D&D 5E Invisibility and Perception

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Just because you can see where the wizard is, that doesn't also convey any specifics as to posture or stance or any of the other things that are important to fighting. It might be better to imagine the Predator, or some other form of imperfect invisibility, as a way to reconcile the rule mechanics with the narrative description.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I have to say I'm not happy with the rules assuming that hearing/smelling/anything other than seeing someone lets you pinpoint where they are. Nor with the rules that say that wearing an elven cloak is drastically more effective than being invisible when it comes to hiding.

Personally I'd say that a successful perception check will tell you that there is someone or something around, even if you can't see them. Depending on the difference between the stealth check and your roll, you might be able to narrow it down to within a cone of a certain angle. If you want to pinpoint the guy, then you need to take active measures or make use of the environment, or coordinate.

 

[iserith]

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

That doesn't seem like a circumstance I'd consider disadvantageous to figuring out the wizard's location.

Relative to not allowing a check.

The fictional circumstance in play should inform your decision to allow or disallow a check. It's important to be consistent with your ruling in substantially similar fictional situations, but I wouldn't suggest tying yourself to always calling for an ability check (or never). In some cases, the fictional action taken to find the invisible creature might succeed with certainty or fail with certainty.

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.

Invisible removes an enemy from sight, but there are other senses. Hiding is about fooling all of those senses and this is an effort an invisible creature must undertake to gain the benefit of an enemy not knowing where it is.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Nor with the rules that say that wearing an elven cloak is drastically more effective than being invisible when it comes to hiding.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. An elven cloak will make you better at hiding when you would otherwise be able to hide, but you can't hide at all if someone can see you. The only time an elven cloak could potentially help you would be when you already have something to hide behind, at which point you are effectively invisible.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm not sure where you're getting that. An elven cloak will make you better at hiding when you would otherwise be able to hide, but you can't hide at all if someone can see you. The only time an elven cloak could potentially help you would be when you already have something to hide behind, at which point you are effectively invisible.

Even more strange that the cloak gives you advantage on hide checks and opponents disadvantage on wisdom checks by shifting colors to make you blend with your environment then, if it works only when it cannot possibly be affecting the outcome.

Or more likely just more weirdness in the rules for hiding.

Anyway, for the argument let's assume I am someone who can hide while still being in line of sight (a ranger, wild elf, halfling or someone with stalker). I can get massive advantages from wearing an elven cloak. Apparently if I'm invisible, I get nothing. That seems odd to me, every bit as odd as someone turning invisible and being easily detected while standing still on a hard floor. So I'd rather ignore the RAPW and go with something else.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Anyway, for the argument let's assume I am someone who can hide while still being in line of sight (a ranger, wild elf, halfling or someone with stalker). I can get massive advantages from wearing an elven cloak. Apparently if I'm invisible, I get nothing. That seems odd to me, every bit as odd as someone turning invisible and being easily detected while standing still on a hard floor. So I'd rather ignore the RAPW and go with something else.

The obvious flaw in game built around exceptions, while also trying to stay rules-light, is that you get weird interactions when you try to combine racial abilities with magic abilities. The fact that an ability allowing you to hide combines better with an ability that gives you advantage on hiding, rather than with another ability that allows you to hide, is very similar to the numerous instance where two sources of Advantage don't stack with each other but either one would stack with a mere +1 bonus.

 

[epithet]

This is why you, as the DM, are responsible for handing out circumstantial advantage and disadvantage. If the target becomes invisible, a creature that relies mostly on sight (like a human) will obviously be at a disadvantage to perceive the target. A wolf, on the other hand, probably won't, because they rely as much or more on hearing and smell.

Perception is an opposed check in this kind of circumstance, so you can easily find the advantage and disadvantage stacking in ways they cannot in a normal skill check. For example, being invisible and wearing soft soled shoes and no clanky armor on a floor that isn't wooden should give someone advantage on their stealth check when hiding. Trying to perceive something that you can't see, as a human, should give disadvantage to that check. If you're using a passive score, remember that advantage and disadvantage give a +5/-5 to passive checks, respectively.

For a regular (unopposed) ability check, you're responsible for determining how difficult that check is. You can do that easily by just pulling a number out that seems right--DC 15, DC 20, whatever you feel through The Force. When it comes to an opposed check, though, your best tools for adjudicating relative difficulty are advantage/disadvantage, and that's when players get to make the best use of their abilities that manipulate the advantage mechanic.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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?

I would have ruled it much as you did.

I would have made it an immediate hide contest between the invisible person and the party PCs, with disad on perception due to battle noise etc.

I don't subscribe to the "must use an action to hide" using the invisibility spell. Once you're invisible, you are auto attempting to hide in my book. So I call for an immediate contest for all involved. The strict rules of go invisible...er... but everyone knows exactly where you are until you take an action to hide... is just too unrealistic for my tastes.

And I feel the (no action) contest is fine balance wise.

The hiding rules are one of the crapper parts of 5e (along with passive perception). Ugh don't get me started!

 

[Kalshane]

The difference between someone who is Invisible and someone who is Invisible and Hiding is the latter is making an effort to be stealthy, whereas the former is simply unseen while engaging in normal behavior. The rules seem to assume you can pinpoint the location of (though still have disadvantage on attack rolls against) an Invisible creature that isn't making an attempt to be stealthy (provided you're aware an invisible creature is present in the first place).

It's once the invisible creature starts being stealthy that things start getting wacky, especially when you start making comparisons to Cloaks of Elvenkind.

 

[pdegan2814]

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?

If the Fighter was trying to locate him in order to attack him, the PHB specifically says attack rolls against Invisible targets are at disadvantage, provided the attacker has even the vaguest idea where to aim the attack, so that aspect is definitely covered in the rules. For just general perception, yeah I'd say it's still a Stealth vs Perception contest, with some combination of advantage for the Wizard's Stealth roll and/or disadvantage for the Fighter's Perception roll. I would take into account things like whether the Fighter was looking right at him when the Wizard went invisible, what material the room is made of(are the Wizard's footsteps likely to make much noise, etc), how much commotion is going on that might distract the Fighter or hamper his ability to hear/smell/whatever the Wizard.