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

[Pathkeeper24601]

Yet you seem to be claiming that an invisible and silent creatures would automatically be detected unless it actively attempted to stealth. Apparently "natural language" isn't enough for you. Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

Also, I believe you are mistaken about this thread being about RAW. The title says "mistake or misapply" - to me, that's more about RAI and reasonable rulings, not blind RAW.

Well I do tend to go with RA(I)nterpreted. I have no problems playing games with DM's that rule differently than me. You are a bit mistaken on what I am saying. I am say the Invisible condition as defined includes being "unseen" and condition that will allow one to take the Hide action to be unnoticed. The Hide rules there define conations conditions and mechanics for using Stealth to Hide (obviously). That in some cases the DM may decide this action is not necessary is possible as a ruling (important part of play D&D). The podcast pointed out this fact, but it also pointed out that the primary assumption is still "Combat Awareness" of an invisible creature until the Hide action is taken (hidden). To say a creature in combat is still noticed after turning invisible without taking a hide action is not a misapplication of RAW as that is what is written. To say this must always be the case (which nobody really is saying) is a misapplication of "rulings over rules" premise.

 

[Caliban]

Well I do tend to go with RA(I)nterpreted. I have no problems playing games with DM's that rule differently than me. You are a bit mistaken on what I am saying. I am say the Invisible condition as defined includes being "unseen" and condition that will allow one to take the Hide action to be unnoticed. The Hide rules there define conations conditions and mechanics for using Stealth to Hide (obviously). That in some cases the DM may decide this action is not necessary is possible as a ruling (important part of play D&D). The podcast pointed out this fact, but it also pointed out that the primary assumption is still "Combat Awareness" of an invisible creature until the Hide action is taken (hidden). To say a creature in combat is still noticed after turning invisible without taking a hide action is not a misapplication of RAW as that is what is written. To say this must always be the case (which nobody really is saying) is a misapplication of "rulings over rules" premise.

But this specific instance wasn't in combat. The scenario proposed by MiraMels was "Short gargoyle with the invisibility spell cast on them and they are motionless long before the PCs arrive and there's no environmental factors to draw attention to their presence?"

MiraMels agreed that they would say it was undectable, but by RAW it would be automatically detected.

Oofta and I are saying that it is completely within the rules (RAW and RAI) for the DM to say that you don't automatically detect it, and don't even get a perception check to be aware of it. (Unless you walk into it or something else happens to change the situation.)

If you are talking about applying Stealth, Perception, and Invisiblity in combat, then you are talking about a different situation altogether. If you see someone go Invisible in combat (or hear them cast the spell, or are warned about them), you know they are still there even if you can't see them. You are looking for signs of an invisible creature - at that point is is reasonable to say you are still aware of their presence unless they actively try to Stealth.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

But this specific instance wasn't in combat. The scenario proposed by MiraMels was "Short gargoyle with the invisibility spell cast on them and they are motionless long before the PCs arrive and there's no environmental factors to draw attention to their presence?"

MiraMels agreed that they would say it was undectable, but by RAW it would be automatically detected.

Oofta and I are saying that it is completely within the rules (RAW and RAI) for the DM to say that you don't automatically detect it, and don't even get a perception check to be aware of it. (Unless you walk into it or something else happens to change the situation.)

If you are talking about applying Stealth, Perception, and Invisiblity in combat, then you are talking about a different situation altogether. If you see someone go Invisible in combat (or hear them cast the spell, or are warned about them), you know they are still there even if you can't see them. You are looking for signs of an invisible creature - at that point is is reasonable to say you are still aware of their presence unless they actively try to Stealth.

I thought the short gargoyle was some example started by Oofta, but there are so many posts to go back. Out of combat does follow the same basic rules for creatures, it just doesn't have to worry the action economy combat does. Invisible objects probably should be treated like a trap other than following creature rules. This gets complicated in that gargoyles actually have an ability makes them act more like objects than creatures when still.

 

[Caliban]

I thought the short gargoyle was some example started by Oofta, but there are so many posts to go back. Out of combat does follow the same basic rules for creatures, it just doesn't have to worry the action economy combat does. Invisible objects probably should be treated like a trap other than following creature rules. This gets complicated in that gargoyles actually have an ability makes them act more like objects than creatures when still.

So you would make a ruling, rather than follow RAW in this situation?

 

[Yunru]

So you would make a ruling, rather than follow RAW in this situation?

Not at all. The rules we have only covers combat scenarios.

 

[Caliban]

Not at all. The rules we have only covers combat scenarios.

I say that, you say that, but I don't think they've been saying that.

 

[Hussar]

How is a silent, unmoving, invisible gargoyle that has been there for a while NOT invoking the Stealth rules? The argument I got before was that the gargoyle had rushed into another room after meeting a rogue and didn't have the actions left to use Stealth but, according to [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], it would be undetectable because it wasn't moving.

Now, I disagree, because that's an in-combat situation, where the rules DO apply and the rules are fairly clear here - you are not hidden in combat until you take the Hide action. That's what the Hide action is for after all, and all invisibility does for you is allow you to take hide actions anywhere.

But, in this specific example, where it's a 2 foot tall gargoyle standing on a shelf, with lots of time, how is it not taking the Hide action by default? It certainly satisfies every single criteria for taking the hide action.

So, the DM sets the DC to notice our invisible gargoyle at whatever the gargoyle's stealth check was. Most likely higher than the PC's passive perception, but, maybe not. Yay, high Passive Perception PC gets to shine and spots the danger before it can jump out and surprise the rest of the party. What's the problem here?

 

[Satyrn]

. . . because that's an in-combat situation, where the rules DO apply . . .

I respectfully ask for a citation, please.

I don't know where in the Game as Written that it says the rules DO apply in combat.

 

[Oofta]

How is a silent, unmoving, invisible gargoyle that has been there for a while NOT invoking the Stealth rules? The argument I got before was that the gargoyle had rushed into another room after meeting a rogue and didn't have the actions left to use Stealth but, according to [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], it would be undetectable because it wasn't moving.

Now, I disagree, because that's an in-combat situation, where the rules DO apply and the rules are fairly clear here - you are not hidden in combat until you take the Hide action. That's what the Hide action is for after all, and all invisibility does for you is allow you to take hide actions anywhere.

But, in this specific example, where it's a 2 foot tall gargoyle standing on a shelf, with lots of time, how is it not taking the Hide action by default? It certainly satisfies every single criteria for taking the hide action.

So, the DM sets the DC to notice our invisible gargoyle at whatever the gargoyle's stealth check was. Most likely higher than the PC's passive perception, but, maybe not. Yay, high Passive Perception PC gets to shine and spots the danger before it can jump out and surprise the rest of the party. What's the problem here?

Is there anything new here other than neener-neener-I'm-right-you're-wrong?

We disagree on how to do some things. That's fine. I think there are situations where an invisible object would be undetectable. You don't.

Cool! We have different ways of running the game. This situation is not covered by the rules because the PCs are not in combat. You run your game your way, I'll run it mine, we are both following the rules (or lack therein).

If the gargoyle goes to attack, then we roll for initiative and start checking perceptions/stealth as it stirs and gets read to attack. Until that point no one is in combat, no one is threatened. It's an area not covered by the rules, and therefore left to the DM to rule as they see fit.

In the vast majority of cases the PCs would have a chance to detect the gargoyle if combat starts, but there will always be edge cases so I'm not going to say it could never happen. It's the DM's call because the rules on hiding do not specify you have to take the hide action to avoid detection.

Which is my way of saying "neener-neener-we can-both-be-right-so-what's-the-fuss-all-about".

 

[bid]

I respectfully ask for a citation, please.

I don't know where in the Game as Written that it says the rules DO apply in combat.

Certainly not the sidebar on p127, since we're not hiding.
Not p194, Unseen Attackers and Targets, which doesn't link "you automatically miss" to being hidden.

So we're only left with the description of Wisdom (Perception) checks on p128, of which "or hear a monster moving stealthily in the forest" is the closest thing to the unmoving gargoyle.


That would only leave "rulings" do decide what should happen.