log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Yes you can hear the monk. Hes not being quiet or taking any action to conceal his presence.

He can do that whenever he wants but chooses not to.
We are talking about a monk. Not a knight in full armor. The monk is naturally stealthy. A monk does not wear heavy boots if he wears any. He won't be heard in a combat situation where a guard is shouting and every other guards are rushing to his aid with all the noises accompanying them.

Nope the monk will not be heard. But for the sake of the argument...

A 5th level monk has a dex of 18 and a proficiency of +3 giving a +7 to stealth. Running makes you make your check at disadvantage so a total +2 should be assumed. With an average roll of 11 on the dice it gives 13.

For the guard, we will assume proficiency of +2, and a +1 from wisdom. With an average roll of 11 it gives us 14! Hahah! The monk is heard! Nope, because of the noise and screaming sound based perception are made at disadvantage so -5 on that check for 9... well below the monk. All this without rolling.

No the monk isn't heard.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I think this is one of those topics where some DMs just hate invisibility. I mean, I get it, it can be annoying.

Then they point to the PHB chapter 7 on the section on hiding which says:
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.​

Which, okay. An invisible creature can always try to hide. What it doesn't say contrary what many people seem to say is that they must hide for their position to be unknown.

Let's take a look at the definition of invisible:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.​

Okay, so you can detect where an invisible if the creature interacts with the environment in such a way that can be detected. I agree. Leaving tracks in the sand? Running through some vegetation moving it aside carelessly? Pushing people aside on a busy street? Sure. But the operative words are "can be" detected; there is no "will always be" detected.

The rules are clear. You don't have to run it by the book but an invisible creature cannot be detected by site according to the rules. There is no shimmering distortion. So knowing where someone is that moves away? That's a whole lot of maybe depending on amount of sound made by the creature vs amount of ambient sound that's going to block all chances of hearing it.

How I run it depends on the situation but it may be anything from "it succeeds" to "they see your footprints in the mud" to "make a dexterity check to avoid all the obstacles".
 
Last edited:

Yep, some DMs seem to hate invisibility. But they should not gimp it to nothingness because of that. I agree that invisibility isn't all powerful and in many circumstances an invisible opponent can be fought and even found. But if invisibility was so weak, it would not exist. Hey guys! Look! I am invisible !

Pfffft, you're easy to locate man. Find something else to be powerful...

Invisibility is a powerful spell. It should be hard to fight invisibility and it should be something to be feared.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
All this back and forth about whether the Monk is Hidden just to get the Monk TWO things...

Attacking the Monk but having to guess the square he's in, and the Monk getting to make his next attack with Advantage.

That's it!

And as I said earlier... if the Monk has run 100' away from his target, the odds of the target attacking him back are so small as to be insignificant. Cause instead the target will find the closest easier to target to attack, so who gives a heck where the Monk ran off to and whether he's Hidden or not.

And as far as attacking with Advantage? Great, the Monk is gaining a bonus that almost every other PC can and will gain throughout a fight themselves. Big freakin' deal! The Hidden Rogue will be attacking with Advantage. The Battlemaster Fighter who Feinted will be attacking with Advantage. The person who attacks after the Cleric cast Guiding Bolt will be attacking Advantage. Everyone who sees the enemy that is encased in Faerie Fire will be attacking with Advantage. Attacking with Advantage is such a generic bonus that it baffles me why so many people feel they need to argue the merits as to whether the Monk can gain it or not. Especially after it went through all the trouble to gain Greater Invisibility.

All this time arguing about something so inconsequential like this is like arguing about what the definition of "is" is.
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
That's right! So really all this argument is about whether the target of the Monk has to guess the square the Monk is in or not. And regardless, the attack is with Disadvantage.

Unless the Monk is the last party member in the fight, there is not going to be a single time that target is going to run halfway across the battlefield to go looking for him, only to guess which square he is in or not.

So this is all much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:

Teemu

Adventurer
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.
Now close your eyes and start hurrying and dashing about. Is it more difficult to maintain balance when your eyes are closed? Do you bump into things? Not in 5e.

Can you run 30 feet, then change course 180 degrees and not lose momentum? In 5e that's no problem.

Can you jump off a building and run a marathon? In 5e you can.

Common sense and the rules of 5e aren't always in sync.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Now close your eyes and start hurrying and dashing about. Is it more difficult to maintain balance when your eyes are closed? Do you bump into things? Not in 5e.

Can you run 30 feet, then change course 180 degrees and not lose momentum? In 5e that's no problem.

Can you jump off a building and run a marathon? In 5e you can.

Common sense and the rules of 5e aren't always in sync.

Whether you can do most of those things are not covered by the rules and therefore up to the DM. I agree that some rules like HP are simplifications of reality.

But the rules do not, cannot and don't even try to cover all scenarios. When they did in 3.x it was a never ending rabbit hole. In 4 they used board game rules*. In 5E they leave it up to each group to determine what makes sense for them.

*Sort of, it's complicated.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
They aren't "just walking" 100 feet away. Every 6 seconds they are actively doing something combat related - sprinting, attacking, casting a spell - and have been doing it continuously with no time to catch their balance and ... hide.

The hidr action means "walk at cautious combat pace while paying attention to not being noisy or obvious" in this context.

If someone casts invisibiliy and moves 30 feet, the rules have A then B happen, but they actually happened in the same 6 seconds. They where casting it as they walked.


If you want to cast invis, then move away, that is invis, hide action and move. 2 rounds. 1 to cast one to move.
 

We are talking about a monk. Not a knight in full armor. The monk is naturally stealthy. A monk does not wear heavy boots if he wears any. He won't be heard in a combat situation where a guard is shouting and every other guards are rushing to his aid with all the noises accompanying them.

Nope the monk will not be heard. But for the sake of the argument...

A 5th level monk has a dex of 18 and a proficiency of +3 giving a +7 to stealth. Running makes you make your check at disadvantage so a total +2 should be assumed. With an average roll of 11 on the dice it gives 13.

For the guard, we will assume proficiency of +2, and a +1 from wisdom. With an average roll of 11 it gives us 14! Hahah! The monk is heard! Nope, because of the noise and screaming sound based perception are made at disadvantage so -5 on that check for 9... well below the monk. All this without rolling.

No the monk isn't heard.

The monk is heard until he makes his Stealth check via the Hide action.

Theyre the rules.

But you do you.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
The monk is heard until he makes his Stealth check via the Hide action.

Theyre the rules.

But you do you.
No, the monk is locatable until he hides. How he's locatable is up to however that successful action is described by the GM. Hearing is one option, it's not the only one.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
The monk is heard until he makes his Stealth check via the Hide action.

Theyre the rules.

But you do you.
No, the monk is locatable until he hides. How he's locatable is up to however that successful action is described by the GM. Hearing is one option, it's not the only one.

Where does it state that? People keep repeating this as if it's a rule. Would you know where the monk was if he's on the other side of the planet?

I can quote the rules again, but there is no "you are detected unless you are hidden" in 5E.
 


DM Dave1

Adventurer
Where does it state that? People keep repeating this as if it's a rule. Would you know where the monk was if he's on the other side of the planet?

I can quote the rules again, but there is no "you are detected unless you are hidden" in 5E.

Nor is there a rule that states "you are hidden unless you are detected" in 5e. You are never hidden in combat unless you successfully take the Hide action in 5e.

If the invisible monk is in the area of a combat, unless they hide successfully or get behind total cover or move out of range (perhaps to the other side of the planet?) on their turn, they can be attacked per the invisibility rules. Hence they are detected (or "heard" or "locatable") in some way, making it possible to target them with said attack. I don't think anyone is arguing the mechanics of that. To me, @Flamestrike and @Ovinomancer are just arguing about the fluff of how one might describe those mechanics in the scene.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Nor is there a rule that states "you are hidden unless you are detected" in 5e. You are never hidden in combat unless you successfully take the Hide action in 5e.

If the invisible monk is in the area of a combat, unless they hide successfully or get behind total cover or move out of range (perhaps to the other side of the planet?) on their turn, they can be attacked per the invisibility rules. Hence they are detected (or "heard" or "locatable") in some way, making it possible to target them with said attack. I don't think anyone is arguing the mechanics of that. To me, @Flamestrike and @Ovinomancer are just arguing about the fluff of how one might describe those mechanics in the scene.

There is nothing in the 5E rules that state what you assert. There is no hidden condition, there is nothing that says you are automatically detected unless you successfully hide from an opponent. Feel free to quote the text that says differently. The rules for hiding are in the basic rules you can find here on page 63, invisible is on page 171.

Want to implement your own rules for your game? Feel free.
 

DM Dave1

Adventurer
There is nothing in the 5E rules that state what you assert. There is no hidden condition, there is nothing that says you are automatically detected unless you successfully hide from an opponent. Feel free to quote the text that says differently. The rules for hiding are in the basic rules you can find here on page 63, invisible is on page 171.

Want to implement your own rules for your game? Feel free.

huh? Who is asserting there is a "hidden" condition? I'm using plain language to describe what happens to a monk when they successfully Hide. There's no "undetected" condition either, but that is true of the monk when they successfully Hide, in plain language.

So are you saying the baseline in combat is that opponents can't detect each other? Do you make your players role Perception to detect an opponent that's present for the combat? I'm guessing "No" to both of those which means... the creature is... wait for it... automatically detected!

in any case, I'm wasn't talking about an invisible monk being automatically detected, I said they could detected in some way and be targeted with an attack per the invisibility rules (attacker has disadvantage). Got it?
 

huh? Who is asserting there is a "hidden" condition? I'm using plain language to describe what happens to a monk when they successfully Hide. There's no "undetected" condition either, but that is true of the monk when they successfully Hide, in plain language.

So are you saying the baseline in combat is that opponents can't detect each other? Do you make your players role Perception to detect an opponent that's present for the combat? I'm guessing "No" to both of those which means... the creature is... wait for it... automatically detected!
Whether something is automatically detectable, detectable with some difficulty (so a roll) or completely undetectable depends on the fiction. GM has to decide such things constantly. There is not some simplistic binary answer for such things.
 

So if I understand correctly...
A guard walks on the parapet minding his own business. At a 100 feet, down in the field, stands an unhidden invisible monk breathing slowly and watching the guard. All of a sudden, the guard looks toward the monk and says: "I know where you are punk! You'd better be careful!"
Am I the only one that finds this laughable to the extreme?

Or this one
During the Rock Show of Cacophonius the Bard, an invisible Arcane Trickster climb on the stage. The music is loud, very loud with the unique spell Cacophonius invented: "Pump up the volume!" a spell that makes music louder so more people can hear his perfect music. So our invisible arcane trickster climb on the stage but did not take the hide action. Cacophonius stops the show, turns toward the arcane trickster and says: "I know where you are you little autograph stealer! Go back in the crowd or I'll give you to the bouncers!"

By using these silly example, I hope to wake up the logic that people have. Use your logic. Rules are not everything. Especialy when adapting a rule to something it was not meant to rule...
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
huh? Who is asserting there is a "hidden" condition? I'm using plain language to describe what happens to a monk when they successfully Hide. There's no "undetected" condition either, but that is true of the monk when they successfully Hide, in plain language.

So are you saying the baseline in combat is that opponents can't detect each other? Do you make your players role Perception to detect an opponent that's present for the combat? I'm guessing "No" to both of those which means... the creature is... wait for it... automatically detected!

in any case, I'm wasn't talking about an invisible monk being automatically detected, I said they could detected in some way and be targeted with an attack per the invisibility rules (attacker has disadvantage). Got it?

I was responding to your post that stated
You are never hidden in combat unless you successfully take the Hide action in 5e.

So either you were asserting a hidden condition or you were using the words "never hidden" to mean "never undetected". Choose. The former is a condition that does not exist in 5E. The latter is not stated anywhere in the rules.

It's up to the DM to decide if there is no chance of knowing the creature's location, if detection of location is automatic, if detection of location is uncertain. If the location is uncertain then I will normally call for some type of die roll to decide the outcome.

In any case, if you can find rules that say that an invisible creature's location is automatically known unless they take the hide action feel free to quote it.
 

DM Dave1

Adventurer
I was responding to your post that stated


So either you were asserting a hidden condition or you were using the words "never hidden" to mean "never undetected". Choose. The former is a condition that does not exist in 5E. The latter is not stated anywhere in the rules.

Strange interpretation of my words. But ok. I suppose I can't force you to understand my plain language. Perhaps I should quote the entire section on Unseen Attackers and and Targets every time I talk about the Hide action since it is apparently not ok with you to represent those rules with the word "hidden". Moving on...

It's up to the DM to decide if there is no chance of knowing the creature's location, if detection of location is automatic, if detection of location is uncertain. If the location is uncertain then I will normally call for some type of die roll to decide the outcome.

In any case, if you can find rules that say that an invisible creature's location is automatically known unless they take the hide action feel free to quote it.

Never said a invisible creature's location is "automatically known". I said an attack on the invisible creature follows the invisibility rules in that the attack has disadvantage.

So either this is a continuous deliberate misinterpretation of my words (which is a behavior you've exhibited before on these forums) or I simply am not doing an adequate job explaining myself. I'll be charitable today and select the latter. Since this tangent isn't helping address the OP and is getting quite tedious, I'll just wish you a good day and happy gaming.
 

Presents for Goblins

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top