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

[neogod22]

heh.

This is why I wish they hadn't included that hiding sidebar, or at least that they had called it out as "hey, here's a way you might want to handle it, but these aren't rules, just advice on ruling on the common situation."

Because I can see plenty of times I'd rule a PC could get himself hidden without taking an action to do so.

Here's one scenario Id let my players do so: The rogue disengages from the fray and ducks behind a pillar; unseen, he casts invisibility on himself and steps out frobehind the pillar. The foes don't see him disappear, they aren't expecting him to be invisible, and my player says "That's enough deception to hide my position right?"

I'd answer "yeah sure, it was a nice trick." Though if I was feeling a little iffy on whether that should work, I'd take a cue from what my player said and add "Let's see if you fooled them - roll a Deception check."

No action required to hide. Not even a Stealth check when the players get creative.

But I like my skill rules loose and fuzzy.

This is what roleplaying is all about. The creators of games try to make the rules vague so that it gives the DM the freedom to handle the games as they see fit, also so that players can be creative without feeling like they are limited on what they can do.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[MiraMels]

Because using the stealth skill requires specifically taking an action to do so.

If for example it was under the effects of Hold Monster or similar, it would still be motionless, invisible and silent, but would have been unable to take the action to use the stealth skill. It would indeed "be still and quiet while unseen", yet not be using the stealth skill.

Yes, but a DM who looks at the paralyzed Invisible Stalker and says "you know what, this creature is hidden, no chance of you noticing it, because it doesn't make sense for you to have a chance to notice it."

That's a ruling to dispense with the usual stealth v perception rules because they don't make sense for this particular, specific situation.

That's rules-as-written working as intended.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It's your loss if you believe all men are Athenians.

- You get hit by a fireball that does 32 damage to all in range.
- because you succeed your save, we apply a "modifier to damage" to reduce it to 16 damage.
- because you have resistance to fire damage, we apply the resistance to reduce it to 8 damage.

What's next? You don't get HAM reduction when you have resistance?


A proof requires facts and cannot be grounded in mere beliefs. Stay in your fantasy world if you wish.

I thought we were playing D&D specifically because we want to be in a fantasy world?

 

[Hussar]

I'm kinda thinking that if your proof requires a paralyzed invisible stalker, then, perhaps, you're going a bit far afield to try to prove a point. While it might show an example where you might not require a stealth check to be hidden, I'm fairly confident in saying that those criteria do not apply in the majority of cases.

 

[Valdier]

Yes, but a DM who looks at the paralyzed Invisible Stalker and says "you know what, this creature is hidden, no chance of you noticing it, because it doesn't make sense for you to have a chance to notice it."

That's a ruling to dispense with the usual stealth v perception rules because they don't make sense for this particular, specific situation.

That's rules-as-written working as intended.

This is all exceptional theory crafting though, because the DM should just assume the Invisible Stalker took its time to stealth. There is really never an instance in which the Stalker will ever run into the extremes developed in this thread.

 

[Yunru]

Excuse me, is the Stalker scentless too?
What if my player smells the Stalker?
Sure it's a long shot, but that's perception with disadvantage for you.

 

[Oofta]

This is all exceptional theory crafting though, because the DM should just assume the Invisible Stalker took its time to stealth. There is really never an instance in which the Stalker will ever run into the extremes developed in this thread.

It's responses like this that really stress my "do not post overly snarky responses" rule.

You may rule that some one/thing has to take the hide action to avoid detection in your game. That's fine, it's your game. But the rules (and common sense) don't state that. In addition it was just contradicted by Jeremy Crawford. Here's the link again.

The invisible statue I threw into my game a while back did not have to "take the hide action" to be undetectable. The PCs had no way of knowing it was there because it was not interacting with the environment in any way that could be detected.

 

[Corwin]

The invisible statue I threw into my game a while back did not have to "take the hide action" to be undetectable. The PCs had no way of knowing it was there because it was not interacting with the environment in any way that could be detected.

Are you saying there was no DC with which the PCs might have had a chance of realizing it was there? A breeze reflecting off the statue causing a swirl of air? A lip of a line of dust collected along its base? The faint echo of their footsteps bouncing off it? Zero chance of anyone ever sensing its presence by chance or skill?

 

[Oofta]

Are you saying there was no DC with which the PCs might have had a chance of realizing it was there? A breeze reflecting off the statue causing a swirl of air? A lip of a line of dust collected along its base? The faint echo of their footsteps bouncing off it? Zero chance of anyone ever sensing its presence by chance or skill?

I'm saying that in order to detect something (or someone) it has to interact with the environment in such a way that it can be detected. There is no justification in the PHB for being automatically detected unless you take the hide action.

It doesn't matter if it's an invisible statue, someone flying overhead invisibly at night, or even someone walking around 20 feet away in the middle of a noisy battle on hard ground leaving no tracks.

It's up to the DM to decide when something could be detected. If it cannot reasonably be detected it does not have to take the hide action.

If anyone anywhere can find anything that says you have to take the hide action to be undetected please point it out. This has been discussed many times across many threads, no one has ever done so.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

For the love of Orcus, if its invisible, motionless and silent ITS USING THE STEALTH SKILL.

Stealth (expressly) is being motionless and silent while unseen.

You cant be still and quiet while unseen and not be using the stealth skill, just like you cant be lying your ass off convincingly and not be using deception.

The thing has +10 to Stealth so its fair to assume it got a 20 on its Stealth check to quiet. Far enough away or a big enough room and it either has advantage (for a 25) or its simply auto hidden (cant be found; DC too high to hear it).

The stalker reveals itself when it attacks (gaining surprise) and can then hide again (simply flying off to a corner of the room, avoiding attacks of opportunity on way because its invisible, and using the Hide action).

Why do people keep struggling with this?

Fine, an invisible potted plant. Its stupid either way, no matter how hard you guys try to rules lawyer it.