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

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, I may not have been clear enough.
Base assuption. If you don't hide, you will reveal your position. Just as the rule says.
But.
There are circumstances where the base assumption might not work. Distance is a factor in my games, yes. But the invisible dragon 45 feet away breathing fire will reveal his position too. Same with giants or whatever. We, as DMs, must use our judgment when ruling on some aspect of the game.

Yes we have the 30 feet assumption. If you are further than that, tough luck to find the invisible person. But this goes for the whole round as if you are within that 30 feet (including the 30th feet but not the 31st) then the invisible one must be hidding or his position is revealed.

There maybe other factors preventing from pinpointing the location of an invisible person, such as heavy noises, a chaotic battle or whatever. But these are rare. The goal is not to make invisibility all powerful, but it is certainly not to nerf it to the ground either.

I'm definitely less clear, now, I think. Are you talking about invisible creatures throughout, as is a non-hiding invisible creature within 30' is automatically detected by anyone, not just 14th level rangers? If so, what are you saying the Ranger 14th level ability does? I'm turned about, here, probably my fault.

 

[billd91]

Not if you don't want to hide but not to be heard. Moving silently is part of sneaking.
Sneaking is a part of hidding and you can't hide without sneaking but it is not true the other way around. You can sneak without hidding.

Here are two example.
Bob the warlock is invisible, under the parapet and does not want to be heard by the the guard above. All he has to do, is moving silently, all the while, Bob is searching for the secret door his contact told him was near this spot. By your way of ruling, Bob would not be able to do both as he is a warlock (a sneaky one at that, bad boy...).

Here, no need of hidding, the character is invisible. But the need to be silent is there. Bob is under the parapet, out of line of sight (there is a blind spot on parapets in case you don't know.) So no need for hidding but the need for being silent is vital.

Of course, Sneaky Goyle the rogue would not need invisibility as he can always use the hide action as an action bonus and keep searching. Sneaky Goyle does not need as many resources as poor Bob. It is the advantage of being a rogue. It is a lot less costly to get things done.

I think you're rationalizing yourself into a weird situation here. But you're not too far off a valuable track.

Yes, being stealthy isn't free - particularly in combat rounds where you are charged the hide action for the privilege of being able to make a stealth roll to avoid being detected by enemy combatants because, in effect, it slows down what you can do. Fail to pay that charge and you don't get the benefit of sneaking around by using your stealth check to beat their perception check (passive or otherwise). But that's just combat. If you're not in combat, you don't need to worry about religiously paying for actions. The overhead of moving around and doing things more carefully doesn't need to be so carefully accounted for.

The beauty of being a rogue able to take a hide action as a bonus action is they are a lot more efficient with their sneaking than non-rogues in combat. They can get as much done as a non-rogue and still use their stealth check to try to avoid detection. But outside of combat, you don't need to worry about their improved stealthy action economy.

So it's OK if Bob the warlock is sneaking around trying to find a secret door in a potentially compromising location. You're not worrying about combat actions. Just have him roll his stealth check and, if he's got a better result than the guard's perception check, he finishes his search undetected. If he fails, the guard hears him poking around (even if he can't see him). If the guard reacts with hostility and it's pertinent to roll initiative, then Bob is well advised to hide to get another attempt at a stealth check if he wants to diffuse the situation. And that's gonna slow him down. Whereas if Sneaky Goyle was in that situation, he wouldn't be slowed down.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's 18th level ranger ability actually.

Anyway, being hidden means that your location is unknown. However, some people seem to think that the inverse is automatically true, that if you're not hidden your location is known. This is known as 'denying the antecedent' or 'inverse error', a common logical fallacy. This false conclusion is at the core of the issue.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Take care. Im out.

Hey, don't leave yet! I have one more question.

Sneaking is done in combat via the Hide action.

Just because they called it 'Hide' dont let that confuse you.

No, its actually the other way around.

The Hiding (making yourself unseen) is easy. You simply move into total cover (or heavy obscurement) or otherwise make yourself unseen.

Once you're unseen (or 'unable to be seen clearly') you can attempt to be quiet with a Stealth check to 'Hide' (via the Hide action).



Quietly tip-toeing around and trying to be quiet while unseen (invisible) is Hiding. Its what the Stealth skill does and is for, and what the Hide action lets you do.



Nope. You reveal yourself from hiding when you attacked (hit or miss). At the end of your movement (after you moved away) seeing as you havent again become hidden, the game assumes your target has a rough idea where you are (enough to make weapon and spell attacks against you at disadvantage this round). You can always Hide whenever you want seeing as you're invisible though (on your next turn, using your action).

You could do the above if you're a Rogue however

Move 10 feet (invisible and hidden). Use Attack action to attack. Use Hide action (as a bonus action via cunning action) to re-enter Hiding.

Then you could move where you damn well wanted and your enemy wouldnt have a clue where you are without a lucky guess.



The Hide action (and the Stealth skill) is used for hiding (as defined in the game, as 'any time you want to make your character unheard while he is also unseen').

It covers sneaking up behind someone who has his back to you, or when you want to be silent and sneaky when using cover, heavy obscurement or invisiblity. You take the Hide action, and roll Stealth (you sneaking up while unseen) vs their passive perception.

Ok, so essentially, since Hide is an action, you cannot hide and attack in the same round unless you are a rogue with cunning action.

Illegal Action Economy (order of action not really important):

1. Cantrip attack
2. Bonus action improved invisibility
3. move action with a stealth check.

Since 1 and 3 are both actions (not including the actual movement), you can't do both.

 

[iserith]

Ok, so essentially, since Hide is an action, you cannot hide and attack in the same round unless you are a rogue with cunning action.

Correct.

Illegal Action Economy (order of action not really important):

1. Cantrip attack
2. Bonus action improved invisibility
3. move action with a stealth check.

Since 1 and 3 are both actions (not including the actual movement), you can't do both.

Correct, though it's "greater invisibility" in D&D 5e and there's no "move action."

 

[Helldritch]

That is convoluted nonsense that makes no sense.

Youre tying yourself up in knots now man.

Look, consensus is overwhelmingly against you. The clear words of the devs is against you. The RAW does not support you. There are hundreds of threads on this topic across dozens of sites and they say it works like im trying to tell you how it works.

Were at the point now where youre only arguing out of stubborn refusal to listen to or understand the consensus arguments being put forward. Its a total waste of time explaining the rules to you because you're just going to persist asserting yourr the one doing it right and everyone else is doing it wrong.

Im glad whatever you're doing works for you though and I'd love a chance to sit down with you and show you how it's supposed to work.

There is nothing more constructive to be discussed here so ill bid you a good day and hope that one day you can come to an understanding on the rules and how they're supposed to work.

Take care. Im out.

Am I talking about combat? Nope. Why are you relating these examples to combat?

I think you're rationalizing yourself into a weird situation here. But you're not too far off a valuable track.

Yes, being stealthy isn't free - particularly in combat rounds where you are charged the hide action for the privilege of being able to make a stealth roll to avoid being detected by enemy combatants because, in effect, it slows down what you can do. Fail to pay that charge and you don't get the benefit of sneaking around by using your stealth check to beat their perception check (passive or otherwise). But that's just combat. If you're not in combat, you don't need to worry about religiously paying for actions. The overhead of moving around and doing things more carefully doesn't need to be so carefully accounted for.

The beauty of being a rogue able to take a hide action as a bonus action is they are a lot more efficient with their sneaking than non-rogues in combat. They can get as much done as a non-rogue and still use their stealth check to try to avoid detection. But outside of combat, you don't need to worry about their improved stealthy action economy.

So it's OK if Bob the warlock is sneaking around trying to find a secret door in a potentially compromising location. You're not worrying about combat actions. Just have him roll his stealth check and, if he's got a better result than the guard's perception check, he finishes his search undetected. If he fails, the guard hears him poking around (even if he can't see him). If the guard reacts with hostility and it's pertinent to roll initiative, then Bob is well advised to hide to get another attempt at a stealth check if he wants to diffuse the situation. And that's gonna slow him down. Whereas if Sneaky Goyle was in that situation, he wouldn't be slowed down.

You resumed my point way better than me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's 18th level ranger ability actually.

Anyway, being hidden means that your location is unknown. However, some people seem to think that inverse is automatically true, that if you're not hidden your location is known. This is known as 'denying the antecedent' or 'inverse error', a common logical fallacy. This false conclusion is at the core of the issue.

Sure, if you're supporting a position in the rules where your location is unknown but you are not hidden. Given that hidden is the occasion of being unseen, unheard, and that your location is unknown, what other position are you suggesting exists for the error to be true? If only state A and state B exist, then not A means B, logically and without fallacy. It's only if there are other possible states where the fallacy can occur. But, to make that case, you need to show what other states exist, and I haven't seen that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, if you're supporting a position in the rules where your location is unknown but you are not hidden. Given that hidden is the occasion of being unseen, unheard, and that your location is unknown, what other position are you suggesting exists for the error to be true? If only state A and state B exist, then not A means B, logically and without fallacy. It's only if there are other possible states where the fallacy can occur. But, to make that case, you need to show what other states exist, and I haven't seen that.

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.

The last sentence unambiguously proves the existence of a state other than hidden where the location is unknow and suggests invisibility as one reason for such a state to exist.

I fully admit though that the rules relating to this are a mess, and they should have explained things far more clearly.

 

[Helldritch]

In the DnD next, there was something relating to this but somewhere along the line, references to this was lost.
We see this in Feral Senses but it is implied rather that described. I wish I had kept my earlier files of DnD Next.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The last sentence unambiguously proves the existence of a state other than hidden where the location is unknow and suggests invisibility as one reason for such a state to exist.

I fully admit though that the rules relating to this are a mess, and they should have explained things far more clearly.

Okay, what is that, how to you get to it, and what interactions does it have? The problem with referencing the Ranger ability is that it doesn't establish any rules by itself -- you're just inferring a rule because that's how you see that working. To me, it's another place where there's a nearly redundant statement that exists to cover corner cases. Normally, an invisible creature is detected unless they're hiding, but some cases may exist where the GM may rule otherwise. Here, the Ranger ability works by saying that within 30', it doesn't matter what the situation is, the ranger detects the invisible creature unless, and only unless, it is successfully hiding. It doesn't, by itself, establish a game condition found no where else in the rules and where the rest of the rules would actively disrupt such a condition. Again, if this third state exists and is associated with invisibility -- why doesn't invisibility say anything about it?