5e invisibility and Detect Magic

[Ovinomancer]

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.

It's neither, but great day to you, as well.

 

[MNblockhead]

...and CLOSE.

The audience may now vote.

 

[happyhermit]

The audience cannot be seen or heard, roll to determine if they exist.

 

[Satyrn]

The audience cannot be seen or heard, roll to determine if they exist.

Meh. I'll just assume they don't and move on to the next thread.

I'll either get out of here without having to face them, or they'll give away their existence when they laugh with this post.

 

[Hriston]

When they are getting noticed 40% of the time by people with penalty to wisdom, it's a crappy, crappy ability.



When it's failing 35-40% of the time to surprise anyone in the party, it's virtually useless as a special ability.



In a group 1, probably 2 out of 5 will notice it the majority of the time. If one of them has +2 or better, it will be even more lopsided. That's an average group by the way. In your average group of 5, that 37.5% of a 12 or higher means that usually there will be two that are above average with wisdom.



If someone came to you and asked you to invest $10,000 in a stock that has a 45% chance of failing, would you really consider that "very little risk"?

What I'm saying has "very little risk" is the gargoyle's decision to attack after it has succeeded in remaining unnoticed by its prey. It would be unlikely that a commoner would have any opportunity to retaliate in that situation.

Regardless, you think it's a crappy ability as I use it. That's fine. Just keep in mind that when you look up False Appearance in the DMG with reference to its effect on a creature's CR, it's listed as having no effect on CR whatsoever. On the other hand, a situation in which the whole party is surprised is listed in the guidelines for building combat encounters as increasing the difficulty of the encounter by one step. So I'd assume that if False Appearance was meant to be a robust ability to cause surprise, it would be considered by the game designers to have some effect on a creature's CR, but it doesn't.

3d6 has been standard since basic. Your favored distribution doesn't matter for this discussion, since we are discussing D&D and not house rules. 16.2% have a 14 or higher.

3d6 isn't standard for 5e. I don't believe it's mentioned once in any of the 5e books. If other distributions don't matter for this discussion, then 3d6 doesn't matter either.

With perception. How else? It's just not an opposed hide check as the gargoyle isn't trying to hide. It's more in the nature of a disguise. What I would do is set a DC to notice odd things, like perhaps light scratches near the feet of where the gargoyles perch. Pushing off and landing might cause scraping. There might be bits of dried blood on the "statues".

By the way, in 4e gargoyles actually turn into statues. They don't hold still like one. They don't just look like one. They become statues. It's crystal clear that you are just choosing to ignore the intent and logic behind gargoyles for some reason. And that's fine for your game, but it's not how they work by RAW. Read the 5e description again. The ability doesn't involve a hide check at all. They are simply flat out indistinguishable from a statue. The PCs aren't even supposed to get a roll to tell the difference. If they were, there would be rules for it.

Well, at least one of the designers plays it like I do: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/24/blight-false-appearance/

 

[Maxperson]

What I'm saying has "very little risk" is the gargoyle's decision to attack after it has succeeded in remaining unnoticed by its prey. It would be unlikely that a commoner would have any opportunity to retaliate in that situation.

Regardless, you think it's a crappy ability as I use it. That's fine. Just keep in mind that when you look up False Appearance in the DMG with reference to its effect on a creature's CR, it's listed as having no effect on CR whatsoever. On the other hand, a situation in which the whole party is surprised is listed in the guidelines for building combat encounters as increasing the difficulty of the encounter by one step. So I'd assume that if False Appearance was meant to be a robust ability to cause surprise, it would be considered by the game designers to have some effect on a creature's CR, but it doesn't.

And it shouldn't affect CR how RAW spells out the ability. A complete 100% guaranteed surprise round isn't worth an additional CR, and I'm not arguing that it should be 100% guaranteed. It should just be a lot more than 40% likely to surprise Joe Commoner.

Well, at least one of the designers plays it like I do: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/24/blight-false-appearance/

Mike Mearls is notorious for just giving his opinions on how he runs his own game. Jeremy Crawford is the one to go to for how the rules work.

 

[Sadras]

The bonus is that it can hide in plain sight. Against an average person that’s alert for threats (passive Perception 10) it will succeed 55% of the time, so it isn’t remotely true that it will be noticed in the majority of cases.

I prefer to think that monsters are not their to challenge the average person but the average adventurer.

You think this trait is an ability to auto-surprise, and it’s fine for you to rule it that way if that’s your conception of gargoyles, but as has already been said, “they can hold themselves so still that they appear inanimate” doesn’t mean they’re always successful when attempting to do so. To me, it’s uncertain and calls for a check in most cases.

By making the ability work only via a passive 10, you're essentially diminishing one of the primary quirks of the gargoyle.

EDIT: One of the dragon's monstrous features is Amphibious.

Amphibious: The dragon can breathe air and water.

Are you saying it is uncertain if the dragon can breathe air and water and you would therefore call for a check in most cases due to this highly ambiguous word can?

 

[Hriston]

And it shouldn't affect CR how RAW spells out the ability. A complete 100% guaranteed surprise round isn't worth an additional CR, and I'm not arguing that it should be 100% guaranteed. It should just be a lot more than 40% likely to surprise Joe Commoner.

First, Farmer Joe Commoner, who has a passive Perception of 10, gets surprised by a gargoyle 55% of the time IF he’s alert for danger. If his attention is being taken up with other matters as he strolls through the churchyard, he has 0 chance of noticing that one of the statues is a hidden threat. I don't know where you're getting 40%. For those odds, Farmer Joe would have to have a passive Perception score of 13, so either he's proficient in Perception with a Wisdom score of 12 or 13, or non-proficient with a Wisdom of 16 or 17. Either way, that doesn't sound like the typical commoner to me.

Second, you're correct that surprise doesn't affect CR. A creature's CR is what it is, whether it surprises you or not. That right there should tell you that one of the assumptions of the encounter building guidelines is that surprise is never a 100% guaranteed outcome. When it happens, however, it affects difficulty. A gargoyle, a CR 2 creature, is an easy encounter for two 6th-level adventurers. If the gargoyle succeeds in surprising both of them, however, that bumps the difficulty of the encounter up to medium, which is effectively the equivalent of a CR 3.

Mike Mearls is notorious for just giving his opinions on how he runs his own game. Jeremy Crawford is the one to go to for how the rules work.

There's no official ruling on how False Appearance works as far as I'm aware. The reason I referenced Mearls's tweet is to show that my understanding of the trait isn't as unheard of as you seem to think.

I prefer to think that monsters are not their to challenge the average person but the average adventurer.

By making the ability work only via a passive 10, you're essentially diminishing one of the primary quirks of the gargoyle.

Many adventurers have a passive Perception of 10 or lower. Not every adventurer maxes Wisdom and takes Perception. Nor is every adventurer on the lookout for hidden threats at all times. Also, the trait works against higher passive scores as well. The gargoyle's DEX check could be 20. Very few adventurers' passive Perception scores are higher than that.

EDIT: One of the dragon's monstrous features is Amphibious.



Are you saying it is uncertain if the dragon can breathe air and water and you would therefore call for a check in most cases due to this highly ambiguous word can?

In an abundance of air and/or water there's no uncertainty as to whether the dragon can breath. In a cloud of poisonous gas, however, it may be uncertain whether the dragon can hold its breath longer than 1 + CON modifier minutes, in which case I may call for a CON check.

edit: It would be ludicrous to interpret Amphibious as meaning the dragon always breathes air and water, even in their absence.

 

[Maxperson]

First, Farmer Joe Commoner, who has a passive Perception of 10, gets surprised by a gargoyle 55% of the time IF he’s alert for danger. If his attention is being taken up with other matters as he strolls through the churchyard, he has 0 chance of noticing that one of the statues is a hidden threat. I don't know where you're getting 40%. For those odds, Farmer Joe would have to have a passive Perception score of 13, so either he's proficient in Perception with a Wisdom score of 12 or 13, or non-proficient with a Wisdom of 16 or 17. Either way, that doesn't sound like the typical commoner to me.

It was a typo. I meant that the gargoyle failed 40% of the time. An average roll after penalties is 9.

Second, you're correct that surprise doesn't affect CR. A creature's CR is what it is, whether it surprises you or not. That right there should tell you that one of the assumptions of the encounter building guidelines is that surprise is never a 100% guaranteed outcome. When it happens, however, it affects difficulty. A gargoyle, a CR 2 creature, is an easy encounter for two 6th-level adventurers. If the gargoyle succeeds in surprising both of them, however, that bumps the difficulty of the encounter up to medium, which is effectively the equivalent of a CR 3.

An assumption of encounter building is not an assumption of creature building. We're discussing a creature ability, general encounter building. Specific beats general. And no, a surprise round does not make an easy encounter into a medium one. It's just a bit less easy.

Many adventurers have a passive Perception of 10 or lower. Not every adventurer maxes Wisdom and takes Perception. Nor is every adventurer on the lookout for hidden threats at all times. Also, the trait works against higher passive scores as well. The gargoyle's DEX check could be 20. Very few adventurers' passive Perception scores are higher than that.

Most will not have passive scores that low, and someone, usually multiple someone's in the party will have high passive perception scores.

 

[Sadras]

There's no official ruling on how False Appearance works as far as I'm aware.

Except for the fact that the ability states the gargoyle is indistinguishable from an inanimate statue and remains motionless.
NOT it can (maybe) remain motionless or it can (maybe) be indistinguishable from an animate statue.
The fluff adds the gargoyle can do this for years on end.
Using your understanding of the ability 55% success rate equates to ideal, as the fluff reflects on the creature being an ideal sentry.

Furthermore the fluff mentions that gargoyles can sometimes serve demons. 12 out of 14 demons in the MM have a passive perception of 10 or more. Gargoyle makes for a pretty crappy sentry.

Many adventurers have a passive Perception of 10 or lower. Not every adventurer maxes Wisdom and takes Perception. Nor is every adventurer on the lookout for hidden threats at all times. Also, the trait works against higher passive scores as well. The gargoyle's DEX check could be 20. Very few adventurers' passive Perception scores are higher than that.

With a DEX modifier of +0?

I guess for me, reducing the gargoyle's shtick to a measly 55% success rate defeats the purpose of the gargoyle.

Anyways to each their own, which is one of D&D's cornerstones and certainly an advantage of the game.