D&D 5E Do you know a creatures location if they are in heavy concealment but not actively hiding and other location questions

[Ovinomancer]

It's reasonable to ask that, and the rules leave it up to the DM.

I've adopted a rough benchmark of "you can hear anything that's not actively trying to be quiet if you're within 60 feet of it (possibly modified if it's behind sound-muffling things like closed doors)." I think I based this off of googling around for "how far away can you hear someone talking?", so it's a rough judgement. Works pretty well.

This is largely what I do, as well. I'm just trying to figure out where the limits of 'see everything, all the time, unless hiding' are for some. The most literal reading and enforcing of the rules seems odd to me when they're written, as you note, with a good bit of leeway.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is largely what I do, as well. I'm just trying to figure out where the limits of 'see everything, all the time, unless hiding' are for some. The most literal reading and enforcing of the rules seems odd to me when they're written, as you note, with a good bit of leeway.

Ultimately, it's all DM calls. But it is clear to me that the default is "you know where it is," and being unable to see the creature doesn't change that default. My ruling presumes that every creature is pretty much always making a baseline "talky volume" audible out to 60 feet, simply by interacting with it's environment (even if it's invisible and holding its breath of whatever). "Actively trying to be quiet" essentially means taking the Hide action. Don't do that, and it's clear to everyone where you are, even if you're invisible.

 

[Prakriti]

My ruling presumes that every creature is pretty much always making a baseline "talky volume" audible out to 60 feet, simply by interacting with it's environment (even if it's invisible and holding its breath of whatever).

Speaking of which, some of the published adventures really strain credibility in this regard. I'm currently DMing Lost Mine of Phandelver, for example, and some of the encounter areas are a mere 10-15' from each other, with no solid walls between them. Sometimes the writers come up with credible reasons why nearby monsters wouldn't investigate nearby battles, but sometimes they drop the ball. There's one point, for example, where two rooms are side-by-side and filled with goblins, but if a battle breaks out in one room, the neighboring goblins merely send a scout to investigate, despite having a clear line-of-sight into the next room!

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is meant to be serious? You're really making the argument that a vase being knocked over is meant to be an example of a quiet sound?

That's not the argument I made.

Good grief, why stop now?! Also, please tell me you meant this to be intentionally ironic.

I can't stop what I haven't started, but yes, I am fully aware of the irony that is the fact that I can't refute your claim that I was arguing semantics without engaging in a semantic argument.

No, this is a fallacy. Not everyone sucks at examples.

Yes, pretty much everyone does. Those that appear not to have likely just been lucky. The only evidence that should be needed to show that I am correct in this statement is that you and I read the same set of examples and have arrived at different conclusions as to what those examples mean.

Hm. What if I take double dash and only move 15ft. Running still?

I apologize. I assumed that when you were saying "dash" you were meaning not just to take that action, but to actually use that action for its intended purpose. As a result, you've found my responses unclear, but I think this should clear them up nicely: To double dash and move only 15 feet is not something I believe a player would ever actually do, so it isn't something I care about defining beyond that it is a non-event.

Yeah, it was. You are clearly now saying that taking the dash action is running, whereas before you left it vague as to what constitutes an action declaration of running. Heck, I had to ask twice to get a clear "dashing is running" statement out of you, so there definitely was some vagueness.

What I said wasn't vague, regardless that you felt the need to clarify I meant running and all of its synonyms.

Well, since it requires a class feature to run while hiding, clearly you intend to punish only monks and rogues for using their class features and attempting to run while hiding.

I'm not punishing any class for anything - and I have no idea why you think that I am. Bringing up stuff we aren't talking about to try and pick apart what I've said about what we are talking about is rude, stop doing it.

Do you know what a clearer reminder is? Saying this right here and not adding maybes, mights, and coulds. That just clouds your statements in wishywashyness and doesn't help clarity.

Yes, I do know what a clear reminder is. Here is one: Any "wishywashyness" you have perceived in my posts is an illusion you've created.

Sure, but, hopefully, you're really not into making obvious and trivially true statements instead of constructively engaging. You are, right?

I was, and am, constructively engaging. If you think otherwise, I suggest you use the report post function and leave it at that, as I hear making open accusations of disruptive behavior is frowned upon even in cases where, unlike here, they are true.

What you said was mush, though.

No, it wasn't.

And, generally, my experience is that people using weasel words are trying to avoid being pinned down to a position. Perhaps that's not your intent, but it reads that way.

My experience is that people phrasing questions as statements and putting sarcastic dismissals with them to are attempting to assign a position to another person and undermine that position at the same time... but if I can be wrong about you doing that, maybe you can be wrong in thinking I'm being a weasel.

 

[Shiroiken]

Speaking of which, some of the published adventures really strain credibility in this regard. I'm currently DMing Lost Mine of Phandelver, for example, and some of the encounter areas are a mere 10-15' from each other, with no solid walls between them. Sometimes the writers come up with credible reasons why nearby monsters wouldn't investigate nearby battles, but sometimes they drop the ball. There's one point, for example, where two rooms are side-by-side and filled with goblins, but if a battle breaks out in one room, the neighboring goblins merely send a scout to investigate, despite having a clear line-of-sight into the next room!

That's always a problem with written adventures. I know a lot of people who have bashed old school adventures because "no one ever moves; they just stay in their room until the PCs come to kill them." Most old adventures didn't tell the DM how to have the monsters react, assuming they would do it themselves based on the players' actions. It's worse IMO when they tell the DM to have the monsters do something stupid instead

 

[Horwath]

If they are father away than arms reach(melee) I would call for some perception roll.

In 3.5e sound of battle was DC of -10 or -5 and you needed to beat DC by 20 to pinpoint exact location of it. As for only movement that is their stealth roll vs your passive perception. Hiding is an action, moving silently isn't, so on average untrained in heavy armor DC would be 5 for direction of the sound and general area(fireball would be enough to cover all options). Or in my interpretation 25 for exact location.

Of course if there is snow, mud, shalow water or lots of dust you can "see" the location by default. But even then you attack with disadvantage and invisible attacker attacks you with advantage.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I haven't read the thread past the first pages. Have there been any new arguments posted or is it the same as all the other threads about stealth and hiding?

 

[Lanliss]

I haven't read the thread past the first pages. Have there been any new arguments posted or is it the same as all the other threads about stealth and hiding?

This time there is also a lot of discussion about how far sound travels, and whether or not you know the exact space of someone who ran around a corner, but didn't use the hide action.

 

[Lanliss]

And, generally, my experience is that people using weasel words are trying to avoid being pinned down to a position. Perhaps that's not your intent, but it reads that way.

Out of curiosity, is there a reason one must be pinned to a position? Not everyone takes a hardline stance on a subject, and those who are open to different interpretations tend to use words like "Could", "would", and "maybe". For example, I could take a hardline stance, and maybe I would, if it were not for the fact that the discussion subject is so open to interpretation. Does the lack of being "pinned" to a position somehow make me a lesser person?

 

[Imaculata]

This is meant to be serious? You're really making the argument that a vase being knocked over is meant to be an example of a quiet sound? That's pretty much insisting that the writers are morons incapable of finding reasonable examples, or an example of desperately trying to justify an argument with increasingly ludicrous interpretations.

It could be a quiet sound. A vase can be knocked to the ground and shatter with a loud sound, or it can simply topple, making a moderate noise. Or maybe a player merely bumps into it, and it wobbles.

The writers simply provide an example of "a noise". Whether it is a loud noise, is up to the DM to decide.

What you seem to be calling "weasel words", I consider a position of not absolute certainty. Does every rule have to be pinned down and so narrowly defined? Wasn't the whole point of 5th edition to not do that?

I get the impression that Aaron simply doesn't want to force his opinion on other DM's. There's plenty of room for interpretation of the rules, and he seems to respect the fact that his interpretation is not the only interpretation.

To me that sounds extremely reasonable. So... why are you making it out to be something negative?