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

[Pathkeeper24601]

Yes



I have never stated than an invisible creature is automatically undetected. In some situations there may be no realistic chance to notice an invisible creature depending on conditions as decided by the DM.

The difference between the statements is semantics and splitting hairs.

So then you agree that the statement:

"A creature that turns invisible is still noticeable until it takes the Hide action. The DM may determine the circumstances are such that the Hide action is not required."

is a good interpretation of the Rules along with the contents of the podcast.

Splitting hair or Spitting Hares, its all apart of the game.

 

[Oofta]

"A creature that turns invisible is still noticeable until it takes the Hide action. The DM may determine the circumstances are such that the Hide action is not required."

I have never stated otherwise. I might phrase it slightly differently. That it's up to the DM to decide when or if you may lose track of someone that's invisible.*

Which is why I asked what we are arguing about.


*Edit: I'm assuming that it goes without saying that you can normally take the hide action to avoid detection if you are invisible.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

I have never stated otherwise. I might phrase it slightly differently. That it's up to the DM to decide when or if you may lose track of someone that's invisible.

Which is why I asked what we are arguing about.

As some have noted, mostly semantics. Though those semantics guide the game develops overtime. A good deal has to do with the constant use of silly phrases such as "your fee to play the way you want but ..." and "prove there are there is a rule that says you can't run it this way". Those two phrases alone has drawn me back into this. As well as phrases like"

When it comes to invisibility, much like "innocent before proven guilty" I believe you are "undetected until detected". You don't have to "do" anything to remain undetected. You have to "do" something or interact with the environment in some way to be detected.

Which are definitely different that the phrasing I used above and not really supported by the Rules (or the podcast), other than the technicality that you can fall back on extreme examples and 5ths default rule "The DM can decide".

Actually, I think I just completely blown premise of this topic. No people mistake or misapply any given rule, it is all just various different application of "The DM Decides" rule.

 

[Oofta]

As some have noted, mostly semantics. Though those semantics guide the game develops overtime. A good deal has to do with the constant use of silly phrases such as "your fee to play the way you want but ..." and "prove there are there is a rule that says you can't run it this way". Those two phrases alone has drawn me back into this. As well as phrases like"



Which are definitely different that the phrasing I used above and not really supported by the Rules (or the podcast), other than the technicality that you can fall back on extreme examples and 5ths default rule "The DM can decide".

Actually, I think I just completely blown premise of this topic. No people mistake or misapply any given rule, it is all just various different application of "The DM Decides" rule.

This whole thing started because someone stated (on page 3 or so) that "You know the exact location of an invisible creature until said creature takes the Hide action and beats your passive perception. "

I disagreed, and pointed to the podcast because Mr Crawford explains it quite clearly. That's all.

 

[Corwin]

This whole thing started because someone stated (on page 3 or so) that "You know the exact location of an invisible creature until said creature takes the Hide action and beats your passive perception. "

I disagreed, and pointed to the podcast because Mr Crawford explains it quite clearly. That's all.

To be fair, somewhere in the middle of it, you mentioned you had put an invisible statue in a room and gave your PCs zero chance of detecting its presence. To which, I came in asking why there couldn't be even a tiny chance, based on faint, yet possible, environmental factors. Followed by you going a little off the rails demanding I provide proof a Hide action is required to go unnoticed (which had nothing to do with my post, nor my POV on the subject)...

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

This whole thing started because someone stated (on page 3 or so) that "You know the exact location of an invisible creature until said creature takes the Hide action and beats your passive perception. "

I disagreed, and pointed to the podcast because Mr Crawford explains it quite clearly. That's all.

I guess this all starts with the definition of RAW. To me, that is what you get if the only resource you have is the Player's Handbook [and other published materials]. In another discussion, I backed my own position down to more RAI (Interpreted or Intended take your pick) because since I was using a Sage Advice article as part of my proof. Came to the agreement that it was more an opposing interpretation with actual evidence for either. Then there is "rulings over rules" that allow the DM to make situational adjustments to both RAW and RAI.

As opposed to what you must think, I am a big fan of "rulings of rules". I fully support the idea stand behind any ruling I have made that is not directly backed by the PH+. For example, I've ruled that a Rogue entering a pre-existing battle from Stealth in this particular situation had an opportunity to use his Assassinate ability. It is clearly a ruling and there is nothing that says I can't make some distinction based on the plain English definition of surprise. If a similar situation happens again I may rule the same or differently depending on existing conditions. I will defend my ability to make such ruling, but would never consider under RAW or that someone keeping to the strictest interpretation isn't following RAW because a ruling can be made regarding it.

This discussion is based on misapplication of RAW. For me, this is application of the rules as in the PH as applied to the simplest situation. RAW is the answer to the follow situation:

In a generic fight without any extra environment conditions a creature turns invisible to in front of the fighter and moves across the room. The fighter doesn't get an AoO. When the fighter's turn comes up, can he follow the creature and makes his attack at disadvantage or does he loose awareness of where the creature moved to and must try to locate it first? And if the second, what is the mechanics for locating it? No special conditions, not outside of existing combat, no other rooms, equal lighting, etc., just the most generic case. This is what RAW answers, everything else is a ruling and is still perfectly acceptable as such.

 

[Satyrn]

To be fair, somewhere in the middle of it, you mentioned you had put an invisible statue in a room and gave your PCs zero chance of detecting its presence.

huh. I read him as saying they didn't automatically detect it. That if they had actively gone looking for it they could've detected it.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

94%. The example of the invisible swordsman by the singing bush is a testament to the dangers of not knowing where someone is, even if you do know where he is not.

That's why you shoot UP!

 

[Corwin]

huh. I read him as saying they didn't automatically detect it. That if they had actively gone looking for it they could've detected it.

I meant passively, yeah.

 

[Oofta]

To be fair, somewhere in the middle of it, you mentioned you had put an invisible statue in a room and gave your PCs zero chance of detecting its presence. To which, I came in asking why there couldn't be even a tiny chance, based on faint, yet possible, environmental factors. Followed by you going a little off the rails demanding I provide proof a Hide action is required to go unnoticed (which had nothing to do with my post, nor my POV on the subject)...

If you walk into a room (and don't walk into the thing) I think it would be virtually impossible to detect an invisible statue unless you interact with it somehow in many (not all) cases. It would be no different than if I blindfolded you, took you into a room you had never been in and asked you to describe where all the furniture was. Unless you're DareDevil it's not going to happen.

A clean spot on the floor of a dust covered room? All you would know was that there is a weird clean spot on the floor. A weird indentation in the dirt? Could be just a weird indentation. If you notice something like that (which I'd base on passive perception) it's the start of an investigation encounter that could be resolved in any number of ways.

You might be able to detect it if snow is blowing in through an open window, or a ray of light shining down illuminating dust particles except where the statue is.

You would definitely know something was there if there's a pigeon sitting on it. Or vines have grown up around part of it. Or the room is half flooded except for a statue sized hole. Or some indication that there's an invisible object there.

There are situations where the DM has to set a DC. If that DC is so high it is unobtainable then there's no need for rolling. For my invisible statue scenario, what that DC is will be based on too many environmental factors to list.

Walk around the room, do some investigation, throw some flour around because you suspect there's something there and it's a different story.

There's nothing wrong with letting people know it's there, it's just not something covered by the rules IMHO. As a DM I wouldn't do something like this to be a "gotcha" but as a fun investigation encounter/high level trap/surprise dedication ceremony? Sure.