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

[Flamestrike]

Yup, I don't think that example was a threshold, but a solid example of in the area a GM could make such a call. The "line," blurry as it is, starts sooner.

The rather extreme example he gave was a 'maybe' so if the line starts sooner, the answer is even less than 'maybe' and much more likely definitely 'nope, you need to Hide to be hidden.'

I don't think it's far enough back to say "I ran 100' in this round and that's enough," though. If, by next round, no one has followed and the monk runs again, I'm cool with that. But, in one round, getting off an attack routine and running away? Nah, no sufficient enough on it's own. If your plan is to do this and be hidden in the same round, get your rogue friend to blow something up, or something.

Agreed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Some people have repeatedly stated that the rule is that you always know where the invisible creature is unless they've made a successful stealth check. That's not true.

It's up to the DM to make the call. Just like it's up to the DM to decide when a stealth check is possible.

I haven't, and you've argued incessantly with me, so that's bunk. @iserith hasn't, and you've argued with him, so that's bunk. @Hriston hasn't, and you've argued with him, so bunk. Even @Flamestrike hasn't, and you've argued with him.

The actual argument has been that you notice unless there's a good reason not to, with varying levels of what counts as good enough. The baseline rule, though, as heard in the podcast, is that you do know where an invisible creature is unless there's some special enough circumstance not to. The example in the podcast was explosions and frontal assault by a scary barbarian might be sufficient, depending on the GM. While I don't think that level of distraction is a threshold, meaning I don't think it has to be that extreme, it does set a rough gauge as to where the designers think that a GM ruling needs to override the baseline assumption. I don't think running 100' away in a single round with nothing else going on is sufficient, but I guess you can do you. My argument has been, though, that the baseline is noticing, and the podcast doesn't change that at all. Feel free to listen again.

 

[Flamestrike]

Some people have repeatedly stated that the rule is that you always know where the invisible creature is unless they've made a successful stealth check.

That's the general rule, unless unusual circumstances dictate otherwise. Of course a DM can rule otherwise, I've said so multiple times in this very thread.

Who's made that assertion here?

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly, a DM can in extreme outliers, make the call that they're Hidden even without them taking the Hide action.

There is no requirement for "extreme." All it takes is a reasonable amount of sound to mask the footsteps, like any battle involving a part of say 4 and an enemy.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't, and you've argued incessantly with me, so that's bunk. @iserith hasn't, and you've argued with him, so that's bunk. @Hriston hasn't, and you've argued with him, so bunk. Even @Flamestrike hasn't, and you've argued with him.

The actual argument has been that you notice unless there's a good reason not to, with varying levels of what counts as good enough. The baseline rule, though, as heard in the podcast, is that you do know where an invisible creature is unless there's some special enough circumstance not to. The example in the podcast was explosions and frontal assault by a scary barbarian might be sufficient, depending on the GM. While I don't think that level of distraction is a threshold, meaning I don't think it has to be that extreme, it does set a rough gauge as to where the designers think that a GM ruling needs to override the baseline assumption. I don't think running 100' away in a single round with nothing else going on is sufficient, but I guess you can do you. My argument has been, though, that the baseline is noticing, and the podcast doesn't change that at all. Feel free to listen again.

We may draw the line differently based on personal experience and preference. I probably run a bit more simulationist than a lot of people. Different games, different rulings are completely legitimate. It's not like Crawford went over or even attempted to give an extensive list of scenarios.

I've never said you were wrong, just that we disagree on details, I think "default ruling" is meaningless and that you keep telling me what I "really" think.

 

[Oofta]

For the record having a barbarian screaming in the your face while the cleric is casting thunderwave and the rogue is trying to stab you in the nether regions to me would be called "a normal round of combat".

But ultimately, it's a DM's call.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We may draw the line differently based on personal experience and preference. I probably run a bit more simulationist than a lot of people. Different games, different rulings are completely legitimate. It's not like Crawford went over or even attempted to give an extensive list of scenarios.

I've never said you were wrong, just that we disagree on details, I think "default ruling" is meaningless and that you keep telling me what I "really" think.

So, curiously, are you of the opinion that, absent special conditions, invisible creatures are noticed?


On a side note:
As for "simulationist," I'm not sure that's the right word. What simulation appears to be to me is that you (general you) look at a situation, interpret it, and then try to make the rules adhere to how you've interpreted the situation. In other words, you (still general) build a fictional picture of what a scene is and then apply the rules. For example, when the monk runs 100' away, you picture that result first, adding details and imagining the scene, and then have a hard time with the presupposition that the monk is detectable at all. That's not what your picture looks like, and the rules don't provide a clear alternative vector for you to add that makes sense. For the record, there's nothing wrong with this. Doing it this way sets up "chance at the end" scenario, where everything in the situation is set up in the fiction and you're only rolling to establish the outcome of that established fiction. This would mean that you set up the monk as practically invisible, so auto-detection doesn't make sense and you therefor need to set up some kind of roll that determines if the observer is good enough to notice the monk rather than the scene allowing it -- the scene is already set, so to speak.

I'm approaching this slightly different -- with the chance more in the middle. The fiction is set up in broad strokes -- we know what the monk did, but I'm not going to add or subtract more details at this point. Instead, I'm going to turn to the mechanics. Here, it suggests that the normal is that the monk is detected, and I wouldn't consider running 100' in a few seconds to be special enough to overturn that, so the monk is detected. Now I return to the fiction and sketch out the rest of the scene to adhere to what the decision was. So, sure, the monk ran 100' but he's kicking up dust in his wake, leaving a ghostly rooster trail pointing to where he is. Bam, done, the scene is a good simulation of reality because that's not outlandish at all.

Usually, when people say they are more "simulationist," what they mean is how they establish the fictional feed in to the chance mechanic and what it's allowed to do. It's not really about simulating reality (if that's meaningful in a pretend elf game) but rather how you approach that simulation. I don't think it's any more successful at simulation that other methods.

 

[Dausuul]

A creature attacking another creature while invisible and then sprinting away? Not hidden, not an outlier, will need to make a Stealth check to hide via the Hide action, or that creature can attack them (with disadvantage, no targeted spells or special abilities etc) and it has a very very rough idea where the invisible creature is.

What do you mean, very very rough? It knows exactly where the invisible creature is, to within a 5-foot square. And it doesn't have to make any kind of a roll to know this.

That is one of my problems with stealth as written. This sort of precise, reliable awareness should be the outlier--you've spread flour on the floor and can see the invisible creature's footprints appearing. Instead it is the default. Every invisible creature is talking or singing or farting or stomping through mud puddles at all times, unless it takes an action to remind itself not to.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What do you mean, very very rough? It knows exactly where the invisible creature is, to within a 5-foot square. And it doesn't have to make any kind of a roll to know this.

That is one of my problems with stealth as written. This sort of precise, reliable awareness should be the outlier--you've spread flour on the floor and can see the invisible creature's footprints appearing. Instead it is the default. Every invisible creature is talking or singing or farting or stomping through mud puddles at all times, unless it takes an action to remind itself not to.

Let's remind ourselves that the grid in D&D is already a massive simplification and that an invisible creature, even if located to a grid space, is still very difficult to hit (disadvantage automatically). If you were to translate this to a less codified situation, "locating" an invisible creature means you can attack it and have a chance of hitting it. It just means you're not wildly guessing that something is out there and shooting entirely randomly. Invisibility in 5e already has this baked into the effect without turning it into a total guess.

For example, in the OP, if the monk becomes hidden at 100', it doesn't help the monk at all because he was on the grid up to that point and then removed -- the players can easily guess that same square and have the exact same chance to hit the monk as if he was "located" to that square. So, then, it only matters if the monk becomes hidden earlier and then the players have no idea at all where the monk is -- no clues except his started off in that direction. If this is the result you think should obtain on the monk merely because he's invisible, cool, but that makes that effect super-duper powerful. The "normal" of locating just means you have a good enough guess so that if you make an attack you have a chance to hit. This is what the argument is about, not that you know exactly where the invisible creature is, but that you have a good enough guess that you have a chance to make a successful attack. The 5' square, while much less accurate a location that you seem to think it is, is just because that's how 5e sets things up.

 

[Oofta]

So, curiously, are you of the opinion that, absent special conditions, invisible creatures are noticed?

...

Your definition of special conditions may vary from mine so I can't answer the question. It depends mostly on distance, environmental factors, size of the invisible creature, potentially mode of movement. It's a judgement call.