Again 'can' does not equal 'will be.' No one is arguing that stealth automatically succeeds. You are the one arguing that unless you take a hide action, it automatically fails, regardless of all other precautions taken.
Becoming invisible does not in and of itself make your location unknown. You still have to move and you still have to avoid being noticed while moving. Sight is covered by the spell. You have been arguing that even if sound is covered too (by Boots of Elvenkind, silence spell, whatever) that you automatically remain detected even if you move. Even if you move through the air or on some surface where there would be no easily noticed prints. When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house?
Basically, you are insisting that, regardless of all other factors, 'something' will happen that the person's location is still automatically known unless/until they take a hide action. They can go 100% behind a wall the observer still knows exactly where behind that wall they are until they take an action to hide. This is what the words you are using mean.
And then you rationalize this by insisting 'well it is by smell then' or whatever.
This is very well put.
By their reasoning you can auto-track an invisible flying creature in a zone of silence because they haven't taken the hide action.
It is wild someone can read "The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." and think that this therefore always happens 100% of the time unfailingly; instead of if the creature makes a noise or if it walks over something that would leave tracks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Again 'can' does not equal 'will be.' No one is arguing that stealth automatically succeeds. You are the one arguing that unless you take a hide action, it automatically fails, regardless of all other precautions taken.
Becoming invisible does not in and of itself make your location unknown. You still have to move and you still have to avoid being noticed while moving. Sight is covered by the spell. You have been arguing that even if sound is covered too (by Boots of Elvenkind, silence spell, whatever) that you automatically remain detected even if you move. Even if you move through the air or on some surface where there would be no easily noticed prints. When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house?
Basically, you are insisting that, regardless of all other factors, 'something' will happen that the person's location is still automatically known unless/until they take a hide action. They can go 100% behind a wall the observer still knows exactly where behind that wall they are until they take an action to hide. This is what the words you are using mean.
And then you rationalize this by insisting 'well it is by smell then' or whatever.
This is very well put.
By their reasoning you can auto-track an invisible flying creature in a zone of silence because they haven't taken the hide action.
It is wild someone can read "The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." and think that this therefore always happens 100% of the time unfailingly; instead of if the creature makes a noise or if it walks over something that would leave tracks.
The if part is literally why you role for stealth….
You assume that “not doing anything to make noise” is easy. You are incorrect. It is a skill. That skill has an ability attached to it. That is dexterity. A rogue with a 20 dexterity is much better at staying motionless than a fighter with heavy metal, clanky armor and a 10 dexterity. If the person is silenced or you can show to the DM that it is impossible for you to make noise, or reveal your self anyway with some combination of spells, she or he or they are well within their right to grant you hidden status without a stealth roll. No one is arguing this. Your missing context.
A hidden creature is entirely undetected and you don't know if they're even still there or not. Are they on another plane? In a different city? Who knows? You don't.
An invisible (or unseen) but still noticed creature is there, nearby, you know that. Generally speaking you know they're around, in your presence. But nothing, whatsoever, says you know their exact location on the battlemap. You do not have echolocation. You don't have a sonar ping. You're only aware they're around, generally speaking.
So if an enemy goes invisible in the middle of combat but doesn't hide, you know they're still on the battlemap, still in the fight somewhere. But if they're running around or whatever, you probably don't know exactly where they are because you can't see them. You'd say "They're still here, be on your guard!" not "Oh no he got away again!" You know they're there, generally, just not know they're specifically on grid A7.
So you can:
Not know if they're there or not.
Know they're there somewhere, and try to guess their exact location.
Know exactly where they are.
Being Invisible puts them into category 2.
This part is definitely not raw. I creature that goes invisible in the middle of combat is now unseen. The character is not hidden. If it is unseen, you get disadvantage on attacks. Why, you know the spot that it is in, and if it moves without a stealth check, then you can sense it with other perception senses like hearing. The DM chooses how to describe this to you. Once it chooses to hide, then you don't know where it is. It is now unseen and unheard.
You can do what your saying for sure, bu that's homebrew.
It is RAW. People here, yourself included, keep ignoring the fact the rules repeatedly talk about guessing the creature's location.
Care to explain why it suggests you might need to guess the creature's location if the rules also treat its location as 100% knowable at all times? By all means, explain.
Here:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
I'm certainly not conceding, you're making a claim the rules don't ever actually say. But, I would love to see your rationale for this, if you actually have one.
Thats a weird response honestly. You don’t know the location %100 of the time. No one said that. You know the location if the character is unseen but not unheard. If it is NOT hidden. You need to still hide after taking the invisibility spell. It even tells you if you are invisible you can always try to hide. Meaning one. You are not automatically hidden and two, it is an attempt. That’s just english.
Again 'can' does not equal 'will be.' No one is arguing that stealth automatically succeeds. You are the one arguing that unless you take a hide action, it automatically fails, regardless of all other precautions taken.
Becoming invisible does not in and of itself make your location unknown. You still have to move and you still have to avoid being noticed while moving. Sight is covered by the spell. You have been arguing that even if sound is covered too (by Boots of Elvenkind, silence spell, whatever) that you automatically remain detected even if you move. Even if you move through the air or on some surface where there would be no easily noticed prints. When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house?
Basically, you are insisting that, regardless of all other factors, 'something' will happen that the person's location is still automatically known unless/until they take a hide action. They can go 100% behind a wall the observer still knows exactly where behind that wall they are until they take an action to hide. This is what the words you are using mean.
And then you rationalize this by insisting 'well it is by smell then' or whatever.
Correct an invisible creature's location can be detected. To avoid this all it has to do is take the hide action because hiding is the by the book way to conceal your position as per the Devs.
The limit to which Perception work is up to the DM. One can determine that a creature's location the other side of a wall in the same room is still known for exemple, but not those in a different room. It will depend of the encounter each can be so different. Encounter rules tells us that if neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. I am not insisting on this, the Surprise rules does.
Unseen creatures that you don't know are there lying in ambush in the dense foliage still have to take the hide action and make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to not be noticed. Why would being invisible be different? And this is ahead of an encounter, worse, some even argue that while being engaged in combat an enemy spellcaster becoming invisible you wouldn't know even know they're here, let alone where to shoot if they were here. This is not what i'd refer as someone's location can be detected. More like can't be detected.
Where are you taking the part about moving to have your location unknown in the invisible condition? It's nowhere in the rules, nor i heard it from the Devs. What we can hear and read though, is that they can have their location become unknown, if they take the hide action and succeed. They can always try to hide since they are not clearly seen and meet the criteria.
A hidden creature is entirely undetected and you don't know if they're even still there or not. Are they on another plane? In a different city? Who knows? You don't.
An invisible (or unseen) but still noticed creature is there, nearby, you know that. Generally speaking you know they're around, in your presence. But nothing, whatsoever, says you know their exact location on the battlemap. You do not have echolocation. You don't have a sonar ping. You're only aware they're around, generally speaking.
So if an enemy goes invisible in the middle of combat but doesn't hide, you know they're still on the battlemap, still in the fight somewhere. But if they're running around or whatever, you probably don't know exactly where they are because you can't see them. You'd say "They're still here, be on your guard!" not "Oh no he got away again!" You know they're there, generally, just not know they're specifically on grid A7.
So you can:
Not know if they're there or not.
Know they're there somewhere, and try to guess their exact location.
Know exactly where they are.
Being Invisible puts them into category 2.
This part is definitely not raw. I creature that goes invisible in the middle of combat is now unseen. The character is not hidden. If it is unseen, you get disadvantage on attacks. Why, you know the spot that it is in, and if it moves without a stealth check, then you can sense it with other perception senses like hearing. The DM chooses how to describe this to you. Once it chooses to hide, then you don't know where it is. It is now unseen and unheard.
You can do what your saying for sure, bu that's homebrew.
It is RAW. People here, yourself included, keep ignoring the fact the rules repeatedly talk about guessing the creature's location.
Care to explain why it suggests you might need to guess the creature's location if the rules also treat its location as 100% knowable at all times? By all means, explain.
Here:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.
When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
I'm certainly not conceding, you're making a claim the rules don't ever actually say. But, I would love to see your rationale for this, if you actually have one.
I'll explain it again quoting the same rules you just have, just as I did in my previous comment that you apparently haven't seen. Actually let me just copy paste my previous comment that you seem to have missed, but which explains the issue you're confused about.
"When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location OR you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see."
If the creature isn't hidden you can target the creature. The game thus guarantees that your character knows the creature's location, even if it's invisible (as long as it's not hidden). The invisibility in and of itself has its intended effect by imposing disadvantage on the attack rolls, and preventing the casting of many spell requiring sight of the target. How you explain that a creature knows the location of the invisible target but has a harder time hitting it, is up to you.
Ravnodaus So, if you were in a room alone and an invisible creature walked in, you'd know something was in there with you automatically. But you still need to pinpoint the spot somehow. You don't have echolocation. You need either it to interact with the environment, or to make noise, or somehow otherwise reveal its location.
You don't have echolocation, you have ears that hear whatever noise the target makes, which is enough to pinpoint the location of the creature. See the rules quote above. It is up to the DM to explain how the target is making the perceiver aware of its location.
Ravnodaus So you notice it, in the sense that "something's out there" but that is a far cry from people able to target lock it with your crossbow. To have any chance of hitting it with an attack you need to correctly "guess its location".
If the target is invisible but not hidden, you can definitely "target lock it with your crossbow". It is explicitly stated in the rules I just quoted. I'll leave the quote again below. As for your claim that for a character to "have any chance of hitting it with an attack you need to correctly "guess its location"." that is also explicitly addressed in the rules quote: you either guess the location of the creature as you say OR you simply target it because you can hear it. Because the rules tell you that is how the game works.
"When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location ORyou're targeting a creature you can hear but not see."
Simply put, you either guess the target's location (e.g. if the target is hidden) OR you already know the target's location because you can hear it even if you can't see it (perhaps the target is invisible).
Do creatures always know the exact location of creatures that are invisible, but not hidden?
The case for:
Invisible is not the same thing as invisible and hidden, and giving too much to the former trivializes the latter.
The invisible condition in PHB Appendix A explains, “The [invisible] creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.”
PHB p177 says, “Signs of [an invisible creature] might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.” Trying to avoid giving away tell-tale non-visual indicators of your location is done by taking the hide action.
In discussing stealth, Jeremy Crawford says, “It’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat because of their movements, their sword swings, they are seeing the effect in the environment either because their weapon is clipping through bushes or they bumped up against a table as they walked by, and they see the drinks wobble.” (starts 29:38)
The advantages of the invisible condition are the effects of the condition itself. The biggest benefit of being invisible is that it provides you with the conditions to hide continuously instead of having to find cover all the time. And when you do attempt to hide, the stealth check is often made at advantage due to being invisible.
If a creature is required to take the search action to perceive an invisible creature who is not hidden, then that invisible creature may as well be considered hidden as well.
The case against:
The rules use verbiage that is intentionally noncommittal when describing invisible creatures. Nothing in the rules or in JC’s interview explicitly states that invisible and unhidden creatures passively give away their position—only that it can or might happen.
PHB p177 says, “Signs of [an invisible creature] might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet,” but staying quiet can often be done simply by not doing things that make noise.
In the same discussion on stealth referenced above, Jeremy Crawford explains, “In some cases, a DM will decide that even an invisible [but not hidden] person's location is unknown to combatants because of the environment or the character's attentiveness... The DM might decide that the wizard who cast invisibility on herself, the orcs may have lost track of where she is.” (starts 28:42)
The Unseen Attackers section of chapter 9 of the Basic rules states, “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss,” but how would you guess the wrong location if you knew exactly where the unseen attacker was?
The rogue Blindsense feature states, “Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you.”
The 18 level ranger Feral Senses feature states in part, “You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you, and you aren’t blinded or deafened.” If creatures know the location of invisible creatures automatically, then these features would not need to specify the ability to locate invisible creatures, and the usefulness of that aspect of those features would be negated.
The Rod of Alertness’ ability to “sense the location of any invisible hostile creature that is also in the bright light,” would not need to be pointed out if the location of invisible creatures was known by default.
Do creatures always know the exact location of creatures that are invisible, but not hidden?
The case for:
Invisible is not the same thing as invisible and hidden, and giving too much to the former trivializes the latter.
The invisible condition in PHB Appendix A explains, “The [invisible] creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.”
PHB p177 says, “Signs of [an invisible creature] might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.” Trying to avoid giving away tell-tale non-visual indicators of your location is done by taking the hide action.
In discussing stealth, Jeremy Crawford says, “It’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat because of their movements, their sword swings, they are seeing the effect in the environment either because their weapon is clipping through bushes or they bumped up against a table as they walked by, and they see the drinks wobble.” (starts 29:38)
The advantages of the invisible condition are the effects of the condition itself. The biggest benefit of being invisible is that it provides you with the conditions to hide continuously instead of having to find cover all the time. And when you do attempt to hide, the stealth check is often made at advantage due to being invisible.
If a creature is required to take the search action to perceive an invisible creature who is not hidden, then that invisible creature may as well be considered hidden as well.
The case against:
The rules use verbiage that is intentionally noncommittal when describing invisible creatures. Nothing in the rules or in JC’s interview explicitly states that invisible and unhidden creatures passively give away their position—only that it can or might happen.
PHB p177 says, “Signs of [an invisible creature] might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet,” but staying quiet can often be done simply by not doing things that make noise.
In the same discussion on stealth referenced above, Jeremy Crawford explains, “In some cases, a DM will decide that even an invisible [but not hidden] person's location is unknown to combatants because of the environment or the character's attentiveness... The DM might decide that the wizard who cast invisibility on herself, the orcs may have lost track of where she is.” (starts 28:42)
The Unseen Attackers section of chapter 9 of the Basic rules states, “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss,” but how would you guess the wrong location if you knew exactly where the unseen attacker was?
The rogue Blindsense feature states, “Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you.”
The 18 level ranger Feral Senses feature states in part, “You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you, and you aren’t blinded or deafened.” If creatures know the location of invisible creatures automatically, then these features would not need to specify the ability to locate invisible creatures, and the usefulness of that aspect of those features would be negated.
The Rod of Alertness’ ability to “sense the location of any invisible hostile creature that is also in the bright light,” would not need to be pointed out if the location of invisible creatures was known by default.
Good summary, I think you caught most points from both sides.
To address a few of the points you listed:
The advantages of the invisible condition are the effects of the condition itself. The biggest benefit of being invisible is that it provides you with the conditions to hide continuously instead of having to find cover all the time. And when you do attempt to hide, the stealth check is often made at advantage due to being invisible.
Personally I'd say the biggest advantage of invisibility is that all attacks targeting the invisible target have disadvantage. It also prevents the casting of spells that require a visual target.
The Unseen Attackers section of chapter 9 of the Basic rules states, “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss,” but how would you guess the wrong location if you knew exactly where the unseen attacker was?
That rule creates two scenarios of attacking a creature you can't see and explain why both incur disadvantage. The first scenario is that you have to guess the target's location. The second scenario is that you simply target the creature you can't see, because you can hear it (that is, you know it's location). If you can hear the unseen target (that is, if the target isn't hidden - Unseen and Unheard), scenario two applies. If you can't hear the unseen target (that is, if the target is hidden - Unseen and Unheard), scenario one applies. You'll have to guess the location, which might cause your attack roll to miss no matter what you rolled, if the target wasn't in the location you chose to attack.
The Rod of Alertness’ ability to “sense the location of any invisible hostile creature that is also in the bright light,” would not need to be pointed out if the location of invisible creatures was known by default.
The Rod of Alertness allows you to detect invisible creatures, even if they're hidden. It doesn't contradict the general rules.
The rogue Blindsense feature states, “Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you.”
The 18 level ranger Feral Senses feature states in part, “You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you, and you aren’t blinded or deafened.” If creatures know the location of invisible creatures automatically, then these features would not need to specify the ability to locate invisible creatures, and the usefulness of that aspect of those features would be negated."
The wording in these specific rules does indeed insinuate that knowing the location of an invisible but unhidden target is not a skill available to everyone. Consensus on the internet does seem to believe it is simply poor wording partially due to negligence of less popular features, as it contradicts the general rules.
In the case of an invisible creature, I'd allow literal attempts of "hiding in plain sight" and with pretty low DCs.
Whereas a visible creature needs to hide from both sight and hearing, an invisible creature mainly just needs to "hide" from the latter which, if it wasn't just taken as a given, I'd consider being pretty easy.
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.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
I guess an invisible creature's location can be known but that would take both a suitable level of non-visual cues for the circumstance and, likely, a successful detection.
Why, exactly, is a different room relevant? Where does it mention anything about different rooms in the rules or in any sage advice or even tweet?
Invisibility would be different because it is absolute to the extent you are unseen. You are unseen, period.
Different room might or might not be relevant. Things in a different room could be heard. or not for exemple. But generally speaking, in a room based environement, its typical to see encounters occur room by room. DMs don't generally put all the monsters on a dungeon map because the other rooms haven't yet been explored by your senses.
Being unseen wether heavily obscured, Invisible or blind is absolute to the extent you are unseen. Invisible is no different. If you can't be seen, you can't be seen, wether you're invisible, in opaque fog, darkness or in front of a blinded person, you cannot be seen period.
A DM could rule that when it's impossible to be seen and heard by extraordinary means such as magic it may be undetected. Such exceptional circumstances to me wouldn't be the norm but the exception. Under normal circumstances, you can target a creature you can hear but not see with no second guessing. And one way to be unheard of is to take the Hide action. No one said a DM couldn't decide to grant it in other circumstances.
The Rod of Alertness allows you to detect invisible creatures, even if they're hidden. It doesn't contradict the general rules.
The wording in these specific rules does indeed insinuate that knowing the location of an invisible but unhidden target is not a skill available to everyone. Consensus on the internet does seem to believe it is simply poor wording partially due to negligence of less popular features, as it contradicts the general rules.
Regarding the Rod, then why not simply say Hidden? Why mention invisibility are all, since it is apparently redundant an thus irrelevant?
And why is that considered the poor wording rather than the rule that you have to actively hide creating absurd situations as discussed?
The description of the rod doesn't directly mention being hidden.
Do creatures always know the exact location of creatures that are invisible, but not hidden?
The case for:
Invisible is not the same thing as invisible and hidden, and giving too much to the former trivializes the latter.
The invisible condition in PHB Appendix A explains, “The [invisible] creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.”
PHB p177 says, “Signs of [an invisible creature] might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.” Trying to avoid giving away tell-tale non-visual indicators of your location is done by taking the hide action.
In discussing stealth, Jeremy Crawford says, “It’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat because of their movements, their sword swings, they are seeing the effect in the environment either because their weapon is clipping through bushes or they bumped up against a table as they walked by, and they see the drinks wobble.” (starts 29:38)
The advantages of the invisible condition are the effects of the condition itself. The biggest benefit of being invisible is that it provides you with the conditions to hide continuously instead of having to find cover all the time. And when you do attempt to hide, the stealth check is often made at advantage due to being invisible.
If a creature is required to take the search action to perceive an invisible creature who is not hidden, then that invisible creature may as well be considered hidden as well.
The case against:
The rules use verbiage that is intentionally noncommittal when describing invisible creatures. Nothing in the rules or in JC’s interview explicitly states that invisible and unhidden creatures passively give away their position—only that it can or might happen.
PHB p177 says, “Signs of [an invisible creature] might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet,” but staying quiet can often be done simply by not doing things that make noise.
In the same discussion on stealth referenced above, Jeremy Crawford explains, “In some cases, a DM will decide that even an invisible [but not hidden] person's location is unknown to combatants because of the environment or the character's attentiveness... The DM might decide that the wizard who cast invisibility on herself, the orcs may have lost track of where she is.” (starts 28:42)
The Unseen Attackers section of chapter 9 of the Basic rules states, “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss,” but how would you guess the wrong location if you knew exactly where the unseen attacker was?
The rogue Blindsense feature states, “Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you.”
The 18 level ranger Feral Senses feature states in part, “You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you, and you aren’t blinded or deafened.” If creatures know the location of invisible creatures automatically, then these features would not need to specify the ability to locate invisible creatures, and the usefulness of that aspect of those features would be negated.
The Rod of Alertness’ ability to “sense the location of any invisible hostile creature that is also in the bright light,” would not need to be pointed out if the location of invisible creatures was known by default.
Good summary, I think you caught most points from both sides.
To address a few of the points you listed:
The advantages of the invisible condition are the effects of the condition itself. The biggest benefit of being invisible is that it provides you with the conditions to hide continuously instead of having to find cover all the time. And when you do attempt to hide, the stealth check is often made at advantage due to being invisible.
Personally I'd say the biggest advantage of invisibility is that all attacks targeting the invisible target have disadvantage. It also prevents the casting of spells that require a visual target.
The Unseen Attackers section of chapter 9 of the Basic rules states, “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss,” but how would you guess the wrong location if you knew exactly where the unseen attacker was?
That rule creates two scenarios of attacking a creature you can't see and explain why both incur disadvantage. The first scenario is that you have to guess the target's location. The second scenario is that you simply target the creature you can't see, because you can hear it (that is, you know it's location). If you can hear the unseen target (that is, if the target isn't hidden - Unseen and Unheard), scenario two applies. If you can't hear the unseen target (that is, if the target is hidden - Unseen and Unheard), scenario one applies. You'll have to guess the location, which might cause your attack roll to miss no matter what you rolled, if the target wasn't in the location you chose to attack.
The Rod of Alertness’ ability to “sense the location of any invisible hostile creature that is also in the bright light,” would not need to be pointed out if the location of invisible creatures was known by default.
The Rod of Alertness allows you to detect invisible creatures, even if they're hidden. It doesn't contradict the general rules.
The rogue Blindsense feature states, “Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you.”
The 18 level ranger Feral Senses feature states in part, “You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you, and you aren’t blinded or deafened.” If creatures know the location of invisible creatures automatically, then these features would not need to specify the ability to locate invisible creatures, and the usefulness of that aspect of those features would be negated."
The wording in these specific rules does indeed insinuate that knowing the location of an invisible but unhidden target is not a skill available to everyone. Consensus on the internet does seem to believe it is simply poor wording partially due to negligence of less popular features, as it contradicts the general rules.
The rod makes hostile creatures visible if they are in its provided light.
Again 'can' does not equal 'will be.' No one is arguing that stealth automatically succeeds. You are the one arguing that unless you take a hide action, it automatically fails, regardless of all other precautions taken.
Becoming invisible does not in and of itself make your location unknown. You still have to move and you still have to avoid being noticed while moving. Sight is covered by the spell. You have been arguing that even if sound is covered too (by Boots of Elvenkind, silence spell, whatever) that you automatically remain detected even if you move. Even if you move through the air or on some surface where there would be no easily noticed prints. When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house?
Basically, you are insisting that, regardless of all other factors, 'something' will happen that the person's location is still automatically known unless/until they take a hide action. They can go 100% behind a wall the observer still knows exactly where behind that wall they are until they take an action to hide. This is what the words you are using mean.
And then you rationalize this by insisting 'well it is by smell then' or whatever.
Correct an invisible creature's location can be detected. To avoid this all it has to do is take the hide action because hiding is the by the book way to conceal your position as per the Devs.
The limit to which Perception work is up to the DM. One can determine that a creature's location the other side of a wall in the same room is still known for exemple, but not those in a different room. It will depend of the encounter each can be so different. Encounter rules tells us that if neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. I am not insisting on this, the Surprise rules does.
Unseen creatures that you don't know are there lying in ambush in the dense foliage still have to take the hide action and make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to not be noticed. Why would being invisible be different? And this is ahead of an encounter, worse, some even argue that while being engaged in combat an enemy spellcaster becoming invisible you wouldn't know even know they're here, let alone where to shoot if they were here. This is not what i'd refer as someone's location can be detected. More like can't be detected.
Where are you taking the part about moving to have your location unknown in the invisible condition? It's nowhere in the rules, nor i heard it from the Devs. What we can hear and read though, is that they can have their location become unknown, if they take the hide action and succeed. They can always try to hide since they are not clearly seen and meet the criteria.
"To avoid this at all" translates to 'Is automatically detected unless.' I am not saying that you are automatically undetected, but you are saying that you are automatically detected.
Why, exactly, is a different room relevant? Where does it mention anything about different rooms in the rules or in any sage advice or even tweet?
Invisibility would be different because it is absolute to the extent you are unseen. You are unseen, period. That sense is covered and is the primary targeting sense. Other senses are not targeting senses. It is hand-eye coordination. No one talks about hand-ear coordination or hand-nose coordination. Get a friend to hide your phone somewhere in a cluttered room. You come out of the room then they call you. You come back in to seek the ringing phone. You seem to be arguing that you instantly find it without any actual search, simply because it is ringing.
There is nothing in the rules specifically saying that you have to put one foot in front of the other to walk or run, either, nor to open your mouth to talk verbally, nor to open your eyes to see. The rules do not spell out literally everything.
Do creatures always know the exact location of creatures that are invisible, but not hidden?
The case for:
Invisible is not the same thing as invisible and hidden, and giving too much to the former trivializes the latter.
The invisible condition in PHB Appendix A explains, “The [invisible] creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.”
PHB p177 says, “Signs of [an invisible creature] might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.” Trying to avoid giving away tell-tale non-visual indicators of your location is done by taking the hide action.
In discussing stealth, Jeremy Crawford says, “It’s also perfectly in keeping with the rules for a group to assume that unless a person hides, people generally know where invisible people are in combat because of their movements, their sword swings, they are seeing the effect in the environment either because their weapon is clipping through bushes or they bumped up against a table as they walked by, and they see the drinks wobble.” (starts 29:38)
The advantages of the invisible condition are the effects of the condition itself. The biggest benefit of being invisible is that it provides you with the conditions to hide continuously instead of having to find cover all the time. And when you do attempt to hide, the stealth check is often made at advantage due to being invisible.
If a creature is required to take the search action to perceive an invisible creature who is not hidden, then that invisible creature may as well be considered hidden as well.
The case against:
The Unseen Attackers section of chapter 9 of the Basic rules states, “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss,” but how would you guess the wrong location if you knew exactly where the unseen attacker was?
The rogue Blindsense feature states, “Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you.”
The 18 level ranger Feral Senses feature states in part, “You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you, and you aren’t blinded or deafened.” If creatures know the location of invisible creatures automatically, then these features would not need to specify the ability to locate invisible creatures, and the usefulness of that aspect of those features would be negated.
The Rod of Alertness’ ability to “sense the location of any invisible hostile creature that is also in the bright light,” would not need to be pointed out if the location of invisible creatures was known by default.
The Unseen Attackers section of chapter 9 of the Basic rules states, “When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss,” but how would you guess the wrong location if you knew exactly where the unseen attacker was?
Because you do NOT know. This is basic reading comprehension issues. First... "When you attack a target you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll," Now you know. No matter what, hidden or unhidden, if it is unseen, you have disadvantage.
"This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." Second... You have disadvantage whether it is Hidden (guessing the target's location) or just unseen.
Your target is not hidden, you attack the square it is in, you roll at disadvantage. You hit or miss.
Your target is hidden. You pick a square or location and attack there. You roll at disadvantage. The attack misses. It either missed because the attacker is not there or because you failed at disadvantage. The DM will not tell you. Telling reveals that the target is not there, which you do not know.
The rogue Blindsense feature states, “Starting at 14th level, if you are able to hear, you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creature within 10 feet of you.”
This means that without this sense, you can not normally know of a hidden creature that is invisible. This means the creature has taken the hide action. This not an argument agains, it is an argument for. The creature has taken the hide action, and you with your super hearing, know where it is. This should also effectively shut done the "If I just stay motionless argument".
The 18 level ranger Feral Senses feature states in part, “You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened.” If creatures know the location of invisible creatures automatically, then these features would not need to specify the ability to locate invisible creatures, and the usefulness of that aspect of those features would be negated.
"creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened." The ability does not work against hidden creatures if you are either blinded or defend or both. Again, another reading comprehension issue. If the creature is hidden, this ability reveals the creature, as long as you are not blinded or deafened. If you are, it will not work, because the creature has taken the hide action, and your heightened senses reveal it's position by a combination of super sight and super hearing. If you lose anyone of those senses, you lose the ability. The 30 ft is also important, as depending on the environment, 30 ft might not cause an interaction. The DM decides this. Such as walking through forest and you come up on a camp, but you are not noticed yet. Interactions have not occurred, or initiative is not rolled. But if you have feral senses, the dm could rule that the you do know, even if invisible. A better argument would be if it knows a creature that is hidden if it is NOT invisible. Since it doesn't really have wording. I would just use common sense. Yes.
The Rod of Alertness’ ability to “sense the location of any invisible hostile creature that is also in the bright light,” would not need to be pointed out if the location of invisible creatures was known by default.
Yes, if it is hidden. You use this item to find hidden invisible creatures because the rules are clear if it is not hidden, you know where it is. If it is standing completely still when you walked into the room, but you know the thing is in there somewhere, one, the DM rolled a stealth check to measure the creatures success at standing still. That roll beat everyones perception checks. You pull out this rod and walk around. You find it. You don't need it if it ain't hiding.
Why, exactly, is a different room relevant? Where does it mention anything about different rooms in the rules or in any sage advice or even tweet?
Invisibility would be different because it is absolute to the extent you are unseen. You are unseen, period.
Different room might or might not be relevant. Things in a different room could be heard. or not for exemple. But generally speaking, in a room based environement, its typical to see encounters occur room by room. DMs don't generally put all the monsters on a dungeon map because the other rooms haven't yet been explored by your senses.
Being unseen wether heavily obscured, Invisible or blind is absolute to the extent you are unseen. Invisible is no different. If you can't be seen, you can't be seen, wether you're invisible, in opaque fog, darkness or in front of a blinded person, you cannot be seen period.
A DM could rule that when it's impossible to be seen and heard by extraordinary means such as magic it may be undetected. Such exceptional circumstances to me wouldn't be the norm but the exception. Under normal circumstances, you can target a creature you can hear but not see with no second guessing. And one way to be unheard of is to take the Hide action. No one said a DM couldn't decide to grant it in other circumstances.
See you are going with all sorts of arbitrary rules here that are not consistent with your position on RAW. To me, the biggest issue is that you are placing nothing between "location is automatically known" and "impossible to be seen and heard."
Why cannot, simply by circumstances, it be less than automatic positive or negative location detection? Why nothing in between, i.e. the conventional skill vs skill, stealth skill vs perception? Or even Perception vs some DC set based on circumstances?
It can be, it just isn't RAW. How you think things should be because your mind sees things happening a certain way vs how the rules allow you to do things is not a conversation on RAW interpretation, it's a conversation on how RAW does not allow you to do things the way you see them.
In my argument for a different interpretation of the RAW for heavily obscured definition, it is large based on reading comprehension. The people that say you are blinded looking out of a heavily obscured area, are reading the definition incorrectly. Because there is no ruling by J Crawford himself on this, there is room for argument. Also, running scenarios with both rules sets, seeing which one is more effective when involving Heavy obscurity lends itself to the argument. But your just saying, regardless of what something says, because you don't see it that way, it can't be. Even the all the rules here are clear in this sense.
Why, exactly, is a different room relevant? Where does it mention anything about different rooms in the rules or in any sage advice or even tweet?
Invisibility would be different because it is absolute to the extent you are unseen. You are unseen, period.
Different room might or might not be relevant. Things in a different room could be heard. or not for exemple. But generally speaking, in a room based environement, its typical to see encounters occur room by room. DMs don't generally put all the monsters on a dungeon map because the other rooms haven't yet been explored by your senses.
Being unseen wether heavily obscured, Invisible or blind is absolute to the extent you are unseen. Invisible is no different. If you can't be seen, you can't be seen, wether you're invisible, in opaque fog, darkness or in front of a blinded person, you cannot be seen period.
A DM could rule that when it's impossible to be seen and heard by extraordinary means such as magic it may be undetected. Such exceptional circumstances to me wouldn't be the norm but the exception. Under normal circumstances, you can target a creature you can hear but not see with no second guessing. And one way to be unheard of is to take the Hide action. No one said a DM couldn't decide to grant it in other circumstances.
See you are going with all sorts of arbitrary rules here that are not consistent with your position on RAW. To me, the biggest issue is that you are placing nothing between "location is automatically known" and "impossible to be seen and heard."
Why cannot, simply by circumstances, it be less than automatic positive or negative location detection? Why nothing in between, i.e. the conventional skill vs skill, stealth skill vs perception? Or even Perception vs some DC set based on circumstances?
It can be, it just isn't RAW. How you think things should be because your mind sees things happening a certain way vs how the rules allow you to do things is not a conversation on RAW interpretation, it's a conversation on how RAW does not allow you to do things the way you see them.
In my argument for a different interpretation of the RAW for heavily obscured definition, it is large based on reading comprehension. The people that say you are blinded looking out of a heavily obscured area, are reading the definition incorrectly. Because there is no ruling by J Crawford himself on this, there is room for argument. Also, running scenarios with both rules sets, seeing which one is more effective when involving Heavy obscurity lends itself to the argument. But your just saying, regardless of what something says, because you don't see it that way, it can't be. Even the all the rules here are clear in this sense.
When a creature becomes unseen by becoming invisible, within what parameters do you think RAW indicates that its "location is automatically known"?
The Rod of Alertness allows you to detect invisible creatures, even if they're hidden. It doesn't contradict the general rules.
The wording in these specific rules does indeed insinuate that knowing the location of an invisible but unhidden target is not a skill available to everyone. Consensus on the internet does seem to believe it is simply poor wording partially due to negligence of less popular features, as it contradicts the general rules.
Regarding the Rod, then why not simply say Hidden? Why mention invisibility are all, since it is apparently redundant an thus irrelevant?
And why is that considered the poor wording rather than the rule that you have to actively hide creating absurd situations as discussed?
It says invisible and not hidden, because the two are different things. If an invisible creature is standing in the bright light of Rod of Alertness its location will be known even if it is hidden. Because it says so.
Now, if you're not invisible, you must have taken some sort of cover in order to take the Hide action. The light from the rod doesn't shine through this cover, hence you'd still be hidden and your location would still be unknown. A normal light and a pair of eyes would be just as effective as the rod assuming that you're using darkness to conceal yourself. Because you can't hide in plain sight.
The only issue I see with the rod is that, as is, you can technically place it around a corner and none will be able to conceal their presence around that corner, whether invisible or not, even if you're standing on the other side of the corner with no line of sight. As written, the rod seems to let its user and friendlies know what it can see.
The Rod of Alertness allows you to detect invisible creatures, even if they're hidden. It doesn't contradict the general rules.
The wording in these specific rules does indeed insinuate that knowing the location of an invisible but unhidden target is not a skill available to everyone. Consensus on the internet does seem to believe it is simply poor wording partially due to negligence of less popular features, as it contradicts the general rules.
Regarding the Rod, then why not simply say Hidden? Why mention invisibility are all, since it is apparently redundant an thus irrelevant?
And why is that considered the poor wording rather than the rule that you have to actively hide creating absurd situations as discussed?
The description of the rod doesn't directly mention being hidden.
It does indeed not mention being hidden, because its effect targets creatures that are invisible.
The Rod of Alertness’ ability to “sense the location of any invisible hostile creature that is also in the bright light,” would not need to be pointed out if the location of invisible creatures was known by default.
The Rod of Alertness allows you to detect invisible creatures, even if they're hidden. It doesn't contradict the general rules.
The rod makes hostile creatures visible if they are in its provided light.
It does not make them visible. It makes everyone aware of their location. The difference is that you still have disadvantage on your attack if the target is invisible even if you know its location, whereas there is no disadvantage when attacking a visible creature.
You assume that “not doing anything to make noise” is easy. You are incorrect. It is a skill.
You must live in a very noisy reality, where every rock, every pebble, ever twig, every inanimate object in existence is screaming, the roiling cacophony of your world must be absolutely dreadful if only actively stealthing by animated, trained "skilled" creatures allows something to be silent.
In my world, reality, and in my d&d games, noise is generated by a physical motion resulting in vibration through the air.
I cannot imagine the headache you must have when even the earmuffs you try to use to drown out the noise are screaming at you loudly. I'd go insane in such a world as you describe.
That skill has an ability attached to it. That is dexterity. A rogue with a 20 dexterity is much better at staying motionless than a fighter with heavy metal, clanky armor and a 10 dexterity. If the person is silenced or you can show to the DM that it is impossible for you to make noise, or reveal your self anyway with some combination of spells, she or he or they are well within their right to grant you hidden status without a stealth roll. No one is arguing this. Your missing context.
I'm not missing anything. I just don't agree with you that every person, every object in existence is by default making hella noise rofl. You make noise by doingsomething that would result in making noise... you don't make noise when not doing things. It's kinda obvious, really.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Why, exactly, is a different room relevant? Where does it mention anything about different rooms in the rules or in any sage advice or even tweet?
Invisibility would be different because it is absolute to the extent you are unseen. You are unseen, period.
Different room might or might not be relevant. Things in a different room could be heard. or not for exemple. But generally speaking, in a room based environement, its typical to see encounters occur room by room. DMs don't generally put all the monsters on a dungeon map because the other rooms haven't yet been explored by your senses.
Being unseen wether heavily obscured, Invisible or blind is absolute to the extent you are unseen. Invisible is no different. If you can't be seen, you can't be seen, wether you're invisible, in opaque fog, darkness or in front of a blinded person, you cannot be seen period.
A DM could rule that when it's impossible to be seen and heard by extraordinary means such as magic it may be undetected. Such exceptional circumstances to me wouldn't be the norm but the exception. Under normal circumstances, you can target a creature you can hear but not see with no second guessing. And one way to be unheard of is to take the Hide action. No one said a DM couldn't decide to grant it in other circumstances.
See you are going with all sorts of arbitrary rules here that are not consistent with your position on RAW. To me, the biggest issue is that you are placing nothing between "location is automatically known" and "impossible to be seen and heard."
Why cannot, simply by circumstances, it be less than automatic positive or negative location detection? Why nothing in between, i.e. the conventional skill vs skill, stealth skill vs perception? Or even Perception vs some DC set based on circumstances?
Sure a DM can decide, or not, to grant to a creature becoming invisible a Stealth vs Perception contest, or against a DC even though the Invisible condition doesn't inherently grant a Stealth check.
In general, either a creature's location is
1. Known (no contest check required to not know)
2. Unknown (contest check required to know).
3. Unknown (no contest check required to know)
The last is most exceptional as it's literally impossible to detect by normal means, making even Surprise automatic. DM's might come to different approach as to wether a contest is required or if its automatically known or unknown. If a contest check of some sort is required or it's automatically unknown, it's just like free hiding but with no action required. It's not in line with how the Devs seem to intend it though.
You assume that “not doing anything to make noise” is easy. You are incorrect. It is a skill.
You must live in a very noisy reality, where every rock, every pebble, ever twig, every inanimate object in existence is screaming, the roiling cacophony of your world must be absolutely dreadful if only actively stealthing by animated, trained "skilled" creatures allows something to be silent.
In my world, reality, and in my d&d games, noise is generated by a physical motion resulting in vibration through the air.
I cannot imagine the headache you must have when even the earmuffs you try to use to drown out the noise are screaming at you loudly. I'd go insane in such a world as you describe.
That skill has an ability attached to it. That is dexterity. A rogue with a 20 dexterity is much better at staying motionless than a fighter with heavy metal, clanky armor and a 10 dexterity. If the person is silenced or you can show to the DM that it is impossible for you to make noise, or reveal your self anyway with some combination of spells, she or he or they are well within their right to grant you hidden status without a stealth roll. No one is arguing this. Your missing context.
I'm not missing anything. I just don't agree with you that every person, every object in existence is by default making hella noise rofl. You make noise by doingsomething that would result in making noise... you don't make noise when not doing things. It's kinda obvious, really.
It's not obvious. No one is saying "hella noise". Just enough noise that you are no longer hidden. No one is saying you can't be quiet. No one is saying you are going to automatically fail. Only that if you aren't very good at it, and someone else is very good at listening, then you have a higher chance to fail. That is why you roll for it via the hide action. To compare skills. They are only saying you must roll for it and there is a chance for error, as with all things. No one is saying every object. We are talking about creatures. No one is saying there are things that can improve your chances, such as boots of elven kind, which gives you advantage on your roll to hide in this scenario. You are again missing the point that being completely still is not so easy. Especially in combat. It will be easier for the stealthy rogue than the clumsy fighter. This is why rolls exist. And if you don't like it? That's ok. You don't have to like the rules. You can change them to your liking. No one is stoping you.
When a creature becomes unseen by becoming invisible, within what parameters do you think RAW indicates that its "location is automatically known"?
It's the contrary. The creature's location is already known when becoming invisible, within what parameters do you think RAW indicates that its "location is automatically not known"?
The invisible condition says it's location can be detected by any noise it makes or track it leaves. Not because we can't see someone anymore that we can't hear it. If being unheard was effortless everyone would easily do so, no one in the darkness would need to take the Hide action!
Being unseen is not a free way to automatically become unheard and hide, it's instead a requirement to try to attempt to hide. You must not be clearly seen to attemp to hide and become unseen and unheard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is very well put.
By their reasoning you can auto-track an invisible flying creature in a zone of silence because they haven't taken the hide action.
It is wild someone can read "The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves." and think that this therefore always happens 100% of the time unfailingly; instead of if the creature makes a noise or if it walks over something that would leave tracks.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The if part is literally why you role for stealth….
You assume that “not doing anything to make noise” is easy. You are incorrect. It is a skill. That skill has an ability attached to it. That is dexterity. A rogue with a 20 dexterity is much better at staying motionless than a fighter with heavy metal, clanky armor and a 10 dexterity. If the person is silenced or you can show to the DM that it is impossible for you to make noise, or reveal your self anyway with some combination of spells, she or he or they are well within their right to grant you hidden status without a stealth roll. No one is arguing this. Your missing context.
Thats a weird response honestly. You don’t know the location %100 of the time. No one said that. You know the location if the character is unseen but not unheard. If it is NOT hidden. You need to still hide after taking the invisibility spell. It even tells you if you are invisible you can always try to hide. Meaning one. You are not automatically hidden and two, it is an attempt. That’s just english.
Correct an invisible creature's location can be detected. To avoid this all it has to do is take the hide action because hiding is the by the book way to conceal your position as per the Devs.
The limit to which Perception work is up to the DM. One can determine that a creature's location the other side of a wall in the same room is still known for exemple, but not those in a different room. It will depend of the encounter each can be so different. Encounter rules tells us that if neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. I am not insisting on this, the Surprise rules does.
Unseen creatures that you don't know are there lying in ambush in the dense foliage still have to take the hide action and make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to not be noticed. Why would being invisible be different? And this is ahead of an encounter, worse, some even argue that while being engaged in combat an enemy spellcaster becoming invisible you wouldn't know even know they're here, let alone where to shoot if they were here. This is not what i'd refer as someone's location can be detected. More like can't be detected.
Where are you taking the part about moving to have your location unknown in the invisible condition? It's nowhere in the rules, nor i heard it from the Devs. What we can hear and read though, is that they can have their location become unknown, if they take the hide action and succeed. They can always try to hide since they are not clearly seen and meet the criteria.
I'll explain it again quoting the same rules you just have, just as I did in my previous comment that you apparently haven't seen. Actually let me just copy paste my previous comment that you seem to have missed, but which explains the issue you're confused about.
If the creature isn't hidden you can target the creature. The game thus guarantees that your character knows the creature's location, even if it's invisible (as long as it's not hidden). The invisibility in and of itself has its intended effect by imposing disadvantage on the attack rolls, and preventing the casting of many spell requiring sight of the target. How you explain that a creature knows the location of the invisible target but has a harder time hitting it, is up to you.
You don't have echolocation, you have ears that hear whatever noise the target makes, which is enough to pinpoint the location of the creature. See the rules quote above. It is up to the DM to explain how the target is making the perceiver aware of its location.
If the target is invisible but not hidden, you can definitely "target lock it with your crossbow". It is explicitly stated in the rules I just quoted. I'll leave the quote again below.
As for your claim that for a character to "have any chance of hitting it with an attack you need to correctly "guess its location"." that is also explicitly addressed in the rules quote: you either guess the location of the creature as you say OR you simply target it because you can hear it. Because the rules tell you that is how the game works.
Simply put, you either guess the target's location (e.g. if the target is hidden) OR you already know the target's location because you can hear it even if you can't see it (perhaps the target is invisible).
Do creatures always know the exact location of creatures that are invisible, but not hidden?
The case for:
The case against:
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Good summary, I think you caught most points from both sides.
To address a few of the points you listed:
Personally I'd say the biggest advantage of invisibility is that all attacks targeting the invisible target have disadvantage. It also prevents the casting of spells that require a visual target.
That rule creates two scenarios of attacking a creature you can't see and explain why both incur disadvantage.
The first scenario is that you have to guess the target's location.
The second scenario is that you simply target the creature you can't see, because you can hear it (that is, you know it's location).
If you can hear the unseen target (that is, if the target isn't hidden - Unseen and Unheard), scenario two applies.
If you can't hear the unseen target (that is, if the target is hidden - Unseen and Unheard), scenario one applies. You'll have to guess the location, which might cause your attack roll to miss no matter what you rolled, if the target wasn't in the location you chose to attack.
The Rod of Alertness allows you to detect invisible creatures, even if they're hidden. It doesn't contradict the general rules.
The wording in these specific rules does indeed insinuate that knowing the location of an invisible but unhidden target is not a skill available to everyone. Consensus on the internet does seem to believe it is simply poor wording partially due to negligence of less popular features, as it contradicts the general rules.
In the case of an invisible creature, I'd allow literal attempts of "hiding in plain sight" and with pretty low DCs.
Whereas a visible creature needs to hide from both sight and hearing, an invisible creature mainly just needs to "hide" from the latter which, if it wasn't just taken as a given, I'd consider being pretty easy.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/appendix-a-conditions#Invisible
I guess an invisible creature's location can be known but that would take both a suitable level of non-visual cues for the circumstance and, likely, a successful detection.
Different room might or might not be relevant. Things in a different room could be heard. or not for exemple. But generally speaking, in a room based environement, its typical to see encounters occur room by room. DMs don't generally put all the monsters on a dungeon map because the other rooms haven't yet been explored by your senses.
Being unseen wether heavily obscured, Invisible or blind is absolute to the extent you are unseen. Invisible is no different. If you can't be seen, you can't be seen, wether you're invisible, in opaque fog, darkness or in front of a blinded person, you cannot be seen period.
The description of the rod doesn't directly mention being hidden.
The rod makes hostile creatures visible if they are in its provided light.
Because you do NOT know. This is basic reading comprehension issues. First... "When you attack a target you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll," Now you know. No matter what, hidden or unhidden, if it is unseen, you have disadvantage.
"This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see." Second... You have disadvantage whether it is Hidden (guessing the target's location) or just unseen.
Your target is not hidden, you attack the square it is in, you roll at disadvantage. You hit or miss.
Your target is hidden. You pick a square or location and attack there. You roll at disadvantage. The attack misses. It either missed because the attacker is not there or because you failed at disadvantage. The DM will not tell you. Telling reveals that the target is not there, which you do not know.
This means that without this sense, you can not normally know of a hidden creature that is invisible. This means the creature has taken the hide action. This not an argument agains, it is an argument for. The creature has taken the hide action, and you with your super hearing, know where it is. This should also effectively shut done the "If I just stay motionless argument".
"creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened." The ability does not work against hidden creatures if you are either blinded or defend or both. Again, another reading comprehension issue. If the creature is hidden, this ability reveals the creature, as long as you are not blinded or deafened. If you are, it will not work, because the creature has taken the hide action, and your heightened senses reveal it's position by a combination of super sight and super hearing. If you lose anyone of those senses, you lose the ability. The 30 ft is also important, as depending on the environment, 30 ft might not cause an interaction. The DM decides this. Such as walking through forest and you come up on a camp, but you are not noticed yet. Interactions have not occurred, or initiative is not rolled. But if you have feral senses, the dm could rule that the you do know, even if invisible. A better argument would be if it knows a creature that is hidden if it is NOT invisible. Since it doesn't really have wording. I would just use common sense. Yes.
Yes, if it is hidden. You use this item to find hidden invisible creatures because the rules are clear if it is not hidden, you know where it is. If it is standing completely still when you walked into the room, but you know the thing is in there somewhere, one, the DM rolled a stealth check to measure the creatures success at standing still. That roll beat everyones perception checks. You pull out this rod and walk around. You find it. You don't need it if it ain't hiding.
Rationale01 I honestly don't get the circumstances in which you think an invisible creature's location should be known or not.
It can be, it just isn't RAW. How you think things should be because your mind sees things happening a certain way vs how the rules allow you to do things is not a conversation on RAW interpretation, it's a conversation on how RAW does not allow you to do things the way you see them.
In my argument for a different interpretation of the RAW for heavily obscured definition, it is large based on reading comprehension. The people that say you are blinded looking out of a heavily obscured area, are reading the definition incorrectly. Because there is no ruling by J Crawford himself on this, there is room for argument. Also, running scenarios with both rules sets, seeing which one is more effective when involving Heavy obscurity lends itself to the argument. But your just saying, regardless of what something says, because you don't see it that way, it can't be. Even the all the rules here are clear in this sense.
When a creature becomes unseen by becoming invisible, within what parameters do you think RAW indicates that its "location is automatically known"?
It says invisible and not hidden, because the two are different things. If an invisible creature is standing in the bright light of Rod of Alertness its location will be known even if it is hidden. Because it says so.
Now, if you're not invisible, you must have taken some sort of cover in order to take the Hide action. The light from the rod doesn't shine through this cover, hence you'd still be hidden and your location would still be unknown. A normal light and a pair of eyes would be just as effective as the rod assuming that you're using darkness to conceal yourself. Because you can't hide in plain sight.
The only issue I see with the rod is that, as is, you can technically place it around a corner and none will be able to conceal their presence around that corner, whether invisible or not, even if you're standing on the other side of the corner with no line of sight. As written, the rod seems to let its user and friendlies know what it can see.
It does indeed not mention being hidden, because its effect targets creatures that are invisible.
It does not make them visible. It makes everyone aware of their location. The difference is that you still have disadvantage on your attack if the target is invisible even if you know its location, whereas there is no disadvantage when attacking a visible creature.
You must live in a very noisy reality, where every rock, every pebble, ever twig, every inanimate object in existence is screaming, the roiling cacophony of your world must be absolutely dreadful if only actively stealthing by animated, trained "skilled" creatures allows something to be silent.
In my world, reality, and in my d&d games, noise is generated by a physical motion resulting in vibration through the air.
I cannot imagine the headache you must have when even the earmuffs you try to use to drown out the noise are screaming at you loudly. I'd go insane in such a world as you describe.
I'm not missing anything. I just don't agree with you that every person, every object in existence is by default making hella noise rofl. You make noise by doing something that would result in making noise... you don't make noise when not doing things. It's kinda obvious, really.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Sure a DM can decide, or not, to grant to a creature becoming invisible a Stealth vs Perception contest, or against a DC even though the Invisible condition doesn't inherently grant a Stealth check.
In general, either a creature's location is
1. Known (no contest check required to not know)
2. Unknown (contest check required to know).
3. Unknown (no contest check required to know)
The last is most exceptional as it's literally impossible to detect by normal means, making even Surprise automatic. DM's might come to different approach as to wether a contest is required or if its automatically known or unknown. If a contest check of some sort is required or it's automatically unknown, it's just like free hiding but with no action required. It's not in line with how the Devs seem to intend it though.
It's not obvious. No one is saying "hella noise". Just enough noise that you are no longer hidden. No one is saying you can't be quiet. No one is saying you are going to automatically fail. Only that if you aren't very good at it, and someone else is very good at listening, then you have a higher chance to fail. That is why you roll for it via the hide action. To compare skills. They are only saying you must roll for it and there is a chance for error, as with all things. No one is saying every object. We are talking about creatures. No one is saying there are things that can improve your chances, such as boots of elven kind, which gives you advantage on your roll to hide in this scenario. You are again missing the point that being completely still is not so easy. Especially in combat. It will be easier for the stealthy rogue than the clumsy fighter. This is why rolls exist. And if you don't like it? That's ok. You don't have to like the rules. You can change them to your liking. No one is stoping you.
It's the contrary. The creature's location is already known when becoming invisible, within what parameters do you think RAW indicates that its "location is automatically not known"?
The invisible condition says it's location can be detected by any noise it makes or track it leaves. Not because we can't see someone anymore that we can't hear it. If being unheard was effortless everyone would easily do so, no one in the darkness would need to take the Hide action!
Being unseen is not a free way to automatically become unheard and hide, it's instead a requirement to try to attempt to hide. You must not be clearly seen to attemp to hide and become unseen and unheard.