log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Greater Invis and Stealth checks, how do you rule it?

What makes you unheard is the hard part. That isn't defined in rules and that would determine how I ruled it. The group I DM for stays close together and is more a kick down the doors and be loud and boisterous at the tavern group. Not a stealth and deception group. Invisible paladin in heavy armor they probably hear you. A monk and a rogue if you dash they probably hear you. Half speed they don't regular speed maybe an acrobatics check vs their passive perception.

Cool. Lets leave the house rules out though so we dont confuse people, and stick with the Rules as written re Hiding.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
What makes you unheard is the hard part.

I haven't said which one is hardest. That will be circumstantial. Sometimes it's going to be unseen, other times unheard, and sometimes both.

That isn't defined in rules and that would determine how I ruled it. The group I DM for stays close together and is more a kick down the doors and be loud and boisterous at the tavern group. Not a stealth and deception group. Invisible paladin in heavy armor they probably hear you. A monk and a rogue if you dash they probably hear you. Half speed they don't regular speed maybe an acrobatics check vs their passive perception.
Sure. Circumstances make all the difference.
 

We could but we could also read the OP which asks how you rule it. Plus RAW isn't a thing it's always ruled as interrupted at best.


Yeah, but can we start from a position of the actual Rules for invisible creatures and hiding/ sneaking/ becoming hidden?

See my post re the Wizard and the Orc about 3 posts up for the RAW of how it works.
 

eayres33

Explorer
We can but that doesn't get us past rule 0 and everything being up for interpretation.
I agree how I see the rules as written your example of the Wizard and the Orc follows my understanding of RAW regarding invisible creatures hiding and stealth.
But RAW leaves a lot of open spaces that need to be filled.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
We can but that doesn't get us past rule 0 and everything being up for interpretation.
I agree how I see the rules as written your example of the Wizard and the Orc follows my understanding of RAW regarding invisible creatures hiding and stealth.
But RAW leaves a lot of open spaces that need to be filled.
RAW also includes this...

"If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

If you can become unseen and unheard through other means than trying to hide, you are still hidden.
 

We can but that doesn't get us past rule 0 and everything being up for interpretation.
I agree how I see the rules as written your example of the Wizard and the Orc follows my understanding of RAW regarding invisible creatures hiding and stealth.
But RAW leaves a lot of open spaces that need to be filled.

Oh for sure man.

But an invisible creature moving around in a normal combat is not one of them. For example you said:

Invisible paladin in heavy armor they probably hear you. A monk and a rogue if you dash they probably hear you. Half speed they don't regular speed maybe an acrobatics check vs their passive perception.

Those are all situations covered by the RAW on hiding.

1) Invisible paladin in heavy armor? Likely dumped Dex, does not have Stealth (and has disadvantage from the armor). When he tries to Hide (via the Hide action), he likely fails.
2) Monks and especially Rogues already have abilities that let them [Dash AND Hide] all in the same round (or Dash AND Dash again)
3) There is no 'half movement Stealth' rule in 5E. The movement penalty is already accounted for via needing to use the Hide action (instead of the Dash action).
  • A Wizard trying to be stealthy while invisible moves 30' (Hide action, and then moves)
  • A Wizard NOT trying to be stealthy while invisible moves 60'. (Dash action and then moves)
  • A Rogue 2+ trying to be Stealthy while invisible moves 60' (Hide action, Cunning action Dash action, then moves)
  • The same Rogue not trying to be stealthy moves 90'
  • A Monk 2+ trying to be Stealthy while invisible moves 80' (Hide action, Step of the Wind Dash action, then moves).
  • The same Monk not trying to be Stealthy moves 120'
See how it works? The action economy of requiring the Hide action, represents an opportunity cost that slows down someone trying to be Stealthy. Someone who isnt trying to be Stealthy can always move faster than someone who is trying.

And thats the RAW. No need for 'rulings' on that or Acrobatics checks etc.
 

eayres33

Explorer
Oh for sure man.

But an invisible creature moving around in a normal combat is not one of them. For example you said:



Those are all situations covered by the RAW on hiding.

1) Invisible paladin in heavy armor? Likely dumped Dex, does not have Stealth (and has disadvantage from the armor). When he tries to Hide (via the Hide action), he likely fails.
2) Monks and especially Rogues already have abilities that let them [Dash AND Hide] all in the same round (or Dash AND Dash again)
3) There is no 'half movement Stealth' rule in 5E. The movement penalty is already accounted for via needing to use the Hide action (instead of the Dash action).
  • A Wizard trying to be stealthy while invisible moves 30' (Hide action, and then moves)
  • A Wizard NOT trying to be stealthy while invisible moves 60'. (Dash action and then moves)
  • A Rogue 2+ trying to be Stealthy while invisible moves 60' (Hide action, Cunning action Dash action, then moves)
  • The same Rogue not trying to be stealthy moves 90'
  • A Monk 2+ trying to be Stealthy while invisible moves 80' (Hide action, Step of the Wind Dash action, then moves).
  • The same Monk not trying to be Stealthy moves 120'
See how it works? The action economy of requiring the Hide action, represents an opportunity cost that slows down someone trying to be Stealthy. Someone who isnt trying to be Stealthy can always move faster than someone who is trying.

And thats the RAW. No need for 'rulings' on that or Acrobatics checks etc.
That is all how you read RAW, and is probably the most common reading of RAW. And I "see how it works" but I also read the part where you make it your own game. So where RAW how most people interpret it makes zero sense you make the rulings you see fit.
 

That is all how you read RAW, and is probably the most common reading of RAW. And I "see how it works" but I also read the part where you make it your own game.

Yeah for sure man. Make it your own game, and rule how you want to. Ignore rules or make it up as you go along. It's your game.

Im just making the observation that the OP's situation is covered by the rules. Clearly and unambiguously.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yeah for sure man. Make it your own game, and rule how you want to. Ignore rules or make it up as you go along. It's your game.

Im just making the observation that the OP's situation is covered by the rules. Clearly and unambiguously.
As long as you ignore the RAW I just quoted above, sure. However, if you accept both as RAW, and since neither contradicts the other, what you describe is simply the most common way to achieve hidden. In the OP's situation, it can be reasonably ruled that at 100' away(or 50' or whatever), the Monk is far enough away to be unheard, in which case he becomes hidden.
 
Last edited:

eayres33

Explorer
Yeah for sure man. Make it your own game, and rule how you want to. Ignore rules or make it up as you go along. It's your game.

Im just making the observation that the OP's situation is covered by the rules. Clearly and unambiguously.
That's the weird thing about 5E ignoring the rules is following the rules, and following the rules means ignoring the rules.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
That's the weird thing about 5E ignoring the rules is following the rules, and following the rules means ignoring the rules.

Or just reading the rules without having a forgone conclusion. You can be hidden without taking the hide action, hiding is just one way to become hidden. Even then it's up to the DM to decide if you can ever successfully hide under the current circumstances.

Works just fine with all the rules. Rogue's blindsense and ranger's feral sense are not "mistakes". There are no contradictions in the podcast. I mean, seriously, how often can an invisible PC get 100 ft away from any enemy in a single round in your games? That's not an unusual circumstance?
 

TaranTheWanderer

Adventurer
Okay, I guess I don't follow that there's different levels of not being seen.
I'm not sure where you get levels.

Seeing something is just one sense that used to detect something. People have multiple senses. So you can be unseen and detected or you could have the potential for someone to see you(not heavily obscured) and yet go undetected.



Invisible is a strong combo with what?
Stealth

This seems like a huge advantage to invisibility in regards to hiding already, so why does it also need to impose disadvantage?
It doesn't NEED to, but in many situations, I could see it doing exactly that.

I don't follow. It's very strong when paired with silence, as I said, which seems good cause to grant a free hide attempt or impose disadvantage, as you're now down to only being able to observe signs of passage.

Observe seems to imply that you are relying on your Sight to detect them. You already said you don't consider smell at all. With your over-emphasis on needing Sight and de-emphasis on alternate senses, I'm surprised that you wouldn't give disadvantage to perception when you lack the ability to see them, especially when the rules state that skills relying on Sight auto-fail.

If you mean invisible alone is good enough for disadvantage on perception checks, you can do that, but the rules are pretty clear that's not what's on tap.

What's clear in the rules is that when you are invisible is you are heavily obscured and when you are heavily obscured you automatically fail any skill checks that involve sight. And since sight is a major factor for being able to detect a hidden foe, it makes sense to me that you'd be at some kind of disadvantage since you can only rely in hearing, smell, noticing tracks or other minute details that might easily be overlooked.

As you've made clear, there's no disadvantage for not being seen by non-invisible creatures in order to hide.
Not true. Hiding behind a wall or giant rock where someone has no chance of seeing you might warrant a check at disadvantage. It's no different than the penalties associated with dim light which seems to only impede vision and not any other sense.

You can, obviously, do whatever you like.

Obviously.
 
Last edited:

Or just reading the rules without having a forgone conclusion. You can be hidden without taking the hide action, hiding is just one way to become hidden. Even then it's up to the DM to decide if you can ever successfully hide under the current circumstances.

Works just fine with all the rules. Rogue's blindsense and ranger's feral sense are not "mistakes". There are no contradictions in the podcast. I mean, seriously, how often can an invisible PC get 100 ft away from any enemy in a single round in your games? That's not an unusual circumstance?
An out of the ordinary circumstance, calls for an out of the ordinary ruling. Rules do not cover every possible situations and those it covers might have a detail, however small, that finally put the ruling in the out of the ordinary zone.

This is why I usually put DMs' judgment and logic above the rules.
 

Presents for Goblins

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top