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

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay, what is that, how to you get to it, and what interactions does it have? The problem with referencing the Ranger ability is that it doesn't establish any rules by itself -- you're just inferring a rule because that's how you see that working. To me, it's another place where there's a nearly redundant statement that exists to cover corner cases. Normally, an invisible creature is detected unless they're hiding, but some cases may exist where the GM may rule otherwise. Here, the Ranger ability works by saying that within 30', it doesn't matter what the situation is, the ranger detects the invisible creature unless, and only unless, it is successfully hiding. It doesn't, by itself, establish a game condition found no where else in the rules and where the rest of the rules would actively disrupt such a condition. Again, if this third state exists and is associated with invisibility -- why doesn't invisibility say anything about it?

This is not a wargame. Everything cannot be boiled down to neatly categorised conditions. This rule however irrefutably proves that invisibly can cause situation where the creatures location is unknown even though they're not hidden. Invisibility doesn't detail how this happens, however, what it says is that creature cannot be seen. I have been saying for pages that this is not just fluff. It tells us what the situation in the fiction is and lets GM adjudicate what follows from that in any given situation. Now would it be nice if the invisibility condition more clearly explained how this works? Looking at this twenty page thread and many others on the same topic, I think we can safely conclude that it might indeed be pretty helpful if it did! Alas, it does not so here we are.

 

[Helldritch]

Sometimes, 5ed rules are even more nebulous than 1ed...
Especially for invisibility.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is not a wargame. Everything cannot be boiled down to neatly categorised conditions. This rule however irrefutably proves that invisibly can cause situation where the creatures location is unknown even though they're not hidden. Invisibility doesn't detail how this happens, however, what it says is that creature cannot be seen. I have been saying for pages that this is not just fluff. It tells us what the situation in the fiction is and lets GM adjudicate what follows from that in any given situation. Now would it be nice if the invisibility condition more clearly explained how this works? Looking at this twenty page thread and many others on the same topic, I think we can safely conclude that it might indeed be pretty helpful if it did! Alas, it does not so here we are.

It grew from wargames and has, as part of it's DNA, a large dose of clearly categorized conditions. I'm not sure you can fully make that claim. But, that aside, you're arguing that some undefined state exists but you aren't showing how it works, how you get to it, and what it means in interaction with any rule other than the Ranger class ability. The sole source for your premise is that self-same Ranger class ability. So, the source of the supposed rule is also the only thing that ever interacts with it?

The condition of having your location unknown but not being hidden -- what does that look like, fictionally? Can you present a case where something's location is clearly unknown but that doesn't also meet all of the conditions of hidden? What's the functional difference, aside from the Ranger ability? Why should we agree with your reading, which creates this new state in the game, and not another reading, which doesn't even if it trivializes that clause of the ability?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It grew from wargames and has, as part of it's DNA, a large dose of clearly categorized conditions. I'm not sure you can fully make that claim. But, that aside, you're arguing that some undefined state exists but you aren't showing how it works, how you get to it, and what it means in interaction with any rule other than the Ranger class ability. The sole source for your premise is that self-same Ranger class ability. So, the source of the supposed rule is also the only thing that ever interacts with it?

The condition of having your location unknown but not being hidden -- what does that look like, fictionally? Can you present a case where something's location is clearly unknown but that doesn't also meet all of the conditions of hidden? What's the functional difference, aside from the Ranger ability? Why should we agree with your reading, which creates this new state in the game, and not another reading, which doesn't even if it trivializes that clause of the ability?

My reading doesn't create state, like it or not, the ranger rule proves its existence. As for what it looks like fictionally, hilariously enough it probably doesn't look like anything as it is the state of being unseen. As we well know, being unseen doesn't automatically make you hidden, it still however might make your location unknown. And this is not weird at all. You probably constantly use such an state for objects in the game. That barrel behind the corner; did not take hide action, but is unseen and cannot be detected by other means so its location is unknown. If you don't begin with the completely absurd and counterintuitive notion that everyone is Daredevil then this all makes perfect sense.

 

[iserith]

Everything I've ever read on feral sense points to the second paragraph being badly written and ultimately superfluous. This seems to be the overwhelming consensus in many threads and tweets. Even Jeremy Crawford, for whatever that is worth, says that the invisibility spell doesn't automatically hide you since you still make noise. The second part of the ability means nothing in the context of the rules for hiding and is likely an error in editing. Hanging one's position on this is shaky at best.

 

[Oofta]

This is not a wargame. Everything cannot be boiled down to neatly categorised conditions. This rule however irrefutably proves that invisibly can cause situation where the creatures location is unknown even though they're not hidden. Invisibility doesn't detail how this happens, however, what it says is that creature cannot be seen. I have been saying for pages that this is not just fluff. It tells us what the situation in the fiction is and lets GM adjudicate what follows from that in any given situation. Now would it be nice if the invisibility condition more clearly explained how this works? Looking at this twenty page thread and many others on the same topic, I think we can safely conclude that it might indeed be pretty helpful if it did! Alas, it does not so here we are.

I was going to post something about being hidden while not having taken the hide action, and that the difference is that you don't have to take the hide action. Then I realized even that isn't the whole story.

Let's say you're fighting orcs. One of them runs off into the brush; you can hear it calling for allies but can't see it. I think if it's far enough away you will not know exactly where it is. You can hear it, but all you will know is the general direction. I mean, how many times have you heard a voice call out or a bird in a tree but you can't locate it's source? Why would the in-game reality be any different for this particular scenario?

So for the OP I would say the monk was "hidden" in game terms because he was invisible and so far away that there is no way he's going to be heard unless he's shouting at the top of his lungs. But even if they were shouting at the top of their lungs, you would not necessarily know where they are other than "somewhere over there".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Everything I've ever read on feral sense points to the second paragraph being badly written and ultimately superfluous. This seems to be the overwhelming consensus in many threads and tweets. Even Jeremy Crawford, for whatever that is worth, says that the invisibility spell doesn't automatically hide you since you still make noise. The second part of the ability means nothing in the context of the rules for hiding and is likely an error in editing. Hanging one's position on this is shaky at best.

So first you justify an absurd and unintuitive interpretation by a literalist reading of the rules and when I point out a rule that directly contradicts your reading then that rule is just an error? Yeah, that's not gonna fly. Like honestly, I don't really much care what the rules say, I think captain Barbossa had the right idea on their worth. But I hate when people try to claim that the rules back up their nonsense when that patently is not the case.

And I was not saying that invisibility makes you automatically hidden. It might make your location unknown though.

 

[iserith]

So first you justify an absurd and unintuitive interpretation by a literalist reading of the rules and when I point out a rule that directly contradicts your reading then that rule is just an error? Yeah, that's not gonna fly. Like honestly, I don't really much care what the rules say, I think captain Barbossa had the right idea on their worth. But I hate when people try to claim that the rules back up their nonsense when that patently is not the case.

And I was not saying that invisibility makes you automatically hidden. It might make your location unknown though.

The rules aren't perfect. They contain errors, hence why they've put forward errata. Clearly they haven't captured all of it. The questions then become: Is the entire section on hiding in combination with certain rules in the combat chapter wrong? Or is it just second paragraph of the ranger's feral sense ability that is wrong? The answer is obvious in my view, particularly as the designers have endorsed the entire section on hiding and how that works quite clearly as it relates to invisibility.

I think most people not trying to win an argument about this specific topic and who are just trying to examine feral senses on its own reach will also tend to reach the conclusion that the second paragraph of the ranger ability is badly written and can be disregarded. Feel free to google such discussions to see for yourself. The consensus is clear that the second paragraph of feral senses doesn't make any, well, sense.

 

[Oofta]

Funny how the word "consensus" around here seems to mean whatever opinion the poster happens to agree with.

 

[Helldritch]

It grew from wargames and has, as part of it's DNA, a large dose of clearly categorized conditions. I'm not sure you can fully make that claim. But, that aside, you're arguing that some undefined state exists but you aren't showing how it works, how you get to it, and what it means in interaction with any rule other than the Ranger class ability. The sole source for your premise is that self-same Ranger class ability. So, the source of the supposed rule is also the only thing that ever interacts with it?

The condition of having your location unknown but not being hidden -- what does that look like, fictionally? Can you present a case where something's location is clearly unknown but that doesn't also meet all of the conditions of hidden? What's the functional difference, aside from the Ranger ability? Why should we agree with your reading, which creates this new state in the game, and not another reading, which doesn't even if it trivializes that clause of the ability?

Rule Zero? Common Sense? Logic?
Take your pick.
Personnally, all of them apply.

But yes, DnD evolved from the wargames of the late 60s and early 70s. It gained a lot in moving away from wargames but it also lost quite a bit.
It impossible to quantify and qualify every possible outcome in a RPG. The last one that truly tried was the Role Master serie (along with Space Master) where every single actions, attacks, spells, moves and manoeuver were codified. It was, from a simulationist POV a dream come true. For DM and Players of RPG, a nightmare incarnated.

At some point, you just need to leave the comfort of the rule, and extrapolate on the RAI.