log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Is It Impossible To Benefit From 'One With Shadows'?

Arial Black

Explorer
The warlock invocation, 'One With Shadows' reads,"When you are in an area of dim light or darkness, you can use your action to become invisible until you move or take an action or a reaction."

Brilliant! So, I just take my action to do this and I'm invisible, hidden from view and able to attack from hidden to get advantage on my attack. Right?

No. being invisible is not enough. To be hidden, you have to take the Hide action while in cover, and if your cover goes away then you are no longer 'hidden'. Invisibility counts as that cover, but you still have to take the Hide action in order to count as 'hidden'.

Okay, I move to an area of dim light, use my Action to use One With Shadows to become invisible, then use my bonus action to Hide, congratulating myself on being a multiclass rogue/warlock.

As soon as you use your bonus action to Hide, your One With Shadows ends. It ends because it says that you are invisible until you use an Action, ans a bonus action counts as an Action. Since your invisibility ends, you no longer have cover so you are not 'hidden'.

Okay, I'll do it the other way around! I'll move to an area of dim light, use my bonus action to Hide and then....

No! You can't use your bonus action to Hide at this point because you don't have cover! You're not invisible yet.

What? Then how can One With Shadows actually work? Maybe we could say that the dim light I move to counts as enough cover to use a Hide action to become 'hidden'?

Yes, we could.

Er...if I can become 'hidden' without becoming invisible...then what's the point of One With Shadows?

Anyone?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?
Hide first. In dim light you'll need some other kind of cover or concealment (or another ability) to help. But then if you're later exposed you remain invisible and hidden. Also the ability is useful outside of combat where hiding is generally more flexible. Be invisible while you sleep!
 

CapnZapp

Legend
You do gain advantage from being invisible even if not hidden.

But the simplest answer - you become invisible. That's the point of the invocation! :)

Now people can't see you, which means they might attack somebody else, not spot you and walk past you, and any other number of utility cases.

You, on the other hand, seem to be fixated on invisibility helping you to hide. What if the invocation's language is cunningly and intentionally phrased to prevent exactly this?
 

Arial Black

Explorer
I was wondering how being invisible without being 'hidden' (because you didn't use an action to Hide) interacts with Perception/Stealth.
 


Good catch.

In dim light you can use a the hide action because you have concealment. You are not seen clearly enough.

So maybe the intention really is hide first. If noone is around you have total cover from everybody. And then just become invisible after that and wait.
It may not be meant for combat. And actually that is how I imagined it. What is it good if you can't move
I rather saw it as a surprise attack or better way to use the dodge action.
So hide in shadow. Become invisible. Surprise.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
I was wondering how being invisible without being 'hidden' (because you didn't use an action to Hide) interacts with Perception/Stealth.

By my reading, it you are invisible but not hidden, you have the benefits of being invisible but not those of being hidden. In other words, you have advantage on attacks against opponents who can't see you, opponents who can't see you have disadvantage on their attack rolls, and opponents who would normally be aware of you know which space you currently occupy (because you're not hidden).

EDIT
So, in effect, it doesn't interact with the Perception/Stealth rules any more so than if you were not invisible. (Apart from invisibility allowing you to hide without cover.)
 
Last edited:

KahlessNestor

Adventurer
Unless you're a wood elf or have the Skulker feat, that's not true. Dim light doesn't provide enough obscurity (there is no concealment in 5e). Dim light only provides disadvantage on Perception.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 

Giant2005

First Post
I wouldn't use it in combat in the first place. Losing an action in order to take the next action with advantage is just plain bad action economy. Instead treat it like a beefed up version of the Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight - you hide somewhere where you expect your enemies to pass by and then turn invisible. It is basically HiPS except you get to be invisible too.
 

Dausuul

Legend
One more example of why the Stealth rules need to be junked and redone. They're designed to handle "a rogue ducking behind cover." They don't do any other scenario well.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
One more example of why the Stealth rules need to be junked and redone. They're designed to handle "a rogue ducking behind cover." They don't do any other scenario well.
You could argue they don't do any scenario well. Or, alternatively, that they do every scenario wel..

I'm more inclined to conclude they're impenetrable for a reason.

That reason being: by being unclear and obscure and incomplete and contradictory, every DM can interpret them the way he or she likes.
 

This never came across to me as a combat ability (at least, not used in combat). I figured it to be similar to the Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight ability. You use your non-combat action to Hide (since no one is around you have total cover), then you use it and stay where you are. Hidden lasts until the DM says, so it's not like you have to keep taking the Hide Action each round. Good for ambushes, but not much else.

Of course, RAI might have been for it to end with any non-Hide Action.
 

Dausuul

Legend
That reason being: by being unclear and obscure and incomplete and contradictory, every DM can interpret them the way he or she likes.
Well, that's one way to look at it. In that case, however, wouldn't it be simpler to just not have Stealth rules at all?
 


CapnZapp

Legend
Well, that's one way to look at it. In that case, however, wouldn't it be simpler to just not have Stealth rules at all?
Then you would be open to complaints "where are the Stealth rules" "no game is complete without being able to Hide".

All they need to do now is to point to the PHB.

And then duck.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
It's the same as for magic item pricing and creation rules.

You're being directed to the DMG. When you realize those rules doesn't make sense, and basically aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and are ready to ask follow-up questions, they have ducked already.
 

MarkB

Legend
Then you would be open to complaints "where are the Stealth rules" "no game is complete without being able to Hide".

All they need to do now is to point to the PHB.

And then duck.

I really miss the stealth rules from 4th Edition.

Not the ones printed in the PHB - those were contradictory, obscure, and even worse than the 5e ones. But the errata'd ones were relatively simple, straightforward and easy to apply once you'd got the basics down.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I really miss the stealth rules from 4th Edition.

Not the ones printed in the PHB - those were contradictory, obscure, and even worse than the 5e ones. But the errata'd ones were relatively simple, straightforward and easy to apply once you'd got the basics down.
Do you think they could be written down and applied for 5E?
 

That is an odd power.

It does have a few uses. First, it's a good ambush ability. Where you can Hide one round and go invisible the next.
It's also good if pretty badly hurt, allowing you to take cover and gain attack avoidance.
And sometimes you just need that advantage on an attack roll.

It's also a really fun social ability, so you can just hide outside of combat. Enter the empty throne room or feat hall, sit in a shady corner, and then just wait.
Generally, in my experience, when you gain a power like that you will FIND uses for it. You will set up situations to take advantage of a power to justify having it. Opportunities will present themselves.

I was wondering how being invisible without being 'hidden' (because you didn't use an action to Hide) interacts with Perception/Stealth.
Being invisible without being hidden isn't that hard to explain.

Think of it at the table. The kobold wyrmcaster moves 30 feet and casts invisibility. Where does the party fighter attack? The space the kobold was, because it hasn't moved. But making contact is hard because the kobold is still invisible.
On its next turn, the kobold moves. Where is it? Well, if it didn't stealth everyone heart it scuttle across the floor, saw bump into a chair, and watched the dusty settle. So they know what square it's in. Because it's not trying to be quiet.

Same thing with the warlock. It moves in shadow, becomes invisible, and you can still hear her breathing, shifting in place, etc. You haven't heard any movement or seen signs of the warlock's passage. There might be some blood dropping to the floor still.
So not hidden. No check is required to locate.
 

Do you think they could be written down and applied for 5E?
Here they are:
image.jpeg

And stealth:
image.jpeg

(Interestingly, invisibility isn't *that* different).

For comparison, here's the 3e rules:
image.jpeg

-Edit-
and Stealth, which was hidding from me:
image.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top