5e invisibility and Detect Magic

[Oofta]

Great! You've caught up to what I've been saying all alomg! This is the core loop od 5e: for a given action (in this case, a golem remaining hidden) decide yes, no, or maybe. If maybe, roll.

Which is what I've also been saying all along. Unfortunately intent and meaning is often lost in forum posting.

 

[Oofta]

Nope. Only the one that fails it's DEX(stealth) check creaked. Or maybe it groaned. Or whirred. Or scraped. Or whistled. The particulars don't matter, the point us that it wasn't oerfectly quiet and still because, you know, it failed it's hide contest.

In order to detect a creature it has to be perceived somehow. The DM decides when an opposed dexterity (stealth) and wisdom (perception) checks are called for based on there being a chance of being detected. If there is no chance of detection, there is no check.

 

[Xetheral]

In other words, the rules say that invisible creatures are detected if not hidden.

The rules only say that non-hidden invisible creatures can be detected. Which is not necessarily the same thing as saying that they are detected.

Sure, if you interpret "can" as implying certainty, as in "I can see you", then it's reasonable to conclude that non-hidden, invisible creatures are noticed. But it's just as reasonable to interpret "can" as implying possibility, as in "that can be done", in which case it's only reasonable to conclude that non-hidden, invisible creatures might be noticed.

 

[Oofta]

The rules only say that non-hidden invisible creatures can be detected. Which is not necessarily the same thing as saying that they are detected.

Sure, if you interpret "can" as implying certainty, as in "I can see you", then it's reasonable to conclude that non-hidden, invisible creatures are noticed. But it's just as reasonable to interpret "can" as implying possibility, as in "that can be done", in which case it's only reasonable to conclude that non-hidden, invisible creatures might be noticed.

What I have a problem with is this:

...if you decide to narrate something else, you can change the rule...

because it seems to be an insistence that not being able to detect an invisible creature is somehow changing the rule. Sometimes the DM decides there's no need for an opposed check because there is nothing that can be perceived.

Saying that a rule doesn't apply is not not changing the rule.

 

[Satyrn]

There's nothing like a good Hiding/Perception thread!

If only I could find one! The only threads I manage to spot are the lousy ones with a -1 on their stealth check.

 

[smbakeresq]

Which is what I've also been saying all along. Unfortunately intent and meaning is often lost in forum posting.

I tried to say that before also. Since the players didn't get a roll to detect or a free perception check, it was called a railroad job, how do you know a motionless construct is silent, even if silent the pc could hear whistling sounds or cobwebs displaced, etc.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I like how you automatically see footprints when they're from an invisible creature.

That's because you do. Whether a creature is invisible or not, when it walks on dust or sand or snow you will see its footprints.

Unless in your games invisibility also comes with incorporeality for free. Which is OK. You can run your games any way you want.

In my games, creatures leave traces of their passage, unless they take steps not to.

How does a creature take steps not to leave traces of its passage? It walks carefully, stepping over leaves and sticks so as to not leave a trace. It brushes out its footsteps behind it. Maybe it avoids leaving footsteps altogether by flying. It also muffles its gear and quietens its breathing. You know, all things covered by the English word "stealth".

There's no "rules lawyer BS" or "bending over backwards" or strawman arguments required. I know we bend the rules of reality a fair bit for games but I don't see any problems with "creatures leave tracks".

Why do I automatically notice some dust being disturbed by an invisible creature, yet still need to use Investigation to notice some displaced dust from a sliding door?

I don't know. If the dust is thick enough that everyone spots a creature's tracks automatically then why are you making them roll to see a door's tracks? It seems like some consistency is called for.

 

[Oofta]

That's because you do. Whether a creature is invisible or not, when it walks on dust or sand or snow you will see its footprints.

In some cases footsteps may be visible. But on a hard surface? Somewhere with a lot of traffic? You'd be hard pressed to notice someone was walking across a mowed lawn.

There can be all sort of signs ... or none at all. It's up to the DM to decide based on the circumstances unique to the scene.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I tried to say that before also. Since the players didn't get a roll to detect or a free perception check, it was called a railroad job, how do you know a motionless construct is silent, even if silent the pc could hear whistling sounds or cobwebs displaced, etc.

No, that's not what happened. You referenced a 1984 module and said big name NPCs didn't notice the golem, not players. That's written story, not a game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The rules only say that non-hidden invisible creatures can be detected. Which is not necessarily the same thing as saying that they are detected.

Sure, if you interpret "can" as implying certainty, as in "I can see you", then it's reasonable to conclude that non-hidden, invisible creatures are noticed. But it's just as reasonable to interpret "can" as implying possibility, as in "that can be done", in which case it's only reasonable to conclude that non-hidden, invisible creatures might be noticed.

Fair point. I retract my 'how the rule works' statement. Still, the basic play loop holds.