however, it can be hidden. Likewise, if a PC is Petrified but made Invisible by a fellow PC to try and keep the petrified PC safe, he could well be deemed hidden by the DM.

And the process for being hidden involves the contested Perception resolution:

"Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."

So it's unseen, unheard and undiscovered (noticing shifting dirt could reveal the individual without having them be heard or seen), with undiscovered equaling not having a Perception score beat your Stealth score.

(Side note: the rule is bad as it states the stealth score is null once anyone noticed the hidden character, which doesn't make sense).

The DM can deem many things are hidden: all the monsters don't auto notice the players as soon as they step foot in the dungeon due to the DM deciding the criteria is such that the PCs are hidden from the monsters (and vice versa).

RSP

2017-09-13, 09:12 AM

This reads like an exceptionally complex way of saying "I'm Hiding without actually having to make the check for it." If youre trying to be still and silent, then youre taking the Hide action. If you cant/wont take the Hide action, you aren't actually being still and silent, because that's what the Hide action represents.

Its like declaring that you decapitate somebody on a successful hit without actually rolling for damage done. Yeah, you can say you do that, but that doesn't mean its what the rules say happens.

No, you're adding in that unless they take the Hide Action then they must make noise and make exaggerated movements. Jill is fully within her rights to control her PC and say she doesn't move or make noise while standing against the wall.

You're trying to take away a PC's ability to control their character.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 09:13 AM

No. You completely made that up with zero reference to the rules. Nowhere does it state you must move your hands around like a puppeteer or mutter arcane words. She can absolutely stand still and be quiet while using her Action on the illusion.

Nowhere does it states you can stand absolutely still and be quiet using your action on the illusion either.

I'm prepared to accept you can be still and totally quiet while using your action on the illusion.

You would need to use an action to first hide, and then for the rest of your actions for the next hour you can move the illusion where ever you want.

She doesn't have the Action to Hide. That's different than her making noise.

She does have an action to hide. Unless she expressly tells me that she is trying to be quiet and still while invisible she isn't using the hide action. If she tells me she is trying to be quiet and still while invisible she is using the hide action. The choice is the players.

When her player tells me she wants to be really quiet and still while controlling the illusion for an hour then she can do it.

On round one she uses mislead. On round two she takes the hide action. On rounds three and onwards she moves the illusion around while hidden.

For an hour she's remained quiet and still and ceased moving and used her Action for something else. The fact she used her Action for something else does not mean she also has to mutter something or clap her hands: those are addition things she could be doing, but she chose not to.

No; the only thing she has chosen not to do is to hide. Ergo she is not hidden.

If she wants to remain totally still and silent (hide) she needs to take the hide action.

If you are staying totally still and silent while invisible you are hiding. That is exactly what the hide action is for. That is what it does. That is what it represents from a game mechanics point of view. The action cost is the opportunity cost of spending a few seconds being quiet and not doing something else like talking, casting a spell, dodging, searching, dashing, or interacting with an object.

The default assumption is that nearby creatures can detect your general location. If you don't want that to occur, become unseen and (stand totally still making no noise = take the freaking hide action).

That is the general rule.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 09:18 AM

You're trying to take away a PC's ability to control their character.

Utter bulldust mate.

If your PC gets turned invisible by your wizard buddy, it's totally your choice to decide what you do on your turn.

If you want to be quiet and make no noise and still yourself and become hidden, you take the hide action.
If you want to stab one of the monsters, you take the attack action.
If you want to have a look around for invisible creatures, you take the search action.
If you want to spend your round dodging and parrying blows, you take the Dodge action.
If you want to run away, you take the dash action.

If you want to combine two of those things on your turn, take 2 levels of rogue or fighter.

The choice is entirely yours.

Keltest

2017-09-13, 09:20 AM

No, you're adding in that unless they take the Hide Action then they must make noise and make exaggerated movements. Jill is fully within her rights to control her PC and say she doesn't move or make noise while standing against the wall.

You're trying to take away a PC's ability to control their character.

If theyre saying they aren't moving or making noise, then they are taking the Hide action, because that is what the Hide action is. And they're automatically declaring success, on top of that.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 09:28 AM

If theyre saying they aren't moving or making noise, then they are taking the Hide action, because that is what the Hide action is. And they're automatically declaring success, on top of that.

This.

DM: Okay Bob your character is now invisible - it's your turn now what do you want to do?
Bob: I stand totally still and make no noise.
DM: Okay Bob that's the hide action; make me a stealth check...

DM: Okay Bob your character is now invisible; it's your turn now what do you want to do?
Bob: I stand totally still and make no noise, I then attack the Orc with my sword, and cast fireball, then I will dodge and move...
DM: Whoa Bob; one thing at a time! You're a fifth level Wizard. You can move and do one of those things on your turn. Which is it going to be?

RSP

2017-09-13, 09:28 AM

RSP

2017-09-13, 09:31 AM

Easy_Lee

2017-09-13, 09:32 AM

If theyre saying they aren't moving or making noise, then they are taking the Hide action, because that is what the Hide action is. And they're automatically declaring success, on top of that.

While I agree this is a reasonable ruling, it isn't what the book says.

5e combined Move Silently and Hide into Stealth, the Hide action makes a Stealth check to avoid notice, and Invisibility makes you impossible to see and lets you Hide anywhere. By the strictest of RAW, Invisibility doesn't even help with your Hide checks. And since Hide is an action, certain kinds of Invisibility (Warlock invocation) will break (by strict RAW) if you take the Hide action.

I think we can all agree that this is silly, but it's what the book says. However, and I want to stress this, the book does not say that any creature, visible or not, is automatically noticed by anyone at any time. I've had DMs fail to tell me about large noisy creatures hanging out in wide open rooms as I walk in. Whether intended or not, you don't notice (or become noticed by) any creature unless your DM says so.

tieren

2017-09-13, 09:33 AM

For an hour she's remained quiet and still and ceased moving and used her Action for something else. The fact she used her Action for something else does not mean she also has to mutter something or clap her hands: those are addition things she could be doing, but she chose not to.

I've never seen a combat that lasted 600 rounds, if she isn't in combat, actions don't mean anything, she is hiding.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 09:35 AM

And it does appear to be semantics we're discussing: I think you're saying "Hiding is the state of being following taking the Hide Action, however, the DM can deem anyone is unnoticed, unseen and unheard." I'm saying Hiding is being unseen, unheard and unnoticed and either a creature can take the action, or a DM can decide it applies.

And this I agree with. Both are saying the same thing.

I also go one step further and state the game assumes that people are not hidden unless they have taken the hide action, or the Dungeon Master deems that the exceptional circumstances apply (an invisible creature in a patch of magical silence with absolutely zero other means of detecting the creatures presence such as foot prints in mud, strong odours etc.

Simply becoming invisible is not in and of itself enough. If you are invisible you are simply unseen and get all of the advantages therein including the ability to take the hide action (representing you being quiet and stilling your breath and stopping moving and taking precautions to conceal your location) when ever.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 09:37 AM

I've never seen a combat that lasted 600 rounds, if she isn't in combat, actions don't mean anything, she is hiding.

Exactly this.

If a PC tells me they want to be totally quiet and still and move their illusion around for an hour, then they have (effectively and from a meta-game position) taken the hide action and several hundred other actions used for moving the illusion around.

They make me a stealth check.

RSP

2017-09-13, 09:38 AM

Its RAW that the game makes no mention of unseen creatures becoming 'auto-hidden'.

Except the whole RAW: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

Which is exactly what I said above.

So you declare it's not RAW, yet admit its RAW??

RSP

2017-09-13, 09:41 AM

I've never seen a combat that lasted 600 rounds, if she isn't in combat, actions don't mean anything, she is hiding.

Incorrect. Actions still exist, otherwise no one could ever control illusions.

And either way, the timing could easily be 1 round: the hour was used to accentuate the point of what each character was doing.

RSP

2017-09-13, 09:43 AM

Simply becoming invisible is not in and of itself enough.

No one has stated or argued this.

tieren

2017-09-13, 09:45 AM

Incorrect. Actions still exist, otherwise no one could ever control illusions.

And either way, the timing could easily be 1 round: the hour was used to accentuate the point of what each character was doing.

In combat they are auto detected if they have not taken the Hide action.

Out of combat actions do not matter, she could be tap dancing making performance skill checks, while trying to convince a dragon to let her pass making diplomacy checks while concentrating on changes to her illusion, it doesn't matter.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 09:51 AM

, the book does not say that any creature, visible or not, is automatically noticed by anyone at any time.

Page 177 of the players handbook. Hiding sidebar. 'In combat, most creatures to stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach the creature it usually sees you (unless the dungeon Master has allowed you to stay hidden as you approach the creature by virtue of it being distracted).'

Page 182 of the players handbook. 'You use your passive perception score to determine that if you notice a hidden threat.' (A reasonable inference then is that you automatically notice a threat that is not hidden.)

Page 189 players handbook. Surprise. 'If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other...'

A more than reasonable inference from reading those three passages together is that unless a creature is hidden it is automatically detected at the start of combat. It remains detected unless and until it takes the hide action and becomes hidden. If you become hidden then the creature will again notice you when you emerge from cover or concealment or your invisibility spell drops, unless the dungeon Master rules the creature is distracted.

Keltest

2017-09-13, 09:55 AM

No, they're saying "I control my illusion as my Action and do nothing else." You're adding in "okay but if that's what you're doing I'm going to force you to move and make noise"

Characters leave signs of their presence that allow them to be detected by default, even when invisible. Its why people still need to take the Hide action to be Hidden even though they cant be seen. You can fluff it however you feel like, but if your character is making no special effort to suppress those signs of their presence, then theyre still there.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 09:56 AM

No one has stated or argued this.

Burger beast has. That's why I gave up on him a while ago.

If you become invisible in combat, and you are not hidden beforehand, you are not hidden now.

Barring some kind of exceptional outlier you will not be hidden unless and until you take the hide action (Representing you trying to be quiet, moving slowly and quietly or not at all, steeling your breath, and otherwise concealing sounds smells, brushing against people, footprints in the mud etc).

If you're a rogue you can stab someone and Hide all on the same turn. Most other characters need to spend two turns (an extra few seconds) to do the same thing.

Tanarii

2017-09-13, 09:57 AM

This 'are they Hiding' debate is a side-show to the main point:
Nothing says that creatures must be auto-detected in or out of combat, nor auto-pinpointed, if they are not Hiding.

That's the standard/default way to do it specifically in combat. But as is very intentionally for 5e, it's written with enough flexibility for the DM to use any of the standard RAW adjudication methods should they decide otherwise. IMO that's something that should probably be exceptional, but thats on the DM to decide.

Out of combat, whether or not a creature notices or detects another creature that's making no attempt to hide is entirely on the DM to decide, per the standard RAW for adjudication. There's detailed rules for how to resolve a creature attempting to avoid detection (also known as Hiding), but failing to detect one making no significant attempt to avoid detection, due to other circumstances, is entirely on the DM under the standard RAW.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 10:09 AM

Nothing says that creatures must be auto-detected in or out of combat, nor auto-pinpointed, if they are not Hiding.

Yes it does. I literally quoted three such passages from the players handbook above.

Specifically at the start of combat creatures are automatically detected unless they have used stealth. Creatures are also automatically detected once they leave their hiding spot unless the DM rules the creature is distracted (allowing for the textbook sneak up behind someone and backstab a creature looking somewhere else).

They also literally state the creatures are alert all around them, and barring the DM making a specific exception, automatically notice all non-hidden threats.

Easy_Lee

2017-09-13, 10:23 AM

Page 177 of the players handbook. Hiding sidebar. 'In combat, most creatures to stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach the creature it usually sees you (unless the dungeon Master has allowed you to stay hidden as you approach the creature by virtue of it being distracted).'

Page 182 of the players handbook. 'You use your passive perception score to determine that if you notice a hidden threat.' (A reasonable inference then is that you automatically notice a threat that is not hidden.)

Page 189 players handbook. Surprise. 'If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other...'

A more than reasonable inference from reading those three passages together is that unless a creature is hidden it is automatically detected at the start of combat. It remains detected unless and until it takes the hide action and becomes hidden. If you become hidden then the creature will again notice you when you emerge from cover or concealment or your invisibility spell drops, unless the dungeon Master rules the creature is distracted.

It's reasonable to assume people notice things that aren't hidden. But, as I've said already, that isn't how the game is actually played. The intent either wasn't laid out clearly enough, or a significant portion of DMs just don't care.

You won't find a passage that says, "you notice everything in the room that isn't hidden even if the DM doesn't tell you about it." Nor will you find a passage that states, "You're assumed to be activate Hiding if you say you're moving stealthily." Nor will you find a passage that states, "Invisible creatures are noticed unless they Hide."

All of these are DM fiat, frustrating as that is.

Unoriginal

2017-09-13, 10:23 AM

Here is a ruling I'm proposing:

"Unless they are actively trying to hide or in circumstances where noticing them is impossible, a creature is noticed by other beings' passive Perception"

Because seriously, if you're not voluntarily trying to be discreet or being concealed entirely for all sense, you'd need to be pretty incredible to be as unnoticeable as someone who made a Dex(Stealth) check of 10 or even 5.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 10:29 AM

It's reasonable to assume people notice things that aren't hidden. But, as I've said already, that isn't how the game is actually played.

Of course. I can reasonably infer that from burger beasts comments in this very thread.

Of course in my experience about 75% of games that are run are not run according to the rules. Most games that I tag along and sit in on are absolute rubbish. It's one of the biggest pains in the backside when you move to a new town or country is finding a decent group that 'gets it'.

A good Dungeon Master is worth his weight in Platinum.

smcmike

2017-09-13, 10:47 AM

They are trying to hide. They are not guaranteed to hide. If they were not trying to hide, they wouldn't take actions that can result in hiding.

If I don't care at all whether I am seen, but circumstances lead me to being unseen, I am "trying to hide?" That's what you are saying, and it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Find me the rule that says "The only reason a creature can be unseen or unheard is by the use of the stealth skill."

I have been crystal clear in my support that this is up to the DM. A DM can call upon any check they want to. I'll even say that DM improvisation of checks often makes the game better. But it isn't necessary to handle the situation of invisible creatures.

If the entire situation is "there is an invisible creature standing near you in a quiet room while you are on alert" I agree. The creature must make a stealth check to avoid detection, and you will be able to roughly pinpoint its position if your perception check beats the stealth check or it doesn't bother hiding.

Invisibility + circumstances is what I'm talking about. If circumstances make a creature unseen and unheard, what are you trying to perceive, exactly?

There's no such thing defined in the rules as using stealth to be unseen. In fact, the rules require that you already be unseen to make the one well-defined stealth check.

The errata says "Also, the question is not whether a creature can see you when you're hiding. It's whether it can see you clearly."

What information? That they're there? If the orcs aren't hiding then the PCs have that info. Open door, roll for initiative, nobody is surprised. p189, pretty uncontroversial, we've all done this a hundred times.

What they are, how many are there, where they are precisely, etc etc etc.

Again, DMs and adventure writers can do whatever they want.

Yes, but by design. The rules explicitly say that this is what DMs are supposed to do. You aren't breaking any rules by following the rules.

Malifice

2017-09-13, 11:00 AM

Invisibility + circumstances is what I'm talking about. If circumstances make a creature unseen and unheard, what are you trying to perceive, exactly?

Footprints in the mud, dirt or dust.
The splashing and ripples of water as it steps in puddles.
The displacement of water as it stands in water or in the rain.
Compressed grass or carpet where it stands.
Twigs bending back as it moves.
A human sized hole in the fog, smoke or dust.
The smell of its body odor, Leather armour, Weapon oil, perfume, or the pungent incense in its spell component pouch.
It brushing against you or vice versa.

Even a creature that is both unseen and unheard can still be noticed.

We are dealing with a creature that is invisible but has yet to attempt to also be quiet or attempt to conceal other signs of its passage and presence (the hide action).

Until it does so, the game makes the assumption that nearby creatures notice it with sufficient precision to possibly attack it (at disadvantage) ver the space of six seconds (waving their sword around in the air as they advance like a madman).

A Dungeon Master can feel free to override this general rule if he deems it necessary. This is confirmed by both RAW and RAI.

smcmike

2017-09-13, 11:11 AM

Footprints in the mud, dirt or dust.
The splashing and ripples of water as it steps in puddles.
The displacement of water as it stands in water or in the rain.
Compressed grass or carpet where it stands.
Twigs bending back as it moves.
A human sized hole in the fog, smoke or dust.
The smell of its body odor, Leather armour, Weapon oil, perfume, or the pungent incense in its spell component pouch.
It brushing against you or vice versa.

Yes, these are all circumstances that can make an unseen, unheard creature perceptible. It is part of the DM's job to determine whether these circumstances exist, do not exist, or possibly may exist, depending on the result of a roll.

A Dungeon Master can feel free to override this general rule if he deems it necessary. This is confirmed by both RAW and RAI.

Maybe we are arguing over nothing, after all. We agree that a DM, under the rules, can declare that an invisible creature in combat is undetected, even though the creature did not take a hide action, based upon the circumstances? Good enough for me.

Ok, one last example:

A singer is giving a concert. She is in bright light, at the front of the hall, and she is singing very loudly, along with a noisy and somewhat chaotic band. The center of the hall is dimly lit, and the rear of the hall is in darkness, as is the balcony. The audience has filled the hall, and is singing loudly, but the balcony is empty.

The singer's enemy enters the balcony, pulls out a crossbow, and starts stringing it, preparing to attack (he has darkvision, so stringing it on the dark is not a problem). While he does this, he sings along, in an unremarkable voice.

You are the DM.

1. Does the singer have a chance to perceive the enemy? If so, what senses would she use to perceive him? What rolls would you ask the singer and the enemy to make, and what information would you give her on a success?

RSP

2017-09-13, 11:15 AM

In combat they are auto detected if they have not taken the Hide action.

Out of combat actions do not matter, she could be tap dancing making performance skill checks, while trying to convince a dragon to let her pass making diplomacy checks while concentrating on changes to her illusion, it doesn't matter.

Incorrect:

"The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check."

This says: the DM decides what's appropriate for hiding, which includes when it's necessary to take the Hide Action. The DM can say: "you don't need to take the Hide Action to be hidden." Now the second sentence in that RAW quote means if the Player wants to Hide, they need to take the Hide Action. A Player cannot say "I'm hidden even though I didn't take the Hide Action"; only the DM can determine, per RAW, what's necessary to Hide (and that includes whether the Action is needed), whether in combat or out.

Characters leave signs of their presence that allow them to be detected by default, even when invisible. Its why people still need to take the Hide action to be Hidden even though they cant be seen. You can fluff it however you feel like, but if your character is making no special effort to suppress those signs of their presence, then theyre still there.

Partially true: by RAW the DM determines what's hidden and not, to include whether characters "leave signs of their presence."

Tanarii

2017-09-13, 11:17 AM

Yes it does. I literally quoted three such passages from the players handbook above.

Specifically at the start of combat creatures are automatically detected unless they have used stealth. Creatures are also automatically detected once they leave their hiding spot unless the DM rules the creature is distracted (allowing for the textbook sneak up behind someone and backstab a creature looking somewhere else).

They also literally state the creatures are alert all around them, and barring the DM making a specific exception, automatically notice all non-hidden threats.
No. You're wrong about that, and the quote from the Hiding sidebar proves you wrong. You just conveniently ignoring that the Hiding sidebar has built in weasel words.

Emphasis mine:
Hiding sidebar. "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. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

And of course, none of these quotes address that a creature may need to make a check of some kind of kind to detect things that aren't Hiding, per the Perception skill, and the general rules for DM adjudication. They are specific to Hiding creatures and creatures attempting to be stealthy/ambush.

Edit: To be clearer, you acknowledge the quotes are there, then for some reason dismiss them without any explanation given, attempting to ignore them. They show you are wrong, and yet you somehow seem to think that you're still right. That's a little crazy.

Keltest

2017-09-13, 11:31 AM

No. You're wrong about that, and the quote from the Hiding sidebar proves you wrong. You just conveniently ignoring that the Hiding sidebar has built in weasel words.

Emphasis mine:
Hiding sidebar. "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. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

And of course, none of these quotes address that a creature may need to make a check of some kind of kind to detect things that aren't Hiding, per the Perception skill, and the general rules for DM adjudication. They are specific to Hiding creatures and creatures attempting to be stealthy/ambush.

Edit: To be clearer, you acknowledge the quotes are there, then for some reason dismiss them without any explanation given, attempting to ignore them. They show you are wrong, and yet you somehow seem to think that you're still right. That's a little crazy.

What exactly are you trying to push here? Yes, the DM can do whatever they want, by the rules. Its their job. So what? We don't have a DM here. Rule 0 and its variants are largely irrelevant when discussing RAW because the actions of a DM in such situations are not actually written, in the rules or otherwise.

Its not helpful.

BurgerBeast

2017-09-13, 11:32 AM

TL;DR:

If the information is some thing, like hearing their conversation, then yes, the rules tell you to make a perception check.
This would appear to end the argument. This confirms my point. If a perception check is made, then the perception check can fail. Therefore, the orcs are not automatically detected. That’s all I was ever trying to say. I agree with you.
Extended Answers:

Source for this?
The English language, which is the language that we are using.

[QUOTE=Unoriginal;22379013]So you agree that Jill needs to take the Hide action to be hidden in combat, and cannot take the Hide action while casting her illusion?
Or that an invisible person needs to actively use Dex (Stealth) to hide, even if unseen due to said invisibility?
Yes*, yes, and yes.
* For the sake of this argument, yes.

You're right about the position. But what if the approacher wants to SEE the Bard.
For practical purposes, I agree. But technically speaking, it is not RAW that the singer’s position is known. That’s because the cited rule applies to combat. There is no such rule outside of combat. As I said, I agree for practical purposes and think to say the position is not known would be pretty absurd in this case.

I'm unsure how this helps the arguments.

But bear with me, I'm dumb about hiding.

I'm in a party, and the ranger cast pass without a trace on me. +10 stealth "checks" right?

Do I need to be actively hiding to get that +10 stealth bonus?

Or even if I'm doing jumping jacks, do I still retain this bonus to stealth?
Since the example is doing jumping jacks, no. If you are doing jumping jacks, you’re not using the stealth skill. (Though I suppose technically you could try to stealthily do jumping jacks, actually. In one of the Diehard movies, Bruce Willis’ character was forced to walk down a street wearing a sandwich board with a racial slur on it. He was actually trying to go as unnoticed as possible in that case. He was actively trying to be as unnoticeable as possible [within the constraint that if he literally hid, the terrorist that set up the situation would do something awful], but the task was impossible. So, I suppose, if some diabolical person told you to do jumping jacks in front of a red dragon, or else he would fireball you to death… you could technically try to stealthily do jumping jacks. The whole point of each diabolical contrivance is that, no matter how stealthy the victim tries to be, he will fail.)

To be fair, anyone explicitly claiming they can't be detected through some convoluted series of "coincidence" in order to become both silent and unseen, but also while explicitly not taking the Hide action has failed under this statement.
Agreed. But what if it’s not through some convoluted series of concidences? What if a pixie is 1000 feet away, on an open field, in plain view. I would suggest that some PCs would fail to see this pixie. Some of them because, even when looking directly at the pixie, will not discern what it is. Others because, as a matter of walking to wheerever they are walking, will not notice every single creature within a 1000 foot radius, because they will not happen to look in that direction at all. There is uncertainty, so the DM can use a roll to resolve the uncertainty.

If you have put the effort into contriving such a situation, and care enough to argue the point, then clearly your intention is to be hidden.
My effort has nothing to do with the mindset of a character in the game. If the character is trying to hide, he’s hidden. If he’s not trying to hide, he’s not hidden.

All this really boils down to is an attempt to claim the benefits of a successful hide test without actually being forced to roll the dice (and potentially fail). That wont generally fly with any GM paying attension.
This is a misrepresentation of the argument.

Lets say undetected instead of unnoticed, to keep our terms consistent. There may be a semantic difference between those two, but for practical purposes they mean the same thing in the game.
Yes, but the implications become different when existential versus universla qualifiers are ued and when negations come into play. But, sure. I can do that.

A good rule of thumb is that for situations where failure or success is simply not possible, you don't call for a check at all and just narrate the success/failure. I want to say that's an actual recommendation in one of the books, but I don't know off hand where it would be.
It is. But this leads to a misconception that sneaks into some arguments. It is possible to have no roll because there is no chance of success. It is also possible to have no roll because the task can’t be attempted. This might seem like a nitpick, but it comes up occasionally.

If your argument is that it wont always be automatic, yeah, sure, but that's for the DM to decide any circumstantial bonuses or penalties, and not exactly helpful in a RAW discussion unless there are specific modifiers based on distance, ambient noise level, etc...
“It won’t always be automatic” is the entirely of my argument. It is entirely helpful in a RAW discussion in which the other side claims that, RAW, it is always automatic. There is no written rule that says it is always automatic, therefore it is not always automatic by RAW.
To some on the other side, they read not always as never, because they don’t recognize the logical distinction.
Not always =/= never
Always not = never
Not always = at least one time it is not*
* And even Malifice grants that a pixie at 1000 feet is not noticed, which means that at least one time a creature that is not hiding is not auto-detected, which means that creatures are not always auto-detected… this is supposed to end the argument. But some people (Malifice included) still do not recognize this. This, I think, is because they think that “not always” = “never.”

No it doesn't.

verb (used with object), hid, hidden or hid, hiding.
1.
to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered:
Where did she hide her jewels?
2.
to obstruct the view of; cover up:
The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3.
to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret:
to hide one's feelings.
Conceal implies intent. So, 1 and 3 imply intent. Definition 2 is not the sense in which we are using the word. This is evidenced by what is doing the act – clouds. We all agree that, in D&D, clouds are not capable of taking the hide action. If we get deeper into this discussion, I think you’ll see that in the end I am correct.
It’s also worth noting that, defintion 2 is synonymous with “not visible,” but we have all been in agreement up until now that it is possible to be visible and hidden (haven’t we?). That’s because we haven’t been using “hidden” in this way.

They are trying to hide. They are not guaranteed to hide. If they were not trying to hide, they wouldn't take actions that can result in hiding.
Yeah, I think this warrants more discussion. You can be hidden and not hidden at the same time, under your view, which ties into my point, and is why I say it becomes semantic. If I hide somewhere, and one person perceives me but another does not, then am I hidden? I would say that I am hidden, but one person has found me. I’m still hidden though.
You could say that I am no longer hidden, but I think this is not true. It think I’m still hidden even though one person sees me. In fact, if everyone can see me, I’d say I’m still hidden. This is because to anyone who enters the room, I’m still trying to hide. So whether I am hidden is divorced from outcomes.
The practical view that I am not hidden if everyone in the room can see me is sort of the point. Hiding goes to intention. Little kids that try to play hide-and-seek are terrible at it. It’s not because they’re not hiding. It’s because they are hiding terribly.

My Dex 8 Fighter in Plate Armor has a fear of being in the middle of things, and so he always sticks to the walls. He also loves matching the decor, because of a sense of style ingrained in him by his mother, so he swaps out different cloth coverings to match the color and pattern of the walls, not because he wants to hide, but because he loves his mom. This incidentally makes him very hard to see. The DC to notice me shouldn't be the result of an ability check made with disadvantage -1. It should be at least 10.

That's what you're doing.
It’s really not. You’re adding causes, and the causes you’re adding are easy to associate with hiding.
As a counter example, a person stranded on an island can build the symbols “S.O.S.” in the sand out of rocks, and stand on the open beach jumping and screaming for attention, but it is possible that a search plane may not ever notice him. This is not because he is hiding. He is quite obviously doing the opposite of hiding. But he can still go unnoticed.

I have been crystal clear in my support that this is up to the DM. A DM can call upon any check they want to. I'll even say that DM improvisation of checks often makes the game better. But it isn't necessary to handle the situation of invisible creatures.
If this is true, then why are you arguing with me. I said a creature is not always auto-detected. This is fully compatible with “It’s up to the DM,” which has been my point all along.

There's no such thing defined in the rules as using stealth to be unseen.
You can’t be serious.

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

In fact, the rules require that you already be unseen to make the one well-defined stealth check.
There areplenty of well-defined stealth checks. Unfortunately, the rule you are referring to applies in combat only, specifically because in combat the combatants are generally assumed to be heard. Combat is not always happening. So, this does not always apply.

You use stealth to hide. He isn't hidden, he's detected (automatically), and his being unseen doesn't matter.
In combat. Yes. There is no such rule out of combat.

What information? That they're there? If the orcs aren't hiding then the PCs have that info. Open door, roll for initiative, nobody is surprised. p189, pretty uncontroversial, we've all done this a hundred times.
Before the door is opened. Before there is any reason for combat rules to apply.

If the information is some thing, like hearing their conversation, then yes, the rules tell you to make a perception check.
This would appear to end the argument. This confirms my point. If a perception check is made, then the perception check can fail. Therefore, the orcs are not automatically detected. That’s all I was ever trying to say.

If you cant/wont take the Hide action, you aren't actually being still and silent, because that's what the Hide action represents.
False. (1) You can “hide” while moving. So hiding does not necessarily mean you are still. (2) You can make noise and still be hiding – it’s not necessary that you are silent. (3) You can be still and silent while intending to be seen, as a street performer might, or an actor on stage might. So, no. False.

The DM can do this by determining someone has met the criteria for hiding.
Meeting the criteria for hiding is not hiding.

Hiding doesn't necessarily require intent: no item (that is not also sentient) can have intent, however, it can be hidden.
An itme can only be hidden if someone intentionally hid it. Otherwise it is lost or undiscovered.

Likewise, if a PC is Petrified but made Invisible by a fellow PC to try and keep the petrified PC safe, he could well be deemed hidden by the DM.
Not only could he be deemed hidden by the DM, the DM would be wrong to claim that he is not hidden. That’s not because it’s up to the DM to decide. That’s because the fellow PC hid him.

So it's unseen, unheard and undiscovered (noticing shifting dirt could reveal the individual without having them be heard or seen), with undiscovered equaling not having a Perception score beat your Stealth score.
Unseen, unheard, and undiscovered are not sufficient to be hiding. You must try to hide, or someone else must try to hide you.

The DM can deem many things are hidden: all the monsters don't auto notice the players as soon as they step foot in the dungeon due to the DM deciding the criteria is such that the PCs are hidden from the monsters (and vice versa).
It’s not because the monters are hidden. It’s because the PCs do not perceive the monsters. This goes back to the notion of “hidden from view” or “hidden from detection” which is synonymous with “undetected.” It is a different definiton of hidden than the definition that has been being used.

Nowhere does it states you can stand absolutely still and be quiet using your action on the illusion either.
So what? It may be the case that the rules do not state that you can whistle. But this doesn’t mean you can’t whistle.

I'm prepared to accept you can be still and totally quiet while using your action on the illusion.
You would need to use an action to first hide, and then for the rest of your actions for the next hour you can move the illusion where ever you want.
This is a house rule.

She does have an action to hide. Unless she expressly tells me that she is trying to be quiet and still while invisible she isn't using the hide action. If she tells me she is trying to be quiet and still while invisible she is using the hide action. The choice is the players.
When her player tells me she wants to be really quiet and still while controlling the illusion for an hour then she can do it.
So we’re giving two-for-one discounts on actions, now? It turns out that I agree with this, but you can’t. you’re the one who claims that using stealth requires the hide action.

On round one she uses mislead. On round two she takes the hide action. On rounds three and onwards she moves the illusion around while hidden.
That’s not the example.

Utter bulldust mate.

If your PC gets turned invisible by your wizard buddy, it's totally your choice to decide what you do on your turn.

If you want to be quiet and make no noise and still yourself and become hidden, you take the hide action.
If you want to stab one of the monsters, you take the attack action.
If you want to have a look around for invisible creatures, you take the search action.
If you want to spend your round dodging and parrying blows, you take the Dodge action.
If you want to run away, you take the dash action.

If you want to combine two of those things on your turn, take 2 levels of rogue or fighter.

The choice is entirely yours.
Yet you maintain that, out of combat, if the wizard turn his buddy invisible, his buddy is detected by everyone within range automatically, because you insist that he is making enough noise to be heard and therefore located. Up to what range? 200 feet? 500 feet? 1000 feet? A mile? This is absurd.
“If you do not declare that you are being quiet, then I will force upon you that your character is being loud enough to be heard at X distance at all times by default.”

If theyre saying they aren't moving or making noise, then they are taking the Hide action, because that is what the Hide action is. And they're automatically declaring success, on top of that.

What’s that you say? You’re reading a book in the middle of a city street? You are making enough noise to be heard by everyone because I say so.
“But I’m just reading a book. Why would I be making noise?”
I’m the DM and I say so. (You don’t have a choice, unless you decide to spend your effort to be quiet.) Reading implies making noise. Because I say so.
“But I am being quiet.”
Okay then. You’re hiding.
“But I’m standing in the middle of the street.”
Yes. But you’re doing so quietly. So you’re hiding. Only those people who succeed on perception checks will notice you.
…