D&D 5E Totally underwhelmed by 5e bladesinger, am I missing something?

[Helldritch]

I know we agree on the substance of the ruling, but the thing is--I don't agree that 5E rules even require this in the first place. Nowhere in the PHB does it ever define "hidden" as "has successfully taken the Hide action."

I agree with you on that. Yet, it might be argued that by not stating the reverse, the rules are implying that no hide action = not hidden. Period. That seems to be what the proponents of strict rulings are defending. The hulking crab is a good example.

The Hide action is a generic "do something to quickly hide in shadows/move silently" affordance that handwaves the question of "what exactly are you doing to become hidden?". It's designed to make things simple and quick during combat. It's not the only way to become unseen, unheard, or unnoticed, i.e. "hidden".

Again I fully agree with you. Then again, the rule side seems to push toward the reverse. By claiming action economy, it is doing the opposite. A static DC to see/perceive the position of an invisible foe is more elegant and promotes more actions and more suspense than what is proposed by the strict ruling.

This rule, more than any other bring quite a number of posts in which about 50% are for the strict ruling and 50% are against it. At least we are constant on our position. Neither position is better than the other. It all depend on the style of play that you want to bring at your table.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree with you on that. Yet, it might be argued that by not stating the reverse, the rules are implying that no hide action = not hidden. Period. That seems to be what the proponents of strict rulings are defending. The hulking crab is a good example.

But you can't write rules for situationally-specific actions into the PHB. There is no "cover someone with mud to impose DC 20 Perception checks against Predator vision" action listed in the PHB, not because that action isn't possible but because it isn't generic enough to put in the PHB. But the PHB does emphasize that such things are possible!

[h=2]Actions in Combat[/h]When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the GM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

Emphasis added.

The rules explicitly tell you that you can attempt anything you want, and that the DM/GM tells you how that action works. The rules do not imply that Push is the only way to make someone prone, they do not imply that Hide is the only way to become hidden, and they do not imply that Dash is the only way to increase your movement. Push/Hide/Dash are simply generic actions that are universal enough to be worth putting into the PHB.

The "strict" interpretation of the PHB does not bar improvised actions. If someone reads the PHB to say that "only these actions listed in the PHB are possible," they are reading it wrong.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you go strickly by the rules you are wrong. That is why you can enter in a room and say:"Hey! An invisible magical longsword is in that room. How do I know? It did not take the hide action so it is not hidden and I perfectly know where it is. The PHB says so..."

Longswords dont (and cant) take the Hide action.

When your argument is based in absurdity to make sense, this should give you some indication of how wrong you are.

An invisible longsword in a room has a Search/ Perception DC assigned by the DM, just like a trap or any other hard to locate/ percieve object in the game.

Now sarcasm off. Of course the hidden rule is relatively simple to understand and I believe that we all do but it does not make logical sense.

Yes, it does. As long as you remember combat is simultaneous and work with the assumption that creatures rely on more than just direct visual observation of a creature to detect where it is.

Smell (how often do your PCs shower anyway?), sound (all that armor and weapons and components and other junk jangling around), external visual disturbances and signs of passage (footprints in carpet, grass, mud or dirt, swirling debris and smoke or fog as you move or giant gaping holes in them as you stand there, creaking floorboards, branches being pushed back, doors opening and closing etc etc), touch (youre hiding in combat and likely trading blows/ parrying attacks that get close to you and not standing there like a grinning idiot, knocking away attacks, brushing up against people etc) and other senses are all equally valid.

It makes far more sense to allow wild swings in an invisible creatures general direction (i.e. at disadvantage) when that invisible creature has made no other efforts to conceal itself (moving silently, muffling and concealing traces of its passage, staying downwind etc).

Even then, after casting invisiblity (assuming it takes your action and you also lack the ability to Hide as a bonus action) there is only a second or so in a window of opportunity to make such a wild attack (at disadvantage) before the invisible creature can try to Hide on its next turn. And even if it fails, it can retry the next round. And the next. And the next. And so on.

If I go straight by the rules, an opponent using improved invisibility in a silenced zone will be steadily attacked (with disadvantage) by his ennemy simply because he did not use the hide action.

Exactly. So take the bloody Hide action like anyone else that cant be seen (like those in total cover or heavy obscurement or simply in a creatures blind spot subject to DM fiat for the latter).

Its not my fault if your Wizard dumped Dex and never got proficiency in Stealth. Hes a clutz who makes a lot of noise and isnt switched on enough to cover his tracks, stay downwind of his targets or muffle those darn jangling components as we loudly stumbles around.

In any other system if I were the enemy of the invisible wizard, I would be toast but in 5ed, by strict use of the rule, I'll just have disadvantage to hit.

Blame the Wizard for not making any effort (the Hide action) to conceal himself. His footprints in the carpet, heavy breathing, jangling of his spell components, brushing up against you as he moves around, the smell of his sweat and grime and spell components give him away. He's making zero effort to conceal any of these by not taking the Hide action.

He may be unseen, but he's not unheard (or impercieveable). Remember Hidden is both unseen AND unheard (and not giving away any other signs of your passage). Untill he takes the Hide action, he is only unseen. The game assumes that other signs of his passage (mainly noise, but also scent, footprints in the dust/ dirt/ carpet/ mud, a human sized shillouette in the smoke of the lantern and the ebbying smoke swirling around him etc) are detectable by an alert opponent unless and untiill he takes the Hide action.

When a rule is badly written, you have to use your logic.

Its not badly written. You're just using bad logic and a weak imagination.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If I go straight by the rules, an opponent using improved invisibility in a silenced zone will be steadily attacked (with disadvantage) by his ennemy simply because he did not use the hide action.

Exactly. So take the bloody Hide action like anyone else that cant be seen (like those in total cover or heavy obscurement or simply in a creatures blind spot subject to DM fiat for the latter).

Its not my fault if your Wizard dumped Dex and never got proficiency in Stealth. Hes a clutz who makes a lot of noise and isnt switched on enough to cover his tracks, stay downwind of his targets or muffle those darn jangling components as we loudly stumbles around.

So, not to jump in here and cause a ruckus, but your logic either ignores physics or ignores what he said.

Invisible Wizard in a zone of silence standing still. Let's assume, for the sake of argument that he did this before your barbarian charged into the seemingly empty room.

"Hes a clutz who makes a lot of noise" you said, but zone of silence means he makes zero noise. Same with those jangling components.

"stay downwind of his targets" you said, but he doesn't have to consider his position to hide, he can just hide. So suddenly that pungent scent that lets someone know where he is within 5 ft (very impressive for someone's sense of smell) vanishes out of the air.... as the wizard does what exactly? Take a six second bath with no soap and water? If that is your explanation it makes no narrative sense.

The only possible thing is covering his tracks... which again the use of the hide skill doesn't require. After all, he doesn't have to move, so he doesn't have to sweep up the dust that he walked through and obliterate the tracks.


This is why this discussion is taking place, invisible in a silent zone with no hide skill can be pinpointed, but there is no explanation of why that doesn't require the invisible character to do something incredulous by taking the hide action while standing still to no longer be pinpointed.

I still wonder about the fact that multiple invisible things, moving all within 6 seconds but not hiding, all are tracked with perfect precision. Movies that show a single invisible opponent make it clear how confusing it is to fight something you can't see, and multiple things you can't see would logically obfuscate the situation enough to confuse the adventurer, wouldn't it?

 

[Mort]

So, not to jump in here and cause a ruckus, but your logic either ignores physics or ignores what he said.

Invisible Wizard in a zone of silence standing still. Let's assume, for the sake of argument that he did this before your barbarian charged into the seemingly empty room.

"Hes a clutz who makes a lot of noise" you said, but zone of silence means he makes zero noise. Same with those jangling components.

"stay downwind of his targets" you said, but he doesn't have to consider his position to hide, he can just hide. So suddenly that pungent scent that lets someone know where he is within 5 ft (very impressive for someone's sense of smell) vanishes out of the air.... as the wizard does what exactly? Take a six second bath with no soap and water? If that is your explanation it makes no narrative sense.

The only possible thing is covering his tracks... which again the use of the hide skill doesn't require. After all, he doesn't have to move, so he doesn't have to sweep up the dust that he walked through and obliterate the tracks.


This is why this discussion is taking place, invisible in a silent zone with no hide skill can be pinpointed, but there is no explanation of why that doesn't require the invisible character to do something incredulous by taking the hide action while standing still to no longer be pinpointed.

First, I'd like to point out that the silenced, invisible mage will be rare in 5e (much much rarer than 3e) because both spells require concentration - as such either the invisibility or the silence would have to be cast by someone else (or perhaps the mage is using an item can't recall, without the books, if such items require concentration).

Regardless though, If someone is standing invisbly and in a silent zone and taking no other action then they are trying to hide! Hard to interpret it as anything else! If they do take an action (especially an agressive action such as attack) then they should be detectable (that's one reason a high level arcane trickster can be so nasty, improved invisibility, sneak attack, hide as a bonus action - repeat).

I still wonder about the fact that multiple invisible things, moving all within 6 seconds but not hiding, all are tracked with perfect precision. Movies that show a single invisible opponent make it clear how confusing it is to fight something you can't see, and multiple things you can't see would logically obfuscate the situation enough to confuse the adventurer, wouldn't it?

They are not tracked with perfect precision. The adventurer has a general idea where they are and has to guess when attacking them - hence disadvantage. If the invisible things make an effort to hide - then it becomes that much harder to even find them - a group of greater invisible rogues (or other creatures that can hide as a bonus action) would be very, very dangerous.

I guess the thing that's confusing me is the "an invisible person is undetectable" assertion - they're not undetectable, you just can't see them. If they don't otherwise conceal their presense they can still be detected (albeit not as easily).

As for the "there are other ways to hide..." arguments - well sure - and you can rule on those conditions as they come up (like the invisible wizard standing in a zone of silence) - but you have to establish some kind of baseline. This is what the rules clearly do. The baseline is: Invisibility allows you to always try to hide- it doesn't make hiding a free (or no) action.

 

[Chaosmancer]

First, I'd like to point out that the silenced, invisible mage will be rare in 5e (much much rarer than 3e) because both spells require concentration - as such either the invisibility or the silence would have to be cast by someone else (or perhaps the mage is using an item can't recall, without the books, if such items require concentration).

Regardless though, If someone is standing invisbly and in a silent zone and taking no other action then they are trying to hide! Hard to interpret it as anything else! If they do take an action (especially an agressive action such as attack) then they should be detectable (that's one reason a high level arcane trickster can be so nasty, improved invisibility, sneak attack, hide as a bonus action - repeat).





They are not tracked with perfect precision. The adventurer has a general idea where they are and has to guess when attacking them - hence disadvantage. If the invisible things make an effort to hide - then it becomes that much harder to even find them - a group of greater invisible rogues (or other creatures that can hide as a bonus action) would be very, very dangerous.

I guess the thing that's confusing me is the "an invisible person is undetectable" assertion - they're not undetectable, you just can't see them. If they don't otherwise conceal their presense they can still be detected (albeit not as easily).

As for the "there are other ways to hide..." arguments - well sure - and you can rule on those conditions as they come up (like the invisible wizard standing in a zone of silence) - but you have to establish some kind of baseline. This is what the rules clearly do. The baseline is: Invisibility allows you to always try to hide- it doesn't make hiding a free (or no) action.

I tend to agree with your close, but the point people have been trying to make is the baseline is weird in some of these cases. The silence is just to represent no audio clues. It could easily be an invisible wizard standing in the bell tower of a cathedral, or on the walls of a castle during a siege. Invisible means limited to no visual cues, loud backgrounds or silence zones mean little to no audio cues, the only senses you have left don't exactly lend themselves to the narrative of the story.

That wizard taking no actions is not hidden, therefore as soon as someone enters the room they know where they are, unless that wizard declared they were taking the hide action. The idea that everyone knows where you are unless you hide is what is being debated here, and I personally don't think the rules need to cover all cases, but this debate started because by RAW one thing happens and by logic another thing happens.

And my idea of exact precision probably comes from the fact I tend to play on a battlemat, so it referenced the fact that people know exactly which space the creature is on. Doing theater of the mind, I guess you know where they are within 1 ft, but still fairly precise.

 

[Mort]

That wizard taking no actions is not hidden, therefore as soon as someone enters the room they know where they are, unless that wizard declared they were taking the hide action. The idea that everyone knows where you are unless you hide is what is being debated here, and I personally don't think the rules need to cover all cases, but this debate started because by RAW one thing happens and by logic another thing happens.

I think this whole tangent started because of a poster's assertion that an invisible creature can hide for free - that was the assertion I was arguing against, because I think the RAW is both clear and sufficient on this question.

Whether a hide action is necessary (in a given situation) is a completely different question. If a character is truly undetectable, then clearly the hide action is superfluous and unnecessary - If the monster TRULY has no way to know where the character is - the character does not have to hide.

But situations where someone is TRULY undetectabe are not common. An example: Let's say the character is silenced and invisible BUT ran through mud right before he stopped. My ruling would be (this assumes the DM clearly conveyed the mud) that the player has to essentialy take the hide action to deal with the mud trailing to his position (I'd be pretty flexible as to what they want to do), but if they take NO action - they can be detected. Note, there are reasons to not bother with dealing with the mud (hiding). Perhaps you want to take the time to cast another spell, perhaps you want to ready your action to attack instead - it's all about options and choices.

 

[Helldritch]

Longswords dont (and cant) take the Hide action.

When your argument is based in absurdity to make sense, this should give you some indication of how wrong you are.

An invisible longsword in a room has a Search/ Perception DC assigned by the DM, just like a trap or any other hard to locate/ percieve object in the game.

No need to be insulting. The search perception/search DC you refer to was refered by me in an other discussion that was deleted and you had discarded it. Now you're using it. Strange. I personaly see no difference from the sword vs an opponent (in that particuliar case anyway).

Its not badly written. You're just using bad logic and a weak imagination.

Well, again no need to be insulting. You don't know me. And yes, my personal appreciation of that rule is that it is badly written. From the looks of it. I am not the only one in here that find that rule ridicule and illogical. If the rule works for you. Fine. I gave my appreciation of that rule, nothing more.

Now if insulting other is your cup of tea, it is not mine. My imagination is quite fine and often praised by many. I have introduced over 150 different players to RPGs over the years. Many are still playing. Many are still in contact with me. I have two groups and helping 3 other DM to start. I may not agree with you on some rules, but I am not a morron just because I do not agree with you.

I won't answer to any of your post any more if you can't keep from using that kind of tone. Or maybe it's just my imagination playing tricks on me and I see insults where there are none...

 

[Flamestrike]

I think this whole tangent started because of a poster's assertion that an invisible creature can hide for free - that was the assertion I was arguing against, because I think the RAW is both clear and sufficient on this question.

Whether a hide action is necessary (in a given situation) is a completely different question. If a character is truly undetectable, then clearly the hide action is superfluous and unnecessary - If the monster TRULY has no way to know where the character is - the character does not have to hide.

But situations where someone is TRULY undetectabe are not common. An example: Let's say the character is silenced and invisible BUT ran through mud right before he stopped. My ruling would be (this assumes the DM clearly conveyed the mud) that the player has to essentialy take the hide action to deal with the mud trailing to his position (I'd be pretty flexible as to what they want to do), but if they take NO action - they can be detected. Note, there are reasons to not bother with dealing with the mud (hiding). Perhaps you want to take the time to cast another spell, perhaps you want to ready your action to attack instead - it's all about options and choices.

This. Even in Situations where a creature is both invisible and also in an area of magical silence, It's entirely feasible that that the creature may also leave signs of its passage (Swirling smoke, Their feet compressing the carpet or grass, Tracks in the mud dust or dirt, The smell of sweat blood or spell components, Dripping blood from wounds and so forth).

I'd certainly grant advantage to any hide action in this circumstance (Invisible and in a magical zone of silence) however. Id probably also impose disadvantage on any perception checks/ Passive perception to find the Hidden creature.

 

[transtemporal]

lol, I can only assume you're kidding OP. Bladesinger gives up School abilities sure, ... but is also a full arcane caster with mega AC.