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

[Flamestrike]

So the optimal strategy for my DEX 8 fighter in full plate who wants to remain unnoticed is to get behind a boulder and NOT try to hide. Got it!

Never try to hide.

Just conceal yourself behind cover and don't move, being as quiet as you can.

Ensure you're not trying to hide as you do so though because that wastes an action and requires a check.

 

[Maxperson]

We are talking about a 6 second combat round. Stuff is really happening nearly simultaneously. The creature running away to another room doesn't get the full 30' away (or whatever) before the enemy even moves an inch.

In D&D that's exactly how combat works. If my fighter is 10 feet from the door and wants to run out, all 10 goblins who are 40 feet away can move 60 feet and get between me and the exit in two rows, all before my PC even begins to go that 10 feet. If combat were happening nearly simultaneously, it would be utterly impossible for that to occur, assuming we are all standing still. It's nice to think that combat is simultaneous, but it's impossible under the current D&D combat rules for it to be. It's something that we just have to accept in order for the game to play smoothly. Simultaneous combat would take hours for even the simple combats.

 

[Maxperson]

Never try to hide.

Just conceal yourself behind cover and don't move, being as quiet as you can.

Ensure you're not trying to hide as you do so though because that wastes an action and requires a check.

Being stealthy still requires a check.

 

[Hriston]

In D&D that's exactly how combat works. If my fighter is 10 feet from the door and wants to run out, all 10 goblins who are 40 feet away can move 60 feet and get between me and the exit in two rows, all before my PC even begins to go that 10 feet. If combat were happening nearly simultaneously, it would be utterly impossible for that to occur, assuming we are all standing still. It's nice to think that combat is simultaneous, but it's impossible under the current D&D combat rules for it to be. It's something that we just have to accept in order for the game to play smoothly. Simultaneous combat would take hours for even the simple combats.

I think @DM Dave1 is talking about how the fiction looks, not how the mechanics look.

 

[NotAYakk]

I think @DM Dave1 is talking about how the fiction looks, not how the mechanics look.

Not everyone can divorce fiction from mechanics.

 

[Rabulias]

My ramblings and thoughts.

I recall hearing that Jeremy Crawford said that sometimes invisible creatures will be hidden without making Stealth (Dexterity) checks. Even if he did not say this, it seems the logical way to run it to me, with the DM deciding when these circumstances apply.

Detecting invisible creatures sometimes reminds me of invisible characters in movies and TV shows. To give the audience an idea of where they are, they make noise, disturb plants or curtains, bump into things, knock things over, pick things up (that remain visible), leave footprints, etc. Clearly they are not taking an action to hide! Invisible creatures moving in crowded/cluttered areas will need to make Dexterity (Stealth) checks or they will bumble through, revealing their location and direction of travel.

There will be times when there is not much (or nothing) in the environment to bump into or disturb, or there may be other circumstances or distractions that help cover signs of the invisible creature's presence or passage (loud noise, smoke, environmental hazards, darkness, other (visible) opponents, terrain features, etc.). In those cases, I might rule the creature to be hidden. Additionally, depending on the situation, someone (unaided) might have a harder time determining an invisible creature's location and/or direction of travel. I would reflect this in various ways, from Wisdom (Perception) checks at disadvantage, to indicating larger areas with a successful Wisdom (Perception) check (instead of indicating a single square, I would indicate 9, 16, 25, etc., squares, up to more general zones (for example, "You think your unseen assailant is somewhere north of you."), up to declaring the invisible creature cannot be perceived without additional aid, usually magical, or until circumstances change.

Some rules references (emphasis mine in the quotes).

Invisible
• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.

Invisible references heavily obscured, so we go to:

A heavily obscured area -- such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage -- blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

Not much added here. Heavily obscured refers to Blinded, so we go to:

• A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.

So why lead us to Blinded? The second bullet (advantage/disadvantage) is already in the description for Invisible, so the first bullet must be relevant to Invisible, which leads me to believe that you cannot "see" a hidden invisible creature. You may see signs (moving grass, a knocked over vase, a blood trail), or you may hear them, but you cannot detect them visually. RAW, invisibility is not like a super duper blur, or the Predator's invisibility where if you pay attention you can make out their form. DMs are free to rule otherwise in their games, of course.

For those who insist you always have to take an action to hide, I have this oblique inference:

Boon of the Night Spirit
While completely in an area of dim light or darkness, you can become invisible as an action. You remain invisible until you take an action or a reaction.

If you always have to take an action to hide, it would be impossible to hide with this, though it seems like it should be something one could do with an Epic Boon, otherwise, it ain't all that Epic.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you always have to take an action to hide, it would be impossible to hide with this, though it seems like it should be something one could do with an Epic Boon, otherwise, it ain't all that Epic.

Which is identical to the One with Shadows invocation.

Invisible is a fantastic condition. Your opponents lose any level of precision about where you are suffering disadvantage on attack rolls, and are unable to target you with most abilities, opportunity attacks and non AoE spells (Hex, Magic missile, Hunters mark, counterspell, hold person, Bane, telekinisis, divine word, disintegrate, flesh to stone, chromatic orb, chain lightning, banishment, polymorph, maze, etc etc etc).

 

[Ovinomancer]

There is no such thing as a free stealth check in my game.

Cool. Again, I didn't ask that. But, you seem intent to tell me again the same thing as last time you didn't answer my question.

There are times when there is no need to hide because there is no chance of determining location or even detection. The imp that turned invisible and flew away is just gone. If a creature cannot make a stealth check but detection is uncertain they may make a dex check (no proficiency). The reason I do a dex check with no proficiency is because they are simply trying avoid obstacles but they aren't being as careful as they might with an actual stealth check.

Okay, in arguing about how the RAW works, you've inserted a bit of homebrew. That's interesting and all (although, again, I don't understand how being proficient in something means you're as good as someone not proficient at a task within the proficiency, but I'm sure there's some kind of good reason for this).

There are a bunch of factors though, and I may give advantage/disadvantage or just set a DC. To paraphrase Barbossa, it's more of a guideline really than a concrete rule.

Not being seen because of invisibility? Fairly rare in my current campaign, the PCs just got to 9th level and no one has invisibility. Previous campaign that went to 20? It started to be more common. Not being seen because of magical darkness, fog, blindness, total cover? Fairly common. Invisible or unseen monsters can be a fun change of pace but if used too often they're just annoying. Maybe 1 in 10 or 20 encounters? Less? I don't really keep track

No, why do you answer different question. I asked how often you rule things get a free chance to hide (or roll a DEX check, if that's your preferred terminology). Invisible creatures would only be one subset.

I'll go ahead and provide the argument I'm making -- I'll bet it's almost none. Because, shockingly, you actually default to creatures being noticed and only deviate if there's a good reason to. I'm sure you'll deny this, though, alongside something that shows that you have an odd understanding of what a default means.

 

[Hriston]

Not everyone can divorce fiction from mechanics.

Well, ideally I think they should inform each other. But imagining that the participants in a battle are taking turns like the players at the table? I think that would spoil some of my enjoyment of the game. People are different in this regard apparently.

 

[Maxperson]

I think @DM Dave1 is talking about how the fiction looks, not how the mechanics look.

If the fiction can't match the mechanics, the fiction fails. My example with the goblins holds true. All 10 of them can run 50 feet, then 10 feet past me and block my exit before my PC can move an inch. On my turn they are there in the fiction, not running towards those spots. Otherwise I could escape through the door that it now being blocked by 10 goblins.