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

[tomBitonti]

I think it's basically up to DM fiat. If the DM thinks something shouldn't be immediately apparent, assign a Perception DC to it. It may be a creature, a secret door, a trap, or a magical rune.

But, what is immediately apparent? I'm thinking that is question. A large statue in the center of a well lit room is completely obvious and would be seen immediately. Would two rogue standing beside the doorway? A large dog sleeping in the corner of the room?

Thx!
TomB

 

[Caliban]

The rules don't say. It's whatever the DM decides. (Although if the rogues take the Hide action and have an ability or effect that lets them hide there, then they get to use their Stealth skill.)

 

[S'mon]

This brings up an interesting nearby issue: What does a character automatically perceive? What do the automatically fail to perceive, and when do they need to make a roll?

Some assume that anything on the battle mat which is not hidden is automatically perceived. But not everyone.

I think this more basic question needs to be answered before answering the invisibility question.

Thx!
TomB

I think the intention is that the GM & the group get to decide whether they want to run 5e in the 4e style of rules certainty over world simulation, or a pre-3e style where GM 'fiat' is the physics engine, or try to have the rules as a simulation 3e style, etc.

 

[76512390ag12]

That is what I call a profound and complete design failure.

Unless creating incomprehensible rules were the intent.

Since I don't believe the WotC designers to be that inept, I choose to believe they intentionally created a system that could not be used clearly and consistently.

Why? Because this neatly deflects criticism, and makes potentially everybody happy.

Rulings not rules.
This was a design goal.
I believe other RPGs and editions may have a more rules not rulings approach.

Truth is, both approaches have strength and weaknesses.



Posted by C4-D4RS on the MetroLiberal HoloNet

 

[JonnyP71]

In 4 campaigns, with 3 groups, multiple DMs, we have never had an argument regarding stealth.

 

[CapnZapp]

Rulings not rules.

Sorry but please stop excusing bad rules.

Or bad rulings for that matter.

Stealth is perhaps the most broken area of 5e in how much confusion and anguish it has started. I really don't see what anyone would gain from denying this.

 

[Wepwawet]

Stealth is perhaps the most broken area of 5e in how much confusion and anguish it has started.

Definitely! I blame it for my alcoholism and the divorce that followed... The worst is not being able to see my children grow up...

Damned stealth!!!

 

[JonnyP71]

Sorry but please stop excusing bad rules.

Or bad rulings for that matter.

Stealth is perhaps the most broken area of 5e in how much confusion and anguish it has started. I really don't see what anyone would gain from denying this.

Anguish? Where?

At a gaming table with sensible players, with a grown up approach, who accept the rulings over rules approach of 5E, I severely doubt there will be any of this anguish of which you speak.

...maybe at a table loaded with argumentative pedants, who always have to be 'right', but then maybe 5E just isn't the game for them.

 

[76512390ag12]

Sorry but please stop excusing bad rules.

Or bad rulings for that matter.

I wasn't. I was suggesting that the design ethos of 5e, as opposed to some other systems, was to accept and give priority to a 'rulings not rules' approach. Other rules and editions gave a different priority to crisp, clear but prescriptive. The post I responded to questioned if there was a design ethos that would lead to ambiguity in rules.

 

[ClearlyTough69]

This brings up an interesting nearby issue: What does a character automatically perceive? What do the automatically fail to perceive, and when do they need to make a roll?

Some assume that anything on the battle mat which is not hidden is automatically perceived. But not everyone.

I think this more basic question needs to be answered before answering the invisibility question.

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.