How would you stop a party from abusing greater invisibility?

[holywhippet]

What would you do if about half the party had enough sorcerer levels to twin spell cast greater invisibility on everyone? They could cast it at the start of a fight and begin using hit and run tactics such that their enemies would have no real idea of their location. Unless they had spells of their own to counter invisibility or could drop AoE attacks by guessing their target's locations they'd eventually be cut to pieces without being able to do much of anything. You could start adding in enemies able to counter the problem but that would be reacting to the players rather than sticking to whatever design you have in mind.

[Teaguethebean]

Include a smart leader character who starts reacting to the enemies tactics either continuing by not ever fighting and just watching or mabye escape a fight. Then his minions could start using tactics against it like showering the party with mud or snow I suppose

[Sindal]

What would you do if about half the party had enough sorcerer levels to twin spell cast greater invisibility on everyone? They could cast it at the start of a fight and begin using hit and run tactics such that their enemies would have no real idea of their location. Unless they had spells of their own to counter invisibility or could drop AoE attacks by guessing their target's locations they'd eventually be cut to pieces without being able to do much of anything. You could start adding in enemies able to counter the problem but that would be reacting to the players rather than sticking to whatever design you have in mind.

They're not casting it on the entire party at once right?

[holywhippet]

They're not casting it on the entire party at once right?

You'd only be able to cast it as initiative order rolled around. But each sorcerer could twin spell it to cover themselves and another party member.

[HappyDaze]

Darkness is a great spell to cast into an area where you think invisible opponents are lurking. It evens things up when nobody can see.

[SociopathFriend]

Readied Actions for the enemies for when they take damage, make a Grapple Action in the direction the attack came from? If there's a bunch of Sorcerers in the party then I can only assume you're looking at something like a 50% chance of grabbing someone who will most likely NOT win that Grapple Check.

Alternatively- nets. Nets are the unsung hero in 5e. And yes the net will remain visible if it lands on someone because they were not holding it when the spell was cast.

[Joe the Rat]

Have more than one encounter.
Counterspell if they do it up front, Delay of Game obstacles if they precast (duration is only one minute).
Inaudibility not included : AoE is your friend
Spirit Guardians is not dependent on the opponent's opacity.
Spies - if the PCs are observed using a tactic, the leadership can plan ahead. Sawdust in front of the entrances or curtains over doorways.
Blindsight. Animated objects care not about vision, and make good mooks.
Multistage/ location fights. Retreat and force time spent moving.
Two can play that game - invisibility or magical darkness evens the field. Magical darkness + animated objects? That's just mean.

[Erys]

What would you do if about half the party had enough sorcerer levels to twin spell cast greater invisibility on everyone? They could cast it at the start of a fight and begin using hit and run tactics such that their enemies would have no real idea of their location. Unless they had spells of their own to counter invisibility or could drop AoE attacks by guessing their target's locations they'd eventually be cut to pieces without being able to do much of anything. You could start adding in enemies able to counter the problem but that would be reacting to the players rather than sticking to whatever design you have in mind.

Also, technically by RAW, just being invisible does not make you Hidden.

The enemies can hear their footsteps when they retreat and/or see other subtle clues to where the PCs are. So hit and run Greater Invisibility is not as powerful as it seems on the surface.

[Potato_Priest]

I like that some of the other posters have mentioned retreat, and I'd like to emphasize it some more. An extremely effective tactic in 5e is running away until the enemy's buffs run out. It's not always practicable, because a) you could be in a tight space or b)the party could have enough ranged dpr in an open space that by running away you'd become a total pincushion, but when it works, it really works.

I remember one instance where I was playing a cleric, and we were being beset upon by giant spiders in a tunnel. I cast spirit guardians, and the spiders (after taking damage from it a couple of times) retreated and stayed outside the spell's reach, using their ready actions to move away if it approached them. It was amazingly effective. A spell that would have mulched all the spiders together was effectively neutralized by clever tactics.

Of course, we got our revenge on those spiders by tricking them into coming into a giant's enormous dresser drawer with the party, pulling a rope attached to a mechanism to close the drawer, and dropping all the AOE damage we could muster while they were stuck in there with us. It made for a fun tactical challenge all around.

[Sigreid]

Caltrops
guard beasts with the ability to find the by scent
Blocking exits and waiting the spell out
Dispell magic
Faerie Fire
Knock over some oil and light it
Retreat to a position where you can use pole arms to block the way to the opponents and wait out the spell.
Counterspell when Invisibility is being cast.
The web spell
Wall spells
Mordeniken's hound
Area effect spells
Alchemist fire
A battle field prepared with traps

Just for a few options. And there's nothing wrong with some opponents sometimes actually having the perfect counter to the party's main trick.

[Kane0]

Grimlocks!

[holywhippet]

Also, technically by RAW, just being invisible does not make you Hidden.

The enemies can hear their footsteps when they retreat and/or see other subtle clues to where the PCs are. So hit and run Greater Invisibility is not as powerful as it seems on the surface.

How would you handle that in game terms. I'd assume it would involve active/passive perception but the PCs aren't making stealth checks so what would you evaluate against?

[Vogie]

True Sight Guardians, like Gargoyles, that only activate when invisible passby. No one knows this because that's not an average thing that happens.
Antimagic auras on certain cobblestones/floor tiles
Enemies are also invisible.
"Quicksilver Madness" - too much time being invisible genuinely harms your mental state.

[NecessaryWeevil]

How would you handle that in game terms. I'd assume it would involve active/passive perception but the PCs aren't making stealth checks so what would you evaluate against?

I'm AFB and we don't play with Invisibility much, but AFAIK the PCs aren't hidden until they try to hide, i.e. make stealth checks. If they're not hidden then the foes know where they are. Is that correct? I'm sure there are a million threads on this board already on that topic.

[MaxWilson]

I'm AFB and we don't play with Invisibility much, but AFAIK the PCs aren't hidden until they try to hide, i.e. make stealth checks. If they're not hidden then the foes know where they are. Is that correct? I'm sure there are a million threads on this board already on that topic.

This is correct.

The DM will want to work out in advance whether one enemy that uses the Search action to discover a hidden PC is able to alert other enemies. If so, the problem basically solves itself: a large-encounter encounter (30 goblins?) will roll enough dice to discover at least one hidden PC every round, then all the other goblins paste that PC with missile fire (at disadvantage, true, because it's still an invisible target, but if the goblins are hidden too via Nimble Escape that cancels out the disadvantage). Or use whatever other tactics are appropriate, whether grappling + pushing prone, or the Help action, or nets, or whatever.

And as others have mentioned, monsters with blindsight will be totally unaffected, at least at short range (30' or so): grimlocks, dragons, half-dragons, black puddings, etc. Don't go overboard with the blindsight monsters but it's probably reasonable for them to show up in up to 1/3 of the encounters.

[Marcloure]

By RAW. any creature can perfectly pin point invisible creatures if the invisible creatures didn't take the Hide action. Any attack against it still has disadvantage (the attacker has no sight), but it can be made nonetheless.

[Vorpalchicken]

Remember to let them have some fun with it. It's a limited resource and the enemies shouldn't always have to counter it.

[MaxWilson]

By RAW. any creature can perfectly pin point invisible creatures if the invisible creatures didn't take the Hide action. Any attack against it still has disadvantage (the attacker has no sight), but it can be made nonetheless.

That's not quite right. By RAW, it's up to the DM when invisible creatures can be pinpointed or not. In noisy areas, areas of silence, against deaf creatures, etc., the DM may rule that Stealth checks are appropriate despite the lack of a Hide action, or he may simply rule that the creatures are hidden. RAW is silent on this matter except to say that the DM decides.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

Darkness is a great spell to cast into an area where you think invisible opponents are lurking. It evens things up when nobody can see.

I don't have a horse in this race, I just think this is a very elegant solution and I wanted you to get a shout out.

[MightyDuck]

Invisibility isn't perfect and there are a lot of spells and abilities that counter it, it is specifically stated in the PHB that the location of an invisible creature can bet determined by any noise it makes or tracks it leaves, this is why the hide action exists, if a creature isn't actively hiding or stealthing it can usually be located, it's the same rules for fighting in darkness, they can't see you but can still locate you. What invisibility does give you is the benefits of being heavily obscured which makes it easier to hide, hit and not be hit, it doesn't make you untouchable.

[Dungeon-noob]

By RAW. any creature can perfectly pin point invisible creatures if the invisible creatures didn't take the Hide action. Any attack against it still has disadvantage (the attacker has no sight), but it can be made nonetheless.
+1 on this, this is how it works RAW.

[Laserlight]

That's not quite right. By RAW, it's up to the DM when invisible creatures can be pinpointed or not. In noisy areas, areas of silence, against deaf creatures, etc., the DM may rule that Stealth checks are appropriate despite the lack of a Hide action, or he may simply rule that the creatures are hidden. RAW is silent on this matter except to say that the DM decides.

Although if the PCs are casting spells with Verbal components, they're not going to be too hard to find.

I like Fog Cloud or Darkness plus pit traps. Maybe textured floor around the pits; the monster know "if you step into a space where the floor is ridged, back out because you are coming to a pit."

I had an amusing encounter with a room covered in darkness, with pit traps and a few animated guards. The only one who could see was the warlock with Devil Sight; I had everyone else face away from the table, and the warlock frantically tried to give directions. They did pretty well, actually. The only one who fell in a pit...was the warlock. (The guards could Shove...)

[Malifice]

What would you do if about half the party had enough sorcerer levels to twin spell cast greater invisibility on everyone? They could cast it at the start of a fight and begin using hit and run tactics such that their enemies would have no real idea of their location. Unless they had spells of their own to counter invisibility or could drop AoE attacks by guessing their target's locations they'd eventually be cut to pieces without being able to do much of anything. You could start adding in enemies able to counter the problem but that would be reacting to the players rather than sticking to whatever design you have in mind.

The enemy still know where they are unless the PCs take the Hide action and succeed in stealth checks.

If you have a party of rogues maybe.

[Malifice]

How would you handle that in game terms. I'd assume it would involve active/passive perception but the PCs aren't making stealth checks so what would you evaluate against?

As per the rules.

If the invisible PCs dont take the Hide action, and succeed in Stealth checks vs passive perception, they aren't hidden and can be attacked at disadvantage. They also cease being hidden when they attack, meaning they again need to take the Hide action (although they remain invisible).

If they're hidden (via successful use of the Hide action) then the enemy can find them by using the Search action.

Being invisible doesnt make you hidden. It just enables the Hide action, like any other form of total obscurement or total cover.

[Malifice]

By RAW. any creature can perfectly pin point invisible creatures if the invisible creatures didn't take the Hide action. Any attack against it still has disadvantage (the attacker has no sight), but it can be made nonetheless.

Pin point isn't quite accurate.

They are assumed to know roughly where the non-hidden invisible creature is in order to enable attacks at disadvantage (wild sword swings or arrows lobbed in their general direction).

They cant target them with tons of spells and special abilities and cant make attacks of opportunity against them.

Greater invisibility can be devastating on Rogues who can Hide every round with cunning action (and have the Stealth bonus to succeed in the Hide action most times they do so) however.

Its still a very good buff for everyone else, even your Dex 8 fighters in heavy armror who cant really hide, but can take advantage of the adv/disadvantage and defensive buffs it provides.

[Warlush]

Just start using villans with blind/true sight.

[BaconAwesome]

Fog cloud is a level 1 spell, and its primary use is probably evening the playing field against characters with persistent advantage.

[Dark Schneider]

Once you reveal your position you are located until succeed on hide, that you always can try if invisible. Anyway attacks against invisible targets have disadvantage.

If you want a good combo, use Pass without Trace at the same time. With +10 Stealth is worth to try hide on each two rounds in many cases.

Also remember for hidding the invisible one is heavily obscured, so have to apply disadvantage to observers.

[sithlordnergal]

Fog Cloud, Darkness, and similar spells that create Heavy Obscurement work wonders, but remember it doesn't have to just be spells. If you're using a group of enemies without spells, like say Kobold Inventors, give them some items that can create Heavy Obscurement. Give them a smoke bomb, or something similar. If you can blind both sides, you no longer have to worry about invisibility.

Also, remember that you can target objects being held by an enemy with cantrips like Light. I'd say that could easily cancel out the invisibility since the invisible object is glowing bright enough to shed bight light in a 20ft radius. Though that is up to the DM.

[Vogie]

Also, remember that you can target objects being held by an enemy with cantrips like Light. I'd say that could easily cancel out the invisibility since the invisible object is glowing bright enough to shed bight light in a 20ft radius. Though that is up to the DM.

First turn true strike to negate the next turn's disadvantage, Quicken Light onto a crossbow bolt, then shoot the invisible creature next round

[sithlordnergal]

First turn true strike to negate the next turn's disadvantage, Quicken Light onto a crossbow bolt, then shoot the invisible creature next round

That works really well. I was just thinking make the target's armor glow. You don't need to be able to see what you're touching in order to cast Light, you only need to touch it. And the target makes a Dex save to avoid it, so no need to worry about disadvantage on an attack roll from invisibility.

[Temperjoke]

Another tactic, depending on how ruthless you want your BBEG to be, is to just start tossing AoE attacks all over the area that they saw the players go invisible in.

[TheUser]

See Invisibility is a 2nd level spell....

[Chronos]

Light doesn't work that way. An invisible light source still produces light, but it's also still invisible. It'll give away rough location (the center of the illuminated area), but that's it.

You can also just give them more encounters per day (and possibly make each encounter more minor, to compensate). Between 4th-level spell slots and sorcery points, there's a limited number of times they can use this trick, and it's not going to last for more than one battle.

And if any monsters get initiative before the entire party's invisible (which is pretty likely), then you can start off by grappling anyone who is still visible (especially if the monsters know that the party likes to do this, or if they've already seen half the party vanish). This isn't a bad tactic against spellcasters, anyway, both because spellcasters are unlikely to have good athletics/acrobatics, and because it means the rest of the party can't use most area-affect spells without friendly fire. Plus, a DM might rule that you can use another grapple check to gag a creature, preventing verbal spellcasting.

[sithlordnergal]

Light doesn't work that way. An invisible light source still produces light, but it's also still invisible. It'll give away rough location (the center of the illuminated area), but that's it.

As I said, that part is up to the DM. I'd rule that it can cancel out the invisibility if you target the invisible opponent's armor, but that's because I picture Light sort of creating an outline of the armor in a similar manner to Faire Fire, or if the invisible being were coated in paint or something. Not enough to grant advantage, but enough for the target to be visible until the spell ends.

[NecessaryWeevil]

That works really well. I was just thinking make the target's armor glow. You don't need to be able to see what you're touching in order to cast Light, you only need to touch it. And the target makes a Dex save to avoid it, so no need to worry about disadvantage on an attack roll from invisibility.

That seems pretty iffy to me. You argue that you don't have to see it if you're touching it, and "if you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell." Given that you're not already touching the invisible object, how are you targeting it?

[Pex]

What ever you do don't do it every combat because then you are telling the players how to play by forever denying them the tactic. They won't be able to do it every combat anyway.

[CorporateSlave]

What would you do if about half the party had enough sorcerer levels to twin spell cast greater invisibility on everyone? They could cast it at the start of a fight and begin using hit and run tactics such that their enemies would have no real idea of their location. Unless they had spells of their own to counter invisibility or could drop AoE attacks by guessing their target's locations they'd eventually be cut to pieces without being able to do much of anything. You could start adding in enemies able to counter the problem but that would be reacting to the players rather than sticking to whatever design you have in mind.

Greater Invisibility is a powerful spell! But I'd say the players are cleverly using it, not abusing it. Still, even Greater Invisibility "only" makes them invisible, not undetectable. Unless they are actively Hiding, enemies can still swing and/or shoot in their general direction with disadvantage, especially if they are moving in and out of melee range. Armor can be noisy. Fighting out doors? You'll see footprints being formed in dirt, grass being stepped on, etc. Indoors you might see dust moving around (AC systems with HEPA filtration are probably hard to come by in the D&D worlds), especially depending on lighting, or if the enemies have some dust/flour/water/whatever to throw into the air. (which will also land on the floor and make clear tracks even if they miss the invisible PC). Its not unreasonable in such a fantasy setting that most creatures are familiar with the concept that someone/something can be invisible, and may have even mundane countermeasures available.

I guess the point is, while being Invisible is good, it isn't the invulnerability many people seem to think it is. Sure, if they Hide and stop moving, that should make them hard to locate and attack without a successful Perception check. But movement in combat is not quiet or subtle otherwise, it is active and chaotic, and usually quite noisy. Items carried are only invisible as long as they are on the person...so that arrow or spear will immediately become visible when fired/thrown, giving a hint to location. Not to mention beam spells or similar effects, that essentially point an arrow right to where the invisible creature fired/cast from. Of course it could move right afterward, but the enemy might be holding an action to attack...or they might just follow the tracks and attack that location. Even carpet would give an invisible creature away...

We have a hard time wrapping our head around what invisibility would be like, because we don't have invisible things in the real world (at least, not in the sense of the Invisibility spell), so we go by movies and our imagination. Now, combine Greater Invisibility, Silence, and Flight... yikes.

[Keravath]

How would you handle that in game terms. I'd assume it would involve active/passive perception but the PCs aren't making stealth checks so what would you evaluate against?

According to RAW nothing.

If you can't see a target but they can see you then you have disadvantage on the attack roll and that is ALL. All greater invisibility does is make it so that other creatures without truesight, blindsight or tremorsense can't see you. It does NOT hide you or make your location unknown. As a result, a creature under greater invisibility can be attacked and targeted by spells that do not require you to see the target.

In order for the location of a target to become UNKNOWN then they have to take the hide action either as an action or in the case of a rogue as a bonus action. If you attempt to attack a HIDDEN creature then you designate a location you are attacking and if they are there the attack is resolved with disadvantage and if they are not it is a miss.

Otherwise, the rules appear to assume that you are causing sufficient disturbance in terms of noise/scent/some sort of visual waver in the air as a side effect of the spell/or some other phenomenon such that your LOCATION is still known even though you can't be seen.

That is what the rules say RAW. Invisibility in this version is not a sudden "Gee where did they go, I have no idea" but rather "Gee they are awfully difficult to figure out exactly where they are but they are pretty close to where I think they are even if they move". Only if the character actually HIDES do you have the possibility of losing track of them.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The above advice is good: invisibility isn't an "I win" button, it's a "disadvantage" button against foes who rely on ordinary senses.

So blindsight, or tremorsense will ignore it. So will AoE attacks.

[MaxWilson]

In order for the location of a target to become UNKNOWN then they have to take the hide action either as an action or in the case of a rogue as a bonus action.

No, by RAW, they have to be unseen and unheard to be hidden. Hide action is one way to accomplish that but not the only one. Invisibility will make you unseen. Other things can make you unheard--ask your DM for details, but Silence, loud wind storms, and the Blindness/Deafness spell or Holy Word are all possibilities. Unseen + unheard = hidden.

[Xetheral]

My advice is not to do anything to stop the party from using this tactic. You're in the enviable position of knowing exactly what your players want out of the game: they want to be able to go invisible and massacre their enemies. Fantastic! Let them have their fun. (You can have the occasional encounter where this tactic doesn't work very well, but I don't recommmend artificially increasing the number of such encounters.)

Permitting the tactic doesn't mean abandoning all semblance of challenge or conflict. In particular, I recommend giving them the opportunity to choose to engage foes much more powerful than they could normally handle without this tactic. If they go for it, you get epic fights while still allowing them to use their preferred tactic. (And if they don't go for it, you know that they're ok with steamrolling everything.)

You can also introduce challenge at the strategic level by making them choose which enemies to massacre at the tactical level. For example, a frontier town might be having issues with their inbound supply caravans being attacked, and also have problems defending their palisade from nightly raids. Using their invisibility tactic the party can easily thwart either threat, but they can't thwart both at once. This makes them choose, and then have to deal with the consequences of their choice. The challenge simply shifts from the tactical level to the strategic level.

[EggKookoo]

No, by RAW, they have to be unseen and unheard to be hidden. Hide action is one way to accomplish that but not the only one. Invisibility will make you unseen. Other things can make you unheard--ask your DM for details, but Silence, loud wind storms, and the Blindness/Deafness spell or Holy Word are all possibilities. Unseen + unheard = hidden.

Is that true? I thought hidden = "made a stealth check" which could only be done once you were heavily obscured. If I'm invisible and silent, what's opposing a search check to find me?

[Xetheral]

Is that true? I thought hidden = "made a stealth check" which could only be done once you were heavily obscured. If I'm invisible and silent, what's opposing a search check to find me?

Just like any other non-contested check, the DC is set by the DM.

Consider the common case where two characters are out of sight from each other, and far enough apart that the DM determines it is uncertain whether the characters hear each other. Even if neither character is trying to be stealthy, the DM may call for Perception checks (or consult passive perception) to see if either (or both) of the characters hear each other, and the DM sets the DC, just like they would for any other check.

It works identically if one character is invisible but not trying to hide. If the DM determines that, under the circumstances (long range, ambient noise, distraction, etc.), the invisible character may not be heard, the DM may call for a Perception check (or consult passive perception) to see if the invisible character is heard.

[MaxWilson]

Is that true? I thought hidden = "made a stealth check" which could only be done once you were heavily obscured. If I'm invisible and silent, what's opposing a search check to find me?

That's not how 5E defines "hidden," but abating the question about silence:

Nothing opposes it. Just like being invisible or having blinded opponents means your enemies automatically fail any attempts to see you (check the Blinded condition text), if your opponents can't hear due to silence/deafness, there is no opposed roll to hear you. A blind and deaf opponent who searches for a enemy cannot succeed. They just fail.

Of course a DM may rule that certain opponents can locate you by smell or whatever, but that's not strictly covered by the rules anyway--the DM has to make an ad hoc ruling there or invent house rules.



It works identically if one character is invisible but not trying to hide. If the DM determines that, under the circumstances (long range, ambient noise, distraction, etc.), the invisible character may not be heard, the DM may call for a Perception check (or consult passive perception) to see if the invisible character is heard.

Agreed. It's up to the DM here to determine whether you can be heard by an opponent who can potentially hear you, and that may involve ability checks. Hide actions can bring your Stealth skill to bear as one of those ability checks.

[Keravath]

Is that true? I thought hidden = "made a stealth check" which could only be done once you were heavily obscured. If I'm invisible and silent, what's opposing a search check to find me?

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, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet. 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.


UNSEEN ATTACKERS AND TARGETS
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding. casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether
you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly. When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

The above are the relevant quotes.

Based on "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—", one poster believes that being unseen and unheard means you are hidden and that there are many mechanisms up to the DM to become "unseen and unheard". However, "unseen and unheard" is clearly insufficient in some circumstances to determine whether a character would be hidden since other aspects like tracks, secondary effects on environment like the effects on wind blown particles in a fog or dust cloud and many other mechanisms would prevent a character from being hidden while still being unseen and unheard.

On the other hand, the only actual rule to BECOME hidden requires an action to make a stealth check. So although there may be circumstances in which a DM might rule that a character can be treated as hidden without making a hide check based on some combination of circumstance or environmental factors ... the general rule requires a stealth check to become hidden and otherwise the character is simply unseen when invisible or otherwise fully obscured.

[JoeJ]

What would you do if about half the party had enough sorcerer levels to twin spell cast greater invisibility on everyone? They could cast it at the start of a fight and begin using hit and run tactics such that their enemies would have no real idea of their location. Unless they had spells of their own to counter invisibility or could drop AoE attacks by guessing their target's locations they'd eventually be cut to pieces without being able to do much of anything. You could start adding in enemies able to counter the problem but that would be reacting to the players rather than sticking to whatever design you have in mind.

Don't do any one specific thing, just play the monsters as if they want to live. Those that make plans will have a plan to deal with invisibility. Those that don't will try to improvise something. Look at what the PCs do when they have to fight invisible monsters (you do make them sometimes fight invisible monsters, right?) and have some of the NPCs do the same thing. And definitely don't allow a 15 minute adventuring day!

[EggKookoo]

Based on "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—", one poster believes that being unseen and unheard means you are hidden and that there are many mechanisms up to the DM to become "unseen and unheard". However, "unseen and unheard" is clearly insufficient in some circumstances to determine whether a character would be hidden since other aspects like tracks, secondary effects on environment like the effects on wind blown particles in a fog or dust cloud and many other mechanisms would prevent a character from being hidden while still being unseen and unheard.

On the other hand, the only actual rule to BECOME hidden requires an action to make a stealth check. So although there may be circumstances in which a DM might rule that a character can be treated as hidden without making a hide check based on some combination of circumstance or environmental factors ... the general rule requires a stealth check to become hidden and otherwise the character is simply unseen when invisible or otherwise fully obscured.

Thanks, that was my confusion. Of course the DM can pretty much declare anything. My concern would be a PC with invisibility and silence thinking that combination automatically confers being hidden. I would still require the player to make a stealth check (perhaps with advantage).

[Malifice]

Thanks, that was my confusion. Of course the DM can pretty much declare anything. My concern would be a PC with invisibility and silence thinking that combination automatically confers being hidden. I would still require the player to make a stealth check (perhaps with advantage).

That's how I rule it too.

Plenty of way for a magically silenced and invisible creature to give themselves away, even when standing totally still. Standing in mud, dirt, dust, puddles, grass, carpet etc (foot imprints). Smell of sweat (seriously, how often do adventurers wash?) or other smells (spell components). Blood dripping to the ground from recent wounds. Clouds of breath in the cold air. A human sized hole in the smoke of nearby lanterns.

None of those things are particularly uncommon either.

[Xetheral]

Thanks, that was my confusion. Of course the DM can pretty much declare anything. My concern would be a PC with invisibility and silence thinking that combination automatically confers being hidden. I would still require the player to make a stealth check (perhaps with advantage).

Out of curiosity, how would you handle it if, rather than being invisible and magically silenced, the character was simply out of both vision and hearing range from the opponent? Would you still require the character to make a stealth check to avoid the opponent detecting the character's presence and location?


That's how I rule it too.

Plenty of way for a magically silenced and invisible creature to give themselves away, even when standing totally still. Standing in mud, dirt, dust, puddles, grass, carpet etc (foot imprints). Smell of sweat (seriously, how often do adventurers wash?) or other smells (spell components). Blood dripping to the ground from recent wounds. Clouds of breath in the cold air. A human sized hole in the smoke of nearby lanterns.

None of those things are particularly uncommon either.

Out of curiosity, do you default to assuming that such a circumstance exists, and thus require a hide check for an invisible and silenced creature to conceal their location from detection? Or do you only require a hide check if you've affirmatively determined that such a circumstance exists and could result in the character's detection?

For example, let's say an invisible and silenced PC is dashing through the dining room of a large restaurant. There is plenty of space between the tables, and so there is no danger of the PC accidentally colliding with anything. Since the PC is dashing it can't make a hide check. Do you assume there is an environmental factor that makes the PC's presence and approximate location immediately apparent to everyone in the dining room? Or do you only allow the diners to be aware of the PC's presence and approximate location if you identify a specific environmental factor relevant to this particular circumstance (such as the restaurant operating a fog machine)?

[Keravath]

Out of curiosity, how would you handle it if, rather than being invisible and magically silenced, the character was simply out of both vision and hearing range from the opponent? Would you still require the character to make a stealth check to avoid the opponent detecting the character's presence and location?

Yes. This is exactly what a rogue has to do in combat when they run behind a tree or a wall or other obstruction that completely blocks viewing and/or hearing of where the rogue went. They STILL require (at least in my games) a hide check in order to become actually hidden despite the fact that they may have total cover from opponents. As far as I know this is what the rules require. A character or monster can't become hidden just by moving out of the sight of their opponents.




Out of curiosity, do you default to assuming that such a circumstance exists, and thus require a hide check for an invisible and silenced creature to conceal their location from detection? Or do you only require a hide check if you've affirmatively determined that such a circumstance exists and could result in the character's detection?

For example, let's say an invisible and silenced PC is dashing through the dining room of a large restaurant. There is plenty of space between the tables, and so there is no danger of the PC accidentally colliding with anything. Since the PC is dashing it can't make a hide check. Do you assume there is an environmental factor that makes the PC's presence and approximate location immediately apparent to everyone in the dining room? Or do you only allow the diners to be aware of the PC's presence and approximate location if you identify a specific environmental factor relevant to this particular circumstance (such as the restaurant operating a fog machine)?

Ultimately, that judgement would be up to the DM.

However, in your particular example, the breeze from the character dashing past each table would likely cause some of them to look up to see what was causing the wind ... by watching the reaction of the diners you could probably get a fairly good idea of where the invisible character was running by. In addition, depending on what their footware might be and the composition of the floor ... the rythmic pounding of the boots on the floor might likely be very noticeable compared to the loud random background noise of the restaurant.

In general, unless there were actions taken by the character to somehow mitigate any environmental factors that might give them away ... I would generally use the rule that they are not hidden while trying to dash through a busy restaurant while invisible.

However, if the character took the hide action before entering the restaurant and then were cautious as they moved through then they might very well be able to retain their hidden status with their presence not being known to the occupants of the restaurant.

Finally, unless the scene was specifically created in such a way as to eliminate secondary environmental factors or the player made the point of mitigating such factors ... I would still usually require a hide check before allowing a character to be considered hidden. However, if the character is already hidden (i.e. unknown to the the opponents who might be trying to notice an invisible and quiet creature) ... then the character has a much better chance of staying unknown unless they take a specific action or make noise that might alert an observer.

[EggKookoo]

Out of curiosity, how would you handle it if, rather than being invisible and magically silenced, the character was simply out of both vision and hearing range from the opponent? Would you still require the character to make a stealth check to avoid the opponent detecting the character's presence and location?

Yes, in principle. If you say "I'm invisible and silenced. I'm going to sneak through this section of woods that we just established is empty of nearby creatures" I would likely still have you make your stealth check (again, probably with advantage because you're taking precautions by being both invisible and silenced). If no opposing creature ever gets close enough to worry about the possibility of detecting you, fine, you make your way through. If a creature does get close enough, I can have it make a check against your stealth.

I could also just wait until the creature gets close enough and then have you make your stealth check then. I don't think it really matters which way we do it, except that it might come down to turn order and hiding is an action (or at least a bonus action). So I might just have you set your "hiding" status early on and use it, or let you try to Hide again at the possible cost of your action, if it becomes relevant.

[Xetheral]

Yes. This is exactly what a rogue has to do in combat when they run behind a tree or a wall or other obstruction that completely blocks viewing and/or hearing of where the rogue went. They STILL require (at least in my games) a hide check in order to become actually hidden despite the fact that they may have total cover from opponents. As far as I know this is what the rules require. A character or monster can't become hidden just by moving out of the sight of their opponents.

My question was originally intended to cover the case of two people who aren't necessarily aware of the other's presence, rather than someone trying to break contact. But even in the latter case, I would still rule that an opponent is no longer aware of a fleeing rogue's location once the rogue gets far enough away to be out of both vision and hearing range. (Given that the opponent presumably understands about object permanence, they would still have knowledge of the fleeing rogue's existence, but would no longer be able to detect the rogue's location.) I find it somewhat perplexing that you interpret the rules as requiring a successful hide check before the opponents lose knowledge of the rogue's location even though the rogue is so far away that they can't be seen or heard. How do you describe the source of this knowledge to the rogue's opponents, if not in sensory terms?


Ultimately, that judgement would be up to the DM.

However, in your particular example, the breeze from the character dashing past each table would likely cause some of them to look up to see what was causing the wind ... by watching the reaction of the diners you could probably get a fairly good idea of where the invisible character was running by. In addition, depending on what their footware might be and the composition of the floor ... the rythmic pounding of the boots on the floor might likely be very noticeable compared to the loud random background noise of the restaurant.

In general, unless there were actions taken by the character to somehow mitigate any environmental factors that might give them away ... I would generally use the rule that they are not hidden while trying to dash through a busy restaurant while invisible.

However, if the character took the hide action before entering the restaurant and then were cautious as they moved through then they might very well be able to retain their hidden status with their presence not being known to the occupants of the restaurant.


I think you may have overlooked that in the example the running character was silenced in addition to being invisible. That leaves the air disturbance as the only noticable factor. What confuses me a little is why you would rule that every diner, feeling an unexplained wind, would conclude that a silenced, invisible person just ran past, rather than (e.g.) anomalous weather patterns, a subtle Gust of Wind spell, a subtle Gust cantrip, or even simply not knowing the cause. Sure, some paranoid diner might jump to the (unreasonable imo, even if concidentally accurate) conclusion that someone ran past, but it seems silly to think that the whole restaurant is suddenly not only aware that an invisible creature is in their midst, but knows its location precisely enough to attack it with no chance of targeting the wrong square.


Finally, unless the scene was specifically created in such a way as to eliminate secondary environmental factors or the player made the point of mitigating such factors ... I would still usually require a hide check before allowing a character to be considered hidden. However, if the character is already hidden (i.e. unknown to the the opponents who might be trying to notice an invisible and quiet creature) ... then the character has a much better chance of staying unknown unless they take a specific action or make noise that might alert an observer.

In this case the invisible, silent runner was unknown to anyone in the restaurant beforehand, but based on the text above you just ruled that everyone in the restaurant becomes aware of the runner's presence and location. How is that giving a "better chance of staying unknown" to the runner?


Yes, in principle. If you say "I'm invisible and silenced. I'm going to sneak through this section of woods that we just established is empty of nearby creatures" I would likely still have you make your stealth check (again, probably with advantage because you're taking precautions by being both invisible and silenced). If no opposing creature ever gets close enough to worry about the possibility of detecting you, fine, you make your way through. If a creature does get close enough, I can have it make a check against your stealth.

I could also just wait until the creature gets close enough and then have you make your stealth check then. I don't think it really matters which way we do it, except that it might come down to turn order and hiding is an action (or at least a bonus action). So I might just have you set your "hiding" status early on and use it, or let you try to Hide again at the possible cost of your action, if it becomes relevant.

I may not have been clear with my question, because your answer seems to address an entirely different situation. I was trying to address the case where range is the only obstacle to detection. Here's a more specific question:

Tom is strolling through the woods. Fred is also strolling through the woods. Tom and Fred are far enough apart to be outside of each other's hearing and vision range. Would you rule that Tom and Fred are aware of each other's presence and location just because neither one has taken a stealth check?

[Malifice]

Out of curiosity, do you default to assuming that such a circumstance exists, and thus require a hide check for an invisible and silenced creature to conceal their location from detection? Or do you only require a hide check if you've affirmatively determined that such a circumstance exists and could result in the character's detection?

I allow a Stealth check with advantage in such situations (via the Hide action).

Boots of Elvenkind are the closest example and they make movement silent (granting advantage on Stealth checks). An invisible creature that is also magically silenced (or wearing Elven Boots) gets advantage on his Stealth checks to Hide, and can take the Action whenever he wants (on account of being 'unable to be seen clearly' thanks to being Invisible).


For example, let's say an invisible and silenced PC is dashing through the dining room of a large restaurant. There is plenty of space between the tables, and so there is no danger of the PC accidentally colliding with anything. Since the PC is dashing it can't make a hide check.

Yes he can. He does so on his prior turn, or on the same round presuming he's also a Rogue (or an action surging Fighter, or Hasted, or a high level Ranger with Vanish etc).

If he hasnt taken the Hide action on this or a prior turn, he's not trying to avoid detection while unseen (avoid brushing into tables or other creatures, or running too close to enemy so they notice the breeze as he runs past, and making sure his footprints cant be seen in the carpet etc). He's just running.

Once he takes the Hide action (which represents - in game mechanics - his efforts to avoid being detected while unseen) then he can move wherever he wants undetected unless he either does something that gives his position away (such as attacking) or a nearby creature uses the Search action to find him.

[Xetheral]

I allow a Stealth check with advantage in such situations (via the Hide action).

Boots of Elvenkind are the closest example and they make movement silent (granting advantage on Stealth checks). An invisible creature that is also magically silenced (or wearing Elven Boots) gets advantage on his Stealth checks to Hide, and can take the Action whenever he wants (on account of being 'unable to be seen clearly' thanks to being Invisible).

That doesn't directly answer my question. To rephrase: do you assume that environmental circumstances exist such that the presence and location of an invisible, silenced creature who hasn't taken the hide check is immediately apparent? Or, do you only determine that the presence and location of an invisible, silenced creature who hasn't taken the hide check is immediately apparent if you have affirmatively determined that an environmental circumstance exists that reveals the character's presence and location?


Yes he can. He does so on his prior turn, or on the same round presuming he's also a Rogue (or an action surging Fighter, or Hasted, or a high level Ranger with Vanish etc).

If he hasnt taken the Hide action on this or a prior turn, he's not trying to avoid detection while unseen (avoid brushing into tables or other creatures, or running too close to enemy so they notice the breeze as he runs past, and making sure his footprints cant be seen in the carpet etc). He's just running.

Once he takes the Hide action (which represents - in game mechanics - his efforts to avoid being detected while unseen) then he can move wherever he wants undetected unless he either does something that gives his position away (such as attacking) or a nearby creature uses the Search action to find him.

It is true that certain characters can take the hide action while running, or that a character might have taken the hide action prior to dashing. (Not all DMs would permit a dashing character to retain a previous hide check, however.) But that doesn't affect the example where the dashing character has not taken the hide check.

We know that the character isn't brushing into anything or anyone because that was specified in the example. A breeze might be noticed, but only by the closest diners to the runner, and, as I discussed above in my reply to Keravath, diners feeling an unexplained breeze doesn't necessarily mean that they will know that it was caused by an invisible, silenced creature. If this is a very unusual restaurant that has plush carpet (hopefully they don't serve wine or meat!), diners with line of sight to the runner's path might indeed notice footprints, but diners on the other side of the room won't be able to.

But it sounds like, in the absence of a hide check, you'd assume that some other environmental factor must exist such that every diner is immediately be aware of the presence and location of the running character well enough to attack with disadvantage?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: silence is an area affect that doesn't move with a person. So that part doesn't apply, unless you have a 20' zone of no sound that's noticable to everyone.

[Spiritchaser]

What would you do if about half the party had enough sorcerer levels to twin spell cast greater invisibility on everyone? They could cast it at the start of a fight and begin using hit and run tactics such that their enemies would have no real idea of their location. Unless they had spells of their own to counter invisibility or could drop AoE attacks by guessing their target's locations they'd eventually be cut to pieces without being able to do much of anything. You could start adding in enemies able to counter the problem but that would be reacting to the players rather than sticking to whatever design you have in mind.

I would say don’t change the makeup of the encounters or at least not much

Let their foes intelligently use the tools around them to help (a bag of flour on the floor?
Run away when overmatched
Don’t presume that the party is hidden because it is invisible.

Don’t go overboard in changing mobs to add blindsight. Most wont have it, they’ll just have to work without it.

Players give up on a lot of other options to be good at something like this. It’s not a license to faceroll the game but it’s fine if it provides a fairly consistent benefit

[Xetheral]

Note: silence is an area affect that doesn't move with a person. So that part doesn't apply, unless you have a 20' zone of no sound that's noticable to everyone.

That's why I described the character in the restaurant example was silenced, rather than that the character was under the effects of a Silence spell. Perhaps it's from a custom magic item, a bizarre curse, or a researched spell. The source of the silence doesn't matter for purposes of using the example to try to better understand the way other posters rule about stealth.

[Dark Schneider]

Just like any other non-contested check, the DC is set by the DM.

Consider the common case where two characters are out of sight from each other, and far enough apart that the DM determines it is uncertain whether the characters hear each other. Even if neither character is trying to be stealthy, the DM may call for Perception checks (or consult passive perception) to see if either (or both) of the characters hear each other, and the DM sets the DC, just like they would for any other check.

It works identically if one character is invisible but not trying to hide. If the DM determines that, under the circumstances (long range, ambient noise, distraction, etc.), the invisible character may not be heard, the DM may call for a Perception check (or consult passive perception) to see if the invisible character is heard.
I think it works more like you can check or not depending the situation, and if can check, is a confrontation roll instead a check against a DC. Well if you use passive perception then yes it is like a DC, but it is in any case a Stealth vs Perception. But I think when actively searching there is a roll instead using passive, so some could notice and others not.

Invisible you always can check for hide, but if distance is long, then there could not be possible a perception check (because it would be sight based), then hide auto-success. Depending circumstances, then apply dis/advantage to any.

[EggKookoo]

I may not have been clear with my question, because your answer seems to address an entirely different situation. I was trying to address the case where range is the only obstacle to detection. Here's a more specific question:

Tom is strolling through the woods. Fred is also strolling through the woods. Tom and Fred are far enough apart to be outside of each other's hearing and vision range. Would you rule that Tom and Fred are aware of each other's presence and location just because neither one has taken a stealth check?

I would rule they're unaware of each other, but that's not because they're hidden. If they happen to wander close to each other, they just notice each other (barring one of them trying to hide or something, I suppose).

But this isn't analogous. Being invisible is not putting someone "outside your vision range." It's obscuring a creature's ability to see you directly (and clearly). But you leave a lot of telltale signs of your presence. Sure, part of that is sound, but that's not all of it. A DM could rule that being invisible and silenced confers being hidden in a given instance, but is not obligated to. As a player, you cannot cast invisibility and silence and then insist another creature must make a perception check to detect you (at least not at my table, but I don't think I'm houseruling anything here).

[Malifice]

That doesn't directly answer my question. To rephrase: do you assume that environmental circumstances exist such that the presence and location of an invisible, silenced creature who hasn't taken the hide check is immediately apparent?

No I dont assume such circumstances exist. But I do assume the possibility of their existence in the encounter; hence the Stealth check (at advantage). Success or failure by the PC will then inform me of their existence.

Player: My silenced and invisible PC will sneak over to the other side of the room.
DM: Fine, make me a Stealth check for the Hide action, at advantage.
Player: [rolls] damn! A 7.
DM: (pauses to think) As you carefully move across the room, you:

1) ...notice the Orcs sniffing about. Suddenly they turn in your general direction, smirk and charge!
2) ...accidentally bump into a table, knocking over a vase. The Orcs charge into your position, swinging swords in your general direction!
3) ...realize with horror that your footprints are clearly visible in the dust in the room. The orcs notice this as well and charge!
4) ... reach the other side, and feel something wet against your leg. Reaching down you feel blood from an earlier wound, and notice it pooling at the floor at your feet, perfectly visible! The Orcs smirk, and charge!
5) ... move carefully past an Orc, as it moves past you brushing past it! It howls in rage, and swings its sword where you're standing!

etc etc etc.


It is true that certain characters can take the hide action while runnng, or that a character might have taken the hide action prior to dashing. (Not all DMs would permit a dashing character to retain a previous hide check, however.) But that doesn't affect the example where the diashing character has not taken the hide check.

If he hasnt bothered with a Stealth check (via the Hide action), he isnt trying not to brush past other creatures, bump into tables, avoid leaving tracks in the dust etc. He could have made such an effort (i.e TAKE THE HIDE ACTION) and move 30' but he chose not to (and instead chose to move 60' thanks to Dashing instead).

He's either trying to avoid attention while unseen (Hide action) or he isnt (take some other action instead). It's his choice.

If a player tells me that (while unseen in some darkness or behind cover or via invisibility or whatever) that he stands totally still and quiet or otherwise tries to avoid being noticed, he is taking the Hide action. Just like if he tells me he wants to smack an Orc with an Axe. He's taking the Attack action.

If he doesnt care if he gets noticed or not, he can take whatever other action he wants (Attack, Cast a Spell, Ready, Search, Dodge, Dash etc). His call.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's why I described the character in the restaurant example was silenced, rather than that the character was under the effects of a Silence spell. Perhaps it's from a custom magic item, a bizarre curse, or a researched spell. The source of the silence doesn't matter for purposes of using the example to try to better understand the way other posters rule about stealth.

Then the details depend strongly on the exact circumstances, including the attention and noise levels of the room, the exact silence effect, the person's actions, etc.

My only general rule about stealth/perception is that I don't make any mechanical general rules about stealth. The fiction controls the mechanics when they come in potential conflict. Edge-case hypotheticals don't help in figuring these things out--they're edge cases and exceptions make bad rules. Everything's on a case-by-case basis, because context is king.

If two people could possibly (using very broad definitions of possibly here) perceive the presence of the other, then there are a couple options:

* Neither is trying to not be perceived and are actively paying attention (ie not distracted by other things) or in a high-pressure situation such as combat, the two perceive each other, no checks needed.
* One party (or the other) is trying to avoid detection. Note: This takes active effort such as damping jingling, taking care not to step on branches, etc. This is normally mechanically represented by taking the Hide action.

So attempts to be unperceived where it could matter (ie not on another planet) will usually require a Hide action and a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Now if in fiction there is no way to be perceived AND not being perceived doesn't matter (ie the movement of someone 100 miles away), the situation is moot. It doesn't matter. If it can matter, I still lean toward giving stealth checks. I do this so that the players don't get ambushed unfairly and so they can't ambush someone else unfairly. This is true even if I don't think that it could normally happen.

I will still call for stealth checks even if I know the room is empty, because the players don't know. Those stealth checks last until they do something obvious or the situation dramatically changes (ie they're detected). Barring weird edge cases (that are considered individually), invisibility allows Hiding where it otherwise could not and imposes disadvantage on attacks (EDIT: and grants the unseen attacker bonus to attacks made), but does nothing else.

Actions are how DMs translate player decisions into game-play. They're methods the DM can use to resolve a situation. If someone says that they're running full out, they're taking the Dash action. If they're running as fast as they can while still being quiet, they took the Hide action and are using their regular movement (unless rogue, in which case they can combine the two). You can't both "run full out" and "stay hidden" (again, barring exceptional edge cases that are one-offs).

[Unoriginal]

Using Greater Invisibility a lot isn't abusing it. The only way one could abuse it is if they try using rule loopholes to get advantages or the like.

Your players can use GI a lot. It's fine, they are paying the proper price for it, and as pointed out above it's not a "I win" button, just a "I'm harder to hit and I can hide more easily" one. Plus as was said above too, there are many ways to deal with invisible combatants if how they use that tactic becomes known or if they fight a smart villain. Not to mention all the enemies that can just shrug off that kind of tactics. Devils with true sight acting as if they couldn't see the PCs until the right moment would be pretty funny.


Your group having a fight with Invisible Stalkers could be fun, too.

[Malifice]

Actions are how DMs translate player decisions into game-play. .

This.

Player tells me what he wants to do. I (as DM) tell him what Actions it takes.

If an invisible PC wanted to walk across the other side of a room undetected, thats the Hide action and up to 30' movement. If he's a Rogue of 2nd level or higher (or action surging fighter taking the Hide action with one of those actions or some other corner cases) then he can also do something else that turn.

I always get a lot of 'What if the player tells you he moves really quietly, and conceal his presence as he moves, trying not to bump into things, but doesnt take the Hide action' type questions.

The moving quietly/ covering his tracks/ trying not to bump into things is the Hide action. Its the opportunity cost of doing that stuff that means (unless you're a 2nd level Rogue) you cant also attack or cast a spell or dash or whatever in the same turn (but you can on your next turn, which is only a fraction of a second later, after everyone elses turns are resolved).

[Digimike]

AoE
Traps
Wolves/dogs
Redied actions
Counterspell
Darkness/fog
Gust of wind (great for forcing concentration checks)

As a DM I'd not work to completely nullify this tactic though. It's powerful and players should have some reward for utilizing it. Let players feel powerful and have fun.

Have some ideas in mind for reasonable counters if the bad guys are reasonably intelligent, but dumb orcs/Giants etc should act confused and clueless.

[djreynolds]

Darkness is a great spell to cast into an area where you think invisible opponents are lurking. It evens things up when nobody can see.


Remember to let them have some fun with it. It's a limited resource and the enemies shouldn't always have to counter it.


I don't have a horse in this race, I just think this is a very elegant solution and I wanted you to get a shout out.

Darkness and fog cloud are reasonable powers an enemy may posses.

Otherwise, let them have fun.

Sorcerers may have weak wisdom saves, fear could be helpful. Invisible or not, they just have to see it.

Just make it challenging

[EggKookoo]

If an invisible PC wanted to walk across the other side of a room undetected, thats the Hide action and up to 30' movement. If he's a Rogue of 2nd level or higher (or action surging fighter taking the Hide action with one of those actions or some other corner cases) then he can also do something else that turn.

I have an upcoming game I'm DMing with both a rogue and a shadow monk (well, just a monk at first as we're starting 1st level). I expect stealth to come up a lot. Both players are new-ish to 5e, and both have played WoW with the rogue's magic "invisibility stealth." I plan to explain it pretty simply: you can "go into stealth" by obscuring yourself in some fashion and then making a stealth check. As soon as you draw attention to yourself, you're no longer "in stealth," and of course anyone you're hiding from can try to make a check to detect you. Being invisible doesn't mean being "in stealth" but just makes it easier.

[AHF]

That doesn't directly answer my question. To rephrase: do you assume that environmental circumstances exist such that the presence and location of an invisible, silenced creature who hasn't taken the hide check is immediately apparent? Or, do you only determine that the presence and location of an invisible, silenced creature who hasn't taken the hide check is immediately apparent if you have affirmatively determined that an environmental circumstance exists that reveals the character's presence and location?



It is true that certain characters can take the hide action while running, or that a character might have taken the hide action prior to dashing. (Not all DMs would permit a dashing character to retain a previous hide check, however.) But that doesn't affect the example where the dashing character has not taken the hide check.

We know that the character isn't brushing into anything or anyone because that was specified in the example. A breeze might be noticed, but only by the closest diners to the runner, and, as I discussed above in my reply to Keravath, diners feeling an unexplained breeze doesn't necessarily mean that they will know that it was caused by an invisible, silenced creature. If this is a very unusual restaurant that has plush carpet (hopefully they don't serve wine or meat!), diners with line of sight to the runner's path might indeed notice footprints, but diners on the other side of the room won't be able to.

But it sounds like, in the absence of a hide check, you'd assume that some other environmental factor must exist such that every diner is immediately be aware of the presence and location of the running character well enough to attack with disadvantage?

The example assumes a hide action, imo. It takes as a starting point that the character sprinting through a busy restaurant doesn’t brush up against anyone, bump into anything, etc.

I don’t think a visible character dashing through a busy restaurant is likely to accomplish that and avoiding that type of interaction is what a successful stealth check reflects. So I would say that the way the question is phrased makes me think no check is necessary absent some kind of unusual environmental factor. However, in any game I’m DMing players don’t get a free pass to avoid these types of things in a restaurant envirornt without using the stealth action.

[Xetheral]

I would rule they're unaware of each other, but that's not because they're hidden. If they happen to wander close to each other, they just notice each other (barring one of them trying to hide or something, I suppose).

I would rule the same way, except that as the distance decreases at some point I would rule that it becomes uncertain whether the characters are aware of each other, and call for a perception check against a fixed DC (or consult passive perception). If they continue to close the distance, the DC would drop until they're close enough that I determine that it is certain they notice each other.


But this isn't analogous. Being invisible is not putting someone "outside your vision range." It's obscuring a creature's ability to see you directly (and clearly). But you leave a lot of telltale signs of your presence. Sure, part of that is sound, but that's not all of it. A DM could rule that being invisible and silenced confers being hidden in a given instance, but is not obligated to. As a player, you cannot cast invisibility and silence and then insist another creature must make a perception check to detect you (at least not at my table, but I don't think I'm houseruling anything here).

It's analogous to the extent that an invisible creature and one outside of visual range are both unseen. But I agree that it's not an identical situation.

I also agree that the player cannot insist that being unseen and unheard is enough to force opponents to make a perception check (or consult passive perception). But I would equally say that a player cannot insist that no perception check (or consulting passive perception) is required to notice a creature that is unseen and unheard but hasn't taken the hide action. Just as there may be telltale signs revealing the creature's presence, there also might not be telltale signs, or those signs might themselves be difficult enough to notice (or be far enough away) so as to require a perception check (or consulting passive perception).


No I dont assume such circumstances exist. But I do assume the possibility of their existence in the encounter; hence the Stealth check (at advantage). Success or failure by the PC will then inform me of their existence.

If failure to make a successful stealth check means that environmental circumstances exist such that a character's presence and location will be detected, I consider that as assuming such circumstances exist. Consider: every time a character doesn't make a stealth check at your table, environmental circumstances exist such that the character is detected. I don't know what that is if not a default assumption that such circumstances exist.

With regards to the rest of your post, we have a difference of style. I do not have general environmental conditions be determined by the result of a check. Hence, my insistence that the running character was in no danger of bumping into anything in its path, and your insistence that if the character doesn't make a stealth check there will be things the character bumps into.


Then the details depend strongly on the exact circumstances, including the attention and noise levels of the room, the exact silence effect, the person's actions, etc.

My only general rule about stealth/perception is that I don't make any mechanical general rules about stealth. The fiction controls the mechanics when they come in potential conflict. Edge-case hypotheticals don't help in figuring these things out--they're edge cases and exceptions make bad rules. Everything's on a case-by-case basis, because context is king.

I agree that the result is entirely contextually dependent. (Unlike Malifice, though, I will not vary the environmental context as a result of checks or the absence of checks.) However, to achieve consistency in context-dependent determinations, a framework for making those determinations is helpful. You've outlined your framework in the rest of your post, and it looks like a good one to me, even though mine is quite different.

Where I disagree, however, is your claim that edge-case hypotheticals have no value. Testing a decision framework at the extreme edges (1) helps one determine how robust that framework is (and thus when not to rely on it), and (2) helps communicate that framework to others.

As a (trivial) example of (1), if a DM has gone with a simple framework of "all characters that don't take the hide action are always detected", the counter-intuitive example at the extreme of 100 miles reveals that this framework shouldn't be relied upon at excessive range. If excessive range (or borderline excessive range) ever come up, the DM will need to use a different framework.

As an example of (2), I learned via the restaurant example that I was misunderstanding Malifice's framework. It made zero sense to me that a patron in a far corner of the restaurant would know that an unseen, silent creature just sprinted across the other side of the room. I could imagine circumstances where it would make sense (a light fog in the room, for example) but such a fog wasn't part of the example. Now I understand that Malifice would add such a fog to the room (or bustling waiters to be collided with, or some other phenomena) so that there would be a reason why the far-corner patron and everyone else would be aware of the character's presence and location.

[Malifice]

I do not have general environmental conditions be determined by the result of a check.

Yeah you do.

Whenever you check for a random encounter, the weather, what treasure is in a hoard and tons of other things. That storm wasnt there till you rolled it, and neither was the +1 sword.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But edge-case hypotheticals don't work in context-critical settings, because you can't communicate all the context. The answer to such things always is "I won't know unless I know the entire situation, and then I'll make whatever choice is best for the game and the players." That is, they don't help communicate or elucidate, because they come across as cherry-picked to make a point (often "your framework is garbage because it doesn't handle <edge case X that can never occur>.") This is especially true on a forum.

And stealth/perceptions is one of the most context-sensitive things in the game. It has huge ramifications, has many strongly-interacting parameters, and is highly prone to absurdities.

As a general rule, I try to think from both sides. Would I, as a player, like to be ambushed without any possibility of warning and being prepared? No. As a DM, do I want the players to have an easy "I press the stealth button and win" option? No. So stealth can't be trivial, even with magic involved. But do I, as a player, want to be able to sneak up on people if I play my cards right? Yes. As a DM, do I want to set up ambushes? Yes. So stealth can't be an automatic failure either. It's a dynamic tension that needs constant adjustment for the flow and fun of the game, not something that can be set in any kind of general framework beyond "usually, you need to Hide to be stealthy but exceptions may apply as I see fit."

[Xetheral]

Yeah you do.

Whenever you check for a random encounter, the weather, what treasure is in a hoard and tons of other things. That storm wasnt there till you rolled it, and neither was the +1 sword.

I don't use random rolls for any of those things. I don't have random encounters, weather is set in advance on the campaign calendar, and I don't use random treasure.

But more importantly, I see a difference between a deliberate roll to establish an element of a setting, and changing the setting to fit the results of a PC's stealth check (or absence of that check). There's nothing wrong at all with you doing so, it's just not a style I prefer. (And also not one I realized you were using. Now that I understand that, it's easier to see your point of view on stealth.)

[Unoriginal]

Also, just to point something out:


If most of the group is invisible, then they can't see each others either.


That rather limits tactics or even simpler, basic things like "see friend in difficulty, go help them" or "not walking into allies while you move".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't use random rolls for any of those things. I don't have random encounters, weather is set in advance on the campaign calendar, and I don't use random treasure.

But more importantly, I see a difference between a deliberate roll to establish an element of a setting, and changing the setting to fit the results of a PC's stealth check (or absence of that check). There's nothing wrong at all with you doing so, it's just not a style I prefer. (And also not one I realized you were using. Now that I understand that, it's easier to see your point of view on stealth.)

One could also see it as "bringing into focus otherwise indeterminate aspects of the scene." Things that are said at the table are fixed, but other things aren't. If I say "there are no waiters, no blood on the floor, no one can notice you" that's one thing. But If I say "it's generally open with scattered obstacles", I haven't disestablished the existence of those other things. And a bad stealth roll might simply fix that yes, there were such obstacles.

Time at the table is limited--no one wants to pull a Victor Hugo (known for writing long passages about, say, the sewers of Paris with way more detail than is needed) at the table. You progressively flesh out the scene as it goes. I don't mention/plan out all the torch brackets, but if someone asks if there are some, I'll make a decision based on the broad-brush nature of the room. If someone takes an action that is reasonable presuming something unsaid, I'll usually write that into the scene. But since I'm trying to promote fun, I don't do so to screw over players. If they fail, they fail based on the dice, but I won't write something in so that they have to fail before they roll. Things that could reasonably be presumed to exist, probably exist.

And having waiters, or the orcs smelling you, or someone pushing their chair back suddenly or talking with their hands and bumping into you--those are totally reasonable things that can't be predicted in advance and make reasonable explanations for a failed check.

This is why stealth doesn't work in the abstract--there are 10s of thousands of possible variations all of which are plausible. The dice help us decide which one is actual. I don't let people word their way out of uncertainty by presuming the absence of complications.

[EggKookoo]

It's analogous to the extent that an invisible creature and one outside of visual range are both unseen. But I agree that it's not an identical situation.

Not exactly. A creature outside your visible range is not seen. An invisible creature (in your visual range) is not seen clearly. "Clearly" is deliberately left ambiguous by the rules so you can decide what it means. Maybe it means that while you can't see the creature itself, you can see evidence of its existence. Maybe it means sound is enough to give it away. Maybe it means all creatures have a kind of sixth sense about these things ("You get the feeling something is watching you"). Maybe it means invisibility in 5e works more like the Predator's cloak -- you can still see the creature in a refracted, distorted sense. It's up to you and the rules are agnostic about it.

Also, keeping with your example, Tom leaves footprints, but those footprints are also outside of Fred's visual range. This is not analogous to Tom being in Fred's immediate area but being invisible. Fred would see those footprints.


I also agree that the player cannot insist that being unseen and unheard is enough to force opponents to make a perception check (or consult passive perception). But I would equally say that a player cannot insist that no perception check (or consulting passive perception) is required to notice a creature that is unseen and unheard but hasn't taken the hide action. Just as there may be telltale signs revealing the creature's presence, there also might not be telltale signs, or those signs might themselves be difficult enough to notice (or be far enough away) so as to require a perception check (or consulting passive perception).

If a player says "I'm invisible and silenced, I walk past the guard" and the DM asks for a stealth check, the player can't refuse merely on the grounds that they're invisible and silenced.

[EggKookoo]

The dice help us decide which one is actual.

I look at it as, the dice don't create. They reveal.

You didn't hit that orc because you rolled an 18. The 18 is telling us that you hit the orc.

[Calimehter]

Where I disagree, however, is your claim that edge-case hypotheticals have no value. Testing a decision framework at the extreme edges (1) helps one determine how robust that framework is (and thus when not to rely on it), and (2) helps communicate that framework to others.

While this is strictly true, it does not always follow that such tests are practically useful. You can call someone out who is using Newtonian physics and let them know they are not using the 'proper' equations, but if all they are doing is designing a miniature golf course, then showing them the edge cases where Newtonian physics does not apply isn't really helping them.

You can eventually construct a contrived enough set of circumstances where a person who is not making an effort to hide will still not be detectable at close range. A character who is invisible and has a customized silence effect and whose scent blends in perfectly or is drowned out by the background happens to be running in a straight line down a restaurant that also happens to have tables spaced very uneconomically apart, has much sturdier flooring than average (no vibrations), is perfectly clean, has no hanging decorations, has no patrons that might get up from their chairs or waitstaff or dessert carts moving around the room, has no patrons that snuck their own dog inside invisibly because they couldn't bear to be separated from their snookum-wookums, has a lot of natural air movement (fans?) to offset any breezes, has no doors or other barriers at the entryway to indicate someone passed through them, etc. etc. etc.. . . . yeah, sure, this guy isn't noticed by anyone despite making zero effort in his actual actions (i.e. not making a Hide check and using Dash instead).


How meaningful that example is in a dungeon fight, or even a common fantasy tavern or restaurant, is pretty debatable. Its almost never going to come up in the OPs party tactics.

[Laserlight]

Also, just to point something out:


If most of the group is invisible, then they can't see each others either.


That rather limits tactics or even simpler, basic things like "see friend in difficulty, go help them" or "not walking into allies while you move".

And "party friendly" AoE spells aren't always friendly to invisible people--for example Spirit Guardians says "When you cast this spell, you can designate any number of creatures you can see to be unaffected by it." Our party rogue has an invisibility cloak, which can sometimes cause problems with that.

Also...Greater Invis is a fourth level spell, and those are supposed to significantly alter the fight, or outright end it--Polymorph and Banishment come to mind.

Additional also--granted they're twinning it and have sorc points, but how many PCs are capable of casting that, and how many L4 slots do they have?

[Xetheral]

The example assumes a hide action, imo. It takes as a starting point that the character sprinting through a busy restaurant doesn’t brush up against anyone, bump into anything, etc.

I don’t think a visible character dashing through a busy restaurant is likely to accomplish that and avoiding that type of interaction is what a successful stealth check reflects. So I would say that the way the question is phrased makes me think no check is necessary absent some kind of unusual environmental factor. However, in any game I’m DMing players don’t get a free pass to avoid these types of things in a restaurant envirornt without using the stealth action.

I'd originally described the restaurant as having tables far enough apart that there was no danger of running into anything. If instead it had been established that there wasn't a reliably free path through the restaurant, I'd be more likely to consider that an acrobatics check than a stealth check.

You're also assuming that the character cares if they are detected--they very well might not care. If they don't care, then the question about whether they are detected isn't about giving them a "free pass", but instead about describing the result (if any) as they move through the restaurant, and any gossip or local news generated by the incident.


But edge-case hypotheticals don't work in context-critical settings, because you can't communicate all the context. The answer to such things always is "I won't know unless I know the entire situation, and then I'll make whatever choice is best for the game and the players." That is, they don't help communicate or elucidate, because they come across as cherry-picked to make a point (often "your framework is garbage because it doesn't handle <edge case X that can never occur>.") This is especially true on a forum.

The intent of my hypothetical was not to play "gotcha". In the context of the post where I first brought it up, it was an example of my question as to whether Malifice assumed that environmental conditions would exist that would reveal an unseen, unheard, sprinter who didn't take the hide action. The resulting discussion got me the answer of "yes" (as I interpret his response), and also revealed to me that the presence of such environmental conditions in his game depends on the results of the stealth check (or lack thereof). That was useful information, so the hypothetical served its purpose. If Malifice had instead said "it would depend on context, for example if <x detail> then likely <y ruling> but if <m detail> then likely <n ruling>" I also would have gotten useful information. So in this case my hypothetical did help us communicate.


And stealth/perceptions is one of the most context-sensitive things in the game. It has huge ramifications, has many strongly-interacting parameters, and is highly prone to absurdities.

As a general rule, I try to think from both sides. Would I, as a player, like to be ambushed without any possibility of warning and being prepared? No. As a DM, do I want the players to have an easy "I press the stealth button and win" option? No. So stealth can't be trivial, even with magic involved. But do I, as a player, want to be able to sneak up on people if I play my cards right? Yes. As a DM, do I want to set up ambushes? Yes. So stealth can't be an automatic failure either. It's a dynamic tension that needs constant adjustment for the flow and fun of the game, not something that can be set in any kind of general framework beyond "usually, you need to Hide to be stealthy but exceptions may apply as I see fit."

I take a different approach because I prefer to focus on making perception and stealth as intuitive as possible rather than as balanced as possible. I want the outcome of my rulings to feel "realistic" rather than merely the output of game mechanics.

As such, my approach to stealth is straightforward. To be able to describe the world to the players, I need to know what they can perceive. Most things fall into the category of being obvious whether they can currently be perceived: either they're close enough the answer is yes, or they're far enough away and/or blocked and the answer is no. Sometimes I'm uncertain (whether due to distance, environmental factors, distraction, etc.) and in these cases I'll set a contextual DC and refer to passive perception.

If it's uncertain whether the players notice a creature, and that creature is trying to remain unnoticed (i.e. has taken the hide action), then I'll use the higher of its stealth check or the DC I set when comparing passive perception. If the creature has an ability that lets it hide in special circumstances (e.g. wood elf) I let the creature can take the hide action even in circumstances that I would normally rule to be an auto-detection.

I generally have a pretty dim view of how perceptive distracted characters are. Noticing a specific bystander in a light crowd watching the PCs in a street brawl is not going to be automatic at my table. Noticing a specific invisible bystander in a light crowd is going to be extremely difficult. If either the visible or invisible spectators are trying to be stealthy, the DC may end up even higher. But if the PC's opponent casts Invisibility mid-battle, the DCs will be a lot lower, or even automatic successes, until the opponent takes the hide action.


One could also see it as "bringing into focus otherwise indeterminate aspects of the scene." Things that are said at the table are fixed, but other things aren't. If I say "there are no waiters, no blood on the floor, no one can notice you" that's one thing. But If I say "it's generally open with scattered obstacles", I haven't disestablished the existence of those other things. And a bad stealth roll might simply fix that yes, there were such obstacles.

I agree with this, but I find that players usually ask about relevant details before deciding on a course of action, to the point that they'd receive the former description. I will also avoid later establishing new elements of a scene if they go against the intent of the player's original question. I may not have explicitly said there was no blood on the floor, for example, but if blood would have been a relevant detail to share in my original response to the player's question, then I'm not going to add it in later to describe the result of a failed check.


Not exactly. A creature outside your visible range is not seen. An invisible creature (in your visual range) is not seen clearly. "Clearly" is deliberately left ambiguous by the rules so you can decide what it means. Maybe it means that while you can't see the creature itself, you can see evidence of its existence. Maybe it means sound is enough to give it away. Maybe it means all creatures have a kind of sixth sense about these things ("You get the feeling something is watching you"). Maybe it means invisibility in 5e works more like the Predator's cloak -- you can still see the creature in a refracted, distorted sense. It's up to you and the rules are agnostic about it.

Also, keeping with your example, Tom leaves footprints, but those footprints are also outside of Fred's visual range. This is not analogous to Tom being in Fred's immediate area but being invisible. Fred would see those footprints.

If a player says "I'm invisible and silenced, I walk past the guard" and the DM asks for a stealth check, the player can't refuse merely on the grounds that they're invisible and silenced.

The Invisibile condition states: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. For the purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." (Emphasis added.) The point of my analogy is that both an invisible creature and one who is way too far away are impossible to see. To me, that means they're both "unseen", with not caveats about only not being seen "clearly". The exceptions will be different (e.g. seeing footprints, smell), but that's because it's an analogy, not an identity. (And for the last sentence of the condition, the community is sharply divided over whether "can be detected" means "might be detected" or "is always detected".)

I agree that a player can't insist that a hide check isn't required. Similarly, the player can't insist that they detect an opponent just because the opponent didn't take the hide action. Both are up to the DM.


While this is strictly true, it does not always follow that such tests are practically useful. You can call someone out who is using Newtonian physics and let them know they are not using the 'proper' equations, but if all they are doing is designing a miniature golf course, then showing them the edge cases where Newtonian physics does not apply isn't really helping them.

You can eventually construct a contrived enough set of circumstances where a person who is not making an effort to hide will still not be detectable at close range. A character who is invisible and has a customized silence effect and whose scent blends in perfectly or is drowned out by the background happens to be running in a straight line down a restaurant that also happens to have tables spaced very uneconomically apart, has much sturdier flooring than average (no vibrations), is perfectly clean, has no hanging decorations, has no patrons that might get up from their chairs or waitstaff or dessert carts moving around the room, has no patrons that snuck their own dog inside invisibly because they couldn't bear to be separated from their snookum-wookums, has a lot of natural air movement (fans?) to offset any breezes, has no doors or other barriers at the entryway to indicate someone passed through them, etc. etc. etc.. . . . yeah, sure, this guy isn't noticed by anyone despite making zero effort in his actual actions (i.e. not making a Hide check and using Dash instead).

How meaningful that example is in a dungeon fight, or even a common fantasy tavern or restaurant, is pretty debatable. Its almost never going to come up in the OPs party tactics.

Agreed. In this case though, my hypothetical worked as a communicative aid. I now understand Malifice's position much better. For example, I now know that he disagrees with you that it is possible to eventually construct a situation where there are zero environmental variables that might reveal an invisible, silent, dashing, non-hidden character, because he will let the dice determine the presence of such variables.

(I think I've replied to everyone at this point. If I missed something, let me know.)

[Keravath]

I may not have been clear with my question, because your answer seems to address an entirely different situation. I was trying to address the case where range is the only obstacle to detection. Here's a more specific question:

Tom is strolling through the woods. Fred is also strolling through the woods. Tom and Fred are far enough apart to be outside of each other's hearing and vision range. Would you rule that Tom and Fred are aware of each other's presence and location just because neither one has taken a stealth check?

No. :) ... it is up to the DM how they want to rule things. In my opinion, you are obviously not aware of the location of everything within miles of where you are located.

If Tom and Fred became close enough that they could become aware of each other (which on a wide open plain could be miles if vision is being used) ... then if they wish to remain hidden from each other, a stealth check would be required.

If you are unaware of something then there has to be the POSSIBILITY that you could become aware of it ... at that point a stealth check is required due to whatever factor is responsible for allowing for you to become aware of it. If you are ALREADY aware of something then a stealth check is required (AND appropriate circumstances like cover or obstruction of vision) in order for you to lose track of the location of the target.

Some examples:

Tom and Fred walking in a forest. Neither is aware of the other until such time as they are within an appropriate sensory distance for whatever condition or sense allows them to become aware of each other. Remaining hidden at this point would require a stealth check.

An invisible character running through a crowded restaurant while also being silenced (keep in mind that silence is a radius spell so it would not work very well to keep you unnoticed in a crowded area). If they were initially hidden then at least some of the people in the restaurant would likely become aware of the general location and direction of motion from the interaction with the wind. However, as you mentioned there are other possible explanations so some observers might have a range of reactions. Someone watching the linear progression of the disturbance might well deduce the existence of a quickly moving invisible creature. On the other hand, if the invisible creature was being chased by someone who was aware of its existence then they would likely be able to track the rough location through the restaurant by the reactions of the people in the restaurant ... so the creature would not be hidden. On the other hand, if the invisible and silenced creature instead moved stealthily (hide action) through the crowded restaurant there is a very good chance they would go unnoticed unless they accidentally knocked something over (i.e. poor stealth roll).

A character who ducks around a corner to avoid the gaze of a guard is not hidden if the guard was aware of them. If the guard goes around the corner but the character had ducked around another corner then the character would still need to make a hide check to make sure they are leaving no clues (sounds, disturbance of dust, dirt or blood trail) of which direction they took in order to become hidden. Otherwise the guard still probably has a pretty good idea of where the character has gone. If the character has dashed and is now so far away that they could neither be seen or heard then their location may not be known but they might have lost a trail. If the character subsequently stops hoping to ambush the guard then a stealth check would be required to determine how well they have laid their ambush (how effectively they have hidden).

Basically, at least in my opinion of the rules, when two creatures are within sensory range of each other ... a stealth check is required to determine whether they remain or can become hidden. Otherwise, you will know generally where (within a 5' square) the character is located.

All of the gray areas come into determining "What is a sensory range?", "What senses are being used to find the hidden creature or prevent them from hiding?" ... in general though, if you are aware of a character under a greater invisibility spell in a combat then you know where they are but your attacks are subject to disadvantage while theirs have advantage. Anything more requires the creature under greater invisibility to take the hide action for their position to become unknown.

[AHF]

I'd originally described the restaurant as having tables far enough apart that there was no danger of running into anything. If instead it had been established that there wasn't a reliably free path through the restaurant, I'd be more likely to consider that an acrobatics check than a stealth check.

You're also assuming that the character cares if they are detected--they very well might not care. If they don't care, then the question about whether they are detected isn't about giving them a "free pass", but instead about describing the result (if any) as they move through the restaurant, and any gossip or local news generated by the incident.


I’ve never seen a restaurant like you describe. Been in probably more than a thousand and never seen one where someone running full speed and not caring if they do something that reveals their position could have zero risk of bumping into someone or something. You might as well be saying that someone with an allergy towards plants won’t have a problem in a forest if the forest has no trees, bushes or grass. It is like “sure, starting from that premise the conclusion has some logic but the premise is reallly unrealistic to the point where I’m wondering why it was ever proposed.”

Also, I never said anything about whether the player cared. My point is that restaurant environments are an environments where it would ordinarily take very deliberate action to reduce the risk of bumping into someone, bumping into some thing, stepping in some spilled food or drink, etc. to the point where it is literally zero.

[Keravath]

I don't use random rolls for any of those things. I don't have random encounters, weather is set in advance on the campaign calendar, and I don't use random treasure.

But more importantly, I see a difference between a deliberate roll to establish an element of a setting, and changing the setting to fit the results of a PC's stealth check (or absence of that check). There's nothing wrong at all with you doing so, it's just not a style I prefer. (And also not one I realized you were using. Now that I understand that, it's easier to see your point of view on stealth.)

I think we may just ascribe different things to the stealth roll.

In your example, of the silent runner in the restaurant, you indicated that they could run across the room without anyone noticing. They would not bump into a table, a patron would not unexpectedly swing an arm, stand up or drop a cloak, a waiter would not stumble and accidentally spill a meal on the invisible running character, the character would obviously see an avoid any spills or other slippery parts of the floor, they wouldn't trip, a strap on their pack would not accidentally knock over a glass, the end of their sheathed sword would never scrape the floor or accidentally bump another patron's leg, the patron with the particularly acute sense of smell that notices they are in dire need of a bath. In fact, your comments seemed to assume that the runner will always 100% of the time, perfectly execute their silent and invisible run through the crowded restaurant no matter what random and normal events occur. (Of course, perhaps, all of your NPCs always remain motionless and intentionally do not do anything that could interfere with the path of the runner but that seems a bit extreme.)

Many of us think the perfection of this character in executing this maneuver is perhaps a bit unrealistic. So as the dashing character reacts to avoid all of the possible situations that happen during their run they leave small indications of their presence that may be noticed by a perceptive observer. (And this leaves out all the environmental effects like the breeze of their passing). However, the character would also have the option to make a hide check and move more slowly. Hiding would be at advantage since they are wearing elven boots or something else that makes them silent. The hide check represents how well the character is able to avoid all of the events that naturally occur during the dash through the restaurant and which could give away their position.

The dice roll represents the occurrence of the myriad random factors that could come into play and which can not be incorporated in a deterministic way. Again, in your example, unless you have created a map of the individual movements of every NPC in the room during the time when the character is running by you do not know whether the character will succeed in their task of remaining unobserved or not (thus a dice roll to resolve the uncertainty). On the other hand, if you have mapped the movements of every NPC then you know that the woman at the third table on the right will unexpectedly decide to stretch out their left leg to stand up, tripping the runner and causing them to stumble and fall into the fourth table on the left alerting the entire restaurant to their presence ... personally, I prefer the dice roll :)

[EggKookoo]

I agree that a player can't insist that a hide check isn't required. Similarly, the player can't insist that they detect an opponent just because the opponent didn't take the hide action. Both are up to the DM.

Eh... Not sure I agree there. If I'm fighting a creature and it casts invisibility, I'd be very confused if the DM wouldn't let me target it with an attack (with disadvantage). After all, its action was to cast the spell, and it needs another action (next round) to try to hide. If the DM said the creature had a feature that allowed it to turn invisible and hide both as part of the same action, fine. I'd then ask if I can try to detect it, since hiding would produce a DC for me to roll against. If the DM doesn't let me do that, or says the creature never actually hid but just turned invisible but I still can't attack it, well, I guess I'd be okay with it but they're clearly inventing their own rules at this point. Adding silence to the action wouldn't really change that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for DMs inventing cool and new ways to make encounters challenging and interesting. A true vanish feature might be kind of cool -- with one action you turn invisible, become silenced, and automatically hide. But that "hide" component is important. That's what's preventing me from making the attack, not the invisibility or silence.

[Keravath]

I also agree that the player cannot insist that being unseen and unheard is enough to force opponents to make a perception check (or consult passive perception). But I would equally say that a player cannot insist that no perception check (or consulting passive perception) is required to notice a creature that is unseen and unheard but hasn't taken the hide action. Just as there may be telltale signs revealing the creature's presence, there also might not be telltale signs, or those signs might themselves be difficult enough to notice (or be far enough away) so as to require a perception check (or consulting passive perception).



I'd just like to comment that the "player's" opinion or insistence on a particular approach is irrelevant. The resolution of any situation involving stealth is clearly up to the DM and stealth in particular is an area which (obviously give the current discussion :)) is open to a lot of interpretation.

The player describes their circumstances and the actions they are taking and the DM adjudicates the results including asking for skill checks or other dice rolls if relevant.

The basic rule in 5e is that you make a stealth check to be hidden.

However, the circumstances surrounding stealth and the interaction of senses are so complex that it would be very cumbersome to try to describe a more comprehensive set of rules for the infinite number of variations that are possible. So anything beyond the basic rule is at the DMs discretion as to whether a character can be considered hidden in any given circumstance and in fact whether it is even relevant (as in the case of two creatures that are beyond each others sensory range - they clearly do NOT become aware of each other - but if they were previously aware they may retain some knowledge of the current location depending on the circumstances).

[Deox]

Not sure if this has been mentioned. As a DM, I would embrace this tactic from my players. Let the party expend resources to do awesome things. Guess what happens? Your players just handed you world evolution on a silver platter. The BBEGs (or relevant higher-ups) start hearing of an extremely effective strike force, almost always going unseen.

Now your BBEGs get to take precautions in accordance to players actions, not to invalidate, but to adapt. Mundane, but well hidden traps become all-stars. Trip wires linked to: bags of flour, oil + fire, or anything that makes sense to that environment. Scouts become even more valuable. Observe and retreat to report, etc. Maybe the BBEGs start making "backroom" deals with other unsavory characters?

Your PCs are employing a very strong tactic, but one that carries with it serious renown.

Essentially, so what? Let the players keep trying the same thing. Show your players that the world lives, adapts, and evolves.

[SirGraystone]

Faerie fire is a good counter to invisibility

[tieren]

Faerie fire is a good counter to invisibility

Toss an open sack of flour into the room, basically the same thing.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, this is a level 7+ party we're talking about here, able to make something invisible for a minute. Sure, if they want to blow one of their biggest resources to scout, go for it, but Arcane Eye is the same level and lasts 10x as long.

Against a level 7+ party, the badguys should already be having a few options of their own, including even some mundane solutions like trained hounds or traps. If they aren't dealing with higher level foes, then it's just one of the perks of being a high level adventurer.

[Dark Schneider]

Also is not easy to cast on everyone. Twin spell allow a 2nd target, and the spell is Concentration, so one sorcerer can only cast it over 2 targets. And if self is not one of them, it could be hitted to lose concentration.

[tieren]

Also is not easy to cast on everyone. Twin spell allow a 2nd target, and the spell is Concentration, so one sorcerer can only cast it over 2 targets. And if self is not one of them, it could be hitted to lose concentration.

Thats what I was thinking. Sure with a 6 man party including 3 sorcerers with the twinned meta magic you could pull this off, but it would be so much more fun to instead toss out twinned Hold Person, Haste, and Enlarge at the same time. Compared to a pair of rapidly critting man sized dwarves, giving everyone adv/disadv seem boring.

[Lord Bushbaby]

Three words:

Giant Spider Webs

make them fight some drow, maybe some driders alongside, with some spider pets. If the PC's don't check for the webs before entering the room, they're gonna get revealed almost immediately.

[Fey]

Darkness is a great spell to cast into an area where you think invisible opponents are lurking. It evens things up when nobody can see.

Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik. The odds will be even.