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

[Oofta]

I was going to post something but ... eh.

If the horse is beaten long enough will it disappear? If it does is it consider hidden?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I never said Hiding would auto-succeed or that perception would auto-fail. I said that since using sight to locate someone auto-fails, and since they are forced to use other senses, I'd give them disadvantage on the perception (or passive perception) to notice them.

Sure, but do you do this for normal hiding? The base condition for hiding is not being seen, so it would follow that you would also apply disadvantage to normal hiding as well. This is the point -- invisibility specifically declines to change the normal rules, and in the exception based design that means it doesn't. The only fair way to apply disadvantage because you can't see the hider would be to do it in pretty much all hiding situations.

Maybe your threshold for disadvantage is lower. Maybe if the person was hiding invisibly AND on the edge of a Silence spell, you'd adjudicate that all Perception checks auto-fail. Or maybe you'd adjudicate that there's a chance that someone could still smell them. Maybe, given they can only use sense of smell, you'd adjudicate that they'd have disadvantage to notice. Or maybe you'd adjudicate that smell is enough to warrant using Passive Perception at no penalty.

In general, I discount smell unless there's a special ability. However, even invisible and silent might be detected if there's environmental conditions that warrant it. Still, that combo is strong.

I feel that, if you have 0 chance of using one or more of your senses, you probably are at some kind of penalty.

And that penalty is that the other creature can attempt to hide.

I'm pretty sure I've agreed with everything you've said in this thread. I was just asking for clarifications.

Cool!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Sure, but do you do this for normal hiding?

Maybe. If they are heavily obscured and the chance of being seen is 0 because the rules say skill checks that depend on sight automatically fail. And if 1 of your 2 or 3 senses auto-fail, then you are at some kind of disadvantage. You might be feeling around for them which might offset that.

The base condition for hiding is not being seen,

Which doesn't necessarily mean Heavily Obscured.
Hiding in some foliage or a bush might not be Heavily Obscured but you might still be unobserved.

so it would follow that you would also apply disadvantage to normal hiding as well.

Possibly. Like, running away behind a rock or some bushes, lets you try to hide from someone who saw you running to the rock or bushes...I probably wouldn't give disadvantage to notice them...you know they're somewhere behind the rock, after all.

But if they go invisible and sneak away, you might not be able to predict which way they are going to go.

In general, I discount smell unless there's a special ability. However, even invisible and silent might be detected if there's environmental conditions that warrant it. Still, that combo is strong.

I think being invisible is a strong combo. So, probably disadvantage to notice an invisible person.

But, like, DMing is 80% making judgement calls depending on the situation, so it really depends.

 

[billd91]

It took you that long?

Hey, thanks for being a dick about how other people use their time.

He notes that there MAY be corner cases that exclude the need for a Hide action and Stealth check. An invisible Pixie hovering 200' away from the battle, near a raging waterfall for example. Or (his example) an invisible creature a fair way away from the combat while 'barrels of gunpowder' are going off and his opponents are distracted by a raging Barbarian screaming at them.

All you have to do is turn the adjudication task around and this is less of a corner case and doesn't need to involve so many extremes. Instead of ruling if an invisible pixie 200' away next to a waterfall gets a free hide action (effectively), all you have to do is think of this from the perspective of the perception check of the observer. Success, fail, or in enough dispute to roll it? As a DM, I'd think that check to be pretty much impossible barring some other extenuating circumstance like the pixie actively involving himself in the combat close at hand in a highly visible way.

And, frankly, these examples set a pretty bizarre standard. If you really need something akin to exploding barrels of gunpowder and a raging barbarian in the face to be distracted from an invisible creature a fair distance away from the combat, that's pretty extreme.

 

[Oofta]

I bolded the important part there. If you are invisible and circumstances make it so that you are not heard, you are hidden unless the DM is failing to do his job and rules that you are not.



No outliers are needed. All that's needed is a reasonable chance that you are not heard. Once that is achieved, if the DM is doing his job, there will at least be a perception check to find you, if not an outright failure(such is if using a silence spell).

But Maxperson, the podcast Crawford specifically called out exploding barrels of gunpowder! You can't be considered hidden unless there's pyrotechnics!

Wait, that's not quite right because many spells and powers are just as loud and flashy as an explosion, and get used on a regular basis. Or there could be gale force winds, or you could be on a flying ship that's on fire and plummeting to the ground. Hmm. But you have to have a barbarian screaming at you! Is the barbarian's player stating that they are screaming? Are they?

Any time someone is unseen and unheard they are, according to the rules, "hidden". Why they might be unseen and unheard is up to the DM.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

How is requiring the expenditure of resources, free?

The monk is already invisible. The resource had been expended in a previous round. When it is said you are giving out a free Hide, it's on a subsequent turn to the invisible creature at your DM whim when there are no special circumstances. To at least some of us here, regular combat noise is not a special circumstance for saying an invisible creature is automatically hidden.

 

[Flamestrike]

And, frankly, these examples set a pretty bizarre standard. If you really need something akin to exploding barrels of gunpowder and a raging barbarian in the face to be distracted from an invisible creature a fair distance away from the combat, that's pretty extreme.

Thats the exact example the Devs use in the attached podcast where they discusses the rules on hiding as an example of when a DM might NOT require a Hide action to hide.

Perhaps you should listen to it as well.

 

[Oofta]

Thats the exact example the Devs use in the attached podcast where they discusses the rules on hiding as an example of when a DM might NOT require a Hide action to hide.

Perhaps you should listen to it as well.

Why so freakin' obsessed with one example Crawford made up off the top of his head? It's not like they did a thorough and complete list of possible options, nor did he need to. The point is that the DM makes the call on when it makes sense.

 

[Flamestrike]

Why so freakin' obsessed with one example Crawford made up off the top of his head? It's not like they did a thorough and complete list of possible options, nor did he need to. The point is that the DM makes the call on when it makes sense.

I didn't bring it up. The dude i quoted did.

And even that ludicrous example is a 'maybe' ignore the default rules.

 

[Oofta]

I didn't bring it up. The dude i quoted did.

And even that ludicrous example is a 'maybe' ignore the default rules.

The rules don't discuss it so there is no "default". Even if it is the default that means that there are exceptions to the rule. How often there are exceptions is going to be up to the DM.