D&D 5E Invsibility vs Cloak of Elvenkind

[AntiStateQuixote]

cloak of Liberace

I stopped reading this thread at this point and will go no further; it's not necessary.

However, a Cloak of Liberace is absolutely necessary in the next game session I DM.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

There don't seem to be any rules for that in the book. At least, those terms don't appear in the index. It seems to me that any attempt to avoid detection would be under the umbrella of "hiding." Otherwise, why even make it so invisibility grants you the ability to hide when you otherwise can't? You'd just be inherently hidden when you become invisible. There must be a nonvisibility component to hiding.

The 5E rules for Stealth are notoriously fuzzy. I'm not going to pretend that there is a printed hard-and-fast distinction between "hiding" and "moving silently" that you overlooked, because there isn't. However, the distinction did exist in previous editions. And the cloak of elvenkind gives "advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks made to hide", suggesting that there are also Dexterity (Stealth) checks made for other purposes. Similarly, the boots of elvenkind gives "advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks that rely on moving silently". This all lines up with what these items did in those prior editions when Hide and Move Silently were distinct. Furthermore, the description of the cloak goes on to say that the reason it provides advantage on checks to hide is because "the cloak's color shifts to camouflage you", which of course is a purely visual effect. And, of course, there is the matter of common English usage. If I'm sneaking quietly down the hallway but making no attempt to conceal myself from sight, it seems strange to call what I'm doing "hiding".

Of course, if I'm sitting behind a wall but making a lot of noise, I wouldn't say I'm "hiding" then either -- or at least, not doing it very well. Not all silence is hiding, but silence does seem to be a necessary component of hiding. This could explain why the cloak and boots use slightly different language ("to hide" vs. "that rely on moving silently") as well as the way invisibility works, but I may be overinterpreting the writers there. Regardless, it seems pretty clear to me that when you're trying to move silently without concealing yourself from sight, whether because you're invisible or just because the people you're worried about hearing you are in a different room, that is not the sort of Dexterity (Stealth) check to which the cloak of elvenkind's benefit applies. There may a nonvisibility component to hiding, but it's the visibility component that makes it hiding and that makes the cloak useful.

 

[Hriston]

Are you saying that you personally, in the real world, if you heard a sound of a person moving but couldn't see anything where you thought the sound was coming from, would assume that there is an invisible person about?

No, and I'm pretty sure I've been clear that that isn't the situation I'm talking about. The guard doesn't think he hears an invisible creature moving about. He knows a creature that he can't see is present in a particular location. If I knew a person was standing 10 feet to my left in an area where no obstruction to my vision was present, but I couldn't see them, I would have no choice but either to believe that person was somehow invisible or that I was experiencing an auditory hallucination of some sort. PCs and monsters could choose not to trust their own senses as well, but I generally assume they do.

And that if you heard a person moving but saw a tree stump where you thought the sound was coming from, you would assume that it was the tree stump making those moving-person sounds and not be alarmed?

If that's what you think I'm saying, I can't help you. I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that my argument has anything to do with someone thinking it's the tree stump making a noise. If the guard did think it was the tree stump that made the noise, and that consequently it was likely that a person was behind or even inside the tree stump, warranting further investigation of said stump, that would be the result of a failed Stealth check on the part of the cloak-wearer, rather than a success.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The guard doesn't think he hears an invisible creature moving about. He knows a creature that he can't see is present in a particular location.

Oh brother. We're about to dive headfirst into a sophomore epistemology seminar...

If I knew a person was standing 10 feet to my left in an area where no obstruction to my vision was present, but I couldn't see them, I would have no choice but either to believe that person was somehow invisible or that I was experiencing an auditory hallucination of some sort. PCs and monsters could choose not to trust their own senses as well, but I generally assume they do.

If you know a person is standing 10 feet to your left but the only thing you see to your left is a tree stump, then the same logic applies: the person must somehow occupying the same space as a tree stump.

The problem with this logic is that you're stipulating you know that a person is standing 10 feet to your left. Knowledge is by definition true: with that knowledge, there must be a person precisely there, and all other observations must be made consistent with that fact. But that's not how hearing actually works. From human ears you can get reasonably good information about the direction of a sound and rather less good information about its distance -- certainly not information accurate enough to know the sound came from a specific location with a degree of confidence that requires you to conclude invisibility when you don't see anything there.

And yes, auditory hallucinations and illusions are quite common too.

 

[Oofta]

Oh brother. We're about to dive headfirst into a sophomore epistemology seminar...

If you know a person is standing 10 feet to your left but the only thing you see to your left is a tree stump, then the same logic applies: the person must somehow occupying the same space as a tree stump.

The problem with this logic is that you're stipulating you know that a person is standing 10 feet to your left. Knowledge is by definition true: with that knowledge, there must be a person precisely there, and all other observations must be made consistent with that fact. But that's not how hearing actually works. From human ears you can get reasonably good information about the direction of a sound and rather less good information about its distance -- certainly not information accurate enough to know the sound came from a specific location with a degree of confidence that requires you to conclude invisibility when you don't see anything there.

And yes, auditory hallucinations and illusions are quite common too.

The award for the $5 word of the day goes to TheCosmicKid!

For what it's worth I agree 100%. If you've ever walked in the woods (particularly at night, while alone) there are all sorts of noises. When that noise could possibly be a grizzly bear, it can be quite terrifying.*

However, just because you heard something that might be 500 pounds of toothy clawed death, it does not mean that you automatically know exactly where the noise came from. Buildings settle, sound echoes, squirrels make significant noise by dropping pinecones.

Which is why I don't have hard and fast rules for invisibility or cloak of elvenkind, but base it to a certain degree on the environment. Being invisible allows you to hide when there is nothing to hide behind. A cloak of elvenkind (in most cases) still requires that you have cover.

Or you can just run the game like the rules can be interpreted like computer code or a board game. Everything is very binary (hidden or not hidden). If you give away your position at all, you give away your exact position. It's ok to run your game that way, but I don't think the rules imply that.

*And yes, going to the bathroom in the middle of the night while backpacking in the Tetons can be somewhat terrifying.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I assume my check is in the mail?

 

[Oofta]

I assume my check is in the mail?

Sure. But I need your bank routing number to do the deposit.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Sure. But I need your bank routing number to do the deposit.

Oh, sorry, the last time I gave that out, the Prince of Nigeria took me for everything I was worth. You'd think they brought up royalty better than that...

 

[auburn2]

I think people are overengineering this. Invisibility does not grant a disadvantage on the check - it causes AUTOMATIC FAILURE to a creature trying to find you with sight.

Whether that automatic failure applies in a given situation is completely dependent on that situation. A creature with blindsight would be unaffected completely by invisibility. A man you were in the middle of a fight with would know where you were when you disappeared, whether or not he is able to find you again depends - are you still right next to him, are yo making noise. I garauntee you this he would be trying to find you by means other than just his sight and a disadvantage (or perhaps advantage) would apply depending on the given situation.

Now if you are sneaking it would depend. Sneaking pas a person on top of a tower, in broad daylight with a loud noisy, smelly city around him I might go with automatic failure (he is not really using any senses other than sight), if it is the middle of the night and you re trying to sneak up on a camp with a guard and a dog over ground with a bunch of dead leaves I might not apply disadvantage at all and actually might even give advantage despite the invisibility because sight is not the primary sense they are relying on.

Regarding the bear in the woods comment I agree somewhat but I would argue that is what skill checks are all about. The rogue sneaking up on the camp above for example. Failed stealth check ok the dogs ears perk up and he lifts his head. The guard is alerted and stands up peering into the gloom with his crossbow. You take another step, fail a check and break a twig, the guard clearly heard that but - is it the wind, is it a a grizzlley, is it his imagination or is it an invisible rogue sneaking up on the camp. A combination of perception, survival, insight and investigation checks should resolve this depending on the exact situation and that is what I think skills like that are there for. A ranger in his favored terrain would likely know it is NOT a grizzley and NOT imagination or the wind based on a survival check (or maybe even without one), does he recognize it is an invisible rogue though? Probably another skill check of some sort depending on his actions and the hidden character's actions.

 

[Angerguy]

Some of you dont know what ears are and it's the cutest thing. Invisible creatures locations are known until they hide. Feel free to look up sage advice.