DM vs my Gloom Stalker

[czhong]

So I'm playing a gloom stalker Owlin (small version) ranger and we are now in a cave system. I'm taking point as scout and staying out the dim light emitted by the paladins lantern by about 10 feet.

Gloom Stalker allows me to be invisible to anyone who relies on dark vision to see in darkness. However, even with great stealth rolls, I'm constantly being "seen and targeted" by the creatures in the cave.

I've noted to the DM that I'm staying out of the light and get a "will you stop min/maxing" in response.

Do I just forget that part of the ability for gloom stalker or should I stand my ground?

[Unoriginal]

So I'm playing a gloom stalker Owlin (small version) ranger and we are now in a cave system. I'm taking point as scout and staying out the dim light emitted by the paladins lantern by about 10 feet.

Gloom Stalker allows me to be invisible to anyone who relies on dark vision to see in darkness. However, even with great stealth rolls, I'm constantly being "seen and targeted" by the creatures in the cave.

I've noted to the DM that I'm staying out of the light and get a "will you stop min/maxing" in response.

Do I just forget that part of the ability for gloom stalker or should I stand my ground?

1) if the DM rules something, that something is happening.

By the book, your Gloom Stalker should be invisible, yes. It doesn't mean undetectable, to be sure, but your DM has clearly decided it meant "you get seen and targeted" regardless of rolls and circumstances.

2)'standing your ground' against a tyrannical DM does not work.

Your DM has decided your character was seen and targeted, and you got told that trying to argue against that was "min/maxing" and you had to stop it. This isn't a DM with whom you can defend your case.

In your place, I would try talking with your DM about why they think your PC's class' signature ability needs to be made 0% efficient, and if they keep making it 0% efficient you should decide if it's worth playing with this DM any more than that.

[Silpharon]

You can get targeted even if invisible if you're failing your stealth vs perception checks. Maybe the DM had great perception rolls too? Per PHB: "The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." In that way, your DM is right.

That said, you cannot be "seen" for spells that require sight, attack rolls against you should be at disadvantage, and attack rolls you make should be at advantage (assuming you can see them).

It sounds like the DM is frustrated with you. Ask yourself if you're taking up too much "air time" of player/DM interaction. If they are claiming "min/maxing", are you spending too much time describing all the ways you're avoiding enemies? It can get exhausting... Instead keep it simple:

"I stay out in front in complete darkness, stealthily moving forward while looking for foes and traps along the way."

Or maybe your character is utterly dominating in combat. If you've got sharpshooter or crossbow expert, that may be the case. Maybe look for other ways to contribute in combat. Sometimes that's hard as a rather, but the Help action is always available. If this doesn't help, or the DM doesn't want to rule according to the source material, either ask if you can change subclasses or move to a different group.

[MrStabby]

You can get targeted even if invisible if you're failing your stealth vs perception checks. Maybe the DM had great perception rolls too? Per PHB: "The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." In that way, your DM is right.

That said, you cannot be "seen" for spells that require sight, attack rolls against you should be at disadvantage, and attack rolls you make should be at advantage (assuming you can see them).

It sounds like the DM is frustrated with you. Ask yourself if you're taking up too much "air time" of player/DM interaction. If they are claiming "min/maxing", are you spending too much time describing all the ways you're avoiding enemies? It can get exhausting... Instead keep it simple:

"I stay out in front in complete darkness, stealthily moving forward while looking for foes and traps along the way."

Or maybe your character is utterly dominating in combat. If you've got sharpshooter or crossbow expert, that may be the case. Maybe look for other ways to contribute in combat. Sometimes that's hard as a rather, but the Help action is always available. If this doesn't help, or the DM doesn't want to rule according to the source material, either ask if you can change subclasses or move to a different group.

I think this is mostly right.


The Gloomstalker ability isn't an invulnerability button. It just means you can't be seen by darkvision. So yes, can still be attacked (at disadvantage) and people can still roughly know where you are (especially if you are not using your actions to hide). Given this, it might be worth looking at your positioning. If there are better targets that won't incur disadvantage, with a lower AC that the enemies can attack and they still attack you, then that sucks. If you are out ahead of the rest of the party and they can't attack them, or if the rest of the party that they can see is all wearing heavy armour/shield then attacking you seems pretty reasonable. Also dont forget that if you are out in front, the paladin may want to run forward to close with enemies and to bring his light with him.

[Segev]

Is he at least granting you the benefit of having all enemies targeting him with disadvantage, since they can't see him?

If he's saying you being invisible all the time is "min/maxing," you do need to discuss what it is he thinks the ability should do and how it should be used. If his interpretation doesn't allow you to use it in a way you want to, you should ask about changing your build, or changing characters. Or leave the game, if you're that upset.

[da newt]

You are in a spot. If your DM doesn't like your gloomstalker's ability to be invisible to dark vision while in the darkness, so they choose to rule that you are seen, you have few options. The "will you stop min maxing?" comment is telling.

If you want to keep playing with these folks, perhaps the best option for you is to create a new PC who doesn't fit into your DM's view of 'min maxing' or offer to DM.

Only you can know the people involved well enough to pick the most beneficial tact.

[Kurt Kurageous]

You are in a spot. If your DM doesn't like your gloomstalker's ability to be invisible to dark vision while in the darkness, so they choose to rule that you are seen, you have few options. The "will you stop min maxing?" comment is telling.

If you want to keep playing with these folks, perhaps the best option for you is to create a new PC who doesn't fit into your DM's view of 'min maxing' or offer to DM.

IMO a DM should honor the choices a player made when creating and building the character. If the DM didn't like your build, then they should have said something in session zero.

Assuming this is 5e, how the heck are you min/maxing? What does that even mean in a game that sets 8 as the lowest score in thr standard array? I can't distribute my stats in a way that optimizes or at least favors the primary ability score(s)?

This feels like DM vs players. And as usual, it's the DMs fault.

[Samayu]

Someone asked if the DM was getting frustrated with you. It seems likely that he feels you're ruining his plans. That's actually worse than just being super good at what you do, because he can't even run the game he intends to run. Maybe you can give him some tips on how to deal with an invisible person. Or at least explain why his situation is not so bad.

For example, everyone knows where everyone else is, unless they've passed a hide check. So if you're not stealthing, they can always attack you at disadvantage (but can't cast many spells at you).

[Segev]

Someone asked if the DM was getting frustrated with you. It seems likely that he feels you're ruining his plans. That's actually worse than just being super good at what you do, because he can't even run the game he intends to run. Maybe you can give him some tips on how to deal with an invisible person. Or at least explain why his situation is not so bad.

For example, everyone knows where everyone else is, unless they've passed a hide check. So if you're not stealthing, they can always attack you at disadvantage (but can't cast many spells at you).

At the very least, part of the necessary conversation with the DM should be to ask him why you being invisible to darkvision is problematic. What is it he's trying to prevent?

[Frogreaver]

So I'm playing a gloom stalker Owlin (small version) ranger and we are now in a cave system. I'm taking point as scout and staying out the dim light emitted by the paladins lantern by about 10 feet.

Gloom Stalker allows me to be invisible to anyone who relies on dark vision to see in darkness. However, even with great stealth rolls, I'm constantly being "seen and targeted" by the creatures in the cave.

I've noted to the DM that I'm staying out of the light and get a "will you stop min/maxing" in response.

Do I just forget that part of the ability for gloom stalker or should I stand my ground?

One legitimate ruling by the DM that might cause that would be that the enemies see your silhouette in front of the other PC's. Is seeing your silhouette enough to break your stealth? That sounds like a DM call to me.

But here's the thing, since the DM believes you are min/maxing and doesn't want you doing it then he's likely not going to be very forthcoming with how he is ruling as that only enables more min/maxing. Try to have a conversation but don't expect much.

Seems you will likely either accept on faith that he is running the game fairly (despite not ruling in your favor) or choose to stop playing with him (I don't believe conversation will help here, but it should still be tried).

[Dungeon-noob]

I don't have a lot of information here, so all i'm saying is with an * next to it saying this may or may not apply based on context. But to me this sounds a lot like your DM is breaking some of the most fundamental rules and agreements of RPGs. Will wheaton's law of don't be a d, and the reason there are ANY rules in RPGs at all: preventing/mitigating disputes in a collabarative storytelling evironment.

The whole reason there are classes, and those classes have clearly defined features, is so that the players know what their characters can do and can count on those abilities. Infringing on those even when it's the right thing to do is risky and should be done with care. Doing it without a very good reason, seemingly in direct violation of the exact ability given and the story facet it is working to convey, is a faillure of the DM to abide by rule 0.

I would suggest trying to get more info out of your DM as to why he's doing this, what his objections actually are, how to work it out and preferably actually let you play. But what info i have here suggest a variety of poor skills (communicative, emotional, narrative, D&D rules, and more) that may not be salvageable. So i would also caution you to remember that No D&D is better then Bad D&D, and emotionally prepare yourself to leave. Especially if this isn't the only problem or wrinkle in this game. Again, most of that is armchair speak with limited intel, so you'll have to know better then me here.

[Pildion]

I've noted to the DM that I'm staying out of the light and get a "will you stop min/maxing" in response.


This is so, so telling. I would still say talk it out with your DM, maybe a compromise can be found? If you really want to play with this group, I would probably start getting a back up character together, though personally I would have just got up and laughed my way out the door with a "will you stop min/maxing" on a Ranger build.

[Mastikator]

I'd like to ask your DM why he thinks using class abilities is min maxing, and also what's even wrong with min maxing?

[Gignere]

I think the DM also forgets that if you yourself is relying only on darkvision you will have disadvantage to your perception checks so it isn’t totally min/max. If I want to balance this ability I would just have traps a galore and make you choose between tripping all the traps and enjoy your invisibility or self nerf and carry a light source.

[MrStabby]

I think the DM also forgets that if you yourself is relying only on darkvision you will have disadvantage to your perception checks so it isn’t totally min/max. If I want to balance this ability I would just have traps a galore and make you choose between tripping all the traps and enjoy your invisibility or self nerf and carry a light source.

I am not sure that punishing a player for using one of their main class abilities is really a good plan.

I think my advice to the DM would be to just do more of the adventure in lit areas if it proves to be a problem... and it only proves to be a problem if it is diminishing others enjoyment of the game.

[Gignere]

I am not sure that punishing a player for using one of their main class abilities is really a good plan.

I think my advice to the DM would be to just do more of the adventure in lit areas if it proves to be a problem... and it only proves to be a problem if it is diminishing others enjoyment of the game.

Just saying that there is a drawback to using the gloomstalker ability. Also this actually happened in a game where we had a GS and when they dropped due to AoE we couldn’t find and heal him because the party was relying on Darkvision and couldn’t see or target the GS.

[ShadeRaven]

Just saying that there is a drawback to using the gloomstalker ability. Also this actually happened in a game where we had a GS and when they dropped due to AoE we couldn’t find and heal him because the party was relying on Darkvision and couldn’t see or target the GS.

That is not how invisibility work. Unless the target is taking a successful hide action to become hidden - you are perfectly aware of the location of an invisible creature. So it will stop Healing Word from targeting him, but Cure Wounds can target the GS just fine.

[Gignere]

That is not how invisibility work. Unless the target is taking a successful hide action to become hidden - you are perfectly aware of the location of an invisible creature. So it will stop Healing Word from targeting him, but Cure Wounds can target the GS just fine.

Yeah we were playing raw but no one prepared cure wounds we only had healing word, good berries and potions. The DM ruled that unless we had a light source we couldn’t find his mouth.

[JonBeowulf]

I'm petty AF, so I'd come back a truly min-max build if the DM and I couldn't come to an agreement.

"You think my gloom stalker ruined your plans? Watch this!" Then I'd see myself out.

Only if we couldn't come to an agreement. Not liking an agreement is not the same thing as not reaching one.

[PallyBass]

So I'm playing a gloom stalker Owlin (small version) ranger and we are now in a cave system. I'm taking point as scout and staying out the dim light emitted by the paladins lantern by about 10 feet.

Gloom Stalker allows me to be invisible to anyone who relies on dark vision to see in darkness. However, even with great stealth rolls, I'm constantly being "seen and targeted" by the creatures in the cave.

I've noted to the DM that I'm staying out of the light and get a "will you stop min/maxing" in response.

Do I just forget that part of the ability for gloom stalker or should I stand my ground?

"will you stop minmaxing" is a very concerning & upsetting response to your statement as it is an accusation in place of a explaination. You need to talk with the DM directly and ask why he said that. Also I am curious what were the enemies that were targeting you? Blindsense/tremorsense/very high perception might counteract your GS ability, but still the "will you stop minmaxing" comment feels to me like the DM is angry with you. Given the little information from your OP its possible there have been previous altercations, either of DM targeting you or of you perhaps upsetting the DM? Either way Communication is the key to resolving it; ask the DM how they feel about your character, why they accused you of minmaxing instead of responding to your query about your GS invisability being accounted for, tell them how you feel about what the DM said and how they acted, & then see if you can both compromise or reach some agreement. If the conflict is irreconcilable then leave the group.

[Skrum]

I didn't even have to read the post, I knew what this was about from the title. Something similar happened in the game I play in too; a player made a darkness/blind fight character, and the DM got pretty bent about it, far more than the mechanical impact warranted.

There's definitely something about the DM's forces not being able to see a PC that tends to set them off. It can feel like "cheating," as from the DM side it seems like a character is constantly attacking with advantage, and can only be attacked at disadvantage. It's strong.

But I really would advise all DM to take a breath before doing anything rash. These types of tactics are strong but far from unbeatable, and trampling on player agency can have severe consequences for the health of the game.

This DM is not reacting well, for sure. Starting with an out of game conversation is the way to go, and seeing where it goes from there.

[ShadeRaven]

I'd come back a truly min-max build

No build is truly min-max when the DM choses to disregard the rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

Player versus DM is a lose-lose proposition.
Coming to the internet to vent is fine, but you need to have a conversation with the DM about what you can do so that you don't feel that your fun is being harmed by his dislike for a given mechanic.
(As an example, I as a DM do not allow Artificers. I just don't like them. Your DM seems to dislike that feature of the Gloomstalker)

[Bacon Elemental]

Creature could have had blindsense or equivalent non-darkvision ESP I guess

[ShadeRaven]

Creature could have had blindsense or equivalent non-darkvision ESP I guess
An otherwise sound theory that does not explain the "will you stop min/maxing" response.

[Mastikator]

Honestly humanoid monsters could just carry torches, even if they have darkvision it still -5 passive perception with total darkness. Enemies should have a plausible reason to not carry or use torches. They're cheap, allow creatures to see normally and totally defeat anyone trying to hide using only obscurement from darkness.

[Samayu]

Just saying that there is a drawback to using the gloomstalker ability. Also this actually happened in a game where we had a GS and when they dropped due to AoE we couldn’t find and heal him because the party was relying on Darkvision and couldn’t see or target the GS.

Yeah we were playing raw but no one prepared cure wounds we only had healing word, good berries and potions. The DM ruled that unless we had a light source we couldn’t find his mouth.

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


First of all, when the GS went unconscious, he was no longer invisible. "Evading." That's a verb. It is not a passive magical effect. Second, even if he had still been invisible, you weren't using darkvision to find his mouth, you were using your hands. Unless you were applying the Goodberries with a ranged attack.

[Gignere]

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


First of all, when the GS went unconscious, he was no longer invisible. "Evading." That's a verb. It is not a passive magical effect. Second, even if he had still been invisible, you weren't using darkvision to find his mouth, you were using your hands. Unless you were applying the Goodberries with a ranged attack.

The ruling was since he was using the ability before he went unconscious it just continued. I mean if you don’t need to activate it it is passive. There isn’t even wording that the GS has a choice to be visible to creatures that rely on darkvision in darkness.

I don’t know but the ruling was good in the moment and it was quite tense, we thought it was fair. I mean it also works to his advantage since being invisible while unconscious means the mobs wouldn’t move in and kill him with auto crits.

As for feeding an invisible creature you have 6 seconds in a turn, do you think you can reasonably find an unconscious invisible creatures mouth and pop him a berry or potion. I mean we also felt the ruling here was fair too.

[MrStabby]

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


First of all, when the GS went unconscious, he was no longer invisible. "Evading." That's a verb. It is not a passive magical effect. Second, even if he had still been invisible, you weren't using darkvision to find his mouth, you were using your hands. Unless you were applying the Goodberries with a ranged attack.

What the hell has being a verb got to do with being conscious? I exist, even unconscious, and existing is a verb. I breath whilst unconscious, and breathing is a verb. If I am unconscious I can still fall off something, and falling is a verb...

If you can evade by staying very still and quiet, then something that helps you stay still and quiet doesn't seem like it should stop evasion.

[Segev]

What the hell has being a verb got to do with being conscious? I exist, even unconscious, and existing is a verb. I breath whilst unconscious, and breathing is a verb. If I am unconscious I can still fall off something, and falling is a verb...

If you can evade by staying very still and quiet, then something that helps you stay still and quiet doesn't seem like it should stop evasion.

It comes down to whether "evading creatures with darkvision" is actually magical invisibility, or if it's a trick of moving to avoid being seen. I have to say that it's probably magical invisibility, though, since it specifically says you're Invisible and things like see invisibility would let a darkvision-using creature see the Gloom Stalker. In which case, I agree: when he's unconscious, he's still Invisible to darkvision. Solution: use a torch or other light source.

[MrStabby]

It comes down to whether "evading creatures with darkvision" is actually magical invisibility, or if it's a trick of moving to avoid being seen. I have to say that it's probably magical invisibility, though, since it specifically says you're Invisible and things like see invisibility would let a darkvision-using creature see the Gloom Stalker. In which case, I agree: when he's unconscious, he's still Invisible to darkvision. Solution: use a torch or other light source.

I had put it down to something like darkvision picking up some specific tells about a creature's location and there would be very specific ways of positioning oneself to avoid being seen - still deeper shadows and so on, and that if you remained in that same spot you would be unseen.

From a rules perspective I would contrast it with things like the Paladin's aura of protection that highlights you must be conscious.

[Gignere]

I had put it down to something like darkvision picking up some specific tells about a creature's location and there would be very specific ways of positioning oneself to avoid being seen - still deeper shadows and so on, and that if you remained in that same spot you would be unseen.

From a rules perspective I would contrast it with things like the Paladin's aura of protection that highlights you must be conscious.

Who knows there isn’t enough fluff to say one way or another and could even be something as mundane as mud or a special concoction that the GS puts on their body everytime after they wash up (like in Predator) if this is the case than whether you are conscious or not it would work just fine hell may work better since you’re not moving at all.