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

[Ovinomancer]

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]

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.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

Never saw that rule in the PHB either. Maybe a house rule of theirs?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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]

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.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

 

[Helldritch]

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]

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.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.