A heavily obscured perspective [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Tanarii

2019-06-23, 11:37 AM

The darkness spell does not explicitly block vision through it of things on the other side. It prevents illumination from lighting up things in the area, and blocks darkvision. But I've never known anyone to play it that way, it's just something another poster pointed out once on these boards, that I keep bringing up. :smallwink:

Fog Cloud, (non-magical) darkness, and heavy foliage / mist / natural fog all work the same way. Creatures are effectively blinded while trying to see something inside. No affect on things on the other side, or for something inside seeing out. This doesn't make any sense and I've never played with anyone that runs opaque heavy obscurement this way.

Of course neither does it make sense that a target in fog cloud gives you disadvantage for not seeing it and advantage for them not seeing you, making it just as hard to hit. Or improving things if you started with disadvantage to begin with.

MaXenzie

2019-06-23, 07:15 PM

Zetakya

2019-06-23, 10:19 PM

I would rule that areas on the far side of a heavily obscured area from an observer are also heavily obscured for that observer. Not doing so causes all sorts of strange behaviour.

The RAW for ranged attacks between individuals fighting while heavily obscured from each other are daft, and as a DM I would impose Disadvantage on the attacker by fiat because otherwise it's just silly.

Tanarii

2019-06-23, 10:47 PM

The other alternative is the attacker has to guess where the target is, if they can't percieve them, typically by hearing. But it's up to the DM to determine how hard it is to hear a target enough to pinpoint their location at range.

greenstone

2019-06-24, 12:22 AM

I've always had issue with things like Fog Cloud, since they heavily obscure the area and are opaque.

Since you can't see your opponent and your opponent can't see you, you both roll normally since you're both blind to each other, and are given advantage and disadvantage.

As far as I can tell, heavily obscured areas do literally nothing in most circumstances.
They stop opportunity attacks and spells that require "a target that you can see."

They vastly reduce the effectiveness of archers outside the area firing in (they first have to guess a square and then roll at disadvantage).

The rule about two blind characters attacking each other in melee with the same effectiveness as if both were sighted makes combats run faster. If the two players were both rolling at disadvantage, the only things that changes is how long it takes before one of them is unable to continue (twice as long at the table for the same result).

viaFAMILIAR

2019-06-24, 01:49 AM

The rule about two blind characters attacking each other in melee with the same effectiveness as if both were sighted makes combats run faster. If the two players were both rolling at disadvantage, the only things that changes is how long it takes before one of them is unable to continue (twice as long at the table for the same result).

But what if one character is targeting the other's saving throw? No attack, no disadvantage. Does this solve the unseen blind guy conundrum?

Tanarii

2019-06-24, 09:20 AM

But what if one character is targeting the other's saving throw? No attack, no disadvantage. Does this solve the unseen blind guy conundrum?
There are somewhat limited number of things that target saving throws that don't also require being able to see the target.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-24, 09:38 AM

They vastly reduce the effectiveness of archers outside the area firing in (they first have to guess a square and then roll at disadvantage).

This assumption will never die off, will it?

edit: also... opaque. Can't see in something that's opaque and can't see OUT of something that is opaque. There's no disadvantage.

Tanarii

2019-06-24, 09:43 AM

This assumption will never die off, will it?
Right, using a grid and needing to guess "squares" instead of location is a bad assumption.

Having to guess the location of a target you don't know the location of is RAW. It's just up to the DM to make a ruling on what's necessary to pinpoint without guessing.Does it require a passive perception vs fixed DC to hear them enough to pinpoint? Is it a scaling DC based on distance? Are they automatically pinpointed at infinite range in combat? etc ect

Segev

2019-06-24, 10:06 AM

I wonder how much of these arguments and complaints would lessen if the rule on getting Advantage against targets who can't see you only applied if you could see the target. i.e., you can't get the Advantage of them not seeing you if you already have the Disadvantage of not seeing them. As-is, yes, the two negate, but it actually doesn't make sense to grant the "they can't see you" Advantage if you are already blindly swinging.

That said, it really isn't that big of a problem or deal. About the only situations where you're so guaranteed Disadvantage that it weirdly makes you more accurate to blanket the target area in fog is at long range on ranged weapon attacks. And for that, the DM is well within his rights to deny you perception of the target's actual location since it's so far away that there's no reasonable way to make that Perception check. Or at least to set it at a Near Impossible difficulty and then let the target also roll Stealth (and get that result if it's a higher DC than otherwise) should the target wish.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-24, 10:09 AM

Right, using a grid and needing to guess "squares" instead of location is a bad assumption.

Assuming that an archer that might be exactly 5 feet away from a fighter under Tasha's would still need to guess? You do not know the situation the archer is in. We only know that there's an archer, a target inside a Fog Cloud, and the archer is outside. There's nothing to rule in or out the possibility that the archer can actually hear its intended target, and thus might not have to guess a location. It's an incorrect assumption to make for it to work like "unseen = guess", because it just isn't so.

Having to guess the location of a target you don't know the location of is RAW.

And unseen=i don't know the location is the wrong assumption you too are making. It is just not a given. It's an incorrect assumption to make, and thus it leads to statements that do not necessarily follow.

It's just up to the DM to make a ruling on what's necessary to pinpoint without guessing.

Not really. You can, RAW, target a creature you are hearing and not seeing. Wether or not you are hearing it or not is circumstantial just as is the ability to see or not a target, so either knowing you are or not is not an assumption you should make as the general situation. Given what we are, it is not possible to determine if it is, in fact, necessary to guess. As such it doesn't follow that an archer NEEDS to guess to attack a target in the Fog Cloud. And that's all i am saying.

It is a wrong assumption that is always made: Can't see, thus needs to guess. It just isn't this direct.

Tanarii

2019-06-24, 01:13 PM

Not really. You can, RAW, target a creature you are hearing and not seeing.
Right. But whether or not you can hear them is the question. To pinpoint them you must hear, see, or otherwise percieve them. And hearing, at range, sufficiently to pinpoint is DM judgement on how to adjudicate.

The important part is 'not hidden' doesn't automatically = 'heard'.

The possibility of having to guess locations of an unseen opponent is explicit RAW. It just doesnt detail when or how to resolve.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-24, 01:48 PM

And hearing, at range, sufficiently to pinpoint is DM judgement on how to adjudicate.

Again, not really. RAW is still "a creature that you can hear", not "a creature that you can hear (enough to pinpoint/clearly)". While i do agree that is up to the DM to adjudicate, that's the entire point. You do not have to "guess" if you can hear. So, it still is a wrongfully placed assumption that "unseen=guess", because there's a step to adjudicate before you can rule that your targets location has to be guessed.

It is not correct to weave "hearing" from the explanation, just as much as it isn't correct to weave "sight".

"An archer and a fighter are on a plain. The archer has to guess because he can't hear the fighter" is the exact same situation, only with sight rules being ignored. No indications about the ability of the archer to see the fighter are made. It is just not the correct way to proceed and the conclusion is similarly incorrect.

The important part is 'not hidden' doesn't automatically = 'heard'.

When the other part is unseen... yes it does, at least for all "phb" races without any particular feature. Again, "hidden (unseen and unheard)", RAW. And i agree it extends to other senses, which however do not really apply to phb races (smell, taste) except in very particular cases or are quite redundant to mention (touch).
It's a question of "standards". Hidden is, as a standard, unseen and unheard. It is not correct to simply weave other ways to be perceiven when the situation is right, however the assumed situation is that there is the possibility you can be heard, and that possibility has to be excluded if necessary, while all the others are the exceptional situations that have to be allowed and are normally excluded.

The possibility of having to guess locations of an unseen opponent is explicit RAW. It just doesnt detail when or how to resolve.

And the point is that it is EXACTLY as RAW as "or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see."
Unseen =/= location unknown. It should not be treated as such.

Segev

2019-06-24, 02:06 PM

Unlike seeing, wherein we have "line of sight" rules, we don't have specific rules for whether you "can hear" a creature. It's up to the DM whether it's automatic or requires a Wisdom(Perception) check.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-24, 04:27 PM

Unlike seeing, wherein we have "line of sight" rules, we don't have specific rules for whether you "can hear" a creature.

It.
Does.
Not.
Matter.

Since you lost your wallet, you are now poor. Is it relevant to this conclusion whether you have a bank account, villas or other possessions? If so, why is it not taken into consideration?

Since you suffered a wound, you are now dead. Is it relevant the amount of hp you lost? If so, why was it not taken into consideration?

I could make a thousand of examples. You need to take into consideration if a creature is able or not to hear its intended target. If, and only if, it is not able to THEN they need to guess the location for the purposes of targeting - obviously only speaking of the most general.

How someone wants to handle "hearing" is beside the point. It is a consideration that has to be made. Only then one can reach a conclusion on targeting. Assuming that one only needs to handle sight and that only that is relevant is simply incorrect.

In the example, nothing leads to archers needing to guess the location just because there's Fog Cloud. It just doesn't follow.

Segev

2019-06-24, 04:58 PM

It.
Does.
Not.
Matter.

Since you lost your wallet, you are now poor. Is it relevant to this conclusion whether you have a bank account, villas or other possessions? If so, why is it not taken into consideration?

Since you suffered a wound, you are now dead. Is it relevant the amount of hp you lost? If so, why was it not taken into consideration?

I could make a thousand of examples. You need to take into consideration if a creature is able or not to hear its intended target. If, and only if, it is not able to THEN they need to guess the location for the purposes of targeting - obviously only speaking of the most general.

How someone wants to handle "hearing" is beside the point. It is a consideration that has to be made. Only then one can reach a conclusion on targeting. Assuming that one only needs to handle sight and that only that is relevant is simply incorrect.

In the example, nothing leads to archers needing to guess the location just because there's Fog Cloud. It just doesn't follow.
There's a miscommunication, here, because to me, your post reads as self-contradictory. The way I parse it, you're saying, "It doesn't matter whether you can hear the creature in the fog cloud or not, because unless you can't hear it, you can target it."

Is that what you're trying to say? If so, can you not see the contradiction inherent in it? If not, can you please try to clarify where I'm misparsing you?

Rukelnikov

2019-06-24, 05:21 PM

ThePolarBear

2019-06-24, 06:10 PM

Is that what you're trying to say?

No. I'm saying that it doesn't matter if there are or there are not guidelines about how to solve the question "does the archer hear the target inside the Fog Cloud?". Or what mechanics one DM might choose to apply. We know that a creature that hears a target doesn't need to guess the location regardless.
What matters is that answering to "can they hear?" is necessary to know if the archer can target directly or needs to guess a location, just as much as it is necessary to know if the same archer can see its target or not. But, somehow, hearing always ends up forgotten.

"How" is not important for this. As it is not important that there are or not mechanics to deal with sight and mechanics to deal with hearing to know that you can, in fact, target a creature that you can hear and not see.

In short:
you need to both be unable to see and unable to hear the target to be forced to guess the location as a general rule.
How you determine sight and hearing is not relevant to the truthfullness of the above.
As such, simply stating that archers outside of a Fog Cloud need to guess their targets' locations if said targets are inside a Fog Cloud is forgetting part of the targeting rules and/or making the assumption "unseen = location unknown", which isn't true.

viaFAMILIAR

2019-06-24, 06:59 PM

I'll never understand why when the Fog Cloud subject comes up, people always talk about throwing Fog Cloud on their enemies, its much better for the archer to throw Fog cloud on top of himself, therefore enemies can't move out of it, and the archer can't be targeted by spells ;)

BTW, 5e visibility rules are amognst the worst things this edition has.

Agreed.

Honestly, I was using Fog Cloud to help clear my perspective of 'heavily obscured' areas. I think I get it now.

1. If unseen and unheard(hiding), a creature cannot be attacked, a roll can still be made, however the DM should rule it a miss.

2. If unseen but not unheard(invisible), a creature can be attacked with disadvantage. Depending on it's nature, the 'heavy obscurity' can be bypassed with certain effects.

3. If seen(hi!), a creature can be attacked normally, not hearing the creature makes no difference.

4. And if the attacker can't be seen(ha!)it rolls with advantage, following it's normal interaction with disadvantage.

"Ya sure, under certain circumstances these rules may be silly, but they're simple" -The Invisible Blind Guy

viaFAMILIAR

2019-06-24, 08:02 PM

Let's imagine us all sitting at our tables, miniatures in place on the gridmap, and right behind your mini there's a creature who's very well hidden, you probably won't beat his roll. You know he's there, but your character wouldn't. I'd give you a +1 Metaknow if your PC started throwing D, unless somehow your PC knew he was there. Say your PC does know of his presence, you alert the others. The cleric casts light, illuminating the area and revealing a cloud of fog. The sorcerer casts warding wind, dispersing the fog and revealing dense foliage. Ranger opens fire into the brush, I'd rule it a miss. Warlock says, "oh #*!@ this" and launches a fireball, incinerating all plant matter and revealing a dead... well, you know it's dead.

greenstone

2019-06-24, 09:29 PM

They vastly reduce the effectiveness of archers outside the area firing in (they first have to guess a square and then roll at disadvantage).
Oops, my mistake.

If the target in the obscured area can't see the incoming missiles then the archers roll attacks at normal.

The archers only roll at disadvantage if the target can see the missiles (for example a warlock or shadow sorcerer).

The archers outside still have to guess (or estimate or predict or appraise or otherwise determine) the location of their target inside the obscured area. If they are close enough to hear movement, this might be easy. If they are far away or the target is being quiet, this might be impossible.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-24, 09:48 PM

1. If unseen and unheard(hiding), a creature cannot be attacked, a roll can still be made, however the DM should rule it a miss.

Not really, in this case the attacker has to guess a square and attack, if an enemy happens to be in that square (like if you saw an enemy turning invisible and hiding on the spot and it didn't move) the attack is made with disadvantage.

Also note whenever a creature is unseen it cant be targeted, so its "immune" to a lot of spells and effects.

Tanarii

2019-06-24, 10:10 PM

In short:
you need to both be unable to see and unable to hear the target to be forced to guess the location as a general rule.
Exactly. And the DM determines how to adjudicate whether or not you can hear them. And if you cannot, you must guess the location.

For example, a simple ruling would be "Passive perception vs DC 5 at 15ft, +5 for each doubling". Another simple ruling is "you always hear any enemy at any range if it isn't Hiding". Both are equally valid under the rules, although the latter strains my personal suspension of belief.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-25, 01:37 AM

Exactly. And the DM determines how to adjudicate whether or not you can hear them. And if you cannot, you must guess the location.

For example, a simple ruling would be "Passive perception vs DC 5 at 15ft, +5 for each doubling". Another simple ruling is "you always hear any enemy at any range if it isn't Hiding". Both are equally valid under the rules, although the latter strains my personal suspension of belief.

Mine is "if there is combat around, unless you are 5 ft. away you have to roll to get a rough idea of their location, rolling > distance in feet gives you the square"

ThePolarBear

2019-06-25, 07:26 AM

Exactly. And the DM determines how to adjudicate whether or not you can hear them. And if you cannot, you must guess the location.

And then, this drops, again:

The archers outside still have to guess (or estimate or predict or appraise or otherwise determine) the location of their target inside the obscured area.

No, they do not need to, they MIGHT have to. The DM needs to determine if they can hear the target or not. The archer still has to guess nothing. They will need to guess if they can't hear the target and only in that case.

Or, putting it in another way:For the purposes of targeting, you care about "guessing" a location only after it has been determined that you can't both see and hear the target. Otherwise, you KNOW. A character that can hear the target knows where the target is. It is not a guess.

For example, a simple ruling would be "Passive perception vs DC 5 at 15ft, +5 for each doubling". Another simple ruling is "you always hear any enemy at any range if it isn't Hiding". Both are equally valid under the rules, although the latter strains my personal suspension of belief.

And both are completely irrelevant to the point i'm making. Yes, it is a determination you need to make, yes it's up to the DM to come up with a method. It doesn't change the fact that you need to determine "hearing" before there's any issue about location marking at all, RAW. I do not know why you are still going on with this - we agreed immediately - or why you "/s" the comment on the wrong assumption that was made if you also agree that you need to determine hearing before location guessing ever comes into play.

Assuming that one "NEEDS" to guess when there's sight blocking is incorrect.

Chronos

2019-06-25, 07:44 AM

There is no general rule that you can only target creatures you can see. Most spells have that restriction, but not all of them (Dissonant Whispers, for instance, requires only that the target be able to hear you). And it's never stated at all for nonmagical attacks.

Tanarii

2019-06-25, 08:33 AM

And both are completely irrelevant to the point i'm making. Yes, it is a determination you need to make, yes it's up to the DM to come up with a method. It doesn't change the fact that you need to determine "hearing" before there's any issue about location marking at all, RAW. I do not know why you are still going on with this - we agreed immediately - or why you "/s" the comment on the wrong assumption that was made if you also agree that you need to determine hearing before location guessing ever comes into play.Because you took a hostile tone with another poster and I was trying to make light of it. And your disagreement when I responded with "Having to guess the location of a target you don't know the location of is RAW. It's just up to the DM to make a ruling on what's necessary to pinpoint without guessing." strongly implied that we didn't agree at all.

Both of those statements remain true. If you don't know the location (i.e. cannot perceive it) then you must guess. And the DM must rule what's necessary (i.e. a check, no check, etc) to perceive (e.g. hear, but also smell or other sense) a target you cannot see. And the DM must make a ruling, because the rules are only explicit for one situation, intentionally Hiding. Any given DM may default to an answer, but a DM ruling is required from each and every DM.

Mine is "if there is combat around, unless you are 5 ft. away you have to roll to get a rough idea of their location, rolling > distance in feet gives you the square"
So DC 10 for 10ft, and DC 20 for 20ft? That's definitely one of the stricter rulings I've seen, but that'd work well if you're going for certain levels of "realism".

Segev

2019-06-25, 10:15 AM

And then, this drops, again:

No, they do not need to, they MIGHT have to. The DM needs to determine if they can hear the target or not. The archer still has to guess nothing. They will need to guess if they can't hear the target and only in that case.

Or, putting it in another way:For the purposes of targeting, you care about "guessing" a location only after it has been determined that you can't both see and hear the target. Otherwise, you KNOW. A character that can hear the target knows where the target is. It is not a guess.

And both are completely irrelevant to the point i'm making. Yes, it is a determination you need to make, yes it's up to the DM to come up with a method. It doesn't change the fact that you need to determine "hearing" before there's any issue about location marking at all, RAW. I do not know why you are still going on with this - we agreed immediately - or why you "/s" the comment on the wrong assumption that was made if you also agree that you need to determine hearing before location guessing ever comes into play.

Assuming that one "NEEDS" to guess when there's sight blocking is incorrect.

ThePolarBear, the problem is that there actually isn't disagreement, here, but you keep making incorrectly absolute statements and then qualifying them without quite acknowleding that you're qualifying them. We are all in agreement: if you can hear the target, you don't need to guess location (even if you might have Disadvantage on the attack if they can see you but you can't see them). The trouble is that you go from agreeing that the DM has to determine if you can hear a visually-obscured target or not, to making a blanket statement: "The archer still has to guess nothing."

This isn't a problem in context, but you emphasized this sentence (well, part of it) and not the parts surrounding it, and it's an absolute statement that is heavily qualified by the parts you did not emphasize. This is why people keep seeming to disagree with you, and perceive you as being wrong, and make arguments against that absolute statement. Because that absolute statement is incorrect, until you understand that it's not meant to be taken absolutely but as a baseline qualified by "unless they also can't hear the target."

We all are in agreement. Can we please stop yelling at each other and arguing by telling each other that we're wrong while reitterating exactly the same points?

ThePolarBear

2019-06-25, 10:36 AM

Because you took a hostile tone with another poster and I was trying to make light of it. And your disagreement when I responded with "Having to guess the location of a target you don't know the location of is RAW. It's just up to the DM to make a ruling on what's necessary to pinpoint without guessing." strongly implied that we didn't agree at all.

Fair on the hostile tone, even if it was not meant at all. It could have been read that way as i totally didn't read the lightness in your "/s".

On the guessing... It really isn't. You make a ruling on how to determine if one can hear, not what are the requirements to pinpoint - from a RAW perspective.

Rulewise, you should try to come to answering the question "can x be heard?" without preconceptions about the fact that you are going to use it to "pinpoint"; "Pinpoint" is not what the rule is about or asks for.
The rule only cares about if you can hear X at all. The part about "locating" should be left out of the door when going from a RAW perspective. Otherwise, it might colour your judgment. RAW, the game doesn't make the assumption you are going to consider it. It keeps things simple. The rules simply assume a binary "hear/not" that needs to be checked.

"If you can hear, you know enough to target" is the rule. You should not be coming up with rulings dealing with establishing a location via sound. You should be coming up with simple rules to establish if you can hear at all.

Now; as a DM you are free to do whatever you want in your game. I agree that the rule isn't "realistic". And i'm not against changing it to suit the game one is having to the taste of the group.
It simply isn't the approach that, RAW, sets as assumed by the rules.

If you don't know the location (i.e. cannot perceive it) then you must guess. And the DM must rule what's necessary (i.e. a check, no check, etc) to perceive (e.g. hear, but also smell or other sense) a target you cannot see. And the DM must make a ruling, because the rules are only explicit for one situation, intentionally Hiding. Any given DM may default to an answer, but a DM ruling is required from each and every DM.

And again: we agree on this. It's completely inconsequential to the original point (unseen is not enough to force guessing of location) and subsequent ones (hear, RAW, is binary and not coloured by the use that you are going to make of the answer.)

ThePolarBear

2019-06-25, 10:48 AM

to making a blanket statement: "The archer still has to guess nothing."

Read the rest:

"No, they do not need to, they MIGHT have to. The DM needs to determine if they can hear the target or not. The archer still has to guess nothing. They will need to guess if they can't hear the target and only in that case."

It's not an absolute statement. It's a relative statement on the situation described. "The archers outside still have to guess (or estimate or predict or appraise or otherwise determine) the location of their target inside the obscured area. If they are close enough to hear movement, this might be easy. If they are far away or the target is being quiet, this might be impossible."

Before checking for hearing, the archer STILL has to guess nothing. You are not checking for hearing to determine a location. You are simply checking if you can hear (edit: well, if you can hear the target, not if you are not deaf :D). If you can, the game tells you you can target directly. You do not need to care about locations, the archer still had to guess nothing. At the point of determination the situation takes place, DM and possible player realized that there's no possibility to see the target. At this point, location guessing is still a not a factor AND the rules tell us that the archer might hear the target. This is what the DM, not the eventual player, has to come up with a way to solve.

This is why people keep seeming to disagree with you, and perceive you as being wrong, and make arguments against that absolute statement.

Yeah, i see it now. Missed context. It is not an absolute statement. It's not that the archer will never need to guess anything. Quoting myself again:
""No, they do not need to, they MIGHT have to." related to: "The archers outside still have to guess".

Hope this clarifies.

We all are in agreement. Can we please stop yelling at each other and arguing by telling each other that we're wrong while reitterating exactly the same points?

I still hold that "The archers outside still have to guess" before checking for hearing is wrong. You might call it a "procedural" mistake, if you want. It's silly, but it's one silly little thing that i've seen leading to "can't target people that are invisible, you need to guess the location".

Tanarii

2019-06-25, 11:01 AM

Fair on the hostile tone, even if it was not meant at all. It could have been read that way as i totally didn't read the lightness in your "/s".Yeah I apologize for that, I use blue for humorous joking response more often than biting sarcasm. I should probably start using green.

"If you can hear, you know enough to target" is the rule. You should not be coming up with rulings dealing with establishing a location via sound. You should be coming up with simple rules to establish if you can hear at all.

And again: we agree on this. It's completely inconsequential to the original point (unseen is not enough to force guessing of location) and subsequent ones (hear, RAW, is binary and not coloured by the use that you are going to make of the answer.)Hmmm. I'm somewhat skeptical that this is the case, and it's not specifically hearing them well enough to target them, as opposed to generally hearing them. But I'd have to go back and reread the relevant PHB Rule for "unseen targets" over again.

Segev

2019-06-25, 11:02 AM

I still hold that "The archers outside still have to guess" before checking for hearing is wrong. You might call it a "procedural" mistake, if you want. It's silly, but it's one silly little thing that i've seen leading to "can't target people that are invisible, you need to guess the location".

The archers outside have to check to hear. Whether this check is automatically successful, automatically fails, or has some DC the DM sets is up to the DM. It really is irrelevant whether you view "check to hear" as "hear well enough to locate them" or "hear anything that hints there might be a creature somewhere in there at all." The key rule is that you have to hear the creature to target it.

In fact, the option to "guess" is, I think, not present in 5e. You either know where they are or you miss. (Note that you can still miss even if you know where they are, but you might hit, depending on your roll, whereas you miss, period, if you don't know where they are. There is no "guessing," because 5e tried to do away with the grid as a default rule, so there's no way for you to measure whether the archer - and his player - guessed correctly.)

The only thing there is is the determination of whether you can hear the target well enough to target it. (Note that "well enough" might be "at all;" this is, again, partially a DM ruling thing, because it's going to be a hard sell to go with a 'strictly RAW' reading that hearing at all is enough to accurately target. But for my purposes, "well enough" can be "at all" if the DM agrees that that's what the RAW really means.)

The way I'd suggest somebody not using a 3.5-style battlemap run it would be to set the DC for hearing and use that Perception check as the combination "do you hear them?" and "do you know where they are?" check. Because that's really what the rules are trying to model. How do you know if the archer "guessed" correctly? You have him make Perception against whatever DC the DM thinks appropriate. (This extreme arbitrariness and lack of guidance on how hard it probably should be is one of my repeated frustrations with 5e. ESPECIALLY as a DM.)

The way I actually run it, though, is to say "screw it; 3.5 did this part better," and actually require that the players guess on the battlemap unless they can convince me of a reason they could pinpoint it by sound. It largely amounts to the same thing, since they usually will get a DC-something Perception check to pinpoint. Probably 10, if the target isn't trying to hide and is reasonably close by. I wouldn't allow Passive Perception on it, though.

Haydensan

2019-06-25, 11:14 AM

Snip
The way I actually run it, though, is to say "screw it; 3.5 did this part better," and actually require that the players guess on the battlemap unless they can convince me of a reason they could pinpoint it by sound. It largely amounts to the same thing, since they usually will get a DC-something Perception check to pinpoint. Probably 10, if the target isn't trying to hide and is reasonably close by. I wouldn't allow Passive Perception on it, though.

I agreed with the way you run it though I do feel inclined to ask a question that may throw a spanner in the works.

At which point would are you taking the Search action instead?

Also thanks Segev for mediating the discussion :)

Segev

2019-06-25, 11:22 AM

I agreed with the way you run it though I do feel inclined to ask a question that may throw a spanner in the works.

At which point would are you taking the Search action instead?

Also thanks Segev for mediating the discussion :)

Well, I'm still discussing 5e, so it's a Wisdom(Perception) check. Intelligence(Investigation) is much narrower and has more clearly-defined lack-of-overlap with Perception/Spot/Listen than did Search in 3.PF. But assuming you're really asking what makes me decide to offer them a Perception check, generally I just let them have one, unless the critter is particularly silent/quiet (e.g. a Shadow or a cat). If the critter is trying to hide, that's the DC, otherwise it's probably 15 or 20 (because I am house ruling it to "pinpointing;" they get to guess even if they mess up, and I'd probably give them a clue if they made a 10 or so).

It's a judgment call, which I don't like, because I prefer to be on firmer ground, but the RAW are even less sensible to me, so I do what I can. I won't claim my solutions are perfect.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-25, 12:31 PM

So DC 10 for 10ft, and DC 20 for 20ft? That's definitely one of the stricter rulings I've seen, but that'd work well if you're going for certain levels of "realism".

Well, yeah, it is really hard. You have to, in the middle of a combat involving maybe a dozen people, single out a specific creature by the noises it makes (assuming it isn't talking), and get an accurate idea of where they are with maybe a 1-2 ft error margin, oh and do this reflexively btw, since you are not spending an action or anything.

Note though, the "DC" is not supposed to "be made", I just put that there for when the 20s come up or for some character with exceptionally good perception being able to make use of it, the idea is that they roll to see how accurate an idea of the enemy positioning they can get, getting stuff like "It sounded like he moved to your 9 and moved at least 15 ft away".

Tanarii

2019-06-25, 12:41 PM

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-25, 12:51 PM

For a particularly annoying wrench:

Mage, 30 feet away, casts Fog Cloud between you and him. Mage moves 20 feet closer to you.

You go to shot the Mage, but have to guess his location. If you guess where he was, (which is behind where he is now), do you still hit him?

Segev

2019-06-25, 01:05 PM

Segev, the "option to guess" is explicit in the targeting unseen targets rule.

To be clear, it doesn't require it. It references the option in regards to what happens if you successfully guess, if guessing was needed.Fair enough. I agree that it's a messy bit of rules cluster, but I do think it's more manageable than many make it out to be.

For a particularly annoying wrench:

Mage, 30 feet away, casts Fog Cloud between you and him. Mage moves 20 feet closer to you.

You go to shot the Mage, but have to guess his location. If you guess where he was, (which is behind where he is now), do you still hit him?By 3.5 rules? Nope. By 5e rules? That's up to the DM. In practice, this is a case where the DM should be making judgment calls, because the rules are not a perfect simulation but the very fact that you're asking about this situation with an expected obvious rules dysfunction suggests that it's easy enough to extrapolate what "should" happen given what is intended to be modeled.

Nagog

2019-06-25, 01:13 PM

One advantage of Fog Cloud I've seen implemented at a table was to limit visibility and increase the width of a Lightening Bolt to 10 ft, due to the high conductivity of the water in the fog. DM ruling of course, but its a fun and unexpected combo. Outside of that, characters with Blindsight could use it as a poor man's Darkness.

CorporateSlave

2019-06-25, 04:39 PM

I still hold that "The archers outside still have to guess" before checking for hearing is wrong. You might call it a "procedural" mistake, if you want. It's silly, but it's one silly little thing that i've seen leading to "can't target people that are invisible, you need to guess the location".

I think the misunderstanding generally comes from the way the RAW is worded:

"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."

Although the "target isn't in the location you guessed" ought only apply to the former qualification ("you're guessing the target's location" and not the latter "you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see"), by ending the sentence with the instance that does not relate directly to the very next sentence, it makes it read like that last sentence may apply equally to both circumstances, and further implies that in both cases you are guessing the target's location.

That was kind of gibberish, so let me try to say it this way, perhaps a clearer way to have written that rule would have been:

"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 you are targeting a creature you can hear but not see, you simply have disadvantage on the attack roll but otherwise hit or miss normally.
If you are guessing the target's location due to them being unseen and unheard, if the target isn't in the location you targeted, you will still make an attack roll with disadvantage, but you will automatically miss and the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly."

ThePolarBear

2019-06-25, 04:53 PM

Hmmm. I'm somewhat skeptical that this is the case, and it's not specifically hearing them well enough to target them, as opposed to generally hearing them. But I'd have to go back and reread the relevant PHB Rule for "unseen targets" over again.

If you fancy D&D Beyond, here is the link. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets) It makes a simple reference on "you are able to hear them". As always a DM can read as they wish. The most broad reading is fully valid and if you think about it it applies to "seeing" too. Nowhere you are needed to see "clearly" to target someone, you just need to "see" your target. Just hearing a creature is enough to be able to target it, and it is in direct contrast with having to guess.

The archers outside have to check to hear.

That's on the DM to choose how, i agree, assuming you mean "to check" as what i would call "to adjudicate" - to make a decision on how to deal with the problem: with a check, automatic success, impossibility, something else.

FYI, but i can't confirm right now or give it to you this information as nothing more than a memory: iirc the DM screen has a little table with "hearing ranges". Something like "whisper: 1d6+x ft" and so on.

It really is irrelevant whether you view "check to hear" as "hear well enough to locate them" or "hear anything that hints there might be a creature somewhere in there at all." The key rule is that you have to hear the creature to target it.

It is relevant. The rules calling for "hear", and not "hear clearly" or whatever, should point a reader to critically think why such a distinction is made; if there is a reason. Having a judgement on "hear well enough to locate" could give different results from one that is passed for just "hearing at all".

And on the underlined part: the rule is that you can target a creature if you hear it. Not that you need to hear a creature to do so. You can be deaf and target a creature you can see, after all :D.

In fact, the option to "guess" is, I think, not present in 5e.

It's what you can do when you can't both see and hear a target and you have no other means of locating them when you want to make an attack. It's an "option" just as much of an option is to try to jump to the moon. Something that isn't really beneficial when you have other ways offered, but something a player might ask a DM to do and that is handled by the rules.

The only thing there is is the determination of whether you can hear the target well enough to target it. (Note that "well enough" might be "at all;" this is, again, partially a DM ruling thing, because it's going to be a hard sell to go with a 'strictly RAW' reading that hearing at all is enough to accurately target.

There's no such a thing as "selling" something. I linked the rule. It simply asks for a character to hear the target. The question is "can you hear them?". And that's all. I agree that a DM can rule whatever makes sense for the group. I already wrote so. However, you need to agree that if you were to put what is in the rule in interrogative form it would have no reference to location or hearing "well enough", just as there's no rule that asks to see something "well enough" in relation to targeting. What a DM chooses to do is beyond the scope of RAW.

The way I'd suggest somebody not using a 3.5-style battlemap run it would be to set the DC for hearing and use that Perception check as the combination "do you hear them?" and "do you know where they are?" check. Because that's really what the rules are trying to model.

It is what they are trying to model but not how the rules are made to model it, i would say.

How do you know if the archer "guessed" correctly?

Again, rulewise, if the archer has been established as being currently hearing the target, no matter the method used, they never had to guess anything.

The way I actually run it, though, is to say "screw it; 3.5 did this part better," and actually require that the players guess on the battlemap unless they can convince me of a reason they could pinpoint it by sound.

Absolutely within your power. And still not important in regards to what i've been saying till now.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-25, 04:59 PM

ThePolarBear

2019-06-25, 05:03 PM

I think the misunderstanding generally comes from the way the RAW is worded

I agree, but i think it's just part of it. 5e asks a group to apply common sense. For most, it means to critically think about what makes sense in regards to targeting via sound: you would need to work to have an object intersect the source of a particular ringing sound amidst 10 other extremely similar ringing sounds.

Rulewise the astraction is actually WAY simpler than that, however.
Via reading, discussing with people, simplifying concepts for ease of use or for simplicity in explaining them, making our own idea of the rules and projecting we end up making our own certainties on how things work. It's just natural.

Segev

2019-06-25, 05:23 PM

So, to stumble some of our DM gurus, how would you rule the differences between these scenarios:

The enemy in question is invisible. However:

Scenario A:
The Enemy is Hidden

Scenario B:
You are Deafened

Scenario C:
The Enemy is Hidden, AND you are Deafened.

How are those played differently?
Well, some of this depends on whether you're asking for an answer according to the RAW, or if you're asking how we'd rule it even acknowledging that we might bend the RAW to do so.

Adhering as close to the RAW as I know how:

Scenario A:
The Enemy is Hidden
An invisible hidden enemy is by definition unseen and unheard; the archer must guess. With a battlemat, I let him point to a square. Without one, he has to convince me he's guessed right by some sort of description; I'm more inclined to say that his failure on Perception to beat the Hide check means he guessed wrong.

Scenario B:
You are Deafened
Again, by definition unseen and unheard. Barring the invisible enemy doing something stupid or extenuating circumstances (e.g. muddy floor), this would also call for the archer having to guess.

Scenario C:
The Enemy is Hidden, AND you are Deafened.Generally not materially different than Scenario B, except that now even extenuating circumstances would not help. The hidden character is, because he successfully hid, not squishing footprints into the mud for you to find. He also is definitionally not doing something stupid, since he's demonstrated his skill at hiding, which involves not being stupid about things that would render you detectable. So again, archer has to guess.

As I'd run it without worrying too much about whether I'm adhering to the RAW or not, it would look similar. I'd probably assign a DC for the deaf character to still spot something in Scenario B, but it'd be a high one. I did like in 3.PF that invisibility was +20 to your hide check, and thus naturally gave a number for the DC of the Perception check to determine where an invisible being was hiding. But that specific bonus doesn't work at all in 5e's bounded accuracy.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-25, 05:24 PM

If you fancy D&D Beyond, here is the link. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnseenAttackersandTargets) It makes a simple reference on "you are able to hear them". As always a DM can read as they wish. The most broad reading is fully valid and if you think about it it applies to "seeing" too.Nowhere you are needed to see "clearly" to target someone, you just need to "see" your target. Just hearing a creature is enough to be able to target it, and it is in direct contrast with having to guess.

Actually you are, since dense foliage is considered a heavily obscured area, and you may be able to see part of a creature moving thru such an area (maybe only a square inch of them, it doesn't matter since, technically, you are "seeing" it)

Rukelnikov

2019-06-25, 05:39 PM

So, to stumble some of our DM gurus, how would you rule the differences between these scenarios:

The enemy in question is invisible. However:

Scenario A:
The Enemy is Hidden

You don't know where the enemy is, if you didn't know a enemy was there before it became hidden, you don't even know there IS a cerature hidden. Assuming you do know, you can guess the square and attack with disadv, auto miss on a failed square (ranged ballistic attacks would count as guessing a line of a varying length depending on weapon range)

You may attempt a Perception check to locate the enemy.

Scenario B:
You are Deafened

Same as above, and you automatically fail perception checks to detect the creature unless you have other sense that may allow you to or the enviroment allows you to locate him by sight (an invisible creature that just got out of a swamp into a pearl white hall will be leaving a trail so obvious you don't even need to roll to know which square its in.)

Scenario C:
The Enemy is Hidden, AND you are Deafened.

Same as above, only difference is the enemy is already hidden.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-25, 05:43 PM

If the enemy was visible, not hidden, and you weren't deafened, would the player know where the invisible enemy was?

Rukelnikov

2019-06-25, 05:50 PM

If the enemy was visible, not hidden, and you weren't deafened, would the player know where the invisible enemy was?

Barring evident stuff like the example I gave above, it would depend on his perception roll.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-25, 05:51 PM

Actually you are, since dense foliage is considered a heavily obscured area, and you may be able to see part of a creature moving thru such an area (maybe only a square inch of them, it doesn't matter since, technically, you are "seeing" it)

No, since anyone watching in the heavily obscured area is considered blinded in regards to what is inside the area. Blinded=unable to see, so anything inside the area is unseen by RAW (for the ones looking inside, obviously).

Addendum: How is this even relevant, however? Rules on how well you can see in certain light conditions are not rules for targeting.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-25, 05:54 PM

No, since anyone watching in the heavily obscured area is considered blinded in regards to what is inside the area. Blinded=unable to see, so anything inside the area is unseen by RAW.

Unseen as in the game definition, not the english definition. We are discussing an english definition of hearing since the PHB has no definition of one, and thus that example is irrelevant.

CorporateSlave

2019-06-25, 05:59 PM

The enemy in question is invisible. However:

Scenario Zero:
No other changes. The enemy is simply invisible.
Disadvantage, but you don't have to guess.
The enemy is invisible but is blundering around, breathing heavy, making noise or otherwise leaving visible traces of his passage/presence (i.e. NO effort to "hide") Attacks will always target the right location, but are made at disadvantage due to the invisibility.

Scenario A:
The Enemy is Hidden
Disadvantage, and you have to guess.
The enemy is making active attempt to hide - i.e. not blundering around, little to no movement, doing its best to stay quiet and leave no trace of it's passage/presence.
Attacks are made at disadvantage, and my not target the right location.
(Although if you had access to a Bonus Action like the Inquisitive Rogue's Insightful Eye, you could attempt to make a Perception Check to discover the location, which would basically take you back to "simply invisible.")

Scenario B:
You are Deafened
Disadvantage, but you may not need to guess. (Although the RAW of Unseen Attacker and Targets only mentions Seen and Heard, the Invisible condition RAW notes that there may be other traces of an Invisible creature's presence, specifically sound or tracks)
You cannot see or hear the enemy, but since they are making no particular attempt to "hide," situationally they may be leaving other traces of their presence (standing in rain/smoke, walking in soft sand/dust, etc).
Attacks are made at disadvantage, but if there is reason that the location might be known, you may target the correct location.

Scenario C:
The Enemy is Hidden, AND you are Deafened.

Again, not really any different than Invisible and Hidden:
Disadvantage, and you have to guess.
The enemy is making active attempt to hide - i.e. not blundering around, little to no movement, doing its best to stay quiet and leave no trace of it's passage/presence.
Attacks are made at disadvantage, and my not target the right location.
(Although if you had access to a Bonus Action like the Inquisitive Rogue's Insightful Eye, you could attempt to make a Perception Check to discover the location, which would basically take you back to "simply invisible." This could be based on some other trace of their presence besides sound as per the Invisible condition)

ThePolarBear

2019-06-25, 06:01 PM

Unseen as in the game definition, not the english definition. We are discussing an english definition of hearing since the PHB has no definition of one, and thus that example is irrelevant.

No, i've been discussing on what the requirements for targeting are rulewise. You need to see the target, rulewise. If you can't see the target, rulewise, you can't see it when the question "the rule asks if i can see the target. Can i?" is asked.

Honestly, i can't follow the logic of your thought process. Can you explain it more clearly?

Rukelnikov

2019-06-25, 06:07 PM

No, i've been discussing on what the requirements for targeting are rulewise. You need to see the target, rulewise. If you can't see the target, rulewise, you can't see it when the question "the rule asks if i can see the target. Can i?" is asked.

Honestly, i can't follow the logic of your thought process. Can you explain it more clearly?

The dense foliage is an example of a requirement of how well you have to see an enemy to be considered to actually be seeing them. If you can see little bits of them as thru dense foliage, you are considered to not be seeing them. Using the same principle, if you can only hear little of creature, or unclearly because of a myriad other sounds nearby, you can be considered as not hearing them.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-25, 06:10 PM

...

All of your conclusions are basically the exact same as mine. The only thing I'd include is that, under "Scenario Zero", the target must be reasonable able to be heard. So a Wizard in light clothes that's 50 or so feet away might not be heard so easily.

Xetheral

2019-06-25, 06:24 PM

So, to stumble some of our DM gurus, how would you rule the differences between these scenarios:

The enemy in question is invisible. However:

Scenario Zero:
No other changes. The enemy is simply invisible.

Scenario A:
The Enemy is Hidden

Scenario B:
You are Deafened

Scenario C:
The Enemy is Hidden, AND you are Deafened.

How are those played differently?

Here's how I'd run it.

Scenario Zero: I'd adjudicate whether the character can detect the location of the invisible creature. This could be auto-success, auto-failure, or a DC to compare to passive perception. Key factors I'd consider are range and environment (e g. background noise, mud, etc.), and distraction (possibly leading to disadvantage on passive perception). If the character can detect the invisble creature's location, or guessed correctly, they roll to attack with disadvantage. Otherwise they still roll to attack with disadvantage, but auto-miss.

Scenario A: The character cannot detect the location of the invisible, hidden enemy. They are welcome to spend an action to roll Wis (Perception) vs the higher of the Dex (Stealth) result and any DC I would have set under Scenario Zero. They can also use logic to try to guess the enemy's location. If they guess correctly, they roll to attack with disadvantage. Otherwise they still roll to attack with disadvantage, but auto-miss.

Scenario B: Same as scenario Zero, except I'm much more likely to set a higher DC or rule that detecting the character's location is impossible. The key factor is whether the environment might permit indirect visual detection. If I do set a DC the character can still spend an action to try to improve on their passive perception, and guessing still works as above.

Scenario C: The worst of both A and B. If the environment is such that I would rule detecting the invisible creature's location to be impossible in scenario B, then it's still impossible in Scenario C. If I would have set a DC, then any Wis (Perception) check still has to beat the higher of that DC or the Dex (Stealth) result. Guessing works as above.

Tanarii

2019-06-25, 07:10 PM

I agree, but i think it's just part of it. 5e asks a group to apply common sense. For most, it means to critically think about what makes sense in regards to targeting via sound: you would need to work to have an object intersect the source of a particular ringing sound amidst 10 other extremely similar ringing sounds.

Rulewise the astraction is actually WAY simpler than that, however.
Via reading, discussing with people, simplifying concepts for ease of use or for simplicity in explaining them, making our own idea of the rules and projecting we end up making our own certainties on how things work. It's just natural.thats a fair point. I also think that is why many DMs appear to not worry about it at all, and default to "if they didn't take the Hide action and succeed, you can find a way to target them". It keeps the abstraction simple and less finicky. Especially if you're using a battle mat.

CorporateSlave

2019-06-26, 07:47 AM

All of your conclusions are basically the exact same as mine. The only thing I'd include is that, under "Scenario Zero", the target must be reasonable able to be heard. So a Wizard in light clothes that's 50 or so feet away might not be heard so easily.

I guess the difference I would say is with Scenario Zero (or any of them) the whole point of Stealth or Hiding is that you are actively trying to conceal all indications of your location, and per the Invisible condition sound isn't the only potential trace of location. So while said wizard may not be clanking about in armor or yelling, my "real world" interpretation of the RAW is that when Invisible although you cannot be seen it would take the full attention of one's Action (or Cunning Action) to step softly, mute breathing, carefully not kick up dust, bump into anything, kick anything along the floor, move too quickly past a curtain, etc, etc and therefore effectively become Hidden. I would simply not grant a creature the full benefits of being Hidden simply because they are Invisible. If they want to be standing perfectly still, or be really quiet, or whatever - fine. Use your Action and make a Stealth check. If not, I don't really care how sneaky you think you are being, you kick a can, or step on a cat, or dust swirls in the air around you, or a butterfly lands on your head - something that renders your location obvious. You're still harder to hit because your body can't physically be seen of course.

Now of course this is said with the caveat that your scenarios specify a creature that is Invisible, which is not necessarily the same thing as Heavily Obscured (which is an effect of Invisible, but also attainable from other sources such as fog, foliage, darkness, etc.). Granted there is a little bit of inconsistency between the Invisibility condition and the Unseen Attackers and Targets RAW, but I personally would tend to rule in favor of the Invisibility condition wording - in that the offhand example of what being Hidden means in the Unseen Attackers and Targets wording ("unseen and unheard") can reasonably be interpreted to mean not just that you are unseen, but that by being Hidden all traces of your location remain unseen.

Dalebert

2019-06-26, 08:31 AM

It's just up to the DM to make a ruling on what's necessary to pinpoint without guessing.Does it require a passive perception vs fixed DC to hear them enough to pinpoint? Is it a scaling DC based on distance? Are they automatically pinpointed at infinite range in combat? etc ect

Some simplified rules have been created for that:
Target is difficult to hit: disadvantage.

Sure, you can do a bunch of maths if you want but I feel like it's outside the spirit of this edition which is to keep it simple and balanced. Giving everyone cunning action for free makes combats slow and tedious.

The rule about two blind characters attacking each other in melee with the same effectiveness as if both were sighted makes combats run faster. If the two players were both rolling at disadvantage, the only things that changes is how long it takes before one of them is unable to continue (twice as long at the table for the same result).

Yes, and I think that's often the point. Someone might throw up a fog cloud or darkness to buy them time to flee. But it doesn't work by the simplified adv/dis rules. *Sigh* *shrug*

Tanarii

2019-06-26, 10:45 AM

Some simplified rules have been created for that:
Target is difficult to hit: disadvantage.

Sure, you can do a bunch of maths if you want but I feel like it's outside the spirit of this edition which is to keep it simple and balanced. Giving everyone cunning action for free makes combats slow and tedious.As I said, there is some value to simplification. But when it leads to being able to target a concealed enemy, that is making a modicum of noise, that is 60 ft away while there are melee combatants duking it out 5ft away from you, the value of simplification for quick gaming vs the value of the DM taking the time to consider applying the adjudication process (automatic success, automatic failure, or some kind of check) to decide upon a reasonable level of verisimilitude should be considered.

Segev

2019-06-26, 10:49 AM

No, the reason that two blinded opponents fight with neither advantage nor disadvantage is a rules interaction. If you're fighting somebody you can't see, you suffer Disadvantage on the attack. If you're being attacked by somebody you can't see, they gain Advantage on the attack. These were not quite thought through as to their interaction when both parties are blinded.

In practice, what was intended was that you suffer Disadvantage if you can't see your target, but Advantage if you can see your target but he can't see you coming. It really should be phrased, "You gain Advantage on an attack against a target you can see who cannot see you." This achieves the desired results under the following set of circumstances: You can't see your target and he can see you (you have Disadvantage), you can see your target and he can see you (normal situation), you can see your target and he can't see you (you have Advantage), and you can't see your target and he can't see you (you have Disadvantage).

To some extent, the thought was that both being blinded would cancel out, but in practice, the inability to properly react doesn't help if the aggressor can't see you to take advantage of it. Both blind foes having Disadvantage makes more sense than both fighting as well as if they could both see each other.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-26, 10:51 AM

Segev

2019-06-26, 10:55 AM

More DM guru challenges:

How does a canine's heighted sense of smell play into detecting hidden/invisible creatures?

(Most canines have a trait that grants them Advantage on Perception checks that involve scent).

Hidden creatures impose an opposed Perception check vs. their Hide result. Scent gives the canines Advantage on that.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-26, 10:58 AM

Hidden creatures impose an opposed Perception check vs. their Hide result. Scent gives the canines Advantage on that.

This does mean that a level 1 Wizard, with a stealth bonus of +1, has a harder time hiding from a dog's nose than a level 20 Rogue with a + 17 (who can't roll less than a 10). Is that still acceptable?

Segev

2019-06-26, 11:06 AM

This does mean that a level 1 Wizard, with a stealth bonus of +1, has a harder time hiding from a dog's nose than a level 20 Rogue with a + 17 (who can't roll less than a 10). Is that still acceptable?

Er, yes? I don't see why you'd expect anything different; the minimum 27 on Stealth should hide from everything better than the maximum 21 Stealth. :smallconfused:

Did you mix up one or more "better than/worse than"s in there? I'm not trying to be snarky; there are a number of possible ways to read that if I start assuming you messed up one or more of those sorts of comaritors in a typo, because I don't know which one(s) you might've typoed.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-26, 11:16 AM

Er, yes? I don't see why you'd expect anything different; the minimum 27 on Stealth should hide from everything better than the maximum 21 Stealth. :smallconfused:

Did you mix up one or more "better than/worse than"s in there? I'm not trying to be snarky; there are a number of possible ways to read that if I start assuming you messed up one or more of those sorts of comaritors in a typo, because I don't know which one(s) you might've typoed.

The point being, you can't actively hide your scent for a couple seconds, either you have your scent masked or you don't.

I'd probably give dogs or scent based creatures a flat DC, unless the creature has some medium to actively hide from scent.

Segev

2019-06-26, 11:31 AM

The point being, you can't actively hide your scent for a couple seconds, either you have your scent masked or you don't.

I'd probably give dogs or scent based creatures a flat DC, unless the creature has some medium to actively hide from scent.

You can do things like rub your scent off on other things, or find ways of hiding that block direct path to your scent, or just waft it around. This is a level of abstraction with which I'm comfortable; it is nice that Scent isn't "auto-make perception checks against any sort of stealth that lacks a feat" anymore.

Tanarii

2019-06-26, 11:34 AM

More DM guru challenges:

How does a canine's heighted sense of smell play into detecting hidden/invisible creatures?

(Most canines have a trait that grants them Advantage on Perception checks that involve scent).The same way as hearing. If they're within range of the scent and you determine they may be able to pick it out from background smells but it's not a certain thing, set a DC. Then give them advantage per the ability, or +5 to Passive Perception (since it's likely to be passive perception they're using).

If someone is trying to disguise their scent, Stealth vs Perception (advantage).

(Any set DC should be considered an effective floor for Stealth checks, for obvious reasons.)

Rukelnikov

2019-06-26, 11:44 AM

You can do things like rub your scent off on other things, or find ways of hiding that block direct path to your scent, or just waft it around. This is a level of abstraction with which I'm comfortable; it is nice that Scent isn't "auto-make perception checks against any sort of stealth that lacks a feat" anymore.

Yeah, if they have the means to hide it, then its ok, but having a high level stealth doesn't mean there's always something conveniently around, so many times it will be possible, and many times it won't. I'm generally against "it works somehow, so I alter the narrative in order for the mechanic to work", if it makes sense it works, if it doesn't, well, its just beyond what your character can do.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-26, 11:51 AM

The same way as hearing. If they're within range of the scent and you determine they may be able to pick it out from background smells but it's not a certain thing, set a DC. Then give them advantage per the ability, or +5 to Passive Perception (since it's likely to be passive perception they're using).

If someone is trying to disguise their scent, Stealth vs Perception (advantage).

(Any set DC should be considered an effective floor for Stealth checks, for obvious reasons.)

Yeah, if they have the means to hide it, then its ok, but having a high level stealth doesn't mean there's always something conveniently around, so many times it will be possible, and many times it won't. I'm generally against "it works somehow, so I alter the narrative in order for the mechanic to work", if it makes sense it works, if it doesn't well, its just beyond what your character can do.

Normally, I think it'd be fine to just say "well, it's just another form of detection, so why isn't it any different than just hearing someone?", but the reality is, you can force yourself to be more quiet due to your experience which is enough of a reason to not be detected in a battlefield , but it's hard to say the same thing about scent when you're unprepared for it (that is, a Rogue with a lot of experience hides from a dog, only does so successfully due to being experienced enough to hide his scent amidst a battlefield).

Although there's another way we could look at it. The inclusion of Scent is what provides Advantage in the first place. That is, the perception check that the dog is attempting is actually the same Perception check that everyone else is using (using sound or other means), but the dog gets Advantage due to the fact that he's able to combine hearing with scent. So what the Rogue is doing is still hiding by staying silent, and the dog has an enhanced chance of detecting the rogue, but being silent might be enough of a reason to be undetected from the dog, despite the dog trying to find the rogue by scent.

In a way, a dog's nose is to a Perception Check like a Battle Master's Maneuver is to an attack: Not something separate, but something tacked on. This does beg some weird questions, like how a deaf dog can search for someone using 5e rules, but I think it's what makes the most sense for most scenarios.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-26, 12:00 PM

In a way, a dog's nose is to a Perception Check like a Battle Master's Maneuver is to an attack: Not something separate, but something tacked on. This does beg some weird questions, like how a deaf dog can search for someone using 5e rules, but I think it's what makes the most sense for most scenarios.

I agree that the system is considering scent as an "add on" for the other sense, thus why it grants advantage on the roll. I disagree that its what makes the most sense for most scenarios, for instance, if the person to find is not around, the hound can't track by scent, because advantage on an impossible DC check won't matter.

My point is, what the hound is perceiving is not hiding, the scent hasn't taken the hide action, in the case of a rogue rubbing strongly scented flowers or something on him to mask his scent, the dog will at least be able to track the scent up to the flowers, if he can pass a DC that has nothing to do with the stealth check of the rogue.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-26, 12:04 PM

I agree that the system is considering scent as an "add on" for the other sense, thus why it grants advantage on the roll. I disagree that its what makes the most sense for most scenarios, for instance, if the person to find is not around, the hound can't track by scent, because advantage on an impossible DC check won't matter.

I think it'd be reasonable to have canines have Advantage to Survival checks for the same reason.

Or just any Wisdom check that uses their nose. That'd the be the simplest thing. It's not like you're going to be using a dog's nose for Insight or Medicine, unless it involves another dog's rear end.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-26, 12:08 PM

I think it'd be reasonable to have canines have Advantage to Survival checks for the same reason.

Or just any Wisdom check. That'd the be the simplest thing. It's not like you're going to be using a dog's nose for Insight or Medicine, unless it involves another dog's rear end.

Hmm, yeah, that could work, I just have them track by Perception, but if you allow them to have the advantage on the survival check for track, I think the narrative result is more or less the same.

ThePolarBear

2019-06-26, 01:32 PM

Actually you are, since dense foliage is considered a heavily obscured area, and you may be able to see part of a creature moving thru such an area (maybe only a square inch of them, it doesn't matter since, technically, you are "seeing" it)

Unseen as in the game definition, not the english definition. We are discussing an english definition of hearing since the PHB has no definition of one, and thus that example is irrelevant.

The dense foliage is an example of a requirement of how well you have to see an enemy to be considered to actually be seeing them. If you can see little bits of them as thru dense foliage, you are considered to not be seeing them. Using the same principle, if you can only hear little of creature, or unclearly because of a myriad other sounds nearby, you can be considered as not hearing them.

I'm trying to follow what are you trying to say, and it's getting more and more difficult.

I'll try to answer with what i think you mean, so pardon me if i'm reading something wrongly:

I do not care, for the point i was making, how you reach a conclusion on if you can see or hear someone. I don't care about what method you are using, how realistic it is. I don't care if you do quantitative or qualitative evaluations.

I do not care and the argument stands anyway, since it doesn't deal with any of that.
The RAW question one has to answer, baseline, to know if one can target directly is still "Do you see?" or "do you hear?", without any qualitative or quantitative judgements*. To answer this, you need a binary, black or white answer: yes or no.

RAW rules for visibility handle this their way. They have a model to reflect "reality" that is simple and fast, but not accurate or comprehensive. You can use other methods that strive to reach a similar goal in different ways. However not having clear what the goal is can be a problem.
Do the rules for targeting rely on the results of the rules for visibility and whatever adjudication is for rules for sound detection? Yes. The results of such adjudications is what is taken into consideration. But only the result is what "targeting" cares about. Considerations of qualitative or quantitative nature are made in the visibility rules, not in the targeting ones*. You make the determination that a creature that is inside an area of dense foliage (heavy obscuration) because you need that answer. And the rules concerning heavily obscured areas model the solution of the uncertainity "in real life it could be possible to see pieces of clothes, parts of body, etc in between the foliage. Does it happen here?" with a clear, binary answer: no, you don't. At this point, you cleared the uncertainity, and have an answer to the question that required the answer in the first place.

The rules for visibility handle the uncertainty. The rules for targeting don't*. And i was writing about the rules for targeting.

*There's a big caveat, however. Cover rules do take in consideration quantitative measures and rules for cover do affect targeting. When targeting is affected by those rules however the quantitative evaluation is on reachability, not visibility (yeah, yeah, concealed i know).

Rukelnikov

2019-06-26, 02:07 PM

I'm trying to follow what are you trying to say, and it's getting more and more difficult.

I'll try to answer with what i think you mean, so pardon me if i'm reading something wrongly:

I do not care, for the point i was making, how you reach a conclusion on if you can see or hear someone. I don't care about what method you are using, how realistic it is. I don't care if you do quantitative or qualitative evaluations.

I do not care and the argument stands anyway, since it doesn't deal with any of that.
The RAW question one has to answer, baseline, to know if one can target directly is still "Do you see?" or "do you hear?", without any qualitative or quantitative judgements*. To answer this, you need a binary, black or white answer: yes or no.

blah blah blah

then there's no more reason to keep arguing

Segev

2019-06-26, 02:32 PM

Yeah, if they have the means to hide it, then its ok, but having a high level stealth doesn't mean there's always something conveniently around, so many times it will be possible, and many times it won't. I'm generally against "it works somehow, so I alter the narrative in order for the mechanic to work", if it makes sense it works, if it doesn't, well, its just beyond what your character can do.

I tend to assume that a high bonus/result means you had on hand means to accomplish the result. It's best if you can stunt your action to make it make sense, but it's valid to assume it's "like magic" in the same way that watching an escape artist get out of a locked trunk seems like magic to those of us who don't know how he did it.

For hiding your scent without "something to rub it off on," you can generally prepare yourself with a strong odorizing agent that you can spread around, so the smell of red herring is all they smell to know where you are, and then you start dropping them all over as you hide and they can't tell which is you. Or maybe you just drop some piece of clothing or another for a similar but subtler version of the same effect.

I can make up a number of possibilities that require little save what the rogue has on him, if I need to.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-26, 03:15 PM

I tend to assume that a high bonus/result means you had on hand means to accomplish the result. It's best if you can stunt your action to make it make sense, but it's valid to assume it's "like magic" in the same way that watching an escape artist get out of a locked trunk seems like magic to those of us who don't know how he did it.

For hiding your scent without "something to rub it off on," you can generally prepare yourself with a strong odorizing agent that you can spread around, so the smell of red herring is all they smell to know where you are, and then you start dropping them all over as you hide and they can't tell which is you. Or maybe you just drop some piece of clothing or another for a similar but subtler version of the same effect.

I can make up a number of possibilities that require little save what the rogue has on him, if I need to.

Yeah, that tactic is perfectly valid, and I would definitely let it fly, but as I said a couple posts ago, you either masked your scent or you didn't, what you describe is something you did prior to going out, not something you can do in an action normally.

I guess the difference is mainly in playstyle, where I don't like "retconing" stuff to accomodate abstract rolls, instead prefering rolls reflecting what's being described by the players. I personally don't think either method is inherently better, and while I generally preffer the one I use, I have fancied the more mechanically inclined one in certain campaigns that where dungeon crawling heavy.

Segev

2019-06-26, 03:24 PM

Yeah, that tactic is perfectly valid, and I would definitely let it fly, but as I said a couple posts ago, you either masked your scent or you didn't, what you describe is something you did prior to going out, not something you can do in an action normally.

I guess the difference is mainly in playstyle, where I don't like "retconing" stuff to accomodate abstract rolls, instead prefering rolls reflecting what's being described by the players. I personally don't think either method is inherently better, and while I generally preffer the one I use, I have fancied the more mechanically inclined one in certain campaigns that where dungeon crawling heavy.

Note that some of what I said didn't require earlier masking. Dropping clothing you're wearing or items you're carrying to create false scent sources is something you can do if you're not stark naked and totally hairless. I think "wearing clothes, carrying stuff, and not hairless from head to toe" is a reasonable set of assumptions to make without retconning. :smalltongue:

Rukelnikov

2019-06-26, 03:40 PM

Note that some of what I said didn't require earlier masking. Dropping clothing you're wearing or items you're carrying to create false scent sources is something you can do if you're not stark naked and totally hairless. I think "wearing clothes, carrying stuff, and not hairless from head to toe" is a reasonable set of assumptions to make without retconning. :smalltongue:

lol yeah, its a pretty reasonable assumption, and a believable way to throw off your trackers.

CorporateSlave

2019-06-26, 03:52 PM

Although there's another way we could look at it. The inclusion of Scent is what provides Advantage in the first place. That is, the perception check that the dog is attempting is actually the same Perception check that everyone else is using (using sound or other means), but the dog gets Advantage due to the fact that he's able to combine hearing with scent. So what the Rogue is doing is still hiding by staying silent, and the dog has an enhanced chance of detecting the rogue, but being silent might be enough of a reason to be undetected from the dog, despite the dog trying to find the rogue by scent.

In a way, a dog's nose is to a Perception Check like a Battle Master's Maneuver is to an attack: Not something separate, but something tacked on.

Although, the RAW for Wisdom (Perception) states "Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses." While examples like the Invisible condition or the Unseen Attackers and Targets don't bother going into all five human senses for their examples, and why would they since for most purposes we rely on sight or hearing primarily, in the case of some creatures with heightened senses, they are given Advantage on their checks. The RAW doesn't just say "of your senses of sight and hearing."

To put it another way, by RAW, all Perception checks include sight, hearing, smell, feeling, and potentially taste, and the 'standard roll' is built around human level senses. Dogs have better hearing and smell than we do, so they get Advantage - if those senses would apply (and generally they would, although for example, a dog in thick smoke from a fire and inside the radius of a Silence spell ought not be granted their Advantage since neither of the two senses the Perception check would rely on are applicable.. An extreme example to be sure, but then generally it is kind of hard to effectively hide from a dog! Another example might be trying to locate a creature submerged in murky water and not moving.)

To put it another, another way, lets say a super sneaky invisible creature is standing stock still, holding its breath and waiting for its unlucky victim, you, to walk by. Yet, it fails to realize you've Expertised Perception, maximized Wisdom, and took the Observant feat. It's paltry 28 Stealth check is no match for your 31 passive Perception! As DM, I might well say, as you walk down the alley, you suddenly notice a faint smell of body odor mixed with dried blood, coming from the shadows off to your left. It is getting stronger with each step you take... Scent is always there, it just usually not what we use.

Man_Over_Game

2019-06-26, 04:10 PM

Although, the RAW for Wisdom (Perception) states "Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses." While examples like the Invisible condition or the Unseen Attackers and Targets don't bother going into all five human senses for their examples, and why would they since for most purposes we rely on sight or hearing primarily, in the case of some creatures with heightened senses, they are given Advantage on their checks. The RAW doesn't just say "of your senses of sight and hearing."

To put it another way, by RAW, all Perception checks include sight, hearing, smell, feeling, and potentially taste, and the 'standard roll' is built around human level senses. Dogs have better hearing and smell than we do, so they get Advantage - if those senses would apply (and generally they would, although for example, a dog in thick smoke from a fire and inside the radius of a Silence spell ought not be granted their Advantage since neither of the two senses the Perception check would rely on are applicable.. An extreme example to be sure, but then generally it is kind of hard to effectively hide from a dog! Another example might be trying to locate a creature submerged in murky water and not moving.)

To put it another, another way, lets say a super sneaky invisible creature is standing stock still, holding its breath and waiting for its unlucky victim, you, to walk by. Yet, it fails to realize you've Expertised Perception, maximized Wisdom, and took the Observant feat. It's paltry 28 Stealth check is no match for your 31 passive Perception! As DM, I might well say, as you walk down the alley, you suddenly notice a faint smell of body odor mixed with dried blood, coming from the shadows off to your left. It is getting stronger with each step you take... Scent is always there, it just usually not what we use.

Effectively, we have to choose from:

Allowing Perception to be used to track a target (which is something you usually use Survival for).
Having dogs be unable to track a target by scent, due to their scent benefits being limited to Perception (Probably the most official/RAW interpretation).
Allowing dogs to get Advantage on all Wisdom checks that benefit from their sense of smell (my proposed adjustment).

It's not that I disagree with the fact that Perception should be used for using your senses, I'm just have a problem that sticking with bullet #2 (Dogs can't track people) just doesn't make much sense.

Segev

2019-06-26, 04:45 PM

Rukelnikov

2019-06-26, 05:10 PM

ThePolarBear

2019-06-26, 05:34 PM

then there's no more reason to keep arguing

"I do not care, for the point i was making" - The fact that i do not take into consideration how the rules for vision work, what they model
"since it doesn't deal with any of that" - is because that model could be replaced by any other model that produces the same type of answers, even if the answer for a specific situation might be different between one model and the other.
It's easier to understand? I've not dealt with that issue because it's not relevant to the point.

Let me try, again, because as i've wrote multiple times i can't understand what you are criticizing:

So, why should "how one handles the vision rules" matter in relation to the part you are criticizing, which deals with what the rules for targeting require?
If you quote and bold part of what i've posted, i assume you are specifically referring to that passage.

"Targeting requires you only to see a target, not to see it clearly". "Yeah, but heavy obscurement models the reality of "it might be possible to see someone in dense foliage" with" it's impossible to do so".... So what? You could have replied that "yeah, but an hamburger costs 4 dollars" and have the pretty much the same relevance for all i can see.

What is your point?

viaFAMILIAR

2019-06-26, 06:25 PM

To be fair, you can also fall back on narrative options that seem supernatural but are based on human intuition not always being able to tell the conscious mind what it is picking up on, only that it's picking up on "something."

"As you walk down the alley [where the invisible perfectly still breath-holding would-be ambusher is hiding], you can just FEEL a killing intent coming from a particular spot near the wall; you know somebody's there, and means you harm."

Sure, in "reality," it's probably a combination of scent (body odor and specific violence-related hormones), the way sound isn't bouncing properly off the apparently-bare wall, and your own understanding of where dangerous people would want to stand to best ambush you mixing together to make your brain say, "There's a hole in the world that is shaped like this threat, even though I can't see the threat directly!" But you're getting it as this almost psychic intuition.

Sort of like a free Detect Thoughts, which is an ability and resource PCs must choose to use. I believe the tools to do whatever it is a player desires are made available in 5e. I never thought of using pets to sniff out hiding creatures, I always wondered what use Keen Smell has. Maybe Faerie Fire could help in this situation as well? I feel a nerrative based detection sort of takes the point out of the DM hiding the creature in the first place.

Thanks to this thread, I now have a pretty solid grasp of some critical 5e mechanics.

Segev

2019-06-27, 12:16 AM

Sort of like a free Detect Thoughts, which is an ability and resource PCs must choose to use. I believe the tools to do whatever it is a player desires are made available in 5e. I never thought of using pets to sniff out hiding creatures, I always wondered what use Keen Smell has. Maybe Faerie Fire could help in this situation as well? I feel a nerrative based detection sort of takes the point out of the DM hiding the creature in the first place.

Thanks to this thread, I now have a pretty solid grasp of some critical 5e mechanics.

No, it's not a free detect thoughts. It's having a ludicrously high Wisdom(Perception) and Passive Wisdom(Perception) earning you the ability to defeat the Hide check of the invisible guy standing there planning to ambush you. So it's not free - you paid for it with whatever you did to get the ridiculously high Wisdom(Perception) - and it's not detect thoughts any more than being invisible and having proficiency in Stealth is a free darkness + Devil's Sight. It's just that you can, in fact, tell there's somebody there, because they didn't (or can't) hide well enough to escape your notice.

It may be any number of things that tip you off. You could play it more straight-forwardly as noticing subtle details and consciously recognizing the guy's presence by them. But you can also play it at the below-consciousness level where only the fact that he's there registers, and you couldn't specifically say what it was that let you know that. So it seems "psychic."

Tanarii

2019-06-27, 05:30 AM

To be fair, you can also fall back on narrative options that seem supernatural but are based on human intuition not always being able to tell the conscious mind what it is picking up on, only that it's picking up on "something."

"As you walk down the alley [where the invisible perfectly still breath-holding would-be ambusher is hiding], you can just FEEL a killing intent coming from a particular spot near the wall; you know somebody's there, and means you harm."

Sure, in "reality," it's probably a combination of scent (body odor and specific violence-related hormones), the way sound isn't bouncing properly off the apparently-bare wall, and your own understanding of where dangerous people would want to stand to best ambush you mixing together to make your brain say, "There's a hole in the world that is shaped like this threat, even though I can't see the threat directly!" But you're getting it as this almost psychic intuition.
That's a fair bit more than "awareness of the world." If you cannot see, hear, or smell a creature, you should have to touch or taste it. If a DM didn't rule it as Automatic failure, I'd be irritated.

And human sense of smell is pretty bad. I'd expect DC 30 to smell an unseen and unheard and generally clean human standing more than a few feet away. But lower if they're using scented soap or cologne, been exercising, been drinking coffee all day, etc. :smallamused:

Segev

2019-06-27, 11:00 AM

That's a fair bit more than "awareness of the world." If you cannot see, hear, or smell a creature, you should have to touch or taste it. If a DM didn't rule it as Automatic failure, I'd be irritated.

And human sense of smell is pretty bad. I'd expect DC 30 to smell an unseen and unheard and generally clean human standing more than a few feet away. But lower if they're using scented soap or cologne, been exercising, been drinking coffee all day, etc. :smallamused:

Given that invisibility expressly fails to conceal the gap you leave in fluids, the only reason it doesn't fail utterly normally is because it either explicitly is designed to match "air" or we just can't see a difference between "air" and "vacuum" the way we can see a difference between "water" and "vacuum." Now, our examples here didn't cover a magically silenced individual who didn't also generate a silence field, though we did have at least one "you're deaf and they're invisible" example.

If you're deaf, no, you're not getting even the subtley odd echoes or lack thereof caused by an invisible body in a space to work from. You're down to smell for ranged senses, and any visible cues due to disturbance in the environment (footprints in the dust, a dust mote hitting and sticking). Sounds like a DC 30 to spot that or smell something off using normal human senses. Given rulings, not rules, I'd probably give a critter with scent a lower DC in addition to Advantage. Though I wouldn't under normal circumstances where auto-failure of sight and sound were on the table, because the lower DC for a scent-detecting creature would be no lower than the DC for a sighted or hearing creature being not denied any chance of success of those senses.

CorporateSlave

2019-06-27, 11:06 AM

I feel a nerrative based detection sort of takes the point out of the DM hiding the creature in the first place.

Well, I sort of see it in reverse - narrative justification for detecting a Hidden enemy after a successful Perception check that might call for explanation beyond "I somehow saw the invisible or somehow heard the silent creature." Of course you could also just say despite best efforts to remain silent they did make some small noise or such instead.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-27, 12:18 PM

Given that invisibility expressly fails to conceal the gap you leave in fluids, the only reason it doesn't fail utterly normally is because it either explicitly is designed to match "air" or we just can't see a difference between "air" and "vacuum" the way we can see a difference between "water" and "vacuum." Now, our examples here didn't cover a magically silenced individual who didn't also generate a silence field, though we did have at least one "you're deaf and they're invisible" example.

If you're deaf, no, you're not getting even the subtley odd echoes or lack thereof caused by an invisible body in a space to work from. You're down to smell for ranged senses, and any visible cues due to disturbance in the environment (footprints in the dust, a dust mote hitting and sticking). Sounds like a DC 30 to spot that or smell something off using normal human senses. Given rulings, not rules, I'd probably give a critter with scent a lower DC in addition to Advantage. Though I wouldn't under normal circumstances where auto-failure of sight and sound were on the table, because the lower DC for a scent-detecting creature would be no lower than the DC for a sighted or hearing creature being not denied any chance of success of those senses.

But do you base the DC to locate which square a creature leaving heavy footprints is on their Stealth check? In the extremely muddy boots on clean floor example, does the Rogue's stealth check matter?

Segev

2019-06-27, 12:28 PM

But do you base the DC to locate which square a creature leaving heavy footprints is on their Stealth check? In the extremely muddy boots on clean floor example, does the Rogue's stealth check matter?

If the rogue is making a stealth check, I will tend to assume that he's doing something about how extremely muddy his boots are on the clean floor. Either I'll inform him of the problem (so he can tell me how he deals with it), based on his stealth check, or I'll assume that he dealt with it somehow.

CorporateSlave

2019-06-27, 06:04 PM

If you cannot see, hear, or smell a creature, you should have to touch or taste it. If a DM didn't rule it as Automatic failure, I'd be irritated.

And human sense of smell is pretty bad. I'd expect DC 30 to smell an unseen and unheard and generally clean human standing more than a few feet away. But lower if they're using scented soap or cologne, been exercising, been drinking coffee all day, etc. :smallamused:

Personally, I would never simply assign a DC in such a situation - either they are trying to Hide - in which case the DC is their Stealth Check, or else they are not, in which case there is some fairly obvious trace of their presence. You can grant the Stealth check Advantage, grant the Perception check Disadvantage, or even throw in modifiers if you want, but it comes down to Stealth vs Perception.

And I wouldn't say that just because you can't see, hear, or smell the creature you should have to touch or taste it. You may not see, hear, or smell the creature itself, but you could still possibly detect it from its interaction with the environment. You might not see the creature, but notice the leaf blown in the wind that suddenly stops in mid-air, before seemingly sliding off and past...nothing? Or detect the curious outline of a hand in the cobwebs near the corner...etc etc.

But...how can you say it is so easy to detect someone if he's silent and freshly bathed and invisible and standing stock still...well then I would say you're making the case that they are trying to Hide, so have them make a Stealth check, and you have your DC (now apply Passive Perception or Perception Check as you feel it is called for). If they crush it, then yes, they are doing a good job of remaining still and silent, and not giving away any traces of their presence in the environment. If they pooch it, then probably they accidentally backed into something, or stood in a puddle, or sneezed or whatever!

I think people accept invisibility as a panacea for being impossible to detect because it feels magical. But if you're not trying to be sneaky, just being invisible just makes it hard to pinpoint exactly where you are (hence the Disadvantage on Attack rolls). If you doubt this, try closing your eyes as someone bumbles about the room, and see if you really can't tell they are there. They are effectively "invisible" to you, but as they are not trying to remain silent or otherwise hide, it is pretty easy to realize they are present, and their general direction and distance.

Of course one can white box a situation where "ah-ha, my ridiculously overblown hypothetical defeats your concept!" Invisible creature in a silent vacuum casting no scent and too far to touch, you still think you don't need to assign a DC? Well, no. In a specific situation designed to make it impossible to detect, it should remain just that, impossible to detect, and the DM should be direct about it. Neither would I assign a DC to a PC trying to bench press an entire castle, with no magical or other assistance. It just isn't happening.

But if it is possible to be detected, unless you are being more Stealthy than they are being Perceptive, you will be detected.

At least, that's how I see it.

Xetheral

2019-06-27, 06:10 PM

But if it is possible to be detected, unless you are being more Stealthy than they are being Perceptive, you will be detected.

At least, that's how I see it.

Out of curiosity, what range limit do you put on the statement "unless you are being more Stealthy than they are being Perceptive, you will be detected"? Is that range limit fixed, or does it depend on the environment?

For example, how far away does an invisible, not-hidden creature have to be before you rule that it might not be detected? Is your answer different in a quiet area than it would be in the midst of a pitched battle between armies?

CorporateSlave

2019-06-28, 06:59 AM

Of course one can white box a situation where "ah-ha, my ridiculously overblown hypothetical defeats your concept!"

Out of curiosity, what range limit do you put on the statement "unless you are being more Stealthy than they are being Perceptive, you will be detected"? Is that range limit fixed, or does it depend on the environment?

For example, how far away does an invisible, not-hidden creature have to be before you rule that it might not be detected? Is your answer different in a quiet area than it would be in the midst of a pitched battle between armies?

UNTIL OBSCURED BY THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. No, 115.65 meters.

Actually, I already answered your question in my post, I just didn't bother to spend a year listing every possible circumstance and instead wrote:

You can grant the Stealth check Advantage, grant the Perception check Disadvantage, or even throw in modifiers if you want, but it comes down to Stealth vs Perception.

You're asking two separate questions disguised as one:

In a pitched battle between armies, you would be constantly aware of a bunch of people fighting, but not so much specifically aware of any one enemy (that isn't trying to stab you). You're conflating the ability to detect an Invisible creature with the ability to pick a single individual out of a chaotic crowd (and/or from half a mile away). That sort of thing would call for a set DC, whether invisible or not. If said individual (again, invisible or not) was trying to hide in the crowd, they would get a Stealth check, probably with Advantage and with Disadvantage on the Perception check due to the crowd/distance.

Now for the question of if this any individual is invisible, that would be more akin to trying to spot if anyone in a crowd is wearing a green cloak. Obviously this sort of thing depends on factors like your viewing angle, the thickness of the crowd, viewing conditions (rainy? smoky? night?), but in 5e that just breaks down to ability checks. Advantage/Disadvantage, modifiers maybe. Sure, it could be "impossible" to spot that invisibly guy because there are 100 bodies crowded between you and him...but that has nothing to do with them being invisible or trying to hide or not. That would be the case if it were a clown in bright yellow clothing. Situationally if there is a 10' thick stone wall between the two of you, you're not going to be spotted Invisible or no.

Additionally, this is the reason there is Passive Perception and active Perception Checks. If you're in the midst of a battle and there is an invisible guy 100' away, the DC to notice them is probably really high, and if it beats your Passive Perception then you don't happen to notice them. But you also wouldn't have noticed the perfectly visible guy with the serpent crest on his shield 100' away either.

5e doesn't really set hard vision or hearing distance limits that I'm aware of. That bit is up to DM judgement regarding modifiers and Advantage/Disadvantage, or too far away to see/hear at all.

My point is just that Invisibility does not automatically grant Hidden status to a creature.

Xetheral

2019-06-28, 11:48 AM

UNTIL OBSCURED BY THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH. No, 115.65 meters.

Actually, I already answered your question in my post, I just didn't bother to spend a year listing every possible circumstance and instead wrote:

You're asking two separate questions disguised as one:

In a pitched battle between armies, you would be constantly aware of a bunch of people fighting, but not so much specifically aware of any one enemy (that isn't trying to stab you). You're conflating the ability to detect an Invisible creature with the ability to pick a single individual out of a chaotic crowd (and/or from half a mile away). That sort of thing would call for a set DC, whether invisible or not. If said individual (again, invisible or not) was trying to hide in the crowd, they would get a Stealth check, probably with Advantage and with Disadvantage on the Perception check due to the crowd/distance.

Now for the question of if this any individual is invisible, that would be more akin to trying to spot if anyone in a crowd is wearing a green cloak. Obviously this sort of thing depends on factors like your viewing angle, the thickness of the crowd, viewing conditions (rainy? smoky? night?), but in 5e that just breaks down to ability checks. Advantage/Disadvantage, modifiers maybe. Sure, it could be "impossible" to spot that invisibly guy because there are 100 bodies crowded between you and him...but that has nothing to do with them being invisible or trying to hide or not. That would be the case if it were a clown in bright yellow clothing. Situationally if there is a 10' thick stone wall between the two of you, you're not going to be spotted Invisible or no.

Additionally, this is the reason there is Passive Perception and active Perception Checks. If you're in the midst of a battle and there is an invisible guy 100' away, the DC to notice them is probably really high, and if it beats your Passive Perception then you don't happen to notice them. But you also wouldn't have noticed the perfectly visible guy with the serpent crest on his shield 100' away either.

5e doesn't really set hard vision or hearing distance limits that I'm aware of. That bit is up to DM judgement regarding modifiers and Advantage/Disadvantage, or too far away to see/hear at all.

My point is just that Invisibility does not automatically grant Hidden status to a creature.

So, if I'm interpreting your response correctly, at your table the DC (or auto-failure/autosuccess) to detect a not-hidden creature will be identical regardless of whether that creature is visible or invisible, but you might impose disadvantage on the perception check (if any) if the creature was invisible?

If so that's quite interesting. Most of the DM's I've spoken to have a range limit (even if it is just "the edge of the encounter") beyond which visible characters will still be auto-noticed and invisible creatures would not be (because they're out range of hearing or noticing environmental cues).

I entirely agree that being invisible does not automatically grant the hidden status. But under the right circumstances (usually sufficient range and/or background noise), at my table, an invisible not-hidden creature will become hard to detect (or even undetectable) where a visible creature might be much easier to detect (or still autodetected).

CorporateSlave

2019-06-28, 12:29 PM

So, if I'm interpreting your response correctly, at your table the DC (or auto-failure/autosuccess) to detect a not-hidden creature will be identical regardless of whether that creature is visible or invisible, but you might impose disadvantage on the perception check (if any) if the creature was invisible?

If so that's quite interesting. Most of the DM's I've spoken to have a range limit (even if it is just "the edge of the encounter") beyond which visible characters will still be auto-noticed and invisible creatures would not be (because they're out range of hearing or noticing environmental cues).

I entirely agree that being invisible does not automatically grant the hidden status. But under the right circumstances (usually sufficient range and/or background noise), at my table, an invisible not-hidden creature will become hard to detect (or even undetectable) where a visible creature might be much easier to detect (or still autodetected).

Maybe I'm not explaining it that well, but I think the thing is I am looking at it from the opposite side, so to speak.

It seems the conventional approach is "Hey in this situation it would be harder to notice an Invisible creature." For the sake of a "heroic RPG game play" perspective, I look it as as "If they aren't trying to conceal themselves, then what might be happening to make their presence obvious." Of course, if someone has gone Invisible, chances are they are trying to conceal themselves. But in that case, they ought to be making a Stealth check.

Otherwise they're just an Invisible schmuck who is crashing through the underbrush, pushing branches aside haphazardly sending birds playing away in distress, or shoving people out of the way in a crowd, etc. In some ways I could see this as being more noticeable than a visible person doing the same - because of the unusual aspects of the inclusion of Invisibility (branches moving, wildlife fleeing for no apparent reason, people gasping and clamoring at the strange force pushing through the crowd). So while the visible guy might be more visible, they are at the same time possibly less conspicuous, because visible people are the norm and expected.

Certainly someone at the edge of vision could be harder to spot, but narratively if I think the visible person would be notable, I'll give a reason the not sneaking Invisible one is notable as well.

For example: John Q Visible and John Q Invisible are both 100 yards away, walking through a field. Neither is trying to be sneaky. Rather than just "you notice a guy walking in the field off to the left," I would narrate more like "You see a man walking in the field of the the left. Suddenly, a hat, apparently caught by a breeze, appears out of nowhere a few feet off to the side and flies across the field. Confused, you squint are realize the grass in the field is being swept aside near where the man is walking."

Same situation, John Q Invisible is trying to Hide. He rolls Stealth and beats the PC's Passive Perception (they aren't actively looking for anything unusual). "you notice a guy walking in the field off to the left."

The advantage to being Invisible? Only John Q Invisible can even try to Hide, since he is the only one Obscured in this hypothetical scenario.

Segev

2019-06-28, 12:36 PM

For example: John Q Visible and John Q Invisible are both 100 yards away, walking through a field. Neither is trying to be sneaky. Rather than just "you notice a guy walking in the field off to the left," I would narrate more like "You see a man walking in the field of the the left. Suddenly, a hat, apparently caught by a breeze, appears out of nowhere a few feet off to the side and flies across the field. Confused, you squint are realize the grass in the field is being swept aside near where the man is walking."

Same situation, John Q Invisible is trying to Hide. He rolls Stealth and beats the PC's Passive Perception (they aren't actively looking for anything unusual). "you notice a guy walking in the field off to the left."

The advantage to being Invisible? Only John Q Invisible can even try to Hide, since he is the only one Obscured in this hypothetical scenario.

Clearly, the main advantage to being either visible or trying to hide is that your hat will not be blown off by random breezes!

Rukelnikov

2019-06-28, 05:26 PM

For example: John Q Visible and John Q Invisible are both 100 yards away, walking through a field. Neither is trying to be sneaky. Rather than just "you notice a guy walking in the field off to the left," I would narrate more like "You see a man walking in the field of the the left. Suddenly, a hat, apparently caught by a breeze, appears out of nowhere a few feet off to the side and flies across the field. Confused, you squint are realize the grass in the field is being swept aside near where the man is walking."

Same situation, John Q Invisible is trying to Hide. He rolls Stealth and beats the PC's Passive Perception (they aren't actively looking for anything unusual). "you notice a guy walking in the field off to the left."

The advantage to being Invisible? Only John Q Invisible can even try to Hide, since he is the only one Obscured in this hypothetical scenario.

So, basically, the narrative accomodates the mechanics, instead of the mechanics accomodating the narrative.

CorporateSlave

2019-06-28, 05:34 PM

So, basically, the narrative accomodates the mechanics, instead of the mechanics accomodating the narrative.

Well, I guess you could look at it that way...of course, another way to look at it is that the mechanics in the RAW are: you're Hidden if your Stealth check beats the opponent's Passive Perception or Perception Check. If you're not being Stealthy you're not Hidden no matter how Heavily Obscured your current position/condition might make you. Maybe not directly observed, but not Hidden. Ignoring those rules and saying "you're invisible so nobody knows you are there, sneaky or not" feel more to me like discarding mechanics in favor of a preferred narrative, which could be endlessly frustrating* for the PC who optimized their Perception yet is constantly foiled when the RAW.

*I say "could be," but in fact I know from personal experience which is why I rule these things the way I do.

Rukelnikov

2019-06-28, 05:42 PM

Well, I guess you could look at it that way...of course, another way to look at it is that the mechanics in the RAW are: you're Hidden if your Stealth check beats the opponent's Passive Perception or Perception Check. If you're not being Stealthy you're not Hidden no matter how Heavily Obscured your current position/condition might make you. Maybe not directly observed, but not Hidden. Ignoring those rules and saying "you're invisible so nobody knows you are there, sneaky or not" feel more to me like discarding mechanics in favor of a preferred narrative, which could be endlessly frustrating* for the PC who optimized their Perception yet is constantly foiled when the RAW.

*I say "could be," but in fact I know from personal experience which is why I rule these things the way I do.

Right, but his hat was only blown away because someone was nearby, it wouldn't have happened otherwise, and it wouldn't have happened if he made a good Stealth check. My DM style is if his hat is gonna blow away, it will even if he gets a 30 Stealth check, and if its not gonna blow away then it won't even if he's not trying to be stealthy, the presence or absence of someone else has nothing to do with that.

If there's a storm abrewing and the invisible character has his hat blown away, I'll likely allow him a reflex save to grab it snap fast so it doesn't stop being invisible, in case it flies away, the DC to spot a flying hat wouldn't depend on how stealthy was the person wearing it.

In my style, the world PCs live in exists independant of them, and reacts to their actions, but doesn't (generally) rewrite itself to accomodate those actions.

Tanarii

2019-06-28, 07:58 PM

At my table, I generally assume:

Vision can detect out to about two miles for average visibility.

Quiet conversation and movement level sound can be heard at 30ft, normal conversation at 60ft.

Smell is not an issue for humans and human-like creatures, unless it's something particularly odiferous.

This matches reality, as best I can determine. The sound ranges are not really precise, so I end up halving or doubling when I'm making judgement calls.

As far as player groups go, a scout must be at least 30ft in front of the party for the scout to count as a separate group for making stealth checks and the party not to have to. And I generally assume an intentional ambush attempt gets the ambushers to 30ft before they initiate (surprise success or not) with non-ambushing party members at 60ft, and an unintentional encounter starts with the scout at 60ft and the party trailing another 30ft behind. (I tweak these slightly depending on specific circumstances.)

Rukelnikov

2019-06-29, 04:16 AM