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

[Swarmkeeper]

Feral Senses
At 18th level, you gain preternatural senses that help you fight creatures you can't see. When you attack a creature you can't see, your inability to see it doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it. You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn't hidden from you and you aren't blinded or deafened.

Based on the wording of this Ranger class feature, invisible doesn't mean automatically hidden in 5e rules.

It would seem that the default combat assumption in 5e is that an approximate location of an invisible creature is known and that's what disadvantage on general attack rolls against said invisible creature is meant to represent. Then there are some specific rules that contradict this general rule, and so we go with those specific rules as applicable.

 

[Xetheral]

Bolded part: This is exactly what happens when a creature tries to Hide. The only difference is you are arbitrarily setting a DC (or, I don't know, maybe you have some custom 5e combat noise table you refer to), while Hide requires the creature attempting to Hide to roll Dexterity (Stealth). DC on the one hand vs opposed check mechanic on the other.

Typical combat is going to be noisy to some extent, right? Where is the line in combat that you draw to determine when to use the Hide mechanic versus when to use just a DC with the Wisdom (Perception) roll for an invisible creature? No special circumstances in this question (fog, other rooms, cover, other spell effects etc).

It seems like some folks are parsing noise levels here in an effort to disregard the Hide action. I truly don't understand why.

(Emphasis added.) Personally, the line for me is whether or not the character took the Hide action. If they took the Hide action, they make a Dex (Stealth) check. If they didn't take the Hide action, then the basic rules apply and it's up to me as the DM to determine whether they are automatically detected by a particular observer, automatically not detected, or to select a DC and require the potential observer to make an ability check (passive or otherwise).

Note that my answer applies generally, and does not depend on whether or not the character is invisible. Invisibility, of course, will factor in to my evaluation of whether a check is required by a potential observer and, if so, what the appropriate DC would be.

So, for my part, I'm not trying to disregard the hide action. The only way to get to make a Dex (Stealth) check at my table is taking the Hide action. Additionally (and this is definitely a houserule) if a character does take the Hide action, I don't let the result of the Stealth check make a character easier to notice than they would have been without taking the Hide action.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Based on the wording of this Ranger class feature, invisible doesn't mean automatically hidden in 5e rules.

It would seem that the default combat assumption in 5e is that an approximate location of an invisible creature is known and that's what disadvantage on general attack rolls against said invisible creature is meant to represent. Then there are some specific rules that contradict this general rule, and so we go with those specific rules as applicable.

What that feature proves that it is possible to be unaware or location of things that are not hidden.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

What that feature proves that it is possible to be unaware or location of things that are not hidden.

Also true.

 

[Maxperson]

For the sake of gameplay, probably so. Any uncertainty as to this would be resolved when the wizard takes the Hide action.

Not much I can say to that other than this is one of those absurd situations that have been mentioned. There's no reasonable way that the giants could hear that wizard under those circumstances.

 

[Helldritch]

Bolded part: This is exactly what happens when a creature tries to Hide. The only difference is you are arbitrarily setting a DC (or, I don't know, maybe you have some custom 5e combat noise table you refer to), while Hide requires the creature attempting to Hide to roll Dexterity (Stealth). DC on the one hand vs opposed check mechanic on the other.

Typical combat is going to be noisy to some extent, right? Where is the line in combat that you draw to determine when to use the Hide mechanic versus when to use just a DC with the Wisdom (Perception) roll for an invisible creature? No special circumstances in this question (fog, other rooms, cover, other spell effects etc).

It seems like some folks are parsing noise levels here in an effort to disregard the Hide action. I truly don't understand why.

I'm not going to rehearse or requote my self. Read further up the thread. You'll find everything rulewise and it was explained. Flamestrike even gave us the reasonning behind the checks with a quote from the creator of the game himself but for some reasons, he reaches a different conclusion that what is said. So you seem too. @Maxperson, @Oofta and @Crimson Longinus showed the same results as mine with even greater eloquence than I could. If they can't persuade you... it won't be me either.

 

[iserith]

Not much I can say to that other than this is one of those absurd situations that have been mentioned. There's no reasonable way that the giants could hear that wizard under those circumstances.

Which goes back to my point about some people valuing simulation of reality over simple rules. Also, as is the case with most examples in these discussions, you're going to imagine the fictional situation in a way that supports your viewpoint and someone else will imagine the fictional situation in a way that support their viewpoint. Such is the nature of examples in a discussion where people are trying to prove the other wrong. At an actual table, in the moment of play, we might agree when a creature is hidden or not. Here we will not because there's no incentive to back down from one's position.

 

[Helldritch]

It is exactly the role of a DM to recognize when a rule can't apply because of unforseen circumstances that the rule does not cover.
This is one of those cases. Had it been a simple character unable to move away so fast, I would side with @Flamestrike 's ruling in a pinch. But it ain't so. It is a new ball game not really covered by the rule.

@Flamestrike even provided us with a quote from the creator going toward our view point but reaches an opposite conclusion. But dear @iserith you're right, to each table its own...

Edit: Probably a case where specific beats general?

 

[iserith]

It is exactly the role of a DM to recognize when a rule can't apply because of unforseen circumstances that the rule does not cover.
This is one of those cases.

I think it's far from proven that this is so, but otherwise agree that the DM decides. In my game, given what is known about the fictional situation, you're taking a Hide action to become hidden. Until then, I guess you'll just have to console yourself with being a great distance away and everyone having disadvantage to hit you, spells that require sight can't target you, while you have advantage against everyone else. I realize that's a terribly unfortunate position for the monk to be in, but it will just have to do at my table. Let's all please keep this invisible, but unhidden monk in our thoughts and prayers during this trying time.

 

[Maxperson]

Which goes back to my point about some people valuing simulation of reality over simple rules. Also, as is the case with most examples in these discussions, you're going to imagine the fictional situation in a way that supports your viewpoint and someone else will imagine the fictional situation in a way that support their viewpoint. Such is the nature of examples in a discussion where people are trying to prove the other wrong. At an actual table, in the moment of play, we might agree when a creature is hidden or not. Here we will not because there's no incentive to back down from one's position.

This isn't simulationist. I'm looking for consistency preferably from a more reasonable standpoint, but consistency nonetheless.

If my PC is in a bar and is trying to hear a conversation 30 feet away, it's probably going to require a perception check in a loud tavern, if it isn't denied outright as having no chance to succeed. Suddenly combat breaks out and I gain the hearing ability of a SETI dish and can pinpoint an invisible mouse 50 feet away. Then when combat ends, I'm struggling to hear that conversation again.

If they want my PC to have the hearing ability of a SETI dish, just give it to me at character creation and let me use it. Otherwise, don't and be consistent in combat that way.