5e invisibility and Detect Magic

[Maxperson]

Genre fiction is rife with drafty old castles full of eerie noises. I haven't suggested anyone invent a hurricane to explain a failed DEX check. The simplest explanation is that the golem moved slightly, and there are any number of explanations for that. Just pick one.

Sure. Aliens could have beamed down and hit the golem with an anti-golem destabilizer. Reasonable explanations? Not sure common as you make out. A drafty castle and those noises are from other things like creaking timbers and other things that would make noise. The drafts don't make noise unless the wind is strong, or the author doesn't know anything about wind.

I haven't looked at the fluff text you seem to be referencing, but the golem's 9 DEX very much calls into question the idea that it has full control of its movements. Perhaps a citation would be helpful?

I cite dex and golems. You seem to be confusing slow with bumbling incompetence at moving. Do you really require PCs with an 8 dex to trip and stumble whenever they walk. Do you force them to knock over drinks with imprecise arm movements? I suspect not.

Also, I think piling up twenty boulders in the shape of a golem and keeping them standing on their own would be a difficult enough task without any wind. There's a reason you don't see a lot of free standing statues around that aren't firmly attached at the base to some kind of anchoring mechanism. It just wouldn't be safe!

The boulders would quickly settle in and stop moving.

 

[Hriston]

For some reason you think an iron Golem is a giant wind chime that fidgets like a hyperactive 2-year old on a sugar high.

I haven't said anything of the sort. What I've said is that it makes sense to me that a golem would have the same chance of being noticed as any other creature with a 9 DEX and no Stealth proficiency. Perhaps we just run hiding differently.

That gargoyles can be completely perfectly still enough to be indistinguishable from statues but can't sit still the moment they are invisible.

I think there's a difference in how we interpret False Appearance. To me, it doesn't grant any sort of auto-success on attempts to hide. Like invisibility, it merely grants an opportunity to hide when other circumstances appropriate for hiding are absent.

Do what you want. If you want to have a narrative to justify noticing an invisible creature I just think it should make sense. I was just trying to explain why I don't think yours make any sense to me while offering alternatives.

I think I've missed your alternatives. My point is that any number of reasons the golem is noticed can be invented at the table. If the ones I've suggested in this thread seem implausible, it's probably because I'm reaching to try to prove my point. Personally, the first I'd go with would be the same as most other creatures, which is that the golem makes some small, involuntary or ill conceived movement that creates a noise that gives away its location. I'm very interested to hear your suggestions.

Have a good one.

Thanks. Happy gaming to you!

 

[Maxperson]

I haven't said anything of the sort. What I've said is that it makes sense to me that a golem would have the same chance of being noticed as any other creature with a 9 DEX and no Stealth proficiency. Perhaps we just run hiding differently.

No. You just don't seem to understand that the rules don't encompass every situation, and that golems don't fit the stealth rules very well. You can cludge them in and just run them like any living creature with a 9 dex, but some of us don't want to do that.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't looked at the fluff text you seem to be referencing, but the golem's 9 DEX very much calls into question the idea that it has full control of its movements. Perhaps a citation would be helpful?

Also, I think piling up twenty boulders in the shape of a golem and keeping them standing on their own would be a difficult enough task without any wind. There's a reason you don't see a lot of free standing statues around that aren't firmly attached at the base to some kind of anchoring mechanism. It just wouldn't be safe!

The whole point of the "invisible iron golem" discussion is that it is not a living creature. When not commanded to do something it sits there unmoving like a statue. Much like a gargoyle which apparently you seem to believe cannot sit still if invisible. With no movement dexterity is irrelevant.

If you cannot see a creature and if invisibility works perfectly without distortion you have to have some other sense to detect it: it's interacting with it's environment in a noticeable way*, you can hear it clearly, by touching it.

Seriously, run it however you want. Time to move on.

*EDIT: samples of interacting with the environment might include but are not limited to: an impression on the ground if it's soft, flattened leaves with the impression of feet, tracks in the snow, a hole in water, spider webs, a bird sitting on something invisible, a layer of dust on the golem, bugs bouncing off something they cannot see, swirling dust stirred up by wind.

 

[Maxperson]

The whole point of the "invisible iron golem" discussion is that it is not a living creature. When not commanded to do something it sits there unmoving like a statue. Much like a gargoyle which apparently you seem to believe cannot sit still if invisible. With no movement dexterity is irrelevant.

Yep. One of my favorite things(I'm easily amused) about 3e was that if my PC had a low dex, his AC often went up when surprised as his dex didn't come into play when not moving.

 

[Plaguescarred]

An Invisible Golem's location still could be revealed due to the decoloration of the ground under it for having been standing there for an extended period of time or the variation of dust accumulation around it, where a Stealth check could indicate attempt to mask such marks.

 

[Maxperson]

An Invisible Golem's location still could be revealed due to the decoloration of the ground under it for having been standing there for an extended period of time or the variation of dust accumulation around it, where a Stealth check could indicate attempt to mask such marks.

I wouldn't make that a part of stealth, though if they make an appropriate DC perception check, I'd point out the discoloration and let the PCs investigate from there if they wish.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I wouldn't make that a part of stealth, though if they make an appropriate DC perception check, I'd point out the discoloration and let the PCs investigate from there if they wish.

It comes down to the same no? A perception check against a DC to notice an enemy. Personally i prefer to use Hiding rules to determine the outcome when an invisible creature is actively trying to avoid detection

 

[Maxperson]

It comes down to the same no? A perception check against a DC to notice an enemy.

They are not the same. A perception check to notice a hidden enemy will reveal the enemy. A perception check to notice an oddity only reveals an oddity. Oddities are pointed out via rolls by me all the time. Sometimes they mean something significant. Other times they are just the effect of something and are nothing more than an oddity. To actually reveal the enemy they would have to engage the oddity somehow, feeling around the area, tossing a pebble into that area, or the like.

Personally i prefer to use Hiding rules to determine the outcome when an invisible creature is actively trying to avoid detection

Me, too, except when the hide rules are deficient. Invisibility gives you the perfect ability to be unseen. Being absolutely still gives you perfect silence. That combination makes you undetectable in a direct manner, which is what perception vs. hide is for. The hide rules don't work well for detecting a perfectly hidden creature.

 

[Plaguescarred]

They are not the same. A perception check to notice a hidden enemy will reveal the enemy. A perception check to notice an oddity only reveals an oddity.

This looks more like an investigation check than a perception one. As you said "I wouldn't make that a part of stealth, though if they make an appropriate DC perception check, I'd point out the discoloration and let the PCs investigate from there if they wish." All i'm saying is may be you wouldn't, but it could if a DM want, use Stealth rules just as they are.

Invisibility gives you the perfect ability to be unseen. Being absolutely still gives you perfect silence. That combination makes you undetectable in a direct manner, which is what perception vs. hide is for. The hide rules don't work well for detecting a perfectly hidden creature.

So is being unseen due to other means such as heavy obscurement like darkness etc... A creature hidden while invisible or heavily obscured can be noticed by perception.

In fact it's even easier to notice oddities around an hidden creature that is invisible than one hidden in darkness that you can't see into, but both are treated the same (no penalty) by contesting Stealth vs Perception check result.