5e invisibility and Detect Magic

[Maxperson]

This is cool! Do it! But... if you're going to argue that you can do this, perhaps you should also allow others the leeway to set their DCs how they wish, yes?

Never said otherwise.

And, if that's rolling DEX(stealth) instead of your preferred method, that's still good.

Sure. House rules are fine.

@Hriston hasn't misread the rules here,

he absolutely has. Here is the rule.

"False Appearance. While the gargoyle remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an inanimate statue."

There is no roll involved with this ability. None. The rule is that it is indistinguishable from an inanimate statue, and no roll is mentioned. If any sort of roll or DC were involved with that ability, it would say so. That's why my rolls are not to figure out whether or not it's a statue, but to notice things outside of the gargoyle itself that can lead PCs to possibly assume it's other than a statute.

Using a hide check is in my opinion, a bit silly. The gargoyle isn't trying to hide........at all. It's right out there in the open. Disguise would be closer than stealth-hide would be if you wanted to involve a skill.

and no amount of appeals to the authority of 4e (or basic, for stats) really makes his way any worse than yours.

Aaaaaand you should learn what an Appeal to Authority is. Let me help you. It isn't showing how the last three editions(3, 4 and 5) all treat gargoyles in the same way, even if the specific mechanics vary a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

Does any of the individuals here think a mimic should be detectable? I do not. But they have a similar ability to gargoyles...

The difference is that gargoyles are flat out indistinguishable from statues by RAW. Mimics are just NEARLY unrecognizable. I'd allow them to be directly detectable, but the DC would be high.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Never said otherwise.



Sure. House rules are fine.

You realize you just contradicted yourself? No, probably not. First you agree that you haven't said others can make rulings here, then you say that if they make said ruling, they've house ruled it -- it made a rule change. Consistency, man.

he absolutely has. Here is the rule.

"False Appearance. While the gargoyle remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an inanimate statue."

There is no roll involved with this ability. None. The rule is that it is indistinguishable from an inanimate statue, and no roll is mentioned. If any sort of roll or DC were involved with that ability, it would say so. That's why my rolls are not to figure out whether or not it's a statue, but to notice things outside of the gargoyle itself that can lead PCs to possibly assume it's other than a statute.

Using a hide check is in my opinion, a bit silly. The gargoyle isn't trying to hide........at all. It's right out there in the open. Disguise would be closer than stealth-hide would be if you wanted to involve a skill.

Emphasis added. The question isn't that, if motionless, can the gargoyle be hidden but instead if the gargoyle can remain motionless to do so. Since remaining motionless for the purposes of evading detection is a common use of the DEX(stealth) ability check, it's a perfectly good ruling here to do so -- not a house rule. The DM decides the outcome of "remain[ing] motionless" is uncertain, so there's a roll. The goal is "be undetected" the approach is "use my trait" the DM decides that's DEX as it involves motor skills and stealth because it involves hiding. Poof!

As for disguise, you realize that roll is just as bad, right? INT and CHA are both -2.

Aaaaaand you should learn what an Appeal to Authority is. Let me help you. It isn't showing how the last three editions(3, 4 and 5) all treat gargoyles in the same way, even if the specific mechanics vary a bit.

Point of contention: use of 3d6 for commoners to determine average spread -- you refer back to basic to establish the "standard" when 5e sets all commoners at 10's across the board.

Point of contention: gargoyle's mimic trait -- you refer back to 4e for how it is supposed to work when it works differently in 5e.

No, seems I have a pretty good handle on what an appeal to authority is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Does any of the individuals here think a mimic should be detectable? I do not. But they have a similar ability to gargoyles...

The loop is: DM decides if the outcome is yes, no, or maybe. If maybe, roll. It's really up to you, as DM, to decide if "nearly unrecognizable" is uncertain enough or not. If you're asking how I'd run it, it's on approach and goal. If the players walk into a room with a disguised mimic (or statue gargoyle, for that matter) and do not declare any actions that have an approach or goal that interacts with the hiding mimic, I'm not going to check. If they have an approach or goal that interacts, then it depends on the specifics. If a character declares that they are suspicious of the chest in the middle of the room and so look for any dangers from a distance, then I'll likely make an opposed check perception vs stealth to see if they notice any telltales. If they declare they run to the chest and open it, then, well, it's surprise time!

In general, if a creature is hiding as part of the scene framing, they're gong to remain hidden until a declared action interacts. If there are telltales as part of the scene, they're presented right off the bat. Max's scrapes and blood would probably be part of my scene framing, because I like to foreshadow, but you don't have to. As actions are declared, the scene evolves, with checks and successes/failures determining the direction of play. I strongly dislike gotcha moments, so if there's something that could 'gotcha', I try to foreshadow it heavily. For mimics, they're dee-ewe-emm, dumb. So, they may have a great disguise, but something about it is wrong -- ie, the chest is freestanding in the room instead of against a wall where it would be normally. This is the kind of thing I strive to put in my scene descriptions.

 

[Umbran]

I'm amused that you add your 'disclaimer' as if it actually absolves you of arguing the opposite as often as you do.

Rhetorical question: Why are you making this personal? Taking jabs at your fellow posters is not making your point stronger.

Please stop it.

 

[Maxperson]

You realize you just contradicted yourself? No, probably not. First you agree that you haven't said others can make rulings here, then you say that if they make said ruling, they've house ruled it -- it made a rule change. Consistency, man.

A ruling is for when the rule is unclear, like the jump rules. A house rule is for when the rule is clear, but you change it, like the gargoyle rule where there is no roll involved as they are automatically indistinguishable from statutes. There is no inconsistency or contradiction.

Emphasis added. The question isn't that, if motionless, can the gargoyle be hidden but instead if the gargoyle can remain motionless to do so. Since remaining motionless for the purposes of evading detection is a common use of the DEX(stealth) ability check, it's a perfectly good ruling here to do so -- not a house rule. The DM decides the outcome of "remain[ing] motionless" is uncertain, so there's a roll. The goal is "be undetected" the approach is "use my trait" the DM decides that's DEX as it involves motor skills and stealth because it involves hiding. Poof!

Sure, if you ignore the intent of gargoyles for 5 editions and the wording that goes with them, you are able to come to that conclusion. I can ignore that a longsword does 1d8 damage and change that, too. The rules state flat out that they are able to be perfectly still for YEARS. That's simply not possible if they are rolling dex checks with a 9 dex whenever someone comes by. Feel free to ignore the wording and rules, though and make whatever rule you like for the situation.

As for disguise, you realize that roll is just as bad, right? INT and CHA are both -2.

Incorrect!!! I realize that house ruling it to the more appropriate disguise skill is worse. -2 being worse than -1. If you're going to ignore the rules and intent of gargoyles, though, you might as well do it in a more reasonable way. It's not like making the already super crappy house ruled ability worse is going to mean much.

Point of contention: use of 3d6 for commoners to determine average spread -- you refer back to basic to establish the "standard" when 5e sets all commoners at 10's across the board.

The game as for 3 editions now simply used averages to represent creatures in the monster manuals. That doesn't mean that they all have straight 10's. It's a convenience for the DM to know the averages for various creatures for when he doesn't need or want to roll for them. 4e went a step further and didn't even have you use stats unless you needed to, but like gargoyles the idea is the same.

Point of contention: gargoyle's mimic trait -- you refer back to 4e for how it is supposed to work when it works differently in 5e.

Context is your friend, dude. For several posts I've been referring to the various editions to show that gargoyles have been treated the same. I hadn't looked up 4e yet and just tossed it in there. I did not say that "4e does it this way, so it's right because 4e says it is." I simply added yet another edition to the mix of gargoyle examples.

No, seems I have a pretty good handle on what an appeal to authority is.

Nope. Go read it a few more times until you understand it. Study up on context while you are at it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A ruling is for when the rule is unclear, like the jump rules. A house rule is for when the rule is clear, but you change it, like the gargoyle rule where there is no roll involved as they are automatically indistinguishable from statutes. There is no inconsistency or contradiction.

You say the rules aren't clear because you play it your way. There's room for uncertainty, and that means another DM could make a ruling that a roll is necessary. No house rule is needed.

Sure, if you ignore the intent of gargoyles for 5 editions and the wording that goes with them, you are able to come to that conclusion. I can ignore that a longsword does 1d8 damage and change that, too. The rules state flat out that they are able to be perfectly still for YEARS. That's simply not possible if they are rolling dex checks with a 9 dex whenever someone comes by. Feel free to ignore the wording and rules, though and make whatever rule you like for the situation.

Previous editions are not controlling of this one. Referring to them solely in the context you have is an appeal to that authority -- misplaced as it is. Your strawman of the longsword isn't indicative of anything -- yes, you could rule that, but longswords do a d8 in 5e (unless wielded two handed, of course). That doesn't aid that you're relying on how previous authority did it to say that current authority does it the same way -- absent that specific rule, though. It's an appeal to authority, Max.

Incorrect!!! I realize that house ruling it to the more appropriate disguise skill is worse. -2 being worse than -1. If you're going to ignore the rules and intent of gargoyles, though, you might as well do it in a more reasonable way. It's not like making the already super crappy house ruled ability worse is going to mean much.

Um, gargoyle INT and CHA are both -2. What is incorrect? And, the point is that the rules and intent of gargoyles is not being ignored when the DM uses the basic play paradigm of the system: yes, no, maybe; if maybe, roll. A reasonable DM could look at that ability and say that it's uncertain if the gargoyle remains motionless. This isn't a houserule, nor does it ignore rules as it relies on the core paradigm of the entire rule framework.

The game as for 3 editions now simply used averages to represent creatures in the monster manuals. That doesn't mean that they all have straight 10's. It's a convenience for the DM to know the averages for various creatures for when he doesn't need or want to roll for them. 4e went a step further and didn't even have you use stats unless you needed to, but like gargoyles the idea is the same.

Please cite the rule, Max. You can't, because it doesn't exist, which means you're relying on your preferences to set a 'standard' and saying others not following that standard are not following the rules. No, you can make a commoner stat block however you want -- you, as DM, are empowered to create NPCs for your game. But, that doesn't mean that 3d6 is the core assumption for commoners, and another DM choosing a different distribution is using exactly the same authority you are. They're just not telling others that they are wrong for doing so.

Context is your friend, dude. For several posts I've been referring to the various editions to show that gargoyles have been treated the same. I hadn't looked up 4e yet and just tossed it in there. I did not say that "4e does it this way, so it's right because 4e says it is." I simply added yet another edition to the mix of gargoyle examples.

The timing of your intent doesn't change the appeal to authority, Max.

Nope. Go read it a few more times until you understand it. Study up on context while you are at it.

I've got a great handle on it, I don't need to review it. When you claim another source is the guiding principle on a questionable issue, and further do so without engaging why the current issue is questionable, that's an appeal to authority. Make your case without referring to prior editions -- then we'll see if you have an argument that isn't an appeal to authority. Just use the 5e rules and the trait and tell me that it's unreasonable to determine that the gargoyle remaining motionless might be uncertain and need a roll. Don't tell me what a previous edition did, make this case.

 

[Maxperson]

Previous editions are not controlling of this one. Referring to them solely in the context you have is an appeal to that authority -- misplaced as it is. Your strawman of the longsword isn't indicative of anything -- yes, you could rule that, but longswords do a d8 in 5e (unless wielded two handed, of course). That doesn't aid that you're relying on how previous authority did it to say that current authority does it the same way -- absent that specific rule, though. It's an appeal to authority, Max.

Still not an Appeal to Authority to show examples of how things haven't changed with 5e. Repeating it doesn't make you right, it just makes you repetitive.

Um, gargoyle INT and CHA are both -2. What is incorrect? And, the point is that the rules and intent of gargoyles is not being ignored when the DM uses the basic play paradigm of the system: yes, no, maybe; if maybe, roll. A reasonable DM could look at that ability and say that it's uncertain if the gargoyle remains motionless. This isn't a houserule, nor does it ignore rules as it relies on the core paradigm of the entire rule framework.

Um, this was between stealth-hide(dex) and disguise(int or cha). Or are you having another solo discussion again? It's hard to tell when you are talking by yourself and when you are in a discussion with the rest of us.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Still not an Appeal to Authority to show examples of how things haven't changed with 5e. Repeating it doesn't make you right, it just makes you repetitive.

You haven't yet made the case that things haven't changed, especially considering you've not engaged any counter-arguments except to keep pointing out that how things worked in previous editions. I'm okay with your argument being an informal fallacy if you are.

Um, this was between stealth-hide(dex) and disguise(int or cha). Or are you having another solo discussion again? It's hard to tell when you are talking by yourself and when you are in a discussion with the rest of us.

Yes, the gargoyle is -2 on INT(disguise) or CHA(disguise), which is what I said and to which you appear to have said I was incorrect. I've asked for clarification, to which you appear to have repeated my point back to me (which you said was incorrect, so...). You may feel that you're being clever, here, but I'm not the one having trouble following along.

 

[Maxperson]

You haven't yet made the case that things haven't changed, especially considering you've not engaged any counter-arguments except to keep pointing out that how things worked in previous editions. I'm okay with your argument being an informal fallacy if you are.



Yes, the gargoyle is -2 on INT(disguise) or CHA(disguise), which is what I said and to which you appear to have said I was incorrect. I've asked for clarification, to which you appear to have repeated my point back to me (which you said was incorrect, so...). You may feel that you're being clever, here, but I'm not the one having trouble following along.

At this point you are either trolling me, or making a colossal joke. I'm going to assume it's the latter unless you correct my by admitting the former. Have a great day.