I think everyone already has good answers as to the difference between invisible and hiding.
Vision and senses are not very well covered rules.
I think that, 99 times out of 100, people tend to equate "Perception" to "Vision", but Perception can be accomplished through all the senses, not just sight. I think the best example of something like that in-game are creatures that have advantage on perception using scent, such as cats or dogs... sight and sound are most commonly used to track perception, but all senses are viable for that purpose.
Thus "vision and senses are not very well covered rules."
The rules for vision are incomplete at best amd the rules for every sense other than sight are practically nonexistent.
And here is a fun fact as an example: If a grappledinvisible creature hides (which it can do because it is heavily obscured by invisibility), the grappler - according to the rules - no longer knows where the creature they are grappling is.
The grappled invisible hidden creature’s speed is 0. Are you claiming that the grappler can’t choose to attack the same place that the creature was in before it hid? That the grappler has to choose a random place to attack just because it hid?
Fun fact: a creature that can’t move stays in the same place.
And here is a fun fact as an example: If a grappledinvisible creature hides (which it can do because it is heavily obscured by invisibility), the grappler - according to the rules - no longer knows where the creature they are grappling is.
The grappled invisible hidden creature’s speed is 0. Are you claiming that the grappler can’t choose to attack the same place that the creature was in before it hid? That the grappler has to choose a random place to attack just because it hid?
Fun fact: a creature that can’t move stays in the same place.
I'm not saying it is hard to figure out, especially with metagaming. Technically, the grappler can't be sure of their location (because hidden) and just has to guess that they didn't somehow escape.
And that is why it is so weird that the rules allow it. The grappler should feel them in their grip, but touch is not a sense in d&d, and you only need to be unseen to hide, and hidden means no one knows your position. It doesn't make sense, thus is a problem with the rules.
And here is a fun fact as an example: If a grappledinvisible creature hides (which it can do because it is heavily obscured by invisibility), the grappler - according to the rules - no longer knows where the creature they are grappling is.
The grappled invisible hidden creature’s speed is 0. Are you claiming that the grappler can’t choose to attack the same place that the creature was in before it hid? That the grappler has to choose a random place to attack just because it hid?
Fun fact: a creature that can’t move stays in the same place.
I'm not saying it is hard to figure out, especially with metagaming. Technically, the grappler can't be sure of their location (because hidden) and just has to guess that they didn't somehow escape.
And that is why it is so weird that the rules allow it. The grappler should feel them in their grip, but touch is not a sense in d&d, and you only need to be unseen to hide, and hidden means no one knows your position. It doesn't make sense, thus is a problem with the rules.
Grappled creature can’t move so it is in the same location before and after hiding. The player knows this because of the game mechanic of grappling but the character knows this because of common sense. That isn’t metagaming.
Hidden means the creature’s location is unknown but the creature’s location can’t become unknown because it can’t move. So the creature really can’t successfully Hide while grappled.
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
You would let a creature hide while you are grappling it?
There are no rules against it.
You're absolutely right. I just can't go for that.
The first rule of Hide club is that the DM decides when you are able to hide. "While currently being grappled by an enemy" seems a pretty reasonable situation where a DM might decide hiding is not an option.
You would let a creature hide while you are grappling it?
There are no rules against it.
You're absolutely right. I just can't go for that.
The first rule of Hide club is that the DM decides when you are able to hide. "While currently being grappled by an enemy" seems a pretty reasonable situation where a DM might decide hiding is not an option.
True. But the fourth rule of hide club is:
An invisible creature can always try to hide.
Which specifically trumps rule 1 as far as RAW goes. Of course at the table the DM is law, but in the forums we only have RAW.
What kind of DEX (stealth) check would require hiding while grappled. Isn’t hiding usually against perception? Would definitely give disadvantage on the roll but seems ridiculous to say you can hide while I have you in a headlock.
What kind of DEX (stealth) check would require hiding while grappled. Isn’t hiding usually against perception? Would definitely give disadvantage on the roll but seems ridiculous to say you can hide while I have you in a headlock.
Honestly, this is one of the situations where, if I did feel constrained by RAW for some reason, I would happily put on my pedant cap and say “The rules say an invisible creature can always try to hide. They don’t say it has to be possible to succeed.”
Which is to say, if the rules say I can’t disallow the attempt, I’d allow the attempt but just call it an automatic failure.
Anyway, I think I proved my point about how the rules say you can do an impossible thing that makes no sense.
Also, while reading the rules for hiding several times, I also noticed that the rules don't really state the mechanical benefits of hiding. It all assumes you know what the definition of "hide" is and that the benefits are obvious. (Which is fair, you rarely question what hiding does.)
Having something be an automatic failure is not giving them a chance since no matter what they roll they fail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Having something be an automatic failure is not giving them a chance since no matter what they roll they fail.
I'd agree with that if you are going fully by RAW to allow the attempt, but saying in this particular situation that "you have disadvantage on your stealth check and your grappler has advantage on their perception check because they are actively holding on to you" is a valid judgement call given the situation.
But personally, RAW be darned, I'm not letting a player hide when someone is actively grabbing them unless they escape their grasp first. I would rule that as the grappled creature is invisible the attacks made by the grappler would still be at disadvantage.
Having something be an automatic failure is not giving them a chance since no matter what they roll they fail.
The rules don't require that anyone be given "a chance." They say a character can "try." People try things that they haven't a chance at accomplishing all the time.
Having something be an automatic failure is not giving them a chance since no matter what they roll they fail.
The rules don't require that anyone be given "a chance." They say a character can "try." People try things that they haven't a chance at accomplishing all the time.
Like the fighter wearing plate armor trying to flap their arms to fly because they have a high athletics skill. You can try but it’s not going to stop you falling and taking damage even with a natural 20.
You would let a creature hide while you are grappling it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The grappled invisible hidden creature’s speed is 0. Are you claiming that the grappler can’t choose to attack the same place that the creature was in before it hid? That the grappler has to choose a random place to attack just because it hid?
Fun fact: a creature that can’t move stays in the same place.
There are no rules against it.
I'm not saying it is hard to figure out, especially with metagaming. Technically, the grappler can't be sure of their location (because hidden) and just has to guess that they didn't somehow escape.
And that is why it is so weird that the rules allow it. The grappler should feel them in their grip, but touch is not a sense in d&d, and you only need to be unseen to hide, and hidden means no one knows your position. It doesn't make sense, thus is a problem with the rules.
Of course touch is a sense in D&D. For example, Bulettes have an excellent sense of touch.
Grappled creature can’t move so it is in the same location before and after hiding. The player knows this because of the game mechanic of grappling but the character knows this because of common sense. That isn’t metagaming.
Hidden means the creature’s location is unknown but the creature’s location can’t become unknown because it can’t move. So the creature really can’t successfully Hide while grappled.
DM has final say on whether you can hide or not.
You're absolutely right. I just can't go for that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The first rule of Hide club is that the DM decides when you are able to hide. "While currently being grappled by an enemy" seems a pretty reasonable situation where a DM might decide hiding is not an option.
True. But the fourth rule of hide club is:
Which specifically trumps rule 1 as far as RAW goes. Of course at the table the DM is law, but in the forums we only have RAW.
What kind of DEX (stealth) check would require hiding while grappled. Isn’t hiding usually against perception? Would definitely give disadvantage on the roll but seems ridiculous to say you can hide while I have you in a headlock.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Honestly, this is one of the situations where, if I did feel constrained by RAW for some reason, I would happily put on my pedant cap and say “The rules say an invisible creature can always try to hide. They don’t say it has to be possible to succeed.”
Which is to say, if the rules say I can’t disallow the attempt, I’d allow the attempt but just call it an automatic failure.
Anyway, I think I proved my point about how the rules say you can do an impossible thing that makes no sense.
Also, while reading the rules for hiding several times, I also noticed that the rules don't really state the mechanical benefits of hiding. It all assumes you know what the definition of "hide" is and that the benefits are obvious. (Which is fair, you rarely question what hiding does.)
And that would be my exact response. "You can always try" :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Having something be an automatic failure is not giving them a chance since no matter what they roll they fail.
I'd agree with that if you are going fully by RAW to allow the attempt, but saying in this particular situation that "you have disadvantage on your stealth check and your grappler has advantage on their perception check because they are actively holding on to you" is a valid judgement call given the situation.
But personally, RAW be darned, I'm not letting a player hide when someone is actively grabbing them unless they escape their grasp first. I would rule that as the grappled creature is invisible the attacks made by the grappler would still be at disadvantage.
The rules don't require that anyone be given "a chance." They say a character can "try." People try things that they haven't a chance at accomplishing all the time.
Like the fighter wearing plate armor trying to flap their arms to fly because they have a high athletics skill. You can try but it’s not going to stop you falling and taking damage even with a natural 20.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?