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

[Plaguescarred]

So "seen" isn't an official game term? So my use of it in casual conversation mode to express my point worked? Because the intent of what I said was understood after all? Whew. That's a relief.

Saying an invisible creature can be seen is incorrect both in game term and casual conversation

 

[Corwin]

Saying an invisible creature can be seen is incorrect both in game term and casual conversation

And yet... you *still* knew what I was saying. Crazy, right? I think that's kinda an awesome thing about the English language.

 

[mellored]

so not even a rogue can get around it with Cunning Action

The rogue can hide as a bonus action first, then turn invisible.
You still need to run out of sight first, but just dash behind a tree and you're gone.

Hmm... fighter 2/rogue 2/warlock 2.

Minor illusion a small wall, bonus action hide, action surge to turn invisible.

Out of combat: No problem, you do not need to do actions to hide out of combat. In combat? Though luck.

This, basically.
It's a utility invocation, not a combat one.

Unless you combo it with warcaster and booming blade. Go next to someone, and turn invisible. You have advantage if they move for a nasty OA. Even better with sneak attack.

Right now I have an Aarakocra archfey 8/rogue 4 spamming greater invisibility. He uses One with Shadows as backup.
And Mask of Many Faces, Actor, an Invisiblie Familiar, and expertise in stealth and deception. The party rarely sees him and has never seen his face.

I just can't decide whether to continue warlock, rogue, sorcerer for quicken and sublet casting, or maybe even shadow monk.

4) I would not consider invisibility an "improved" dodge. By not taking the dodge action instead you impose disadvantage to things that target with sight instead of being limited (or helped) by the "you can see" part of the dodge action. You do not gain advantage on dex saving throws (against everything, not just things you can see), you are not limited by the "0 speed" limitation but must not move to keep those boni (other thread i wrote bonuses... poor me). You can't act, not even taking reactions if you want to stay invisible. You gain advantage on your next attack roll but then you are no longer invisible. Pros and cons, so not really a direct step up.

Fair. You also need dim light.

Alternate Dodge then. Though you obviously would just use dodge if it was better for that situation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So...by RAW, not being seen isn't enough to be hidden, as defined by the rules.

if you arent hidden, anyone looking for you, that could perceive you with any sense, knows where you are. Any sense, not just vision.

A blind/blinded creature treats everyone as if they were invisible, not as if they were hidden.

To be undetected without actually "hiding", you would have to be invisible, silent, leave no trace, and have no noticeable smell.

Thus, my earlier point that if the person trying to find you isn't that close, they probably shouldn't have any idea where you are, unless they can read tracks, and the area allows for tracks, or they have better than human smell, etc. but if they follow you into a room and stand near enough to hear you, they do. Because you aren't hidden. It's an abstraction, but so is being able to hide while standing still a foot away from a creature, invisible or not, so...deal?

 

[Plaguescarred]

The normal eyesight, hearing or smell range isn't defined in the rules for that stuff so i think what matters is only encounter range at this point. Only things on the screen play scene are actually in encounter range to use a TV reference, the rest who cares lol you'll only get to deal with it when it'll be on the show

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The normal eyesight, hearing or smell range isn't defined in the rules for that stuff so i think what matters is only encounter range at this point. Only things on the screen play scene are actually in encounter range to use a TV reference, the rest who cares lol you'll only get to deal with it when it'll be on the show

Which is where the DM, and group expectations, comes into play. Is the guard close enough to smell you sweat or hear your breathing? :shrug: who knows!

 

[KahlessNestor]

The normal eyesight, hearing or smell range isn't defined in the rules for that stuff so i think what matters is only encounter range at this point. Only things on the screen play scene are actually in encounter range to use a TV reference, the rest who cares lol you'll only get to deal with it when it'll be on the show

I would probably say no farther away than 30 feet.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[ThePolarBear]

The rogue can hide as a bonus action first, then turn invisible.
[/COLOR]You still need to run out of sight first, but just dash behind a tree and you're gone.

Just a little clarification: I had more problems with the "hide in plain sight" part, meaning that a rogue could not do what you where saying in the middle of nowhere with onlookers. Since it does not seem the case given your example, it seems more of a misnoming than anything else. We agree

Also, i'm glad nobody noticed my "since you are not hidden, you can't hide"

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would probably say no farther away than 30 feet.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

At most, yeah. I'd say past 20ft, it's at least questionable even if they aren't hidden, unless the area is very quiet, and the invisible character stinks.

 

[Helldritch]

At most, yeah. I'd say past 20ft, it's at least questionable even if they aren't hidden, unless the area is very quiet, and the invisible character stinks.

I'd go for 10 feet.
But aren't we glad skunks are no longuer in the encounter tables...