Does yours say that the GM should make rulings? Mine does. The rules suggest that an invisible target should not be hidden without an action, but the rules also say that the GM is the arbiter of whether or not an action by a PC succeeds, fails, or is uncertain (Page 4). In this case, being able to notice a threat is something the GM determines. I suggested starting with what the rules say about invisible and Hidden, but if the situation merits, it's still the GM's call to determine if the always on action to notice things succeeds (the baseline), fails, or is uncertain.You must have a different PHB to me.
The rules suggest that an invisible target should not be hidden without an action.
In this case, being able to notice a threat is something the GM determines. I suggested starting with what the rules say about invisible and Hidden, but if the situation merits, it's still the GM's call to determine if the always on action to notice things succeeds (the baseline), fails, or is uncertain.
100% agree. This is the baseline and what the rules suggest should happen in most cases.There is nothing out of the ordinary or unusual about an invisible (but not hidden) creature moving, even moving 100' and remaining (not hidden).
On a flat field, with clear lines of sight and no interesting physical features, yup, 100% agree.
- Invisible (but hidden) Monk attacks with their action. They reveal themselves after the attack is made (hit or miss).
- Invisible (but now no longer hidden) Monk then moves 50' and Dashes an extra 50'
- Invisible Monk remains not hidden.
Remember on the Monks very next turn, the Monk can attempt to Hide again.
All that has happened is the Monk has sprinted away (while invisible) and is now 100' away from his target (maybe - the target could very well be chasing after the Monk as the Monk moves, or could draw a Bow and shoot the monk as the Monk moves away etc).
I don't disagree that this is a fine narration of that sequence of events, if not the only possible narration. It's likely how I'd describe that scene. 95% agree, with 5% reserved for alternate descriptions.For example, what if the target was a Wood Elf Rogue and used the Dash action twice on his turn, ending up adjacent to the invisible Monk at the end of his turn? While to us (at the table) it appears as if the Rogue was stationary while the Monk moved away 100', and then the Rogue moved, the in game reality was the Rogue was following the Monk the whole way, hot on his heels and never more than a few feet away from him.
Combat (turns, rounds, actions, hit points etc) are abstractions. They dont necessarily result in or describe an objective in game reality. Cyclical combat rounds are a prime example; while (to us) everyone freezes in time other than the creature who's turn it is, to the actual in game participants of that combat, the action is happening more or less simultaneously.
I didn't see anything in the OP to suggest that this specific instance described shouldn't follow the rules guidance, but I strongly disagree that ruling otherwise is a Rule Zero invocation. I don't need to invoke Rule Zero and rewrite any rules to make a ruling that the monk has become Hidden, even with the situation as the OP presented. This is because the rules of the game, on page 4 of the PHB, have already given the GM the authority to determine if an action, even a persistent and assumed action, succeeds, fails, or is uncertain in a given situation. This is part and parcel of the "rulings not rules" approach of 5e. The "rule" that you're citing is an extrapolation of the rules presented for Hiding and for Invisible creatures. It's a good extrapolation, and I 100% agree it should be the baseline understanding of how things work. But, and this is a big but, that rule doesn't trump Page 4. That's because Page 4 tells us that the GM is the one that decides what the situation is and if a mechanic even needs to be invoked to adjudicate uncertainty. And that's because the Invisible/Hidden rules cannot account for the situation in the moment.I see absolutely nothing in the OP's example to persuade me to Rule Zero the general rule that a creature is NOT hidden until they take the Hide action successfully. The Monk can do just that if they want to become Hidden again on their very next turn (the instant after dashing 100' from the Monks POV).
If they choose not to, fine. They're not hidden (but are still invisible) and the assumption that others in the combat have a rough idea where they are remains. Their position is not known with any level of certainty; most spells and effects cant target them at all, and attack rolls against them are made at disadvantage.
Let's try a thought experiment. Close your eyes. Have someone walk 100 ft away. Do you know where they are? I'd be amazed if you did unless they're playing a musical instrument or wearing tap shoes on a hard floor. To me, that's the same thing as invisibility.
In some situations you might know where they are, in most you will not. The DM has to make judgement calls about what can possibly be perceived. PCs are more capable than your average couch potato like me, but common sense still has to come into play.
This is true, but I don't think we can assume invisibility is truly without artifacts that can be tracked. This is my go to -- that invisibility is good but imperfect, so unless steps are taken (or the situation says otherwise) you'll be able to track the invisible person well enough.
You really expect someone's sprinting that fast quietly? Or are their feet slamming the ground, their lungs pumping for air.... This person may be moving fast enough to go fwooosssh as they move through the air!
Ask your GM. No, seriously, this is the exact thing I was talking about earlier -- it's the area where the GM needs to make a call and issue a ruling. Whatever I say doesn't matter at your table.If the monk is in the area of a silence spell (no sound), and pass without trace (leaves behind no tracks or other traces of its passage and cannot be tracked), and greater invisibility (cannot see them)...then other than detection through scent, wouldn't that be a situation where no hide action is needed?
Ask your GM. No, seriously, this is the exact thing I was talking about earlier -- it's the area where the GM needs to make a call and issue a ruling. Whatever I say doesn't matter at your table.
However, I'd say that if the monk put this much effort into it, hiding sounds like a good reward. I'm fine with auto-hide at 100' or so with three different 2nd level spell effect ongoing from three different casters (each requires concentration). Free hide is really expensive, here, so I'd make that trade in a heartbeat.
So when I read the technical rules on hiding and stealth (in the scattered mess that they are) plus a lot of previous commentary on the subject, both on these boards and others....this is the general "by the book" definition of stealth as I understand it.
1) Greater Invis gives you total concealment, allowing for the option of stealth checks.
2) You must now make an action to become hidden...rolling a stealth check against passive perceptions.
3) Assuming you succeed, you are hidden, and you can walk around, and do certain things without having to reroll stealth.
4) Once you perform an action, stealth is lost, and enemies know what square you are in.
5) Unless you take a new action to hide (rolling a new stealth check), the enemies will automatically know what square your in.
Ok, that's pretty clear.
However, I have a situation where I have a monk that was given improved invisibility. The monk has 50 speed... and so using step of the wind he can make attacks and then move a full 100 speed away from the spot where he was "detected". I completely understand the being detected when he attacked, makes total sense.... but its quite weird in flavor that you can now track this guy who is still invisible over 100 feet away (and could even be behind other cover or barriers even) and not have to make a perception roll to still know where he is.
So I was curious how others do it. On the one hand, it suspends my disbelief a lot to run this by the book....but on the other I can see how powerful it would be to let it go without having to "restealth".
Now do the same test but with combat noises and battlefield confusion where the one that has been attacked is screaming for help.
Can you really, but really hear the monk running? You don't. So the monk is hidden. Sometimes the rules do not cover the obvious.
When someone isn't hidden, you don't have to guess the square. The running monk will be knocking up dust and making lots of noise.
That is some BULLSHIT 5e!!!!
What you've done here is start with a fiction in your head, then looked at what the game does, and, when these things don't match, blamed the game for the failure. I humbly recommend that if you're going to play a game, you should first look at what it does, then build your fiction. This way you'll avoid this kind of upset.My issue is being Invisible should not just result in having the opportunity to Hide.
Being Invisible should mean you automatically count as Hidden against sight based Investigation and Perception checks.
If you are Invisible, but not Hidden, anything around can hear you, pin point where you are down to a 5 foot area and attack you with disadvantage.
That is some BULLSHIT 5e!!!!
LOL, I actually do this, which is in part why I like 5e so much. The system is easy to tell a story with.find taking the game as it is saves me time and upset.