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

[Flamestrike]

Anyone, with any condition, that moves 100ft. away may qualify as Hidden

You must have a different PHB to me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You must have a different PHB to me.

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.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

There is nothing out of the ordinary or unusual about an invisible (but not hidden) creature moving, even moving 100' and remaining (not hidden).

1. Invisible (but hidden) Monk attacks with their action. They reveal themselves after the attack is made (hit or miss).
2. Invisible (but now no longer hidden) Monk then moves 50' and Dashes an extra 50'
3. 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).

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 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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There is nothing out of the ordinary or unusual about an invisible (but not hidden) creature moving, even moving 100' and remaining (not hidden).

100% agree. This is the baseline and what the rules suggest should happen in most cases.

1. Invisible (but hidden) Monk attacks with their action. They reveal themselves after the attack is made (hit or miss).
2. Invisible (but now no longer hidden) Monk then moves 50' and Dashes an extra 50'
3. 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).

On a flat field, with clear lines of sight and no interesting physical features, yup, 100% agree.

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 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.

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.

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.

To reiterate, I don't see anything in the OP that would suggest to me that you shouldn't use the rule, but another GM might, because 100' is a pretty fair distance and they might consider that circumstance enough to make a ruling on the situation. Let me give you an example where making a ruling that the monk would be Hidden makes sense. The scene is a dungeon room, with doors to on all sides, with the north door open and the party having just entered the south door. An enemy monk is at the north door, and wins initiative. There are 4 orcs in the west room, behind the closed door. The monk attacks, then runs 70' away (he used 30' to close to attack), out the north door (30'), turns immediately right down the crosshallway that door opens into into one of the 3 doors at the end of that hallway (20' down the hallway), closes the door, steps further into the room (10'), and then leaps up to the upper floor balcony in this room (10' of movement). According to a strict reading of the invisible/hidden rules, this monk's location would be known, even while it's entirely possible the GM hasn't put the 4 orcs in the room next door on the map yet.

Rulings, man, not rules. Sometimes the situation at the table is such that the GM needs to make a call so silly things like the above don't happen. That's Page 4.

 

[Oofta]

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.

 

[NotAYakk]

On a grid, people know well enough to target you with disadvantage if you aren't hidden. A miss could involve aiming at the wrong spot.

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.

I might rule it that attacking an invisible target at extreme range with a ranged weapon isn't possible (without SS feat, you cannot attack an invisible target at 2nd range increment (aka long range)).

In Theater of the Mine, you are again aware enough to know how to attack a non-hidden invisible foe, with disadvantage. If they hide, well, if they are confined to a small space (or you guess a small region) you can get lucky by attacking at random.

(As an aside, I rule that being unseen attacking an unseen target doesn't grant advantage; gets rid of the blind longbowman at long range having improved accuracy.)

In general, I think a lot of 5e plays better if you treat the grid not as gospel, but as a way to remember where people are. The exact square someone invisible is in isn't known information at long ranges, so if someone tries a complex fireball precision shot at long range just catching an invisible non-hidden foe, I'd say "roll some dice".

 

[Helldritch]

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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Predator style invisibility is certainly a legitimate alternative, but the rules don't specify.

Still not sure it would make much difference, but many DMs will run it differently.

 

[Mistwell]

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?