D&D 5E What Rules do you see people mistake or misapply?

[Yunru]

Fine, an invisible potted plant. Its stupid either way, no matter how hard you guys try to rules lawyer it.

What of the dust-free spot the invisible plant's base is resting on?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Are you saying there was no DC with which the PCs might have had a chance of realizing it was there? A breeze reflecting off the statue causing a swirl of air? A lip of a line of dust collected along its base? The faint echo of their footsteps bouncing off it? Zero chance of anyone ever sensing its presence by chance or skill?

Normally that sort of thing requires a perception check. Or do people suddenly gain Daredevil like enhanced senses, but only versus invisible objects and creatures?

"Sorry man, shame you hit that tripwire. if only it were invisible, you would have seen it!"

 

[Oofta]

Tell you what. I've got a challenge. If anyone can find the words "In order to be undetected you have to take the hide action" in the 5E handbook I will send you $50.

If you want to require hide checks, no one is stopping you. It's just not supported by the book or the guy who wrote the rules.

 

[Corwin]

Normally that sort of thing requires a perception check. Or do people suddenly gain Daredevil like enhanced senses, but only versus invisible objects and creatures?

"Sorry man, shame you hit that tripwire. if only it were invisible, you would have seen it!"

Okay? Not sure what any of that has to do with my reply of Oofta saying, "The PCs had no way of knowing it was there because it was not interacting with the environment in any way that could be detected."

 

[Corwin]

I'm saying that in order to detect something (or someone) it has to interact with the environment in such a way that it can be detected.

I offered up three quick examples of how the invisible statue might interact with the environment. Did you miss those? I'm still not sure why you aren't at least giving the PCs a chance to notice it. Not even a slim one...

 

[Satyrn]

Okay? Not sure what any of that has to do with my reply of Oofta saying, "The PCs had no way of knowing it was there because it was not interacting with the environment in any way that could be detected."

I bet you 50 (imaginary) dollars [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] meant they had no way of knowing it was there without investigating, or something like that.

 

[Corwin]

I bet you 50 (imaginary) dollars @Oofta meant they had no way of knowing it was there without investigating, or something like that.

I wouldn't take that bet. Even with imaginary dollars. The probability of someone around here saying something completely different from what they actually meant is way too high.

And even still, my point is that an invisible statue is interacting with the environment. Which is contrary to the claim being made. I even provided possible examples.

 

[Oofta]

I offered up three quick examples of how the invisible statue might interact with the environment. Did you miss those? I'm still not sure why you aren't at least giving the PCs a chance to notice it. Not even a slim one...

As a DM I set up a situation I did not think it was reasonable to detect something without supernatural abilities the party did not possess.

Any scenario I come up with you will try to weasel in some irrelevant detail as a gotcha. We've done this before I'm not doing it again.

Find proof where the rules state that you have to take the hide action to be undetected and will wend you $50.

 

[Corwin]

Find proof where the rules state that you have to take the hide action to be undetected and will wend you $50.

Speaking of proving stuff, can you show me where I ever made that argument? Or even broached it? That has nothing to do with the point I've been making about your example. Maybe you could just send me that Ulysses S. Grant when you've fail to find it?...

 

[Valdier]

As a DM I set up a situation I did not think it was reasonable to detect something without supernatural abilities the party did not possess.

Any scenario I come up with you will try to weasel in some irrelevant detail as a gotcha. We've done this before I'm not doing it again.

Find proof where the rules state that you have to take the hide action to be undetected and will wend you $50.

And as a DM you can *STILL* do so. You say, The invisible stalker / statue has a stealth check of XYZ. The PC's only get Passive perception, and if that number isn't high enough, they don't notice the invisibility (unless they are actively looking). With a +10 skill, and invisible, a passive perception of 25 could easily be the target number.

Nothing I've seen says invisibility is 100% perfect in it's application. In fact the rules kinda support otherwise. Perhaps there is a shimmer in the air, a slight flicker, a refraction of the light... something. In fact *per* the monster manual:

Unseen Threat. Invisible stalkers are composed of air and are naturally invisible. A creature might hear and feel an invisible stalker in passing, but the elemental remains invisible even when it attacks. A spell that allows someone to see the invisible reveals only the invisible s talker's vague outline.

So in fact and invisible stalker, standing perfectly still, DOES do things to give away its presence (it makes noise and likely stirs up dust/whatever).

The invisible statue, could easily be doing the same. Of course you as the DM can easily say "DM Fiat, you guys suck, and you have no means of detecting this super trap that I have made!!! Bwahahaha!"