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

[Oofta]

Remember something, detecting something invisible (or heavily obscured, which is what invisibility is) doesn't tell you the exact location. It tells you where that thing is in a 5 foot square. It tells you that something is at that location and enough of a something that I can tell something is there, even if I don't know exactly what.

So, yeah, your pane of glass in the rain is enough for someone to know that there is something there. They can potentially see that there is something odd about that location. They'd still have disadvantage to attack that location and couldn't target it with anything that requires you to see the target, like Hold Person, but, they'd still know enough to be able to shoot arrows in the right neighborhood.

The invisible gargoyle is the same thing. It rushed into the room. Maybe there is dust on the floor, maybe there is dust in the air that's disturbed by its passage. Maybe the rogue managed to open the door before the gargoyle completely managed to stop moving. Maybe it's a wooden floor and the half ton gargoyle is making some dents in the wood leading to where it stopped. Whatever. That's what passive perception is for.

Now, if the gargoyle had actually taken the Hide action? Now he's Hidden until the PC's take an action to find him.

Maybe our flying wizard sparkles a bit from the Fly spell. Maybe he's not as quiet as he thinks he is. Maybe a flash of lightning causes the invisibility to ripple a bit. Whatever. Again, until he actually takes a Hide action, he isn't Hidden.

AFAIC, that's the bottom line. Hidden is a condition in the game. It is not the same as the plain English word hide. Hidden is a condition that requires a Stealth check. Other than something like Etherealness or a few other exceptions, you cannot apply the Hidden condition without one.

Heavily Obscured, again, another game defined condition, is not the same as Hidden. Heavily Obscured is a lot easier to achieve. Standing in a dark room satisfies that. But, Hidden, as a condition, requires a Hide action. At least, that's how I rule. Otherwise, invisibility becomes far, far too powerful.

I mean, why does my rogue ever have to make a Stealth check? I'm in an area that is Heavily Obscured, so, I am automatically Hidden so long as I don't move? I want to play a Shadow Path Monk in that case. Wahoo, I can teleport every round and I'm automatically hidden each time, so long as I stay in shadowy areas? Go go ultimate ninja.

This is why I don't like your interpretation. It has far too many knock on effects and causes all sorts of corner case issues where the player constantly has to refer back to the DM to determine his or her actions. No thanks. I think I'll go with a simple solution that applies virtually universally. Reduces frustration, makes the game run faster and smoother and removes all the arguments. Yup, that's the way I roll.

If you want to say that everyone knows where you are unless you've taken the hide action, that's fine.

But this thread is about the rules. The rules are explicit only about one thing - that you can take the hide action to avoid detection. They are silent on whether or not hiding is the only way to avoid detection.

That's by design, so that different DMs can run slightly different games while still following the rules.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

If you want to say that everyone knows where you are unless you've taken the hide action, that's fine.

But this thread is about the rules. The rules are explicit only about one thing - that you can take the hide action to avoid detection. They are silent on whether or not hiding is the only way to avoid detection.

That's by design, so that different DMs can run slightly different games while still following the rules.

If the rules are silent about something, doesn't that mean it is not a rule. You can certainly rule things the way you wish, but you are kidding yourself if you need this type of validation to you rules that don't exist are rules because they didn't put out a 999 page tome to tell you everything you can't do.

I can say that a player can use DEX(Acrobatics) to climb a wall. by your logic that would be legal since the rules don't say you can't Climb other ways. In fact, I think I will use INT (Medicine) to climb that wall. After all, the rules don't say that I can't. It only says that one way to climb a wall is with STR (Athletics).

When faced with the actuality that your only argument lies on the weakest possible reasoning "It is a rule because no rule says it is not". My six year old makes this argument all the time to try to get what she wants. You can certainly rule the way you want and the game allows that, but your base assumption is weak and more in the realms rulings. The only truth is that it is up to the DM to decide on exceptions to the rules as in the book, only you are coming at it from far left field five planets over. Until you can cite actual rules in an actual rulebook, you hold almost credibility.

 

[Oofta]

If the rules are silent about something, doesn't that mean it is not a rule. You can certainly rule things the way you wish, but you are kidding yourself if you need this type of validation to you rules that don't exist are rules because they didn't put out a 999 page tome to tell you everything you can't do.

I can say that a player can use DEX(Acrobatics) to climb a wall. by your logic that would be legal since the rules don't say you can't Climb other ways. In fact, I think I will use INT (Medicine) to climb that wall. After all, the rules don't say that I can't. It only says that one way to climb a wall is with STR (Athletics).

When faced with the actuality that your only argument lies on the weakest possible reasoning "It is a rule because no rule says it is not". You can certainly rule the way you want and the game allows that, but your base assumption is weak and more in the realms rulings. The only truth is that it is up to the DM to decide on exceptions to the rules as in the book, only you are coming at it from far left field three planets over. Until you can cite actual rules in an actual rulebook, you hold almost credibility.

Well, let me see. I seem to remember somebody addressing this very issue in a podcast. Who was that again? Oh yeah, Jeremy Crawford talking about exactly this issue

"In some cases the DM will decide that an invisible person's location is unknown to the combatant ... that wizard that cast invisibility on herself, the orcs have lost track of where she is even though she never bothered to hide..."

He's quite explicit in the podcast about how the rules work and why they designed them that way. Disagree all you want, but the guy who wrote the book and I agree on how this works.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Well, let me see. I seem to remember somebody addressing this very issue in a podcast. Who was that again? Oh yeah, Jeremy Crawford talking about exactly this issue

"In some cases the DM will decide that an invisible person's location is unknown to the combatant ... that wizard that cast invisibility on herself, the orcs have lost track of where she is even though she never bothered to hide..."

He's quite explicit in the podcast about how the rules work and why they designed them that way. Disagree all you want, but the guy who wrote the book and I agree on how this works.

Yes, you always seem to go back to that.
"in some cases" - and exception to the standard rule
"the DM will decide " - our small agreement that the DM can override the standard rule
"an invisible person's location is unknown to the combatant" - exception to the basic rule modified by some cases

followed by an extreme case of the wizard that may or may not be noticed. Seems quite obvious what the rules say, and what Jeremy says the DM may rule. Now, if he puts it writing, I am going to go with the rules as someone would read them without the benefit the to internet and all us experts telling them how they really should rule.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, you always seem to go back to that.
"in some cases" - and exception to the standard rule
"the DM will decide " - our small agreement that the DM can override the standard rule
"an invisible person's location is unknown to the combatant" - exception to the basic rule modified by some cases

followed by an extreme case of the wizard that may or may not be noticed. Seems quite obvious what the rules say, and what Jeremy says the DM may rule. Now, if he puts it writing, I am going to go with the rules as someone would read them without the benefit the to internet and all us experts telling them how they really should rule.

No one is overriding a rule. Point out to me where it says the only way to be undetected is to take the hide action in the PHB. I'll raise my wager to $100.

The podcast makes clear that the point of the rules is to leave room for different styles. It's one of the strengths of 5E.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

No one is overriding a rule. Point out to me where it says the only way to be undetected is to take the hide action in the PHB. I'll raise my wager to $100.

The podcast makes clear that the point of the rules is to leave room for different styles. It's one of the strengths of 5E.

Well, on that last part we generally agree. I still believe you must understand what the basic rule as written before (or more commonly interpreted) before making those exceptions. Know how something works in general before adjusting it for specific situations.

BTW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm still waiting for someone to show where it states you have to take the hide action to be undetected in the book.

First, show who is making that argument, preferably with a quotation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which again, you detect automatically? That's the issue I have. Should be a high perception check. Some guy invisibly flies away in a fight... you don't get to automatically know where they are.

no one has said otherwise, I don't think. You also don't automatically fail to track them. It depends on perception, whether there is mist or dust in the air that moves in it's wake, etc. if it isn't certain, it has to make a stealth check, and the PCs have to make perception checks.

Which could be dust free because there was a perfectly visible plant taken away 2 min ago.

And closer examination reveals that here is an invisible object there. Simple enough.

I would simply add that it describes a process to become undetected in combat, it does not say it is the only way.

And Crawford clarified that it works that way unless circumstance dictates otherwise. Citing a couple edge cases where the DM might rule that the general rule doesn't apply, which you were nice enough to quote:

I would just suggest that you listen to this podcast. If you are unable to do so let me transcribe a small snippet from around 28:40 where Jeremy Crawford is talking about invisibility

"In some cases the DM will decide that an invisible person's location is unknown to the combatant ... that wizard that cast invisibility on herself, the orcs have lost track of where she is even though she never bothered to hide..."
​

That quote supports the position you are arguing against. Well, no, because you keep arguing against a position no one is taking.


It supports the argument people are making, that you keep responding to in disagreement.

So with the extreme conditions of these examples you agree the standard rule is that you can see and invisible creature until it hides or some other circumstance intervenes. After all, the rogue does notice the invisible gargoyle move into the other room to follow it and the wizard needs a raging storm to cover his position. Of course with the wizard in the thunderstorm, you could always detect where the wizard is by noticing the water hitting him and not following the regular pattern of the rain.

That wizard definatley has advantage on stealth, too, but yeah, it's a stealth check. The circumstance just overrides some of the normal requirements of that check.

I think this is a flaw of the initiative system, which operates with each creature taking their turn then freezing in place as the next creature takes their turn, but really everyone is running around and doing things at the same time. The gargoyle didn't have time to take the hide action, so the rogue who bursts in the room right after it slammed the door knows right off where it likely is.

Right, if enough time passed that the rogue wasn't right on its heels, it would be able to Hide. If the DM rules that it can as part of slamming the door, that's fine, but it's a ruling made to cover something the general rule isn't quite right for, just like Crawford says in he podcast.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And closer examination reveals that here is an invisible object there. Simple enough.

I think you don't need a perception check at this point at all...
Maybe a sleight of hands check to not turn it over and crash it...

Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app

 

[Yunru]

Well if nothing else, we learned how to detect an invisible plant pot.