D&D 5E Is It Impossible To Benefit From 'One With Shadows'?

[ThePolarBear]

None of my examples are flawed (at least from my point of view)

I'll point them out from RAW as i know it (and i might be wrong, see my question to Corwin later in the post). Obviously, i'm talking about RAW here since that is what the OP was about.

Case 1) "He can either try to hit something that might or might not be there." He knows the warlock is totally there. And it's not because the orc knows the warlock abilities, just because, by RAW, with the exception of DM ruling, taking the Hide action is the only way to make peeps lose sight and hearing and whatnot (yeah, EVEN blindsight, if it can apply) of you. So, he knows perfectly where you are. Still, invisibility, so the attack roll is at Disadvantage.

Case 2) "From the barbarian's perspective: A) the evil warlock disapeared" No, it turned invisible.
"He strikes where the warlock was last seen." No, he strikes where he knows the warlock is. See point 1)

Case 3) as said, rules for actions only apply for combat. There's no combat here. Flaw is NOT making the warlock roll for how well does he hide. The roll takes care of all the fun stuff that can happen, like a sneeze or a mouse coming out of his hole and having a nice bite at this invisible barrier that's blocking the exit. There's no fixed DC, you roll it. I might see a "passive" stealth difficulty, but that's not a fixed 13 but something that depends on your character (and that might be part of the original post and i might be misremembering)

Case 4) See point 3)

Btw, i'm not against houseruling and such. I've said how i would handle it (iirc, having stuff to do while posting is not the best for being consistent) but the thread is about how is written and if the OP is missing something.

He is not trying to sneak past anyone. He is just standing there, not moving, trying to breathe as silently as possible.
Does that count as a stealth check? Nope.

Yes, it does actually

Rules on invisibility are crappy at best so are the rules on perception vs sneak.

Agreed. Still prefer simple to uber complicated. i can get the "overcomplication" part myself

DM: You get in the room. You immediately notice an invisible sword on the ground. After all the sword can't take a hide action...

The Sword itself is houseruled, you can do whatever. By the way, it's not a creature, all rules for stealth do not apply.

Sometimes, the RAW is right. Sometimes the RAI is way better. It's a DM call to judge.

Yeah, agree. Still not the point of the thread

Once more, with feeling...

RAW is *actually* that the DM determines whether an invisible something/someone is: A) seen, B) unseen, or C) it is uncertain and a die roll is called for. *That* is RAW.

Can you please post a reference that's not rule 0? I agree DM can make rainbows out of beholder eyes, but i would love to know if i'm wrong by RAW and where. If you already posted it i have missed it and i'm sorry.

edit: Fixing all the quotes! And changing a part in point 3 since it does not make any sense!

 

[Corwin]

RAW is Rule As Written, which is independent of DM's determination. The rules are they they are regardless of the ruling the DM will make out of them. Barring any surpernatural means, you cannot see an invisible creature this with any kind of check but its location is otherwise not concealed unless it take the Hide action.

In order for this to be true, you must first prove that the DM does not determine whether an invisible thing is detected/not detectable/uncertain by the observer in the first place. Since that *is* step one by RAW. If you cut out step one, I suppose you could squint real hard and see it the way you present. But I find no beneficial reason to force out the DM's crucial role in the game.

Wait who let people see invisible creature with a check???

Do you generally find pedantry to be an effective tactic?

 

[Corwin]

Can you please post a reference that's not rule 0? I agree DM can make rainbows out of beholder eyes, but i would love to know if i'm wrong by RAW and where. If you already posted it i have missed it and i'm sorry.

PHB, page 6: How To Play.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Certainly not me.

I still find strange that you automatically knows the location of invisible objects/peoples/creatures if they are not hidden. You can't see them but you sure know where they are... In my head, this does not add up.

Me neither

Certainly not the most sensible rule applicable for everything that's for sure loll

 

[Plaguescarred]

How to Play are general guidelines on how the game plays and more specific rules cover what we're discussing here. Of course the DM can make whatever ruling he likes too.

Do you generally find pedantry to be an effective tactic?

I find important to use proper game terms when discussing rules. If you disagree with my post please address it. If you have a problem with me you can always block me if you don't like how i post i'm getting tired of these passive-aggressive behaviors toward me i've asked you already.

Just let's go back to bussiness shall we?

 

[Corwin]

I find important to use proper game terms when discussing rules.

I looked to see if "Seen" was a "proper game term", whatever that even means, and could not find anything. Please provide a link. There *is* a section on Unseen Attackers and Targets (PHB, pgs. 194-195) though. The first thing it says is...

Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

I think that's quite interesting. Don't you?

 

[Plaguescarred]

Unseen Attackers and Targets apply to anything that can't be seen, wether invisible, heavily obscured or blinded

I looked to see if "Seen" was a "proper game term", whatever that even means, and could not find anything.

I don't know where did you look as i was talking about it in context of invisible but here

Invisible: An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Sometimes I think that by trying to be too simplistic, the devs increased the complexity of the rules.

More like they realized the hiding rules are too complex and decided to just let the DM decide most things concerning it.

 

[Corwin]

I don't know where did you look as i was talking about it in context of invisible but here

Invisible: An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense.

So "seen" isn't an official game term? So my use of it in casual conversation mode to express my point worked? Because the intent of what I said was understood after all? Whew. That's a relief.

 

[Helldritch]

You might not see. But by strict RAW it does not matter anymore. You always know the exact location of invisible opponents if they are not hidden... /facepalm

Sometimes...