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

[Flamestrike]

What if the monk attacked and then, instead of moving 100feet, moved half his movement to 'sneak' quietly away to disguise the direction he went?

It doesnt work that way. Or it kind of does, but in a different way.

If you're trying to be quiet (sneaking) while unseen, that's the Hide action. It's expressly what the Stealth skill is (and does) and what the Hide action represents you doing.

Instead of using your action to Dash, you're using it to Hide, so you're moving at half the speed you would be moving if you were not trying to be quiet.

As for 'half movement' assume a normal person who isn't using their action to fight or do something else in a round moves at 60' speed (Move + Dash). If they were moving slowly and scanning for threats, they'd move slower at half speed of 30' (Move + Search). If they were cautiously advancing with their guards up they also move slower at half speed (Dodge + Move).

If they were moving silently they also move slower at 30' ('half normal') because they're doing a (Move + Hide).

Cunning action mixes this up a bit, but it lets a Rogue (Move+Dash) and also Attack, or Search, or Hide while moving at full speed (60').

 

[Ovinomancer]

So your claim is that your approach necessarily produces more consistent results than @Oofta's approach? I see no reason to assume that it going to be true. Both of your approaches boil down to the DM having to make a judgement call about how hard it would be detect the square an invisible creature is in. Why do you think using that judgement call to determine whether to deviate from a default is going to be more consistent than using that judgement call directly?

Because of where the judgement call is made. Here's an analogy -- in football, a first down is when the offense moves the ball at least 10 yards upfield from the location at the start of the 1st down. This is the baseline. Most of the time it's pretty clear if the ball is under that or over that -- situation where everyone would agree one way or the other. There's a judgement call when you're nearby, based on where an official spots the ball, that could result in being over or under the line. This largely encapsulates my position. @Oofta's position, as presented, is that it's always up the official when a first down occurs -- there is no baseline of 10 yards, it's just whenever the official determines that this is good enough.

So, sure, there are judgement calls in both, but it's frankly ridiculous to say that because there are judgement calls the approaches are the same.

EDIT: I added upfield and 1st down for clarities.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I make judgement calls all the time on what's possible, including whether or not you know exactly where an enemy is. In my last session, there were a few times when I told people they knew the general but not exact location because of effects that granted total obscurement.

Nobody questioned because they trust me as a DM to be fair. If the situation were reversed I would treat monster's knowledge based on the same types of judgement. I think it can add quite a bit to a game to have that tentacle reach out of the fog to pull a henchman screaming to their doom. IMHO you lose something if you know exactly where the monster is at all times no matter what the situation is unless there are exploding powder kegs because that's the one example Crawford gave.

As the podcast says, it's up to the DM to decide if you know exact location. There is no exact formula because we aren't playing a board game or computer simulation.

That's not what the podcast says. The podcast says that you're normally detected unless some special circumstance occurs. The example given was a group of orcs losing track of an invisible mage after the barbarian's turn where he attacks the orks and after the rogue's turn when he blows up a bunch of gunpoweder, at which point the podcast says a GM could rule the orcs lose track of the invisible mage, but they also may not. So, to follow along, mage turns invisible and the orcs know where she is. Then the barbarian attacks, and the orcs probably still know, but might not -- it would appear that the designers don't think this enough, but that it, in combination with other things, may contribute to a total circumstance. Then the rogue goes, and blows up gunpowder. It's not clear if the designers think this is sufficient on it's own to make the mage hidden, but do think that it's not an unreasonable call when in conjunction with the barbarian attacking. And, the specifically point this out as the orcs having bigger things to worry about than keeping track of the mage -- ie, not that the mage just slips away, but that the GM decides the orcs stop caring enough to track her. That's the podcast situation, that's what it says. What it doesn't say is "hey, GM's it's always just up to you, no guidance, your call." The podcast is full of guidance, from the baseline that invisible creatures are locatable usually to what the designers think is sufficient conditions to allow for a different call.

Your claim that the podcast vindicates your de novo analysis and presumption of being hidden absent reasons otherwise is backwards. The podcast advocates in the other direction.

 

[BlivetWidget]

 

[Maxperson]

What if the monk attacked and then, instead of moving 100feet, moved half his movement to 'sneak' quietly away to disguise the direction he went?

Do you NEED to use an action to hide? I thought sneaking just required you move at half speed. And since you are invisible, the only tells are the sound you make from moving.

I'm just curious.

The act of sneaking, using Stealth, reduces movement to half, but just walking at half movement does not equate to Stealth.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why did I based my assumption at 30 feet?
Feral Sense of the Ranger allows for attacking an invisible creature with no penalty if it is within 30 feet provided yaddi yadda and so on.
Allowing others to be aware if within 30' provided yaddi yadda and so on, is just an extrapolation of what is logical to assume.

Blind sense is even more powerful. It even works on hidden but it is limited to 10 feet. If a 14th level rogue can only do this on invisible creatures within 10'... I doubt that the average Joe can do it at 30'. But at least it works on hidden invisible foes which is something.

So the 30 feet was not out of nowhere.
Whenever it is possible, I try to follow the rules as RAW as possible. IF RAW isn't possible, I try the RAI. And finally, I am there to adjudicate when even the RAI fails. There are times when the rules are simply inadequate and the DM must use his judgement to the best of his ability. Juggling with a rule to make it work at all times is pure fantasy in my POV. But trying to follow it most of the time, in a reliable fashion is the way to go.

And in the case of pure adjudication from my part, and a player disagree. I usually put the matter on vote. We take note of the result (I always have a portable computer with an Excel base for the different rules and adjudications) and if a similar situation happens, I can always refer to it in a pinch.

So, feral sense says you know the location of invisible creatures that are not hidden from you. Yet, your argument is that invisible creatures can become hidden by dint of invisibility alone. This doesn't mean that Feral Senses supports your argument about invisibility making you hidden, because that would mean that Feral Senses is useless (this phrase is actually useless regardless of which direction you go). In other words, Feral Senses doesn't aid your argument at all -- either you're invisible and hidden or you are invisible and not hidden, in which case Feral Senses does nothing either way.

Or, this argument is based on an unstated third position, which is identical to being hidden but is not called being hidden so that Feral Senses has something to do. This is utterly unsupported in the rules, anywhere. If I do not know where you are, you are hidden, by definition of hidden.

 

[Morrus]

You gave me an answer to a different question. Is the one I asked so difficult or scary that you feel the need to avoid it?

Ovinomancer, you may be our most reported poster. While you take care to never step egregiously over the line, you skirt so close to it that we're constantly having to deal with post reports about you. We don't enjoy that. I need you to stop being combative and unpleasant on the forums, please.

 

[iserith]

They aren't identical in practice at all. This is a handwave that ignores rather important differences. Fundamentally, absent a baseline assumption, players cannot guess what a GM will decide in a given situation. With a baseline, they can make an educated guess. Further, if the GM is clear as to what might constitute a special case, players can also anticipate that. If it's all ad hoc, then players may be able to guess what the GM will decide if they have both a good grasp of how their GM reasons things AND happen to share the same mental picture of the fiction at that moment and can usefully apply that grasp. If invisibility is entirely situation based, then players have to ask 20 questions to understand well enough how it might work in this situation (getting the same mental picture and grasp of reasoning) every time. I mean, @Crimson Longinus does pretty much what I do, only reversed on the baseline -- invisible creatures are automatically hidden unless special circumstances apply. I disagree with him because I feel that makes invisibility too good, but I at least agree with him conceptually.

On the matter of players having to inquire with the DM to understand the situation well enough to make informed decisions, that probably looks like an aberration in our games, but for many tables, that's the normal way of playing. And it's likely the case for some of the participants in this thread who hold the opposite position on this topic since players at their tables are already asking questions about what their characters know, etc. so they can act. Hashing out situations with this in a sidebar with the DM on a regular basis is probably just par for the course. In our games, it would be a sign that something has likely gone wrong.

 

[Helldritch]

So, feral sense says you know the location of invisible creatures that are not hidden from you. Yet, your argument is that invisible creatures can become hidden by dint of invisibility alone. This doesn't mean that Feral Senses supports your argument about invisibility making you hidden, because that would mean that Feral Senses is useless (this phrase is actually useless regardless of which direction you go). In other words, Feral Senses doesn't aid your argument at all -- either you're invisible and hidden or you are invisible and not hidden, in which case Feral Senses does nothing either way.

Or, this argument is based on an unstated third position, which is identical to being hidden but is not called being hidden so that Feral Senses has something to do. This is utterly unsupported in the rules, anywhere. If I do not know where you are, you are hidden, by definition of hidden.

Without some form of active action by the "searcher" yes. It is exactly what I believe is infered in the books.
Feral sense is powerful because you will attack without even searching for the foe, at full capacity. This is way better than what our normal Joe can accomplish. It takes a 14th level ranger to do this.

Allowing someone other than a 14th level ranger to actually pinpoint the space where an invisible foe is, is actually a pretty big nerf to invisibility but it is in accordance with the rule. So I do allow it. But if even a 14th level ranger can't do his stuff at a range higher than 30' it means a lot for the others that do not either have this level or some other ability. I stand my ground. If exceptional circumstances call for it, the invisible one is safe at range higher than 30' (if that is the case at the end of the round that is). Otherwise, the invisible one is toast.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It doesnt work that way. Or it kind of does, but in a different way.

If you're trying to be quiet (sneaking) while unseen, that's the Hide action. It's expressly what the Stealth skill is (and does) and what the Hide action represents you doing.

Instead of using your action to Dash, you're using it to Hide, so you're moving at half the speed you would be moving if you were not trying to be quiet.

As for 'half movement' assume a normal person who isn't using their action to fight or do something else in a round moves at 60' speed (Move + Dash). If they were moving slowly and scanning for threats, they'd move slower at half speed of 30' (Move + Search). If they were cautiously advancing with their guards up they also move slower at half speed (Dodge + Move).

If they were moving silently they also move slower at 30' ('half normal') because they're doing a (Move + Hide).

Cunning action mixes this up a bit, but it lets a Rogue (Move+Dash) and also Attack, or Search, or Hide while moving at full speed (60').

The act of sneaking, using Stealth, reduces movement to half, but just walking at half movement does not equate to Stealth.

1st: Thank-you for not ignoring my question

2nd: I just don't get where it says sneaking is an action. Is that PHB? I always assumed you could sneak quietly as part of your move.

I get it that HIDING requires an action in combat because you have to physically find a place to hide and try to evade notice - hence the Rogue's ability to do it as a cunning action but hiding isn't a button you push to go into stealth mode. If you are invisible, you don't really need to find a place to hide. You just need to quietly tip toe around and not be heard.

So, if my character has a 50 foot movement speed and I'm 10 feet from an enemy, I could sneak using 20 feet of my movement, attack and then retreat. Could I not use the rest of my 30 feet to try to quietly move 15 feet and try to elude detection so they don't know which way my character went?

I mean, I get the action tax on Stealth as a game balance thing. It just doesn't make much sense to me.