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

[iserith]

This isn't simulationist. I'm looking for consistency preferably from a more reasonable standpoint, but consistency nonetheless.

To be clear, I'm not making any claims about simulationism or any other Forge waffle.

If my PC is in a bar and is trying to hear a conversation 30 feet away, it's probably going to require a perception check in a loud tavern, if it isn't denied outright as having no chance to succeed. Suddenly combat breaks out and I gain the hearing ability of a SETI dish and can pinpoint an invisible mouse 50 feet away. Then when combat ends, I'm struggling to hear that conversation again.

If they want my PC to have the hearing ability of a SETI dish, just give it to me at character creation and let me use it. Otherwise, don't and be consistent in combat that way.

It's up to the DM whether you're going to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to overhear a conversation in a loud tavern 30 feet away. You seem to assert here that there will be one and it will somehow be inconsistent with the rules for hiding. That's not a given.

I think in terms of consistency, the DM that cleaves to the rules as much as possible with the odd exception here and there is likely to have a game that is more consistent for the players than one where the players have to figure out what the DM is thinking about a given fictional situation. My players know that unless I've established some specific exception at the outset (or one arises, such as someone casting a silence spell for the invisible PC to be in), they're going to have to take the Hide action to become hidden. They can make informed decisions on that basis without a lot of sidebars with the DM to hash that out.

 

[Hriston]

If the fiction can't match the mechanics, the fiction fails. My example with the goblins holds true. All 10 of them can run 50 feet, then 10 feet past me and block my exit before my PC can move an inch. On my turn they are there in the fiction, not running towards those spots. Otherwise I could escape through the door that it now being blocked by 10 goblins.

Right, that's because, in this case, initiative has decided (among other things) that the goblins' effort to block the door succeeds before your effort to escape through the door. You have to fill in the fiction to make that outcome make sense. We can assume, for example, that the goblins were just a bit closer to the door than you were when you started moving your last ten feet.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, that's because, in this case, initiative has decided (among other things) that the goblins' effort to block the door succeeds before your effort to escape through the door. You have to fill in the fiction to make that outcome make sense. We can assume, for example, that the goblins were just a bit closer to the door than you were when you started moving your last ten feet.

That's simply not possible. I started 10 feet away and the goblins 60 feet away before initiative and no surprise. They don't get to teleport 50 feet before they start moving. And my PC isn't just going to sit there...........except the mechanics require just that.

 

[Hriston]

I don't like it much, either, but there's no other way to look at it that makes any kind of sense. If the fiction resembled anything close to being simultaneous, my PC would reach that door first, no matter what the initiative numbers are.

Well, @DM Dave1 said "nearly simultaneous". Perhaps contemporaneous or concurrent or some other word would be a better fit to avoid the connotation of precise alignment in time. The idea is that turns overlap. The goblins' turn, because they won initiative, started enough before yours did to allow them to get to the door before you.

 

[Hriston]

That's simply not possible. I started 10 feet away and the goblins 60 feet away before initiative and no surprise. They don't get to teleport 50 feet before they start moving. And my PC isn't just going to sit there...........except the mechanics require just that.

Your PC isn't just sitting there. Presumably, your PC is still doing whatever it was doing before the round started, possibly taking too long to decide what to do about the new developments. You have to back fill the fiction so it makes sense.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm the OP of the thread, my goodness this has started quite the discussion!

So listening to all of the arguments so far, I think its quite clear that the monk in my situation should not automatically be hidden after he attacks and moves 100 ft. Aka he has to do "SOMETHING" to be undetected even while invisible.

So then it comes down to how much is "acceptable". Obviously there is always the full hide action, which is a significant investment to maintain your stealth. Perhaps I could consider a bonus action when invisible....it still requires some action (and in the monk's case that is not a trivial investment)...but its not the full degree. This would represent being stealthy while invisible still requires effort....but it is easy easier than regular stealth in terms of time investment.

 

[SkidAce]

Perhaps I could consider a bonus action when invisible....it still requires some action (and in the monk's case that is not a trivial investment)...but its not the full degree. This would represent being stealthy while invisible still requires effort....but it is easy easier than regular stealth in terms of time investment.

Can I snag this as a house rule, or will you be going to publish it and be overwhelmed in riches and fame?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm the OP of the thread, my goodness this has started quite the discussion!

So listening to all of the arguments so far, I think its quite clear that the monk in my situation should not automatically be hidden after he attacks and moves 100 ft. Aka he has to do "SOMETHING" to be undetected even while invisible.

So then it comes down to how much is "acceptable". Obviously there is always the full hide action, which is a significant investment to maintain your stealth. Perhaps I could consider a bonus action when invisible....it still requires some action (and in the monk's case that is not a trivial investment)...but its not the full degree. This would represent being stealthy while invisible still requires effort....but it is easy easier than regular stealth in terms of time investment.

That sounds like pretty reasonable middle ground position.

 

[iserith]

I'm the OP of the thread, my goodness this has started quite the discussion!

So listening to all of the arguments so far, I think its quite clear that the monk in my situation should not automatically be hidden after he attacks and moves 100 ft. Aka he has to do "SOMETHING" to be undetected even while invisible.

So then it comes down to how much is "acceptable". Obviously there is always the full hide action, which is a significant investment to maintain your stealth. Perhaps I could consider a bonus action when invisible....it still requires some action (and in the monk's case that is not a trivial investment)...but its not the full degree. This would represent being stealthy while invisible still requires effort....but it is easy easier than regular stealth in terms of time investment.

What's the goal of the house rule? What problem does it solve? What does it add to your game? What are the downsides?

 

[Maxperson]

Well, @DM Dave1 said "nearly simultaneous". Perhaps contemporaneous or concurrent or some other word would be a better fit to avoid the connotation of precise alignment in time. The idea is that turns overlap. The goblins' turn, because they won initiative, started enough before yours did to allow them to get to the door before you.

Go find a friend. While both of you are ready have him 50 feet from you, and you 10 feet from the finish line. Let him start moving doesn't and see if he can beat you to the line.