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

[Helldritch]

Wrong. F hasnt had his turn yet, and M is not hidden.

Back to the example.

F's turn 1. F (a Wood Elf with the Mobile feat) moves 45' and then takes the Dash action moving another 45', ending up adjacent to the invisible but not hidden M. F then Action surges, gaining a second action, using it on the Attack action, attacking M. He misses both times.

End of round 1.

At no stage was M 90' away from F. F was not standing there frozen in time and space for six whole seconds while M attacked F and then ran away, getting 90' away from F. What happened was M attacked F (revealing himself), F was alert enough to block those attacks and respond, and F then followed up M as M ran away, hot on his heels, blindly swinging his sword at M's back as M ran away.

That not only reflects the RAW and the RAW (as clearly expressed by the writers of the rule) it also accurately reflects what both of those two men were doing for the six or so seconds of that combat regardless of the stop/start nature of cyclical turn based action sequencing.

LOL!
We started from talking about a guard, to a fighter, to a wood elf with the exact feat to counter...
Ho boy...
Stay in your perfect world where you are always right. Modifying an example with extreme modifications from what was the original starting premise and that is a simple guard does not prove your point. In fact, it goes right into mine. You take an extreme circumstance that would give me reasons to adjudicate one way, to an other extreme circumstance which would allow you to adjudicate your way which would be mine too in the last case as the distance would never have been that great from the start to end.

You change premises all the time. But in the original scenario, I would have been perfectly within the rule's to rule the way that I would have (and a few others here too).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Your definition of special conditions may vary from mine so I can't answer the question. It depends mostly on distance, environmental factors, size of the invisible creature, potentially mode of movement. It's a judgement call.

No, your definition of special conditions differing from mine isn't at all relevant. Define them however you wish. If those special conditions are absent, do you agree that an invisible creature would be detected?

 

[Helldritch]

Your definition of special conditions may vary from mine so I can't answer the question. It depends mostly on distance, environmental factors, size of the invisible creature, potentially mode of movement. It's a judgement call.

And yours might vary from mine. We are in a gray zone where what is a "special condition" may vary from experience, logic abilities and agreements from the table.

 

[iserith]

What do you mean, very very rough? It knows exactly where the invisible creature is, to within a 5-foot square. And it doesn't have to make any kind of a roll to know this.

That is one of my problems with stealth as written. This sort of precise, reliable awareness should be the outlier--you've spread flour on the floor and can see the invisible creature's footprints appearing. Instead it is the default. Every invisible creature is talking or singing or farting or stomping through mud puddles at all times, unless it takes an action to remind itself not to.

Here's another way of looking at it: Being invisible imparts a number of benefits. Attackers have disadvantage. The invisible creature's attacks are at advantage. Spells that require seeing the target cannot target the invisible creature. The invisible creature is also heavily obscured meaning that it can attempt to hide at any time whereas other creatures need to get behind significant cover or a heavily obscured area which may in turn hinder their own line of sight. Pretty good, right?

Want to make it so that on top of all that the attacker has to guess where you are? Spend an action and succeed at a Dexterity (Stealth) check. That's the price of admission, if you're not content just having all the other benefits I laid out above. Occasionally, the DM might give that away as a freebie, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

What if the monk attacked and then, instead of moving 100feet, moved half his movement to 'sneak' quietly away to disguise the direction he went?

Do you NEED to use an action to hide? I thought sneaking just required you move at half speed. And since you are invisible, the only tells are the sound you make from moving.

I'm just curious.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, your definition of special conditions differing from mine isn't at all relevant. Define them however you wish. If those special conditions are absent, do you agree that an invisible creature would be detected?

I don't think this fixating on 'default' makes much sense. But I'd say that opposite of what you suggest is more reasonable 'default': creatures whose primary sense is sight are not automatically aware of locations of things that they cannot see.

 

[Helldritch]

No, your definition of special conditions differing from mine isn't at all relevant. Define them however you wish. If those special conditions are absent, do you agree that an invisible creature would be detected?

The answer is easy, and it has been answered at the start of the post. In normal circumstances, an invisible creature is noticed and its approximate location can be ascertain. You'll still attack it with disadvantage, but you'll be able to attack nonetheless.

The problem, is that those circumstances will vary from DM to DM. For me, as long as you are within a normal movement distance, you can always be noticed (unless you hide, of course). This means 30 feet. That you can only move 25 feet or 100 feet is irrelevant. You will notice an invisible non hidden/sneaking creature that is within this perimeter. If you can maintain this distance, through the whole round, whatever the move, then you can notice the invisible's creature position.

Noises, be they from a battle or some other source, might well be detrimental to your ability to ascertain an invisible creature and put the invisible creature in a position where it could attack you without ever having a chance to fight back.

But the main point here, is that the rule is not an absolute trump. There are cirumstances in which it will not apply.

 

[Oofta]

No, your definition of special conditions differing from mine isn't at all relevant. Define them however you wish. If those special conditions are absent, do you agree that an invisible creature would be detected?

I gave you my answer. Not my problem if you refuse to accept it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

EDIT: Double post.

 

[Xetheral]

So, curiously, are you of the opinion that, absent special conditions, invisible creatures are noticed?

Question: why does it matter? I see no practical difference between your approach and @Oofta's. At both of your tables it's ultimately up to the DM to determine whether the invisible creature's square is known, based on the DM's evaluation of how hard it would be to locate the invisible creature. You're using that evaluation to determine whether to deviate from a default, and @Oofta is using that evaluation to determine the answer directly. Why is that difference important? It doesn't even tell us at whose table it would be easier to locate invisible creatures.

(Yes, we know from the discussion that it's on-average harder to locate invisible creatures at @Oofta's table than it is at yours. But that isn't a necessary consequence of the difference in your approaches. It would be entirely possible for a different DM that follows your approach to decide to deviate from the "default" in more circumstances than @Oofta would determine that the creature's square is unknown.)

To make a mathematical analogy, you're saying that x is 10, unless changed at changed at the discretion of the DM. @Oofta is saying that is x is set at the discretion of the DM. The difference in the value of x at your tables depends entirely on how you each exercise that discretion, and does not depend on the difference in approach.