5e invisibility and Detect Magic

[Hriston]

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

I’m still not following. What penalties? The gargoyle's DEX modifier is +0.

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.

In the "Building Combat Encounters" guidelines, under "Modifying Encounter Difficulty", it lists, "The whole party is surprised, and the enemy isn’t", as a situational drawback that increases the difficulty of the encounter by one step.

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

Then those someone's will be less likely to be surprised, and those with low scores will be more likely to be surprised. Individuals can be surprised. The gargoyle doesn't need to surprise everyone in the party for its trait to have an effect.

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 trait is a conditional statement. The gargoyle can't be distinguished from a statue WHILE it is motionless. If it ISN'T motionless, then it CAN be distinguished from a statue. The trait itself doesn't say whether the gargoyle is motionless or not. To me, it isn't a simple matter of declaring that the gargoyle is motionless, although that works too. To me, it's a matter for the dice to decide.

The fluff adds the gargoyle can do this for years on end.

Right, they are able to hold themselves so still they are mistaken for statues and can do this for years at a time. To find out whether they are successful in doing this in a particular situation, however, I roll the dice. If they succeed, it may very well be the case that they were holding still for a number of years before the party came upon them. If they fail, it could be that they only just made a small movement in anticipation of their attack on the party.

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.

I think the idea of the gargoyle as an ideal sentry is due at least in part to its ability to stay in the same place for long periods of time. Non-elemental creatures, for example, would need to stop standing guard to eat and sleep, whereas gargoyles can do so indefinitely.

With a DEX modifier of +0?

Yes. I don't know why it would need to be explained that you can roll a 20 on a d20.

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

As was mentioned up-thread, the gargoyle didn't always have the "living statue" narrative attached to it in earlier editions of the game. Without it being grafted on there would still be a gargoyle.

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

Yes, happy gaming. This particular issue certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m still not following. What penalties? The gargoyle's DEX modifier is +0.

Bah! I can't keep the monsters straight. Call it a Gargolem then. So the number drops from 40% to 35% for farmer Joe. Adventurers still kill the crap out of that ability and render it nearly worthless.

In the "Building Combat Encounters" guidelines, under "Modifying Encounter Difficulty", it lists, "The whole party is surprised, and the enemy isn’t", as a situational drawback that increases the difficulty of the encounter by one step.

Yep! Doesn't make it true, though. WotC has never been able to get challenge ratings/encounter difficulty right. Gargoyles have two attacks, both of which are more likely to miss than not if someone has armor on. The little bit of extra damage that might occur isn't going to make it jump a difficulty.

Then those someone's will be less likely to be surprised, and those with low scores will be more likely to be surprised. Individuals can be surprised. The gargoyle doesn't need to surprise everyone in the party for its trait to have an effect.

To have AN effect, no. To have an effect in line with the history of D&D gargoyles, including 5e AND make that effect a decent one, it has to surprise pretty much everyone.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Not really. 5E was supposed to be "rulings, not rules," but Crawford seems to have lost sight of that. He's trying to extract a 4E-style RAW out of a system that wasn't built for that, and as a result, he comes up with some really absurd rulings. (My personal favorite is where he ruled that if you destroy a zombie, and cast revivify on the remains, it comes back as a zombie. The incredulous questioner asked, "'The creature returns to life' restores a destroyed undead to its active undead status?!" and he confirmed. Yes, it is the official ruling of WotC that undead are alive.)

Mearls's approach is far more sensible: "Here's how I personally would handle this in my game. It may not be what you would do, but it might give you some ideas."

What I wish they would do is give us some insight into the rules as intended: How did they, the designers of the game, envision it working? What was the thinking behind the rules? That would be far more useful for me as a DM than these weird, legalistic rulings that I can't imagine ever applying at the table.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. 5E was supposed to be "rulings, not rules," but Crawford seems to have lost sight of that. He's trying to extract a 4E-style RAW out of a system that wasn't built for that, and as a result, he comes up with some really absurd rulings. (My personal favorite is where he ruled that if you destroy a zombie, and cast revivify on the remains, it comes back as a zombie. The incredulous questioner asked, "'The creature returns to life' restores a destroyed undead to its active undead status?!" and he confirmed. Yes, it is the official ruling of WotC that undead are alive.)

I love how the above = "Jeremy Crawford is the one to go to for how the rules work."

He also answered me on disintegrate and shape changed druids in a tweet, telling me that I was wrong that RAW says a shapechanged druid turns to dust at 0 before/during reversion, and later deleted that and in the Sage Advice said that the druid does turn to dust per RAW, but that RAI was for it not to work.

Mearls's approach is far more sensible: "Here's how I personally would handle this in my game. It may not be what you would do, but it might give you some ideas."

And the above = "Mike Mearls is notorious for just giving his opinions on how he runs his own game."

You basically said "Not really." and then said the exact same thing I did, but with more words

What I wish they would do is give us some insight into the rules as intended: How did they, the designers of the game, envision it working? What was the thinking behind the rules? That would be far more useful for me as a DM than these weird, legalistic rulings that I can't imagine ever applying at the table.

Me, too. That would be really cool.