D&D 5E Moving Silently While Invisible

[Joe Liker]

First, let me ask that we please not get into another bitch-fest about how adequately/poorly written the Stealth rules are. If you can't remain focused on the specific questions in this post, please go elsewhere to argue about the quality of the product. Thanks.

In PH Appendix A, it tells me that an invisible creature is treated as heavily obscured for the purposes of stealth.

In Using Ability Scores under Stealth, it tells me that light conditions can affect a creature's ability to detect you while hidden: See Chapter 8.

In the same section under Perception, it tells me that you can use Perception to hear monsters moving stealthily, but no specifics or modifiers are given.

In Chapter 8 under Vision and Light, it tells me that Wisdom (Perception) checks have disadvantage in lightly obscured areas, and that heavy obscurement blocks vision entirely. Which is irrelevant because you're already invisible.

I can't find any mention of moving silently anywhere, except in passing. There are plenty of monsters in the monster manual who get advantage on Perception checks that involve hearing or smell.

Adding all this up, I guess I'll just say if you are invisible and trying to move silently, anyone trying to notice you or pinpoint your location would oppose your Dexterity (Stealth) roll with a Wisdom (Perception) check with disadvantage. That would cancel with the advantage for beasts with good hearing/smell, while making it somewhat more difficult for everyone else.

Does that seem right? I like that it's a simple solution, but I worry about the ramifications. Did I miss something somewhere?

 

[Fralex]

Yeah, sounds good to me. Being invisible would certainly make you stealthier. Everything else will be taken care of.

 

[machineelf]

I wouldn't give them disadvantage. If they are actively looking for you, or listening for you in this case, I'd have them roll a normal check contested by your stealth check (to determine how well you are moving silently. If you aren't moving at all, then they would have no chance of detecting you while invisible). If they beat your check, then they know approximately where the sound came from (or maybe even the exact square the sound came from), but they would still have disadvantage to hit you if they target that area because you are, after all, invisible. And the next round if they didn't hit you and you were still invisible, you could make another check to silently move to another spot.

 

[fjw70]

I wouldn't give disadvantage on the perception checks to detect an invisible creature. That creature needs to be unseen to even make a stealth check and invisibility only makes you unseen. So if you give disadvantage for detecting an invisible creature then you would need to give disadvantage for detecting all unseen creatures.

 

[Riley37]

I would distinguish between hearing checks and sight checks, and Stealth for sound rather than Stealth for sight.

If you're not invisible and not totally obscured and you're using Stealth, then presumably you're trying to be both unheard and unseen, which is no easy task. You're moving in shadows (so to speak), darting from behind this tree (or crate) to that one, hoping you've timed it for the moment the foe isn't looking that way. If you fail, then one way to fail is "the foe hears or smells that someone is nearby", and another way is "the foe sees you directly" (and usually has line of fire, though perhaps you have cover). I consider it sensible for Stealth and Perception rules to be written with this as the default or primary case. Total obscurement keeps you from being *seen*, but not from being heard.

If you're invisible, or you're in full darkness and you can see and the foes can't, then you can stop worrying about direct observation, and focus on (a) silence and (b) not leaving tracks.

So, yeah, either you have advantage when Invisible because being silent is easier when you're not limited to cover/shadow, or the foe has disadvantage. In the former case, then against a foe who has advantage with smell/hearing, then you're both rolling with Advantage. In the latter case, neither of you are. I'd prefer the latter, because then other factors can still grant advantage or disadvantage.

There's still the question of whether the foe just noticed that someone's nearby, or whether they've actually pinpointed your location, and I don't have a categorical answer for that. Maybe if the first roll fails but the Advantage roll succeeds, then it was their superior smell/hearing which tipped them off to your presence?

Or perhaps a passive roll can detect general presence, while an active success is needed to determine location? Perhaps spending an Action on search, and then winning the opposed roll by 5 determines which square (location to within 5'), and winning by 10 means pinpoint location?

 

[txshusker]

If you're moving silently and invisible, how would the foe know to even look for the you? If you've already beaten the passive perception with a stealth skill, which I would think would be at an advantage because of the invisibility, you shouldn't need a vs skill check, right? I mean, I hear things all the time - the house creaks, knocks in the air conditioner, rain on the roof. If I'm secure in a position and nothing has alarmed me otherwise, why would I think it's actually another creature? Unless I've been warned there's danger around and I should be on the lookout.

I smell popcorn on the street, or a dead skunk. But the wind is blowing it from somewhere.... doesn't mean I know exactly where it is. I think at worst case, your conclusion is apt. Best case the stealth check goes unopposed. I normally always rule where the characters have the benefit of the doubt, though. I'm very easy on that front.

Man, if these rules weren't so open for interpretation.....

 

[Dausuul]

By my reading of the Stealth rules, the value of invisibility is that it allows you to remain stealthy even when moving around in the open; normally you would require heavy obscurement, i.e., something is totally blocking line of sight, to be stealthy. In other words, Stealth basically is Move Silently, and there is no such thing as Hide. You are either visible, or not.

Of course, this is a somewhat weird outcome. I'd tweak the RAW a bit: If you are lightly obscured, you can make a Stealth check to be unseen. If you are moving around, you can make a Stealth check to be unheard. If you're moving around while lightly obscured, you have to make two Stealth checks; effectively, you're making a check at disadvantage. Invisibility means you don't have to bother with the check to be unseen, but if you're moving, you still have to make a check to be unheard.

(Under this approach, if you have something like the Skulker feat or the wood elf's Mask of the Wild, you can make a single Stealth check to be both unseen and unheard if you meet the conditions.)

 

[Anth]

In Chapter 8 under Vision and Light, it tells me that Wisdom (Perception) checks have disadvantage in lightly obscured areas, and that heavy obscurement blocks vision entirely. Which is irrelevant because you're already invisible.

You are missing an important part.

PHB, p183, Vision and Light:
"a lightly obscured area ... creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight."

Invisible creature => Appendix A, Conditions, Invisible => Chapter 8, Adventuring, Vision and Light, Heavily Obscured => Appendix A, Conditions, Blinded:
"A blinded creature automatically fails any ability checks that requires sight."

If a player says "I listen at the door, do I hear anything", would you give him disadvantage because he can't see through the door?
So, why would you give disadvantage if the player say "I listen to see if I can pinpoint the location of my invisible foe"?

I say it's an opposed roll: perception vs. stealth, with no disadvantage.

 

[Joe Liker]

If you're moving silently and invisible, how would the foe know to even look for the you? If you've already beaten the passive perception with a stealth skill, which I would think would be at an advantage because of the invisibility, you shouldn't need a vs skill check, right? I mean, I hear things all the time - the house creaks, knocks in the air conditioner, rain on the roof. If I'm secure in a position and nothing has alarmed me otherwise, why would I think it's actually another creature? Unless I've been warned there's danger around and I should be on the lookout.

I smell popcorn on the street, or a dead skunk. But the wind is blowing it from somewhere.... doesn't mean I know exactly where it is. I think at worst case, your conclusion is apt. Best case the stealth check goes unopposed. I normally always rule where the characters have the benefit of the doubt, though. I'm very easy on that front.

Man, if these rules weren't so open for interpretation.....

I'm assuming the enemy has good reason to believe (or even straight-up knows) you're there. Perhaps he saw you turn invisible.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Being invisible means that you can remain hidden in the open. So no auto-spot by moving out of visual cover. Unless your quarry is using actions for Perception you would roll a Stealth check vs their Passive Perception. Success means you're quiet and unseen. Failure means your target is aware there's something 'over there' in a square. The invisible creature still can't be seen and could be attacked at disadvantage for that round but they'd get another stealth check the next round to move away.

The stealth check itself might have advantage or disadvantage applied depending on environmental and situational conditions. Sneaking up on a giant occupied with eating dinner by a waterfall is different than sneaking up on an alert dryad in a forest whose floor is covered with dry, autumn leaves.

ETA - movement speed should also be an issue. The PH states that a travel speed of 200'/minute (so 20'/turn) is necessary to 'use stealth'. I assume this translates to visual and auditory stealth. The Thief ability of Supreme Sneak gives advantage if moving at 50% speed.