D&D 5E What Rules do you see people mistake or misapply?

[doctorbadwolf]

You tried to refute this example case by suggesting the stalker might be breathing loudly. It's not. Therefore, your refutation doesn't work, and the example stands: An invisible stalker that isn't moving has no reason to make any noise, and should not be auto-detectable.


Then why reply?

My refutation was of the idea, not the example. Individual examples are meaningless.

as to why reply, I can't imagine you actually don't get it. That is just lame rhetorical device.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

That's a one way relationship:
If you have total concealment, you have total cover =/= If you have total cover, you have total concealment.

Why say the glass is thin? Especially in old times thin glass isn't going to keep in much heat.

The post I was responding to said ... That is spell-casting needs a clear line of sight and a pane of glass will prevent most spells from affecting a target, because you can't target someone behind a pane of glass, because that person is under full cover, even though you can see them.

So a pane of glass as described is thin and transparent, otherwise it would be a wall of glass.

And I understand the difference between cover and concealment, having turned concealment into very poor cover a few times in my day. The issue as was described is that a pane of glass breaks the line of effect for a spell because it provides 'full cover'. First off that's silly, saying that the properties of a thin sheet of transparent glass would block the powers of magic, unless it's baked into a setting somehow. Next, to be precise, the PHB defines full cover as something providing full concealment, which we know is technically false but it is obvious that a pane of glass does NOT provide concealment so even in that context the argument fails.

 

[Dausuul]

Your definition can't be true. If it were true the thief's 17th level ability wouldn't be possible. If a round is from the start of your turn to the start of your next turn a 17th level thief could never take two turns in the first round of combat.

By definition, rounds end when everyone has taken a turn.

Actually... that's pretty funny, because the rule you (correctly) cite ruins your own example.

You are correct by RAW: "Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other." But let's say the thief has initiative 19, and the lowest initiative roll is 10. The thief takes a turn on initiative 19. Everyone else then takes their turns. By initiative 10, everyone has taken a turn. RAW, a new round begins--but the thief's extra turn is on initiative 9. The thief never gets her extra turn!

Obviously, this is not the intent of the thief's ability, and the round should continue until everyone has taken all of their turns. I would define a round as being one of the following time periods:

• From the start of the first turn at the highest initiative, to the end of the last turn at the lowest initiative; or
• From the start of the first turn on initiative X, to the end of the last turn on initiative X+1.

You are also correct that there is no "one per round" limit on reactions. There are lots of scenarios, depending on where you place the start and end points of the round, where you can have two reactions in a round, and one (with the 17th-level thief) where you can have three. The limit is "one for each of your turns."

I'm not sure Oofta was disagreeing with this, incidentally. I think the misconception Oofta had in mind was the idea that you can't take a reaction on your own turn (a rule in previous editions, explicitly contradicted in 5E). That "limiting you to one per round" was an aside.

 

[Dausuul]

My refutation was of the idea, not the example. Individual examples are meaningless.

No. Individual examples demonstrate how the rules work in practice. This example shows why the rule works poorly in practice. A thing which is invisible and makes no sound should not be auto-detected; I think it's pretty generous to even allow the possibility of detecting it.

 

[Oofta]

Well, firstly, it comes from the fact that not everyone on the forums reads every thread or listens to podcasts, so yeah, he just clarified it. Expecting everyone to know about it immediately is supremely unreasonable.

But what still needs to be said on the subject here, is that people who are ruling Invisible creatures to automatically be hidden simply because they are invisible are still wrong, or houseruling it.
In the example used in a thread a while back, if you you run into a room, pursued by enemies, and turn invisible, that doesn't mean you are hidden when, in the same round, enemies come into the room. You aren't. They can hear your heavy breathing, and can try to attack you. If you're fast enough, and have time to take an action to make a Hide Action Stealth check, you are then hidden, as long as your check exceeds their Perception checks.

First, I've held the same position on invisibility since the release of 5E. Nothing in the rules says that you have to take the hide action to be undetected. I was merely pointing out that Crawford confirmed what I have always said and provided a link.

Second, no one is saying you are automatically undetected if you are invisible. Sometimes people know where you are sometimes they don't.

Third, why so confrontational?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Third, why so confrontational?

What are you talking about?

edit: also why bring up how long you've held the position? Did I imply somewhere that you had flip flopped?

Do you perhaps think that you having held a position is somehow relevant to how reasonable it is to expect people to know about a rules clarification right away?

Did you mean to reply to someone else entirely?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No. Individual examples demonstrate how the rules work in practice. This example shows why the rule works poorly in practice. A thing which is invisible and makes no sound should not be auto-detected; I think it's pretty generous to even allow the possibility of detecting it.

No one is arguing that a thing which is invisible and silent is auto-detected. I've no idea where you're even getting that from.

Individual examples can be useful, and are only of any value in discussing if they are. Nit picking them is literally never useful. It's a rhetorical tactic that makes actual discussion less likely to occur.

Also, you're wrong about this example illustrating that the rules don't work well. It illustrates perfectly that they do.

Because by the rules, it's up the DM whether the thing is hidden. It's not automatic in either direction. Which is as it should be.

And that is the case for creatures who aren't invisible as well, btw. If a regular guy is behind a thick curtain, in a noisy room, and the DM doesn't think he would make any visible impact on how the curtain falls, the DM isn't houseruling to say he is hidden, regardless of any actions taken. Likewise, the DM isn't houseruling to say that an invisible creature isn't hidden, unless it tries to hide.

All running as they should be.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure Oofta was disagreeing with this, incidentally. I think the misconception Oofta had in mind was the idea that you can't take a reaction on your own turn (a rule in previous editions, explicitly contradicted in 5E). That "limiting you to one per round" was an aside.

I've seen round used for both a combat round and a character's round (under rules for suffocating for example).

But yes, I was referring to a character's round - from the start of a character's turn to the start of their next turn, not the combat round.

 

[Oofta]

What are you talking about?

edit: also why bring up how long you've held the position? Did I imply somewhere that you had flip flopped?

Do you perhaps think that you having held a position is somehow relevant to how reasonable it is to expect people to know about a rules clarification right away?

Did you mean to reply to someone else entirely?

According to you, not only am I being supremely unreasonable (not just unreasonable, mind you but supremely unreasonable) and I'm just flat out wrong.

...it comes from the fact that not everyone on the forums reads every thread or listens to podcasts, so yeah, he just clarified it. Expecting everyone to know about it immediately is supremely unreasonable.

But what still needs to be said on the subject here, is that people who are ruling Invisible creatures to automatically be hidden simply because they are invisible are still wrong, or houseruling it.

If you don't see how that comes off as confrontational I honestly don't know what to say. I know tone doesn't always come across as intended on these forums. Like right now, I'm just trying to give you some advice. You may not realize that you come across as overreacting.

I posted a correction to someone's assertion and pointed them to a thread where it was recently discussed in detail. That's all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

According to you, not only am I being supremely unreasonable (not just unreasonable, mind you but supremely unreasonable) and I'm just flat out wrong.



If you don't see how that comes off as confrontational I honestly don't know what to say. I know tone doesn't always come across as intended on these forums. Like right now, I'm just trying to give you some advice. You may not realize that you come across as overreacting.

I posted a correction to someone's assertion and pointed them to a thread where it was recently discussed in detail. That's all.

Nah, you're just reading that into it.

Your assertion, by implication, that everyone should obviously know already that the rule had been clarified, is supremely unreasonable. Obviously most folks who disagreed won't have seen it yet. That...isn't confrontational. Or rather, no more so than any other statement of disagreement.

"I don't know where the "PCs know where you are if you haven't taken the hide action even though you are invisible" comes from. Jeremy Crawford just clarified in a podcast that it's not true, nor is it the intent. "

You really want to tell me that you this statement doesn't imply that people should already know about that clarification? Seriously?

and then call me confrontational when I tell you such an expectation is unreasonable?

lol c'mon, man.

And, btw, if you think that the rules state that an invisible creature is automatically hidden, simply by virtue of being hidden...you are incorrect. See...the thread you linked earlier.
They might be hidden, or not, depending on the circumstance, and thus DM discretion. Simply turning invisible right in front of someone doesn't make you Hidden, just invisible. Circumstance, can, however, make you hidden, regardless of invisibility or taking an action to hide. Not being physically seen just isn't enough, by itself to make that happen.

Which is literally all I was saying, and which you haven't contradicted, so I'm not sure why you think that "people who are ruling Invisible creatures to automatically be hidden simply because they are invisibleare still wrong, or houseruling it." was directed at you, rather than just clarifying what the rule is, in the context of a thread about rules people commonly get wrong.

Do you see what happened there? I, in a thread about rules people misapply or mistake, clarified a rule and referenced the fact that there are people who mistake or misapply that rule.

I don't see why I should have needed to be any more clear about it than I was, but nonetheless I apologize for the confusion.