D&D 5E Invisibility and Perception

[jayoungr]

It may be relevant to mention that my group is coming to 5E directly from D&D 3.5.

In Hoard of the Dragon Queen, there's a fight with a couple of wizards, during which one of them goes invisible and attempts to escape. When I ran this fight for my group, the player of our Human Battlemaster Fighter asked if he could make a perception check to figure out where the invisible wizard had gone. He suggested that his character might be able to figure out the wizard's location by listening, or by spotting a depression in the carpet where he was standing.

I said he could make the check, but with disadvantage because the character was trying to notice these small details in the middle of a fight. Fortunately for me, the player rolled low, ending the question, but I'm really wondering if I made the right call and how I'll handle it if the question comes up again.

Does it make invisibility too weak to allow a chance to locate the invisible creature?

If you do allow a chance to locate an invisible creature by means of sound or other cues, how do you determine the DC?

Are there any official words on the subject?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Officially, mere invisibility does not make a character hidden. Until that wizard spends an action to hide, everyone can see exactly where he or she is standing, although attacks are still made at Disadvantage.

The real benefit of invisibility is that it makes hiding possible. Without some way to gain concealment, such as through invisibility, it is flatly impossible to hide from anyone who can see you.

 

[pukunui]

Yes, someone absolutely can try to perceive the location of an invisible creature. All invisibility actually does in 5e is make it so you can attempt to hide anywhere.

Actually, that's not entirely true ... as I learned the hard way, invisibility is also supposed to make you immune to opportunity attacks, because you can normally only make one of those against a target you can see.

I think you made the right call: Perception with disadvantage.



As an aside, did you let Rath concentrate on invisibility and fly at the same time? Cos technically he shouldn't be able to ...

 

[iserith]

It may be relevant to mention that my group is coming to 5E directly from D&D 3.5.

In Hoard of the Dragon Queen, there's a fight with a couple of wizards, during which one of them goes invisible and attempts to escape. When I ran this fight for my group, the player of our Human Battlemaster Fighter asked if he could make a perception check to figure out where the invisible wizard had gone. He suggested that his character might be able to figure out the wizard's location by listening, or by spotting a depression in the carpet where he was standing.

I don't think players should ask to make checks, but he did clearly articulate a goal and approach, which is good and sufficient for you to adjudicate the action into success, failure, or uncertainty. You appeared to agree with the player that it was uncertain and called for a check. This is reasonable considering the circumstances in my view (the chaos of combat being the thing that makes it uncertain).

I said he could make the check, but with disadvantage because the character was trying to notice these small details in the middle of a fight. Fortunately for me, the player rolled low, ending the question, but I'm really wondering if I made the right call and how I'll handle it if the question comes up again.

Unless it was particularly chaotic, I wouldn't impart disadvantage.

Does it make invisibility too weak to allow a chance to locate the invisible creature?

Too weak relative to what?

If you do allow a chance to locate an invisible creature by means of sound or other cues, how do you determine the DC?

Judge the player's stated goal and approach relative to the fictional circumstances at the time and call it 10, 15, 20, etc. If the invisible creature has made an effort to hide, then a Dexterity (Stealth) check can be used to set a DC.

I would also suggest that if a creature turns invisible and doesn't make an effort to hide beyond just turning invisible, then the character automatically succeeds at knowing where said creature is. The character still has disadvantage on attacks against that creature, of course.

Are there any official words on the subject?

You are the DM. You are the official word.

 

[ad_hoc]

No disadvantage but it does take his action, probably not a wise move in the middle of a battle.

 

[jayoungr]

Unless it was particularly chaotic, I wouldn't impart disadvantage.

IIRC, the battlemaster was engaged in melee combat with a gargoyle at the time the wizard went invisible.

Too weak relative to what?

Relative to not allowing a check.

I would also suggest that if a creature turns invisible and doesn't make an effort to hide beyond just turning invisible, then the character automatically succeeds at knowing where said creature is.

Not sure I agree there; IMO, the PC shouldn't be able to know that the invisible creature hasn't moved from the spot without the same kind of check needed to know that it has.

You are the DM. You are the official word.

Point. But I'd still be interested to know whether anyone from Wizards has spoken on the subject.

 

[jayoungr]

As an aside, did you let Rath concentrate on invisibility and fly at the same time? Cos technically he shouldn't be able to ...

Nope, in my game he cast feather fall instead, which does not require concentration!

 

[jayoungr]

Officially, mere invisibility does not make a character hidden. Until that wizard spends an action to hide, everyone can see exactly where he or she is standing, although attacks are still made at Disadvantage.

That doesn't make in-story sense to me. If they can see exactly where he's standing, then attacks shouldn't be made at disadvantage.

 

[Xaelvaen]

Hidden is the keyword you're looking for, so that your players have no clue about someone's location. That usually takes an action, with very few exceptions. That being said, invisibility imparts disadvantage for many reasons - the biggest one of which I explain to new players, is we as mortals rely on our eyes a ridiculous amount of the time, even though they are very prone to deception by just common everyday events. So -knowing- someone is standing on carpet because of imprints, or hearing them skitter across stone tiling, doesn't mean its easy to accurately get past their defenses. Remember, enemies aren't actually "standing still" even when its not their turn.

 

[jgsugden]

I always think about glass doors.

If you know the glass door is there, even if you can't see it, you won't walk into it. If you don't know it is there, something funny is about to happen.

In combat, if the wizard goes invisible, the enemy still knows the wizard was there. This is like knowing where the glass door is. They know where he was and unless the wizard tries to obscure his location, the enemy will be able to figure out the wizard's rough location fairly easily after the wizard moves and attack that rough spot - although it may be hard to aim well without being able to clearly see the wizard.

If an encounter starts with one side invisible, I always assume they're attempting to hide unless something else is stated.