however I see no problem with being able to yoink someone behind and them not being able to get eyes on you. They know where you are, but they can’t see you.
The three things it would give you
advantage on attacks, they can’t use spells are abilities that require you to see the target, and if combat wasn’t already initiated you would have advantage on initiative.
That said, in order to -ull this off you would need to have a stealth check higher than 15, or the creatures passive perception if it’s higher, then they would have a chance to avoid the grapple via str or dex save versus a str DC, unless you are a monk.
unless you are a hybrid class, this is pretty hard to pull off, and other than narrative, probably not worth the risk.All grappling really does is limit enemy movement. And few characters with a decent stealth bonus really want to be trapped in melee range with a target with only one hand free. I could see a monk doing this, but a shadow monk basically already has permanent invis.
i can imagine a specialist barbarian or fighter rogue using it, but it’s not mechanically better than just unloading on something
narratively I think it’s pretty fun and interesting though
however I see no problem with being able to yoink someone behind and them not being able to get eyes on you. They know where you are, but they can’t see you.
It's no more reasonable than attacking someone while remaining unseen (which is also realistically possible). However, there's far worse than grappling... a dragonborn using stealth can breathe a 15' cone of fire and not be revealed.
however I see no problem with being able to yoink someone behind and them not being able to get eyes on you. They know where you are, but they can’t see you.
It's no more reasonable than attacking someone while remaining unseen (which is also realistically possible). However, there's far worse than grappling... a dragonborn using stealth can breathe a 15' cone of fire and not be revealed.
Breathing fire, based on flamethrowers, or even the average flame spitter. definitely makes a noise louder than a whisper.
Regardless, the rules are not static in 5e, they work with the DM, and can be bent or broken to make the adventure or game better. A dm can declare that breathing fire made them aware of you or didn’t, based on their own take. Likewise if some escapes a grapple they can say they now see you, or they can call for a skill check or save if they feel the outcome is uncertain. The dm is also going to adjudicate edge cases how they see fit.
the rules provide a baseline, they aren’t a prison for the dm. The goal is to have a good game for the players and enable a great adventure.
the problem with the old rules, is if a dm followed the RAW hiding served virtually no purpose, and players who were trying to live the stealth/thief/sneak route were not supported, even though they had skills and features for it. The only way to pull it off was through magic, which is a different fantasy
Regardless, the rules are not static in 5e, they work with the DM, and can be bent or broken to make the adventure or game better. A dm can declare that breathing fire made them aware of you or didn’t, based on their own take. Likewise if some escapes a grapple they can say they now see you, or they can call for a skill check or save if they feel the outcome is uncertain. The dm is also going to adjudicate edge cases how they see fit.
the rules provide a baseline, they aren’t a prison for the dm. The goal is to have a good game for the players and enable a great adventure.
Agreed. So many arguments concerning the rules and what is "RAW" fall apart if we just assume everyone is acting in good faith. If a player with a Dragonborne PC tries to argue their breath weapon doesn't reveal them because of a loophole, they are not acting in good faith. If they really want to argue that, just throw an invisible black dragon their way and see how "fair" they think it is when they are hit with 54 acid damage from seemingly nowhere.
I don't think it's good or bad faith to say that a Breath Weapon, being no attack or spell, doesn't break being Invisible. It's just strict RAW analysis.
Well... in reality, a Breath Weapon deals damage, so the Invisibility spell would end in that case too.
A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
Invisibility's Invisible, but not Hiding's Invisible, unless the DM rules that it makes enought noise but the ability doesn't specifically say so.
Hiding: In a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
I don't think it's good or bad faith to say that a Breath Weapon, being no attack or spell, doesn't break being Invisible. It's just strict RAW analysis.
i don’t think it’s necessarily bad faith, but the DM decides, and they can just say that’s not how I’m going to play it. Conversely the dm might find it awesome and allow it. It’s a judgement call. The 5e manual tells you repeatedly the dm has this authority
I don't think it's good or bad faith to say that a Breath Weapon, being no attack or spell, doesn't break being Invisible. It's just strict RAW analysis.
i don’t think it’s necessarily bad faith, but the DM decides, and they can just say that’s not how I’m going to play it. Conversely the dm might find it awesome and allow it. It’s a judgement call. The 5e manual tells you repeatedly the dm has this authority
100% true. This is Rules vs Ruling basically.
RAW analysis is just an assessment of what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. the DM make rulings on what the rules don't address, or houserule on what the rules do address.
As Sage Advice Compendium say so well:
The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t.
Invisibility's Invisible, but not Hiding's Invisible, unless the DM rules that it makes enought noise but the ability doesn't specifically say so.
Hiding: In a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
As per the rules of invisible condition, if you are seen you don’t actually gain much benefit (no advantage or concealed). So if the narrative you create makes people see you, like flames flying from your mouth, you get very little benefit.
that said, hiding doesn’t really give dragon fire breath any benefit anyway. The best benefit you could get, is if you can regain cover/obscurement, you might not have to roll stealth again.
but as said before, the DM basically controls everything, if the dm isn’t into it, it’s not going to work, They have infinite ways of dealing with it, from just saying no, to adding hard counters to the world.
Invisibility's Invisible, but not Hiding's Invisible, unless the DM rules that it makes enought noise but the ability doesn't specifically say so.
Hiding: In a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
Oops! Totally true. I was thinking about the spell... I think I'm reading too many threads and posts related to the Hiding/Invisibility topic, mate... :(
Agreed. So many arguments concerning the rules and what is "RAW" fall apart if we just assume everyone is acting in good faith.
The entire difference between RAW and RAI is in the application of judgment. RAW is "what do the rules actually say", RAI is "what is the intent of the rules".
The problem with using RAI is that there's no way of resolving disputes -- two tables may treat the exact same rule differently. RAW has the advantage that there's actual rules text you can point to for resolving disputes. This doesn't mean you should always spell everything out, but it does mean you should avoid having rules that are egregiously inconsistent with the intent.
I'd say it depends how you Hide. If you're did so while inside an heavily obscured area for exemple, the target would see the Breath Weapon effect coming out of it, but still wouldn't see you.
The DM could always determine such circumstances no longer make Hiding apropriate, even though the Hiding rules don't list such effect as ending the Invisible condition per se.
If instead you were Invisible via the Invisibility spell, dealing damage with your Breath Weapon would stop the spell and end the Invisible condition.
Invisibility's Invisible, but not Hiding's Invisible, unless the DM rules that it makes enought noise but the ability doesn't specifically say so.
Hiding: In a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.
I think the "an enemy finds you" fits really well into "hey look at where all those flames are coming from", doncha think? If not, just imagine being hidden with a flamethrower and letting it loose. You become very much found. That's not even taking it as an "RAI", that's RAW.
Notice how it says "an enemy finds you, not an enemy sees you. If you don't like you can find someone by knowing exactly where they are but not physically seeing them, then hide-and-seek would play out a lot differently. "Hey, I know you KNOW I'm under this blanket, but you can't physically see me under the blanket!"
D&D supports DM's ruling over rule. What is bad is not DM fiat, RPG such as D&D hinges on it, it's players not accepting that fact.
Well, it doesn't require full cover, and isn't automatically broken by leaving cover/obscurement.
"Not in plain sight" does not mean "full cover". It means a minimum of light concealment or partial cover.
Is it like this in the new rules?
While reading a thread on EN World, I saw this, but maybe this is not ok?
By the rules, they are not attacks.
however I see no problem with being able to yoink someone behind and them not being able to get eyes on you. They know where you are, but they can’t see you.
The three things it would give you
advantage on attacks, they can’t use spells are abilities that require you to see the target, and if combat wasn’t already initiated you would have advantage on initiative.
That said, in order to -ull this off you would need to have a stealth check higher than 15, or the creatures passive perception if it’s higher, then they would have a chance to avoid the grapple via str or dex save versus a str DC, unless you are a monk.
unless you are a hybrid class, this is pretty hard to pull off, and other than narrative, probably not worth the risk.All grappling really does is limit enemy movement. And few characters with a decent stealth bonus really want to be trapped in melee range with a target with only one hand free. I could see a monk doing this, but a shadow monk basically already has permanent invis.
i can imagine a specialist barbarian or fighter rogue using it, but it’s not mechanically better than just unloading on something
narratively I think it’s pretty fun and interesting though
It's no more reasonable than attacking someone while remaining unseen (which is also realistically possible). However, there's far worse than grappling... a dragonborn using stealth can breathe a 15' cone of fire and not be revealed.
Breathing fire, based on flamethrowers, or even the average flame spitter. definitely makes a noise louder than a whisper.
Regardless, the rules are not static in 5e, they work with the DM, and can be bent or broken to make the adventure or game better. A dm can declare that breathing fire made them aware of you or didn’t, based on their own take. Likewise if some escapes a grapple they can say they now see you, or they can call for a skill check or save if they feel the outcome is uncertain. The dm is also going to adjudicate edge cases how they see fit.
the rules provide a baseline, they aren’t a prison for the dm. The goal is to have a good game for the players and enable a great adventure.
the problem with the old rules, is if a dm followed the RAW hiding served virtually no purpose, and players who were trying to live the stealth/thief/sneak route were not supported, even though they had skills and features for it. The only way to pull it off was through magic, which is a different fantasy
Agreed. So many arguments concerning the rules and what is "RAW" fall apart if we just assume everyone is acting in good faith. If a player with a Dragonborne PC tries to argue their breath weapon doesn't reveal them because of a loophole, they are not acting in good faith. If they really want to argue that, just throw an invisible black dragon their way and see how "fair" they think it is when they are hit with 54 acid damage from seemingly nowhere.
I don't think it's good or bad faith to say that a Breath Weapon, being no attack or spell, doesn't break being Invisible. It's just strict RAW analysis.
Well... in reality, a Breath Weapon deals damage, so the Invisibility spell would end in that case too.
Invisibility's Invisible, but not Hiding's Invisible, unless the DM rules that it makes enought noise but the ability doesn't specifically say so.
i don’t think it’s necessarily bad faith, but the DM decides, and they can just say that’s not how I’m going to play it. Conversely the dm might find it awesome and allow it. It’s a judgement call. The 5e manual tells you repeatedly the dm has this authority
100% true. This is Rules vs Ruling basically.
RAW analysis is just an assessment of what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. the DM make rulings on what the rules don't address, or houserule on what the rules do address.
As Sage Advice Compendium say so well:
As per the rules of invisible condition, if you are seen you don’t actually gain much benefit (no advantage or concealed). So if the narrative you create makes people see you, like flames flying from your mouth, you get very little benefit.
that said, hiding doesn’t really give dragon fire breath any benefit anyway. The best benefit you could get, is if you can regain cover/obscurement, you might not have to roll stealth again.
but as said before, the DM basically controls everything, if the dm isn’t into it, it’s not going to work, They have infinite ways of dealing with it, from just saying no, to adding hard counters to the world.
Oops! Totally true. I was thinking about the spell... I think I'm reading too many threads and posts related to the Hiding/Invisibility topic, mate... :(
The entire difference between RAW and RAI is in the application of judgment. RAW is "what do the rules actually say", RAI is "what is the intent of the rules".
The problem with using RAI is that there's no way of resolving disputes -- two tables may treat the exact same rule differently. RAW has the advantage that there's actual rules text you can point to for resolving disputes. This doesn't mean you should always spell everything out, but it does mean you should avoid having rules that are egregiously inconsistent with the intent.
I'd say it depends how you Hide. If you're did so while inside an heavily obscured area for exemple, the target would see the Breath Weapon effect coming out of it, but still wouldn't see you.
The DM could always determine such circumstances no longer make Hiding apropriate, even though the Hiding rules don't list such effect as ending the Invisible condition per se.
If instead you were Invisible via the Invisibility spell, dealing damage with your Breath Weapon would stop the spell and end the Invisible condition.
I think the "an enemy finds you" fits really well into "hey look at where all those flames are coming from", doncha think? If not, just imagine being hidden with a flamethrower and letting it loose. You become very much found. That's not even taking it as an "RAI", that's RAW.
Notice how it says "an enemy finds you, not an enemy sees you. If you don't like you can find someone by knowing exactly where they are but not physically seeing them, then hide-and-seek would play out a lot differently. "Hey, I know you KNOW I'm under this blanket, but you can't physically see me under the blanket!"