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

[Oofta]

If you want to change invisibility spell to make people, say translucent instead of completely invisible then that's fine. And if you think the spell is too powerful, it would be good way to nerf it. But currently it makes people literally invisible, thus that is what is happening in the fiction.

I think this discussion is a tad bizarre. Like let's say that a fight commences and there is a tall wall in the area, completely blocking the line of sight to the other side of it. If there was a person standing behind this wall, would people still be debating whether creatures that cannot see that person could pinpoint their exact location?

Some people have stated that you would know where everyone was even if you had your eyes closed, so probably.

 

[Helldritch]

This discussion is not bizarre. It is simply applying rules against what should happen logically.

I asked them with two out of combat examples and they ruled that invisibility was working as intended and not as I wrote. But as soon as combat starts, the rules change.

Sorry, but I don't buy that crap.
If the invisble attacker stays in combat. I fully agree with them.

But if the attacker is moving away and is already a stealthy character to begin with, actions should be taken to "see" (pun intended) where exactly the invisible opponent went. A simple perception check (or even a passive one) should work it out. But it should never be an automatic thing.

 

[Xetheral]

And combatans automatically notice creatures that emerge from hiding during the combat. (Unseen attackers sidebar).

That's a misquote. The unseen attackers sidebar says that "if you come out of hiding and a approach a creature, it usually sees you". (Emphasis added.)

You replaced "sees" with "noticed", which in this context are entirely different things. We know, for example, from the text of the Invisible condition, that an invisible creature is "impossible to see", so we know that this particular rule does not apply to invisible creatures. They're never seen, regardless of if they leave hiding or not. They may or may not be noticed, but they definitely won't be seen.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you want to change invisibility spell to make people, say translucent instead of completely invisible then that's fine. And if you think the spell is too powerful, it would be good way to nerf it. But currently it makes people literally invisible, thus that is what is happening in the fiction.

I think this discussion is a tad bizarre. Like let's say that a fight commences and there is a tall wall in the area, completely blocking the line of sight to the other side of it. If there was a person standing behind this wall, would people still be debating whether creatures that cannot see that person could pinpoint their exact location?

No, it's not necessary to change the invisibility spell at all, although it would make it easier is some regards. Instead, I don't start with the idea that an invisible person can't be located, I do that after I see if that person is located or not. The rules suggest that, all things being equal, being invisible isn't proof against location and that the bias tilts pretty strongly to location in many cases. Starting here, I look, and if I cannot justify reasons other than invisibility that an invisibly creature is hidden, I'll assume they aren't hidden. Those reasons might be distance, terrain, weather, having taken the Hide action, etc. If those don't obtain, then I create a fiction that explains why the invisible creature is detectable. By not starting with fiction that assumes things about invisibility or the results, I can use the rules to adjudicate and then describe whatever works. Hence, fiction is both an input and an output, but in different ways and with different expectations. Fiction should only be an input in that it describes the scene -- it should never assume the end results.

As for your last paragraph, I'm the one that initially suggested that circumstances should invoke Page 4 and the GM should make a call -- that the guidance isn't absolute. I also posted an example more complicated but in the same vein as yours here, that points out that a slavish adherence to guidance creates silliness. So, yeah, you're most definitely not talking to me, here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This discussion is not bizarre. It is simply applying rules against what should happen logically.

I asked them with two out of combat examples and they ruled that invisibility was working as intended and not as I wrote. But as soon as combat starts, the rules change.

Sorry, but I don't buy that crap.
If the invisble attacker stays in combat. I fully agree with them.

But if the attacker is moving away and is already a stealthy character to begin with, actions should be taken to "see" (pun intended) where exactly the invisible opponent went. A simple perception check (or even a passive one) should work it out. But it should never be an automatic thing.

Combat, like it or not, changes the stakes in D&D. There's a reason there's a phenomenon called the "combat swoosh," because you sudden transition to a rather different set of resolution mechanics and it's heralded by an initiative roll. Since the stakes change, there's a strong move towards mechanics that don't require a lot of on the spot adjudication of finicky bits and ones that are more uniformly applied across tables (ie, more concrete guidance instead of the looser guidance in the rest of the game). Also, combat in D&D immediately elevates stakes to life and death (usually, unless you take steps to do otherwise). Because of this, the baseline presumption is that everyone knows where everyone else is so decisions can be made that reflect a good understanding of the risks and rewards. Removing information is powerful in the combat pillar, which is why location information removal is gated behind successful Hide actions, the environment, and the current tactical positioning. Invisibility, as a 2nd level spell, should not drastically alter how combat is balanced -- that's the role of higher level spells. If a 2nd level spell can, without effort, remove one of the main risk understanding sources in combat, then it starts to assume a disruptive position. Hence, the understanding is that Invisibility allows the Hide action at any time which means it does not normally make the target of the effect hidden. If you are not hidden, you can be detected, even if you are not seen. Thus, the baseline presumption of Invisibility is that you are detected unless you take steps in addition to being invisible. That may be the Hide action, or it may be taking advantage of the terrain, or something else, but without it, you are detected. How? Well, as you note, you aren't seen, but perhaps the dust you kick up is, or you make a sound, or there's a brief fluctuation in the Invisibility that creates a distortion around you, or..... sky's the limit, be creative.

 

[Helldritch]

Be creative... lol
Be creative too, and don't be stuck by the rules and use your logic.
In the OP example, the monk is clearly out of combat as he moved a 100 feet away. But... because.... well, everybody knows where the monk is exactly. Not an approximation but at a hundred feet the guards know exactly woth pin point accuracy where the monk is.

Again, if the monk keeps in hand to hand combat (or melee if you prefer) I concur whole heartedly with you. But as soon as the monk moves away and is not even in melee movement range of anyone, good luck to find him. You might have a reasonable idea of where and which direction but if he went into a corridor, took one of the possible turn, unless you make a good perception check you won't find him.

Now there are circumstances that can change this.
If the guards keep quiet they ha e a much better chance of finding the monk's position. But if the the place is tidy and neat as any castle should be (that is why servants exists) then it is going to be hard, especially since your only mean of locating the monk will be through hearing him. Something that is hard to do when everyone's shouting to find the intruder...

I will refer you to a Buffy the Vampire Slayer. At some point she fights an invisible opponent and Cordelia keeps crying and Buffy is getting her asses kicked out. When she order Cordelia to shut up, she listens and knock out the invisible opponent (hearing check successfully made). This is exactly how invisibility should be played out and how the rules are meant to work.

 

[Flamestrike]

This is insane. The rules are settled and I cant believe were still having this discussion.

Invisibility simply lets you take the Hide action. In the OPs example the Monk has revealed himself this round by attacking but hasn't yet gone back into hiding.

Hes not hidden. Full stop.

If he wants to Hide he can on his next turn.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Be creative... lol
Be creative too, and don't be stuck by the rules and use your logic.

What amusing to me is that this is a sub-post response to what I said as if what I said was this or something like it. I was the first person in the thread to lay out a case for why the OP monk might be considered hidden and said that the rules guidance was strongly suggested but that it was the GM's call based on the situation at hand. Your snark here was in response to me saying that you shouldn't preassume the outcome because you've told yourself a story and that it's trivially easy to "be creative" in coming up with reasons an invisible creature is detected and located. This wasn't, ever, a statement to blindly follow rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is insane. The rules are settled and I cant believe were still having this discussion.

Invisibility simply lets you take the Hide action. In the OPs example the Monk has revealed himself this round by attacking but hasn't yet gone back into hiding.

Hes not hidden. Full stop.

If he wants to Hide he can on his next turn.

Nope, that's not settled, it's a strong default, and strongly encouraged by the rules but not itself a game rule. I agree that a GM should have a reason other than invisibility to rule otherwise, but those aren't exactly hard to come by.

 

[Helldritch]

Nope, that's not settled, it's a strong default, and strongly encouraged by the rules but not itself a game rule. I agree that a GM should have a reason other than invisibility to rule otherwise, but those aren't exactly hard to come by.

This, this is exactly what I was hoping to see. Thank you. Rules are to be followed, that much I agree. But there comes a point where the the rule can't cover every cases and this is where the DMs' adjudication and logic should take over the rule.