-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E What Rules do you see people mistake or misapply?
- Thread starter SubDude
- Start date
Pathkeeper24601
First Post
I'm so glad this thread has become all about a subtle distinction on how to rule on invisibility, between a few people that are vehemently in agreement on about 95% of the situations that will ever arise in the game.
94%. The example of the invisible swordsman by the singing bush is a testament to the dangers of not knowing where someone is, even if you do know where he is not.
Last edited:
Oofta
Legend
I don't even know what's being argued any more.
I'm saying that the game does not specify that the only way to lose track of an invisible creature in combat is for them to take the hide action.
That according to Jeremy Crawford RAW and RAI both support a DM who says "Unless you take the hide action opponents know where you are" and DMs who say "Under some circumstances the opponents may not know where you are even though you have not taken the hide action".
Are you saying you disagree with that?
Pathkeeper24601
First Post
OK, I listened to the podcast about Stealth and I didn't hear anything other than a DM can make a situational ruling about whether an invisible creature is unnoticed. You seem to leave out a lot of the discussion about the assumptions of knowing where creatures are and how good invisibility is without hiding attached. That a DM can make a ruling is a general rule and not really pertinent in discussing what specific rules say.
The discussion (at least to me) seems to break down to:
A creature that turns invisible is still noticeable until it takes the Hide action. The DM may determine the circumstances are such that the Hide action is not required.
vs.
A creature that turns invisible is not inherently noticed. The DM may determine the circumstances are such that a Hide action is required to determine if this is true.
The rules (and the full discussion by Crawford) support the first. There at many cases that you profess the second. So which is it?
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
What everyone else is saying, so far as I can tell, is that the default is not hidden, unless you take the Hide Action, and that Crowford clarifies only that circumstance CAN make exceptions to that default.
What Crawford's statements don't support is the notion that any creature is just hidden, under normal circumstances, without having taken the Hide Action, or the idea that invisible creatures are, by default, also hidden. Outside of combat, the action economy doesn't matter, so you don't need to worry about it.
In combat, the creature has to do something more than turn or be invisible to be hidden, RAW and RAI. You CAN rule that breaking line of sight, even for a moment, lets them make a Stealth check without being hidden, but that is not how hiding works generally.
What you come across as arguing, again and again and again, is that an invisible creature is hidden unless circumstances dictate otherwise. That is very much not supported by any rule or rules clarification.
I think another important, but perhaps subtle, issue is that of when the invisibility is acquired. If a creature, currently seen (or known), suddenly becomes invisible during a scene, the idea is that you would naturally effort to remain aware of the location of that thing. So it makes sense that you are generally aware of their rough location until they make an effort to throw you off. Where as, if you happen onto a scene, where a creature is already invisible, there are might be different expectations for whether you would even know to try and sense them. Even if the creature hadn't "made a hide check" yet.
Hope that makes sense.
Oofta
Legend
Pathkeeper24601 , [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] , Crawford clearly states in his example that the orcs lose track of the wizard even though she never took the hide action. He also states that if a DM decides you always know where an invisible creature is, that's fine as well. I don't know how much clearer his statements could have been.
A DM may decide that you always know where an invisible creature is if they have not taken the hide action. A DM may decide that under certain circumstances you may lose track of an invisible creature in combat and not know where they are. Both are following RAW and RAI.
If you have a problem with that statement, I suggest you take it up with the guy who wrote the rule, because I'm done.
A DM may decide that you always know where an invisible creature is if they have not taken the hide action. A DM may decide that under certain circumstances you may lose track of an invisible creature in combat and not know where they are. Both are following RAW and RAI.
If you have a problem with that statement, I suggest you take it up with the guy who wrote the rule, because I'm done.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You...did you actually read the last couple posts directed at you?
Oofta
Legend
Yes
I have never stated than an invisible creature is automatically undetected. In some situations there may be no realistic chance to notice an invisible creature depending on conditions as decided by the DM.
The difference between the statements is semantics and splitting hairs.
Satyrn
First Post
As far as I can tell there are essentially 2 sides, "them" and "us."
They're arguing that a specific rule says a specific thing (and they're agreeing with us when we say the DM may rule otherwise in a given situation.)
We're arguing that a DM makes a ruling on a given situation, and that ruling may or may not include that specific rule (and we're agreeing that it says the specific thing they're arguing it says)
In other words, each "side" is talking past each other.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
