D&D 5E Why do so many DMs use the wrong rules for invisibility?

[tomBitonti]

I rule that when PCs are expecting trouble (which is most of the time, hence the default situation, when adventuring) they can use passive Perception to detect threats. If they're distracted (eg navigating, mapping, tracking, foraging, deep in conversation, or hustling a captive) then their passive Perception has disadvantage.

NPCs who are expecting or looking for trouble (raiding parties, guards on duty, border patrols, beasts of prey on the hunt) likewise use passive Perception. When they are in places they deem safe (at home, at the market in their home town, in their own territory) their passive Perception has disadvantage.

I contest passive Perception with the Stealth checks of hiding creatures. If a creature isn't hiding, and the perceiver is not distracted, then it is automatically detected; if the perceiver is distracted, I use a special form of passive Stealth check which is the creature's bare Stealth modifier with no additions (so normally in the range from -2 (zombie) to +11 (assassin)).

For objects, any object in plain view is automatically detected. Objects that are concealed or disguised can be detected by a PC if his or her passive Perception matches or beats the DC to notice the object. Every point by which you beat the DC increases the distance from which you notice the object by 5 feet. For example, if Muhrek's passive Perception matches the DC to notice the secret door, he spots it when he is in the space adjacent to it. If he beats the DC by 1, then he spots it from the next furthest space.

I'm at great pains to set consistent DCs throughout a campaign. As characters improve, so should their chances of spotting things. So if a lock is Very good, its DC remains 25, whether the PCs are at level 1 or level 15. Having exploding d20s still means there's always a chance of success or failure, whatever the level, and I also enable players to roll dice while obscuring the certainty of outcomes, which helps with immersion.

This all sounds good.

Then, "any object in plain view is automatically detected" becomes "any object *not* in plain view is *not* automatically detected", with a roll required for such an object to be detected.

Mapping that to the normal senses (sight, sound, and smell), which can be augmented depending on special abilities (say, a spider being able to sense by vibration objects which are moving in their web), "plainly visible" extends as "making an obvious noise". In the case of smell, a scent type ability typically automatically detects objects, or at least creatures, in a set radius, but I would extend that to creatures with normal senses for an object or creature which is exceptionally smelly.

For an object or creature which is invisible, and absent a feature which otherwise is obvious (is making a lot of noise, or is especially smelly), the the consequence seems to be that the object or creature is no longer automatically detected. A roll is required without the object or creature making a hiding check. And if the creature went invisible then hid, the difficulty of the roll should be increased.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Caliban]

Anyone else notice 5e rules debates tend to fall into two camps?

"It's a problem for me, so it's a problem for everyone and needs to be fixed right now."

or

"It's not a problem for me, so it's not a problem for anyone and you need to stop complaining right now."

At least for the people who continue the debates for page after page.

 

[Uller]

For an object or creature which is invisible, and absent a feature which otherwise is obvious (is making a lot of noise, or is especially smelly), the the consequence seems to be that the object or creature is no longer automatically detected.

I just ran in encounter in my PbP game involving this very thing. The PCs are alert to oozes attacking them and moving slowly so I allowed them all to make a perception check and use the higher of their roll or passive perception.

But gray oozes have the false appearance trait making them impossible to detect.

So as long as the ooze doesn't move or act the party could not notice it (short of actually poking it). When they got within striking distance and it began to attack that is when I applied their perception checks to its stealth check.

They all noticed it so we rolled init normally. The ooze beat them all, landed a crit on the cleric, one shotting him.

I handle an invisible characters or a characters under heavy obscurement the same way if they are not moving or acting. But as soon as they move or take an action rolls are made. If observers take an action to try to locate the invisible/obscured character then (depending on what they do) either the character will be revealed or a check will be made or what have you.

For example if the hidden character is invisible and the observing character takes an action to listen for breathing or something I would allow a perception check at disadvantage vs stealth (possibly at advantage).

If the character is simply obscured and the observing character simple removes the obscurement (turn on a light, peek in the box) the hidden character is automatically discovered.

 

[Uller]

Anyone else notice 5e rules debates tend to fall into two camps?

"It's a problem for me, so it's a problem for everyone and needs to be fixed right now."

or

"It's not a problem for me, so it's not a problem for anyone and you need to stop complaining right now."

At least for the people who continue the debates for page after page.

Sometimes the latter is meant more in the spirit of "it's not a problem for me and here is some advice to make it not a problem for you."

Sometimes the former is meant more in the spirit of "this is a problem for me because xyz. How can I makr it not a problem for me."

But yeah...usually past 4 or 5 pages the two camps are entrenched and no new ground is ever taken. I engage primarily to hone my own interpretation of the rules.

 

[Oofta]

Anyone else notice 5e rules debates tend to fall into two camps?

"It's a problem for me, so it's a problem for everyone and needs to be fixed right now."

or

"It's not a problem for me, so it's not a problem for anyone and you need to stop complaining right now."

At least for the people who continue the debates for page after page.

I see it as two camps of "D&D is broken because there is no rule for ____." or "D&D is broken because as I read it ____, doesn't work."

versus

"The design of 5E relies heavily on DM empowerment, and doing what makes sense for your group. Here's how I deal with _____, you could do that or something similar. Just make a ruling that works for your group and go with it."

Of course I'm biased because I fall into the latter group.

I also do have a pet peeve of people that claim "RAW SAYS!" when it doesn't, or at best requires an interpretation of the rules that I don't think is at all clear or obvious.

I know that sometimes I can be (aka may often be, frequently, sometimes but not always) as stubborn as the next guy. I simply don't want to be told that I'm running my game "wrong" because I run it differently since I don't rely on the letter of the book and only the book and nothing but the book so help me WOTC.

 

[tk32]

I'm a DM and disagree with this completely, and played it this way just a couple days ago.. If one is in complete darkness, which is hard to achieve in real life, one can not even see their own hand let alone someone within 5 feet of them. I could maybe hear someone breathing if there were pure and utter silence and be able to guess maybe where they are (disadvantage, maybe). However, that said, I use the gut check. In the heat of battle where there's multiple foes and multiple friends all making their own noises - presumably getting ready to cast spells, clanging of weapons on armor and shields, and just all around battle, unless someone uses an action to perceive where someone is. . They are unable to target the person. I had a long range cross bow person shotting in darkness at an invisible creature. he rolled two ones with disadvantage. I rolled his to hit, and he ended up hitting the friend of his that was past the invisible person.... Listening carefully for where an invisible or a person is in the dark, requires a dedicated action then next round they can attack and target where they think the creature may be with disadvantage.

What my party did was the wizard cast see invisibility, saw the creature, and then, said he's over there and pointed, for the rest of the group (he also had light cast on himself so people could see where he was pointing). Then, that allowed everyone else to target the creature with disadvantage because they at least new somewhat what square to target. It took a couple rounds to setup, but, you're trying to target a moving invisible person.... It should be hard. . A single CR 4 creature vs. a party of 5 level 9 players, became a difficult encounter... If they were in a room that was extremely quiet, no environmental noises, and the players took an action to listen for noises then used their bonus actions to perform some type of offensive act, then I would give them disadvantage - a chance at doing damage.

It's a similar rule to traveling. 5th edition, if a party is traveling at a fast pace, they suffer penalties to perception. If a party is trying to do their typical I attack, every 6 seconds (as quickly as possible) then they will suffer penalties to an invisible creature... It's an out of ordinary circumstance and requires a negative effect. In this case, the party is unable to target the creature to make an attack, due to not knowing where it is...

As The Old Crow pointed out, you've got the RAW wrong. If both the attacker and the defender are in darkness (that they are unable to see through) attacks are made without advantage OR disadvantage, because Advantage from being an unseen attacker cancels Disadvantage from being unable to see your target.

As for the rest of it, hiding/invisibility (outside of advantage/disadvantage) is the single most contentious part of the 5e rules. Certain interpretations are more common than others, but there is no consensus on what the RAW is. (Plenty of people will argue that RAW is clear, but since they disagree with each other I consider it self-evident that there is no consensus.)

So yes, you should always ask a new DM how they run hiding and invisibility, because there is no "default". And you should expect a large degree of table variation.

 

[Uller]

This is a recurring argument. For those who say the 5e stealth rules are lacking: What game system works for you? Can you give us a synopsis or link to the rules to show us what you think well written rules look like?

As I've said (in pretty much every one of these threads), I have never had a problem applying the stealth rules in 5e quickly and effectively (at least, IMO....i can't speak for my players but they've never complained to me and seem to have always enjoyed the various situations). That doesn't mean the rules are well written. It could just mean they match my style...

 

[Oofta]

This is a recurring argument. For those who say the 5e stealth rules are lacking: What game system works for you? Can you give us a synopsis or link to the rules to show us what you think well written rules look like?

As I've said (in pretty much every one of these threads), I have never had a problem applying the stealth rules in 5e quickly and effectively (at least, IMO....i can't speak for my players but they've never complained to me and seem to have always enjoyed the various situations). That doesn't mean the rules are well written. It could just mean they match my style...

I've asked. The response I got

If you want improvements built on the current engine, I'm afraid I can't help you. I can't even fathom how the designers intended stealth to work. Interesting thought experiment: WotC releases a set of examples, a youtube video or something, that clearly and uneqivocally sets down the parameters for which the different stealth components work and how they interact with each other.

Yeah, I don't see that happening either. What does WotC stand to gain? By pleasing one third of the customer base, they will alienate another third, with the third third not even caring.

So my best advice is to look at your favorite not-5E game for a stealth system that works for you. This could be a previous D&D game; it could be some completely different game (like Runequest or WEG Star Wars).

Personally, I don't understand the histrionics. I can see wanting something else, and there are certain rules I dislike, a handful I houserule. But I make a ruling or a houserule and move on ... I don't rant and rave every time the topic is brought up in any thread.

For example, I don't like the way ability score replacement items (e.g. Belts of Giant Strength) work, so I have a house rule that all ability score adjustment items add to your ability, they don't replace it. If the score can't go above 19, it no longer requires attunement.

I'm not going to rant about how D&D is broken because it doesn't work the way I would have written it. I just discuss it with my group, fix it if it needs fixing, and move on.

 

[Uller]

I've asked. The response I got

So I looked up the Runequest SRD. I don't see much of a system there at all regarding stealth, light, visibility, surprise, etc. For instance, here is what it says about "Gaining Surprise":

A surprised character suffers a –10 penalty to his Strike
Rank during the first combat round. In addition, he may only
use Reactions against actions that occur after his own Strike
Rank.
The effects of surprise generally only last for the first combat
round of a combat.

That's it. No information about how one gains surprise. Just GM fiat, I guess. The descriptions of stealth and perception don't have much more information. Here is the Stealth skill description:

The Stealth skill is used whenever a character attempts to
personally evade detection by another character. This usually
happens when a character either tries to move quietly
past an enemy, hide from one or performs a combination of
both. Stealth tests are opposed by the Perception skill and
are modified according to the situation

The perception skill is just one sentence.

This isn't to cut on Runequest. It seems a fine system. But it is very obviously a "rules light" (or "Rulings not rules") system where the GM is expected to use some common sense when determining if a character can hide or not. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Angerguy]

Dang, you guys are still discussing this? I was just stating the RAW, you are free to home-brew it however you like.