D&D 5E Invsibility vs Cloak of Elvenkind

[Hriston]

So the guard is alerted even on a success? What does the player have to do to make no noticeable sound at all?

IMC, the difference between making a noise that can be passed off as probably a squirrel and making no noise at all is negligible. Either can result from a successful attempt to hide. Neither would particularly alert a guard. I assume there's a noticeable difference between the type of sound made by small animals going about their business and the type of sound that alerts one to the presence of a creature that poses an actual threat.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I assume there's a noticeable difference between the type of sound made by small animals going about their business and the type of sound that alerts one to the presence of a creature that poses an actual threat.

I dunno, small animals going about their business can be very loud when they run or bound. But for the sake of moving the discussion forward, let's say you're right. Let's say a failed check represents the character making a sound a small animal wouldn't make, like snapping a mid-sized stick or clanking their armor or being a colossal idiot and saying something out loud. I think my point still stands. It's still a jump for the guard to conclude from hearing this that an invisible creature is around. And the cloak of elvenkind still doesn't seem to offer any improvement by allowing the wearer to pose as a rock: it's not like the guard is going to conclude, "Oh, it's just that large unfamiliar rock that snapped that stick/clanked/spoke aloud -- nothing to worry about!" If anything, upon hearing this, the guard is going to start looking at human-sized rocks and other plausible hiding places very suspiciously, even if in fact the source of the sound was an invisible creature standing in the open. A hidden threat is more likely than an invisible threat.

 

[Oofta]

In my campaign I will sometimes use degrees of failure for stealth checks. Running around the woods invisible? You have advantage. Fail by less than 10? Make another check - this time without advantage since the guards are paying specific attention to where you are.

But it's something I play by ear. A forest or a busy marketplace, I'll be a lot more lenient since there's going to be a lot of noise. Someone stepping on a branch isn't much different from a limb breaking off a tree.

Sneaking around in a quiet castle directly in front of some guards? No advantage. Accidentally slam a door after you got past the guards? Lot more likely to draw attention.

 

[Hriston]

Let's say a failed check represents the character making a sound a small animal wouldn't make, like snapping a mid-sized stick or clanking their armor or being a colossal idiot and saying something out loud. I think my point still stands. It's still a jump for the guard to conclude from hearing this that an invisible creature is around.

I realize you run things differently in your games, but in my games that's exactly what the guard must conclude. He knows a creature made the noise and that the noise had its origin in a particular space. Since the space seems to be empty, except perhaps for some weird footprints, the noisy creature must be invisible.

And the cloak of elvenkind still doesn't seem to offer any improvement by allowing the wearer to pose as a rock: it's not like the guard is going to conclude, "Oh, it's just that large unfamiliar rock that snapped that stick/clanked/spoke aloud -- nothing to worry about!" If anything, upon hearing this, the guard is going to start looking at human-sized rocks and other plausible hiding places very suspiciously, even if in fact the source of the sound was an invisible creature standing in the open. A hidden threat is more likely than an invisible threat.

The advantage of the cloak, in my opinion, is what happens when the guard tries to verify visually that there is a hidden creature present at the source of the sound. Let's say the guard's Perception score is 12, but the invisible creature only rolls 11 on its Stealth check. This is described as the creature losing its footing and kicking some loose stones, revealing its precise location. The guard trains his eyes in the direction of the falling stones, expecting to see the creature that made the noise, but sees nothing, which alerts him to the presence of an invisible foe.

On the other hand, the creature wearing a cloak of elven-kind rolls with advantage, resulting in a total of 14. The discarded roll was 7, so the same kicking of stones is described, but when the guard looks in the direction of the cascade of rocks at what he assumes to be the form of a hidden creature, he finds he is mistaken and that it is only a gnarled tree stump. He becomes uncertain of the direction from which the noise came and looks elsewhere for its source, since tree stumps don't usually miss their footing and cause stonefalls.

Basically, the guard is expecting to see a creature in a particular space. If the space looks empty, it is still possible the creature is there, only invisible. If the space is inhabited by a tree stump, then the creature cannot be there and must be elsewhere since two objects cannot inhabit the same space.

 

[Springheel]

Basically, the guard is expecting to see a creature in a particular space. If the space looks empty, it is still possible the creature is there, only invisible. If the space is inhabited by a tree stump, then the creature cannot be there and must be elsewhere since two objects cannot inhabit the same space.

So in your world invisibility is common but illusions are not? Why would the same guard not assume that there's a gnome hiding inside the illusion of stump? Or that a wizard just cast polymorph on himself? Or it's some kind of stump-monster?

 

[Hriston]

So in your world invisibility is common but illusions are not?

No, that isn't it at all. Invisibility is a type of illusion after all. And my ruling on this matter has nothing to do with how things work in any particular world in which my games are set. I didn't realize it myself until I wrote the words to which you are responding, but my ruling is based on a general observation about the real world, which is that, due in part to the Pauli exclusion principle, two solid objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. I would think this observation would hold true for most D&D worlds as well, barring some magical effect to the contrary of course.

Why would the same guard not assume that there's a gnome hiding inside the illusion of stump? Or that a wizard just cast polymorph on himself? Or it's some kind of stump-monster?

See, I think saying the guard is assuming the use of invisibility magic is the wrong way to go about it. The guard is assuming the presence of a creature he cannot see but can track through other senses, mostly hearing I would think. Because of the dominance of vision in the human(oid) brain however, by interposing visual information to the contrary, the cloak overrides the guard's other senses and makes him think what he would otherwise think was there is not there.

 

[Colder]

Have another wrench.

Cloak of Elvenkind still gives you advantage on stealth checks when the things you are trying to hide from would be detecting you by sound or smell.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Cloak of Elvenkind still gives you advantage on stealth checks when the things you are trying to hide from would be detecting you by sound or smell.

That's not "hiding". That's "moving silently" or "holding it in".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

No, that isn't it at all. Invisibility is a type of illusion after all. And my ruling on this matter has nothing to do with how things work in any particular world in which my games are set. I didn't realize it myself until I wrote the words to which you are responding, but my ruling is based on a general observation about the real world, which is that, due in part to the Pauli exclusion principle, two solid objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. I would think this observation would hold true for most D&D worlds as well, barring some magical effect to the contrary of course.

Are you saying that you personally, in the real world, if you heard a sound of a person moving but couldn't see anything where you thought the sound was coming from, would assume that there is an invisible person about? And that if you heard a person moving but saw a tree stump where you thought the sound was coming from, you would assume that it was the tree stump making those moving-person sounds and not be alarmed?

 

[Colder]

That's not "hiding". That's "moving silently" or "holding it in".

There don't seem to be any rules for that in the book. At least, those terms don't appear in the index. It seems to me that any attempt to avoid detection would be under the umbrella of "hiding." Otherwise, why even make it so invisibility grants you the ability to hide when you otherwise can't? You'd just be inherently hidden when you become invisible. There must be a nonvisibility component to hiding.