Here's a philosophical question for ya. Suppose there is a creature or race of beings who's natural form is invisible, they can become visible at will, but naturaly that are invisible. Now suppose that one of these beings were standing in said room not doing anything, not intending to hide or anything, they are just there, and I walk into said room not looking for anything , not listening for anything, just entering the room for whatever reason. Now since I suspect nothing, and not trying too..would the invisible being constiture being hidden, or would it just be that they are simply there, not using magic, or anything, it is simply the way they exist like we exist as visible beings?
My take on it would be that the creature, without actively trying to Hide, would not be 'Hidden'. The creature would be 'Unseen', and as I interpret the rules, it could therefore be detected with an easier role than trying to detect someone who was Hidden (which the PHB seems to define as Unseen + Unheard). Maybe you could hear it breathing--maybe. Maybe you could smell it--maybe. Like most everything else in the game, there would be a roll :) Once you detect them--if you do--you might be able to attack them, if you correctly identify their exact location. If you guess wrong, you miss, regardless of the roll. If you guess correctly, you would roll with disadvantage on the attack.
To be clear, no one is saying you have to go through agonizing steps to figure these things out. That's hyperbole, which of course you meant it to be :) You can certainly just make a ruling in the moment and go with it. What I have been saying, and is the case in all of these sort of situations, is that making a ruling arbitrarily, without some sort of consistent reason, can easily lead to confusion later. Why was this creature automatically detectable in this situation and that creature wasn't in that one? The notion just is that if you pick a ruling that makes sense to you, and you think just a little bit about why it makes sense, you can have these things work consistently. But if you and your group are fine saying "just because, it's magic!" and no one is concerned with consistency, then rule however seems right to you :)
If your definition of normally is not making any sound then you are unheard. Unseen and unheard equals hidden.
I was assuming your hypothetical situation was a typical D&D encounter. Hostile creatures trying to find you, you trying to hide from them. If your hypothetical situation is supposed to be “you hear the cleaning women coming down the hall and start to unlock the door. You are naked so you cast Invisibility so she doesn’t see you when she opens it. She hears some muffled chanting through the door but when she opens it she sees no one. She assumes she was hearing things so she goes about her business. She thinks she hears someone breathing but assumes it’s just the wind but if she happens to bump into you she is going to scream and run away.”
If your definition of normally is not making any sound then you are unheard. Unseen and unheard equals hidden.
I was assuming your hypothetical situation was a typical D&D encounter. Hostile creatures trying to find you, you trying to hide from them. If your hypothetical situation is supposed to be “you hear the cleaning women coming down the hall and start to unlock the door. You are naked so you cast Invisibility so she doesn’t see you when she opens it. She hears some muffled chanting through the door but when she opens it she sees no one. She assumes she was hearing things so she goes about her business. She thinks she hears someone breathing but assumes it’s just the wind but if she happens to bump into you she is going to scream and run away.”
Again you are adding details to the scenario. I'll make it very simple:
Fred is in the room. Fred is simply standing there, not doing much of anything. (Like this--look at that guy hiding there! lol)
But Fred previously cast invisibility. So Fred is simply standing there calmly. Perhaps lost in thought. Perhaps just surveying the room, trying to decide what to clean first on his list. Maybe he's turning his head a bit to look at the room. Turning one's head doesn't make an appreciable sound, but isn't 'an attempt to be stealthy'.
Fred is not: coughing, sneezing, breathing heavily like a pervert or someone who just ran a wind sprint, tapping his foot, humming to himself, whistling, chanting, jumping up and down, farting loudly, clucking his tongue, sniffling, snorting, wheezing, saying 'oh lawdy lawdy', or anything else.
Fred is just standing there.
Susan approaches the door from outside.
Fred is still just standing there. Invisible. He has taken no actions after casting invisibility. He has no intention of trying to be stealthy. He is simply standing there. Like a guy at a bus stop.
Susan opens the door and walks in the room.
So, that's the scenario I'm asking about. Please before you answer do not add anything else to the story. Don't say Fred is singing a song and therefore detectable. He's not. Don't say he's doing burpees or jumping jacks. He's not. He's just standing there.
From what I can tell above, your claim is that Fred qualifies as Hidden. So that would mean that someone can take an action in D&D without actually taking an action at all. Because the invisibility does not make him 'hidden'. So it must be the standing there that makes him hidden. Even without intention to hide. Even without any bodily movement whatsoever, he is 'hidden'.
So, here are more people who would be officially Hidden if they turned invisible:
If that's your take on it--that you can effectively take the Hide actionwithout taking any action at all, then why does Hiding require an action in the game? Why then, if I'm in combat and I use my action to turn invisible, and then I simply do not move, why would I not automatically be hidden?
Is 'not moving' an action I have to take? In the story above, Fred took no action, he declared nothing to the DM. If you rule that his simply standing there is him Hiding, then Hiding can be done without taking an action. Great. So in combat, I can go invisible, and then hide by doing nothing, all on one turn. Because Hiding, on this interpretation, does not require an action.
But Hiding does require an action. At least, that's the RAW. So if you keep that somewhat basic rule, then Fred, simply standing there, has not taken an action (after turning invisible). Thus, Fred cannot be Hiding.
So if Fred is not hiding because he has taken no action to hide, now you're left with these two options:
Fred is not hiding and is therefore immediately and automatically spotted when Susan enters the room. Not 'seen', but 'located'. She is aware he is there automatically, and is aware of right where he is.
Fred is not hiding but Susan does not automatically know where he is, or that he's there. Whether she does would be adjudicated by her actions, whether she's searching the room, stopping in the doorway, her sense of smell, etc.
Number 1 just makes no sense at all to me. None. The clearest part of the story is that Susan would not automatically know that Fred is there. If you agree, then you have to decide: does simply standing there mean he has hidden? If so, then Hiding can be accomplished without taking an action. If not, then Hiding is not required for one to 'not automatically be located'.
Just ask yourself--does it make any sense that you could automatically locate Fred when you walk in the room? That you could not fail to notice that Fred is there? An invisible Fred?
What you're doing is taking one interpretation of the Unseen Targets text, and running it up a flagpole of your own choosing, where the result is absurdity--and then you're running with the absurdity because you chose that particular interpretation, when another is available, and you'd rather have that one interpretation even if it means absurdity.
I’m adding details to the hypothetical situation to point out that the details are important.
There are a lot of reasons why I prefer my way over yours but the #1 reason is I don’t want to have to be the DM who has to explain why the enemy knows where you are. I prefer that the player give me a reason why the character is hidden. This doesn’t mean the player has to have the character take the Hide action. If the invisible character says “I want to find a place that’s loud.” I will say “You hear loud laughter and music coming from the tavern down the street”.
Too be clear, I said if your definition of “normally” is not making any noise, then you would be justified in saying the character is hidden.
I’m adding details to the hypothetical situation to point out that the details are important.
There are a lot of reasons why I prefer my way over yours but the #1 reason is I don’t want to have to be the DM who has to explain why the enemy knows where you are. I prefer that the player give me a reason why the character is hidden. This doesn’t mean the player has to have the character take the Hide action. If the invisible character says “I want to find a place that’s loud.” I will say “You hear loud laughter and music coming from the tavern down the street”.
Too be clear, I said if your definition of “normally” is not making any noise, then you would be justified in saying the character is hidden.
But the adding of details obscured what I was saying, that was the problem. Details do matter--that's why adding them to the scenario led to a different result :)
At any rate, in the end I don't think it matters much to me whether you wanted to change the Hide rules (to not require an action) or to allow simply Unseen people to not automatically be found. As long as the end result is the same--casting invisibility does not require taking another action (Hide) to be hard to find. That's been my original point in all of this--that somebody turning invisible should not be automatically found simply because they have not taken the Hide action as a formal action on their turn. Instead, it should be adjudicated by the DM depending on what is happening around them.
(And by 'matters to me', I mean 'if we were playing at the same table'. If we're not, do whatever you want :D)
When you say, “the invisible character can’t be located without a perception roll.” I’m understanding this as the enemy must use an action to Search for the invisible character. I am thinking that you would say a Rogue with expertise in perception and the Observant feat would still have to use an action to find the location of an unseen but not hidden creature. If I’m wrong then please explain.
It seems like our main difference of opinion is that I put the burden on the invisible creature to become hidden. You put the burden of locating the invisible creature on the observer.
I have given a couple examples of how I would apply my ruling in specific situations you might happen to have in a game. If you think the way I handled the specific situation is wrong, please explain how you would rule. I can explain how I would rule in other situations to but you have to put the situation in context. What happened before. Why are you becoming invisible, etc etc
When you say, “the invisible character can’t be located without a perception roll.” I’m understanding this as the enemy must use an action to Search for the invisible character. I am thinking that you would say a Rogue with expertise in perception and the Observant feat would still have to use an action to find the location of an unseen but not hidden creature. If I’m wrong then please explain.
It seems like our main difference of opinion is that I put the burden on the invisible creature to become hidden. You put the burden of locating the invisible creature on the observer.
I have given several examples of how I would apply my ruling in specific situations you might happen to have in a game. If you think the way I handled the specific situation is wrong, please explain how you would rule.
No, sorry. I don't want to specify that the other person would have to take an action--meaning select one of the formal action options from the list. I just mean that the character, the person in the world, would have to (informally) 'do' something and it would have to be explained and adjudicated in the game. So, couple of quick examples (and then I gotta get to work! lol)
Fred is invisibly standing in a narrow hallway, no wider than his shoulders. Susan enters the hallway, running from some orcs, and sprints full speed down the hallway towards Fred. Susan is going to locate Fred, no roll necessary :) (Unless Fred can super-flip-jump over her head, etc.)
Susan just drank a potion of SuperSniffer before she enters the room. She may (automatically even, I just made up the potion so I don't know the effects :) know that someone is in the room. And if she proceeds to then Search, she'll get some bonuses to find him.
Susan has features which naturally make her very observant. She may get an automatic Passive Perception check just by walking in--not automatically successful, but a roll behind my screen, without doing anything. Other characters without those features might get one with some prolonged time in the room. And not too much time, if Fred just continues to stand there casually and not purposefully mask his breathing.
My biggest concern is the use in combat. Fred and Susan are 20 feet away from each other, fighting each other, while 10-12 other people fight around them in a general D&D sort of combat scenario. Fred on his turn turns invisible. Susan does not still automatically know where Fred is. There's a fight going on, there are noises and distractions, and she can no longer see him--the primary sense of all D&D races. He could easily have stepped five feet in any direction. She knows where he was, but can no longer be certain about where he is.
As the DM, I determine secretly where he moved to (provided he has movement left for this round). Then Susan, if she tries to attack him, may get a passive perception check. I don't tend to like to use passive perception in something like the chaos of a battle, but the player can explain to me quickly what Susan might be looking for to clue her in. "Is there blood on the floor? I look for footprints!" "Remember, I drank the SuperSniffer potion!" Those things will be taken into account. If Susan takes the Search action, her odds go up, of course. If she does not Search, and doesn't get or doesn't succeed in a Passive Perception roll, then she has to tell me where she's attacking. "I run up and swing my sword where he was standing." If he moved 10 feet to his left, I'll let her roll, and then say "You missed."
I am usually fairly liberal about what the player has to say to get that chance for detection. I like good ideas, give me one. You'll probably get a chance, given that Fred has not taken Hide yet. But if Susan just says "Well, I should know where he is, so I run up to him and attack", the answer is 'no'.
A guard is making his rounds. He opens the door to the room where Fred is invisible but not hiding. Here are some questions that I would need to know the answer to before ruling.
Does the guard suspect that there is an intruder. If Fred was rummaging around and not being careful to be silent then the guard will be looking and listening. Would Fred have to use an action to be quiet. No, before initiative, Fred can just say he’s trying to be stealthy and roll. Would the guard have to use an action to Search. He could if didn’t detect anything with passive perception. If it was before initiative, it wouldn’t really be an action anyway.
If the guard had no reason to think Fred was there, he would look around and then leave. If Fred gave him a reason to be suspicious, then the guard would take a closer look. If the guard wasn’t on high alert, he might think he heard a rat. If the guard was on high alert, he is more likely to think there is an intruder.
Did the guard recently cause a false alarm and then got yelled at by his boss. He might not want to cause another false alarm.
The guard has a trained dog. The dog is probably going to find Fred unless he is very stealthy.
Plus a lot of other questions could modify the situation as well. No one said being DM is easy.
Personally, I might have the guard open the door, look around suspiciously and then close the door. Fred thinks “Am I detected or not? is he going to get more guards or just going on with his rounds?
In the end, it’s about the story not the rules. Give the player an opportunity to add to the story as much as they want. As a DM, try to give the players a good description of what is going on so everyone is on the same page. If the guard isn’t suspicious, add that he is whistling as he makes his rounds. If he stops whistling, maybe he has become suspicious.
As someone who plays on a tactical battle map, the idea of people always knowing exactly where a non-hidden invisible creature is may be more of a pressing issue than it may be for someone playing theater of the mind, since TotM would not have a player pointing to a specific square on the map and saying "I shoot the arrow at this spot!"
A guard is making his rounds. He opens the door to the room where Fred is invisible but not hiding. Here are some questions that I would need to know the answer to before ruling.
Does the guard suspect that there is an intruder. If Fred was rummaging around and not being careful to be silent then the guard will be looking and listening. Would Fred have to use an action to be quiet. No, before initiative, Fred can just say he’s trying to be stealthy and roll. Would the guard have to use an action to Search. He could if didn’t detect anything with passive perception. If it was before initiative, it wouldn’t really be an action anyway.
If the guard had no reason to think Fred was there, he would look around and then leave. If Fred gave him a reason to be suspicious, then the guard would take a closer look. If the guard wasn’t on high alert, he might think he heard a rat. If the guard was on high alert, he is more likely to think there is an intruder.
Did the guard recently cause a false alarm and then got yelled at by his boss. He might not want to cause another false alarm.
The guard has a trained dog. The dog is probably going to find Fred unless he is very stealthy.
Plus a lot of other questions could modify the situation as well. No one said being DM is easy.
Personally, I might have the guard open the door, look around suspiciously and then close the door. Fred thinks “Am I detected or not? is he going to get more guards or just going on with his rounds?
In the end, it’s about the story not the rules. Give the player an opportunity to add to the story as much as they want. As a DM, try to give the players a good description of what is going on so everyone is on the same page. If the guard isn’t suspicious, add that he is whistling as he makes his rounds. If he stops whistling, maybe he has become suspicious.
I think that's all super-reasonable, and the same sort of stuff I'm looking at. The people I was responding to above, like Dave, are of the opinion as far as I can tell that none of those things matter--that Fred is automatically located so long as he has not explicitly taken the Hide action. The issue came up not long ago in a thread about darkness, and people were even saying things like "I know it doesn't make sense but that's the rules! If you cast darkness and you do not explicitly Hide, I will still know right where you are." :/
Greenstone_Walker above said: "To become hidden you have to do something about those. For example, moving carefully, muffling your gear, staying downwind. In game terms, taking the Hide Action."
David42 above said: "That said ... if someone casts an invisibility spell ... you can't see them BUT you still know where they are. They can then attempt to move. Depending on the situation their movement may be perceptible by changes in the environment or you may be able to hear them, either their footsteps, the clink of their armor or weapons, the bouncing of their pack. Most adventurers are carrying a LOT of stuff and are not specifically prepared to move silently. So unless there are environmental factors to prevent it, then you will STILL know roughly where the creature has moved to. You still can't see them, you still have disadvantage on attacks against them, however, within the typical 5' or so, you still know where they are."
You and I on the other hand I think are mostly just splitting hairs about whether we call Fred 'hidden' or not, but I think we're looking at it the same way.
As someone who plays on a tactical battle map, the idea of people always knowing exactly where a non-hidden invisible creature is may be more of a pressing issue than it may be for someone playing theater of the mind, since TotM would not have a player pointing to a specific square on the map and saying "I shoot the arrow at this spot!"
True, it's more vague in TotM (or hybrids with maps sketched on scratch paper :). I've used a couple of ways in the past, just remembering off the top of my head. "Point at the non-grid map/hastily drawn sketch and tell me what spot you think he's in", or "Straight in front of you where he was is 12 o'clock--tell me what clock position you are shooting at to try to hit him."
In general, the most powers and such people get in combat, the more actual maps of whatever variety are needed, for exactly reasons like this. "I run up and hit the orc" doesn't need a map. But interlocking cones of frost does :)
The main reason I don't allow invisibility to automatically hide a foe is for fun.
For example, being attacked by something you can't see and don't know the location of is just sucky.
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. Player: I guess I do nothing. (Repeat until player throws dice and leaves table. :-)
Assuming you don't require the hide action, what do you roll perception against to locate a creature? Stealth would be appropriate if they had taken the hide action, but if they aren't trying to be quiet I don't know what to make the check against.
I was thinking about this myself. In lieu of a stealth check, you could use the invisible creature's passive stealth as the DC of the perception check. Since the target is invisible, you might choose to add +5 to the passive stealth. I have never actually done this in gameplay.
That seems rather unfair, you have one character that isn't trying to be quiet, and one that is actively trying to perceive their surroundings. Note that this is based on passive perception being passive on the part of the player, not the character.
The main reason I don't allow invisibility to automatically hide a foe is for fun.
For example, being attacked by something you can't see and don't know the location of is just sucky.
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. Player: I guess I do nothing. (Repeat until player throws dice and leaves table. :-)
Well, the player just doing nothing is either a player who doesn't understand what they can do, or a DM who isn't willing to help them understand. This is how a player who understands her options would do it:
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack. Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints? GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right. Player: I swing my sword to my right!
That sure sounds to me like A) tension, B) a challenge, and C) fun. The challenge is one of the best parts about invisible opponents. They are more difficult to defeat.
I mean, we don't resort to absurdity at other times to make things easier for the players.
GM: They are firing arrows at you from across the 50' wide river. Player:I swing my sword at them. GM: They are on the other side of the river. Player: But I don't have a ranged weapon. GM: Oh, okay. Then you can just jump across the river. Roll to hit.
That makes no sense. Immediately knowing where invisible things are makes no sense either. And, to me, it's not an insurmountable challenge. But it is a challenge. Again, if you think it's too much of a challenge, feel free to play it how you play it. But invisible foes, treated as difficult to find, have been a part of D&D since AD&D. And people have found ways to deal with them, without making invisible things automatically locatable.
Assuming you don't require the hide action, what do you roll perception against to locate a creature? Stealth would be appropriate if they had taken the hide action, but if they aren't trying to be quiet I don't know what to make the check against.
I was thinking about this myself. In lieu of a stealth check, you could use the invisible creature's passive stealth as the DC of the perception check. Since the target is invisible, you might choose to add +5 to the passive stealth. I have never actually done this in gameplay.
That seems rather unfair, you have one character that isn't trying to be quiet, and one that is actively trying to perceive their surroundings. Note that this is based on passive perception being passive on the part of the player, not the character.
After posting this, I did a bit more thinking and reading and I have decided that passive stealth is a poor choice in this situation. Passive scores represent the average something done over and over, but stealth is different. Passive perception is fine for the average of successes and failure because you only need to succeed once to perceive something. But with stealth, you only need to fail once and someone is onto you.
Assuming you don't require the hide action, what do you roll perception against to locate a creature? Stealth would be appropriate if they had taken the hide action, but if they aren't trying to be quiet I don't know what to make the check against.
I was thinking about this myself. In lieu of a stealth check, you could use the invisible creature's passive stealth as the DC of the perception check. Since the target is invisible, you might choose to add +5 to the passive stealth. I have never actually done this in gameplay.
That seems rather unfair, you have one character that isn't trying to be quiet, and one that is actively trying to perceive their surroundings. Note that this is based on passive perception being passive on the part of the player, not the character.
After posting this, I did a bit more thinking and reading and I have decided that passive stealth is a poor choice in this situation. Passive scores represent the average something done over and over, but stealth is different. Passive perception is fine for the average of successes and failure because you only need to succeed once to perceive something. But with stealth, you only need to fail once and someone is onto you.
Just set a DC to roll against. There's nothing saying it has to be based on any skill of the invisible person. In fact, it's not skill based, because they aren't doing anything :) Pick a number and roll against it. If the environment and situation calls for a difficult number, pick a difficult one. If it calls for an easier target, pick an easier one. Simple.
The main reason I don't allow invisibility to automatically hide a foe is for fun.
For example, being attacked by something you can't see and don't know the location of is just sucky.
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. Player: I guess I do nothing. (Repeat until player throws dice and leaves table. :-)
I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that invisibility should automatically include hiding. Speaking only for myself, I am suggesting there is a middle ground between visible/unhidden and invisible/hidden and its purpose is to prompt a player to use their skills and tools to determine the location of the invisible creature.
The example you gave would definitely be disheartening to me if I were the player and I would not want a player at my table to feel hopeless against an enemy unless the encounter was designed to be unwinnable via combat. If I'm the DM, here's how I play it.
DM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. [Note: in almost all cases, an attack would make an invisible enemy become visible, but just in case it doesn't...] Player: I attack it. DM: You don't know what or where it is, but it hit you on your right side and you hear footsteps going off in that direction. Player: I guess I do nothing. DM: That's your choice, but I would suggest making a perception check to try to narrow down the location of the footsteps. Player: (rolls perception) I rolled 15 DM: From the sound of the footsteps and the faint footprints on the ground, the enemy seems to be about fifteen feet away to your right. Now that you're listening for it, you can hear its deep ragged breathing.
My intention here is to give the player a reason to attempt to use the appropriate tool for the job. Then when they do, they get an idea of where the invisible creature is well enough to go after it or to cast an area spell at that location. But I cannot stress enough that in almost all cases, an invisible creature attacking someone is going to make it visible again so even my example is very much an edge case.
EDIT: vvvvvvvvvv Yes, the perception roll would be a result of taking the search action. Since the roll was 15 in my example, I am giving some pretty specific indication of the location of the invisible creature as well as a hook (its heavy breathing) for maintaining a read on that location as the creature moves in the future. A roll of 20 or higher might have allowed the character to pinpoint the invisible creature's exact location.
I'd allow you to take the Hide action in that specific circumstance without a special action. However, if your location was given away in some manner, you would need to take an action to become hidden again, as now the person you are hiding from is on to you and is actively looking for you.
The main reason I don't allow invisibility to automatically hide a foe is for fun.
For example, being attacked by something you can't see and don't know the location of is just sucky.
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. Player: I attack it. GM: You don't know what or where it is. Player: I guess I do nothing. (Repeat until player throws dice and leaves table. :-)
I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that invisibility should automatically include hiding. Speaking only for myself, I am suggesting there is a middle ground between visible/unhidden and invisible/hidden and its purpose is to prompt a player to use their skills and tools to determine the location of the invisible creature.
The example you gave would definitely be disheartening to me if I were the player and I would not want a player at my table to feel hopeless against an enemy unless the encounter was designed to be unwinnable via combat. If I'm the DM, here's how I play it.
DM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. [Note: in almost all cases, an attack would make an invisible enemy become visible, but just in case it doesn't...] Player: I attack it. DM: You don't know what or where it is, but it hit you on your right side and you hear footsteps going off in that direction. Player: I guess I do nothing. DM: That's your choice, but I would suggest making a perception check to try to narrow down the location of the footsteps. Player: (rolls perception) I rolled 15 DM: From the sound of the footsteps and the faint footprints on the ground, the enemy seems to be about fifteen feet away to your right. Now that you're listening for it, you can hear its deep ragged breathing.
My intention here is to give the player a reason to attempt to use the appropriate tool for the job. Then when they do, they get an idea of where the invisible creature is well enough to go after it or to cast an area spell at that location. But I cannot stress enough that in almost all cases, an invisible creature attacking someone is going to make it visible again so even my example is very much an edge case.
There is a middle ground between visible/unhidden and invisible/hidden, two in fact. For visible/hidden, the target is somewhere that can be seen but requires a perception check to see. For invisible/unhidden the target can't be seen but can be attacked at disadvantage.
In the case you presented, the perception check should be automatic unless you've made it clear that you've house ruled that taking a perception check in combat is not an action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My take on it would be that the creature, without actively trying to Hide, would not be 'Hidden'. The creature would be 'Unseen', and as I interpret the rules, it could therefore be detected with an easier role than trying to detect someone who was Hidden (which the PHB seems to define as Unseen + Unheard). Maybe you could hear it breathing--maybe. Maybe you could smell it--maybe. Like most everything else in the game, there would be a roll :) Once you detect them--if you do--you might be able to attack them, if you correctly identify their exact location. If you guess wrong, you miss, regardless of the roll. If you guess correctly, you would roll with disadvantage on the attack.
To be clear, no one is saying you have to go through agonizing steps to figure these things out. That's hyperbole, which of course you meant it to be :) You can certainly just make a ruling in the moment and go with it. What I have been saying, and is the case in all of these sort of situations, is that making a ruling arbitrarily, without some sort of consistent reason, can easily lead to confusion later. Why was this creature automatically detectable in this situation and that creature wasn't in that one? The notion just is that if you pick a ruling that makes sense to you, and you think just a little bit about why it makes sense, you can have these things work consistently. But if you and your group are fine saying "just because, it's magic!" and no one is concerned with consistency, then rule however seems right to you :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
If your definition of normally is not making any sound then you are unheard. Unseen and unheard equals hidden.
I was assuming your hypothetical situation was a typical D&D encounter. Hostile creatures trying to find you, you trying to hide from them. If your hypothetical situation is supposed to be “you hear the cleaning women coming down the hall and start to unlock the door. You are naked so you cast Invisibility so she doesn’t see you when she opens it. She hears some muffled chanting through the door but when she opens it she sees no one. She assumes she was hearing things so she goes about her business. She thinks she hears someone breathing but assumes it’s just the wind but if she happens to bump into you she is going to scream and run away.”
Again you are adding details to the scenario. I'll make it very simple:
So, that's the scenario I'm asking about. Please before you answer do not add anything else to the story. Don't say Fred is singing a song and therefore detectable. He's not. Don't say he's doing burpees or jumping jacks. He's not. He's just standing there.
From what I can tell above, your claim is that Fred qualifies as Hidden. So that would mean that someone can take an action in D&D without actually taking an action at all. Because the invisibility does not make him 'hidden'. So it must be the standing there that makes him hidden. Even without intention to hide. Even without any bodily movement whatsoever, he is 'hidden'.
So, here are more people who would be officially Hidden if they turned invisible:
If that's your take on it--that you can effectively take the Hide action without taking any action at all, then why does Hiding require an action in the game? Why then, if I'm in combat and I use my action to turn invisible, and then I simply do not move, why would I not automatically be hidden?
Is 'not moving' an action I have to take? In the story above, Fred took no action, he declared nothing to the DM. If you rule that his simply standing there is him Hiding, then Hiding can be done without taking an action. Great. So in combat, I can go invisible, and then hide by doing nothing, all on one turn. Because Hiding, on this interpretation, does not require an action.
But Hiding does require an action. At least, that's the RAW. So if you keep that somewhat basic rule, then Fred, simply standing there, has not taken an action (after turning invisible). Thus, Fred cannot be Hiding.
So if Fred is not hiding because he has taken no action to hide, now you're left with these two options:
Number 1 just makes no sense at all to me. None. The clearest part of the story is that Susan would not automatically know that Fred is there. If you agree, then you have to decide: does simply standing there mean he has hidden? If so, then Hiding can be accomplished without taking an action. If not, then Hiding is not required for one to 'not automatically be located'.
Just ask yourself--does it make any sense that you could automatically locate Fred when you walk in the room? That you could not fail to notice that Fred is there? An invisible Fred?
What you're doing is taking one interpretation of the Unseen Targets text, and running it up a flagpole of your own choosing, where the result is absurdity--and then you're running with the absurdity because you chose that particular interpretation, when another is available, and you'd rather have that one interpretation even if it means absurdity.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I’m adding details to the hypothetical situation to point out that the details are important.
There are a lot of reasons why I prefer my way over yours but the #1 reason is I don’t want to have to be the DM who has to explain why the enemy knows where you are. I prefer that the player give me a reason why the character is hidden. This doesn’t mean the player has to have the character take the Hide action. If the invisible character says “I want to find a place that’s loud.” I will say “You hear loud laughter and music coming from the tavern down the street”.
Too be clear, I said if your definition of “normally” is not making any noise, then you would be justified in saying the character is hidden.
But the adding of details obscured what I was saying, that was the problem. Details do matter--that's why adding them to the scenario led to a different result :)
At any rate, in the end I don't think it matters much to me whether you wanted to change the Hide rules (to not require an action) or to allow simply Unseen people to not automatically be found. As long as the end result is the same--casting invisibility does not require taking another action (Hide) to be hard to find. That's been my original point in all of this--that somebody turning invisible should not be automatically found simply because they have not taken the Hide action as a formal action on their turn. Instead, it should be adjudicated by the DM depending on what is happening around them.
(And by 'matters to me', I mean 'if we were playing at the same table'. If we're not, do whatever you want :D)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you are saying.
When you say, “the invisible character can’t be located without a perception roll.” I’m understanding this as the enemy must use an action to Search for the invisible character. I am thinking that you would say a Rogue with expertise in perception and the Observant feat would still have to use an action to find the location of an unseen but not hidden creature. If I’m wrong then please explain.
It seems like our main difference of opinion is that I put the burden on the invisible creature to become hidden. You put the burden of locating the invisible creature on the observer.
I have given a couple examples of how I would apply my ruling in specific situations you might happen to have in a game. If you think the way I handled the specific situation is wrong, please explain how you would rule. I can explain how I would rule in other situations to but you have to put the situation in context. What happened before. Why are you becoming invisible, etc etc
No, sorry. I don't want to specify that the other person would have to take an action--meaning select one of the formal action options from the list. I just mean that the character, the person in the world, would have to (informally) 'do' something and it would have to be explained and adjudicated in the game. So, couple of quick examples (and then I gotta get to work! lol)
My biggest concern is the use in combat. Fred and Susan are 20 feet away from each other, fighting each other, while 10-12 other people fight around them in a general D&D sort of combat scenario. Fred on his turn turns invisible. Susan does not still automatically know where Fred is. There's a fight going on, there are noises and distractions, and she can no longer see him--the primary sense of all D&D races. He could easily have stepped five feet in any direction. She knows where he was, but can no longer be certain about where he is.
As the DM, I determine secretly where he moved to (provided he has movement left for this round). Then Susan, if she tries to attack him, may get a passive perception check. I don't tend to like to use passive perception in something like the chaos of a battle, but the player can explain to me quickly what Susan might be looking for to clue her in. "Is there blood on the floor? I look for footprints!" "Remember, I drank the SuperSniffer potion!" Those things will be taken into account. If Susan takes the Search action, her odds go up, of course. If she does not Search, and doesn't get or doesn't succeed in a Passive Perception roll, then she has to tell me where she's attacking. "I run up and swing my sword where he was standing." If he moved 10 feet to his left, I'll let her roll, and then say "You missed."
I am usually fairly liberal about what the player has to say to get that chance for detection. I like good ideas, give me one. You'll probably get a chance, given that Fred has not taken Hide yet. But if Susan just says "Well, I should know where he is, so I run up to him and attack", the answer is 'no'.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Maybe this situation might clarify my position.
A guard is making his rounds. He opens the door to the room where Fred is invisible but not hiding. Here are some questions that I would need to know the answer to before ruling.
Does the guard suspect that there is an intruder. If Fred was rummaging around and not being careful to be silent then the guard will be looking and listening. Would Fred have to use an action to be quiet. No, before initiative, Fred can just say he’s trying to be stealthy and roll. Would the guard have to use an action to Search. He could if didn’t detect anything with passive perception. If it was before initiative, it wouldn’t really be an action anyway.
If the guard had no reason to think Fred was there, he would look around and then leave. If Fred gave him a reason to be suspicious, then the guard would take a closer look. If the guard wasn’t on high alert, he might think he heard a rat. If the guard was on high alert, he is more likely to think there is an intruder.
Did the guard recently cause a false alarm and then got yelled at by his boss. He might not want to cause another false alarm.
The guard has a trained dog. The dog is probably going to find Fred unless he is very stealthy.
Plus a lot of other questions could modify the situation as well. No one said being DM is easy.
Personally, I might have the guard open the door, look around suspiciously and then close the door. Fred thinks “Am I detected or not? is he going to get more guards or just going on with his rounds?
In the end, it’s about the story not the rules. Give the player an opportunity to add to the story as much as they want. As a DM, try to give the players a good description of what is going on so everyone is on the same page. If the guard isn’t suspicious, add that he is whistling as he makes his rounds. If he stops whistling, maybe he has become suspicious.
As someone who plays on a tactical battle map, the idea of people always knowing exactly where a non-hidden invisible creature is may be more of a pressing issue than it may be for someone playing theater of the mind, since TotM would not have a player pointing to a specific square on the map and saying "I shoot the arrow at this spot!"
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think that's all super-reasonable, and the same sort of stuff I'm looking at. The people I was responding to above, like Dave, are of the opinion as far as I can tell that none of those things matter--that Fred is automatically located so long as he has not explicitly taken the Hide action. The issue came up not long ago in a thread about darkness, and people were even saying things like "I know it doesn't make sense but that's the rules! If you cast darkness and you do not explicitly Hide, I will still know right where you are." :/
Greenstone_Walker above said: "To become hidden you have to do something about those. For example, moving carefully, muffling your gear, staying downwind. In game terms, taking the Hide Action."
David42 above said: "That said ... if someone casts an invisibility spell ... you can't see them BUT you still know where they are. They can then attempt to move. Depending on the situation their movement may be perceptible by changes in the environment or you may be able to hear them, either their footsteps, the clink of their armor or weapons, the bouncing of their pack. Most adventurers are carrying a LOT of stuff and are not specifically prepared to move silently. So unless there are environmental factors to prevent it, then you will STILL know roughly where the creature has moved to. You still can't see them, you still have disadvantage on attacks against them, however, within the typical 5' or so, you still know where they are."
You and I on the other hand I think are mostly just splitting hairs about whether we call Fred 'hidden' or not, but I think we're looking at it the same way.
True, it's more vague in TotM (or hybrids with maps sketched on scratch paper :). I've used a couple of ways in the past, just remembering off the top of my head. "Point at the non-grid map/hastily drawn sketch and tell me what spot you think he's in", or "Straight in front of you where he was is 12 o'clock--tell me what clock position you are shooting at to try to hit him."
In general, the most powers and such people get in combat, the more actual maps of whatever variety are needed, for exactly reasons like this. "I run up and hit the orc" doesn't need a map. But interlocking cones of frost does :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
The main reason I don't allow invisibility to automatically hide a foe is for fun.
For example, being attacked by something you can't see and don't know the location of is just sucky.
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away.
Player: I attack it.
GM: You don't know what or where it is.
Player: I guess I do nothing.
(Repeat until player throws dice and leaves table. :-)
That seems rather unfair, you have one character that isn't trying to be quiet, and one that is actively trying to perceive their surroundings. Note that this is based on passive perception being passive on the part of the player, not the character.
Well, the player just doing nothing is either a player who doesn't understand what they can do, or a DM who isn't willing to help them understand. This is how a player who understands her options would do it:
GM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away.
Player: I attack it.
GM: You don't know what or where it is. But you can still try to find it and attack.
Player: I look for any signs of anything moving--footprints?
GM: (roll) You don't see any footprints, but you feel a slight breeze come from your right.
Player: I swing my sword to my right!
That sure sounds to me like A) tension, B) a challenge, and C) fun. The challenge is one of the best parts about invisible opponents. They are more difficult to defeat.
I mean, we don't resort to absurdity at other times to make things easier for the players.
GM: They are firing arrows at you from across the 50' wide river.
Player: I swing my sword at them.
GM: They are on the other side of the river.
Player: But I don't have a ranged weapon.
GM: Oh, okay. Then you can just jump across the river. Roll to hit.
That makes no sense. Immediately knowing where invisible things are makes no sense either. And, to me, it's not an insurmountable challenge. But it is a challenge. Again, if you think it's too much of a challenge, feel free to play it how you play it. But invisible foes, treated as difficult to find, have been a part of D&D since AD&D. And people have found ways to deal with them, without making invisible things automatically locatable.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
After posting this, I did a bit more thinking and reading and I have decided that passive stealth is a poor choice in this situation. Passive scores represent the average something done over and over, but stealth is different. Passive perception is fine for the average of successes and failure because you only need to succeed once to perceive something. But with stealth, you only need to fail once and someone is onto you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Just set a DC to roll against. There's nothing saying it has to be based on any skill of the invisible person. In fact, it's not skill based, because they aren't doing anything :) Pick a number and roll against it. If the environment and situation calls for a difficult number, pick a difficult one. If it calls for an easier target, pick an easier one. Simple.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that invisibility should automatically include hiding. Speaking only for myself, I am suggesting there is a middle ground between visible/unhidden and invisible/hidden and its purpose is to prompt a player to use their skills and tools to determine the location of the invisible creature.
The example you gave would definitely be disheartening to me if I were the player and I would not want a player at my table to feel hopeless against an enemy unless the encounter was designed to be unwinnable via combat. If I'm the DM, here's how I play it.
DM: Something attacks you, does (roll) damage, then moves away. [Note: in almost all cases, an attack would make an invisible enemy become visible, but just in case it doesn't...]
Player: I attack it.
DM: You don't know what or where it is, but it hit you on your right side and you hear footsteps going off in that direction.
Player: I guess I do nothing.
DM: That's your choice, but I would suggest making a perception check to try to narrow down the location of the footsteps.
Player: (rolls perception) I rolled 15
DM: From the sound of the footsteps and the faint footprints on the ground, the enemy seems to be about fifteen feet away to your right. Now that you're listening for it, you can hear its deep ragged breathing.
My intention here is to give the player a reason to attempt to use the appropriate tool for the job. Then when they do, they get an idea of where the invisible creature is well enough to go after it or to cast an area spell at that location. But I cannot stress enough that in almost all cases, an invisible creature attacking someone is going to make it visible again so even my example is very much an edge case.
EDIT: vvvvvvvvvv Yes, the perception roll would be a result of taking the search action. Since the roll was 15 in my example, I am giving some pretty specific indication of the location of the invisible creature as well as a hook (its heavy breathing) for maintaining a read on that location as the creature moves in the future. A roll of 20 or higher might have allowed the character to pinpoint the invisible creature's exact location.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So you are not considering the perception roll a Search action?
Not sure if you're responding to me or Texas, but I'd say no. You can allow a roll without requiring an official action.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I'd allow you to take the Hide action in that specific circumstance without a special action. However, if your location was given away in some manner, you would need to take an action to become hidden again, as now the person you are hiding from is on to you and is actively looking for you.
There is a middle ground between visible/unhidden and invisible/hidden, two in fact. For visible/hidden, the target is somewhere that can be seen but requires a perception check to see. For invisible/unhidden the target can't be seen but can be attacked at disadvantage.
In the case you presented, the perception check should be automatic unless you've made it clear that you've house ruled that taking a perception check in combat is not an action.