D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[Uller]

So here is a question for the community: If a character is lightly obscured and has an ability that allows him or her to hide in light obscurement (say, the Skulker feat) do you apply disadvantage to the opposed perception checks? I don't. I figure that a character meeting the minimum requirements to hiding probably has disadvantage on the stealth check so the disadvantage for perception in dim light is a wash...

 

[Uller]

But it wasn't moving silently. It was a large, heavy creature engaged in melee in a stone tunnel. It wasn't moving or acting in a way that allows creatures to be hidden, and wasn't under a silence spell.

I don't think Crawford was in agreement with the DM in this scenario. He talked about swords hitting surrounding obstacles and other clues giving away locations in an active fight. If the invisible, silent creature was not fighting, then yes. But once it is swinging it's sword around and smashing things it's location would be known unless it moved away then stood still after every attack (effectively taking a 'hide' action). But then again...how would the party know it was fighting something physical and not just some "force". There is no sound, no visual queues. You just get "hit" by something.

 

[Maxperson]

But it wasn't moving silently. It was a large, heavy creature engaged in melee in a stone tunnel. It wasn't moving or acting in a way that allows creatures to be hidden, and wasn't under a silence spell. My point was that an invisible creature standing in front of you hitting you with melee attacks should just have the benefit of being invisible, not the benefit of being hidden because it isn't trying to hide. I think that was the distinction JC was trying to make in the podcast - stealth and invisibility are not the same, and invisibility should not by itself grant the benefits of stealth. My beef in the encounter I mentioned was that the DM, instead of just giving the shield guardian the standard benefits of invisibility, invented a new mechanic for combating invisible creatures which required us to pick a square to attack with disadvantage. If we hit something, we knew where it was for that turn and that turn only. The next turn it would move and the whole process of trying to locate it by targeting random squares started over again. He even ruled that being hit by it gave us no clue where the attack was coming from. I think he was just improvising to try to make the encounter work like he envisioned. He's a good DM. I just mentioned it because we had the encounter just a few days before I heard the podcast. I was contrasting Crawford's statement - that characters who are looking for an invisible creature will know its general location if it isn't trying to hide - with how my DM ruled that an invisible creature that isn't trying to hide is impossible to find unless you hit it with a weapon.

Okay. The way you stated it, though, made it seem like it was under a silence.

"I wish the DM who hammered away at us last weekend with the unseen, completely silent, unfindable shield guardian hadn't made us swing randomly at thin air until we got lucky and found it because he said invisibility made it impossible for us to know where it was."

As for invisibility in combat, it would very much depend on who was casting it. A wizard in robes is not going to be making more noise than a combat, so I would rule him hidden unless he was casting a spell or doing something else noisy. There's a reason why you can hear a combat from very far away. Weapons and armor clashing, people screaming and monsters roaring, etc., make a whole lot of noise. You aren't going to hear normal footsteps or swishing robes under those circumstances without a very, very good perception roll. An invisible person in full plate or a metal golem like creature? Sure, you'd hear that unless it had a silence spell or other reason why you'd miss it.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think Crawford was in agreement with the DM in this scenario. He talked about swords hitting surrounding obstacles and other clues giving away locations in an active fight. If the invisible, silent creature was not fighting, then yes. But once it is swinging it's sword around and smashing things it's location would be known unless it moved away then stood still after every attack (effectively taking a 'hide' action). But then again...how would the party know it was fighting something physical and not just some "force". There is no sound, no visual queues. You just get "hit" by something.

Crawford's wording was in agreement with the way I took @Volund's wording. He stated that you have a general idea of where an invisible creature us unless it has some sort of cover. A silence spell or other way to make that creature silent would be "some sort of cover" for an invisible creature.

 

[The Old Crow]

I dislike passive perception. I don't care how perceptive you are, you are not going to be on your A game 100% of the time. There will be times when you have the perceptive equivalent to a brain fart. I also don't care how imperceptive you are. There will be times when you have a perceptive flash of inspiration. Rolling is how that is accomplished. Passive perception is too unrealistic for me.

I think part of my problem with Perception is that people seem to notice things more when they fall into some area they are skilled in, so someone skilled in Stealth should know the tricks other sneaks might use and thus should have a better chance to spot them, someone with Arcana would have their eye drawn to signs of hidden magic, someone trained in thieves tools would know the best places to utilize them thus be better at finding traps, etc. Perception is a weird catchall to me, which I suppose is just there for simplicity. I have yet to grow comfortable with it.

 

[Satyrn]

I prefer my Barbarians to be Celts, you can't go wrong with a good Scottish Rager.

Dwarf barbarians, certainly.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

No. You can't hide while being observed and once you attack and are revealed, you are being observed.

There's no rule that says you can't hide while being observed. Plus the Skulker feat specifically allows you to attempt to hide as long as you are lightly obscured.

 

[briggart]

Because, historically, the barbarians were German and Germans have accents and speak a most gutteral language.

Not to mention Austria, where all true Cimmerians came from!

 

[Oofta]

There's no rule that says you can't hide while being observed. Plus the Skulker feat specifically allows you to attempt to hide as long as you are lightly obscured.

Page 60 basic rules, the DM has final say The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. and You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly,

Skulker just makes it easier to be not clearly seen.

 

[Lanliss]

Dwarf barbarians, certainly.

I am actually finding lately that I like Dwarves more with a Texan/Southern accent. Blasphemy, I know.