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.
That quote supports the position you are arguing against. Well, no, because you keep arguing against a position no one is taking.
It supports the argument people are making, that you keep responding to in disagreement.
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?
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?
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.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?
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.
You...did you actually read the last couple posts directed at you?
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.
...
There at many cases that you profess the second. So which is it?
As far as I can tell there are essentially 2 sides, "them" and "us."I don't even know what's being argued any more.