D&D 5E Greater Invis and Stealth checks, how do you rule it?

[Helldritch]

This is exactly the rules with the paraphrase quote you, yourself provided.

Again, your mistake is to try to describe the events as simultaneous events and not as they are happening. Unfortunately it is the other way around. We are dealing with sequential initiative, like it or not. This means, as @Maxperson proved, that even if things are almost simultaneous, there not. It's close, but is it not simultaneous. So when the round ends, you tell what has sequentially happened. And this is what I have described in my post above.

It is not that easy to grasp. That's why I preferred the one minute minute round of 1ed. But hey, we are stuck with 6 seconds rounds now. So nope, it is not simultaneous, close, but it ain't.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

Ironically enough, I can make a case that the "default" should be "not noticed". At any given moment, the vast majority of the inhabitants of the game world are not going to be noticed by the PCs. For an inhabitant to be noticed, I as the DM have to decide that they are (a) within the detection range of one of the PCs' senses, (b) that sense is not impeded by the presence of an obstruction, (c) the signal-to-noise ratio is high enough to be detected, and (d) the inhabitant's presence is important enough for me to spend time describing their presence to the PCs. Unless ALL four conditions are met, any given inhabitant is automatically not noticed by the PCs. If that doesn't make "unnoticed" the default state, I don't know what would.

In all seriousness, however, all I'm trying to do with the above is point out that the word "default" is itself ambiguous. I would also add that it's also not particularly meaningful to declare a default when deviating from that default has no cost. From my standpoint, @Oofta is saying that the default is "GM decides whether or not a non-hidden creature is noticed", whereas you're saying that the default is "all non-hidden creatures are noticed unless the DM decides otherwise". That's a distinction without a difference--it's not even a meaningful loose classification tool, because how it plays out at the table will depend far more on how the DM uses their judgement than how they describe the "default" case at their table.

Kudos, you've reached what I thought the obvious counter to my claim. The reason it hasn't come up yet, though, is that there's an implicit context to the discussion where it's focused on moments where creatures are interacting. No rules govern situations of non-interaction because that's trivially obvious. Instead, we're already focused on those moments when creatures interact, and there the default is that creatures are noticed. This is why no one's presented that argument to date -- the implied context has strongly rooted the discussion. I brought up an example of non-interacting creatures being undetected many pages ago, it was prompted ignored, so I settled into the implied context of the discussion. I haven't been careful though, to point out that implied context, so, yeah, your point is still well made.

 

[Oofta]

Cool. Again, I didn't ask that. But, you seem intent to tell me again the same thing as last time you didn't answer my question.


Okay, in arguing about how the RAW works, you've inserted a bit of homebrew. That's interesting and all (although, again, I don't understand how being proficient in something means you're as good as someone not proficient at a task within the proficiency, but I'm sure there's some kind of good reason for this).

There are a bunch of factors though, and I may give advantage/disadvantage or just set a DC. To paraphrase Barbossa, it's more of a guideline really than a concrete rule.

No, why do you answer different question. I asked how often you rule things get a free chance to hide (or roll a DEX check, if that's your preferred terminology). Invisible creatures would only be one subset.

I'll go ahead and provide the argument I'm making -- I'll bet it's almost none. Because, shockingly, you actually default to creatures being noticed and only deviate if there's a good reason to. I'm sure you'll deny this, though, alongside something that shows that you have an odd understanding of what a default means.

So now I can't answer direct questions? You asked if I gave out free hide checks. There is no such thing as a hide check, so I was guessing that you meant stealth checks. In areas that the rules don't cover sometimes I come up with my own rules. Doesn't contradict any of the existing rules, calling for ability checks as appropriate is the DM's prerogative.

I'm not "denying" anything. Sometimes invisible creatures give away their location, sometimes they don't and I don't really care how you define "default".

I'm done with you hunting for gotcha questions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So now I can't answer direct questions? You asked if I gave out free hide checks.

No, I specifically did not. I asked if you gave out hide attempts, because those follow normal adjudication where the GM can determine success, failure, or uncertainty. You keep changing it to checks and then tell me how you do checks. Not the question.

[Quite]There is no such thing as a hide check, so I was guessing that you meant stealth checks. [/quote] Technically, there aren't stealth checks, either, so not just not my question but also not quite right, either. Not that this is a real issue, but if you're going to try to pin a technicality on me (that I didn't say, mind), don't make a technical error yourself in the same sentence.

In areas that the rules don't cover sometimes I come up with my own rules. Doesn't contradict any of the existing rules, calling for ability checks as appropriate is the DM's prerogative.

Sure is, but then so is adding proficiency, which you disallow. That gets into homebree as there's already procedures for how to be sneaky.

I'm not "denying" anything. Sometimes invisible creatures give away their location, sometimes they don't and I don't really care how you define "default".

Oh, it's not my definition, it's what the word means.

I'm done with you hunting for gotcha questions.

How is it a gotcha question when I tell you the intent? Either you can show it wrong or you can't, there's no gotcha there. Tge pit is open, so to speak, can you jump it?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And I would simply force a check perception on the guards from all the shouting and moving because with all the noise the guards are making themselves they can't hear or see the monk. They know he is somewhere, that much is obvious. But they do not know his location. Don't forget that they are running too. So they can't attack anyway. If they want to attack, it is now even harder as the monk is now not 40 to 50 feet away, but 70 to 75 feet from the guards. Just readying their crossbow means that the lost sight of the minute details that the monk left behind IF he left any. Nothing can be less certain.

Don't forget that the guards are making noises of their own, lose sight of very minute details. They can't know the exact location of the monk.

Bolded part: This is exactly what happens when a creature tries to Hide. The only difference is you are arbitrarily setting a DC (or, I don't know, maybe you have some custom 5e combat noise table you refer to), while Hide requires the creature attempting to Hide to roll Dexterity (Stealth). DC on the one hand vs opposed check mechanic on the other.

Typical combat is going to be noisy to some extent, right? Where is the line in combat that you draw to determine when to use the Hide mechanic versus when to use just a DC with the Wisdom (Perception) roll for an invisible creature? No special circumstances in this question (fog, other rooms, cover, other spell effects etc).

It seems like some folks are parsing noise levels here in an effort to disregard the Hide action. I truly don't understand why.

As for the frozen in time. You want forward narrative and this is your mistake. You must narrate backward. Here is how the round really happened.

Bob the guard gets attack by an invisible opponent but proves to be tougher than the unseen assassin thought. He screams for help and as the guards in the other room ate coming to his help, he hears the invisible foe running away in the corridor. Bob and his allies get in the corridor but with all the noises their armor and their shouting do, they're not sure where the invisible foe went. Left? Right? Straight ahead? They are thus at the end of their round. Or almost. Do they split up and try to pursue the intruder? Or do they do as Jack says and stop moving to try to find details.

In game term, the monk got tje jump on the guard but failed to hit. Seeing that he went away at full speed. The guard at his initiative drew his sword and shouted for help. He then proceeded to run in the direction he heard the intruder going but after a few seconds he lost track of the monk because the monk is to far for the little noise he makes is covered by the guards' noises from their shoutong and their armor. They used their movement and their action to try to pursue the monk but their passive perception isn't high enough to notice the minute details as they made their check at disadvantage while running and shouting.

Had the monk stayed and used flurry; the guard might have survived and the monk would have been surrounded as then it would have been pretty easy to guess where he was, in melee with Bob. Bit the monk fled, this change a lot of the dynamic of the rules.

Time for round two.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Never try to hide.

Just conceal yourself behind cover and don't move, being as quiet as you can.

Ensure you're not trying to hide as you do so though because that wastes an action and requires a check.

Being stealthy still requires a check.

What is the invisible character doing that is stealthy in combat if not trying to achieve the benefits gained by the Hide action?

 

[Oofta]

How is it a gotcha question when I tell you the intent? Either you can show it wrong or you can't, there's no gotcha there. Tge pit is open, so to speak, can you jump it?

You keep asking questions and I'm stupid enough to respond until you can finally say "See! You do agree with me!" or "I didn't ask you to actually explain what you do so bad on you". Then tell me what I think.

I'm done. Have a good one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So are blinded creatures aware of the location of everyone who hasn't taken an action to hide?

 

[Ovinomancer]

You keep asking questions and I'm stupid enough to respond until you can finally say "See! You do agree with me!" or "I didn't ask you to actually explain what you do so bad on you". Then tell me what I think.

I'm done. Have a good one.

Nope, you could have an argument that I don't expect or that adequately answers the question. I'm pretty confident, yes, that what you do assumes that creatures are noticed unless there's special circumstances. Nothings you've said so far moves this needle, yet you continue to claim you don't have this starting assumption. I mean, my position is that things start by being assumed noticed and then, if circumstances are special, you look at it and make a ruling. You've locked down on saying there's no baseline assumption in play. The only way that can be true is if you're always, every single time and in every single action, evaluating the situation and applying ad hoc judgements about what's going on. It would be chaos. Yet, you seem to think that agreeing there's a baseline assumption is a gotcha questions to lock you into an agreement on how to rule things. It's not, and has never been. It's just a clear observation on how things start. It's perfectly fine if you have a different threshold for special circumstances than I do -- we can easily disagree here and I don't care. The part that's frustrating to me is that you insist that you're specially considering at all times when that's ludicrous on it's face. That you do it because you fear I'm leading you into a devious trap to gotcha you into agreeing with some other statement is just paranoid.

For me, the baseline assumption (default, if you will) is that creatures notice one another. If everything else is equal, this is what happens. If a special circumstance occurs, then I will evaluate it and make a ruling, but my bias will always be towards noticing. This is because the game sets this up by having a specific action and rules for being not noticed, so noticed must be the baseline.

Invisibility works into this as a possible source of special circumstance. I say possible because the rules in invisibility specifically call out that it enables using the hide action, but doesn't say it takes it's place. That tells me that the default assumption of noticing is still in place because invisibility increases the ability to take the baseline action to be not noticed but doesn't replace it. Still, invisibility can be a strong input to a special circumstance that makes a creature hidden without taking the specific action. Where people draw that line is up to them.

To route this back to the baseline, it's pretty clear, to me, that even you agree at some level that invisibility doesn't alter the baseline because you'd otherwise be arguing for what has to occur to be able to notice an invisible creature rather than arguing there's increased areas where an invisible creature is not noticed. The very direction and locus of your arguments shows a bias towards detection, which makes your continued evasion more frustrating. There's no trap, here, past acknowledging that there's a bias, baseline, or default assumption that creatures are noticed and it's a special circumstance that changes that and calls for a GM ruling.

 

[Oofta]

Nope, you could have an argument that I don't expect or that adequately answers the question. I'm pretty confident, yes, that what you do assumes that creatures are noticed unless there's special circumstances. Nothings you've said so far moves this needle, yet you continue to claim you don't have this starting assumption. I mean, my position is that things start by being assumed noticed and then, if circumstances are special, you look at it and make a ruling. You've locked down on saying there's no baseline assumption in play. The only way that can be true is if you're always, every single time and in every single action, evaluating the situation and applying ad hoc judgements about what's going on. It would be chaos. Yet, you seem to think that agreeing there's a baseline assumption is a gotcha questions to lock you into an agreement on how to rule things. It's not, and has never been. It's just a clear observation on how things start. It's perfectly fine if you have a different threshold for special circumstances than I do -- we can easily disagree here and I don't care. The part that's frustrating to me is that you insist that you're specially considering at all times when that's ludicrous on it's face. That you do it because you fear I'm leading you into a devious trap to gotcha you into agreeing with some other statement is just paranoid.

For me, the baseline assumption (default, if you will) is that creatures notice one another. If everything else is equal, this is what happens. If a special circumstance occurs, then I will evaluate it and make a ruling, but my bias will always be towards noticing. This is because the game sets this up by having a specific action and rules for being not noticed, so noticed must be the baseline.

Invisibility works into this as a possible source of special circumstance. I say possible because the rules in invisibility specifically call out that it enables using the hide action, but doesn't say it takes it's place. That tells me that the default assumption of noticing is still in place because invisibility increases the ability to take the baseline action to be not noticed but doesn't replace it. Still, invisibility can be a strong input to a special circumstance that makes a creature hidden without taking the specific action. Where people draw that line is up to them.

To route this back to the baseline, it's pretty clear, to me, that even you agree at some level that invisibility doesn't alter the baseline because you'd otherwise be arguing for what has to occur to be able to notice an invisible creature rather than arguing there's increased areas where an invisible creature is not noticed. The very direction and locus of your arguments shows a bias towards detection, which makes your continued evasion more frustrating. There's no trap, here, past acknowledging that there's a bias, baseline, or default assumption that creatures are noticed and it's a special circumstance that changes that and calls for a GM ruling.

Stop telling me what I do or do not think or agree to.