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

[billd91]

The rules should do what logically follows from the fiction. Possible balance issues are another matter entirely.

Yes they should but lessons learned should apply as well. I'm guessing, from your line of comments in this thread, that you either didn't play a lot of 3rd edition or didn't pay much attention to the invisibility rules there if you did. But the nerf the invisibility spell got in 5e was pretty necessary compared to the 3e family (including Pathfinder). Invisibility has the potential to be extremely unbalancing - so it gets a lot of limitations compared to what you might assume could be true from the fiction.

 

[Helldritch]

Yes they should but lessons learned should apply as well. I'm guessing, from your line of comments in this thread, that you either didn't play a lot of 3rd edition or didn't pay much attention to the invisibility rules there if you did. But the nerf the invisibility spell got in 5e was pretty necessary compared to the 3e family (including Pathfinder). Invisibility has the potential to be extremely unbalancing - so it gets a lot of limitations compared to what you might assume could be true from the fiction.

There are limits and there are limits. At some point, I agree that the possibility to defend yourself against an invisible opponent was much needed and at a certain point the nerf was and still is necessary. But beyond a certain point, the nerf becomes a joke exactly because the nerf goes too far and as many have shown isn't even truly supported both by the rules and the logic. Blindly applying a rule might be RAW but certainly not RAI.

The goal is to give a fighting chance to actually hit an invisible opponent in combat. When an invisi le opponent is more than a hundred feet, it should not be so easy to determine his exact position.

Now if the invisible one were to fire projectiles or cantrip or spells, then it would be an other matter. The arrow would be visible as soon as it is fired, the fire bolt would trace a neat path as to where the invisble one is. His voice could reveal his position too. But just moving away does not and should not reveal your exact location.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

And this is not one of them.

The Monk has both attacked someone in melee combat and then sprinted off 100'. He's doing everything OTHER than being stealthy or concealing his position this turn!

He can attempt to Hide on his next turn if he wants to.

But on his few seconds of this turn he is not attempting to be quiet or stealthy. He is doing the exact opposite by kicking, punching and elbowing his target while screaming ''A-Ryu-Ken'' and then sprinting off.

 

[Flamestrike]

The goal is to give a fighting chance to actually hit an invisible opponent in combat. When an invisi le opponent is more than a hundred feet, it should not be so easy to determine his exact position.

He's not 100 feet away.

We dont know if his opponent chased him yet.

Example (movement this round):

a) Monks turn: He punches and then dashes 100' away.
b) Opponents turn: He dashes towards the Monk (base move 50') following the Monks footsteps on the cobblestones and his heavy breathing as he sprints off.

Even though in between those initiative counts (to us) it looked like the Monk was 100' away from his Opponent, what REALLY happened was the Monk ran off, with his Opponent hot on his heels all at the same time.


At no stage were they more than a few feet away from each other.

 

[Helldritch]

He's not 100 feet away.

We dont know if his opponent chased him yet.

Example (movement this round):

a) Monks turn: He punches and then dashes 100' away.
b) Opponents turn: He dashes towards the Monk (base move 50') following the Monks footsteps on the cobblestones and his heavy breathing as he sprints off.

Even though in between those initiative counts (to us) it looked like the Monk was 100' away from his Opponent, what REALLY happened was the Monk ran off, with his Opponent hot on his heels all at the same time.


At no stage were they more than a few feet away from each other.

Wrong. 100 feet as in the original post. A guard. 30 feet move, dash 60 feet. Before the guard even react, the monk is already 100 feet away. Which direction? The first 10 feet ok. 30? Not sure but I feel generous and ok. But a 100 feet. Absolutely no way. Was there a turn? Two turns or even more that were possible in that corridor? Which one will the guard take? And the guard will not hear the monk's heavy breathing as he is running too. He will hear loud noise, but heavy breathing do not qualify. Not for 6 seconds. The guard is probably in heavy armor/gear too. It is not even certain that he has 30 feet to move but 25...

The monk is perfectly safe in this case. But if he stayed in melee or in the vincinity of the giard, he'd be toast.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

'Cannot be seen' isn't just fluff.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

You asserting the same false things tenth time doesn't make them any more true.

 

[Flamestrike]

Wrong. 100 feet as in the original post. A guard. 30 feet move, dash 60 feet. Before the guard even react, the monk is already 100 feet away. Which direction? The first 10 feet ok. 30? Not sure but I feel generous and ok. But a 100 feet. Absolutely no way. Was there a turn? Two turns or even more that were possible in that corridor? Which one will the guard take? And the guard will not hear the monk's heavy breathing as he is running too. He will hear loud noise, but heavy breathing do not qualify. Not for 6 seconds. The guard is probably in heavy armor/gear too. It is not even certain that he has 30 feet to move but 25...

The monk is perfectly safe in this case. But if he stayed in melee or in the vincinity of the giard, he'd be toast.

No youre wrong.

Despite the stop start cyclical nature of rounds and turns, the action of combat rounds is happening hargely simultaneously.

The guard is not frozen in time while the monk conducts 6 seconds worth of actions.

 

[Flamestrike]

You asserting the same false things tenth time doesn't make them any more true.

Nah mate. Youre wrong.

Google it and see just how wrong you are.

Would you like me to post a podcast from the guys that wrote the rules telling you how wrong you are?

 

[Helldritch]

No youre wrong.

Despite the stop start cyclical nature of rounds and turns, the action of combat rounds is happening hargely simultaneously.

The guard is not frozen in time while the monk conducts 6 seconds worth of actions.

Of course. On that we agree. But inthe end, the mo k is at a minimum of 40 feet away and probably more if the guard is in heavy armor without the appropriate strength.

Hearing the monk is out of the question as the guard is running too and makes even more noise than the monk. He is in armor after all. So how can he locate what he can't see nor hear?

Use your logic and stop blindly applying an inept rule.