Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I shake my head at these things because... well they don't need answers. If they did they would be rules in the book.
Oh, my sweet summer child...
I shake my head at these things because... well they don't need answers. If they did they would be rules in the book.
Really? I, for one, do like the rule. It means that fighting invisible creatures is actually possible, instead of being a frustrating, no-fun experience.We don't all like the rule, but it is there.
A little injury is often good for the soul.
But think about this question... if a sword is invisible in the middle of the desert that no one visits, does its existence matter?
If a cup on a table is invisible, does it matter to the story or the plight of the problem? If it does then give clues and well enough of them for them to find the cup.
If it doesn't then why bother with the theorem at hand.
Another way to look at it... if the player's NEED to find a secret door to enter the next room (and it is the only way to proceed further), then DCs and skill checks matter not. They find the door.
The way forward should always be attainable for the PCs. If the elements don't matter...then think why they are occurring in the first place.
If someone wants to give the feeling of being watched (as Arcane Eye), just tell the players they feel like they are being watched. Then they can cast true seeing or detect magic to help deduce the problem, if they are so inclined.
Give them clues that it appears some force knows where they are going before they get there.
Not everything needs to have a DC roll in the game;
especially when there is no interaction with the players.
I shake my head at these things because... well they don't need answers. If they did they would be rules in the book.
But if one wants to go with that route and have everything rolled.
Well, just have them do a perception or investigation check. Set the DCs per the baseline guidelines. Easy ->10, Medium -> 15, Hard ->20, etc.
I shake my head at topics like this. why do we have to have rules or 'opinions' on non-existence rules.
1) Don't like a rule, change it. Our group just allows a 'free action' to hide for invisible/heavily obscured creatures. We don't like the rule, so we change it.
2) If there is no rule - such as objects and whatnot. Adjudicate one. That's one of the jobs as a DM.
3) just use common sense. why try to shoehorn a 'fall-back' rule.
4) if they need to know, give them clues. If they don't why bother. Detect Magic is also overlooked.
5) make the story go forward and have fun.
Really? I, for one, do like the rule. It means that fighting invisible creatures is actually possible, instead of being a frustrating, no-fun experience.
Imagine:
GM: Something invisible hits you.
Player: I hit it back.
GM: You can't, because you don't know where it is. It hits you.
Player: I shoot it!
GM: You can't, because you don't know where it is. It hits you.
Player: I fireball over there.
GM: You don't appear to have damaged anything. It hits you.
Player: I quit.
That's not precisely true. By RAW, something that is both unseen and unheard is hidden.In 5E, invisible creatures are not hidden by default. Even though you're invisible, until you take the hide action, your location is obvious due to your sounds, tracks, etc... We don't all like the rule, but it is there.
What about invisible objects or spell effects? If a cup is made invisible, what needs to be done to detect the presence of it on a table? What does a creature need to do to detect an arcane eye or rope trick portal?
From what I can tell, you fall back to generic rules of setting a perception DC to perceive something that is hard to spot under the RAW - perhaps a DC of somewhere between 15 and 25. Is that how you'd handle the PCs attempting to detect an arcane eye, a rope trick portal, a scrying sensor or an invisibile object on a table?
Of course, really, yes. Just because you like the rule does not mean there is nobody that dislikes it.Really? I, for one, do like the rule...
When you are hidden you are unseen and unheard. That does not mean that if you are unseen and unheard you are hidden. They give examples where someone is invisible and their location is given away by upsetting their environment, for example.That's not precisely true. By RAW, something that is both unseen and unheard is hidden.
Page 195 of the PHB: " If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
So as you can see, the game considers you to be hidden if you are both unseen and unheard.
Of course, really, yes. Just because you like the rule does not mean there is nobody that dislikes it.
When you are hidden you are unseen and unheard. That does not mean that if you are unseen and unheard you are hidden. They give examples where someone is invisible and their location is given away by upsetting their environment, for example.
Oh, my sweet summer child...