If you are just going for sneaky damage then after level 5 in ranger you should multiclass out to rogue. If you like what the ranger brings to the table then stick with ranger.
You could build a Gloom Stalker and just call it a rogue. Then flavor the spells as Batman or Darkwing Duck style mechanical effects.
Ensnaring Strike is bolas.
Spike Growth are caltrops.
Fog Cloud is a smoke bomb.
Hail of Thorns is that thing when an archer knocks two arrows and shoots targets standing next to one another.
Pass Without Trace is a smoke bomb.
Just pick spells that don't feature talking to or conjuring animals or anything like that. If you are playing mostly in a city see if your DM will allow you to take the home brew favored terrain of "city/urban" for natural explorer.
Tasha's ranger optional replacement abilities might give you more of a rogue feel as well.
Big Props on the Darkwing Duck reference. #letsgetdangerous
Only a couple of people hinted at it but by default Rogue gets no dark vison. You would need a race that gives it to you. Gloomstalker always gives a boost to Dark vision Even races that already have it.
Damage around level 10 will probably be boosted by Conjure Animals which is kind of anti stealth in some peoples minds.
In My opinion ranger is a more complex class requiring planning. especially Bonus action spells and concentration. rogue is simpler to play. most of the complexity to rogue is in how you use your Cunning action each round.
That being said I will almost always have more fun as a ranger than a rogue but that is my opinion and not every ones.
I’m playing a Goblin Gloom Stalker myself, got Stealth Expertise through Deft Explorer and abusing Nimble Escape as a mini-Cunning Action. Urchin background got me Thieves’ Tool and my damage output is pretty solid with Archery FS, Dread Ambusher, Hunters Mark and recently found Bracers of Archery. Fury of the Smalls is also a nice damage boost at every short rest.
Got WIS save prof at level 7 and I’m planning to get Resilient CON by level 8, nailing the three major saves for my character. Good AC and amazing defensive tactics through Hide as a bonus action.
why are we all pretending like rogue doesn't get reliable talent? an ability that literally makes them unable to ever roll poorly with at least 6 skills, 7 if you're a variant human, and with an extra 3 if you pick up the skilled feat. thats 10 skills you will never roll below a 10 in... the only way i've ever rationalized that rangers can be better than rogues at sneaking or doing anything skill related is that rangers have abilities that simply bypass rolls. they don't need to roll to gather food or navigate, or things like that. however when the lowest you can get on stealth, survival, athletics, acrobatics, perception, and other skills you can think of is a 16 with a mere 14 for an ability score, and not including expertise, the rogues completely outshine the ranger in stealth, mobility, and exploration. the way i decide if i want a character to be a ranger or rogue is essentially, do i want this character to be a badass regular dude who uses magical items and gadgets to get the job done, like a james bond type of fellow. OR do I want this character to be able to use magic and buff himself. basically, regular dude who does cool things with equipment, or a super mystical magic dude who doesnt need special equipment and can get the job done with nothing but a bow and some armor.
I know for myself, and many others, that by the time reliable talent kicks in, rogues are already not failing skill checks they’re proficient in. It almost seems redundant or over kill. Some of the most difficult checks are only a DC 20, so rolling 35 on a check doesn’t “succeed more”. Also, although rogues are the undisputed royalty of stealth and other skills, rangers are an easy second place, and they provide stealth, survival, movement, and perception buffs to the entire party. Even the horse! So on a power level gauged by a solo mission in a white room, rogues are tops, hands down. But when gauged by gaining an advantage of the entire enemy force being surprised on the first round of combat, no rogue even compares. Not even scout. This is equivalent to the entire party using action surge. And the ability to survive, navigate, travel quickly, and generally do things while traveling, again, no rogue is even on the same spectrum. Not even the scout.
Assuming both get expertise in Steath, the Ranger is generally better at being hidden because of the pass without trace spell, the Ranger is also better if you will be sneaking with your whole party. If you are scouting alone ahead of the party the Rogue is usually better because of their ability to outrun almost any creature in the game if things get tough. Because they have thieves tools proficiency the Rogue is also better at going ahead and setting traps and prepping the battlefield if you are going to set up an ambush.
Rogue is really flexible and you can build one to do whatever you want really, they can do just about everything good if you don't dump Wisdom, Charisma and Intelligence. Ranger is generally going to be better at doing damage in combat, Rogue will be a better controller in combat (although this is highly dependant on race and subclass).
People talk about the invisibility to enemies using darkvision, and it helps but if you play by the RAW it is not as big an effect as people make it out to be for several reasons:
1. First being invisible does not make you hidden, you still have to make a stealth check. The enemy has a -5 on their perception if you are invisible, but the Rogue gets the same. The only thing the invisibility does is make you obscured in areas of darkness against enemies using darkvision which covers those areas. This lets you ATTEMPT a stealth check when others wouldn't. This means you can potentially get closer before you are no longer obscured but doesn't really make you more stealthy or more likely to pass your check.
2. Most areas you will fight in are dimly lit or brightly lit and few enemies will be using darkvision in those areas. Even in the underdark a lot of areas are going to be dimly lit, especially if you are talking about areas being guarded. A Drow at a guardpost in darkness using darkvision treats that area as dim light (out to 120 feet) and has disadvantage on perception checks to see things because it is treated as dim light. Usually they are going to make the areas near them dimly lit so that it is brightly lit for them and checks are not at disadvantage.
3. It only works against darkvision, it does not work against truesight, devil's sight, blindsight or any other way of seeing in darkness.
Sorry. How does being unseen allow for advantage on a stealth check?
I to have found the gloom stalker invisible thing to be very seldom “active”.
Actually the correct way to say it is the enemy has disadvantage on their perception check in dim light or darkness, or a -5 on passive perception. I will correct that above
I’m sure this is coming across as me being a jerk that is nitpicking, but I’m just trying to make sure everything is clear. I believe that that perception check penalty only applies to perception checks based off sight, correct? If you’re trying to hide from somebody by being quiet the penalty would not apply. The enemy would have a straight roll perception check.
I know for myself, and many others, that by the time reliable talent kicks in, rogues are already not failing skill checks they’re proficient in. It almost seems redundant or over kill. Some of the most difficult checks are only a DC 20, so rolling 35 on a check doesn’t “succeed more”.
Imho this is a glaring flaw in the 5E stock rules. There's a variant rule to handle it, but it doesn't seem to be supported in any official WOTC content I've seen outside of very specific contexts, like certain poisons that can knock you unconscious.
One of the few ways you can see this in action without any shenanigans is Stealth, simply because it's so easy to set up a scenario with Advantage and Disadvantage giving clear-cut DCs, and you actually don't need any variant rules for the various DCs to come up: suppose you are trying not to be noticed by a badger while lightly obscured. Because the badger has advantage to smell you, is rolling flat to hear you, and is at disadvantage to see you, you get a nice clean set of Stealth DCs like this:
DC 7: The badger doesn't see you, but hears and smells you. Under most DMs, this means the badger knows where you are, but you count as Unseen, by definition.
DC 12: The badger doesn't hear (or see) you, but does smell you. Under most DMs, this means the badger doesn't know where you are, but knows you're nearby (akin to Paladin/Ranger enemy sensing; results will vary heavily by DM as we have essentially zero rules for this situation).
DC 17: The badger doesn't smell (or hear or see) you. Under most DMs, the badger is blissfully unaware you even exist.
I’m sure this is coming across as me being a jerk that is nitpicking, but I’m just trying to make sure everything is clear. I believe that that perception check penalty only applies to perception checks based off sight, correct? If you’re trying to hide from somebody by being quiet the penalty would not apply. The enemy would have a straight roll perception check.
Neither invisible nor blinded involves any penalty to see a creature you can't see, because you can't see it. You automatically fail. Likewise, neither applies a penalty to hearing something. I'm not sure where this idea is coming from that there's a penalty. The PHB even discusses an invisible person hiding on page 177, and there's no discussion of advantage or disadvantage in the invisibility bit, because neither is relevant.
If you're trying to see an invisible creature without special powers that override the invisibility, you just fail - you don't make a Perception check and the creature doesn't make a Stealth check. In terms of being unheard, the invisible creature can roll Stealth to hide against your Passive Perception to try and be quiet, without any advantage or disadvantage, and likewise you can take the Search action and roll active Perception to try and Perceive it, again without Advantage or Disadvantage being relevant.
DC 7: The badger doesn't see you, but hears and smells you. Under most DMs, this means the badger knows where you are, but you count as Unseen, by definition.
DC 12: The badger doesn't hear (or see) you, but does smell you. Under most DMs, this means the badger doesn't know where you are, but knows you're nearby (akin to Paladin/Ranger enemy sensing; results will vary heavily by DM as we have essentially zero rules for this situation).
DC 17: The badger doesn't smell (or hear or see) you. Under most DMs, the badger is blissfully unaware you even exist
I think sums it up well. The senses allow for a variety of awareness. Sight is certainly the most powerful, except perhaps for Daredevil. I would add that your situations above play perfectly with the surprise rules as well.
Neither invisible nor blinded involves any penalty to see a creature you can't see, because you can't see it. You automatically fail. Likewise, neither applies a penalty to hearing something. I'm not sure where this idea is coming from that there's a penalty. The PHB even discusses an invisible person hiding on page 177, and there's no discussion of advantage or disadvantage in the invisibility bit, because neither is relevant.
If you're trying to see an invisible creature without special powers that override the invisibility, you just fail - you don't make a Perception check and the creature doesn't make a Stealth check. In terms of being unheard, the invisible creature can roll Stealth to hide against your Passive Perception to try and be quiet, without any advantage or disadvantage, and likewise you can take the Search action and roll active Perception to try and Perceive it, again without Advantage or Disadvantage being relevant.
They're referring to the disadvantage on perception checks on sight for light obscurement and applying that to being invisible and hearing and smell, which is not how it works.
I’m sure this is coming across as me being a jerk that is nitpicking, but I’m just trying to make sure everything is clear. I believe that that perception check penalty only applies to perception checks based off sight, correct? If you’re trying to hide from somebody by being quiet the penalty would not apply. The enemy would have a straight roll perception check.
Neither invisible nor blinded involves any penalty to see a creature you can't see, because you can't see it. You automatically fail. Likewise, neither applies a penalty to hearing something. I'm not sure where this idea is coming from that there's a penalty. The PHB even discusses an invisible person hiding on page 177, and there's no discussion of advantage or disadvantage in the invisibility bit, because neither is relevant.
If you're trying to see an invisible creature without special powers that override the invisibility, you just fail - you don't make a Perception check and the creature doesn't make a Stealth check. In terms of being unheard, the invisible creature can roll Stealth to hide against your Passive Perception to try and be quiet, without any advantage or disadvantage, and likewise you can take the Search action and roll active Perception to try and Perceive it, again without Advantage or Disadvantage being relevant.
1. RAW there is no action "see". The action is "search" which means you devote your action to "finding" something. Finding assumes all your senses; sight and hearing are most important, but others as well. If you can't see an enemy that would mean you can't use that sight to "find" him or her and are at a disadvantage relative to someone who can.
2. The invisible condition does not say anything about automatically failing to "see" a creature. Here is what it actually says:
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the Purpose of Hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s Location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves. (note these tracks would be something you "see")
3. Invisible and blinded are two separate things and being invisible does not do the same thing as being blinded, most notably because while you can't "see" the invisible creature you can certainly "see" phenomina associated with them. Invisible creatures can be detected by the tracks they leave or stir of tapestries or other things which would be things you "see" when you use the "search" action.
4. The PHB does say that when blinded you "automatically fails any ability check that REQUIRES sight" . Note it says "requires" not "relys on" sight. A check that relies on all your senses (sight, sound, touch, smell etc) like the "search" action would not automatically fail if blinded because it does not "require" sight to "find" something using the "search" action and does not "require" sight to use passive perception.
Examples of checks which "require" sight:
- Using Intelligence (Arcana) to decipher magical runes written on a scroll or magic item
- Using dexterity (slight of hand) to position a mirror so it reflects the sunlight coming into a window on the vampire's casket
If you are blinded it is impossible to do these things.
5. An invisible creature is obscured and you have "disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that RELY on sight" to find somthing that is obscured according to the PHB. "Rely" is different than "requires". A normal character making a perception check relies on his sight (and other senses). So a normal character using search against an obscured creature would be at disadvantage to find said creature. If said creature was wearing elven boots or in an area of silence it would likewise be at disadvantage. If the creaure was both obscured and in an area of silence it would still be at disadvantage unless the DM ruled it could absolutely not be found by smell, tough or some other sense besides sight or sounf=d.
Well, that is certainly an interpretation of all of those rules. Didn’t Crawford do a sage advice about hiding and cover this? He specifically states things about invisible and not about disadvantage and such to see them.
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.”
Well, that is certainly an interpretation of all of those rules. Didn’t Crawford do a sage advice about hiding and cover this? He specifically states things about invisible and not about disadvantage and such to see them.
Some of that I took from his interview (specifically the tapestries).
I realize the RAW are clunky and/or vague on these types of things, but that is 100% intentional. Just like with the hiding rules. Very loose. DM territory.
But for me, the game neither states nor implies a creature makes the search action at disadvantage when search for an invisible creature.
But for me, the game neither states nor implies a creature makes the search action at disadvantage when search for an invisible creature.
There's definitely no explicit disadvantage in RAW, but I think it falls under the more general rule of your DM not asking for a check that serves no purpose; i.e- if the invisible creature is staying absolutely still, and you're not near enough to hear it breathing or smell it or whatever then the DM might either rule that no check is necessary, or let you roll it without bothering to roll against it (because it will always fail).
Same as a DM can run attacks against invisible creatures; the player can roll the attack (with disadvantage) but if they aren't in range they'll always fail.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you are just going for sneaky damage then after level 5 in ranger you should multiclass out to rogue. If you like what the ranger brings to the table then stick with ranger.
Big Props on the Darkwing Duck reference. #letsgetdangerous
LOL!
Thanks!
I’m playing a Goblin Gloom Stalker myself, got Stealth Expertise through Deft Explorer and abusing Nimble Escape as a mini-Cunning Action. Urchin background got me Thieves’ Tool and my damage output is pretty solid with Archery FS, Dread Ambusher, Hunters Mark and recently found Bracers of Archery. Fury of the Smalls is also a nice damage boost at every short rest.
Got WIS save prof at level 7 and I’m planning to get Resilient CON by level 8, nailing the three major saves for my character. Good AC and amazing defensive tactics through Hide as a bonus action.
why are we all pretending like rogue doesn't get reliable talent? an ability that literally makes them unable to ever roll poorly with at least 6 skills, 7 if you're a variant human, and with an extra 3 if you pick up the skilled feat. thats 10 skills you will never roll below a 10 in... the only way i've ever rationalized that rangers can be better than rogues at sneaking or doing anything skill related is that rangers have abilities that simply bypass rolls. they don't need to roll to gather food or navigate, or things like that. however when the lowest you can get on stealth, survival, athletics, acrobatics, perception, and other skills you can think of is a 16 with a mere 14 for an ability score, and not including expertise, the rogues completely outshine the ranger in stealth, mobility, and exploration. the way i decide if i want a character to be a ranger or rogue is essentially, do i want this character to be a badass regular dude who uses magical items and gadgets to get the job done, like a james bond type of fellow. OR do I want this character to be able to use magic and buff himself. basically, regular dude who does cool things with equipment, or a super mystical magic dude who doesnt need special equipment and can get the job done with nothing but a bow and some armor.
I know for myself, and many others, that by the time reliable talent kicks in, rogues are already not failing skill checks they’re proficient in. It almost seems redundant or over kill. Some of the most difficult checks are only a DC 20, so rolling 35 on a check doesn’t “succeed more”. Also, although rogues are the undisputed royalty of stealth and other skills, rangers are an easy second place, and they provide stealth, survival, movement, and perception buffs to the entire party. Even the horse! So on a power level gauged by a solo mission in a white room, rogues are tops, hands down. But when gauged by gaining an advantage of the entire enemy force being surprised on the first round of combat, no rogue even compares. Not even scout. This is equivalent to the entire party using action surge. And the ability to survive, navigate, travel quickly, and generally do things while traveling, again, no rogue is even on the same spectrum. Not even the scout.
Assuming both get expertise in Steath, the Ranger is generally better at being hidden because of the pass without trace spell, the Ranger is also better if you will be sneaking with your whole party. If you are scouting alone ahead of the party the Rogue is usually better because of their ability to outrun almost any creature in the game if things get tough. Because they have thieves tools proficiency the Rogue is also better at going ahead and setting traps and prepping the battlefield if you are going to set up an ambush.
Rogue is really flexible and you can build one to do whatever you want really, they can do just about everything good if you don't dump Wisdom, Charisma and Intelligence. Ranger is generally going to be better at doing damage in combat, Rogue will be a better controller in combat (although this is highly dependant on race and subclass).
People talk about the invisibility to enemies using darkvision, and it helps but if you play by the RAW it is not as big an effect as people make it out to be for several reasons:
1. First being invisible does not make you hidden, you still have to make a stealth check. The enemy has a -5 on their perception if you are invisible, but the Rogue gets the same. The only thing the invisibility does is make you obscured in areas of darkness against enemies using darkvision which covers those areas. This lets you ATTEMPT a stealth check when others wouldn't. This means you can potentially get closer before you are no longer obscured but doesn't really make you more stealthy or more likely to pass your check.
2. Most areas you will fight in are dimly lit or brightly lit and few enemies will be using darkvision in those areas. Even in the underdark a lot of areas are going to be dimly lit, especially if you are talking about areas being guarded. A Drow at a guardpost in darkness using darkvision treats that area as dim light (out to 120 feet) and has disadvantage on perception checks to see things because it is treated as dim light. Usually they are going to make the areas near them dimly lit so that it is brightly lit for them and checks are not at disadvantage.
3. It only works against darkvision, it does not work against truesight, devil's sight, blindsight or any other way of seeing in darkness.
Sorry. How does being unseen allow for advantage on a stealth check?
I to have found the gloom stalker invisible thing to be very seldom “active”.
Actually the correct way to say it is the enemy has disadvantage on their perception check in dim light or darkness, or a -5 on passive perception. I will correct that above
I’m sure this is coming across as me being a jerk that is nitpicking, but I’m just trying to make sure everything is clear. I believe that that perception check penalty only applies to perception checks based off sight, correct? If you’re trying to hide from somebody by being quiet the penalty would not apply. The enemy would have a straight roll perception check.
Imho this is a glaring flaw in the 5E stock rules. There's a variant rule to handle it, but it doesn't seem to be supported in any official WOTC content I've seen outside of very specific contexts, like certain poisons that can knock you unconscious.
Sometimes a failed ability check has different consequences depending on the degree of failure. For example, a character who fails to disarm a trapped chest might accidentally spring the trap if the check fails by 5 or more, whereas a lesser failure means that the trap wasn’t triggered during the botched disarm attempt. Consider adding similar distinctions to other checks. Perhaps a failed Charisma (Persuasion) check means a queen won’t help, whereas a failure of 5 or more means she throws you in the dungeon for your impudence.
One of the few ways you can see this in action without any shenanigans is Stealth, simply because it's so easy to set up a scenario with Advantage and Disadvantage giving clear-cut DCs, and you actually don't need any variant rules for the various DCs to come up: suppose you are trying not to be noticed by a badger while lightly obscured. Because the badger has advantage to smell you, is rolling flat to hear you, and is at disadvantage to see you, you get a nice clean set of Stealth DCs like this:
Neither invisible nor blinded involves any penalty to see a creature you can't see, because you can't see it. You automatically fail. Likewise, neither applies a penalty to hearing something. I'm not sure where this idea is coming from that there's a penalty. The PHB even discusses an invisible person hiding on page 177, and there's no discussion of advantage or disadvantage in the invisibility bit, because neither is relevant.
If you're trying to see an invisible creature without special powers that override the invisibility, you just fail - you don't make a Perception check and the creature doesn't make a Stealth check. In terms of being unheard, the invisible creature can roll Stealth to hide against your Passive Perception to try and be quiet, without any advantage or disadvantage, and likewise you can take the Search action and roll active Perception to try and Perceive it, again without Advantage or Disadvantage being relevant.
I think sums it up well. The senses allow for a variety of awareness. Sight is certainly the most powerful, except perhaps for Daredevil. I would add that your situations above play perfectly with the surprise rules as well.
Neither invisible nor blinded involves any penalty to see a creature you can't see, because you can't see it. You automatically fail. Likewise, neither applies a penalty to hearing something. I'm not sure where this idea is coming from that there's a penalty. The PHB even discusses an invisible person hiding on page 177, and there's no discussion of advantage or disadvantage in the invisibility bit, because neither is relevant.
If you're trying to see an invisible creature without special powers that override the invisibility, you just fail - you don't make a Perception check and the creature doesn't make a Stealth check. In terms of being unheard, the invisible creature can roll Stealth to hide against your Passive Perception to try and be quiet, without any advantage or disadvantage, and likewise you can take the Search action and roll active Perception to try and Perceive it, again without Advantage or Disadvantage being relevant.
They're referring to the disadvantage on perception checks on sight for light obscurement and applying that to being invisible and hearing and smell, which is not how it works.
1. RAW there is no action "see". The action is "search" which means you devote your action to "finding" something. Finding assumes all your senses; sight and hearing are most important, but others as well. If you can't see an enemy that would mean you can't use that sight to "find" him or her and are at a disadvantage relative to someone who can.
2. The invisible condition does not say anything about automatically failing to "see" a creature. Here is what it actually says:
3. Invisible and blinded are two separate things and being invisible does not do the same thing as being blinded, most notably because while you can't "see" the invisible creature you can certainly "see" phenomina associated with them. Invisible creatures can be detected by the tracks they leave or stir of tapestries or other things which would be things you "see" when you use the "search" action.
4. The PHB does say that when blinded you "automatically fails any ability check that REQUIRES sight" . Note it says "requires" not "relys on" sight. A check that relies on all your senses (sight, sound, touch, smell etc) like the "search" action would not automatically fail if blinded because it does not "require" sight to "find" something using the "search" action and does not "require" sight to use passive perception.
Examples of checks which "require" sight:
- Using Intelligence (Arcana) to decipher magical runes written on a scroll or magic item
- Using dexterity (slight of hand) to position a mirror so it reflects the sunlight coming into a window on the vampire's casket
If you are blinded it is impossible to do these things.
5. An invisible creature is obscured and you have "disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that RELY on sight" to find somthing that is obscured according to the PHB. "Rely" is different than "requires". A normal character making a perception check relies on his sight (and other senses). So a normal character using search against an obscured creature would be at disadvantage to find said creature. If said creature was wearing elven boots or in an area of silence it would likewise be at disadvantage. If the creaure was both obscured and in an area of silence it would still be at disadvantage unless the DM ruled it could absolutely not be found by smell, tough or some other sense besides sight or sounf=d.
I think the rules are pretty clear on this.
Well, that is certainly an interpretation of all of those rules. Didn’t Crawford do a sage advice about hiding and cover this? He specifically states things about invisible and not about disadvantage and such to see them.
“Perception
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.”
Some of that I took from his interview (specifically the tapestries).
I realize the RAW are clunky and/or vague on these types of things, but that is 100% intentional. Just like with the hiding rules. Very loose. DM territory.
But for me, the game neither states nor implies a creature makes the search action at disadvantage when search for an invisible creature.
There's definitely no explicit disadvantage in RAW, but I think it falls under the more general rule of your DM not asking for a check that serves no purpose; i.e- if the invisible creature is staying absolutely still, and you're not near enough to hear it breathing or smell it or whatever then the DM might either rule that no check is necessary, or let you roll it without bothering to roll against it (because it will always fail).
Same as a DM can run attacks against invisible creatures; the player can roll the attack (with disadvantage) but if they aren't in range they'll always fail.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.