Invisibility + Dragon's Breath Loophole?

[Segev]

The same loophole that lets a familiar use dragon's breath could let anybody benefiting from both invisibility and dragon's breath use the breath without losing Invisibility. It isn't an attack, and using the breath does not qualify as casting a spell.

You need two creatures devoting concentration to this effort, though.

[Demonslayer666]

This kind of stuff, in my mind, should be reserved for Greater Invisibility.

I closed this loophole in my game by adding in a house rule that anything that feels like an attack, like say Magic Missile, is considered an attack even if it doesn't have an attack roll. I feel that classifying things like that as 'not an attack' is rather silly.

[PhantomSoul]

This kind of stuff, in my mind, should be reserved for Greater Invisibility.

I closed this loophole in my game by adding in a house rule that anything that feels like an attack, like say Magic Missile, is considered an attack even if it doesn't have an attack roll. I feel that classifying things like that as 'not an attack' is rather silly.

Yeah, or just interpret it as an attackplain_english not an Attackgame_term and grumble about horrible formatting choices and/or the rulings-over-clarity philosophy.

[MoiMagnus]

On the NPC side, the question is much more frequent: if a dragon/beholder/etc is invisible (not the greater kind) and use its breath/eye ray/etc, does this break invisibility?

RAW is probably "still invisible", but I disagree with it.
[In part because when I GM, I tend to create abilities on my monsters like "volley of arrows" which is a AoE Dex save, and that it would be silly for this to not break invisibility while the regular firing of an arrow does]

EDIT:

Yeah, or just interpret it as an attackplain_english not an Attackgame_term and grumble about horrible formatting choices and/or the rulings-over-clarity philosophy.

I think the lack of keywords could have worked if they were consistent with the fact that they didn't exists.

But the team was fundamentally unable to design a game without keywords so you end up with "melee attacks with a weapon VS melee weapon attack" and "spell VS magic effect that isn't a spell" and similar. I understand that keywords makes it much easier to design effects as you might want to specify which effects works or doesn't work with which other effect, but the middle ground chosen by 5e is pretty terrible.

[DarknessEternal]

I wouldn't mind a DM ruling that it cancels Invisibility, but I also wouldn't mind the RAW.

Invisibility isn't what a lot of people think. It gives you Advantage on attack rolls, Disadvantage on attack rolls against you, and makes you unseen. That's it. It doesn't make anyone not know where you are unless you use the Hide action.

[Segev]

This kind of stuff, in my mind, should be reserved for Greater Invisibility.

I closed this loophole in my game by adding in a house rule that anything that feels like an attack, like say Magic Missile, is considered an attack even if it doesn't have an attack roll. I feel that classifying things like that as 'not an attack' is rather silly.

Worth pointing out that the spell invisibility would break on magic missile-casting anyway, because it breaks on "casting a spell" as well as "making an attack." That's why dragon's breath is falling into a loophole: you're doing something that is neither attacking nor casting a spell.

[MadBear]

I mean, this 100% falls into the

"good catch on that loophole. No I'm not gonna allow it obviously".

Useful as a fun thought exercise and a way to critique lazy editing, but not a thing that'll actually happen at my table. It's much the same that I don't allow a paladins steed to cast destruction wave when the paladin casts it. (has that loophole been closed? I remember that being a thing years ago).

[Segev]

I mean, this 100% falls into the

"good catch on that loophole. No I'm not gonna allow it obviously".

Useful as a fun thought exercise and a way to critique lazy editing, but not a thing that'll actually happen at my table. It's much the same that I don't allow a paladins steed to cast destruction wave when the paladin casts it. (has that loophole been closed? I remember that being a thing years ago).

That's fair. Do you also forbid the "dragon's breath cast on your familiar" loophole exploitation? If not, this one is actually not that egregious when you remember that being invisible doesn't really make you undetected on its own and that this loophole requires two separate casters to exploit: both dragon's breath and invisibility require concentration.

[JLandan]

I don't see it as a loophole. I see it as RAW, breath weapon is an attack.

Let's be rules lawyers for a moment.

It comes down to the definition of the word "attacks" in the description of the invisibility spell.

Invisibility
A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.

If you define the word "attacks" as taking the attack action, then no, breath weapons do not break invisibility.

The dictionary definition...

VERB
attacks (third person present)
take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
"in December, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor".
synonyms:
begin an assault · charge · pounce · strike · begin hostilities · ambush · bombard · shell · blitz · strafe · fire on/at · rush · storm
NOUN
attacks (plural noun)
an aggressive and violent action against a person or place.
"he was killed in an attack on a checkpoint".
synonyms:
assault · onslaught · offensive · strike · blitz · raid · sortie · sally

I think a breath weapon more than qualifies as an aggressive action against an enemy. And therefore, qualifies as an attack.

The devs did not write "attack action", they wrote the word "attacks". I don't care what any devs have posted. It has not been changed in any errata.

I run my game, as we each do. At my table, breath weapon is an attack and breaks invisibility, RAW.

[OvisCaedo]

Using a common sense/dictionary definition of "attack" for mechanical terms can open up a lot of OTHER combos that aren't intended to work instead, though.

off the top of my head I'm not sure if any are actually outrageously out of line power-wise, though. Hex/hunter's mark triggering on every magic missile is nice, but not exactly gamebreaking.

[JLandan]

Using a common sense/dictionary definition of "attack" for mechanical terms can open up a lot of OTHER combos that aren't intended to work instead, though.

off the top of my head I'm not sure if any are actually outrageously out of line power-wise, though. Hex/hunter's mark triggering on every magic missile is nice, but not exactly gamebreaking.

Hunter's Mark specifies weapon attack.
Hex does not specify, though it should.
Magic Missle just says "hits".

That's just the issue here. Is it a mechanical term? Or just the word that is used? Without official errata, it's up to each DM to decide. Both ways are still RAW.

Personally, I say breath weapon is an attack (noun). Other's may say it's not an attack (game term). Players should be made aware, pre-PC gen, of how each DM is going to rule.

[Segev]

Hunter's Mark specifies weapon attack.
Hex does not specify, though it should.
Magic Missle just says "hits".

That's just the issue here. Is it a mechanical term? Or just the word that is used? Without official errata, it's up to each DM to decide. Both ways are still RAW.

Personally, I say breath weapon is an attack (noun). Other's may say it's not an attack (game term). Players should be made aware, pre-PC gen, of how each DM is going to rule.

Hex is meant for Warlocks, who can use spell or weapon attacks, depending on build. Hunter's Mark is meant for Rangers, who by design are going to make weapon attacks.

[PhantomSoul]

And whether "to make an attack" = "to attack"...


Players should be made aware, pre-PC gen, of how each DM is going to rule.

Players should ask their DM beforehand. (DMs shouldn't be forced to give a laundry list of everything that could possibly come up -- I did that, and frankly it wasn't even to the benefit of the game to have a huge document no one is really expected to read and where I could just as easily have forgotten SOMETHING. Players, just talk to your DM if you're thinking of dealing with a questionable interaction, and if something comes up at the table and your player wanted to use or abuse something that isn't an object, give them the option to respec. Done.)

[Demonslayer666]

...

Invisibility isn't what a lot of people think. It gives you Advantage on attack rolls, Disadvantage on attack rolls against you, and makes you unseen. That's it. It doesn't make anyone not know where you are unless you use the Hide action.
Hearing and noticing things in D&D is not automatic, so you most certainly can go unnoticed without hiding. The DM tells you what you notice, not the other way around.



Worth pointing out that the spell invisibility would break on magic missile-casting anyway, because it breaks on "casting a spell" as well as "making an attack." That's why dragon's breath is falling into a loophole: you're doing something that is neither attacking nor casting a spell.
OK, true, but the attack would also break it in my game, say if you used a wand to cast it. If you pulled a lever to drop a trap on them, that would also be considered an attack. If you pulled a lever for a secret door, no. Or you pulled a lever to slowly fill the room with water so they eventually drown, then no.

[Segev]

Hearing and noticing things in D&D is not automatic, so you most certainly can go unnoticed without hiding. The DM tells you what you notice, not the other way around.



OK, true, but the attack would also break it in my game, say if you used a wand to cast it. If you pulled a lever to drop a trap on them, that would also be considered an attack. If you pulled a lever for a secret door, no. Or you pulled a lever to slowly fill the room with water so they eventually drown, then no.

Fair enough. Your ruling (or house rule, depending who you ask) is to simply say the loophole doesn't exist, and you know "an attack" when you see one.

Would you permit hex to add its d6 necrotic damage to that trap you pulled the lever on? I assume "no," and that you're leaning on "I know it when I see it," which is fine, but I figured I'd ask.

[Demonslayer666]

Fair enough. Your ruling (or house rule, depending who you ask) is to simply say the loophole doesn't exist, and you know "an attack" when you see one.

Would you permit hex to add its d6 necrotic damage to that trap you pulled the lever on? I assume "no," and that you're leaning on "I know it when I see it," which is fine, but I figured I'd ask.

Right, but I'm not going to address it that way. I'll make a general rule to cover shenanigans rather than forbid a specific exploit. That way they don't have to ask, they will know stuff like that is out. "But it's not an attack!" is what I am trying to avoid.

It would depend on the trap, but I would think it would tend towards no with Hex. Maybe if the trap launched darts or something similar. Poison gas, collapse the floor/ceiling, release a monster, all no.

[sithlordnergal]

Hunter's Mark specifies weapon attack.
Hex does not specify, though it should.
Magic Missle just says "hits".

That's just the issue here. Is it a mechanical term? Or just the word that is used? Without official errata, it's up to each DM to decide. Both ways are still RAW.

Personally, I say breath weapon is an attack (noun). Other's may say it's not an attack (game term). Players should be made aware, pre-PC gen, of how each DM is going to rule.

True, you need to decide if its a mechanical term or just the word that's used...but you need to choose. You can't have it both ways at once. If you
take the mechanical term, then you allow Invisible Dragon Breath. If you use the dictionary term, Hex now works with Magic Missile and all saving throw spells.

[DarknessEternal]

Hearing and noticing things in D&D is not automatic, so you most certainly can go unnoticed without hiding. T

100% wrong. Perception is the only passive ability check.

If you turn invisible while someone is aware of you, they remain aware of you. Invisibility does not automatically hide you.

[Willowhelm]

Perception is the only passive ability check.


Is this a typo or should it be blue text or something?

[DarknessEternal]

Is this a typo or should it be blue text or something?

Find "Passive" on your character sheet.

[PhantomSoul]

Find "Passive" on your character sheet.


PAS S IVE C HE C K S
A passive check i s a special kind of ability check that
doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent
the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as
searching for secret doors over and over again, or can
be used when the DM wants to secretly determine
whether the characters succeed at something without
rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
Here's how to determine a character's total for a
passive check:
l 0 + a l l modifiers that normally apply to the check
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For
disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive
check total as a score.
For example, if a 1st-level character has a Wisdom of
15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive
Wisdom (Perception) score of 14.
The rules on hiding in the "Dexterity" section below
rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules in
chapter 8, "Adventuring."

PHB 175. It's just the one expected to be most common (and therefore put on the sheet)

[Willowhelm]

Find "Passive" on your character sheet.

I use the “sheet” that dnd beyond provides. It lists three passive values for convenience (perception, insight, investigation) You can calculate your passive value for others. The rules are in the players handbook.

(And your character sheet can be entirely your own design so I don’t see how that’s relevant in the slightest.)

[Phhase]

100% wrong. Perception is the only passive ability check.

If you turn invisible while someone is aware of you, they remain aware of you. Invisibility does not automatically hide you.

Fun fact, I learned that it's actually not, like, a week ago. Aware of your existence? Sure. Aware of your location/what square you're on? Come now. That's something that would require a high perception check to listen for footsteps. And EVEN IF you know an invisible creature's location well enough to attack it, you'll still roll with disadvantage because you can't see exactly where it is or what you're attacking. That, I think, is quite clearly RAI. If you know there's an invisible creature within 5ft of you, but not where it is, you can't just say "I attack it." Because that would mean effectively making 8 attacks, one for each square you're adjacent to. You have to figure out what square it's on, or guess. Because it's invisible. I swear, this is an even worse spell reading than that Darkness one that keeps resurfacing.

[DarknessEternal]

Fun fact, I learned that it's actually not, like, a week ago. Aware of your existence? Sure. Aware of your location/what square you're on? Come now. That's something that would require a high perception check to listen for footsteps

Except, in RAW, it doesn't.

In order for people to lose track of you, you have to take the Hide action. This is the only mechanism for this to occur. Invisibility does not mention hiding.

The spell Invisibility is like the Predator's cloaking. It is not actually becoming invisible without hiding.

[Phhase]

Except, in RAW, it doesn't.

In order for people to lose track of you, you have to take the Hide action. This is the only mechanism for this to occur. Invisibility does not mention hiding.

The spell Invisibility is like the Predator's cloaking. It is not actually becoming invisible without hiding.

By that logic, the Blinded condition doesn't actually stop you from seeing anything because it only says that you automatically fail ability checks relying on sight and "can't see" isn't a mechanically defined status effect.

I read "the creature's location CAN be located by tracks or sound" as an active perception check, because creatures will not always make sound or leave tracks. It does not say "the creature's location is automatically known to all by tracks or sound". That would be insanely unintuitive. You expect invisibility to make you, you know, invisible. What does hiding even mean while you're invisible? What are you doing to make yourself even less visible?

[PhantomSoul]

Except, in RAW, it doesn't.

In order for people to lose track of you, you have to take the Hide action. This is the only mechanism for this to occur. Invisibility does not mention hiding.

The spell Invisibility is like the Predator's cloaking. It is not actually becoming invisible without hiding.

Yupp; while passive ability checks are not restricted to those using the perception skill, the game distinguishes between a creature whose position is detected (even if through hearing and not through directly seeing them, as in bold below) and one whose location is wholly unknown (and therefore their space would need to be guessed), in both cases provoking attack rolls to be made with disadvantage if the target is not seen (barring other senses).



Unseen Attackers & 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.


PHB Ch. 9

EDIT:


[COLOR="#0000CD"]I read "the creature's location CAN be located by tracks or sound" as an active perception check, because creatures will not always make sound or leave tracks. It does not say "the creature's location is automatically known to all by tracks or sound".

The default is that the location of a Creature that is not Hidden is known in combat, barring special circumstances -- in fact, even if the Creature was hidden prior to their movement!


In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.
(PHB, ch. 7)


Though looking for the Hidden Creature (or where it has been) involves more than just seeing through invisibility, since traces of their movement may be present, like footsteps or affecting foliage in movies:


Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.
(PHB, ch. 7)

[Phhase]

Snip

Since invisibility automatically makes one unseen, what we lack here is a way to determine (outside of the silence spell) whether or not a creature is unheard. Which sounds to me (no pun intended) like a job for an active Perception check contested by Stealth.

[PhantomSoul]

What we lack here is a way to determine (outside of the silence spell) whether or not a creature is unheard. Which sounds to me (no pun intended) like a job for an active Perception check contested by Stealth.

If they were, say, to be Hiding and not just acting normally? ;)

[Amnestic]

There's other spells this works with too: Call Lightning, Flaming Sphere, Sunbeam, Melf's Minute Meteors to name a few.

Dunno if I'd have it break invisibility. It wouldn't RAW, I know as much, but though they're not Attacks they're still attacks. If a player did it I'd probably let them have it due to resources invested.

[Phhase]

If they were, say, to be Hiding and not just acting normally? ;)
Okay, fine, you win, every player character and NPC is now Daredevil. Are you happy?

Hiding is generally interpreted as getting behind something obscuring (given that it requires some kind of cover in most circumstances). While invisibility does make you heavily obscured, it doesn't really make sense to me to charge a full action (or a bonus action for a rogue) to do something (not make noise) that small. Seems more like a passive or active stealth check made when moving or taking other actions.

Sometimes this forum is a real cognition hazard.

More on topic to the OP, picking up and putting down items also does not break invisibility. For example, planting bomb charges.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The default is that the location of a Creature that is not Hidden is known in combat, barring special circumstances -- in fact, even if the Creature was hidden prior to their movement!


That is not, entirely, correct. The system assumes all creatures are visible.
Once a target is unseen, a player has to guess which 'square' the foe is in.
If the player chooses poorly, they miss.

PHB:
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.

Once an Invisible creature has moved you are either guessing with your attacks or using the Search action to locate the Invisible creature.

Free Blindsight, is not the default system assumption.

[Segev]

That is not, entirely, correct. The system assumes all creatures are visible.
Once a target is unseen, a player has to guess which 'square' the foe is in.
If the player chooses poorly, they miss.

PHB:
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.

Once an Invisible creature has moved you are either guessing with your attacks or using the Search action to locate the Invisible creature.

Free Blindsight, is not the default system assumption.

In what you quote there, it says "...or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." So if you can hear them (which you're assumed to be able to do if nothing says you can't), you can target them just fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In what you quote there, it says "...or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." So if you can hear them (which you're assumed to be able to do if nothing says you can't), you can target them just fine.

And closing the loop: how does one become unheard if one is already unseen? By taking the Hide action to make oneself both unseen and unheard.

You still can't use an ability that requires sight (such as most spells) against an invisible target. And you make attacks at disadvantage. But the default is that unless they successfully Hide, you're not guessing their location.

[Thunderous Mojo]

In what you quote there, it says "...or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." So if you can hear them (which you're assumed to be able to do if nothing says you can't), you can target them just fine.

Hearing a foe depends on battle field conditions.
Invisible Frodo is not crowding out the din of the Prancing Pony, nor is an Invisible creature on a large battlefield leaving signs of passage that can be easily followed…the field is torn up, and you have the clash of steel and cries from they dying, the wounded, and the enraged.

What noise does an Invisible Beholder make as it floats around?

If a PC does not use a Search action, any chance to locate an Invisible foe that has moved from their last visible position, is dependent upon either Magic or Passive Ability scores.

It is entirely DM fiat to decide when Passive Scores are used, and what modifiers are in play that impact the DC.

Disadvantage or another numerical penalty to Passive Perception does not seem unreasonable, to me, when creatures are swinging scimitars at your head.

Being Invisible prevents many spells from targeting you, and prevents Opportunity Attacks; Creatures should move immediately after turning Invisible.

Unless the terrain, is a cave full of flour coated bubble wrap, hearing something, but not seeing that same something, at best gets you the general area the Invisible creature is in…..something like an Invisible T-Rex in lightly failing snow might be able to be tracked even if Invisible…..many other things will be much harder to locate.

[Segev]

And closing the loop: how does one become unheard if one is already unseen? By taking the Hide action to make oneself both unseen and unheard.

You still can't use an ability that requires sight (such as most spells) against an invisible target. And you make attacks at disadvantage. But the default is that unless they successfully Hide, you're not guessing their location.

Precisely. There are other ways to achieve it, but taking the Hide action is a big one. And the Invisible status makes it so you can take that action without needing cover. But consider anything that makes the targets Deafened will mean they cannot hear you, regardless of whether you're hiding or not. Putting yourself in a silence field will also work. There's room to ask about smell, but that probably should be reserved for creatures with Keen Smell as a trait. MAYBE something you could permit a creature to spend an action actively rolling Wisdom(Perception) to try to make work, but I'd give it Disadvantage if I allowed it at all.

[Guy Lombard-O]

In what you quote there, it says "...or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." So if you can hear them (which you're assumed to be able to do if nothing says you can't), you can target them just fine.

Taking the stupidity to entirely new levels and muddling the common sense understanding even further, Crawford said that the disadvantage to attack rolls remains even if you can actually see the Invisible target. As in casting See Invisibility lets you see the creature to target it with other spells, but the disadvantage on attacks still applies. What?!?

[Segev]

Taking the stupidity to entirely new levels and muddling the common sense understanding even further, Crawford said that the disadvantage to attack rolls remains even if you can actually see the Invisible target. As in casting See Invisibility lets you see the creature to target it with other spells, but the disadvantage on attacks still applies. What?!?

Yeeah, no, I think I'll just ignore him on that, if that's what he actually both said and meant. A creature you can see is not invisible to you.

[Jak]

Yeeah, no, I think I'll just ignore him on that, if that's what he actually both said and meant. A creature you can see is not invisible to you.

The more I read his rulings, the more I think we should find a source for better rulings.

[PhantomSoul]

The more I read his rulings, the more I think we should find a source for better rulings.

I guess it's why the 'philosophy' is all about rulings... empowering the DM was clearly better than relying on the designers xD

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess it's why the 'philosophy' is all about rulings... empowering the DM was clearly better than relying on the designers xD

Unironically this. I've never understood the drive to rely on "word of dev" to solve issues. The devs aren't at the table. And you, as the average DM, probably have more experience actually playing the game than they do.

[Thunderous Mojo]

In what you quote there, it says "...or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." So if you can hear them (which you're assumed to be able to do if nothing says you can't), you can target them just fine.

What is the range of auto detection hearing?
5’, 20’, 300’, Infinite?
What Breaks Line of Hearing?

The Crawford Invisibility ruling is silly, in my opinion.
Yet, perhaps the designers, felt compelled to give the Invisible Condition, some inviolable ability, in part due to rules interpretations that add excessive power to Hearing.

We can all close our eyes and try to track our environment by sound alone.

Now extrapolate that difficulty to tracking a specific creature, while in multi-leveled terrain…(what life actually is comprised of🃏), while in combat and visually distracted by visible objects and effects.

(Of course, the specific details of the situation will directly alter the difficulty)

Hearing does not have a ‘Lock On’ toggle for most humanoids, nor do the rules demand it must be so. ‘Lock On’ Hearing is a Rules Interpretation.

How one interprets a rule, is more impactful, than how the rule is written.

[Amnestic]

What is the range of auto detection hearing?
5’, 20’, 300’, Infinite?



According to my official D&D DM screen:



Trying to be quiet
2d6 x 5 feet


Normal noise
2d6 x 10 feet


Very loud
2d6 x 30 feet



Since it's normal noise (since you're not trying to Hide, I guess?) 2d6 x 10 feet, or an average of 70 feet.

Quite the ears our adventurers have.

[PhantomSoul]

What is the range of auto detection hearing?
5’, 20’, 300’, Infinite?
What Breaks Line of Hearing?

Dunno, but we "only" have estimates not strict distances for sight anyway (barring darkness)

But hey, at least we know being unseen and unheard is a criterion for being hidden (PHB195) and that even just attacking reveals your position (they don't say "the line from which your attack came", either). The DMG (243) says hearing might even precede seeing (for which there are guidelines) given obstructions to sight don't have the same effect on sound! And for noticing creatures, "if neither side is being stealthy, creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another." (same page, bolding mine) There is an idea of a hearing range, it just isn't defined -- which makes some sense, given we already know contexts that can make hearing more difficult (e.g. loud weather) and/or impossible (zone of silence), and we have some implicit guidelines about what should probably be treated as perceptible (e.g. V component maybe should be at least 120 feet even if you don't hear the details of what is being incanted, given Distant Spell + Counterspell, for purely mechanical reasons). Maybe it's so circumstantial that the DM is going to be a better judge than the book giving precise ranges.

The lock on does just fit most nicely -- after all, what would be the point of hiding if you get being hidden for free?

[BoxANT]

100% wrong. Perception is the only passive ability check.


The feat Observant grants +5 to both passive Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation).

You are correct that Invisibility does not make someone hidden, so enemies could still attack it (with disadvantage) until a hide action is taken.

The example I use is if someone runs behind a wall (without taking a hide action), enemies can no longer see you, but they still know where you are.

[JLandan]

There's other spells this works with too: Call Lightning, Flaming Sphere, Sunbeam, Melf's Minute Meteors to name a few.

Dunno if I'd have it break invisibility. It wouldn't RAW, I know as much, but though they're not Attacks they're still attacks. If a player did it I'd probably let them have it due to resources invested.

Those would all, by RAW, break invisibility because they are spells. The description says "attacks or casts a spell". The spell doesn't even need to be an attack spell. Cure Wounds or even Guidance will break it.

[PhantomSoul]

Those would all, by RAW, break invisibility because they are spells. The description says "attacks or casts a spell". The spell doesn't even need to be an attack spell. Cure Wounds or even Guidance will break it.

In those cases, the idea was pre-casting, and then just "activating"/"using" the ability granted by the spell, which is not casting a spell.

[Segev]

Those would all, by RAW, break invisibility because they are spells. The description says "attacks or casts a spell". The spell doesn't even need to be an attack spell. Cure Wounds or even Guidance will break it.


In those cases, the idea was pre-casting, and then just "activating"/"using" the ability granted by the spell, which is not casting a spell.

To emphasize PhantomSoul's point, you cast flaming sphere first, then get somebody else to cast invisibility on you. You can then move the flaming sphere around all you want, ramming it into people, dealing damage, etc., without the clause in invisibility that looks for "casting a spell" or "making an attack" ever triggering.

[JLandan]

To emphasize PhantomSoul's point, you cast flaming sphere first, then get somebody else to cast invisibility on you. You can then move the flaming sphere around all you want, ramming it into people, dealing damage, etc., without the clause in invisibility that looks for "casting a spell" or "making an attack" ever triggering.

I get it. But I would still rule it as an attack, because "making an attack" is not the same as "using the Attack action".

I know the PHB says:

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

This specifies that an attack roll is an attack, but it does not say that an attack is exclusively an attack roll.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

According to my official D&D DM screen:



Trying to be quiet
2d6 x 5 feet


Normal noise
2d6 x 10 feet


Very loud
2d6 x 30 feet



Since it's normal noise (since you're not trying to Hide, I guess?) 2d6 x 10 feet, or an average of 70 feet.

Quite the ears our adventurers have.

This doesn't seem far off my thinking in terms of what dice I'm rolling if a character is trying to scout ahead and the rest of the group is following behind. If the party is following the scout at 60', which usually places them further than that from foes (which is usual for us as it's max for most darkvision) then I'm generally not rolling checks for/against the main group. Any closer and I likely will be, though perhaps with advantage/ disadvantage. For sure anyone closer than 30' is subject to regular checks.

[Chronos]

Quoth JLandan:

I know the PHB says:

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

This specifies that an attack roll is an attack, but it does not say that an attack is exclusively an attack roll.
It says "if there's ever any question", and "the rule is simple". That seems to imply that their rule can answer the question whenever it comes up. Under your interpretation, you're asking whether something counts as an attack, applying their rule, and still not knowing the answer.

[Demonslayer666]

100% wrong. Perception is the only passive ability check.

If you turn invisible while someone is aware of you, they remain aware of you. Invisibility does not automatically hide you.
DCs change according to the situation making passive perception not automatic. I agree that invisibility does not automatically hide you. It specifically says that you can be detected, meaning it is possible. If it were automatic, it would not say 'can', it would say 'is'.


Except, in RAW, it doesn't.
In order for people to lose track of you, you have to take the Hide action. This is the only mechanism for this to occur. Invisibility does not mention hiding.
The spell Invisibility is like the Predator's cloaking. It is not actually becoming invisible without hiding.
No, you do not have to hide to go unnoticed. Cover, distance, blinded, etc. can all make you go unnoticed. If what you said was true, you would know where everyone in the universe is located unless they were hiding. Blind people do not auto detect everyone around them, unless they are Daredevil.

I can see and pinpoint a predator cloak without hearing it or tracking it, so no, invisibility is not like that. You cannot see them, only their effects on the environment. Blur is more akin to the predator cloak.

If you play as invisibility is automatically heard, that's fine. I think that is highly unrealistic in battle to pick out footfalls. Non-combat, sure, it would be a lot more likely.


According to my official D&D DM screen:



Trying to be quiet
2d6 x 5 feet


Normal noise
2d6 x 10 feet


Very loud
2d6 x 30 feet



Since it's normal noise (since you're not trying to Hide, I guess?) 2d6 x 10 feet, or an average of 70 feet.

Quite the ears our adventurers have.
That would mean hiding was autodetected within 35' on average. I think 'trying to be quiet' would be not running, or similar, and hiding would go off perception.

This 'official' screen also says the max distance for an encounter on the open plains is a paltry 360'. So adventurers have great hearing and crappy sight. :smallsmile:

[tenshiakodo]

Unironically this. I've never understood the drive to rely on "word of dev" to solve issues. The devs aren't at the table. And you, as the average DM, probably have more experience actually playing the game than they do.

It's an appeal to authority, because gamers are notoriously stubborn, and if a rule can be read two ways, you better believe you'll have nerdfights about it. As this thread proves.

An owl's flight is practically silent. Does an invisible owl need to take the Hide action in flight?

A simple question and immediately you'll get "well, akshually, owls have no mechanic that lets them be silent while flying". : )

[PhantomSoul]

A simple question and immediately you'll get "well, akshually, owls have no mechanic that lets them be silent while flying". : )

It's their innate urge to hoot all the time. Pretty effortful for them to suppress!

[Segev]

It's an appeal to authority, because gamers are notoriously stubborn, and if a rule can be read two ways, you better believe you'll have nerdfights about it. As this thread proves.

An owl's flight is practically silent. Does an invisible owl need to take the Hide action in flight?

A simple question and immediately you'll get "well, akshually, owls have no mechanic that lets them be silent while flying". : )

It's a valid argument; the writers could have given them that feature, but didn't. Instead, they gave them "flyby."

Not to say it doesn't break verisimilitude for those who know owls.

[JLandan]

It says "if there's ever any question", and "the rule is simple". That seems to imply that their rule can answer the question whenever it comes up. Under your interpretation, you're asking whether something counts as an attack, applying their rule, and still not knowing the answer.

So, your reading of this is that an attack roll is an attack, and absolutely nothing else is?

[PhantomSoul]

So, your reading of this is that an attack roll is an attack, and absolutely nothing else is?

To be fair, that isn't an accurate inference: something could just say it's an Attack, in which case there's no question AND no Attack Roll is needed to 'qualify'.

[Segev]

So, your reading of this is that an attack roll is an attack, and absolutely nothing else is?

While I sympathize with the alternate view, that does seem to be the most common reading and interpretation of it, for mechanical purposes.

[JLandan]

While I sympathize with the alternate view, that does seem to be the most common reading and interpretation of it, for mechanical purposes.

I find that interpretation to be unimaginative and slavish to the rules. Casting Fireball breaks invisibility, but fire breath weapon does not? Fire breath isn't even an attack? That just doesn't seem correct to me. If it does to you, agree to disagree, but the reasoning behind "breath weapons are not an attack because there is no attack role" is nonsense.

[Mjolnirbear]

Isn't there a dev guidance somewhere that if you cause someone damage or force them to make a saving throw, it counts as an attack?

[PhantomSoul]

Isn't there a dev guidance somewhere that if you cause someone damage or force them to make a saving throw, it counts as an attack?

I remember them adding a stipulation to Sanctuary (in Errata), but I haven't seen anything saying that. (That seems like another subset of what will often be hostile actions.)

[sithlordnergal]

I get it. But I would still rule it as an attack, because "making an attack" is not the same as "using the Attack action".

I know the PHB says:

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

This specifies that an attack roll is an attack, but it does not say that an attack is exclusively an attack roll.

I have a question: Would you rule an Invisible Fire Elemental standing in someone's space, therefore dealing 1d10 fire damage to them, an attack?

In this case there are no spells being cast, no attack rolls being made, its just passive damage from movement.

[JLandan]

I have a question: Would you rule an Invisible Fire Elemental standing in someone's space, therefore dealing 1d10 fire damage to them, an attack?

In this case there are no spells being cast, no attack rolls being made, its just passive damage from movement.

Yes, I would rule it an attack. I would also warn the approaching PC that that spot was radiating a lot of heat.

How would you rule it?

[Thunderous Mojo]

According to my official D&D DM screen:



Trying to be quiet
2d6 x 5 feet


Normal noise
2d6 x 10 feet


Very loud
2d6 x 30 feet



Since it's normal noise (since you're not trying to Hide, I guess?) 2d6 x 10 feet, or an average of 70 feet.

Quite the ears our adventurers have.

Hearing something 70’-120’ out move around in ideal conditions is entirely possible. I would say that is a pretty good DM screen!👍

Then modify for conditions on the ground.

[sithlordnergal]

Yes, I would rule it an attack. I would also warn the approaching PC that that spot was radiating a lot of heat.

How would you rule it?

No attack roll is made, therefore its not an attack and Invisibility does not end. I also wouldn't see a need to warn the players too much, unless they make a perception check.

Another two questions for you though, since you rule it as an attack:

1) Does the d10 fire damage from hitting a Fire Elemental, and the subsequent setting on fire, count as an attack, even though it's someone else doing the attack?

2) Since you classify these as attacks, do they proc Hex? They should since Hex only specifics that an attack needs to be made, and for good reason since its supposed to work with the Warlock. But now that its easily available to everyone via the Fey Touched feat, a level 10 Moon Druid could make use of it. For that matter, does Fireball proc Hex? Seems like it'd be a substantial buff to Hex...not that I'm complaining.

[tenshiakodo]

Or how about this-

A Warlock casts Armor of Agathys (it lasts an hour, no concentration required). In a later encounter, the Warlock becomes invisible. An annoyed Barbarian hits the Warlock (haha, I care not about disadvantage, for I am the Barbarian!) and takes 5 damage.

Does this count as an "Attack, assail, assault, molest all mean to set upon someone forcibly, with hostile or violent intent"?

Because if that's the definition of "attack" we are meant to use, I find that more than a bit ludicrous.

[MoiMagnus]

Unironically this. I've never understood the drive to rely on "word of dev" to solve issues. The devs aren't at the table. And you, as the average DM, probably have more experience actually playing the game than they do.

I don't like "relying" on them. But I like to know what the develloper think about something, especially if it comes with a "why", so that I can know whether I've missed something, or if they missed something, or if we just have different gaming philosophy.

But for me "word of dev" is pretty much as the same level of unreliability as RAW. RAW has the slight advantage of having been playtested by a greater number of peoples. "Word of dev" has the slight advantage to be more likely to capture actual intention behind the rules.

[RSP]

In what you quote there, it says "...or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." So if you can hear them (which you're assumed to be able to do if nothing says you can't), you can target them just fine.

Not true. From the PHB on Perception:

“Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.”

So Wisdom (Perception) is what allows hearing stuff. It’s not assumed you hear everything, otherwise, you’d never need a check.

Note: that rule I quoted doesn’t say “Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something hidden”.

Whether something ever requires a check is up to the DM.

So saying you’re assumed to hear everything is wrong.

[Segev]

Not true. From the PHB on Perception:

“Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.”

So Wisdom (Perception) is what allows hearing stuff. It’s not assumed you hear everything, otherwise, you’d never need a check.

Note: that rule I quoted doesn’t say “Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something hidden”.

Whether something ever requires a check is up to the DM.

So saying you’re assumed to hear everything is wrong.

So, then, you require people to make perception checks to be able to have conversations?

This absurd question is meant to highlight that there are things you are must assumed to be able to hear. Where do you draw the line?

[Reach Weapon]

Did I miss something or wouldn't passive perception cover things like hearing someone in conversation with you or noticing a heat source hotter (more damaging) than a bonfire?

[JLandan]

No attack roll is made, therefore its not an attack and Invisibility does not end. I also wouldn't see a need to warn the players too much, unless they make a perception check.

Another two questions for you though, since you rule it as an attack:

1) Does the d10 fire damage from hitting a Fire Elemental, and the subsequent setting on fire, count as an attack, even though it's someone else doing the attack?

2) Since you classify these as attacks, do they proc Hex? They should since Hex only specifics that an attack needs to be made, and for good reason since its supposed to work with the Warlock. But now that its easily available to everyone via the Fey Touched feat, a level 10 Moon Druid could make use of it. For that matter, does Fireball proc Hex? Seems like it'd be a substantial buff to Hex...not that I'm complaining.

1) No, retaliation damage is not an attack.

2) I would allow Fireball or even a breath weapon to proc Hex. I consider any action that damages an enemy to be an attack, even if it is not the Attack Action. Retaliatory damage I do not consider an attack, because it is instigated by the one taking the damage. I don't think it's that substantial a buff to Hex because Hex only works on one target. So, Whelm and Whirlwind are attacks, but Fireform is not. Earth Elementals kind of lose out on the "elemental form" features, though they do have longer reach.

Slightly off-topic: Do you grant silence and temperature control to invisible creatures? Because I would think a large moving bonfire would give off a lot of heat and noise and leave a burning trail, even if invisible. An Air Elemental might be able to be sneaky, but would possibly stir up dust. Does a Water Elemental leave a trail of dampness? A tip-toeing, invisible Earth Elemental is a hoot; too bad their Dex is so low.

[Segev]

I don't think water elementals leaVe any of themselves behind as they move unless they want to.


Did I miss something or wouldn't passive perception cover things like hearing someone in conversation with you or noticing a heat source hotter (more damaging) than a bonfire?

It would. What is the DC?

That is the DC to hear or otherwise detect anybody in combat with you who isn't Hiding.

[Cikomyr2]

It comes to simulationist immersion.

An invisible person on the battlefield wouldnt draw attention.

And invisible person on the battlefield with a flamethrower would definetly draw attention.

Sure, sure, invisibility doesnt break. But man is everyone going to target the invisible man they *know* is there. If the PC do that trick once in a while ill happily have it. But if its becomes a standard battle tactic then they should be ready for serious countermeasures.

[JackPhoenix]

To be fair, that isn't an accurate inference: something could just say it's an Attack, in which case there's no question AND no Attack Roll is needed to 'qualify'.

Like, say, grapple or shove.

[Reach Weapon]

That is the DC to hear or otherwise detect anybody in combat with you who isn't Hiding.
Before situational mods? Less than 9 (10 -1 (WIS dump) +0 (no skill)) would be in line with the automatic passive success specified, so arguably that makes it (Very Easy) 5.


Mr Ken Andrews, of Leighton Road, Slough has concealed himself extremely well. He could be almost anywhere. He could be behind the wall, inside the water barrel, beneath a pile of leaves, up in the tree, squatting down behind the car, concealed in a hollow, or crouched behind any one of a hundred bushes. However, we happen to know he's in the water barrel.
As a game, 5E has various investments you can make to make you eligible for or help defray the cost of, various benefits.

There are a bunch of ways to become unseen, some as cheap as a free action to close the door you just opened, and some as expensive as a level 4 spell slot and the action (or the foresight) to cast a magical version that persists through attacks.

Among the benefits of being unseen (or at least not clearly seen) is the ability to upgrade that to being undetected, which also has costs, mostly in terms of the action economy and investments towards being good at hiding.


Mr. and Mrs. Watson of Ivy Cottage, Worplesdon Road, Hull, chose a very cunning way of not being seen. When we called at their house, we found that they had gone away on two weeks holiday. They had not left any forwarding address, and they had bolted and barred the house to prevent us from getting in.
It's not unreasonable (and certainly makes sense if 5E is a supposed to be a good fantastical reality simulator) to stitch together a series of situational modifiers that would likely increase the game value of being unseen at the expense of hiding, but given the lack of guidance to that effect included with spells that drop swarms of meteors or send waves of thunder into the battle field, I don't know that makes for a better 5E game.

[sithlordnergal]

1) No, retaliation damage is not an attack.

2) I would allow Fireball or even a breath weapon to proc Hex. I consider any action that damages an enemy to be an attack, even if it is not the Attack Action. Retaliatory damage I do not consider an attack, because it is instigated by the one taking the damage. I don't think it's that substantial a buff to Hex because Hex only works on one target. So, Whelm and Whirlwind are attacks, but Fireform is not. Earth Elementals kind of lose out on the "elemental form" features, though they do have longer reach.


Huh, well at least you're consistent with your ruling. Not saying I'd do the same, but consistency is good.




Slightly off-topic: Do you grant silence and temperature control to invisible creatures? Because I would think a large moving bonfire would give off a lot of heat and noise and leave a burning trail, even if invisible. An Air Elemental might be able to be sneaky, but would possibly stir up dust. Does a Water Elemental leave a trail of dampness? A tip-toeing, invisible Earth Elemental is a hoot; too bad their Dex is so low.

Silence? No, but I also don't have elementals make any special noises, as far as I'm concerned a Fire Elemental, or any Elemental for that matter, makes no more noise than an invisible Human in no armor. I also don't have elementals give off any extra heat/cold/ect. unless you physically walk into them. As for leaving a trail of fire, Fire Form only sets fire to creatures, so I don't let them set fire to the surroundings unless they specifically use their Touch Attack on an item. When means a Fire Elemental can safely hold a flammable piece of paper and it won't burn until it decides to attack said paper. Same with the Water Elemental. Nothing in its stat block states it leaves a trail of water and/or dampness, therefore it does not.

Unless a stat block specifically states "This creature makes X noise or leaves Y trail", then it makes no more noise than anyone else, and leaves no trail outside of what a regular Humanoid might.

[JLandan]

Huh, well at least you're consistent with your ruling. Not saying I'd do the same, but consistency is good.





Silence? No, but I also don't have elementals make any special noises, as far as I'm concerned a Fire Elemental, or any Elemental for that matter, makes no more noise than an invisible Human in no armor. I also don't have elementals give off any extra heat/cold/ect. unless you physically walk into them. As for leaving a trail of fire, Fire Form only sets fire to creatures, so I don't let them set fire to the surroundings unless they specifically use their Touch Attack on an item. When means a Fire Elemental can safely hold a flammable piece of paper and it won't burn until it decides to attack said paper. Same with the Water Elemental. Nothing in its stat block states it leaves a trail of water and/or dampness, therefore it does not.

Unless a stat block specifically states "This creature makes X noise or leaves Y trail", then it makes no more noise than anyone else, and leaves no trail outside of what a regular Humanoid might.

If playing straight up stat blocks, regardless of description is your way, cool. I prefer to include a creature's description as part of the creature, when deciding how to run it. For example:

Air Elemental; An air elemental is a funneling cloud of whirling air with a vague semblance of a face. It can turn itself into a screaming cyclone, creating a whirlwind that batters creatures even as it flings them away. (whirling air seems kind of noisy to me)

Earth Elemental; An earth elemental plods forward like a walking hill, club-like arms of jagged stone swinging at its sides. Its head and body consist of dirt and stone, occasionally set with chunks of metal, gems, and bright minerals. (walking hill seems kind of noisy to me)

Fire Elemental; A faint humanoid shape shows in a fire elemental’s capricious devastation. Wherever it moves, it sets its surroundings ablaze, turning the world to ash, smoke, and cinders. (while not necessarily especially noisy, seems it does affect its environment)

Water Elemental; A water elemental is a cresting wave that rolls across the ground, becoming nearly invisible as it courses through a larger body of water. It engulfs creatures that stand against it, filling their mouths and lungs as easily as it smothers flame. (cresting wave seems noisy to me)

Anyway, that's how my group plays.

[sithlordnergal]

That's actually pretty creative...I've tried to run games like that where I add in that sort of thing, but I tend to completely forget it after 2 or 3 sessions.

[JLandan]

That's actually pretty creative...I've tried to run games like that where I add in that sort of thing, but I tend to completely forget it after 2 or 3 sessions.

It's directly copied from the creatures' descriptions in the MM.

[sithlordnergal]

It's directly copied from the creatures' descriptions in the MM.

Is it? Huh, I haven't looked over my MM in a long time. I typically DM online, so I just snag stat blocks, and only make use of them when I need to make a check or go into combat. I also don't really worry about the temperature of places or how wet/dry a place is unless it poses some significant risk to the party, or if they specifically ask me about it.

[JLandan]

Is it? Huh, I haven't looked over my MM in a long time. I typically DM online, so I just snag stat blocks, and only make use of them when I need to make a check or go into combat. I also don't really worry about the temperature of places or how wet/dry a place is unless it poses some significant risk to the party, or if they specifically ask me about it.

How do your players know what they've encountered? Do you describe the monsters to your players or show pictures? Do you just say what the creature is?

[sithlordnergal]

I typically just tell them what the creature is, show them a picture of it if I have one, and if they're wearing armor or wielding weapons. I don't really go into more detail on how a creature looks or sounds outside of that, unless a player specifically asks for the information. I find such descriptions tend to be nice but time consuming, and so I don't really concern myself with it. There's really not much difference between being burned by an orange Fire Elemental vs. a blue Fire Elemental after all, so its not really a concern for me.

[JLandan]

I typically just tell them what the creature is, show them a picture of it if I have one, and if they're wearing armor or wielding weapons. I don't really go into more detail on how a creature looks or sounds outside of that, unless a player specifically asks for the information. I find such descriptions tend to be nice but time consuming, and so I don't really concern myself with it. There's really not much difference between being burned by an orange Fire Elemental vs. a blue Fire Elemental after all, so its not really a concern for me.

For my group, the entire game is an exercise in imagination, much more than plusses and points in a stat block. Not that we don't work up as powerful a PC as we can. But the character has got to have a personality. What writers call "stand up and cast a shadow." Same for monsters. Are the PCs fighting a huge red fire-breathing engine of death or are they fighting an AC 18, 85 HP, +5 2d6 slashing, once per 4 rounds 30' cone of 5d6 fire Dex DC 14 for half damage?

Yes, it takes more time. For us, that's what the time is for. For others, maybe the time is for accumulating XP as fast as possible. Some people don't even PLAY at all, they just make characters and compare them. Not my cup of tea, as they say.

I like my D&D game, player or DM, to be as enjoyable as reading a book. Otherwise, why not just read a book?

[RSP]

So, then, you require people to make perception checks to be able to have conversations?

Not usually. Not sure why you went to that extreme.



This absurd question is meant to highlight that there are things you are must assumed to be able to hear. Where do you draw the line?

Indeed, there are things you’re assumed to hear: but there’s a difference between hearing a conversation in a situation ideal for having a conversation, and in hearing footsteps 20’ away from you when in the middle of melee combat with a dozen other creatures and being able to accurately determine where they were and where they are headed.

So, if I’m DMing, I draw that line where I see fit, depending on circumstances; and, in my opinion, that’s better than just saying there’s never any line.

[sithlordnergal]

For my group, the entire game is an exercise in imagination, much more than plusses and points in a stat block. Not that we don't work up as powerful a PC as we can. But the character has got to have a personality. What writers call "stand up and cast a shadow." Same for monsters. Are the PCs fighting a huge red fire-breathing engine of death or are they fighting an AC 18, 85 HP, +5 2d6 slashing, once per 4 rounds 30' cone of 5d6 fire Dex DC 14 for half damage?

Yes, it takes more time. For us, that's what the time is for. For others, maybe the time is for accumulating XP as fast as possible. Some people don't even PLAY at all, they just make characters and compare them. Not my cup of tea, as they say.

I like my D&D game, player or DM, to be as enjoyable as reading a book. Otherwise, why not just read a book?

Eh, if its an important NPC I'll give them personality and character. For example, the big bad vampire gold dragon? I'll give him a nice description and personality. But the random Wraith that serves as a random mook? Eh, its a Wraith. You don't need to know much more about it than that. And during combat, I feel its more important to know what a monster can do over how flashy it is. Sure, that dragon is a fire breathing engine of death, but what matters is how much damage that engine of death is doing, and how hard it is to hit.

[JLandan]

Eh, if its an important NPC I'll give them personality and character. For example, the big bad vampire gold dragon? I'll give him a nice description and personality. But the random Wraith that serves as a random mook? Eh, its a Wraith. You don't need to know much more about it than that. And during combat, I feel its more important to know what a monster can do over how flashy it is. Sure, that dragon is a fire breathing engine of death, but what matters is how much damage that engine of death is doing, and how hard it is to hit.

I wouldn't enjoy that style of play at all. I get the need for and importance of the stats, but if it's all just numbers, I lose interest.

[sithlordnergal]

I wouldn't enjoy that style of play at all. I get the need for and importance of the stats, but if it's all just numbers, I lose interest.

That's fair. I will say, I'm more than happy to let players give as much description as they like, I'm just personally not as worried about it when I play or DM. I prefer to focus on things like making a challenging multi-stage puzzle that requires you to:

- Go through a trap and monster filled maze to find all the keys, a maze that occasionally shifts its walls
- Solve a cipher to figure out the puzzle
- Figure out the puzzle itself
- Make sure you do all of that before the Purple Worm burrowing under the maze kills you

You reward for doing that? You get to enter the small dungeon with a legendary item at the end.