Invisiblity

[Skrum]

I have a question about invisibility/not being able to see a combatant.

In my group, this became a topic of contention when one of the players built a fog cloud + blind fight based character. After exhaustive research done on the intricacies of combat when some of the combatants aren't visible (not by me), the official ruling came down as thus -

If a combatant is invisible (or otherwise obscured from sight), anyone who can't see them gets disadvantage on attack rolls, and the invisible combatant gets advantage on theirs (as per the invisible condition). However, all combatants still know exactly what square they are in, automatically, and can target them for attack. If the invisible person wants to avoid this, they must spend an action to hide, and people who wish to know where they are can spend their *interaction* to perceive them.

It seems to me that invisible creatures should be able to make a stealth check as part of their move action so that no one knows what square they're in. This seems far more intuitive to me, but I'm asking for the RAW ruling. Is my group correct?

[JNAProductions]

Your ruling here matches the RAW.

I personally favor sticking to RAW here, because that gives anyone with BA Hide (Rogues, primarily) an advantage at their role.

[Sorinth]

In most cases yes you still know where an invisible creature is even if they move. But even RAW the DM is expected to rule on edge cases/special situations, and how far away an invisible creature is before you can stop locating them via hearing is DM judgment.

So in a generic fight where a player has used Fog Cloud and Blind-Fighting and is attacking in melee yeah everyone knows where they are unless they take the Hide action. But if there's a lot of background noise, or your in some weird echo chamber were sounds bounced around and seemingly come from all directions then they shouldn't have to hide to get lost.

[Schwann145]

Always thought it was wild how weak the obscured/invisibility effect is in 5e. "You know where invisible creatures are." Huh?? lol Oh well.

[GeoffWatson]

Invisibility with free hiding is extremely powerful.

You can't target them, unless you use an action to make a Wisdom(Perception) check. But, you can't then use any decent attack or spell, as you've already used your action. And they'll move and hide freely on their next turn, before you can do anything effective.

[Skrum]

Always thought it was wild how weak the obscured/invisibility effect is in 5e. "You know where invisible creatures are." Huh?? lol Oh well.

Yeah the situation that made me ask here was the group was in a narrow corridor with a ton of enemies coming towards us. I was playing a lightfoot halfling bard, and I was standing behind the main group. My plan was to cast invisibility, then use the halfing's ability to move through occupied spaces to slip passed the enemies and see if there was a way to end the encounter. But nope, that would take two turns. Invisibility on turn one, then wait till the following round to hide....despite being a halfling and standing behind several fighters, barbarians, and paladins, the enemy knew exactly what square I was in.

In general, I don't mind the RAW ruling because it does preserve something that rogues are particularly good at, but in this particular instance it was a little weird.

[strangebloke]

In most cases yes you still know where an invisible creature is even if they move. But even RAW the DM is expected to rule on edge cases/special situations, and how far away an invisible creature is before you can stop locating them via hearing is DM judgment.

So in a generic fight where a player has used Fog Cloud and Blind-Fighting and is attacking in melee yeah everyone knows where they are unless they take the Hide action. But if there's a lot of background noise, or your in some weird echo chamber were sounds bounced around and seemingly come from all directions then they shouldn't have to hide to get lost.

yeah this is the big thing. Locating someone to within five feet purely off sound in the middle of a chaotic battle is hard. Try sitting in the library with your eyes closed and 'locating' the people who pass by, as they pass by. Even if they're talking and you're not focusing on them, its not trivial to really guess their exact location from ten feet away or more. Now, DND isn't totally realistic and "heavily obscured" or even "invisible" might still allow for some degree of visual sensation. splashes in the water, shadows in the cloud, etc. But the main point here is, a DM is going to have to exercise judgement to a degree here, because there's loads of edge cases. Generally I would say that if someone's within ten feet of you, your location is known, but farther than that is going to come down to discretion on my part.

And yeah, this is sort of obvious when you think about it. Obviously "your location is given away when you attack from hiding" doesn't mean that when you attack everyone on the continent knows your location. It means that creatures who reasonably could notice your location (because of a crossbow bolt wizzing out of the underbrush, or because of their ally's gurgled cry as you slit his throat) do notice your location.

Worth noting though that many abilities, including reaction attacks, simply don't work against creatures that aren't seen, even if their location is known.

[Skrum]

Invisibility with free hiding is extremely powerful.

You can't target them, unless you use an action to make a Wisdom(Perception) check. But, you can't then use any decent attack or spell, as you've already used your action. And they'll move and hide freely on their next turn, before you can do anything effective.

Actively looking for someone is an action? As you describe, that's pretty self-defeating

[Sorinth]

Not RAW, but one houserule I've seen is that you get a free Hide action when you cast invisibility but on subsequent turns it's the standard rules. It's that sort of middle ground where you can cast invisibility to potentially get out of a situation but you don't have that free hiding that is very strong.

[strangebloke]

Actively looking for someone is an action? As you describe, that's pretty self-defeating

You ever fight a swarm of goblins in tall grass?

[Sorinth]

yeah this is the big thing. Locating someone to within five feet purely off sound in the middle of a chaotic battle is hard. Try sitting in the library with your eyes closed and 'locating' the people who pass by, as they pass by. Even if they're talking and you're not focusing on them, its not trivial to really guess their exact location from ten feet away or more. Now, DND isn't totally realistic and "heavily obscured" or even "invisible" might still allow for some degree of visual sensation. splashes in the water, shadows in the cloud, etc. But the main point here is, a DM is going to have to exercise judgement to a degree here, because there's loads of edge cases. Generally I would say that if someone's within ten feet of you, your location is known, but farther than that is going to come down to discretion on my part.

And yeah, this is sort of obvious when you think about it. Obviously "your location is given away when you attack from hiding" doesn't mean that when you attack everyone on the continent knows your location. It means that creatures who reasonably could notice your location (because of a crossbow bolt wizzing out of the underbrush, or because of their ally's gurgled cry as you slit his throat) do notice your location.

Worth noting though that many abilities, including reaction attacks, simply don't work against creatures that aren't seen, even if their location is known.

Your right but I would also say you don't need to pinpoint the location in most circumstances. If for example you are using a ranged attack you just need the direction, the distance might be off by more then 5ft but if you got the direction right then it doesn't matter much. And that's kind of what I assume the Disadvantage covers, you don't actually know the exact location, but you have enough information to at least make the attempt, you have enough information to know where to move to chase after them, etc...

In the end invisibility is definitely one of those things like illusions where it's good to have a talk between players/DM to make sure everyone is on the same page as there can be lots of DM rulings/judgements so getting an idea of what to expect is good for everyone.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Sorinth, that is incorrect. If the attacker selects the incorrect square when attempting to target an Invisible opponent, the attack is an automatic failure, for obvious reasons.

The only thing, by RAW, that automatically reveals an Invisible creature’s position is attacking. Someone, however, with the Skulker feat will not reveal their position on a failed attack attempt.

This means an Invisible spell caster, can still by RAW cast any spell that does not require an Attack Roll, and not reveal their location.

This is a strange artifact of the Rules as Written.

An Invisible Ninja is detectable as soon as they toss a shuriken, but a Wizard that is Invisible can launch a Lightning Bolt or Prismatic Spray, and as long as that spell casting did not cancel the Invisible condition, then the spell caster’s location is not revealed automatically.

You can literally shoot a rainbow stream of death out of your arse, and be less detectable than someone throwing a pebble….by RAW.

RAW is silly, in this particular case. JC made it worse with his D&D Celebration Sage Advice, though officially Sage advice means nothing…per JC himself.

The Unseen Attackers rule needs an overhaul in the upcoming Anniversary Edition.

[JackPhoenix]

Sorinth, that is incorrect. If the attacker selects the incorrect square when attempting to target an Invisible opponent, the attack is an automatic failure, for obvious reasons.

The only thing, by RAW, that automatically reveals an Invisible creature’s position is attacking. Someone, however, with the Skulker feat will not reveal their position on a failed attack attempt.

This means an Invisible spell caster, can still by RAW cast any spell that does not require an Attack Roll, and not reveal their location.

This is a strange artifact of the Rules as Written.

An Invisible Ninja is detectable as soon as they toss a shuriken, but a Wizard that is Invisible can launch a Lightning Bolt or Prismatic Spray, and as long as that spell casting did not cancel the Invisible condition, then the spell caster’s location is not revealed automatically.

You can literally shoot a rainbow stream of death out of your arse, and be less detectable than someone throwing a pebble….by RAW.

RAW is silly, in this particular case. JC made it worse with his D&D Celebration Sage Advice, though officially Sage advice means nothing…per JC himself.

The Unseen Attackers rule needs an overhaul in the upcoming Anniversary Edition.

False. "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet." Unless you cast the spell without verbal component... and without highly visible effect giving away your position.... you will reveal your position.

[Sorinth]

Sorinth, that is incorrect. If the attacker selects the incorrect square when attempting to target an Invisible opponent, the attack is an automatic failure, for obvious reasons.

The only thing, by RAW, that automatically reveals an Invisible creature’s position is attacking. Someone, however, with the Skulker feat will not reveal their position on a failed attack attempt.

This means an Invisible spell caster, can still by RAW cast any spell that does not require an Attack Roll, and not reveal their location.

This is a strange artifact of the Rules as Written.

An Invisible Ninja is detectable as soon as they toss a shuriken, but a Wizard that is Invisible can launch a Lightning Bolt or Prismatic Spray, and as long as that spell casting did not cancel the Invisible condition, then the spell caster’s location is not revealed automatically.

You can literally shoot a rainbow stream of death out of your arse, and be less detectable than someone throwing a pebble….by RAW.

RAW is silly, in this particular case. JC made it worse with his D&D Celebration Sage Advice, though officially Sage advice means nothing…per JC himself.

The Unseen Attackers rule needs an overhaul in the upcoming Anniversary Edition.

My last response was more about real life, you don't need to know the exact position to make an attack, so even if pinpointing a target location is very difficult in real life, knowing the direction a noise came in is less so.

In game to be hidden you have to be both unseen and unheard. Invisibility only covers the unseen part, it's up to the DM to make a judgement call on the unheard part unless you take the Hide action.

[Lunali]

IMO it makes a lot more sense if you picture it as predator style invisibility than if you think of it as Harry Potter style.

[Thunderous Mojo]

False. "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet." Unless you cast the spell without verbal component... and without highly visible effect giving away your position.... you will reveal your position.

False? The following quote is from the Unseen Attackers section of the PHB, (pg194-195):

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 typicallyjust 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.

Some of the Playground denizens, seemingly, are jumping to an incorrect conclusion that somewhere in my prior post I stated that Invisibility imparts being Hidden.

I never stated anything like that at all, and alas they are tragically missing the point I was emphasizing.

By RAW any attack, be it a melee, ranged, or spell attack automatically reveals your position. The text is rather clear about this.

Actions that are not attacks, that are performed while Invisible, do not by RAW, ensure you position is revealed. Indeed, non attack actions performed while invisible, fall squarely in the realm of a DM’s discretion, in terms of the resolution method for opponents to detect an Invisible creature.

After years of discussing this topic, it strikes me that there are many diverse views on this. Since DM Fiat plays such a large role in these situations, my opinion, is that one can not automatically assume that one has sonar-like hearing.

A DM could easily rule that hearing an Invisible creature, (that is not attacking), while in the midst of a large pitched battle between armies is a DC 29 Passive Perception check.

A DM might instead rule an active Search action of a specific square is required, or that indeed you have sonar-like hearing and a dog-like sense of smell, and can pinpoint an Invisible creature’s location and know what they had for breakfast.

A creature under the effects of Greater Invisibility, can shoot shoot a rainbow stream of death out of their arse err hand, via a Subtle Metamagic infused Prismatic Spray, and by RAW, not automatically reveal their position.

I would not expect this RAW outcome to be the one used by most DMs. Other’s experience might be different.

‘Predator style Invisibility’ is a misnomer. One sees the refraction of light in that effect. By definition that is not invisibility.

[DarknessEternal]

I have a question about invisibility/not being able to see a combatant.

In my group, this became a topic of contention when one of the players built a fog cloud + blind fight based character. After exhaustive research done on the intricacies of combat when some of the combatants aren't visible (not by me), the official ruling came down as thus -

If a combatant is invisible (or otherwise obscured from sight), anyone who can't see them gets disadvantage on attack rolls, and the invisible combatant gets advantage on theirs (as per the invisible condition). However, all combatants still know exactly what square they are in, automatically, and can target them for attack. If the invisible person wants to avoid this, they must spend an action to hide, and people who wish to know where they are can spend their *interaction* to perceive them.

It seems to me that invisible creatures should be able to make a stealth check as part of their move action so that no one knows what square they're in. This seems far more intuitive to me, but I'm asking for the RAW ruling. Is my group correct?

This is RAW, except your supposition on the final line.

Hiding takes an Action, in general. It is not done as part of a move. Also, there's no such thing as a "move action".

[Keltest]

False? The following quote is from the Unseen Attackers section of the PHB, (pg194-195):

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 typicallyjust 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.

Some of the Playground denizens, seemingly, are jumping to an incorrect conclusion that somewhere in my prior post I stated that Invisibility imparts being Hidden.

I never stated anything like that at all, and alas they are tragically missing the point I was emphasizing.

By RAW any attack, be it a melee, ranged, or spell attack automatically reveals your position. The text is rather clear about this.

Actions that are not attacks, that are performed while Invisible, do not by RAW, ensure you position is revealed. Indeed, non attack actions performed while invisible, fall squarely in the realm of a DM’s discretion, in terms of the resolution method for opponents to detect an Invisible creature.

After years of discussing this topic, it strikes me that there are many diverse views on this. Since DM Fiat plays such a large role in these situations, my opinion, is that one can not automatically assume that one has sonar-like hearing.

A DM could easily rule that hearing an Invisible creature, (that is not attacking), while in the midst of a large pitched battle between armies is a DC 29 Passive Perception check.

A DM might instead rule an active Search action of a specific square is required, or that indeed you have sonar-like hearing and a dog-like sense of smell, and can pinpoint an Invisible creature’s location and know what they had for breakfast.

A creature under the effects of Greater Invisibility, can shoot shoot a rainbow stream of death out of their arse err hand, via a Subtle Metamagic infused Prismatic Spray, and by RAW, not automatically reveal their position.

I would not expect this RAW outcome to be the one used by most DMs. Other’s experience might be different.

‘Predator style Invisibility’ is a misnomer. One sees the refraction of light in that effect. By definition that is not invisibility.

Its fair to say that you think the rules for locating an unseen-but-not-hiding creature (ie its done automatically) are silly. Its fair to say you would run them differently. But the rules are pretty explicit about making noise breaking stealth, and spells with verbal components require you to make that noise, as well as any other effect that could be traced back to your location, such as casting a fireball spell (even if you manage to avoid the verbal components somehow).

[Keravath]

Yeah the situation that made me ask here was the group was in a narrow corridor with a ton of enemies coming towards us. I was playing a lightfoot halfling bard, and I was standing behind the main group. My plan was to cast invisibility, then use the halfing's ability to move through occupied spaces to slip passed the enemies and see if there was a way to end the encounter. But nope, that would take two turns. Invisibility on turn one, then wait till the following round to hide....despite being a halfling and standing behind several fighters, barbarians, and paladins, the enemy knew exactly what square I was in.

In general, I don't mind the RAW ruling because it does preserve something that rogues are particularly good at, but in this particular instance it was a little weird.

That is correct RAW.

As a few folks have mentioned - if you can't see a target you have disadvantage on the attack and if the target can't see you, you have advantage. As a result, both not being able to see works out to be a straight roll.

In terms of taking the hide action, this is required if a character wants their location to be unknown to nearby opponents. Otherwise, the character's location is still known either because they are making noise or otherwise giving it away, this is what a stealth check is for.

However, one aspect left out so far is that the rules define "hidden as both unseen and unheard". In a situation where a creature is already unseen, a DM can rule that they become automatically hidden (without needing a hide check) if they are also unheard.

This could come into play with an Invisible Stalker for example. It is an elemental made of air, it is invisible, and if there is sufficient ambient noise which is likely the case, the faint sound of moving air created by the creature might be unnoticeable so a DM could rule that it is automatically hidden. Similarly, if the party is in a cave with a waterfall where they have to shout to be heard, the DM might decide that it is impossible for a creature to hear another creature just moving. In this case, the DM could also rule that a creature is automatically hidden. Similarly, if you have two creatures standing 100' apart with a bank of fog between them, RAW they would know where the opponent is if neither are hidden, on the other hand, the DM can decide that there is no possibility of them being able to hear each other unless they do something particularly loud, in that case too a DM could rule that the creatures are automatically hidden from each other.

However, in your example, RAW, you are correct that the character casts invisibility the first turn but can't take the hide action until the next turn. Some classes and races can take the hide action as a bonus action and could do both in the same turn.

You could rationalize the hide action as trying to make sure that there is nothing on your person that is going to make noise while you move. It isn't just stepping lightly but rather making sure that your sword isn't going to bump your dagger and clang as you are moving, that the chain mail of your shirt isn't going to rustle too loudly etc.

In 5e, instead of reducing a character's movement speed because they are trying to move quietly and make sure all their equipment is secure at the same time, 5e put all the time and effort required to do that into the hide action without reducing the movement speed.

If a DM wanted to allow more options for stealth, a house rule would be to allow a creature to move stealthily at 1/2 speed without taking the hide action but that is not RAW.

[Demonslayer666]

There is no RAW for automatically noticing things in D&D. You tell the DM what you are doing and the DM determines if you notice it (automatically succeed/fail or if you roll).

So you do not automatically detect the invisible creature unless the DM says you do. You lose sight of them and may perceive them by other means, such as hearing them, or seeing their effect on the environment. The DM should determine if it is automatically a success or a failure, or the DC of perceiving them depending on the situation (loud combat, footwear, surface hardness, distraction, ways to detect them (water, smoke, dirt floor, etc.).

Hearing to pinpoint is not as acute as vision. We rely on vision much more than hearing. Blind people do not automatically know where everyone is around them by hearing them. It is not automatic and no where close. In fact, it is rather difficult. If you think all blind people can do what Daredevil does, you are wrong. Go play Marco Polo in the pool again and this time don't say Marco and have everyone stand still and see how well you do. They are not hiding when they only stop moving.

Hiding is not the only way to go unnoticed. Waldo is not hiding from you. A dropped penny is not hiding. Your friend in the bar you are trying to meet is not hiding from you.

This misconception that you must hide to go unnoticed is hogwash. It is usually the case, but you have to use logic and reason when determining if you notice an invisible creature.

The misconception that it is automatic comes from rolling initiative where is no one is hiding, you notice them and roll initiative without surprise. That's your bog standard combat where combatants are obvious (aware of each other). That means out in the open, under normal circumstances (no cover, no obscurement, etc.).

In a silent room, where everyone is watching someone turn invisible, I'd give it a decent chance to notice where they go even if there were nothing giving away their position (like footprints on a dirt floor). In a chaotic, loud combat, where someone is threatening you: next to impossible.

[Thunderous Mojo]

But the rules are pretty explicit about making noise breaking stealth, and spells with verbal components require you to make that noise, as well as any other effect that could be traced back to your location, such as casting a fireball spell (even if you manage to avoid the verbal components somehow).

Jack quoted the relevant rules blurb: making noise such as shouting a warning or breaking a vase “gives away your position”.

So by RAW, any sound with lower decibels than knocking over a vase or shouting does not give away your position?

The statement that Jack quoted from the rules, is vague on resolution details. Indeed, to me, the intent seems to be, that D&D uses the common sense notion that making loud noises while Invisible will give away your position.

Giving away one’s position is not the same as revealing your exact position.

The practical, in game resolution method for the vague statement of rules intent, that Jack quoted from the PHB is left for each Gaming Group to decide.

If each individual DM, can handle these situations differently, then there is, in a very practical and pragmatic sense, no one size fits all solution.

Ask your DM is to me the most sensible answer.

WotC just put out a video where Jeremy Crawford states, multiple times,that Sage Advice is not intended to be “used as a weapon”…each table is empowered to run the game their way.

The broad wording of the rules for Unseen creatures does not lend itself to axiomatic solutions, it is a general statement of intent: making loud noises while Invisible can lead others to have an idea of where you are at.

One can certainly run their game that Invisible tiny angels dancing on the heads of pins, makes enough noise to allow pinpoint detection. One can also, by RAW not run their game this way.

A general statement of intent, empowers DM to adjudicate these situations as they deem appropriate.

[Keravath]

There is no RAW for automatically noticing things in D&D. You tell the DM what you are doing and the DM determines if you notice it (automatically succeed/fail or if you roll).

So you do not automatically detect the invisible creature unless the DM says you do. You lose sight of them and may perceive them by other means, such as hearing them, or seeing their effect on the environment. The DM should determine if it is automatically a success or a failure, or the DC of perceiving them depending on the situation (loud combat, footwear, surface hardness, distraction, ways to detect them (water, smoke, dirt floor, etc.).

Hearing to pinpoint is not as acute as vision. We rely on vision much more than hearing. Blind people do not automatically know where everyone is around them by hearing them. It is not automatic and no where close. In fact, it is rather difficult. If you think all blind people can do what Daredevil does, you are wrong. Go play Marco Polo in the pool again and this time don't say Marco and have everyone stand still and see how well you do. They are not hiding when they only stop moving.

Hiding is not the only way to go unnoticed. Waldo is not hiding from you. A dropped penny is not hiding. Your friend in the bar you are trying to meet is not hiding from you.

This misconception that you must hide to go unnoticed is hogwash. It is usually the case, but you have to use logic and reason when determining if you notice an invisible creature.

The misconception that it is automatic comes from rolling initiative where is no one is hiding, you notice them and roll initiative without surprise. That's your bog standard combat where combatants are obvious (aware of each other). That means out in the open, under normal circumstances (no cover, no obscurement, etc.).

In a silent room, where everyone is watching someone turn invisible, I'd give it a decent chance to notice where they go even if there were nothing giving away their position (like footprints on a dirt floor). In a chaotic, loud combat, where someone is threatening you: next to impossible.

I mostly agree :). If a creature is unseen and unheard then in the rules they are hidden unless something else like tracks are giving away their position. Deciding whether a creature is unheard depends on the circumstances and is entirely a DM call.

In my opinion, folks wearing armor, carrying several metal weapons, amulets, and other gear that can make noise are not silent. Even in the midst of a fight, the noise of combat boots approaching on a stone floor, along with the metallic jingle of chain mail (disadvantage on stealth) will likely be noticed unless there are other circumstances preventing it. So, personally, unless a character takes the hide action or a combat/environment is especially noisy or there is significant range between the creatures (how much depends on the environment) then characters will know within 5' where the sound is coming from.

In your Marco Polo example, stopping moving is actually the equivalent of hiding since they make an effort not to make any noise. Not moving at all in a D&D situation is also hiding since you are taking actions to ensure you make no noise. Most creatures in a D&D fight are constantly moving, stepping, etc. Unless the creature is unseen to start with and also puts some effort in to making sure they make no noise then their approximate location will be known.

But that is just how I run it, in your games sound appears to be far less of a factor in noticing a creatures location, which is totally fine. It is entirely up to the DM to adjudicate the "unheard" part of being hidden along with any other clues that could give away your position. (e.g. dogs and other creatures with advantage on perception checks that rely on smell are likely to notice an invisible creature and have an idea of where they are).

[Keltest]

Jack quoted the relevant rules blurb: making noise such as shouting a warning or breaking a vase “gives away your position”.

So by RAW, any sound with lower decibels than knocking over a vase or shouting does not give away your position?

The statement that Jack quoted from the rules, is vague on resolution details. Indeed, to me, the intent seems to be, that D&D uses the common sense notion that making loud noises while Invisible will give away your position.

Giving away one’s position is not the same as revealing your exact position.

The practical, in game resolution method for the vague statement of rules intent, that Jack quoted from the PHB is left for each Gaming Group to decide.

If each individual DM, can handle these situations differently, then there is, in a very practical and pragmatic sense, no one size fits all solution.

Ask your DM is to me the most sensible answer.

WotC just put out a video where Jeremy Crawford states, multiple times,that Sage Advice is not intended to be “used as a weapon”…each table is empowered to run the game their way.

The broad wording of the rules for Unseen creatures does not lend itself to axiomatic solutions, it is a general statement of intent: making loud noises while Invisible can lead others to have an idea of where you are at.

One can certainly run their game that Invisible tiny angels dancing on the heads of pins, makes enough noise to allow pinpoint detection. One can also, by RAW not run their game this way.

A general statement of intent, empowers DM to adjudicate these situations as they deem appropriate.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. Yes, DMs are empowered to play however they want. That doesn't really seem pertinent to a discussion of the text though.

[strangebloke]

The question here is mostly one of "how hard is it to deduce an invisible enemy's location if they're not hiding and not attacking." After all, if they're hiding the answer is clear: Search action followed by contested check, or moving to such a position that you can see them. If they're attacking or doing something very visible/loud without technically being visible its similarly clear(ish). The arrows and lightning bolts all make things pretty straightforward.

So its that middle ground. An invisible warlock, not doing anything obvious but also not hiding. How hard is it to get their position?

As soon as you think about it, it becomes clear that this is a very complex problem contingent on a host of factors. What's the ambient noise like? Are you fighting in a grassy field on a clear day, or underneath a waterfall in a raging river during a thunderstorm? What's the terrain like? Is there loads of loose rock that clatters when you move? Is there soft soil that absorbs footfalls? Or maybe its too soft and squelchy. Maybe there's fine powder on the ground you can see footprints in, or maybe there's standing water you can see splashs in. Maybe the guy you're fighting is really smelly and you can locate them through odor!

If you were actually going to adjudicate this with hard and fast rules, it would quickly turn into a 3.5-esque table with 40 conditional modifiers, and it would still be rather janky in a lot of scenarios. So, ultimately, we get back to where we started. There's no hard rule here, and there really shouldn't be.

ask your DM. :smallbiggrin:

[Thunderous Mojo]

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. Yes, DMs are empowered to play however they want. That doesn't really seem pertinent to a discussion of the text though.

Strangebloke, covers it quite nicely!

The assumptions one starts with impact your adjudication of a broad rule.
That seems entirely pertinent to the discussion of the text.

The question of: What does giving away your position, exactly mean?
Does sound below the decibel level of Shouting not give away your position?

There is not a singular answer, a variance in approaches are possible.

[Demonslayer666]

IMO it makes a lot more sense if you picture it as predator style invisibility than if you think of it as Harry Potter style.
No, that's Blur. Invisible states that you cannot be detected by vision and that you must detect them by other means such as hearing them, seeing their effect on the surroundings, scent, or something like tremorsense. I can see the predator cloak, it clearly shows where the individual is located once spotted. It is camouflage, not invisibility.




...
In my opinion, folks wearing armor, carrying several metal weapons, amulets, and other gear that can make noise are not silent. Even in the midst of a fight, the noise of combat boots approaching on a stone floor, along with the metallic jingle of chain mail (disadvantage on stealth) will likely be noticed unless there are other circumstances preventing it.
...
In your Marco Polo example, stopping moving is actually the equivalent of hiding since they make an effort not to make any noise. Not moving at all in a D&D situation is also hiding since you are taking actions to ensure you make no noise. Most creatures in a D&D fight are constantly moving, stepping, etc. Unless the creature is unseen to start with and also puts some effort in to making sure they make no noise then their approximate location will be known.
...

The sound of someone wearing noisy gear and walking is drowned out by the sounds of several others doing the same thing, and weapons clashing against weapons and armor, shouting, running, fireballs exploding, crackling of lighting bolts, etc., etc. Noticing the first while the second is going on would be extremely difficult.

If no other noises are drowning noisy gear out, you would be able to detect it pretty easily. If a flying wizard with no clanky gear does it, it would be much harder to hear the swishing of the robes loud enough to pinpoint where they are.

It should not be automatic unless they are loud and it is quiet, or something gives away the invisible creature's location (rain, footprints, etc.).

No, not using any move is not taking the hide action.

[Keravath]

No, that's Blur. Invisible states that you cannot be detected by vision and that you must detect them by other means such as hearing them, seeing their effect on the surroundings, scent, or something like tremorsense. I can see the predator cloak, it clearly shows where the individual is located once spotted. It is camouflage, not invisibility.

The sound of someone wearing noisy gear and walking is drowned out by the sounds of several others doing the same thing, and weapons clashing against weapons and armor, shouting, running, fireballs exploding, crackling of lighting bolts, etc., etc. Noticing the first while the second is going on would be extremely difficult.

If no other noises are drowning noisy gear out, you would be able to detect it pretty easily. If a flying wizard with no clanky gear does it, it would be much harder to hear the swishing of the robes loud enough to pinpoint where they are.

It should not be automatic unless they are loud and it is quiet, or something gives away the invisible creature's location (rain, footprints, etc.).

No, not using any move is not taking the hide action.

Yep. I agree. The point I was trying to make is that a character that says "I stand still and make no noise" IS taking the hide action in 5e.

A character can't "cast a spell" and "stand still and make no noise", they can't "attack" and "stand still and make no noise", a character trying to stand still and make no noise IS, in game terms, making a stealth check (hide action) to remain unnoticed. So, in 5e terms, the Marco Polo players who stop moving and try to make no noise ARE making a stealth check to remain unnoticed which is taking the hide action.

Sorry the point wasn't clear.

[Telok]

Yep. I agree. The point I was trying to make is that a character that says "I stand still and make no noise" IS taking the hide action in 5e.

Warlock invocation, one with the shadows, makes you invisible until you move or take an action. If not acting is taking an action... man thats just whack, its like saying the act of not talking is a making a speech. Your interpretation makes the invocation something like "when you take the dodge action you are unable to be targeted by spells that require seeing the target".

You can interpret <thing> in a way that breaks some pc/monster abilities, descriptions, and requires explaining that its "not really <thing> but kinda like it" or you can interpret <thing> in a way that doesn't screw up anything, everyone immedately understands, and doesn"t require a jankey explanation.

You're allowed to say you don't like something rather than making up weak explanations of why its something else or justifying it with sloppily written rules.

[Keltest]

Warlock invocation, one with the shadows, makes you invisible until you move or take an action. If not acting is taking an action... man thats just whack, its like saying the act of not talking is a making a speech. Your interpretation makes the invocation something like "when you take the dodge action you are unable to be targeted by spells that require seeing the target".

You can interpret <thing> in a way that breaks some pc/monster abilities, descriptions, and requires explaining that its "not really <thing> but kinda like it" or you can interpret <thing> in a way that doesn't screw up anything, everyone immedately understands, and doesn"t require a jankey explanation.

You're allowed to say you don't like something rather than making up weak explanations of why its something else or justifying it with sloppily written rules.

There is a difference between idle and proactively being still and quiet, especially in combat where you are otherwise assumed to be, at the very least, interacting with the other combatants (ie trying not to get hit) and shifting around, stepping, grunting, etc..

[Thunderous Mojo]

That leads to the thought experiment of a two person party facing foes, while both party members are Invisible and in a zone of Silence.

Party Member A has taken the Hide Action.
Party Member B has not taken the Hide Action.

Assuming that neither party member takes an action that automatically reveals their position..is Party Member B detected automatically by their foes?

Lets assume this encounter takes place on freshly fallen, untrampled snow; does Party Member A leave no tracks, while Party Member B leaves tracks so obvious that their position is revealed despite not making a sound?

How one rules is going to depend upon one’s understanding and assumptions of how the rules operate.

[DarknessEternal]

Assuming that neither party member takes an action that automatically reveals their position..is Party Member B detected automatically by their foes?

According to the rules, yes.

[strangebloke]

According to the rules, yes.

What is the maximum range at which you think someone can locate an invisible, unmoving creature who isn't hiding

[Thunderous Mojo]

According to the rules, yes.

Remember, ‘the rules’ state that yelling or making a noise equivalent to knocking over a vase is what reveals your location…yet the parameters of the scenario is the party is Invisible and in a zone of Silence.

So what exactly is causing party member B to be automatically discovered?

[Amnestic]

So what exactly is causing party member B to be automatically discovered?

Smell.

Adventurers are stinky.

[CapnWildefyr]

Remember, ‘the rules’ state that yelling or making a noise equivalent to knocking over a vase is what reveals your location…yet the parameters of the scenario is the party is Invisible and in a zone of Silence.

So what exactly is causing party member B to be automatically discovered?

Agreed. I'm having a really hard time buying the "automatically where everyone is by RAW" theory. I do not see a rule for it.

Most PC's don't have echo location. So unless you're descended from bat folk or dolphin folk... even if you hear something, that only gives you a general bearing, a direction. Probably an idea of "close" or "extremely close" or "not that close." Perhaps someone can point out the rule where that's wrong? It was stated but not quoted (or did I miss that)?

If someone goes invisible, I know (presumably, if I was looking) where they were, but not where they are, as soon as the spell takes effect. All you have to do is cast the spell and move 5 feet and you're in the clear (except vs AOE spells). Easy. I might hear some noises that might give away the caster's general location, but I can't tell how far and exactly where. We've always played this as:
1. Take the mini off the table
2. Say things like "you here movement off in this direction or area" and then point to that are of the map

Even in heavy obscurement, same thing. If someone -- like in the original post -- is using fog cloud, the magical fog is so thick you literally can't see your hand in front of your face. If someone attacks me, can I tell from where? Really and precisely? Is that person still there an instant later? What about an arrow? Can I tell from the way it penetrated my spleen that the shooter was using a short composite bow with a pull between 55-65 pounds, and, judging by the penetration through my armor and the relatively flat angle of entry, that means he had to have been standing 45-50 feet away on a bearing of 345 degrees? And is still there?

Just because you did not take the hide action, it doesn't mean you ARE noticed, it only allows for that possibility, and that alone does not mean your precise location is given away.

[Keravath]

That leads to the thought experiment of a two person party facing foes, while both party members are Invisible and in a zone of Silence.

Party Member A has taken the Hide Action.
Party Member B has not taken the Hide Action.

Assuming that neither party member takes an action that automatically reveals their position..is Party Member B detected automatically by their foes?

Lets assume this encounter takes place on freshly fallen, untrampled snow; does Party Member A leave no tracks, while Party Member B leaves tracks so obvious that their position is revealed despite not making a sound?

How one rules is going to depend upon one’s understanding and assumptions of how the rules operate.

These things are always a DM decision.

RAW says that a creature is hidden when it is "unseen and unheard". If I was running it, both A and B would start off hidden because they are both unseen and unheard - their locations are not known and no hide action is required to achieve that because they are unseen and unheard and leave no other indication of their presence. (Assuming that there isn't a creature around that can scent them).

However, you've placed them where it would be almost impossible to move without leaving an indication of exactly where they are. Again, this becomes a DM call because other than vision and sound and a comment about how creatures could leave other indications of their presence, the rules don't actually cover details of how a creature could reveal its location.

If the opponents had a clear view of the pristine snow so that any tracks made would be obvious and clearly indicate the presence of a creature, then personally, I would rule that would prevent taking the hide action entirely. The creatures start hidden without needing to hide due to being unseen and unheard but if they move, then, because the tracks would be so obvious, either of the creatures would be revealed whether they try to move stealthily or not (unless they have a way to avoid leaving tracks like winged boots for example).

However, that is just how I would rule it. The rules themselves do not cover all the details.

These are the relevant RAW as far I can tell - it is pretty sparse leaving a lot up to the DM to decide.

"The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." - fundamentally, all hiding, is a DM call depending on circumstances.

"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet."

"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."

Hiding by itself is not invisibility and creatures are assumed to be looking around themselves all the time in most combat situations.

"When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter."

"If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

"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."

Whether you can hear a creature is a DM call depending on the circumstances.

"Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard."

[Demonslayer666]

Yep. I agree. The point I was trying to make is that a character that says "I stand still and make no noise" IS taking the hide action in 5e.

A character can't "cast a spell" and "stand still and make no noise", they can't "attack" and "stand still and make no noise", a character trying to stand still and make no noise IS, in game terms, making a stealth check (hide action) to remain unnoticed. So, in 5e terms, the Marco Polo players who stop moving and try to make no noise ARE making a stealth check to remain unnoticed which is taking the hide action.

Sorry the point wasn't clear.
Yes, trying to be quiet is taking the hide action. However, my Marco Polo example works if they move as well, there is no need to try and be quiet. Walking around in a pool is very quiet unless you purposely make noise by thrashing about.

You most certainly can cast a subtle spell (or any without V component) and make little to no noise without hiding.

Many weapons are quiet, blowguns, garrote, anything thrown, etc. Most weapons can be quiet depending on what you are wearing and your target's armor and weapons. Attacking someone with Vampiric Touch active is extremely quiet. All you do is touch them.




According to the rules, yes.

There are no rules that states invisibility is automatically detected. Invisibility says you can detect them, meaning it is possible, and they give examples of how it's possible. It does not say they are detected.

If you think a rule says this, statue the rule.

[DarknessEternal]

D&D is a permissive ruleset.

If you haven't taken the Hide action, you are not hidden.

Claiming otherwise is tantamount to claiming you fire instant death lasers out of your butt that kills all of your enemies within miles just because you say so.

[strangebloke]

D&D is a permissive ruleset.

If you haven't taken the Hide action, you are not hidden.

Claiming otherwise is tantamount to claiming you fire instant death lasers out of your butt that kills all of your enemies within miles just because you say so.

Being hidden obscures your location, but this doesn't prove that you need to be hidden in order for your location to be unknown.

Consider a contrived scenario. You are in a 10x10 room, in which the silence spell is in effect. On the other side of the stone wall is a different room where the silence spell is also in effect. A human walks into and out of that room, making no noise because of the silence spell, and you can't see them because of the opaque wall. The human was not hiding, they were simply walking in and out, but making no sound you could hear. Your argument, as you've stated it, is that since neither person is 'hidden' both you and the human knew each other's location, indeed, you knew their location before they ever entered the room, and you always have, unless they take the hide action and beat your perception check. What is being perceived or hidden from in this scenario? Who knows!

That's a pretty contrived example, but for a different one, imagine someone invisible watching you mingle with a noisy crowd from a rooftop 500 feet away. Functionally, this is the same as the example above. You can't see them (invisible, no tracks) and you can't hear them (500 feet away, and a loud crowd all around.) so even though they't not hiding and are not 'hidden' their location is unknown.

[DarknessEternal]

You are correct, according to the rules, no one is hidden in those examples.

[ender241]

You are correct, according to the rules, no one is hidden in those examples.

Not true. From PHB (Combat - Unseen Attackers and Targets):


If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

You don't need to take the hide action if you're already unseen and unheard.

[strangebloke]

You are correct, according to the rules, no one is hidden in those examples.

I agree. But do the characters in the silenced rooms know each other's locations?

[Demonslayer666]

D&D is a permissive ruleset.

If you haven't taken the Hide action, you are not hidden.

Claiming otherwise is tantamount to claiming you fire instant death lasers out of your butt that kills all of your enemies within miles just because you say so.
I agree that it is permissive. You are ignoring what invisibility says it permits.

Yup, if you are not hiding and you can be seen, you are not hidden. Being seen is the default, that's why you need to hide to not be seen. However, if you cannot be seen and don't hide, you still cannot be seen (and are hidden from sight) and need to be located by other means (again, it says exactly that in invisibility).

No, it is not claiming anything made up. Point out what you think is being made up.

[Segev]

The rules state that the DM decides if you're hidden or not.

You can take a Hide action if you have a way of obscuring yourself from sight in order to make yourself hidden from those who fail to beat your Dexterith(Stealth) check with their Wisdom(Perception) check or passive Perception. The DM determines if you have a reasonable way of obscuring yourself from sight. Invisibility will usually suffice.

If you do not Hide, being Invisible only means the DM has to decide if you can be located by non-visual means or by your visible effects on the environment. It would be nice if there were guidelines for determining how difficult that was to do when the character is not taking actions that would let him roll Dexterity(Stealth) to set a DC.

[Keltest]

It would be nice if there were guidelines for determining how difficult that was to do when the character is not taking actions that would let him roll Dexterity(Stealth) to set a DC.

Why, do you think that this is somehow sufficiently different from a standard skill check that it needs its own DC guidelines?

[Segev]

Why, do you think that this is somehow sufficiently different from a standard skill check that it needs its own DC guidelines?

I'd settle for some DC guidelines for Perception, sure.

[Spiritchaser]

Why, do you think that this is somehow sufficiently different from a standard skill check that it needs its own DC guidelines?

Well, here’s one:

The rules state that you may attempt to hide if you cannot be seen clearly

Let us imagine a scenario where visual information is the chief part of the equation. Let us also imagine that you cannot be seen at all.

This very clearly exceeds the minimum requirement to attempt the skill check, but under what specific subsets of the above conditions would you grant advantage?

How would you modify passive perception checks to deal with creatures hiding when they were invisible? Where is the cutoff for background noise level where you call it more or less sight only?

I had a campaign were stealth rolls happened more than perception rolls. The party slunk around and ganked things. They seemed to like it that way, so… fine. It usually worked very well. Where it didn’t, they found that with stealth and often surprise they’d generally conserved so many resources through the rest of the day that those few stealth free encounters were still generally a joke (very rare exceptions notwithstanding)

I found that very often I at a loss for what the rules would call reasonable so I just had to make things up. My consistency was not perfect.

How brightly backlight does the subject need to be to be unclear (if you’ve ever hid in hard shadows in a paintball game, you know this is possible, at least for a few seconds… more than long enough) Do we assume that creatures with darkvision are limited by the same dynamic range as the human eye?

How windy is windy enough to mask sounds in grass?

How close do you need to be to your foe in blowing snow to see them “clearly”

Ditto a thicket of shrubs

Don’t even get me started on lux values of moonlight.

[Keltest]

I'd settle for some DC guidelines for Perception, sure.

What's stopping you from using the existing dc-setting guidelines? It's not a terribly complicated process.

[Tanarii]

If a combatant is invisible (or otherwise obscured from sight), anyone who can't see them gets disadvantage on attack rolls, and the invisible combatant gets advantage on theirs (as per the invisible condition). However, all combatants still know exactly what square they are in, automatically, and can target them for attack. If the invisible person wants to avoid this, they must spend an action to hide, and people who wish to know where they are can spend their *interaction* to perceive them.
This is the common basic ruling that closely matches the rules in the PHB, and in my experience with experienced 5e players matches their common expectations on how it suppose to work.

But the PHB is absolutely you may have to guess the location of an unseen enemy. And it's clear that a DM can set a DC to do things when there is a question of resolution.

IMO detecting something by hearing absolutely should be included as a question of resolution at any significant distance, relative to the volume. At 30ft a normal conversation sounds like a whisper, and at 60ft a loud conversation sounds like a whisper. If there's significant background noise, you may not be able to perceive or pinpoint location of an invisible or otherwise unseen based on hearing without a perception check against a DM set DC. (Action type and passive or not would be up to DM as well.)

Reasonable but not totally overpowering (in combat) might be DC 10 to perceive (know they are there) and DC 20 to to pinpoint location (don't have to guess) by sound at 60ft or less, if they're not doing anything more noisy than the next guy. +5 for each doubling of distance, -5 for each halving. Note that with free action passive perception instead of a no-action roll, DC 10 is usually automatic for most characters, so that works out to perceive at 60ft or less and pinpoint at 15ft or less if no particular penalty or bonus. YMMV depending on how heroic you want perceivers to be, and how powerful you want things like Fog Cloud or Invisibility to be.

[Keltest]

This is the common basic ruling that closely matches the rules in the PHB, and in my experience with experienced 5e players matches their common expectations on how it suppose to work.

But the PHB is absolutely you may have to guess the location of an unseen enemy. And it's clear that a DM can set a DC to do things when there is a question of resolution.

IMO detecting something by hearing absolutely should be included as a question of resolution at any significant distance, relative to the volume. At 30ft a normal conversation sounds like a whisper, and at 60ft a loud conversation sounds like a whisper. If there's significant background noise, you may not be able to perceive or pinpoint location of an invisible or otherwise unseen based on hearing without a perception check against a DM set DC. (Action type and passive or not would be up to DM as well.)

Reasonable but not totally overpowering (in combat) might be DC 10 to perceive (know they are there) and DC 20 to to pinpoint location (don't have to guess) by sound at 60ft or less, if they're not doing anything more noisy than the next guy. +5 for each doubling of distance, -5 for each halving. Note that with free action passive perception instead of a no-action roll, DC 10 is usually automatic for most characters, so that works out to perceive at 60ft or less and pinpoint at 15ft or less if no particular penalty or bonus. YMMV depending on how heroic you want perceivers to be, and how powerful you want things like Fog Cloud or Invisibility to be.

Honestly, from a gameplay perspective, I actually prefer automatic detection of invisible foes absent a specific hide check, because it helps restrain the power of spellcasters and certain subclasses from being able to just cast their class's flavor of (greater) invisibility and then doing whatever they want now that the action economy is so heavily stilted in their favor. Greater Invis in particular would pose a serious problem since it would basically be a free couple of turns before the enemy can find you well enough to actually target you.

[Segev]

What's stopping you from using the existing dc-setting guidelines? It's not a terribly complicated process.

Please, tell me what the DC is for noticing a fly on the wall. The fly is making no attempt to hide. What is the DC for noticing a ring of water on a table is still wet, rather than a dried mark from a glass removed long ago?

What is stopping me is the lack of actual guidelines.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Claiming otherwise is tantamount to claiming you fire instant death lasers out of your butt that kills all of your enemies within miles just because you say so.

Holy Hyperbole Batman!
The East German Judge gives a score of 0.5.🖖


Honestly, from a gameplay perspective, I actually prefer automatic detection of invisible foes absent a specific hide check, because it helps restrain the power of spellcasters and certain subclasses from being able to just cast their class's flavor of (greater) invisibility and then doing whatever they want now that the action economy is so heavily stilted in their favor. Greater Invis in particular would pose a serious problem since it would basically be a free couple of turns before the enemy can find you well enough to actually target you.

I appreciate your choice to share your reasoning!
It helps me better understand your posts, thank you.

Greater Invisibility is a fourth level spell that requires Concentration.
Advantage on all attacks seems a puissant boost for non-spell casters.

In part, the function of Invisibility is to force the opposition to spend an Action or two searching for their non visible foe, (and DM’s can use it as well).

Truesight, Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, blindsight, failing snow, or a pouch of flour from one’s cooking kit can all defeat the effect.

A sack of flour is not going to save you from the Banishment spell, and Banishment has a higher Kelly Blue Book value for high level adventuring compared to Greater Invisibility, in my view.

[JackPhoenix]

I appreciate your choice to share your reasoning!
It helps me better understand your posts, thank you.

Greater Invisibility is a fourth level spell that requires Concentration.
Advantage on all attacks seems a puissant boost for non-spell casters.

In part, the function of Invisibility is to force the opposition to spend an Action or two searching for their non visible foe, (and DM’s can use it as well).

Truesight, Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, blindsight, failing snow, or a pouch of flour from one’s cooking kit can all defeat the effect.

A sack of flour is not going to save you from the Banishment spell, and Banishment has a higher Kelly Blue Book value for high level adventuring compared to Greater Invisibility, in my view.

And Darkness is a 2nd level spell, which ignores (non-upcast) Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, snow or flour, and which now allows the popular Devil's Sight warlock to not only attack with advantage and force disadvantage on his enemies, but also make enemies unable to fight back at all, because he's now got only 1/24 chance to be targetted at all, just because he says "I stay quiet after casting Eldritch Blast", without costing him anything.

Fog Cloud does the same thing, except 1 level lower, and the caster has to leave first, so at least there's that. At least unless he opts for the rather controversial use of Silent Image of fog cloud doing the same thing...

[Keltest]

Please, tell me what the DC is for noticing a fly on the wall. The fly is making no attempt to hide. What is the DC for noticing a ring of water on a table is still wet, rather than a dried mark from a glass removed long ago?

What is stopping me is the lack of actual guidelines.

Assuming they aren't simply automatic, those are both Very Easy tasks given the context, so DC 5.

There are guidelines, you're simply choosing not to use them.

[Thunderous Mojo]

And Darkness is a 2nd level spell, which ignores (non-upcast) Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, snow or flour, and which now allows the popular Devil's Sight warlock to not only attack with advantage and force disadvantage on his enemies, but also make enemies unable to fight back at all, because he's now got only 1/24 chance to be targetted at all, just because he says "I stay quiet after casting Eldritch Blast", without costing him anything.

Fog Cloud does the same thing, except 1 level lower, and the caster has to leave first, so at least there's that. At least unless he opts for the rather controversial use of Silent Image of fog cloud doing the same thing...

Darkness has a 15’ radius and can be dispelled, and defeated by an Upcast Continual Flame spell, (which can be cast before combat), or a Fog Cloud spell.

Darkness/Fog Cloud tactics requires a large degree of coordination between party members…the Playground has had many stories about a poorly placed Darkness spell hurting the party more than helping.

By RAW, one can Upcast a Cantrip. The Designers did not intend this, but the rules do allow it. 99.8% of the time Upcasting a cantrip is a waste. Upcasting the Light cantrip in the face of Darkness is part of the 0.2% when Cantrip upcasting is effective.

DMs can make other moves, then Extreme Sonar-Like Hearing, to contend with Unseen Attackers. A common Houserule I have seen implemented is that being Unseen at Range does not grant Advantage on attack rolls to hit.

Darkness Ambushing, like, Invisibility also becomes much less reliable as one advances in levels.

I’m empathetic to the argument that super hearing is required as the Default in 5e due to the power of being Unseen, the result however supersedes my own suspension of disbelief.

A Readied Action to throw a net that has a trigger of hearing this theoretical Warlock cast EB, is a cheap way to disrupt the foe’s Action Economy.

[Tanarii]

And Darkness is a 2nd level spell, which ignores (non-upcast) Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, snow or flour, and which now allows the popular Devil's Sight warlock to not only attack with advantage and force disadvantage on his enemies, but also make enemies unable to fight back at all, because he's now got only 1/24 chance to be targetted at all, just because he says "I stay quiet after casting Eldritch Blast", without costing him anything.

Fog Cloud does the same thing, except 1 level lower, and the caster has to leave first, so at least there's that. At least unless he opts for the rather controversial use of Silent Image of fog cloud doing the same thing...
Personally I've found that Flog Cloud and Darkness (on your team) making it difficult to pinpoint target someone in them by hearing, who isn't too close to the attacker, makes them actually accomplish the intended effects. Protecting the people in them from ranged attackers.

I think many DMs would be willing to say you can't pinpoint someone under such an effect at 300ft, or at least without a solidly high perception DC. Of course, there are many that rule: sure, disadvantage go for it.

I do like the method of being able to pinpoint if you are close enough to hear clearly as determined by some DC or just a flat success/fail distance, but that's not required for a DM to rule that way. By the PHB a DM might rule you always have to guess the location of an unseen opponent, even at melee distance.

[Keltest]

Personally I've found that Flog Cloud and Darkness (on your team) making it difficult to pinpoint target someone in them by hearing, who isn't too close to the attacker, makes them actually accomplish the intended effects. Protecting the people in them from ranged attackers.

I think many DMs would be willing to say you can't pinpoint someone under such an effect at 300ft, or at least without a solidly high perception DC. Of course, there are many that rule: sure, disadvantage go for it.

I do like the method of being able to pinpoint if you are close enough to hear clearly as determined by some DC or just a flat success/fail distance, but that's not required for a DM to rule that way. By the PHB a DM might rule you always have to guess the location of an unseen opponent, even at melee distance.

Frankly, these forums are the only place where ive seen the idea floated that youre supposed to put darkness or fog around your allies to protect them instead of your enemies to debilitate them. Blinding your enemies will almost always be worth more than blinding your allies even if the advantage/disadvantage rolls cancel out.

[strangebloke]

Frankly, these forums are the only place where ive seen the idea floated that youre supposed to put darkness or fog around your allies to protect them instead of your enemies to debilitate them. Blinding your enemies will almost always be worth more than blinding your allies even if the advantage/disadvantage rolls cancel out.

Main reason to do this is to obscure location, since, again, you can't be hit if they are guessing your position and guess wrong.

Ultimately, letting everyone Pinpoint everyone from a hundred feet away or more without line of sight just doesn't feel right to me. It's one thing if this a creature or PC with some special creature or ability, but even random orcs?

[JackPhoenix]

Darkness has a 15’ radius and can be dispelled, and defeated by an Upcast Continual Flame spell, (which can be cast before combat), or a Fog Cloud spell.

And Invisibility is a single-target only, can be dispelled or defeated by See Invisibility. Spells have counters, I don't know how is that supposed to be some great revelation.


When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into.

By RAW, one can Upcast a Cantrip. The Designers did not intend this, but the rules do allow it. 99.8% of the time Upcasting a cantrip is a waste. Upcasting the Light cantrip in the face of Darkness is part of the 0.2% when Cantrip upcasting is effective.

Nice of you to provide the RAW saying the exact opposite. Cantrips don't use slots, so you can't use a slot of a higher level. "A cantrip is a spell that can be cast at will, without using a spell slot and without being prepared in advance"


A Readied Action to throw a net that has a trigger of hearing this theoretical Warlock cast EB, is a cheap way to disrupt the foe’s Action Economy.

I think you'll have to explain to me how using Action + Reaction to maybe hit a target (with disadvantage) who has no reason to be in the net's pathetically short 15' range in the first place is a cheap or effective way to achieve anything.

[Keltest]

Main reason to do this is to obscure location, since, again, you can't be hit if they are guessing your position and guess wrong.

Ultimately, letting everyone Pinpoint everyone from a hundred feet away or more without line of sight just doesn't feel right to me. It's one thing if this a creature or PC with some special creature or ability, but even random orcs?

I mean, certainly if your only options are to either cast it on your allies or not use it at all, i can see casting it on friendly targets if theyre genuinely being troubled by ranged attackers, but i would think you still want to use it on the enemies whenever thats one of the options.

[Thunderous Mojo]

And Invisibility is a single-target only, can be dispelled or defeated by See Invisibility. Spells have counters, I don't know how is that supposed to be some great revelation.

It isn’t, which is what I thought was the point you were actually making.
It seems I was mistaken in that.

Regardless, your evident dislike of my person, or disdain for my points is clear.

If super hearing works better for you..wunderbar. I would suggest, however, to not state that is the only singular interpretation possible. Others, including myself, disagree.

As for upcasting cantrips:

CASTING A SPELL AT A HIGHER LEVEL
When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is ofa higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into.
Some spells, such as magic missile and cure wounds, have more powerful effects when cast at a higher level, as detailed in a spell's description.

A cantrip is a zero level spell, that typically uses no spell slots, unless upcast. Did the designers intend for this?
No, yet the rules text as shown above does not preclude it.

In general upcasting a cantrip is a waste, except in the side cases of creating a magic light of a particular spell level, or in the case of a Storm Sorcerer or Necromancer that have features that triggers off casting spells of 1st level and higher, without having very many spells that fit the parameters.

Successful Adventurers often Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome, and barring that, retreat.

If your theoretical warlock has an unassailable position and has groomed the battlespace to their advantage…one retreats, or approaches the problem from an unexpected direction.
(That is the theory, at least.)

Darkness is a concentration effect…an obvious goal would be to interrupt that concentration, I would think.

[JackPhoenix]

A cantrip is a zero level spell, that typically uses no spell slots, unless upcast. Did the designers intend for this?

Not "typically". Never. There's no rule anywhere in the game saying you can cast a cantrip from a spell slot.

[Thunderous Mojo]

We can discuss this in a separate Thread, if you like Jack.

[JackPhoenix]

We can discuss this in a separate Thread, if you like Jack.

I don't see the point. You've got your reading, I've got mine, and SA (https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-you-voluntarily-spend-a-spell-slot-on-a-cantrip-to-protect-it-from-counterspell/) tweets (https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-cantrip-be-cast-at-higher-spell-slot/) as a backup. Neither of us gonna convince the other, I think.

[Keravath]

The rules state that the DM decides if you're hidden or not.

You can take a Hide action if you have a way of obscuring yourself from sight in order to make yourself hidden from those who fail to beat your Dexterith(Stealth) check with their Wisdom(Perception) check or passive Perception. The DM determines if you have a reasonable way of obscuring yourself from sight. Invisibility will usually suffice.

If you do not Hide, being Invisible only means the DM has to decide if you can be located by non-visual means or by your visible effects on the environment. It would be nice if there were guidelines for determining how difficult that was to do when the character is not taking actions that would let him roll Dexterity(Stealth) to set a DC.


Why, do you think that this is somehow sufficiently different from a standard skill check that it needs its own DC guidelines?

I thought that would be pretty clear. RAW, under what circumstances, do you need to take the HIDE action in order to make a Dexterity (stealth) check to go un-noticed by an opponent? Do you ALWAYS have to take the HIDE action if you want to go unnoticed?

If you are standing there, invisible, what is the chance you get noticed if you DON'T take the hide action? Are you automatically noticed - does everyone know exactly where you are? Or is some sort of perception check required to notice someone who stands still while invisible or moves making some noise in an otherwise noisy area (eg combat)? What is the DC to be noticed if the character doesn't hide? (Does this amount to allowing the hide action without actually having to take an action? Should the check have advantage/disadvantage on either the stealth or perception roll? Or does the DM set a DC for opponents to notice the sounds/indications of an invisible creature?)

Honestly, this is the fundamental question of this entire discussion. On one side, you have the mechanism of the hide action to be hidden in order to go unnoticed. Hiding either requires an action with a Dexterity (stealth) check or a DM deciding whether the creature is both "unseen and unheard".

However, most of the discussion here is revolving around all the cases in between - an invisible character who does not take the hide action but moves in combat - is their location automatically known or not? Some DMs say combat makes too much noise for them to be noticed and others say adventurers are perceptive and pay attention for these sorts of things in a world where invisibility is possible.

This is the reason why there is so much discussion because every case between being automatically hidden and taking the hide action (both of which are better defined - automatically hidden is unseen and unheard as well as not giving away your location by other means - senses, tracks etc) is adjudicated by the DM and each individual DM is likely to imagine the scene differently and reach different conclusions.

[strangebloke]

I mean, certainly if your only options are to either cast it on your allies or not use it at all, i can see casting it on friendly targets if theyre genuinely being troubled by ranged attackers, but i would think you still want to use it on the enemies whenever thats one of the options.

The question being, can you hit all the enemy archers with one casting, and will they be able to leave the fog and shoot you after a turn.

[Keravath]

A cantrip is a zero level spell, that typically uses no spell slots, unless upcast. Did the designers intend for this?
No, yet the rules text as shown above does not preclude it.


I'd like to point out that the text of most if not all spellcasting classes precludes upcasting cantrips.

As an example for the Wizard class under "Preparing and Casting Spells"

"The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher.

The warlock says: "The Warlock table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your warlock spells of 1st through 5th level."

Spell slots specifically apply only to spells of 1st level and higher - not cantrips. "A cantrip’s spell level is 0."

[Xetheral]

I thought that would be pretty clear. RAW, under what circumstances, do you need to take the HIDE action in order to make a Dexterity (stealth) check to go un-noticed by an opponent? Do you ALWAYS have to take the HIDE action if you want to go unnoticed?

If you are standing there, invisible, what is the chance you get noticed if you DON'T take the hide action? Are you automatically noticed - does everyone know exactly where you are? Or is some sort of perception check required to notice someone who stands still while invisible or moves making some noise in an otherwise noisy area (eg combat)? What is the DC to be noticed if the character doesn't hide? (Does this amount to allowing the hide action without actually having to take an action? Should the check have advantage/disadvantage on either the stealth or perception roll? Or does the DM set a DC for opponents to notice the sounds/indications of an invisible creature?)

Honestly, this is the fundamental question of this entire discussion. On one side, you have the mechanism of the hide action to be hidden in order to go unnoticed. Hiding either requires an action with a Dexterity (stealth) check or a DM deciding whether the creature is both "unseen and unheard".

However, most of the discussion here is revolving around all the cases in between - an invisible character who does not take the hide action but moves in combat - is their location automatically known or not? Some DMs say combat makes too much noise for them to be noticed and others say adventurers are perceptive and pay attention for these sorts of things in a world where invisibility is possible.

This is the reason why there is so much discussion because every case between being automatically hidden and taking the hide action (both of which are better defined - automatically hidden is unseen and unheard as well as not giving away your location by other means - senses, tracks etc) is adjudicated by the DM and each individual DM is likely to imagine the scene differently and reach different conclusions.

As I read the rules...

We know that being hidden means being unseen and unheard. If a creature is already unseen, the question of whether their location is detected boils down to whether they are also unheard. Assuming the unseen creature isn't taking the hide action, then, like any other ad-hoc resolution in the game, the DM determines if the unseen creature is automatically heard, automatically unheard, or sets a DC and calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check.

So there is a RAW resolution method, but it's just the generic resolution method that leaves it up to judgement calls by the DM. Whether leaving such a common situation up to the generic ability check rules was a wise design choice is, uh, let's say... "controversial". :) On the plus side, every DM who rules an unseen creature is automatically heard, automatically unheard, or calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check is entirely within the written rules. On the other hand, wow does it make to hard to know what to expect when playing with a new group.

[Tanarii]

Also, not knowing something is there, knowing something is there and having to guess the exact location when making an attack, and pinpointing the location so you don't have to guess the location when making an attack are three different things.

Hidden definitely provides the first. Not being hidden may mean the second or third, depending on how your DM wants to rule the specifics of the situation at hand. That's where things like the DM considering details like distance to the target and ambient background noise affect your ability to pinpoint by hearing come in to play. Same for pinpointing by smell, which IMO isn't something humanoids can do effectively at any range, but animals and monsters certainly might be able to do.

[Keltest]

Also, not knowing something is there, knowing something is there and having to guess the exact location when making an attack, and pinpointing the location so you don't have to guess the location when making an attack are three different things.

Hidden definitely provides the first. Not being hidden may mean the second or third, depending on how your DM wants to rule the specifics of the situation at hand. That's where things like the DM considering details like distance to the target and ambient background noise affect your ability to pinpoint by hearing come in to play. Same for pinpointing by smell, which IMO isn't something humanoids can do effectively at any range, but animals and monsters certainly might be able to do.

For my part, the first will apply to things hidden pre-combat, the second to things hidden post-initative (ie with the hide action) and the third is the state of anything unbidden. If you see somebody duck down behind a wall and Hide, a wizard can make a reasonable guess where they are and lob a fireball at them. An archer could do the same, but it would require some dm awareness to keep people from metagaming.

[Sorinth]

As I read the rules...

We know that being hidden means being unseen and unheard. If a creature is already unseen, the question of whether their location is detected boils down to whether they are also unheard. Assuming the unseen creature isn't taking the hide action, then, like any other ad-hoc resolution in the game, the DM determines if the unseen creature is automatically heard, automatically unheard, or sets a DC and calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check.

So there is a RAW resolution method, but it's just the generic resolution method that leaves it up to judgement calls by the DM. Whether leaving such a common situation up to the generic ability check rules was a wise design choice is, uh, let's say... "controversial". :) On the plus side, every DM who rules an unseen creature is automatically heard, automatically unheard, or calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check is entirely within the written rules. On the other hand, wow does it make to hard to know what to expect when playing with a new group.

What's the noise level of this common situation? Personally I'm not sure there is one, which is why I can understand why they went with leave it up to the DM. What would've been nice is for the DMG to have something along the lines of how the different ruling impacts the power/balance of the game.

[Segev]

Assuming they aren't simply automatic, those are both Very Easy tasks given the context, so DC 5.

There are guidelines, you're simply choosing not to use them.

I am unfamiliar with the guidelines you're using to connect "spotting a fly on a wall" with a "Very Easy" check. I only know that "Very Easy" checks are DC 5. I have no idea whether noticing a fly is "very easy" or harder. It is certainly difficult for me to notice such things, but apparently it is very easy for you to do so, which highlights how bad the lack of any examples whatsoever of what D&D 5e expects a "very easy" Perception task to be is.

What makes you say spotting a fly is "very easy?" You say it is due to guidelines; I would love to be proven wrong and find out where you get the guideline that says noticing a fly on the wall is "very easy." Or even a guideline that suggests that to be the case; guidelines need not spell out every possibility. They just need to give sufficient examples that one could say, "I think noticing a fly is similar to this guideline, so that's the difficulty."

[Keltest]

I am unfamiliar with the guidelines you're using to connect "spotting a fly on a wall" with a "Very Easy" check. I only know that "Very Easy" checks are DC 5. I have no idea whether noticing a fly is "very easy" or harder. It is certainly difficult for me to notice such things, but apparently it is very easy for you to do so, which highlights how bad the lack of any examples whatsoever of what D&D 5e expects a "very easy" Perception task to be is.

What makes you say spotting a fly is "very easy?" You say it is due to guidelines; I would love to be proven wrong and find out where you get the guideline that says noticing a fly on the wall is "very easy." Or even a guideline that suggests that to be the case; guidelines need not spell out every possibility. They just need to give sufficient examples that one could say, "I think noticing a fly is similar to this guideline, so that's the difficulty."
I say it's very easy because it's something I've done very easily. Go figure. Casually noticing a dark spot on an otherwise light wall is a pretty trivial thing. Maybe in your example though it's a black painted wall, and it would be almost impossible to spot that fly. Well that's dc 30 then.

You're trying to misapply the guidelines then complaining when they don't work for you. It's a pretty straightforward process. How hard do you want x task to be? Very hard? Cool, here's a number.

Are you asking for guidelines on how hard you want things to be or something? Because if you're looking to the DMG to feed you your opinions, I've found your problem.

[Segev]

I say it's very easy because it's something I've done very easily. Go figure. Casually noticing a dark spot on an otherwise light wall is a pretty trivial thing. Maybe in your example though it's a black painted wall, and it would be almost impossible to spot that fly. Well that's dc 30 then.

You're trying to misapply the guidelines then complaining when they don't work for you. It's a pretty straightforward process. How hard do you want x task to be? Very hard? Cool, here's a number.

Are you asking for guidelines on how hard you want things to be or something? Because if you're looking to the DMG to feed you your opinions, I've found your problem.

"How hard do you want the task to be?" is a useless standard. It invites the exact opposite behavior from DMs that 5e is trying to encourage with bounDed accuracy. And it is useless when the answer is, "as hard as it should realistically be."

Are you telling me at you spot every fly on any wall? Passive perception below 5 would require a Wisdom of 0, after all.

Do most humans spot fifty percent of flies on walls?

If you now wish to argue that I have magically discovered the actual guideline, I will point out that you previously believed it to be obvious that it was a very easy task, and you claimed to be applying the guideline. If the guideline were as I am now looking at it, it would have led you naturally to using this method. But I am unsure this is even a realistic or intended approach. Should I be doing statistical analysis of every task across all human activity before assigning a DC? Of course not.

There are no guidelines. There is an incomplete framework to give them, but they never closed the loop on anything but social rules and opposed checks.

[Keltest]

"How hard do you want the task to be?" is a useless standard. It invites the exact opposite behavior from DMs that 5e is trying to encourage with bounDed accuracy. And it is useless when the answer is, "as hard as it should realistically be."

Are you telling me at you spot every fly on any wall? Passive perception below 5 would require a Wisdom of 0, after all.

Do most humans spot fifty percent of flies on walls?

If you now wish to argue that I have magically discovered the actual guideline, I will point out that you previously believed it to be obvious that it was a very easy task, and you claimed to be applying the guideline. If the guideline were as I am now looking at it, it would have led you naturally to using this method. But I am unsure this is even a realistic or intended approach. Should I be doing statistical analysis of every task across all human activity before assigning a DC? Of course not.

There are no guidelines. There is an incomplete framework to give them, but they never closed the loop on anything but social rules and opposed checks.

Most humans would spot, and likely ignore, every fly on the wall, as soon as their field of view turned to include it.

And if you choose to not use the tools given to you because you dont want to use them, well, thats your perogative, but it doesn't have anything to do with the presence or quality of the tool that you simply refuse to use it.

[Segev]

Most humans would spot, and likely ignore, every fly on the wall, as soon as their field of view turned to include it.

And if you choose to not use the tools given to you because you dont want to use them, well, thats your perogative, but it doesn't have anything to do with the presence or quality of the tool that you simply refuse to use it.

"Spot but ignore" is an interesting statement. Do you define (1) "spot" as "consciously recognize is present?" and "ignore" as "consciously decide is not worthy of attention?" Or do you define (2) "spot" as "technically, if they look back on the memory, they may remember having seen it, even if they didn't register it consciously at the time" and "ignore" as "may not even register it?"

Because (1) seems unrealistic to me, while (2) seems to fail to represent what a perception check is representing.

And "I am comfortable without a tool, so the tool must exist" does not mean "The tool exists and those uncomfortable without it are just refusing to use it." You have not provided any actual guidelines that support your view that spotting a fly on a wall is "very easy." You have said, at least, that you believe spotting a dark spot on a white wall is "very easy" and that it might be "hard" if it's a dark wall, but you have yet to actually show me what guidelines the books provide to support that it is, in fact, "very easy" to spot a black spot on a white wall (rather than "automatic" or "easy" or "moderate") and is also "hard" (rather than "very easy" or "moderate") to spot the black spot moving on a dark wall. You have said you feel it is that hard, but then go on to say that you think most humans would "spot, and likely ignore, every fly on every wall," which seems to be either a useless distinction or is in contradiction to your earlier suggestion that spotting a fly on a dark wall would be "hard."

You have an idea - an inconsistent idea between your own posts - of how hard spotting that fly is, but you have not demonstrated that the WotC-published body of work for 5e contains guidelines that allow people to judge how hard it should be to spot that fly on the wall (which is not hiding). A guideline for that which aligns with your earlier "very easy" and "hard" designations would be something like: "It is very easy to spot even something very small that contrasts with its background, while it is hard to spot something that is inconspicuous and low-contrast with its background, even if that something is not hidden." Given the nature of visual perception, that would actually be a pretty reasonable guideline for general observation purposes.

[Keltest]

"Spot but ignore" is an interesting statement. Do you define (1) "spot" as "consciously recognize is present?" and "ignore" as "consciously decide is not worthy of attention?" Or do you define (2) "spot" as "technically, if they look back on the memory, they may remember having seen it, even if they didn't register it consciously at the time" and "ignore" as "may not even register it?"

Because (1) seems unrealistic to me, while (2) seems to fail to represent what a perception check is representing.

And "I am comfortable without a tool, so the tool must exist" does not mean "The tool exists and those uncomfortable without it are just refusing to use it." You have not provided any actual guidelines that support your view that spotting a fly on a wall is "very easy." You have said, at least, that you believe spotting a dark spot on a white wall is "very easy" and that it might be "hard" if it's a dark wall, but you have yet to actually show me what guidelines the books provide to support that it is, in fact, "very easy" to spot a black spot on a white wall (rather than "automatic" or "easy" or "moderate") and is also "hard" (rather than "very easy" or "moderate") to spot the black spot moving on a dark wall. You have said you feel it is that hard, but then go on to say that you think most humans would "spot, and likely ignore, every fly on every wall," which seems to be either a useless distinction or is in contradiction to your earlier suggestion that spotting a fly on a dark wall would be "hard."

You have an idea - an inconsistent idea between your own posts - of how hard spotting that fly is, but you have not demonstrated that the WotC-published body of work for 5e contains guidelines that allow people to judge how hard it should be to spot that fly on the wall (which is not hiding). A guideline for that which aligns with your earlier "very easy" and "hard" designations would be something like: "It is very easy to spot even something very small that contrasts with its background, while it is hard to spot something that is inconspicuous and low-contrast with its background, even if that something is not hidden." Given the nature of visual perception, that would actually be a pretty reasonable guideline for general observation purposes.


There are a lot of things that the rulebooks dont feel the need to explain due to being obvious or otherwise intuitive. That people can see contrasting colors easier is one of them. You clearly dont need your hand held to that degree to figure it out, since you just did so right there in your post, so what exactly is the actual problem with the guidelines on setting a DC for a task? Are you just upset that they dont come with examples? Because none of your complaints so far have actually demonstrated any ineffectiveness of the guidelines for their intended purpose unless you deliberately disengage your thought process in a way that is not conducive to DMing.

Coincidentally, a fly on the wall is a terrible example precisely because of how unimportant it is. People will see it and discard it basically reflexively. Something like a stop sign is a better example since people are nominally compelled to take it into account.

[Sorinth]

You have an idea - an inconsistent idea between your own posts - of how hard spotting that fly is, but you have not demonstrated that the WotC-published body of work for 5e contains guidelines that allow people to judge how hard it should be to spot that fly on the wall (which is not hiding). A guideline for that which aligns with your earlier "very easy" and "hard" designations would be something like: "It is very easy to spot even something very small that contrasts with its background, while it is hard to spot something that is inconspicuous and low-contrast with its background, even if that something is not hidden." Given the nature of visual perception, that would actually be a pretty reasonable guideline for general observation purposes.


I have trouble understanding why you need something written in the books to tell you that states something is easier to spot if it contrasts with it's background and harder if there is low-contrast. I'm not seeing the value in the rules stating obvious things, there's always going to be a degree of common sense that you need to apply and no ruleset or guidelines can replace that unless they limit what you can do to only the things it says you can.

[Tanarii]

Claiming that the guidelines make it obvious that spotting a fly on a wall, even a contrast one, is Very Easy is "logical" or "common sense" only makes sense in the internet usage of the term: it's your unsupported opinion so you think it's correct.

Segev is absolutely correct that there's no specific guideline for a DM to judge what DC within the general guidelines on range of DCs that indicate that should be any particular DCs.

As far as I'm concerned, it'd be both "logical" and "common sense" for a DM to pick anything from Easy to Hard, or the normal range of DCs. Very Easy would be neither. But that's my unsupported opinion I think is correct.

My other opinion is that is working as intended.

Just as a DM deciding on a baseline DC to hear something (not hidden) you can't see, or pinpoint something (not hidden) you can't see, is working as intended. Especially over 60ft away when it's mixed in with other combat sounds. Not that it wouldn't be nice if there was something that reminded them it was a built-in option, since so many seem to assume that no specific rule with details means this general rule doesn't apply. :smallconfused:

[Keltest]

I'm sorry, but claiming that the guidelines make it obvious that spotting a fly on a wall, even a contrast one, is Very Easy is "logical" or "common sense" only makes sense in the internet usage of the term: it's your unsupported opinion so you think it's correct.

Segev is absolutely correct that there's no specific guideline for a DM to judge what DC within the general guidelines on range of DCs that indicate that should be any particular DCs.

As far as I'm concerned, it'd be both "logical" and "common sense" for a DM to pick anything from Easy to Hard, or the normal range of DCs. Very Easy would be neither. But that's my unsupported opinion I think is correct.

My other opinion is that is working as intended.

Just as a DM deciding on a baseline DC to hear something (not hidden) you can't see, or pinpoint something (not hidden) you can't see, is working as intended. Not that it wouldn't be nice if there was something that reminded them it was a built-in option, since so many seem to assume that no specific rule with details means this general rule doesn't apply. :smallconfused:

Ok, let me ask you this then. Why are we apparently assuming that a DM doesnt have any idea how difficult they want something to be, or think something is? Theyre the one creating the situation in the first place, how hard they want it to be is literally the only thing that actually matters in terms of assigning challenge. Why should you need guidelines on how to have an opinion?

[JackPhoenix]

Coincidentally, a fly on the wall is a terrible example precisely because of how unimportant it is. People will see it and discard it basically reflexively. Something like a stop sign is a better example since people are nominally compelled to take it into account.

Which means the actual guideline is "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure", which means the answer for the question of "what the DC is for noticing a fly on the wall" is "nobody cares, no need to bother with dice, move along."

[strangebloke]

Ok, let me ask you this then. Why are we apparently assuming that a DM doesnt have any idea how difficult they want something to be, or think something is? Theyre the one creating the situation in the first place, how hard they want it to be is literally the only thing that actually matters in terms of assigning challenge. Why should you need guidelines on how to have an opinion?

Bluntly, because DMs are idiots. I can say that, I'm a DM. The people on these forums are generally very experienced and are pretty reasonable in their suggested DCs for things, but in the wild you're frequently run into DMs who think that 'staying standing on a rocking ship' should be a 'hard' DC, resulting in the whole party spending the whole encounter sliding all over the battle map. Guy at the gym fallacies abound and well as a lack of knowledge about basic math, where DMs think "oh that'd be very hard for me" and then assign a DC 20 to something that should (for an adventurer) be trivial. When showing up to play with a DM I've never played with before, I've no idea if having a good athletics check is pointless or utterly compulsory. Is it even worth being able to hit a DC 30 acrobatics check? what would a DM let me do with a DC 30 arcana check?

A (DM-facing) set of simple and coherent suggested DCs would give guidance that would allow these DMs to avoid simple and obvious mistakes, while also allowing a degree of standardization (that could be deviated from if it suited a particular table better). This standardization is desireable because skill-based classes should know what their class features actually mean.

In fact, the DMG and later books have many such tables, they're just scattered all over the place and thus are basically impossible to use as a reference. There are suggest DCs for walking across ice without breaking it, and jumping a long gap, and a host of other things. But people ignore them because they are all over the place and don't really cover practical stuff half the time.

And, as a final note, the easy-medium-hard recommendation is ALSO bad. In the first place I would never call a task that Joe Normal fails 50% of the time 'medium' difficulty.

[Keravath]

Ok, let me ask you this then. Why are we apparently assuming that a DM doesnt have any idea how difficult they want something to be, or think something is? Theyre the one creating the situation in the first place, how hard they want it to be is literally the only thing that actually matters in terms of assigning challenge. Why should you need guidelines on how to have an opinion?

I'm sure each individual DM does have some difficulty in mind. In their game, they will apply some appropriate DC to resolve any situation that comes up.

The only reason it becomes an issue for some folks is that it is a specific game mechanic that will play vastly different at different tables depending on how the DM "feels" or "thinks" about the situation. If the DMG had some guidance on noticing non-hidden but unseen creatures then DMs would have a framework on which to understand how the game mechanic is supposed to work.

Without that guidance, I have played with DMs who rule that if an unseen creature hasn't taken the hide action then you know where they are even if you can't see them (at whatever distance - even several hundred feet). I've also played with DMs where as soon as a creature becomes unseen, you lose track of it and don't know where it is.

In one case, the DM believes that there should be something noticeable about an unseen creature for heroic adventurers or any other creature unless the unseen creature works hard to make sure they leave no trace (hide action). In the other case, the DM believes that an unseen creature will usually not leave any noticeable trace of either sound or tracks unless the area is particularly quiet or the surface reveals tracks easily. In this case, the creature becomes automatically hidden as soon as it is unseen.

These diametrically opposite DM calls are both RAW and based entirely on how the DM interprets or understands the situation. As a result, without a bit of external guidance regarding non-hidden unseen creatures on what the DCs might be or what opposed skill check might be required to notice them ... you end up with a mechanic in play that can run entirely differently depending on the DM.

Using the OPs example, where a halfling casts invisibility on themselves - one DM would rule that they would need to take the hide action the following round in order to remain unnoticed while a second DM might say they are automatically unnoticed (since fights are noisy - they become unseen and unheard and are thus automatically hidden and don't need to take the hide action) and they might only call for a stealth check or maybe acrobatics to move through an opposing larger creatures space on the same turn as they cast the invisibility without interacting with them. Depending on the DM, both are within the scope of RAW.

[Keltest]

I'm sure each individual DM does have some difficulty in mind. In their game, they will apply some appropriate DC to resolve any situation that comes up.

The only reason it becomes an issue for some folks is that it is a specific game mechanic that will play vastly different at different tables depending on how the DM "feels" or "thinks" about the situation. If the DMG had some guidance on noticing non-hidden but unseen creatures then DMs would have a framework on which to understand how the game mechanic is supposed to work.

Without that guidance, I have played with DMs who rule that if an unseen creature hasn't taken the hide action then you know where they are even if you can't see them (at whatever distance - even several hundred feet). I've also played with DMs where as soon as a creature becomes unseen, you lose track of it and don't know where it is.

In one case, the DM believes that there should be something noticeable about an unseen creature for heroic adventurers or any other creature unless the unseen creature works hard to make sure they leave no trace (hide action). In the other case, the DM believes that an unseen creature will usually not leave any noticeable trace of either sound or tracks unless the area is particularly quiet or the surface reveals tracks easily. In this case, the creature becomes automatically hidden as soon as it is unseen.

These diametrically opposite DM calls are both RAW and based entirely on how the DM interprets or understands the situation. As a result, without a bit of external guidance regarding non-hidden unseen creatures on what the DCs might be or what opposed skill check might be required to notice them ... you end up with a mechanic in play that can run entirely differently depending on the DM.

Using the OPs example, where a halfling casts invisibility on themselves - one DM would rule that they would need to take the hide action the following round in order to remain unnoticed while a second DM might say they are automatically unnoticed (since fights are noisy - they become unseen and unheard and are thus automatically hidden and don't need to take the hide action) and they might only call for a stealth check or maybe acrobatics to move through an opposing larger creatures space on the same turn as they cast the invisibility without interacting with them. Depending on the DM, both are within the scope of RAW.

I mean, that sounds like the rules working as intended to me. Tables shouldnt play the same way as each other. The experience should be tailored for each group, and if two DMs make a different judgement call on the same scenario... well then they make a different judgement call. The game doesnt come crashing to a halt.

[Keravath]

Bluntly, because DMs are idiots. I can say that, I'm a DM. The people on these forums are generally very experienced and are pretty reasonable in their suggested DCs for things, but in the wild you're frequently run into DMs who think that 'staying standing on a rocking ship' should be a 'hard' DC, resulting in the whole party spending the whole encounter sliding all over the battle map. Guy at the gym fallacies abound and well as a lack of knowledge about basic math, where DMs think "oh that'd be very hard for me" and then assign a DC 20 to something that should (for an adventurer) be trivial. When showing up to play with a DM I've never played with before, I've no idea if having a good athletics check is pointless or utterly compulsory. Is it even worth being able to hit a DC 30 acrobatics check? what would a DM let me do with a DC 30 arcana check?

A (DM-facing) set of simple and coherent suggested DCs would give guidance that would allow these DMs to avoid simple and obvious mistakes, while also allowing a degree of standardization (that could be deviated from if it suited a particular table better). This standardization is desireable because skill-based classes should know what their class features actually mean.

In fact, the DMG and later books have many such tables, they're just scattered all over the place and thus are basically impossible to use as a reference. There are suggest DCs for walking across ice without breaking it, and jumping a long gap, and a host of other things. But people ignore them because they are all over the place and don't really cover practical stuff half the time.

And, as a final note, the easy-medium-hard recommendation is ALSO bad. In the first place I would never call a task that Joe Normal fails 50% of the time 'medium' difficulty.

Nice post :) ... you also have the DMs that tailor the DCs to the skill level available in the party (which I personally disagree with). A rogue with reliable talent has expertise in at least 4 skills (a scout rogue 6 and a 1 level dip in knowledge cleric makes it 8). At level 11, this is a minimum +8 from proficiency. Add a +5 for their primary stat and perhaps a +3 for a secondary one and that gives a minimum result when the rogue makes a check of 23 for the +5 skills and 21 for the +3 (eg maybe wisdom for perception) - on a 20 the rogue gets a result of 31 to 33 - succeeding at an "impossible" DC 10-20% of the time.

Compare this to a level 11 paladin with 12 wisdom. They get a +1 in perception, +5 with proficiency. Even with proficiency, the paladin will fail a DC 15 check half the time while the rogue auto passes it (if they have expertise, proficiency or a good stat).

Some DMs end up setting a skill check with a DC that reflects the skills of the party and not the difficulty of the task. Having some guidelines might tone this down a bit.

[Keravath]

I mean, that sounds like the rules working as intended to me. Tables shouldnt play the same way as each other. The experience should be tailored for each group, and if two DMs make a different judgement call on the same scenario... well then they make a different judgement call. The game doesnt come crashing to a halt.

Absolutely agree :). Personally, I like having the creative freedom to run stuff the way I think it should be run (though most of the time I choose to run fairly close to RAW just so the players and DMs have matching expectations - though even then interpretations will vary :) ).

However, this really wide range of lattitude for the DM is also a source of conflict at the table when the DM and the players have different interpretations of how something should work whether that is the conditions and requirements of being noticed when invisible but possibly not hidden or how a fear spell would work at your table.

Often these little details of how a DM will run certain situations can't get discussed in advance because there are too many of them - so when it comes to the actual game - you fall back on the "DM is always right" - sometimes leaving players a bit grumpy or if they don't really abide by the "DM is right" point of view ... an impromptu discussion of the rules and how the DM plans to run it.

A table outlining some commons situations and possible DCs would give a DM and players a reference point. Of course the DM would change those values for any specific situation but it would give a starting point for figuring it out.

Anyway, I think the current system where the DM decides the DCs/interactions/skills for their game based on whatever they think or feel about the situation is the easiest and simplest approach - at a certain point, adding more rules is more cumbersome than it is worth - but sometimes, as DM, I wouldn't mind some guidance on what an appropriate DC for certain things might be that are outside my range of experience.

[Segev]

Ok, let me ask you this then. Why are we apparently assuming that a DM doesnt have any idea how difficult they want something to be, or think something is? Theyre the one creating the situation in the first place, how hard they want it to be is literally the only thing that actually matters in terms of assigning challenge. Why should you need guidelines on how to have an opinion?

Because I, as a DM, want to calibrate difficulty according to what the game expects, and according to something realistic. I am not, however, an expert polymath on all subjects.

Were I to use the standard you're setting, doing pull-ups would be DC 30, according to the "guidelines." Meanwhile, identifying a spell - any spell - by its description alone would be somewhere around DC 5, maybe 10 if the spell looks VERY similar to other spells and you have to differentiate between them.

Spotting anything would probably be about DC 20, since I can't find a can of baked beans in a pantry when I'm staring right at them.

Or, if you're basing it on "how difficult does the DM want it to be," then we're abandoning skill checks entirely, as the DM should really just decide yes or no on all things. "How difficult do I want it to be?" has limited bearing on verisimilitude in the moment. Suddenly, every lock is DC 30 because the DM wants the PCs to need the sheriff's help after playing the social minigame, even if there's no reason at all that this small-time jail cell would have that difficult a lock.

That you keep framing it as, "How hard do you WANT it to be?" tells me that you're not approaching it from a setting-first standpoint, while I am. Heck, though: "How hard do you want it to be?" STILL needs some guidelines to close the loop. Sure, you can say, "I want this to be Very Hard," so you set it to DC 25, but now how do you describe what they're encountering? How do you justify, in-setting, this version of the task being DC 25, while another version of the same task is DC 15 because you wanted it to be easier? How do you decide whether spotting the "very hard to see" clue is microscopic and designed to blend in perfectly with the pattern, or if it's merely on a noisy pattern and the size of a coin and thus can possibly fade into it? How do you decide whether the Easy-to-spot thing is a blatant black spot on a pristine white wall, or is a small green shape on a brownish wall? Just how much effort/coincidence must go into a thing being Hard to spot vs. Easy?

Again, the RAW provide no guidelines.

[Keltest]

Because I, as a DM, want to calibrate difficulty according to what the game expects, and according to something realistic. I am not, however, an expert polymath on all subjects.

Were I to use the standard you're setting, doing pull-ups would be DC 30, according to the "guidelines." Meanwhile, identifying a spell - any spell - by its description alone would be somewhere around DC 5, maybe 10 if the spell looks VERY similar to other spells and you have to differentiate between them.

Spotting anything would probably be about DC 20, since I can't find a can of baked beans in a pantry when I'm staring right at them.

Or, if you're basing it on "how difficult does the DM want it to be," then we're abandoning skill checks entirely, as the DM should really just decide yes or no on all things. "How difficult do I want it to be?" has limited bearing on verisimilitude in the moment. Suddenly, every lock is DC 30 because the DM wants the PCs to need the sheriff's help after playing the social minigame, even if there's no reason at all that this small-time jail cell would have that difficult a lock.

That you keep framing it as, "How hard do you WANT it to be?" tells me that you're not approaching it from a setting-first standpoint, while I am. Heck, though: "How hard do you want it to be?" STILL needs some guidelines to close the loop. Sure, you can say, "I want this to be Very Hard," so you set it to DC 25, but now how do you describe what they're encountering? How do you justify, in-setting, this version of the task being DC 25, while another version of the same task is DC 15 because you wanted it to be easier? How do you decide whether spotting the "very hard to see" clue is microscopic and designed to blend in perfectly with the pattern, or if it's merely on a noisy pattern and the size of a coin and thus can possibly fade into it? How do you decide whether the Easy-to-spot thing is a blatant black spot on a pristine white wall, or is a small green shape on a brownish wall? Just how much effort/coincidence must go into a thing being Hard to spot vs. Easy?

Again, the RAW provide no guidelines.

Are you picking a lock? Its more mechanically complex. Spotting a trap? Its hidden better. Calming an animal? Its in a more agitated state. Theres pretty much no challenge that cannot be adequately described as "the lower DC version, but with more of the thing that makes it a die roll in the first place" in some capacity.

DCs are inherently a meta concept, so youre naturally going to run into a lot of problems approaching it from a setting-first perspective. Once you have the mechanical challenge, THEN You fill in the details based on the context of your setting. At this point you have ventured well beyond the realm of using DC setting guidelines, but I'll humor you anyway. Lets take your lock example. DC 30, because i guess the DM already failed the guideline of "dont allow them to roll if you dont want the outcome to be uncertain." Ok. And its a jail cell, neat. So, the big complicated jail cell lock is super extra hard to break into, so this is the important cell. How important? "Almost impossible to open without the key" important. So the king put it there, because he's important enough to have that. Why did he do that? To hold somebody, obviously. Who? If it still matters at this point, Pidgeon Hat, the notorious thief who robs from the rich and gives to himself.

[strangebloke]

Ultimately, I think what's really telling is that the only skills people pick for expertise are the skills that have clear defined mechanical results attached to them. Athletics, acrobatics, perception, stealth, insight, and deception are all opposed checks that have clear mechanical advantages. Thieves tools has clear stated DCs for locks in the book (as well as for arcane lock). The only skills that are picked that don't have obvious mechanical definition are intimidation and persuasion.

....everything else? Who gets expertise in animal handling? Arcana? History? Performance? Survival? Nature? IMX these skills are only taken as a concession to flavor, and I've never seen someone (other than a knowledge cleric) take expertise in them.

I think there's a clear correlation here between "no mechanical guideline" and "(perceived as) pretty much useless."

[Keltest]

Ultimately, I think what's really telling is that the only skills people pick for expertise are the skills that have clear defined mechanical results attached to them. Athletics, acrobatics, perception, stealth, insight, and deception are all opposed checks that have clear mechanical advantages. Thieves tools has clear stated DCs for locks in the book (as well as for arcane lock). The only skills that are picked that don't have obvious mechanical definition are intimidation and persuasion.

....everything else? Who gets expertise in animal handling? Arcana? History? Performance? Survival? Nature? IMX these skills are only taken as a concession to flavor, and I've never seen someone (other than a knowledge cleric) take expertise in them.

I think there's a clear correlation here between "no mechanical guideline" and "(perceived as) pretty much useless."

Ive seen people take expertise in Arcana, History and Survival, because tracking is nice, Arcana is a relevant skill for item crafting and general magical shenaniganry, and History lets you ask the DM stuff and get honest answers. Ive seen bards take expertise in Performance when they specifically intend to instigate performance checks.

Nature checks though almost invariably show up as "the DM wants an excuse to go into more detail about a scene" checks IME.

[Tanarii]

I think there's a clear correlation here between "no mechanical guideline" and "(perceived as) pretty much useless."
No skill is useless.

Except Performance. That's a complete waste of a proficiency, given the skill only adds it's bonus to things that shouldn't ever include a check in the first place.

[strangebloke]

No skill is useless.

Except Performance. That's a complete waste of a proficiency, given the skill only adds it's bonus to things that shouldn't ever include a check in the first place.

Ehhh I really don't see the logic behind spending half or a fourth of your expertise as a rogue on such a thing, if its even worth taking proficiency in it at all. You could either have expertise in athletics/acrobatics, something that defends you from getting debuffed heavily, or you could have expertise in stealth, which helps you get surprise and (effectively) a free round, or you could have expertise in perception which can prevent enemies from getting surprise, or you could have expertise in deception, which could save the party from certain death, or investigation, which could let you completely save the party from a trap, or insight, which could save the party from getting assassinated or...

...or you could have nature. Which. Well. It might come up. Eventually. Maybe at some point you'll be able to look at a Roc and go "that's a Roc!" when you otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Or not. I can see someone taking it for flavor, but not for any other reason.

The skills that are good have clearly defined uses (and DCs, via opposed checks!) that come up a lot. The skills that are bad do not. Ergo, I think there should be clearer use cases for all skills.

[Keltest]

Ehhh I really don't see the logic behind spending half or a fourth of your expertise as a rogue on such a thing, if its even worth taking proficiency in it at all. You could either have expertise in athletics/acrobatics, something that defends you from getting debuffed heavily, or you could have expertise in stealth, which helps you get surprise and (effectively) a free round, or you could have expertise in perception which can prevent enemies from getting surprise, or you could have expertise in deception, which could save the party from certain death, or investigation, which could let you completely save the party from a trap, or insight, which could save the party from getting assassinated or...

...or you could have nature. Which. Well. It might come up. Eventually. Maybe at some point you'll be able to look at a Roc and go "that's a Roc!" when you otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Or not. I can see someone taking it for flavor, but not for any other reason.

The skills that are good have clearly defined uses (and DCs, via opposed checks!) that come up a lot. The skills that are bad do not. Ergo, I think there should be clearer use cases for all skills.

Nature has, a few different times, been the "youre walking into a trap/hostile situation" skill at my table. The whole "its too quiet" bit.

Also, rogues actually cant get proficiency in Nature unless theyve been given it by their background or a feat, so its hardly any wonder that no rogues expertise in it.

[strangebloke]

Nature has, a few different times, been the "youre walking into a trap/hostile situation" skill at my table. The whole "its too quiet" bit.

Also, rogues actually cant get proficiency in Nature unless theyve been given it by their background or a feat, so its hardly any wonder that no rogues expertise in it.

why would that be a nature check? That's clearly a matter of observation/awareness, not pure knowledge.

[Segev]

Are you picking a lock? Its more mechanically complex. Spotting a trap? Its hidden better. Calming an animal? Its in a more agitated state. Theres pretty much no challenge that cannot be adequately described as "the lower DC version, but with more of the thing that makes it a die roll in the first place" in some capacity.

DCs are inherently a meta concept, so youre naturally going to run into a lot of problems approaching it from a setting-first perspective. Once you have the mechanical challenge, THEN You fill in the details based on the context of your setting. At this point you have ventured well beyond the realm of using DC setting guidelines, but I'll humor you anyway. Lets take your lock example. DC 30, because i guess the DM already failed the guideline of "dont allow them to roll if you dont want the outcome to be uncertain." Ok. And its a jail cell, neat. So, the big complicated jail cell lock is super extra hard to break into, so this is the important cell. How important? "Almost impossible to open without the key" important. So the king put it there, because he's important enough to have that. Why did he do that? To hold somebody, obviously. Who? If it still matters at this point, Pidgeon Hat, the notorious thief who robs from the rich and gives to himself.

Just what is the lock "more complex" than? When you name the lock that this one is "more complex" than, you will then have to tell me how complex THAT lock is. Just how agitated IS an animal that takes a DC 20 check to calm? How agitated is it if it only takes DC 10? Are we talking a barking dog that is ready to jump and attack being calmed by DC 10? Are we talking it taking DC 20 to make a dog simply stop barking at you? How extreme should I describe a horse's agitation if I want its DC to calm it to be 15? What is the DC to keep a calm animal calm while you do something like try to ride it or walk past it without spooking it?

DCs are a meta-concept, which is WHY you need guidelines on how they are expected to tie into the setting events to close the loop. Imagine if AC was just something you assigned based on "the armor is better than the other armor," but we had no idea whether leather armor granted AC 10 or 15, and just had "it grants however much the DM decides it does, based on whether he thinks leather armor is easy, medium, or hard to hit."

[Keltest]

why would that be a nature check? That's clearly a matter of observation/awareness, not pure knowledge.

Recognizing how strange it is for it to be so quiet in an outdoor setting. Its not a common use of the skill, but it does happen sometimes.


Just what is the lock "more complex" than? When you name the lock that this one is "more complex" than, you will then have to tell me how complex THAT lock is. Just how agitated IS an animal that takes a DC 20 check to calm? How agitated is it if it only takes DC 10? Are we talking a barking dog that is ready to jump and attack being calmed by DC 10? Are we talking it taking DC 20 to make a dog simply stop barking at you? How extreme should I describe a horse's agitation if I want its DC to calm it to be 15? What is the DC to keep a calm animal calm while you do something like try to ride it or walk past it without spooking it?

DCs are a meta-concept, which is WHY you need guidelines on how they are expected to tie into the setting events to close the loop. Imagine if AC was just something you assigned based on "the armor is better than the other armor," but we had no idea whether leather armor granted AC 10 or 15, and just had "it grants however much the DM decides it does, based on whether he thinks leather armor is easy, medium, or hard to hit."

Explain to me why +3 armor is better than +1 armor. 1st edition did it after all, so you should know exactly what they did to make it that much better.

Or alternatively, it doesnt actually matter what the mechanics of that lock are, because neither you nor the players are locksmiths and its beyond the relevance for the fantasy, just like we (probably) arent animal trainers or carpenters or what have you. If you want guidelines on lock construction, go google it, dont expect the DMG to teach you everything to know about everything for the sake of trivial worldbuilding details.

[strangebloke]

Recognizing how strange it is for it to be so quiet in an outdoor setting. Its not a common use of the skill, but it does happen sometimes.
Right, so I'm taking proficiency expertise, just in case the DM decides its a DC 15 Nature check to know that... all birds suddenly going quiet is bad.

This sort of illustrates the problem, I think?

[Keltest]

Right, so I'm taking proficiency expertise, just in case the DM decides its a DC 15 Nature check to know that... all birds suddenly going quiet is bad.

This sort of illustrates the problem, I think?

I dont disagree. I think nature could safely be folded up into Survival with no loss to the game. I suppose one could argue that it was intended to be the intelligence version of survival, similarly to athletics and acrobatics having a decent amount of overlap in terms of accomplishing tasks.

[Sorinth]

Because I, as a DM, want to calibrate difficulty according to what the game expects, and according to something realistic.

What makes you think the game actually expects anything? The game runs smoothly regardless of whether the DC is the perfect simulationist value or not. Just follow the advice they actually give you and everything will be fine because the game doesn't actually expect anything, it's made to support a wide range.

[Segev]

What makes you think the game actually expects anything? The game runs smoothly regardless of whether the DC is the perfect simulationist value or not. Just follow the advice they actually give you and everything will be fine because the game doesn't actually expect anything, it's made to support a wide range.

Which advice is that that I should follow? Nobody seems to be able to tell me. And no, "Well, a hard check is DC 20" is NOT telling me when something should be hard.

[Keltest]

Which advice is that that I should follow? Nobody seems to be able to tell me. And no, "Well, a hard check is DC 20" is NOT telling me when something should be hard.

It should be hard when you want it to be hard. You dont need the game to tell you how hard you want a check to be.

[Segev]

Explain to me why +3 armor is better than +1 armor. 1st edition did it after all, so you should know exactly what they did to make it that much better.

"More powerful magic" is the general rule. But here's the thing: +1 leather armor is +1 over the baseline of what leather armor is. We know what leather armor is, mechanically, and thus we know what +1 leather armor is.

If we didn't have leather armor in the game, and then a dungeon crawl told us the ooze was guarding a suit of +1 leather armor, we wouldn't know what to add that +1 to! What is "leather armor" and what does it do to AC?


It should be hard when you want it to be hard. You dont need the game to tell you how hard you want a check to be.

Ah, so if I want it to be hard, a set of stairs leading up to the second floor of a building should be DC 20, while if I want it to be easy, climbing a smooth wall of ice should be DC 10. Got it. :smallmad:

"Oh!" but you'll tell me, "you shouldn't make it a smooth wall of ice when you want it to be easy!" Well, why shouldn't I? You tell me that it is silly of me to expect guidelines beyond "make it DC 20 when you want it to be hard," and that there needs be no baseline.

"Well, sure, Segev, but you're being ridiculous; obviously a smooth wall of ice is harder to climb than a well-made set of stairs," you might say. Okay, wonderful. You're right! I am being a little ridiculous there, but I am only responding to the ridiculousness of your "it's hard when you want it to be hard" assertion. You speak it in the context of me asking for guidelines, to tell me why I don't need guidelines. WEll, without guidelines, why SHOULD I assume a smooth ice wall is harder to climb than a set of stairs? Obviously, you intend there to be some sort of inherent guidelines, which immediately negates your "it's hard when you want it to be hard!" claim, since when I want it to be hard may change based on narrative needs in the moment.

But, let's have me try to be reasonable, here: okay, a smooth wall of ice is harder than a well-built set of stairs to climb. How much harder? "WEll, how much harder do you want it to be?" you will likely reply. (And please feel free to correct me if I get any of my guesses about your arguments wrong. Tell me what you'd actually say in response, instead, and we'll resume from there.) What happens when I want it to be 5 harder than the stairs, which I arbitrarily decided were Easy (because, again, we have zero guidelines), so the smooth ice wall today is DC 15. But next session, I want the vine-covered ruin, already described as rough-hewn and pitted, to be Hard. So that's DC 20, by your guidance of "it's hard when you want it to be hard." Sure, you might say I screwed up by describing it as I did, but it makes no sense that a slick, oily wall of ice would be this ruin's wall in this environment, BUT, I would have LIKED it to be Hard, so apparently it is. Meaning that it's now harder to cover a pitted, vine-covered, rough stone wall than it is to climb a smooth ice wall.

"But, Segev, you're still being ridiculous," you might say. "Obviously, ice walls are harder to climb than something with so many hand- and foot-holds!" And I agree, I am being ridiculous. But I am only being ridiculous because I am following your guidance that tells me that the only guideline is "How hard do you want it to be?"

We're right back to "armor exists" being the only thing we're told about armor in D&D, and now we are to calculate how armor affects AC based on how difficult the DM wants you to be to hit. Possibly not even consistently with the exact same armor, since the DM may want you to be easier to hit sometimes and harder to hit others.

[Sorinth]

Which advice is that that I should follow? Nobody seems to be able to tell me. And no, "Well, a hard check is DC 20" is NOT telling me when something should be hard.

The advice of only call for a check if it's interesting and a DC between 10 and 20 will cover the vast majority of cases.

[Segev]

The advice of only call for a check if it's interesting and a DC between 10 and 20 will cover the vast majority of cases.

And how will I know if any given case is an outlier? A couple of guidelines - examples - of things that fall at 10 and 20 would do wonders for answering these questions.

[Sorinth]

And how will I know if any given case is an outlier? A couple of guidelines - examples - of things that fall at 10 and 20 would do wonders for answering these questions.

If you don't know/have a reason in mind then stick to something between 10 and 20 like the books tell you to.

[Keltest]

And how will I know if any given case is an outlier? A couple of guidelines - examples - of things that fall at 10 and 20 would do wonders for answering these questions.

Did you decide its an outlier? No? Then its not an outlier. Your opinion on how hard it should be on a scale of 5-30 is literally the only thing that matters.