Sneaking Imp Chain Familiar vs the World: an analysis (data collected)

[Dr.Samurai]

That's precisely what Blind-Fighting is for as it specifically addresses what you are talking about, locating an invisible creature (or one you otherwise couldn't see) within 10 feet.

Tremorsense kind of helps with that too.

Blindsight is a suped up version of what your senses are already doing, so you can effectively see invisible people, meaning the penalties associated with Invisibility are negated (assuming the creature isn't hidden from you).

But even without Blindsight you know the square an invisible creature is standing in. But you suffer those penalties and cant' target them with anything that requires sight.

You're not taking a penalty to your other senses; you're taking a penalty to perceive the Imp at all

Question: Are you arguing that DMs are free to apply Advantage/Disadvantage as per the rules, or are you arguing that they should, and therefore the OP should?

precisely because one of your senses (and your main sense at that) is useless in that regard.

The game does not tell us that sight is your main sense. Invisibility makes the creature impossible to see, and yet does not impose Disadvantage to perceive the enemy, precisely because all your other senses are still working and are equally important. The creature has to hide from you.

You're assuming that the imp is somehow especially quiet or careful with their movements, etc., so that if you can't see it, it's harder to detect AND ALSO that vision is the "main sense". You brought up a fly earlier, but I can detect a buzzing fly long before I actually see it in the room. I can hear someone approaching my office before I can see them. I KNOW there's a mosquito in the room with me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spot it easily.

There is no "hearing check" on D&D, only a Perception check (and hiding would be a lot harder if you could make different checks for different senses, simply because you'd make a lot of checks and the odds of you rolling well on one of them would be a lot higher; and if you were going for that, you'd probably have to have different DCs as well for each sense, which would be a needless complication; much better to make it one check, and leave it up to the DM to decide whether having one sense unavailable should give disadvantage or not).

Invisibility does not impose Disadvantage on Perception checks. If it did, it would tell us. It's a condition that tells us what it does. And there ARE Perception checks that rely on sight or hearing, etc.

And if we're talking passive perception- well, that naturally involves all your senses, having one of them be useless should lower it. No one hires blind guards with the thought "well, they can still hear just as well, so they can tell if a burglar is coming anyhow".

You're giving vision double impact here. If someone is lightly obscured, you take a penalty to Perception checks THAT RELY ON SIGHT. If someone is heavily obscured, there is no Perception check that relies on sight, because vision is blocked. You are effectively blinded. And you're saying "well, you can't even use vision, and also we're going to add a penalty to Perception for you on top of that" despite the fact that you can make Perception checks that rely on other senses. In fact, you have to, because vision won't work.

Also, consider the implication in what you're saying. Imagine a castle guard standing at the window of the gate house. He's being vigilant, scanning the area outside. Little does he know that the party is nearly within reach, stealthily crawling past the window so he can't see them. According to what you're saying, because he can't see them, the guard should roll his Perception check with Disadvantage. Somehow, being unable to see them makes it harder to hear them crawling by, or smell the sewer stench since they made it this far by using the sewer system, etc. This means that being able to see someone matters more than being able to hear them.

Same thing with a stalking tiger in thick tall grasses. It is heavily obscured, so you can't see it, but it's stalking closer to you. According to what you're saying, you should have Disadvantage on your Perception check to hear it approaching, because you can't see it.

[Unoriginal]

You're assuming that the imp is somehow especially quiet or careful with their movements, etc., so that if you can't see it, it's harder to detect AND ALSO that vision is the "main sense".

Worth noting that 5e *does* say that invisible beings can always attempt to hide, meaning that the Imp can always try to be especially quiet or careful with their movements via a DEX (Stealth) check to be unheard as well as unseen.

But that's the one perk invisibility grants in that regard.

So we have a rough guide for hearing based wisdom checks or you know ...the DM could do what they are supposed to do and just stop assuming the rules are meant to be used to run the game at face value.

What would not running the game at face value look like, here?

[da newt]

Yup - RAW there is no advantage to hiding/stealth from being invisible (other than removing the cover requirement). Also, yup - that's completely illogical. The idea that a PC can track the location (square a creature is occupying) of an invisible creature during combat so effectively that they can target them at range is ludicrous.

People (and most mammals) are very dependent on their vision for locating and identifying creatures and objects. While it's true blind folks can wrestle at very high levels, they can't play basketball or hunt effectively.

Sure, if you are in fresh snow it's pretty easy to track an invisible person walking. Also in a quiet room, it's pretty easy to hear a mosquito or fly - but it's still neigh impossible to swat the little buggers if you can't see them. But the idea that you could determine that an invisible crow flew by is pure fantasy. Sure you might hear something, but I bet you $100 you couldn't point towards it or identify what it is.



But D&D is pure fantasy so ...

[Gignere]

Same thing with a stalking tiger in thick tall grasses. It is heavily obscured, so you can't see it, but it's stalking closer to you. According to what you're saying, you should have Disadvantage on your Perception check to hear it approaching, because you can't see it.

No we are saying that when there is dim light / lightly obscured and unless your guards are solely relying on hearing, which even in your examples aren’t solely relying on hearing, ie Tiger in the bushes you can still catch glimpses of it, the guards (or enemies) will have disadvantage applied to their passive and/active perception per RAW. It is not due to invisibility but due to the likely environments the imp is searching in that allows it a much better chance of going unnoticed.

The biggest reason an invisible imp can be better than a solo rogue going scouting is because of this lighting issue. Unless your DM doesn’t enforce it, even a rogue with darkvision without a light source you get disadvantage to see anything including traps and you’ll likely trigger the traps, unfortunately if you do decide to bring a light source you stand out like a light source in pitch darkness.

An imp has perfect darkvision and the fact it flies can usually circumvent traps and worse comes to worst it’s just an hour ritual to bring it back instead of a costly revivify or raise dead.

So it would be weird to not enforce disadvantage on perception checks to perceive an invisible imp when visual cues can be used to perceived invisible enemies like the invisible creature accidentally causing the curtains to ripple (failed stealth check) or leaves footprint in the dirt path (another potential failed stealth check). Unless you think narratively that there is 0 contribution from using sight to see an invisible creature I don’t see how they don’t get disadvantage on perception checks.

[Bobthewizard]

Imps are great scouts not because of their +5 stealth, which is ok but not great, but because they are the best disposable familiar. Compared to a PC, they can turn invisible, fly, and fit through tiny spaces. If they die, it only takes 10gp and 70 minutes to replace them. That's way better than a PC rogue.

If they get in danger, you can usually dismiss them before they get killed. Their 14HP means they can usually take a trap or maybe one attack, so they don't die right away, unlike an owl.

[Unoriginal]

Yup - RAW there is no advantage to hiding/stealth from being invisible (other than removing the cover requirement). Also, yup - that's completely illogical. The idea that a PC can track the location (square a creature is occupying) of an invisible creature during combat so effectively that they can target them at range is ludicrous.

The PC would be able to locate the 5ftx5ft square the creature is in, but targeting them would be at disadvantage.

But D&D is pure fantasy so ...

Indeed.

[stoutstien]

What would not running the game at face value look like, here?

The rules are the merely the starting point not rather the end goal. It's up to the DM to use the rules and thier own judgment on how those interact with each other and the world.

An invisible imp is just that. How loud is their wings? DM fiat. How smart are they regarding positioning? DM fiat. How aware of the possibility of invisible foes is each individual NPC? DM fiat. Can they hide in a fire and still see and hear without issues? DM fiat.

The rules aren't meant as some form of hard stop I which the DM/players are playing to.

[Millstone85]

To me, the main appeals of sending ahead a familiar instead of a PC are:

• The telepathic link: A familiar can immediately rely any information to the party.
• The pocket dimension: When discovered, a familiar can be dismissed to safety.
• The expendability: Should it be one-shot, a familiar is relatively easy to resurrect.

Then the imp is indeed overall or altogether better than other familiars.

[Dr.Samurai]

Worth noting that 5e *does* say that invisible beings can always attempt to hide, meaning that the Imp can always try to be especially quiet or careful with their movements via a DEX (Stealth) check to be unheard as well as unseen.

But that's the one perk invisibility grants in that regard.

Correct.

Yup - RAW there is no advantage to hiding/stealth from being invisible (other than removing the cover requirement). Also, yup - that's completely illogical. The idea that a PC can track the location (square a creature is occupying) of an invisible creature during combat so effectively that they can target them at range is ludicrous.

People (and most mammals) are very dependent on their vision for locating and identifying creatures and objects. While it's true blind folks can wrestle at very high levels, they can't play basketball or hunt effectively.

Sure, if you are in fresh snow it's pretty easy to track an invisible person walking. Also in a quiet room, it's pretty easy to hear a mosquito or fly - but it's still neigh impossible to swat the little buggers if you can't see them. But the idea that you could determine that an invisible crow flew by is pure fantasy. Sure you might hear something, but I bet you $100 you couldn't point towards it or identify what it is.

But this applies to like... all other aspects of the game too. No reason to single out the rules for Invisibility as especially unrealistic, when my fighter can swim through lava and survive to tell about it.

But D&D is pure fantasy so ...

Exactly right. In 5E, Invisibility is nice but it doesn't mean we don't know where you are without a successful Stealth check.

No we are saying that when there is dim light / lightly obscured and unless your guards are solely relying on hearing, which even in your examples aren’t solely relying on hearing, ie Tiger in the bushes you can still catch glimpses of it, the guards (or enemies) will have disadvantage applied to their passive and/active perception per RAW.

No.

What you are actually saying is "The Disadvantage imposed to Sight-based Perception checks due to light obscurement are still relevant even when you can't rely on vision."

And you can't catch glimpses of the tiger. It is heavily obscured. Vision is blocked. Creatures are effectively Blinded. Those are the rules.

It is not due to invisibility but due to the likely environments the imp is searching in that allows it a much better chance of going unnoticed.

Invisibility makes the sight-based perception irrelevant, barring sight based cues.

If you're in a dungeon with stone pavers, there might not be tracks. If the imp is flying, there definitely won't be tracks. But there's other stuff going on like breathing, beating its wings, opening a door around the corner, etc.

So it would be weird to not enforce disadvantage on perception checks to perceive an invisible imp when visual cues can be used to perceived invisible enemies like the invisible creature accidentally causing the curtains to ripple (failed stealth check) or leaves footprint in the dirt path (another potential failed stealth check). Unless you think narratively that there is 0 contribution from using sight to see an invisible creature I don’t see how they don’t get disadvantage on perception checks.

It would be weird to suffer Disadvantage on your Perception check to hear the imp open a door down the hall because it happened in Dim Lighting.

If we all agree that there are sight-based, smell-based, and hearing-based perception checks, this can all be handled appropriately.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It doesn't say it does, so it doesn't, by default. And I've never had a DM that gave advantage to hide or disadvantage to detect. Nor would I rule that way. And I would absolutely protest if a DM gave an auto-pass. Invisibility is already strong enough. It doesn't need extra power.

This is subject to judgement, and we should expect that different people will make different determinations, and many of those differing judgments will have equal validity.

Invisibility, is not just a spell, but also a Condition.
Your tendency to hold some animosity towards spells is showing, I am afraid.

I find it entirely reasonable for a DM to assess a negative five penalty to the Passive Perception of a creature whom lacking Keen Senses, is attempting to find an Invisible Creature that is actively trying to evade notice.

As an old school DM, Actively Searching in most games I run comes with the expectation of a brief indication by the player of how, and what they are searching, and not a mere die roll.

Spells do exactly and only what they say they do.

No, spells do not only have to do what they say they do.

I reject that formulation in it’s entirety, for my games.

The rules allow for ad hoc uses for spells, just as the rules allow for ad hoc uses for Attacks, or creating entirely new Actions.

Let us imagine, an example, of a player, whom desires to use a spell in a way that is not delineated clearly in the spell description, such as being able to use Plant Growth to quickly make a Topiary Statue.

There are many different ways one could adjudicate this; ranging from the DM “Just says no”, to a DM asking for an Arcana/ Spellcasting Ability Check, and other possible methods of resolution.

Spell Descriptions are not voluminous enough to provide concrete written guidance that handles all possibilities that might arise in play.

It, (moreover), would be impractical if spell descriptions did, and I would contend, firmly delineated, spellcasting with no possibility of ad hoc rulings impoverishes the game.

My experience has been players that have not been brought up in a culture of “Spells do what they say they do”, will often ask for small modifications to their spells.

TCoE, even goes so far as to state that complete customization of what a spell looks, sounds, and smells like is a viable option.

On a more general note, I think the discussion might be better served if we approach the conversation as a way of sharing our view of how detecting Invisible and Unseen creatures could proceed, as opposed to declaring that “This and only This, Is the Way”.

Detecting Hidden creatures is a hot button topic, as the rules allow for a multitude of assumptions. Three years ago, many posters would commonly claim that a creature that is not Hidden, even if Invisible, was automatically detected, as the game assumes that everything has Echolocation.

There is quite a bit of variance in adjudication, from Table to Table.

[Unoriginal]

The rules are the merely the starting point not rather the end goal. It's up to the DM to use the rules and thier own judgment on how those interact with each other and the world.

An invisible imp is just that. How loud is their wings? DM fiat. How smart are they regarding positioning? DM fiat. How aware of the possibility of invisible foes is each individual NPC? DM fiat. Can they hide in a fire and still see and hear without issues? DM fiat.

The rules aren't meant as some form of hard stop I which the DM/players are playing to.

Indeed, but I don't see why you are pointing it out.

The DM can always do things differently than from the books, that does not change that there is a point to analyzing what the books say.

Imps are great scouts not because of their +5 stealth, which is ok but not great, but because they are the best disposable familiar. Compared to a PC, they can turn invisible, fly, and fit through tiny spaces. If they die, it only takes 10gp and 70 minutes to replace them. That's way better than a PC rogue.

If they get in danger, you can usually dismiss them before they get killed. Their 14HP means they can usually take a trap or maybe one attack, so they don't die right away, unlike an owl.

To me, the main appeals of sending ahead a familiar instead of a PC are:

• The telepathic link: A familiar can immediately rely any information to the party.
• The pocket dimension: When discovered, a familiar can be dismissed to safety.
• The expendability: Should it be one-shot, a familiar is relatively easy to resurrect.

Then the imp is indeed overall or altogether better than other familiars.

I confess I am confused by those arguments.

While being easily recoverable and expendable are indeed nice perks, it does not really help the Imp with scouting.

That is to say, if your scout gets caught or killed, the sapient inhabitants of the scouted area will react to it, generally with some kind of 'we're now in high alert and know someone could have learned the measures we had set up" mobilisation.

[stoutstien]

Indeed, but I don't see why you are pointing it out.

The DM can always do things differently than from the books, that does not change that there is a point to analyzing what the books say.

It's not the analyzing of the book that is the issue. it's analyzing and adjusting play to fit the book that is.

I call it the grappling hook test. The game has a grappling hook but there isn't anything stating what it does past a blanket description. Do players ever use the grappling hook?

If your DM style means that that practically don't exist because the players have been trained to see the game as a series of rule gates then it's eventually going to fail because the rule structure isn't meant to handle the load. That's playing to rule.

[JonBeowulf]

I'm gonna completely ignore the debate on invisibility and direct your attention to Detect Evil and Good. My players did this once and wrecked the BBEG's ability to spy on them.

(They hit it with Faerie Fire then let the fighter shoot it out of the sky.)

Imp is situationally awesome... just like almost everything else in the game.

I call it the grappling hook test. The game has a grappling hook but there isn't anything stating what it does past a blanket description. Do players ever use the grappling hook?

In my experience, nope. The Rogue climbs the whatsit and secures a rope for everyone else to use.

[Unoriginal]

It's not the analyzing of the book that is the issue. it's analyzing and adjusting play to fit the book that is.

So you are saying that I should not continue my data analysis, because some DMs may follow what the books say on this topic?

[Dr.Samurai]

Is at-will Invisibility better than Expertise in Stealth? Or Dashing/Hiding as a bonus action? Or Reliable Talent? Proficiency in Thieves' Tools?

Is it better than an Arcane Trickster's spells and legerdemain? An Assassin's infiltration abilities? An Inquisitive's detection skills?

I'd argue that scouting in the game is pretty one-note if the answer is "yes".

[stoutstien]

So you are saying that I should not continue my data analysis, because some DMs may follow what the books say on this topic?

No. Nothing I've said actually addresses any of the stat block analysis past maybe overlooking keen hearing/smell.

My original comment was solely meant to point out the absence of codified non-sight rules mean that wisdom checks to detect stuff isn't something that can be ignored just because we don't have a table or rule.

[Millstone85]

I confess I am confused by those arguments.

While being easily recoverable and expendable are indeed nice perks, it does not really help the Imp with scouting.

That is to say, if your scout gets caught or killed, the sapient inhabitants of the scouted area will react to it, generally with some kind of 'we're now in high alert and know someone could have learned the measures we had set up" mobilisation.

Isn't that true no matter if your scout is a familiar or a PC? But with a familiar you never had to split the party.

[Dr.Samurai]

I imagine a rogue or monk or ranger would have plenty more options to react to being found out than an imp, and can impact an encounter if able to take advantage of circumstances.

[Unoriginal]

Isn't that true no matter if your scout is a familiar or a PC?

Yes, failing at the stealth step while scouting is not a good outcome.

My point is that "we don't have to do any effort if X fails at the stealth step" does not make X better at scouting.

[Millstone85]

Yes, failing at the stealth step while scouting is not a good outcome.

My point is that "we don't have to do any effort if X fails at the stealth step" does not make X better at scouting.

Call me pessimistic but no stealth modifier is going to make that an "if". So yes I would like an easy solution *when* the scout fails a stealth check.

I imagine a rogue or monk or ranger would have plenty more options to react to being found out than an imp, and can impact an encounter if able to take advantage of circumstances.

Alright, that's a good point. If discovered by a lone weak enemy, the rogue or monk or ranger could dispose of them before they can tell anyone. Or they could sweet talk their way out of the situation.

[Dr.Samurai]

It will be interesting to see if at-will Invisibility remains "superior" in these conversations over a better Stealth check if 1DND moves forward with gating Stealth behind a DC 15 check even before anyone rolls to spot you. Then it seems to me that a rogue with a superior Stealth mod will be more reliable and consistent, assuming there are places to hide along the way.

[diplomancer]

Question: Are you arguing that DMs are free to apply Advantage/Disadvantage as per the rules, or are you arguing that they should, and therefore the OP should?

I'm arguing that DMs are free to apply it, and that enough DMs will apply it, to the point that the OP, by discounting it entirely, is of very limited usefulness.

The game does not tell us that sight is your main sense.

It also doesn't tell us that sex makes babies. Still, it's reasonable to assume that sex makes babies, and that sight is the main sense of humanoids (and many other creatures, subject to DM's opinion on their anatomy and what it entails), unless specified otherwise.

Invisibility makes the creature impossible to see, and yet does not impose Disadvantage to perceive the enemy, precisely because all your other senses are still working and are equally important.

The first half of your sentence is true, the second is an invalid inference. I could just as easily infer that the game does not specify it exactly because it has to deal with the different senses of hundreds of different creatures, and that therefore the designers decided to leave it up to the DM.

Thinking more about it, giving ad hoc disadvantage (according to DM fiat) is also probably the best way to avoid metagaming, as the player is always rolling just one die and cannot therefore infer whether a weird creature has disadvantage or not.

The rules are the merely the starting point not rather the end goal. It's up to the DM to use the rules and thier own judgment on how those interact with each other and the world.

An invisible imp is just that. How loud is their wings? DM fiat. How smart are they regarding positioning? DM fiat. How aware of the possibility of invisible foes is each individual NPC? DM fiat. Can they hide in a fire and still see and hear without issues? DM fiat.

The rules aren't meant as some form of hard stop I which the DM/players are playing to.

Precisely. Even the size of the Imp (which definitely influences how much noise it makes) is left up to DM fiat.

If we all agree that there are sight-based, smell-based, and hearing-based perception checks, this can all be handled appropriately.

But can we also agree that there are Perception checks that are based on more than one sense? and that losing one of those senses, while keeping the others, makes those Perception checks harder, precisely because you can't use ALL of your senses to perceive it?

And anyhow, this is another thing the game does not tell us... which checks rely on which senses. It is, by desing, DM fiat.

snip.

Just wanted to say, I agree with your entire post.

The DM can always do things differently than from the books, that does not change that there is a point to analyzing what the books say.

Of course, the whole argument is whether the DMs who impose disadvantage on the Perception checks for perceiving invisible creatures ARE doing something different from what the books say. Specially since the books say that one of the DM's jobs is to determine whether circumstances call for Advantage or Disadvantage on a check. We're not talking here about DMs deciding Fireball is too powerful and homebrewing it to cause 6d6 fire damage instead of 8d6.

I confess I am confused by those arguments.

While being easily recoverable and expendable are indeed nice perks, it does not really help the Imp with scouting.

That is to say, if your scout gets caught or killed, the sapient inhabitants of the scouted area will react to it, generally with some kind of 'we're now in high alert and know someone could have learned the measures we had set up" mobilisation.

This is yet another area where heavy DM fiat is involved. Let's say the stealth check failed (with or without advantage/disadvantage, this is irrelevant for now). The consequences of that failure will vary wildly between a visible Medium Humanoid figure and an invisible tiny creature, unless the DM has a grudge against familiars. The Rogue who failed the Stealth check will probably be seen, and appropriate measures will be taken. The invisible Imp who failed the Stealth check will merely alert nearby creatures that there is something in the room. And before they can react to that, in most circumstances, the Imp will be able to relay the fact that he's been noticed to the Warlock, who can simply make him disappear with an action. In most cases, the sapient inhabitants of the scouted area will think, after they can't find anything there, "probably a rat", and go back to normal vigilance, specially if the area is dark.

Yes, failing at the stealth step while scouting is not a good outcome.

My point is that "we don't have to do any effort if X fails at the stealth step" does not make X better at scouting.

See above. The consequences of failing at the stealth step will be different, unless success at Perception automatically gives you full information on whatever it was that drew your attention (which it shouldn't, specially if what drew your attention is actually invisible).

[Unoriginal]

Call me pessimistic but no stealth modifier is going to make that an "if". So yes I would like an easy solution *when* the scout fails a stealth check.

I am surprised by that assertion.


What makes you think a scout's stealth will never be enough to avoid detection all the way in the area to scout?

[Millstone85]

I am surprised by that assertion.

What makes you think a scout's stealth will never be enough to avoid detection all the way in the area to scout?

Even if the scout is extraordinarily lucky with the die, there ought to be a moment when the DM will decide to have the party interact with the locals.

Or do you "scout" just around the corner? Then yes send whoever has the best stealth.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm arguing that DMs are free to apply it

I don't think anyone is arguing against this, though please correct me if I'm wrong.

and that enough DMs will apply it, to the point that the OP, by discounting it entirely, is of very limited usefulness.

I disagree. The OP is useful precisely for the conversation we are having.

There's a world of difference between:

Imps make convenient scouts

AND

Imps are superior scouts to rogues if you assume all Perception checks are default sight-based checks, AND THEREFORE most DMs will add Disadvantage to Perception checks to perceive it while Invisible as an added penalty to the condition, AND ALSO Imps are natively the size of a normal half inch house spider, and won't make any noise while moving.

That's a set of assumptions that are useful to know when talking about familiars replacing rogues as scouts.

It also doesn't tell us that sex makes babies. Still, it's reasonable to assume that sex makes babies, and that sight is the main sense of humanoids (and many other creatures, subject to DM's opinion on their anatomy and what it entails), unless specified otherwise.

It's not reasonable, for the reasons already given numerous times on how Invisible, Blinded and Hidden work.

The first half of your sentence is true, the second is an invalid inference. I could just as easily infer that the game does not specify it exactly because it has to deal with the different senses of hundreds of different creatures, and that therefore the designers decided to leave it up to the DM.

Thinking more about it, giving ad hoc disadvantage (according to DM fiat) is also probably the best way to avoid metagaming, as the player is always rolling just one die and cannot therefore infer whether a weird creature has disadvantage or not.

It's invalid because you want it to be. If sight worked the way you think it does, I wouldn't be able to walk up to an invisible creature and attack it. Because literally, as per RAW, it is impossible to see. But without a Perception check, or special senses, or anything, I can walk up to an invisible creature and still target it with an attack. I can grab it with an Athletics check and drag it around or Shove it back, etc. Because even though I can't see it, I know exactly where it is. With my other senses.

Precisely. Even the size of the Imp (which definitely influences how much noise it makes) is left up to DM fiat.

I find this to be an incredibly weak argument. It's a coincidence that artists seem to all draw the imp at roughly the same size. But here we are, pretending that it's actually orders of magnitude smaller than that because... the books don't say!

But can we also agree that there are Perception checks that are based on more than one sense? and that losing one of those senses, while keeping the others, makes those Perception checks harder, precisely because you can't use ALL of your senses to perceive it?

Why would it make it harder though? You just need to detect it, you don't need to see it.

This is like saying it is harder for me to tunnel under the castle wall because the defenders have fortified the portcullis. It's like... one has nothing to do with the other. Either I can hear the imp, or see it's tracks, or I can't. But it being invisible has nothing to do with either of those things.

And anyhow, this is another thing the game does not tell us... which checks rely on which senses. It is, by desing, DM fiat.

Sure, and if the DM has to decide everything in your favor for your strategy to be superior, then that is good to know.

This is yet another area where heavy DM fiat is involved. Let's say the stealth check failed (with or without advantage/disadvantage, this is irrelevant for now). The consequences of that failure will vary wildly between a visible Medium Humanoid figure and an invisible tiny creature, unless the DM has a grudge against familiars. The Rogue who failed the Stealth check will probably be seen, and appropriate measures will be taken. The invisible Imp who failed the Stealth check will merely alert nearby creatures that there is something in the room. And before they can react to that, in most circumstances, the Imp will be able to relay the fact that he's been noticed to the Warlock, who can simply make him disappear with an action. In most cases, the sapient inhabitants of the scouted area will think, after they can't find anything there, "probably a rat", and go back to normal vigilance, specially if the area is dark.


See above. The consequences of failing at the stealth step will be different, unless success at Perception automatically gives you full information on whatever it was that drew your attention (which it shouldn't, specially if what drew your attention is actually invisible).

If either scout is found out, Initiative is rolled. If Imp loses initiative, the defenders might reach it and kill it. I'm away from books, but I believe that is the entire point of using Stealth and determining which group is aware of the other. Initiative is rolled and Surprise, if any, is determined. You don't get to just bamf out of the area because the defenders are aware of you.

[Gignere]

If either scout is found out, Initiative is rolled. If Imp loses initiative, the defenders might reach it and kill it. I'm away from books, but I believe that is the entire point of using Stealth and determining which group is aware of the other. Initiative is rolled and Surprise, if any, is determined. You don't get to just bamf out of the area because the defenders are aware of you.

Not sure what DM you play with but failed stealth checks doesn’t automatically lead to initiative checks. If your DMs or you rule that way it’s way better to send the familiar than the P.C. because you’ll have a lot of dead PCs if failed stealth checks is auto initiative. God just the number of times a rogue would need to roll stealth through a whole dungeon would lead to likely many auto initiatives. If this is the ruling at your table I would never scout with my P.C. if I was playing at your table.

[Unoriginal]

Even if the scout is extraordinarily lucky with the die, there ought to be a moment when the DM will decide to have the party interact with the locals.

So you're saying that attempting to scout an area will result in the DM making the attempt fail even with no check failures?

[diplomancer]

I don't think anyone is arguing against this, though please correct me if I'm wrong.

I disagree. The OP is useful precisely for the conversation we are having.

I'm not saying the thread is useless. I'm saying that the very long table of percentages will vary a lot from table to table, and that ignoring that fact makes it bad information.

There's a world of difference between:

Imps make convenient scouts

AND

Imps are superior scouts to rogues if you assume all Perception checks are default sight-based checks, AND THEREFORE most DMs will add Disadvantage to Perception checks to perceive it while Invisible as an added penalty to the condition, AND ALSO Imps are natively the size of a normal half inch house spider, and won't make any noise while moving.

Please avoid putting words in my mouth. Yes, I believe most DMs will do what I suggest (actually, most of them give advantage without thinking too much about it, even though, technically, it's more appropriate to give disadvantage to perceive for creatures that rely mostly on sight). All the other stuff you said I merely mentioned that it will vary from table to table.

It's invalid because you want it to be. If sight worked the way you think it does, I wouldn't be able to walk up to an invisible creature and attack it. Because literally, as per RAW, it is impossible to see. But without a Perception check, or special senses, or anything, I can walk up to an invisible creature and still target it with an attack. I can grab it with an Athletics check and drag it around or Shove it back, etc. Because even though I can't see it, I know exactly where it is. With my other senses.

If you can tell where it is. Nowhere does it say you automatically know it, only that you can know it. PCs don't have automatic echolocation.

I find this to be an incredibly weak argument. It's a coincidence that artists seem to all draw the imp at roughly the same size. But here we are, pretending that it's actually orders of magnitude smaller than that because... the books don't say!

Hey, you're the one making arguments that start from "the books don't say". What's good for the goose and all that. As to artists depictions... well, not only is THAT a terrible argument, but artists have other goals when they make their art: for instance, showing off their capabilities, which would not be very good if Imps were fly-sized and you were drawing it next to a Humanoid.

Sure, and if the DM has to decide everything in your favor for your strategy to be superior, then that is good to know.

The DM should decide it appropriately, according to how he believes other creatures would react, without metagaming. Yes, this favours the invisible tiny familiar over the medium visible humanoid. Tough luck. But yes, if your DM hates familiars and metagames it, don't play a Pact of the Chain Warlock, you'll be very frustrated.

If either scout is found out, Initiative is rolled. If Imp loses initiative, the defenders might reach it and kill it. I'm away from books, but I believe that is the entire point of using Stealth and determining which group is aware of the other. Initiative is rolled and Surprise, if any, is determined. You don't get to just bamf out of the area because the defenders are aware of you.

So, the Warlock is in touch with the Familiar (or he should). And he CAN dismiss it as an action. So at the very least he gets to roll initiative as well, and it's easy enough to optimize for initiative, and the party can boost it further.. If the Warlock beats the initiative, combat is over, and the enemies have no idea what was there, even if DM DOES give them echolocation. The same is not the case if the Rogue wins initiative, as he was seen, and enemies will probably pursue him and raise an alarm.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

You know, this reminds me of a lovely White Wolf game I was playing in. Situation occurred where two PCs, 1 Hunter and 1 still normal person Police Officers were investigating a crime scene and saw another PC Mage do something sketchy, during the argument guns were drawn and the Mage says "I go invisible and run." To which the other two declared they fired at the mage. They were given penalties because they couldn't precisely pinpoint the target but they still got to shoot and the mage got shot.

Mage complained heavily that since they couldn't see him it should be okay. ST just ruled that they were able to hear footsteps, see dust and takes a guess, hence the penalty.

Same here with how Invisibility imposes disadvantage but doesn't prevent attack rolls.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not sure what DM you play with...

Certainly not one that gives every advantage imaginable to caster players, that's for certain.

Hey everyone, take a look at my imp familiar. Oh wait... let me get my magnifying glass so you can see it lol.

Yeah, I'm not sure what DM you guys play with either so all good.

but failed stealth checks doesn’t automatically lead to initiative checks.

I'll have to check the books, as I said, I may be remembering incorrectly.

But it's not clear to me how else this gets adjudicated. If the monsters don't attack and instead want to parlay, sure, no need for initiative, but no danger to the scout either.

But if we're talking about the scout getting merc'd, then how else does this happen? People don't get free attacks in 5E before combat starts. Initiative is rolled when there are hostilities. If you're detected by hostile mobs, I'm not sure how you just get to teleport away. But I am open to being wrong.

If this is the ruling at your table I would never scout with my P.C. if I was playing at your table.

Sure but, as you can imagine, I wouldn't want to play at your table where casters get to do everything because it's "optimal". Sounds pretty boring to me.