Gloom Stalker’s Invisibility: more trouble than it’s worth?

[RSP]

Gloom Stalker’s 3rd level invisibility in Darkness, to those who rely on Darkvision to see them, seems like quite a bit of trouble for the Gloom Stalker and their party.

“While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

There is no off button for this, nor and ability to select who is affected.

RAW, even the Gloom Stalker (assuming using Darkvision) cannot see themselves.

Occupational hazards I foresee is the invisible GS getting knocked to zero and no one in the party knowing it happened, much less where they fell to administer aid. Certainly no Healing Word as that requires sight.

Particular to my current party, which has two casters capable of Spirit Guardians (which requires sight at casting to omit characters from the effects), the GS will never be omitted, nor will those characters be able to see the GS to avoid them.

Thoughts on how successful the GS’s invisibility mingles with party play?

[Gignere]

Gloom Stalker’s 3rd level invisibility in Darkness, to those who rely on Darkvision to see them, seems like quite a bit of trouble for the Gloom Stalker and their party.

“While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

There is no off button for this, nor and ability to select who is affected.

RAW, even the Gloom Stalker (assuming using Darkvision) cannot see themselves.

Occupational hazards I foresee is the invisible GS getting knocked to zero and no one in the party knowing it happened, much less where they fell to administer aid. Certainly no Healing Word as that requires sight.

Particular to my current party, which has two casters capable of Spirit Guardians (which requires sight at casting to omit characters from the effects), the GS will never be omitted, nor will those characters be able to see the GS to avoid them.

Thoughts on how successful the GS’s invisibility mingles with party play?

It’s almost a non issue if they stay at range. It’s problematic if they were melee. You can perhaps cheese it by having someone casts light/continual flame on a coin and use your free item interaction to palm it at the end of your turn. So if you do get drop you open your hand and it automatically lights up your spot.

[Kvess]

There is no off button for this, nor and ability to select who is affected.

I believe the off button is a torch or the Light cantrip.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Thoughts on how successful the GS’s invisibility mingles with party play?

We never ran into issues with it, our Ranger was visible whenever she was in danger because most enemies don't fight in complete darkness.

[gooch]

How often do you fight in complete darkness? Surely the rest of the party has bigger issues at that point.
Nothing is stopping the Ranger from using the arcane art of Talking to communicate with the party, either. If they're already being attacked, shouting for help and revealing their location hardly matters.

[Gilead26]

The text of the ability states: “ You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

I’d argue that if you are knocked unconscious you’re not evading anything. Making being invisible to your allies for the purposes of healing a nonissue.

[Witty Username]

I mean, most of the time you are not going to be drawing fire, parties tend to have at least one light source, and black as pitch is not an everyday occurrence.

And Spirit Guardians is only an issue if you need to be 15ft or less away from the person casting Spirit Guardians.

[Dork_Forge]

I think it's more a surface problem than anything else, it's easily rectified even if your DM doesn't support being unconscious stopping it.


I mean, most of the time you are not going to be drawing fire, parties tend to have at least one light source, and black as pitch is not an everyday occurrence.

Darkness is every night (inc. most moonlit ones), or any interior space without lighting. Parties tend to gravitate towards being dark any time stealth is needed, Darkness should really be a regular (daily) occurence unless your party actively avoids that being the case.

[Witty Username]

I tend to rule nighttime as dim light personally. With total darkness reserved for indoors, caves and dungeons. That is mostly because 3.5 defined low light as starlight though, so I will conceede YMMV.

[Hytheter]

I tend to rule nighttime as dim light personally. With total darkness reserved for indoors, caves and dungeons. That is mostly because 3.5 defined low light as starlight though, so I will conceede YMMV.

Your ruling contradicts the actual rules of the game, then.

"Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face Darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical Darkness."

'Darkness' isn't utter pitch black darkness. It just means darker than a human can reasonably see in. I certainly don't go wandering around at night without a torch.

See also in the description of dim light: "A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light."

[RSP]

I think it's more a surface problem than anything else, it's easily rectified even if your DM doesn't support being unconscious stopping it.



Darkness is every night (inc. most moonlit ones), or any interior space without lighting. Parties tend to gravitate towards being dark any time stealth is needed, Darkness should really be a regular (daily) occurence unless your party actively avoids that being the case.

Our campaign is Dragon Heist / Mad Mage, so I’m thinking it’ll be darkness heavy. I’ve always been of the mind you don’t want to be exploring dark places with a light as it tends to be a dead give away. And always on light kind of defeats the point of Darkvision.

Not sure how others see it, but it’s been my preference.

[Dork_Forge]

I tend to rule nighttime as dim light personally. With total darkness reserved for indoors, caves and dungeons. That is mostly because 3.5 defined low light as starlight though, so I will conceede YMMV.

I can understand why you'd rule it that way, especially if that's what it was in past editions. For the record in 5e:


The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

[Witty Username]

Hm, I will keep that in mind. I may play around with that and see if there are any unintended balance issues I have been causing.

I think torches, lanterns and light spells are still fairly common and the invisible character is unlikely to be the first target.

[RSP]

I think torches, lanterns and light spells are still fairly common and the invisible character is unlikely to be the first target.

Common, but the intention has to be “we’re okay with every enemy here knowing our location.” Also, the GS probably wants to be in Darkness to utilize the feature. Other characters as well tend to benefit from Dim or Dark conditions (Devils Sight Warlocks, Skulkers, Shadow Blade users come to mind, I’m sure there are others)

I also agree the GS probably won’t be the first target when in Darkness, however, I’m more concerned about AoE effects and creatures that don’t rely on Darkvision.

[Xetheral]

'Darkness' isn't utter pitch black darkness. It just means darker than a human can reasonably see in. I certainly don't go wandering around at night without a torch.

The rules are blatantly contradictory on this point. Darkness is heavy obscurement, which effectively gives the Blinded condition to anyone trying to see something in the Darkness (including themselves). And the Blinded condition makes it literally impossible to see. So in Darkness it's impossible to see your hand in front of your face, the terrain, trees, or anything else in the Darkness, which sounds exactly like utter pitch black to me. And yet the rules also say, as you note, that most moonlit nights count as Darkness, and anyone who has been outside on a moonlit night knows that you can see your hand in front of your face, the terrain, and trees, so you must not be effectively suffering the D&D Blinded condition with respect to those things.

If you want to be consistent, you have to houserule something. Options include:

Houserule moonlit nights to not be Darkness. Houserule Darkness to not always provide Heavy Obscurement. Houserule Darkness to not always inflict the Blinded Condition Houserule the Blinded Condition to not always make sight impossible. Redefine moonlit nights to actually be utter pitch black.

[MaxWilson]

If you want to be consistent, you have to houserule something. Options include:

Houserule moonlit nights to not be Darkness. Houserule Darkness to not always provide Heavy Obscurement. Houserule Darkness to not always inflict the Blinded Condition Houserule the Blinded Condition to not always make sight impossible. Redefine moonlit nights to actually be utter pitch black.

Personally I go with a combination of 3 and 4: you may be "blinded" from an advantage / disadvantage standpoint, but that doesn't make you totally unaware of where things are or what they look like.

I think it's a fundamental modeling mistake for 5E to treat lighting levels purely as a function of distance from lightsource instead of distance to observer. It isn't reasonable for "dim light" from a bright moon to allow seeing a skulking animal half a mile away. It should be more like "on a normal moonlit night you can dimly see things up to 30' away, or 90' if you have darkvision; and on a particularly brilliant moonlit night those distances triple."

[Xetheral]

Personally I go with a combination of 3 and 4: you may be "blinded" from an advantage / disadvantage standpoint, but that doesn't make you totally unaware of where things are or what they look like.

That works! I think I'm leaning more towards #1, but any of them get around the problem. #5 I think is the silliest, but arguably is most in keeping with the rules.


I think it's a fundamental modeling mistake for 5E to treat lighting levels purely as a function of distance from lightsource instead of distance to observer. It isn't reasonable for "dim light" from a bright moon to allow seeing a skulking animal half a mile away. It should be more like "on a normal moonlit night you can dimly see things up to 30' away, or 90' if you have darkvision; and on a particularly brilliant moonlit night those distances triple."

Personally I'm ok with doing distance limits for vision and sound ad hoc, since they also depend on things like the size of the object or the volume of the sound. So I think it's probably better that they left those ranges up to each DM. Some illustrative examples could have helped though, particularly if they discussed the complicating factors without pinning down the DM.

[Witty Username]

Maybe my thoughts are skewed my party's managing of light level, where we have 1 character with Devil's Sight, 3 with darkvision, and 1 limited to normal vision. So that are constantly manipulating light to better serve there purposes, usually by way of keeping Darkvision characters out of the light.
A party can benefit from light and darkness at the same time with directed light (the easiest way would be a bullseye lantern). This could be a problem if the entire party is relying on darkvision to see, but that has its own limitations. Like range, some sense data, and monsters that are benefited by Darkness like Shadows.
Overall, if the party is being attacked, their enemies will need means to see. If light, they will have a light source, if darkvision gloomstalker will carry. If tremorsense/blindsight, and the gloomstalker is attacked first. I isn't like taking out a light source will reveal your position, you are already revealed anyway.
And if the party is being hit by AOEs, stealth isn't working in the first place.
At best this sounds like an unlikely problem to have with needing to locate the gloomstalker.

[Segev]

"Moonlit" doesn't necessarily mean "bright full moon," just that there is a visible moon shedding some light. I have been quite blind in my friends' front yard going to my car in such conditions. Not so blind that I couldn't make out the rough direction to where I was going, but I literally couldn't stay reliably on the sidewalk without testing each?step before committing, and was cautiously feeling for where the bridge over their creek started.

Any hope of seeing enemy combatants well enough to fight anything but "blind" is nonexistent in such conditions.


As for the OP's question: the description of how the Gloomstalker's feature works suggests it is both a mundane and active ability. He automatically succeeds at doing it, but he has to willfully try to do it. This means he turns it off if he isn't actively keeping it on.

[Dork_Forge]

Our campaign is Dragon Heist / Mad Mage, so I’m thinking it’ll be darkness heavy. I’ve always been of the mind you don’t want to be exploring dark places with a light as it tends to be a dead give away. And always on light kind of defeats the point of Darkvision.

Not sure how others see it, but it’s been my preference.

It really depends on your party, if Darkvision isn't prevalent then they aren't likely to be fond of going in the dark, and dungeoneering with disadvantage on vision checks isn't fun.


The rules are blatantly contradictory on this point. Darkness is heavy obscurement, which effectively gives the Blinded condition to anyone trying to see something in the Darkness (including themselves). And the Blinded condition makes it literally impossible to see. So in Darkness it's impossible to see your hand in front of your face, the terrain, trees, or anything else in the Darkness, which sounds exactly like utter pitch black to me. And yet the rules also say, as you note, that most moonlit nights count as Darkness, and anyone who has been outside on a moonlit night knows that you can see your hand in front of your face, the terrain, and trees, so you must not be effectively suffering the D&D Blinded condition with respect to those things.


I'm with Segev on this, moonlight isn't giving you a meaningful amount of light to navigate and fight with unless it's particularly bright and a clear sky. Just because you can make out something, doesn't mean you can make out enough to use it effectively.

I'm basically nocturnal and live in a rural area, if I relied on moonlight for my night walks I'd snap my ankle pretty frequently.

[Xetheral]

I'm with Segev on this, moonlight isn't giving you a meaningful amount of light to navigate and fight with unless it's particularly bright and a clear sky. Just because you can make out something, doesn't mean you can make out enough to use it effectively.

I'm basically nocturnal and live in a rural area, if I relied on moonlight for my night walks I'd snap my ankle pretty frequently.

I entirely agree that moonlight often isn't enough to "use effectively". But imposing disadvantage is only part of the effects of the Blinded condition. As written, it also makes sight impossible ("[a] blinded creature can’t see"). Hence the inherent contradiction in the rules of making sight impossible in a situation where Segev (and I assume you too) acknowledges that sight is possible.

It definitely sounds like you both use approach #4 from my list of ways to resolve that contradiction. I think I'm just personally more comfortable with #1, but that's entirely a matter of taste.

[Dork_Forge]

I entirely agree that moonlight often isn't enough to "use effectively". But imposing disadvantage is only part of the effects of the Blinded condition. As written, it also makes sight impossible ("[a] blinded creature can’t see"). Hence the inherent contradiction in the rules of making sight impossible in a situation where Segev (and I assume you too) acknowledges that sight is possible.

It definitely sounds like you both use approach #4 from my list of ways to resolve that contradiction. I think I'm just personally more comfortable with #1, but that's entirely a matter of taste.

Not really, just becasue you can see something doesn't mean that information is of any value whatsoever, you're still effectively blind, which is certainly more than just disadvantage.

If I compared my actual ability in that kind of darkness to a 5e character (without Darkvision) in darkness, I'd come up short. We'd both be blind, but 5e assumes better use of the other senses then I'd ever get away with.

[Segev]

I entirely agree that moonlight often isn't enough to "use effectively". But imposing disadvantage is only part of the effects of the Blinded condition. As written, it also makes sight impossible ("[a] blinded creature can’t see"). Hence the inherent contradiction in the rules of making sight impossible in a situation where Segev (and I assume you too) acknowledges that sight is possible.

It definitely sounds like you both use approach #4 from my list of ways to resolve that contradiction. I think I'm just personally more comfortable with #1, but that's entirely a matter of taste.

While I won't say "sight is impossible," it was effectively useless the last few times I've been walking through my friends' moonlit - but not full-moon-lit - front yard at midnight. Can't see the sidewalk, can't see the bridge, can barely tell the sky through the branches overhead, and only know where my car is from memory and the use of my keyfob to make it flash its lights. I probably should've just gotten out my phone and used its flashlight, honestly.

[Xetheral]

Not really, just becasue you can see something doesn't mean that information is of any value whatsoever, you're still effectively blind, which is certainly more than just disadvantage.

If I compared my actual ability in that kind of darkness to a 5e character (without Darkvision) in darkness, I'd come up short. We'd both be blind, but 5e assumes better use of the other senses then I'd ever get away with.


While I won't say "sight is impossible," it was effectively useless the last few times I've been walking through my friends' moonlit - but not full-moon-lit - front yard at midnight. Can't see the sidewalk, can't see the bridge, can barely tell the sky through the branches overhead, and only know where my car is from memory and the use of my keyfob to make it flash its lights. I probably should've just gotten out my phone and used its flashlight, honestly.

It looks like I'm reading the text of the Blinded condition differently than you two are. Since it evidently can be read multiple ways, I'll retract my claim that there is an inherent contradiction in the rules and revise it to simply be that I personally read the rules as creating a contradiction.

[Segev]

It looks like I'm reading the text of the Blinded condition differently than you two are. Since it evidently can be read multiple ways, I'll retract my claim that there is an inherent contradiction in the rules and revise it to simply be that I personally read the rules as creating a contradiction.

I will just add in that if we read "blinded" to mean "utterly unable to see," then we are back to some of the more nonsensical interpretations of obscurement that make it so that you're not able to see things between you and dense fog if you attempt to look for something in the dense fog, because you're "effectively blinded" while trying to look into there.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If,(as some assert), there is no 'Flavor Text' in 5e, then the wording of this: "You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision."
....sounds like an active ability. Adept can mean proficient, and evading something is an active choice, not some autonomic response one has no control over.

One, typically, doesn't reflexively, hide behind a chair, do we?
A Gloomstalker, that isn't trying to 'evade sight', should be a visible as anything else in total darkness.

An extreme literal reading, would mean a Gloomstalker, technically, would not be able to see itself in darkness... in effect a Gloomstalker would have the Blinded Condition in regards to it's own actions toward's itself, whilst in darkness.

This seems silly to me.

It also seems to be a silly result to many on the thread, so a potential solution would appear to be : do not interpret the ability quite so literally.

[Battlebooze]

The being invisible to yourself issue reminds me of the issue with having to disbelieve your own illusions. Sure you cast a spell, and you can use your action to move the illusion, but do you really know for sure? I mean, illusion spells don't say you automatically recognize your own illusions...

[Thunderous Mojo]

Well, if Compound Interest is the most powerful force is the universe, then Self Delusion is probably a close second. 🃏

[RSP]

If,(as some assert), there is no 'Flavor Text' in 5e, then the wording of this: "You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision."
....sounds like an active ability. Adept can mean proficient, and evading something is an active choice, not some autonomic response one has no control over.

One, typically, doesn't reflexively, hide behind a chair, do we?
A Gloomstalker, that isn't trying to 'evade sight', should be a visible as anything else in total darkness.

An extreme literal reading, would mean a Gloomstalker, technically, would not be able to see itself in darkness... in effect a Gloomstalker would have the Blinded Condition in regards to it's own actions toward's itself, whilst in darkness.

This seems silly to me.

It also seems to be a silly result to many on the thread, so a potential solution would appear to be : do not interpret the ability quite so literally.

Well, I mean, there’s this part of the rule as well…

“While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

That seems pretty straight forward to me…and would make them pretty adept at evading creatures that rely on Darkvision while in Darkness. What it doesn’t do, though, I’d use a word like “can” which would mean it’s a choice.

[greenstone]

Thoughts on how successful the GS’s invisibility mingles with party play?

Badly, as does all invisibility and darkness and similar.

No bless, careful casting, exclusion from aoe, etc.

On the plus, bardic inspiration still works. :-)

[Thunderous Mojo]

Well, I mean, there’s this part of the rule as well…

“While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

That seems pretty straight forward to me…and would make them pretty adept at evading creatures that rely on Darkvision while in Darkness. What it doesn’t do, though, I’d use a word like “can” which would mean it’s a choice.

Your thread is about the ability being more of a hassle than it is worth;
7 years into 5e, if you have a viable fix to a troublesome ability, I would call it prudent to forget RAW and implement, instead, your 'fix'.

Otherwise, your game will just avoid the subclass....like space debris in orbit, it just clutters your calculations. 🃏

If you change the ability then the subclass lives on, and might be used.

[Cheesegear]

Thoughts on how successful the GS’s invisibility mingles with party play?

I played a Gloom Stalker. It seemed cool and fun...Until it was useless.

Scenario 1. Since the party mostly consisted of Variant Humans, two-thirds of the party didn't have Darkvision, and so we mostly went around with the Cleric's Light on. If there's Light, the Gloom Stalker isn't invisible.

Scenario 2. The Gloom Stalker is invisible. The party couldn't target me and the Evoker couldn't sculpt spells around me 'cause he couldn't see me. What's the point in being a blaster Wizard if you can't blast without hurting your team-mates?

For me, the Gloom Stalker falls into the category of 'Terrible PC, Amazing hostile NPC.'

[Hytheter]

Did you ever try not standing right near your allies or enemies? I feel like it should be pretty easy to avoid light radii and allied AOEs when you've got a weapon range of up to 120ft.

[Cheesegear]

Did you ever try not standing right near your allies or enemies?

The campaign took place mostly underground or in dungeons. That's why I thought the Gloom Stalker would be a great pick...It wasn't.


I feel like it should be pretty easy to avoid light radii and allied AOEs when you've got a weapon range of up to 120ft.

You have a weapon range up to your own Darkvision limit. But yes. The Gloom Stalker is great in specific scenarios; Those that take place above ground, with plenty of space to move around, at night.

[Battlebooze]

In the on again, off again campaign I've been playing, my Gloomstalker 10/ Arcana cleric 1 really hasn't had many problems with his 3rd level Umbral Sight invisibility. As a SS xbow expert, he generally hangs on the edges of combat anyway, either with a longbow outside or his hand crossbow inside or underground.

He has take a couple of hits from our Cleric's Guardian Spirits, but those really didn't amount to much damage. It's not like he can't see that the spell is up. It might help that I play him rather tactically and he has invested in magic items that make his abilities even more effective. He has slippers of Spider climbing for example, which he often uses to hang out on the ceiling or walls in a fight.

Umbral Sight doesn't work every fight, certainly. I find I have to move around and position myself often, but that just makes playing him more interesting. Honestly, if the Umbral Sight invisibility didn't require some work to make it useful, it would be cheesy and boring.

Also, as often pointed out by many people on this forum, if you don't use the stealth skill to hide... both enemies and players know where you are, even if invisible. My ranger rarely uses stealth in group combat and that means I don't get hit by errant fireballs. The other characters in this situation know where he is from talking and the sound of his footsteps. Now if he is sneaking up on someone, sure, he will use stealth. The other players will know though, that he might be in a dangerous position because he talks to them before hand.


Our group uses light spells indoors regularly, though the one character that doesn't have darkvision can cast the spell Darkvision on himself if we want to move around in the dark.


Personally I think Umbral Sight invisibility is a fun and cool ability and I haven't had any big problems with being unseen by the party.

Anyway, your mileage may vary. :D

[Cheesegear]

The other characters in this situation know where he is from talking and the sound of his footsteps. Now if he is sneaking up on someone, sure, he will use stealth. The other players will know though, that he might be in a dangerous position because he talks to them before hand.

The problem isn't whether or not your party knows where you are.

The problem is that your party will have multiple spells and abilities that require line of sight to you, which with you being Invisible, they don't have.

[Hytheter]

You have a weapon range up to your own Darkvision limit

Ah, I do forget that my own Stalker benefits from Goggles of Night which isn't necessarily a given, but still, the extra range the sub provides a normal darkvision race gets you a long way. I can understand it being less viable in cramped quarters though. I tend to lean towards scouting ahead of the party in that case but that's got its own risks.

[RSP]

.
Also, as often pointed out by many people on this forum, if you don't use the stealth skill to hide... both enemies and players know where you are, even if invisible.

DM dependent. The DM in this campaign I’m playing now does not abide by the “auto locate” philosophy with Invis and no hiding.

[RSP]

Your thread is about the ability being more of a hassle than it is worth;
7 years into 5e, if you have a viable fix to a troublesome ability, I would call it prudent to forget RAW and implement, instead, your 'fix'.

Otherwise, your game will just avoid the subclass....like space debris in orbit, it just clutters your calculations. 🃏

If you change the ability then the subclass lives on, and might be used.

I don’t adhere to buffing every ability that could be detrimental: every class would, then, have no flaws. The GS Invis is a trade off: it’s a powerful, resource less ability, that can have negative consequences. By taking away those consequences, all you’re doing is buffing the subclass.

Going by this philosophy, do you not allow the Wizard’s fireball to damage the party? That’s another trade off.

If this is the approach to DMing, the game probably gets to easy mode really fast.

[Segev]

I played a Gloom Stalker. It seemed cool and fun...Until it was useless.

Scenario 1. Since the party mostly consisted of Variant Humans, two-thirds of the party didn't have Darkvision, and so we mostly went around with the Cleric's Light on. If there's Light, the Gloom Stalker isn't invisible.

Scenario 2. The Gloom Stalker is invisible. The party couldn't target me and the Evoker couldn't sculpt spells around me 'cause he couldn't see me. What's the point in being a blaster Wizard if you can't blast without hurting your team-mates?

For me, the Gloom Stalker falls into the category of 'Terrible PC, Amazing hostile NPC.'

If your wizard or another caster doesn't have a need for his bonus action, or you're good with some strategic placements, a use of dancing lights to move the ranger into their 10 ft. radius or to move them into within 10 ft. of the ranger will let you selectively make the ranger visible when you want him to be.

I will say that a rogue with a Gloomstalker dip is probably better at using Umbral Sight, though: A Rogue 7/Gloomstalker 3 will have Evasion and probably a good reflex save, so may not NEED to be specifically excluded from those AOEs.


There is plenty that can be done without seeing your ranger. If you build for needing line of sight and your party is stealthy, well, that isn't synergistic party building. So maybe either Gloomstalker or that choice of line of sight builds isn't for you. Or maybe it's fine, but the Gloomstalker just needs to accept fewer buffs when he's relying on his invisibility.

I will point out that Devil's Sight is not darkvision, so if you've got just one or two spellcasters who really need to see the Gloomstalker, they could consider a feat. It's not like Devil's Sight isn't really good for other things, as well.


Finally, because the paradigm of 5e is about rulings and not rules, you should carefully think about what the in-game explanation for the Gloomstalker's invisibility to darkvision is. Is it magic he "does?" Is it a curse? Is it a mixed blessing from some other power that didn't think things through? A result of a faerie bargain or genie wish? Is it a set of skills and techniques that make him adept at blending in with black-and-white backgrounds?

Unless it's something that's beyond his control, he should be able to turn it on and off. It doesn't give an action to do so, so it's a DM's call what he has to do to make it work or stop working.

But even if you run it as involuntary, there are solutions. The ranger, himself, could carry a shielded candle or other source of very small-radius light that he can use an object interaction to expose or hide.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don’t adhere to buffing every ability that could be detrimental: every class would, then, have no flaws. The GS Invis is a trade off: it’s a powerful, resource less ability, that can have negative consequences. By taking away those consequences, all you’re doing is buffing the subclass.

Then, it seems like you don't feel like a Gloom Stalker's Invisibility is "More Trouble than it is worth".

Given this, my interest in the thread has ended. Be Well and Good Gaming to you!

[Witty Username]

I don’t adhere to buffing every ability that could be detrimental: every class would, then, have no flaws. The GS Invis is a trade off: it’s a powerful, resource less ability, that can have negative consequences. By taking away those consequences, all you’re doing is buffing the subclass.

Going by this philosophy, do you not allow the Wizard’s fireball to damage the party? That’s another trade off.

If this is the approach to DMing, the game probably gets to easy mode really fast.
I mean it is the same concept as not allowing the Genie warlock to pick a ring of 3 wishes as their Genie's vessel.
When RAW is unfailingly stupid, fix it.

[Hytheter]

I
Finally, because the paradigm of 5e is about rulings and not rules, you should carefully think about what the in-game explanation for the Gloomstalker's invisibility to darkvision is. Is it magic he "does?" Is it a curse? Is it a mixed blessing from some other power that didn't think things through? A result of a faerie bargain or genie wish? Is it a set of skills and techniques that make him adept at blending in with black-and-white backgrounds?

Unless it's something that's beyond his control, he should be able to turn it on and off. It doesn't give an action to do so, so it's a DM's call what he has to do to make it work or stop working.

Personally for my Stalker it's a weird spell he cast on himself accidentally, but that's only because we take involuntary as the RAW. :P

[RSP]

I mean it is the same concept as not allowing the Genie warlock to pick a ring of 3 wishes as their Genie's vessel.
When RAW is unfailingly stupid, fix it.

It’s not, at all, the same concept. An ability that has benefits and downsides that need to be weighed, is different than allowing a PC to choose a legendary magic item for their use at character creation.

What, do you think, is “unfailingly stupid” about the GS ability, or, Invisibility in general (as similar problems would come up anytime a PC has Invisibility that they aren’t Concentrating on)

[Battlebooze]

Interestingly, Umbral Sight invisibility isn't magical in nature by RAW, so it should work fine in anti-magic zones and would not show up with detect magic. And if you wanted to house rule it to be magic, you might as well house rule it to be able to turned off.

I don't think making it controllable is a big deal either way.


The problem is that your party will have multiple spells and abilities that require line of sight to you, which with you being Invisible, they don't have.

Well, that hasn't been a big problem for my character, at least as far as the deep mid levels of the game, but that is just my own experience.

[Witty Username]

It’s not, at all, the same concept. An ability that has benefits and downsides that need to be weighed, is different than allowing a PC to choose a legendary magic item for their use at character creation.

What, do you think, is “unfailingly stupid” about the GS ability, or, Invisibility in general (as similar problems would come up anytime a PC has Invisibility that they aren’t Concentrating on)
I mean if you condem a PC to death do to an ability turning them invisible while unconscious because the party doesn't have a light source. That sounds like an edge case within the DM purview to fix than an intended feature of the ability.
But, I am more with ThunderuosMojo in philosophy, rather than on this specific case. If you think an ability is actually "more trouble than it is worth" then fix it. In the case of gloomstalker, the party using light effectively makes it a non-issue (lantuns for directional light is enough to solve the problem of the feature working without blinding the party). Also, the Ranger being brought down by the AOEs of a monster that can't see it (and therefore won't necessarily be able to place the effect to do that) shouldn't come up often either.

RAW is a valuable tool, not an alter to sacrifice yourself on, is all I am saying.

[RSP]

I mean if you condem a PC to death do to an ability turning them invisible while unconscious because the party doesn't have a light source. That sounds like an edge case within the DM purview to fix than an intended feature of the ability.
But, I am more with ThunderuosMojo in philosophy, rather than on this specific case. If you think an ability is actually "more trouble than it is worth" then fix it. In the case of gloomstalker, the party using light effectively makes it a non-issue (lantuns for directional light is enough to solve the problem of the feature working without blinding the party). Also, the Ranger being brought down by the AOEs of a monster that can't see it (and therefore won't necessarily be able to place the effect to do that) shouldn't come up often either.

RAW is a valuable tool, not an alter to sacrifice yourself on, is all I am saying.

I’m not condemning anyone to anything, I’m not sure what you think I’m doing in that regard.

If you want to buff the ability to take away the downsides it has, go right ahead, but that’s not the RAW, and is a straight buff to probably the most popular Ranger subclass.

Or, alternatively, if you want to meta game to have the party know where and when the Invis character goes down so there is no effective downside, sure, do that. Plenty of DMs play without killing PCs, you wouldn’t be the first.

But that doesn’t change that the RAW ability has downsides to it, in not being able to turn it off. And it’s not a knock on a DM who plays it that way, contrary though it may be to how you would play it.

[Keravath]

The rules are blatantly contradictory on this point. Darkness is heavy obscurement, which effectively gives the Blinded condition to anyone trying to see something in the Darkness (including themselves). And the Blinded condition makes it literally impossible to see. So in Darkness it's impossible to see your hand in front of your face, the terrain, trees, or anything else in the Darkness, which sounds exactly like utter pitch black to me. And yet the rules also say, as you note, that most moonlit nights count as Darkness, and anyone who has been outside on a moonlit night knows that you can see your hand in front of your face, the terrain, and trees, so you must not be effectively suffering the D&D Blinded condition with respect to those things.

If you want to be consistent, you have to houserule something. Options include:

Houserule moonlit nights to not be Darkness. Houserule Darkness to not always provide Heavy Obscurement. Houserule Darkness to not always inflict the Blinded Condition Houserule the Blinded Condition to not always make sight impossible. Redefine moonlit nights to actually be utter pitch black.

I think there are differing degrees of "Darkness" that in game terms do the same thing.

"BLINDED
• A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage"

Darkness imposes the Blinded condition. This does two things - they fail any ability check that requires sight and the effect on attack rolls. That is all.

It is up to the DM to rule whether any particular situation is brightly enough lit to not qualify for the darkness penalties. It doesn't need to be pitch black for example for a character to automatically fail an ability check or to have difficulty hitting a target or defending themselves. Even if a character could see some shadow in the darkness - it might still be enough to invoke these penalties.

Keep in mind that RAW - you always know where creatures are located unless they take a hide action to become hidden (or a DM rules that they can't be seen and heard and are thus automatically hidden). In addition, darkness has no effect on a character's movement. It isn't difficult terrain.

However, the obscuration rules are not well written in the context of vision and sight (as compared to fog or foliage) since a character should be easily able to see through a darkened area to a lit area beyond but not through foliage or fog to a similar clear area on the other side - and yet the rules use the same wording for any heavily obscured area forcing a DM to apply common sense.

[Segev]

I’m not condemning anyone to anything, I’m not sure what you think I’m doing in that regard.

If you want to buff the ability to take away the downsides it has, go right ahead, but that’s not the RAW, and is a straight buff to probably the most popular Ranger subclass.

Or, alternatively, if you want to meta game to have the party know where and when the Invis character goes down so there is no effective downside, sure, do that. Plenty of DMs play without killing PCs, you wouldn’t be the first.

But that doesn’t change that the RAW ability has downsides to it, in not being able to turn it off. And it’s not a knock on a DM who plays it that way, contrary though it may be to how you would play it.

I think a big part of the issue people are having with your argument is that you're asserting that it can't be turned off is clearly part of the RAW. That's simply not true. It is one way to interpret the RAW, and you may reasonably assert that you find that to be the most obvious or straight-forward interpretation, but you cannot accurately state that the text of the ability explicitly states it cannot be turned off, nor can you accurately claim that there is not text which can be interpreted to suggest that it can be turned off.

So claiming it's a "buff" to "take away the downsides it has" is inaccurate. It is a stronger interpretation, of course; more control over one's abilities is always a stronger thing than less control. But it is not a "buff" unless you operate from your preferred interpretation that you cannot turn it off as the one true RAW, and it definitely is NOT the one true RAW.

[RSP]

I think a big part of the issue people are having with your argument is that you're asserting that it can't be turned off is clearly part of the RAW. That's simply not true. It is one way to interpret the RAW, and you may reasonably assert that you find that to be the most obvious or straight-forward interpretation, but you cannot accurately state that the text of the ability explicitly states it cannot be turned off, nor can you accurately claim that there is not text which can be interpreted to suggest that it can be turned off.

So claiming it's a "buff" to "take away the downsides it has" is inaccurate. It is a stronger interpretation, of course; more control over one's abilities is always a stronger thing than less control. But it is not a "buff" unless you operate from your preferred interpretation that you cannot turn it off as the one true RAW, and it definitely is NOT the one true RAW.

The RAW is straightforward in this:

“While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

The condition is “while in darkness” with a caveat of creatures relying on Darkvision to see the character. The effect is invisibility.

If you’re going against that and saying, “well yeah, the GS is in Darkness, and the character trying to observe them is using Darkvision (and not aided in another way like See Invisibility), but that character can see through the invisibility”, that’s fine, but it’s not RAW.

The RAW is clear what happens and when, and nothing states it’s otherwise. Again, if someone wants to change that at their table, cool. But claiming that is RAW is incorrect.

[Segev]

The RAW is straightforward in this:

“While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

The condition is “while in darkness” with a caveat of creatures relying on Darkvision to see the character. The effect is invisibility.

If you’re going against that and saying, “well yeah, the GS is in Darkness, and the character trying to observe them is using Darkvision (and not aided in another way like See Invisibility), but that character can see through the invisibility”, that’s fine, but it’s not RAW.

The RAW is clear what happens and when, and nothing states it’s otherwise. Again, if someone wants to change that at their table, cool. But claiming that is RAW is incorrect.

You are ignoring the text that explains that this is a result of you being very good at eluding detection in the dark. You CAN interpret that as being explained by being (involuntarily) invisible to darkvision, or you CAN interpret being (voluntarily) invisible to darkvision as being a result of that stated skill.

What you cannot do is prove that only one of those interpretations is objectively the one true correct one.

[RSP]

You are ignoring the text that explains that this is a result of you being very good at eluding detection in the dark. You CAN interpret that as being explained by being (involuntarily) invisible to darkvision, or you CAN interpret being (voluntarily) invisible to darkvision as being a result of that stated skill.

What you cannot do is prove that only one of those interpretations is objectively the one true correct one.

One of those (involuntary) allows both statements to be true. One does not (making it voluntary).

[Xetheral]

"BLINDED
• A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage"

Darkness imposes the Blinded condition. This does two things - they fail any ability check that requires sight and the effect on attack rolls. That is all.

It is up to the DM to rule whether any particular situation is brightly enough lit to not qualify for the darkness penalties. It doesn't need to be pitch black for example for a character to automatically fail an ability check or to have difficulty hitting a target or defending themselves. Even if a character could see some shadow in the darkness - it might still be enough to invoke these penalties.

As I read the Blinded condition, it does three things: the two you mentioned, plus "a blinded creature can't see" as specified in the first bullet point. Ergo, as I read it, a character who can "see some shadow in the darkness" can't have all three penalties of the Blinded condition without creating a contradiction.

[Segev]

One of those (involuntary) allows both statements to be true. One does not (making it voluntary).

Er, no? Both can be true with either reading, with it being voluntary or involuntary. If you disagree, you're going to have to be more explicit in explaining your reasoning, because I don't see whatever you're getting at.

[RSP]

Er, no? Both can be true with either reading, with it being voluntary or involuntary. If you disagree, you're going to have to be more explicit in explaining your reasoning, because I don't see whatever you're getting at.

If you’re saying the first sentence grants the ability to be voluntary, then the second sentence would need to acknowledge that, which it doesn’t, it gives the condition where it applies. In that condition (Darkness), the GS is invisible.

If that second sentence read “While in darkness, you can be invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

This would make it a choice, but as written, it is not.

[Segev]

If you’re saying the first sentence grants the ability to be voluntary, then the second sentence would need to acknowledge that, which it doesn’t, it gives the condition where it applies. In that condition (Darkness), the GS is invisible.

If that second sentence read “While in darkness, you can be invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

This would make it a choice, but as written, it is not.

Except that that's not how English works. "He's an expert lockpick. Doors just open at his touch," does not literally mean that he doesn't need to pick the locks because the doors open at his magical touch. It could mean that, but it doesn't have to.

[Snowbluff]

Occupational hazards I foresee is the invisible GS getting knocked to zero and no one in the party knowing it happened, much less where they fell to administer aid. Certainly no Healing Word as that requires sight.
?

I just wanna remind everyone that invisible doesn't mean your location is unknown in 5e, unless you hide. If a GS is unresponsive and in darkness, just shine a light on their square to check. :smalltongue:

[RSP]

Except that that's not how English works. "He's an expert lockpick. Doors just open at his touch," does not literally mean that he doesn't need to pick the locks because the doors open at his magical touch. It could mean that, but it doesn't have to.

Sure, the English language can be used that way. However, that’s not how the rules text of 5e (and rules text in general) are written, which I’m sure you’re aware of, so I don’t know what you’re trying to get at by inventing poetic, metaphorical sentences and using them as an example of 5e rules text.

Again, if the GS is in dark lighting conditions, and it is not invisible to creatures relying on Darkvision to see it; then the RAW sentence “While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness” fails to be true.

“Any creature” is, in fact, any creature. If you’re altering that statement to “any creature you choose” that’s fine, but it’s not RAW how the ability works.


I just wanna remind everyone that invisible doesn't mean your location is unknown in 5e, unless you hide. If a GS is unresponsive and in darkness, just shine a light on their square to check. :smalltongue:

I’ll just remind everybody that this interpretation of RAW is, in fact, DM dependent.

[Keravath]

Sure, the English language can be used that way. However, that’s not how the rules text of 5e (and rules text in general) are written, which I’m sure you’re aware of, so I don’t know what you’re trying to get at by inventing poetic, metaphorical sentences and using them as an example of 5e rules text.

Again, if the GS is in dark lighting conditions, and it is not invisible to creatures relying on Darkvision to see it; then the RAW sentence “While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness” fails to be true.

“Any creature” is, in fact, any creature. If you’re altering that statement to “any creature you choose” that’s fine, but it’s not RAW how the ability works.



I’ll just remind everybody that this interpretation of RAW is, in fact, DM dependent.

Isn't every interpretation of RAW DM dependent?

Also, RAW, in order to NOT know the location of a creature they have to be unseen and unheard (i.e. hidden). Whether this requires a stealth check or not depends on circumstances and is a DM decision. A DM can rule that a creature that is unseen and unheard is automatically hidden and can't be detected. On the other hand, even if unseen and unheard a creature could leave other traces of its presence like tracks. An invisible silent attacker standing on a sandy beach might easily be noticeable due to the tracks they make. One a clean marble floor might be unnoticeable.

The DM dependence comes in determining when a creature is hidden, not in the RAW itself.


"UNSEEN ATTACKERS AND TARGETS
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

Note that even a silent, invisible attacker using an invisible weapon would, RAW, give away its location when it makes an attack.

[RSP]

Isn't every interpretation of RAW DM dependent?

Indeed a DM can determine a creature is hidden without that creature hiding.

I don’t want this thread being derailed on hiding/invisibility rules. There’s already plenty of threads regarding this, so I’m just going to reiterate that it’s not unquestioned that “not Hiding = know location.”

So again, DM dependent.

[Segev]

Sure, the English language can be used that way. However, that’s not how the rules text of 5e (and rules text in general) are written, which I’m sure you’re aware of, so I don’t know what you’re trying to get at by inventing poetic, metaphorical sentences and using them as an example of 5e rules text.I would thank you not to tell me that I'm lying or being disingenuous. 5e is, in fact, written in English, and has a lot of English "flourishes," if you would permit me to call them that. I absolutely could see a class feature (probably for a Rogue, maybe an optional one for the Thief subclass) that read, "You've become so adept at picking locks that they just open at your touch. It no longer requires an action for you to pick locks," and have it be expected that you still need lockpicking tools despite the text plainly saying "they just open at your touch." Nowhere in the text does it say you don't need the tools nor that you can do so without a check nor that you automatically succeed on said check. 5e doesn't have "flavor text" that is ignorable, but it is also written in English and can, indeed, wax poetic. That's why it's all about "rulings, not rules."

It is perfectly valid to read Gloomstalker's Umbral Sight as making you involuntarily invisible to Darkvision. It is valid to read it as a magical effect. It is valid to read it as superb skill in hiding in the dark, such that you blend in with all the other black-and-white things and can't be seen. It is valid to read it as nonmagical or magical and voluntary.

The trouble is when you insist that you can - and must - ignore the first sentence and any context it might give to the second, and therefore there is only one way to interpret it.


Again, if the GS is in dark lighting conditions, and it is not invisible to creatures relying on Darkvision to see it; then the RAW sentence “While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness” fails to be true. But the entire pair of sentences does NOT fail to be true in the way that English is used. You're ignoring - by your own argument - the first sentence to create this "problem."

[RSP]

I absolutely could see a class feature (probably for a Rogue, maybe an optional one for the Thief subclass) that read, "You've become so adept at picking locks that they just open at your touch.

Why are you pretending to invent RAW lines? That proves absolutely nothing. If you really want to use an example of the RAW being written that way, use an actual example. Don’t invent stuff and then try to convince me it’s RAW.



It is perfectly valid to read Gloomstalker's Umbral Sight as making you involuntarily invisible to Darkvision. It is valid to read it as a magical effect. It is valid to read it as superb skill in hiding in the dark, such that you blend in with all the other black-and-white things and can't be seen. It is valid to read it as nonmagical or magical and voluntary.

The trouble is when you insist that you can - and must - ignore the first sentence and any context it might give to the second, and therefore there is only one way to interpret it.

But the entire pair of sentences does NOT fail to be true in the way that English is used. You're ignoring - by your own argument - the first sentence to create this "problem."

I’m ignoring nothing. I’ve stated the RAW, and shown how going with your “interpretation” is incompatible with the RAW (that is, if your interpretation makes the RAW no longer true, then it’s not an interpretation that holds up to RAW).

[Keravath]

As for interpreting the Gloomstalker ability - it is a DM call :)

The entire RAW text on the ability is the following:

"You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness."

The RULE is that when a gloomstalker is in darkness, he is invisible to creatures that rely on darkvision to see them in that darkness.

This sentence gives no indication of whether the ability is due to an intrinsic feature of the character or to some action that they have to take.

The first sentence says a gloomstalker is "adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision". This sentence still does NOT say that the gloomstalker must DO something in order to be considered invisible. It doesn't say they are "adept at evading" because they mechanically can hide or "adept at evading" because of a mystical/magical ability that causes their body to fade into invisibility when creatures using darkvision try to see them in darkness. It also does not indicate whether the ability is under conscious control or not.

However, because the rules do NOT give the mechanic explicitly - it is up to the DM to decide how it works in their world. All RAW has to say about it is that they are considered invisible. "evading" in the first sentence could be a description of what they do or of the effect that their mystical ability has and doesn't really answer the question.

----

I personally run it as a mystical ability that the gloomstalker can't turn off at will.

[RSP]

As for interpreting the Gloomstalker ability - it is a DM call :)


Again, if the non-GS PCs can see the GS when the GS is in darkness, and the PCs are relying on Darkvision to see the GS, then the RAW on the ability has become a false statement. Therefore doing this way of playing is not RAW.

[Kuulvheysoon]

So what you're saying is that every Gloom Stalker should have a Celestial-lock ally with the devil's sight invocation? Because that lets them see in darkness without specifying that it's darkvision.

Which is funny, because that's not how the monster version of devil's sight works.

RAW, Warlocks with the invocation can always see the Gloomstalker (in regards to this ability) while in darkness, magical or nonmagical.

[Keravath]

Again, if the non-GS PCs can see the GS when the GS is in darkness, and the PCs are relying on Darkvision to see the GS, then the RAW on the ability has become a false statement. Therefore doing this way of playing is not RAW.

The rule as written includes the text in the sentence preceding which describes the gloomstalker as "adept at evading creatures with darkvision".

The rule, as I agreed with you and made clear, is that the gloomstalker is invisible to creatures using darkvision to see him in darkness. It does not state how the gloomstalker achieves this effect. It doesn't say some of the time or at will. However, the first sentence could be interpreted to mean that the gloomstalker is DOING something in order to be "adept at evading" creatures with darkvision. That part is also RAW even if many might consider it fluff.

If the gloomstalker is DOING something to make themselves invisible then it follows that the gloomstalker could STOP doing it and would no longer be evading the darkvision of other creatures.

---

So it comes down to whether the DM thinks the first sentence means that the gloomstalker is "adept at evading" by using techniques, trained abilities, taking advantage of the terrain so that they never create patterns that would be noticeable in the "black and white" vision provided by darkvision. If the gloomstalker does something to cause the effect then obviously they should be able to STOP doing it.

On the other hand, other DMs might consider the first sentence descriptive of a mystical or magical ability that a gloomstalker just HAS, over which he has no control and so the gloomstalker is ALWAYS invisible to creatures with darkvision.

Just because the second sentence doesn't say that the effect could be turned off doesn't mean that it can't. Depending on how the DM wants to interpret the first sentence it could be treated as an ability that the gloomstalker can turn on or off - or a mystical ability over which they have no control.

I tend to read it as a mystical ability so that the gloomstalker is always invisible but if a DM wants to interpret "adept at evading" as working via non-magical or mystical means then I won't argue with them.

[RSP]

The rule as written includes the text in the sentence preceding which describes the gloomstalker as "adept at evading creatures with darkvision".


Your argument is it’s valid to interpret a specific ability in the RAW in ways that make the RAW of that ability false.

My argument is that’s not a valid interpretation, as it then makes the last sentence of that ability false, and there is a way to interpret the ability that maintains all of the RAW of the ability.

Let’s look at a different ability. From the Wizard’s Knowing and Casting Spells:

“The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.”

It is not a valid RAW interpretation of this passage to conclude that after a Wizard takes a Long Rest, they regain every spell slot ever used by any character in the in-game world; yet, that could be what “all expended spell slots” refers to in a void.

The first sentence of that paragraph, stating the table shows the amount of spell slots a Wizard has, has to remain true (as well as all other sentences in the ability) for any valid interpretation of the RAW to be made.

So interpreting “all expended spell slots” to mean more than “all your expended spell slots” isn’t a valid interpretation.

Likewise, interpreting the GS ability so that the GS is not invisible in darkness to creatures relying on Darkvision, isn’t a valid interpretation because it then makes the second sentence of the ability false.

[Segev]

Why are you pretending to invent RAW lines? That proves absolutely nothing. If you really want to use an example of the RAW being written that way, use an actual example. Don’t invent stuff and then try to convince me it’s RAW. I have quoted some RAW that does this. You have repeatedly denied it is RAW, and repeatedly quoted only half of it in order to make your assertions.


I’m ignoring nothing. I’ve stated the RAW, and shown how going with your “interpretation” is incompatible with the RAW (that is, if your interpretation makes the RAW no longer true, then it’s not an interpretation that holds up to RAW).You have ignored the first sentence in the RAW you're quoting, to the point you've chosen to remove that sentence when quoting the RAW. That is ignoring the RAW.

You asked me to quote an example of the RAW that uses language as I say it does. That example is the Gloomstalker's ability: "You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness." That reads exactly the way I say it does, and the "RAW lines" I "pretend[ed] to invent" (which is an unfair and untrue characterization of the process of making an analogy that I engaged in) are an analogy directly to them.

You are factually incorrect in your assertion, because you consistently quote only the second sentence and ignore the first, despite both being part of the RAW. You say you're ignoring nothing, but you have yet to do anything to incorporate that first sentence; instead, you quote the second and base your entire argument on it. That is the definition of ignoring something.

[RSP]

I have quoted some RAW that does this.

Where? I only recall seeing what you were making up (I believe you worded it as “RAW could say something like this”), but I may have missed something.

I’m not sure why you keep ignoring all my posts while saying I’m ignoring the first sentence. I’m not, and have offered numerous explanations on this.

You seem to want to insist I accept an “interpretation” of an ability so that ability contradicts itself. I have no interest in doing so (as explained multiple times).

I’m not sure why you continue to push this while ignoring all my posts explaining my views but it’s not advancing anything.

If you want to respond to what I’m writing, great, we can discuss. But continuations of “You’re ignoring the first sentence” when I’ve explained multiple times how that sentence works with the second, isn’t advancing this discussion at all.

[Segev]

Where?Literally in the post you quoted, though you left that part out of the quote. Here, I'll quote it again: "You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness."


If you want to respond to what I’m writing, great, we can discuss. But continuations of “You’re ignoring the first sentence” when I’ve explained multiple times how that sentence works with the second, isn’t advancing this discussion at all.I feel the same way. I believe you are wrong in your claim that there is only one way a DM can read the rule. I acknowledge that your interpretation is a valid way to read the rules, and that you can include the first sentence and get to your interpretation. The problem is, you're ignoring the first sentence as part of the RAW and instead asserting that only the second sentence is a rule, with the first as flavor text explained by the rule. That is not how English works, nor how 5e presents its rules. 5e presents the flavor text as part of the rules, and it does require house ruling (usually very acceptable house ruling) to reflavor things. Pass without trace does, in fact, exude subtle shadows and quietness to give the +10 to stealth checks; that's not "just flavor text." That's what it DOES. You could come up with alternate explanations and reflavor it, but you are house ruling.

Likewise, the rule for Gloomstalker is, "You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness." It is not, "While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness, so you are thus hard for creatures with darkvision to notice." The difference is significant; the former, which the RAW actually spell out, says that you are good at evading creatures that rely on darkvision, and this gives context to the second sentence, suggesting that the second sentence is a consequence of the first. You can interpret the first instead to be a consequence of the second, as you do, but there is nothing preventing the interpretation that the second is a consequence of the first. If one interprets the second sentence as a consequence of the first, then it suggests a number of possible ways that the "invisible to darkvision" mechanic could be achieved.

Neither is strictly the one true way to read it, and it is open to DM ruling without requiring the DM to ignore or disregard part of the rules to rule either way.

[RSP]

Literally in the post you quoted, though you left that part out of the quote. Here, I'll quote it again: "You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness."

Except that isn’t what you were saying. This is what you wrote:


Except that that's not how English works. "He's an expert lockpick. Doors just open at his touch," does not literally mean that he doesn't need to pick the locks because the doors open at his magical touch. It could mean that, but it doesn't have to.

“Doors just open at his touch” is not the same type of writing as “You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision.” You originally argued the former is how 5e rules are written (they aren’t) and have yet to back that up.

You use “You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision” as your example, yet this is a different style of writing, so you can see my confusion. Nothing in this is a “flourish” or trying to use illustrative language (such as your previous example). It’s literally telling you the GS is adept at evading detection (whereas, again, your previous example was using illustrative language as opposed to meaning locked doors literally open at his touch). So again, this is not an example.



The problem is, you're ignoring the first sentence as part of the RAW and instead asserting that only the second sentence is a rule, with the first as flavor text explained by the rule.

When, at any point in this thread, have I mentioned flavor text? Why are you trying to say I’ve done this when it’s absolutely not true?

I’ve never ignored the first sentence. You keep saying to interpret the first sentence in a way so that the second sentence is false; which is not a valid way to interpret the 5e RAW (all you’ll get is a contradiction).

Can a person be adept at evading creatures in a way that allows them to choose when you’re evading, or what creatures you’re evading? Sure, but the GS cannot when it comes to its Darkvision invisibility. This is because of the second sentence in the ability: “While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you in that darkness.”

So, yet again, it’s not valid to interpret the first sentence in a way that makes the second sentence false; therefore, the way to interpret the first sentence is that it’s not something the GS can choose (because the second sentence clearly states how it works and when).

(Nothing in that explanation ignores the first sentence.)

[Segev]

At this point, we're derailing with this debate. Whether you or I are right, DMs will run it how they will.