D&D 5E Do you know a creatures location if they are in heavy concealment but not actively hiding and other location questions

[Limond]

Say there is a group of monsters in heavy concealment that you are looking into. The creatures are not actively hiding.

Do you know the precise location of them because although they are unseen they are not unheard.

Basically I'm wondering if you always know the location of a creature that isn't actively hiding.

 

[Hriston]

Yes, if the creatures are not trying to be stealthy, then they are noticed and their location is known.

 

[mellored]

Yes. Though it would be a pretty fair assumption to assume creatures out of combat spent an action to hide at some point.

 

[Jester David]

You know the location (i.e. the exact space/ square) but have disadvantage attacking, because you cannot see them clearly.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There's no automatic answer. A creature doesn't have to be intentionally hiding to be undetected, especially if unseen. Use some common sense. However, in general, if the creature is engaged in activity -- fighting, talking, etc. -- then their location would be known, but they would be still be unseen. In combat, it's usually best to have creatures be detected unless they are taking the hide action to prevent it (and meet the criteria). Outside of, or before combat, it's a rulings issue -- the DM should use common sense and the situation to determine what the answer is. A non-active creature in deep foliage during a rainstorm? I'd set a high DC to notice without a hide check. Hide checks would get advantage, perception would be disadvantaged, etc.

On a side note, if the looking party is distant from the obscured party, say 100+ yards, sight is really the only means of detection and it would be impossible to detect the creature absent extreme activity.

If pressed to set a DC, I'd use the creature's passive stealth with disadvantage (so 5+DEX(hide)) as the baseline, modify for external conditions, and check against player's passive perceptions with disadvantage (lack of sight is a big blow, so unless they have class or racial abilities to offset, I tend to have perception rolled at disadvantage when sight can't help).

 

[Flamestrike]

There's no automatic answer. A creature doesn't have to be intentionally hiding to be undetected, especially if unseen.

That might be so in corner cases, but (for example) being invisible doesnt make you hidden; it just enables you to take the Hide action at will.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That might be so in corner cases, but (for example) being invisible doesnt make you hidden; it just enables you to take the Hide action at will.

If you're invisible and a mile away, I'd say you don't really have to hide, even on a sunny day in open fields. Now, running through waist high grass might be a give-away, even at that distance if the observer had some height. As I said, it's a matter of common sense and judgement.

Now, in combat? Yeah, unless you're hiding you're noticed. Invisible doesn't make you hidden. But out of combat, it becomes much more of a judgement call. One should err on the side of noticeable, but it's not a given.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you're invisible and a mile away, I'd say you don't really have to hide, even on a sunny day in open fields.

Again, corner cases.

If youre hiding behind a pillar a mile away from somone I wouldnt call for a Stealth check there either.

Now, in combat? Yeah, unless you're hiding you're noticed. Invisible doesn't make you hidden. But out of combat, it becomes much more of a judgement call. One should err on the side of noticeable, but it's not a given.

Yeah agreed. Applying common sense (with the default being 'noticed unless youve taken the Hide action') is the way to go.

 

[Shiroiken]

Hidden requires you to actively hide (i.e. use an Action). If you are not Hidden, but otherwise unseen, your general position is known (i.e. your space in combat). It makes you harder to be targeted (generally Disadvantage), but not impossible (depending on the effect - many spells require you to see the target).

To use your example, I'd say that the party would know SOMETHING is there, but not what (unless a specific sound or smell gives it away). Realize the reverse is true: if the party is not actively hiding, then the monsters would know the party is there too (assuming the obscurement was between both).

 

[Prakriti]

You know the location (i.e. the exact space/ square) but have disadvantage attacking, because you cannot see them clearly.

This is correct, but I've never liked it, to be honest. I assume it was done as a concession to theater-of-the-mind players, because it's too difficult to telegraph an invisible opponent's general location and then determine if the player is swinging at the right spot without a grid. Whereas with a battle-map, you can very easily say, "You hear the wizard's footsteps move a few paces to your right," and the player can point at the exact square that they are attacking.

The only time I would handle it differently is in terrain where a person's footsteps leave very obvious impressions: snow, mud, etc.