Would you allow this?

pemerton said:

Isn't that called making a DEX/Stealth check?

Click to expand...

In what version? 4e? 5e? One must assume you are talking about a non-casting Fighter, who has no spells prepared?

Les Moore said:

In what version? 4e? 5e?

Click to expand...

It's not true in either edition.

Arilyn said:

No. What I meant was that at a table which allows things like the wing example, there is usually collaboration. If a player suddenly declares that her fighter can now turn invisible, the other players, as well as the GM, as final arbiter, are going to pretty much say, "nice try, forget it." Players are good at recognizing what does or doesn't work for the story, and what is just abuse. And, of course, the GM has final word. It's really a minority of players who'll attempt to run amok, because a GM allows player input.

My logic and sense comment was directed toward that, not as an insult.

Click to expand...

Or option number 23. It was abuse but no one cared because they wanted the game to go on and this allowed it to.

In 4e there were the following paragon and epic tier rogue abilities, that required training in Stealth:


In 5e, I would imagine that this sort of thing would be resolved as a DEX/Stealth check, given that 5e doesn't have a distinct category of non-magical utility powers.

(In 4e, success on a Stealth check means "You are hidden, which means you are silent and invisible to the enemy": PHB 2, p 222.)

pemerton said:

In 4e there were the following paragon and epic tier rogue abilities, that required training in Stealth:

* You must already be hidden to use this power. You are invisible until you leave your current square. No other action that you perform makes you visible.

* You must already be hidden to use this power. You are invisible until the end of the encounter or until you end the effect by moving more than 2 squares in a turn or by making any other than a basic attack or an at-will attack.​

In 5e, I would imagine that this sort of thing would be resolved as a DEX/Stealth check, given that 5e doesn't have a distinct category of non-magical utility powers.

(In 4e, success on a Stealth check means "You are hidden, which means you are silent and invisible to the enemy": PHB 2, p 222.)

Click to expand...

The paragon or epic tier rogue abilities aside, there's more to it than "Making a Stealth check" in either edition. The check is not the action nor the result. It requires specific circumstances and actions which may or may not require a Dexterity (Stealth) check to resolve as determined by the DM.

iserith said:

The paragon or epic tier rogue abilities aside, there's more to it than "Making a Stealth check" in either edition. The check is not the action nor the result. It requires specific circumstances and actions which may or may not require a Dexterity (Stealth) check to resolve as determined by the DM.

Click to expand...

Casting a spell, or memorising/preparing one, also requires "specific circumstances and actions" which may need GM adjudication to resolve. Likewise the OP's suggestion that the player of a wingless or wing-scarred character might declare that those wings are magically regrown. That action in a RPG is in some fashion subject to adjudiction doesn't seem that significant a point.

pemerton said:

Casting a spell, or memorising/preparing one, also requires "specific circumstances and actions" which may need GM adjudication to resolve. Likewise the OP's suggestion that the player of a wingless or wing-scarred character might declare that those wings are magically regrown. That action in a RPG is in some fashion subject to adjudiction doesn't seem that significant a point.

Click to expand...

You're deliberately missing the point I think. An invisibility spell is intended to make you invisible. Stealth is not. Unlike the invisibility spell, to become invisible requires something beyond "make a stealth check." It requires an additional high level rogue ability for example. If the DM says, "make a stealth check" to a party consisting of a rogue, a paladin, a monk, a wizard and a cleric, the expectation is not that they all have the possibility of becoming invisible. The expectation is that they all have a chance to hide or be silent.

Yes, the 4e skill does use the phrase "invisible to the enemy," but in the context of stealth, it's not true invisibility and you know it. The hider is simply behind a box or not visible in some other manner consistent with hiding. Walk around that box and look, there the hider is, right in plain sight. Cast invisibility and you are invisible, even if standing in front of a person.

Maxperson said:

You're deliberately missing the point I think. An invisibility spell is intended to make you invisible. Stealth is not. Unlike the invisibility spell, to become invisible requires something beyond "make a stealth check." It requires an additional high level rogue ability for example.

Click to expand...

What edition are you referring to?

I already quoted the 4e rules for Stealh, and will quote them again (from PHB2, p 222): success on a Stealth check means "You are hidden, which means you are silent and invisible to the enemy". So it's not true, in 4e, that to become invisible requires something beyond successfully making a Stealth check.

In 5e, the rules for hiding don't use invisibility to describe success, but hiding remains a way for a character not to be noticed or seen by those who might be trying to see him/her.

Maxperson said:

Yes, the 4e skill does use the phrase "invisible to the enemy," but in the context of stealth, it's not true invisibility and you know it. The hider is simply behind a box or not visible in some other manner consistent with hiding. Walk around that box and look, there the hider is, right in plain sight. Cast invisibility and you are invisible, even if standing in front of a person.

Click to expand...

4e doesn't have a technical notion of "true invisibility". The Invisibility spell (6th level wizard) is an illusion effect that means "The target is invisible"; the warlock spell Eyebite is a charm effect that (if it hits) makes the caster "invisible to the target"; and hiding (by means of a Stealth check) is a ubiquitous ability that makes the hider "invisible to the enemy" s/he is hiding from. A hider might be camouflaged. Or have distracted the one they're hiding from (as discussed in the PHB and PHB2). Or behind a box.

If you're invisible (by whatever means) and not already hidden, you are entitled to try and become hidden (by a Stealth check - see PHB2 p 223).

Maxperson said:

If the DM says, "make a stealth check" to a party consisting of a rogue, a paladin, a monk, a wizard and a cleric, the expectation is not that they all have the possibility of becoming invisible. The expectation is that they all have a chance to hide or be silent.

Click to expand...

In 4e, making a Steatlh check is the possibility of becoming invisible.

In 5e, trying to become hidden is trying to be unnoticed/unseen. Can a person who hides behind a box walk out from behind it yet remain unseen and unnoticed? Whether by distraction, camouflage or some other technique? Presumably that is a matter for GM adjudication - the sidebar on p 80 of the SRD says "The GM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

Elfcrusher said:

Sure, the DM has veto rights (just like in the title of the thread), but the DM isn't the one creating the story. That's the point: the player is actively inventing elements of the campaign setting, related to but outside of the character. So the only difference between that and the thing Saelorn is saying he doesn't like is when it occurs.

Click to expand...

Close enough. I'd prefer if the DM handled the campaign elements, and the player only worried about how their character fits into that world; but the bigger point was that I prefer playing during the game, such that world creation be relegated to the pre-game (or otherwise away from the table). When you try to create setting elements during the game, it's hard to avoid meta-gaming (creating elements to promote certain goals), and it's just generally a huge mess.

Elfcrusher said:

EDIT: Wasn't it Saelorn who wrote, a couple of years ago in a thread about this sort of thing, that roleplaying a wood-elf would require asking "What would a wood-elf do in this situation?" That flabbergasted me.

Click to expand...

That sounds like something I would say. One of the huge benefits of traditional fantasy is that it's filled with a lot of tropes, and everyone playing the game is already aware of those tropes. Wood elves are their own trope, and they contain a number of sub-tropes like extended lifespan and living in trees, so it's an easy package to understand and access. If you're playing a wood elf, then half of your work in establishing that character is already done for you, and everyone at the table is already up to speed.

Tropes are a tool, and they're incredibly useful for conveying large amounts of information quickly, so discarding that tool is not something to be done lightly. It's always preferable to either embrace a trope or subvert it, than to ignore it outright. (IMO)

pemerton said:

What edition are you referring to?

I already quoted the 4e rules for Stealh, and will quote them again (from PHB2, p 222): success on a Stealth check means "You are hidden, which means you are silent and invisible to the enemy". So it's not true, in 4e, that to become invisible requires something beyond successfully making a Stealth check.

In 5e, the rules for hiding don't use invisibility to describe success, but hiding remains a way for a character not to be noticed or seen by those who might be trying to see him/her.

4e doesn't have a technical notion of "true invisibility". The Invisibility spell (6th level wizard) is an illusion effect that means "The target is invisible"; the warlock spell Eyebite is a charm effect that (if it hits) makes the caster "invisible to the target"; and hiding (by means of a Stealth check) is a ubiquitous ability that makes the hider "invisible to the enemy" s/he is hiding from. A hider might be camouflaged. Or have distracted the one they're hiding from (as discussed in the PHB and PHB2). Or behind a box.

If you're invisible (by whatever means) and not already hidden, you are entitled to try and become hidden (by a Stealth check - see PHB2 p 223).

In 4e, making a Steatlh check is the possibility of becoming invisible.

In 5e, trying to become hidden is trying to be unnoticed/unseen. Can a person who hides behind a box walk out from behind it yet remain unseen and unnoticed? Whether by distraction, camouflage or some other technique? Presumably that is a matter for GM adjudication - the sidebar on p 80 of the SRD says "The GM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

Click to expand...

Sure, I guess if you want to completely ignore context it makes you "invisible." For those of use who understand the rest of the stealth rules in the PHB which clearly show that you are not invisible, but merely out of sight, we understand that it's not the same as the spell. From the stealth rules.

"Becoming Hidden: You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you’re outside the enemy’s line of sight."

So you can become "invisible" if you are out of sight due to cover. But hey, feel free to keep doubling down on a position that isn't supported by the rules when you put the word "invisible" in the proper context.

Edit: The stealth "invisible" also fails to meet the 4e definition of invisibility. Specifically, it fails the first bullet point. The stealth rules specifically say that you can see the hidden target with normal forms of vision by simply having a high enough perception, and by pointing out that you must "stay out of sight."


INVISIBLE
✦ You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision.
✦ You have combat advantage against any enemy that
can’t see you.
✦ You don’t provoke opportunity attacks from enemies
that can’t see you.