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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Which part of define them however you wish leads to increased claims of 'but ours might be different?!' Do you think this is a trap? The reason I'm asking is that the podcast clearly said the normal was detection, but that special circumstances may apply. I don't care what you may deem special circumstances at this junction, I'm just curious if you agree the normal is detection. The reason for this is that I think you're claiming the podcast as vindication for your position while simultaneously rejecting what the normal condition the podcast established was. I don't care where you might draw a line, but if you indeed agree there's a line.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Cool, but you could not claim the podcast as vindication for this approach -- it's clearly in opposition to it.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Yep. @Helldritch may have it at 30 feet, I'd probably have it at anywhere from 10 to what makes sense under the circumstances. A flying invisible imp is going to make almost no noise. Now, on the other hand if that imp is in an herbalist's shop with drying plants hanging from the ceiling that they have to carefully avoid or it's trying to carry off an item that is nearly at it's weight capacity that changes the situation. Does that sprite gently flap their wings or is more like a humming bird? Is it an invisible mouse or a cloud giant?

It's a judgement call and if I have such a wide variety of factors to consider then they're no longer "special".

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Fundamentally, it doesn't matter. However, @Oofta is claiming the podcast on stealth vindicates his approach over others -- that it provided explicit justification for his approach. If his approach is as you suggest -- every situation every time is evaluated de novo -- then he's not in alignment with what the podcast is. I've no problem whatsoever if someone draws a tighter line than I do on what counts as special circumstances, but I sensed a goalpost shift somewhere in the last few pages in regards to what the podcast is and I'm trying to see if that's true.

To use your analogy, the podcast says that x is 10. It also says that sometimes, you add y and get a different answer. If @Oofta and @Helldritch are in agreement, I don't really care what y is or how often it's added to x. But, I suspect that their position is that it's always x+y and never just x. And, that's fine, but it's not what the podcast says.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

You gave me an answer to a different question. Is the one I asked so difficult or scary that you feel the need to avoid it?

 

[NotAYakk]

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.

Please quote the rule that states that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yep. @Helldritch may have it at 30 feet, I'd probably have it at anywhere from 10 to what makes sense under the circumstances. A flying invisible imp is going to make almost no noise. Now, on the other hand if that imp is in an herbalist's shop with drying plants hanging from the ceiling that they have to carefully avoid or it's trying to carry off an item that is nearly at it's weight capacity that changes the situation. Does that sprite gently flap their wings or is more like a humming bird? Is it an invisible mouse or a cloud giant?

It's a judgement call and if I have such a wide variety of factors to consider then they're no longer "special".

So, then, no, you don't not follow the podcast's normal of detected without special circumstance, you actually review each situations de novo, create the fiction, and then look to the rules to see what to do. Which is why the baseline assumption doesn't work for you -- you prefer to have the fiction in hand prior to making a decision. That's fine, but it also means that the podcast doesn't vindicate your approach like you claim it does -- it operates on a baseline.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Please quote the rule that states that.

If no rule states this, then please point to the rule that says I know where a visible creature within a clear line of sight is. I guarantee you I can make that ambiguous enough to argue it doesn't say you see anything. There are any number of special circumstances that the GM could use to rule otherwise, therefor it's not a given that you can ever locate a creature, visible or not, in any given situation.

I mean, this is what this line of argument comes down to. There's a clear assumption that you know where other things are unless there's a reason not to, and invisibility takes pains to say it's not a reason in and of itself, but it could make other reasons more compelling.

 

[Oofta]

You gave me an answer to a different question. Is the one I asked so difficult or scary that you feel the need to avoid it?

Stop with the insults.

 

[Flamestrike]

What do you mean, very very rough? It knows exactly where the invisible creature is, to within a 5-foot square.

5 foot squares are abstractions. Like turns, or hit points or rounds.

Its more correct to say that over the course of the round it has enough of an idea to be able to make an attack against the invisible creature with disadvantage.

It can't target the creature with spells, dodge its attacks, make attacks of opportunity against it or use many special abilities against it. It does not know its location with any degree of precision.