Obscurement does not apply to viewing out of said area. Scanning through a few forums. everyone agrees that at least with darkness, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that if you are hiding in a closet in darkness, and someone steps into the room the closet is in, and that room being dimly lit, that you inside the closet, can not see the person right in front of you just a few feet in the dimly lit area. So far, people that are saying you can not, because you are in darkness, and in a heavily obscured area (therefore your vision is "blocked"), when given this scenario are either saying "You attack from inside the closet at disadvantage because you can not see your target" or "The rule is broken". Neither makes sense.
Let's start there. I say, your interpretation is neither realistic, nor practical in game setting. My interpretation, which is that you use the rules for whatever obscurity level your target is in, not yourself, works perfectly in this case. In the case of a human rogue with no special sight, can see, from a hidden position, in the total darkness provided by the closet, into the dimly lit area, with disadvantage to perception checks when looking into that dimly lit area. That is the only rule in this scenario that applies (to the rogue), there are no disadvantages to attack OUT of darkness for the person inside darkness, being that at the moment, there are no cover issues or magical issues. The person in Dim light has disadvantage to attack the person in the closet, if said person (in the closet) is not hidden. If that person is hidden, the attacker outside of darkness, in the dimly lit area must also guess the hidden persons location (unless the closet is only one square big, and the character knows this). This is a more realistic approach, as anyone who has ever hid in a closet playing hide-n-go-seek knows. Or anyone going camping at night knows.
What say you to this.
What i say is everyone will most likely play it as you do. But that the rules as they are written, because they make no distinction for darkess and other heavily obscured area, being in a closet would block your vision to the light. You would not be effectively blinded when looking into the lightly obscured area of dim light. but would not see it with your vision blocked by the heavily obscured area you're in. Just like your vision would be blocked if you where in opaque fog for exemple.
If it didn't block vision, then even opaque fog would let you side outside or past it, but by mixing them all with darkness, it creates a problem that the errata never really fixed.
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
Because the rule don't make a distinction one way or another, it handle all heavily obscured the same way, so they either block vision or they don't. They eighter make you effectively blinded when trying to see in the area or it doesn't, Cant just nitpick and choose :)
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
Because the rule don't make a distinction one way or another, it handle all heavily obscured the same way, so they either block vision or they don't. They eighter make you effectively blinded when trying to see in the area or it doesn't, Cant just nitpick and choose :)
I understand. But isn't that a little one dimensional? I am not changing anything or nitpicking. Everything works the same. Yes. It blocks vision. When looking in. Not when looking out. Why? because that is what it says. You don't think it is possible that maybe the most common issue being "wrong" as far as darkness, and many people ignoring the rule because of it maybe suspect? That perhaps the interpretation may be wrong? Because honestly, it works in almost every scenario as I state it. That the obscurity levels of the area of what you are trying to affect are the rules you follow, not the levels that you are in. The only issue is fog. Which, actually may not even be much of an issue. I honestly fail to see why people think you can't see out of a fog cloud that's only 20ft deep. I think peoples version of what they think a heavily obscured fog cloud actually looks like is not what they think it is, but whatever. Let's say it is. Wouldn't my interpretation cover more ground more reasonably. If it satisfies reasonable gameplay in darkness, and satisfies reasonable gameplay in foliage, then isn't it a possibility that I may be right?
The English there is loopy. Hidden is a state, not an action. Being hidden is the condition of being unseen and unheard.
As for the Invisibility questions, the first does not say you have to hide to move quietly. The second says that hiding requires an action AND is after an action that revealed your position and likely ended the spell. "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell." You became visible from attacking and the spell ended. If it was greater invis, they would not have become visible.
The question has nothing to do with the Invisibility spell. I don't think there would be a question of it was about a game element that end the invisible condition upon attacking some don't and the condition itself doesn't end after attacking. All the official ruling does is reiterate hiding in combat requires the Hide action. Meaning it's not automatic, even for invisible creature.
Detecting the presence of an invisible creature is not automatic, no matter how much you claim to the contrary. You're suggesting that an invisible floating spectral creature in a zone of silence can be accurately and precisely targeted in combat 100% of the time. That is... well, it is "a" take. But not one the rulebooks gives.
There are even rules for if you are guessing the correct location of not. Seriously. Just follow the rules:
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.
^ What's that say? What are the 3 ways it lists escaping being noticed? 1. hiding, yes. 2. being invisible. 3. darkness. So, 3 options, not just the single option you're hyperfixated on. You can go unnoticed by being invisible. Per rules.
It then goes on to discuss what happens if you're 'guessing" their location as a result of them being unnoticed and unseen. You gotta guess where they are! You can't track invisible enemies for free. Not here in 5e.
Yes you are not seen when invisible, so you escape people's notice at least visually speaking. Same when being heavily obscured in darkness, opaque fog etc and (dis)advantage is always applicable.
But you still make noise and leave tracks unless you take the Hide action to conceal your position. This is the by the book way to do so and normally requires an action. A DM can always decide to rule otherwise if they want unseen to also be silent and automatically hidden without the use of the Hide action of course.
Another Devs tweet on it
@quadhund But is the invisible person considered hidden as a result of casting invisibility?
@JeremyECrawford Invisible = unseen. Hidden = unseen and unheard.
You don't necessarily make noise or leave tracks, though. Those are possible, sure, but not guaranteed. Implying that because you might be able to detect an invisible creature by those things that you somehow then ALWAYS pinpoint their exact location unerringly without effort immediately by those means...two very different takes.
His quote here just reminds people that if you hear an invisible spellcaster talking, you'd be able to figure out where he was, or at least be able to tell something was there...talking. Why? Because being invisible doesn't stop you from being heard. But the potential to be heard doesn't mean you atomatically and unfailingly are deteted every time without so much as a roll or even effort.
In fact wether you move or not is irrelevant but if you do, you likely to even make your location more obvious by making noise or leaving tracks. What matter is if you take the Hide action and make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in the end.
You don't automatically detect invisible creatures/objects. ^ In that video, if you go to the Invisibility conversation he even STARTS the convo off with "When you're invisible your attack rolls have advantage and people's attack rolls against you have disadvantage. This is true even if they know where you are" If they know. If. IF they know. The assumption you're making that people always know is just false, isn't supported by the rules, or the devs. They say "even if you know where they're at" half a dozen time. The fact they keep carving out the exception that 'oh hey you might not know where they're at but if you do..." and you link that video in support of your argument??? It directly refutes you.
It's the contrary, the Invisible condition says the creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves, so imagine those not even invisible but seen! You can make Dexterity (Stealth) check to move silently, i'd imagine an invisible creature's Hide action would be for that since it doesn't need to do so to become unseen. And making Stealth check to move silently shouldn't make you hidden, only move silently. Hiding require the action, also confirmed by Devs
@alessandro_d_t I am unseen, do I need hide action to move silently in combat or stealth check is included in movement?
@mikemearls still need to use the action
I mean just listen to the Devs and read what they say it is more than clear that being unseen doesn't automatically give you the benefit of being unheard for free. A DM can rule it that way if he want, but he'd make heavily obscured area AoE effect more powerful than they are, and would weaken the Hiding rules in general. Hiding is not free.
He's asking about making a hide action "as part of his movement" and the dev replied with clarification that it is an action to hide. Nothing about that interaction supports your argument.
In fact wether you move or not is irrelevant but if you do, you likely to even make your location more obvious by making noise or leaving tracks. What matter is if you take the Hide action and make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in the end.
Where in the rules does it say that anyone has some sort of weapons lock anyone whose position they have known even for an instant? You are reading that in to the rules. Whether you move of not is irrelevant implies that no matter what you do, even if you go behind a solid object, regardless of overall noise conditions even if you go 60' or so straight up somehow, they somehow know precisely where you are unless you take a hide action, that they automatically hear you. I am not saying it is automatic that they do not hear you, You are insisting that it is automatic that they do and that they know precisely where you are, period.
As already mentioned, you are only hidden if you attempt to hide (in combat this is done using the Hide). Consider the below rule in a scenario where you have not taken the Hide action:
Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score...
This rule states that a creature will notice you if their passive perception score is higher that the Stealth check you made when you hid. If you did not take the Hide action, you never hid, and never made a stealth check. Any creature's passive perception will therefore be higher than the 'nothing' you rolled. Most creatures would thus be aware of your location if you're within the limits of their perception and they don't automatically fail perception checks, are blinded and deafened etc.
Again, you do not automatically know the location of every being in existence. Hiding is not required for you to fail to see something. No where does the rules require someone to hide in order for you to fail to see them, know where they are, or even know they exist at all.
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.
You know the location of an invisible creature if they went invisible in front of your eyes and has not taken the hide action. You know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move without rolling stealth to hide. It is all explained why. Why is this an argument?
Obscurement does not apply to viewing out of said area. Scanning through a few forums. everyone agrees that at least with darkness, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that if you are hiding in a closet in darkness, and someone steps into the room the closet is in, and that room being dimly lit, that you inside the closet, can not see the person right in front of you just a few feet in the dimly lit area. So far, people that are saying you can not, because you are in darkness, and in a heavily obscured area (therefore your vision is "blocked"), when given this scenario are either saying "You attack from inside the closet at disadvantage because you can not see your target" or "The rule is broken". Neither makes sense.
Let's start there. I say, your interpretation is neither realistic, nor practical in game setting. My interpretation, which is that you use the rules for whatever obscurity level your target is in, not yourself, works perfectly in this case. In the case of a human rogue with no special sight, can see, from a hidden position, in the total darkness provided by the closet, into the dimly lit area, with disadvantage to perception checks when looking into that dimly lit area. That is the only rule in this scenario that applies (to the rogue), there are no disadvantages to attack OUT of darkness for the person inside darkness, being that at the moment, there are no cover issues or magical issues. The person in Dim light has disadvantage to attack the person in the closet, if said person (in the closet) is not hidden. If that person is hidden, the attacker outside of darkness, in the dimly lit area must also guess the hidden persons location (unless the closet is only one square big, and the character knows this). This is a more realistic approach, as anyone who has ever hid in a closet playing hide-n-go-seek knows. Or anyone going camping at night knows.
What say you to this.
What i say is everyone will most likely play it as you do. But that the rules as they are written, because they make no distinction for darkess and other heavily obscured area, being in a closet would block your vision to the light. You would not be effectively blinded when looking into the lightly obscured area of dim light. but would not see it with your vision blocked by the heavily obscured area you're in. Just like your vision would be blocked if you where in opaque fog for exemple.
If it didn't block vision, then even opaque fog would let you side outside or past it, but by mixing them all with darkness, it creates a problem that the errata never really fixed.
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
Because not all obscurement is created equal.
Dim Light creates an area of Light Obscurement, but not all Light Obscurement is created by Dim Light. Likewise, Darkness creates an area of Heavy Obscurement, but not all Heavy Obscurement is Darkness. Light, as a game concept, is another variable that makes dealing with these conditions easier.
Obscurement does not apply to viewing out of said area. Scanning through a few forums. everyone agrees that at least with darkness, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that if you are hiding in a closet in darkness, and someone steps into the room the closet is in, and that room being dimly lit, that you inside the closet, can not see the person right in front of you just a few feet in the dimly lit area. So far, people that are saying you can not, because you are in darkness, and in a heavily obscured area (therefore your vision is "blocked"), when given this scenario are either saying "You attack from inside the closet at disadvantage because you can not see your target" or "The rule is broken". Neither makes sense.
Let's start there. I say, your interpretation is neither realistic, nor practical in game setting. My interpretation, which is that you use the rules for whatever obscurity level your target is in, not yourself, works perfectly in this case. In the case of a human rogue with no special sight, can see, from a hidden position, in the total darkness provided by the closet, into the dimly lit area, with disadvantage to perception checks when looking into that dimly lit area. That is the only rule in this scenario that applies (to the rogue), there are no disadvantages to attack OUT of darkness for the person inside darkness, being that at the moment, there are no cover issues or magical issues. The person in Dim light has disadvantage to attack the person in the closet, if said person (in the closet) is not hidden. If that person is hidden, the attacker outside of darkness, in the dimly lit area must also guess the hidden persons location (unless the closet is only one square big, and the character knows this). This is a more realistic approach, as anyone who has ever hid in a closet playing hide-n-go-seek knows. Or anyone going camping at night knows.
What say you to this.
What i say is everyone will most likely play it as you do. But that the rules as they are written, because they make no distinction for darkess and other heavily obscured area, being in a closet would block your vision to the light. You would not be effectively blinded when looking into the lightly obscured area of dim light. but would not see it with your vision blocked by the heavily obscured area you're in. Just like your vision would be blocked if you where in opaque fog for exemple.
If it didn't block vision, then even opaque fog would let you side outside or past it, but by mixing them all with darkness, it creates a problem that the errata never really fixed.
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
Because not all obscurement is created equal.
Dim Light creates an area of Light Obscurement, but not all Light Obscurement is created by Dim Light. Likewise, Darkness creates an area of Heavy Obscurement, but not all Heavy Obscurement is Darkness. Light, as a game concept, is another variable that makes dealing with these conditions easier.
Thank you. But we are not talking about lightly obscured areas. Only heavily obscured areas and specifically darkness, fog, and foliage, in H obscured context only
You know the location of an invisible creature if they went invisible in front of your eyes and has not taken the hide action. You know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move without rolling stealth to hide. It is all explained why. Why is this an argument?
Because it isn't true. Here's an in-depth listing of everything the PHB has to say about the topic. The tl;dr is that anyone asserting the fine-grained details of perceiving an invisible creature's location (including claiming automatic success, as you do, automatic failure, skillchecks with DCs, or any other answer) as RAW is incorrect. The PHB offers no clear answer to the question. Any clear answer you offer is home-brew, not RAW.
Anecdotally, I have never personally played under a DM that gives PCs (or NPCs without a specific reason to have it) perfect echolocation like you're describing - and not one of them had to violate any RAW at all to fail to do so. When I DM, I also do not grant it, again without violating the RAW.
It's the contrary, the Invisible condition says the creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves, so imagine those not even invisible but seen! You can make Dexterity (Stealth) check to move silently, i'd imagine an invisible creature's Hide action would be for that since it doesn't need to do so to become unseen. And making Stealth check to move silently shouldn't make you hidden, only move silently. Hiding require the action, also confirmed by Devs
@alessandro_d_t I am unseen, do I need hide action to move silently in combat or stealth check is included in movement?
@mikemearls still need to use the action
I mean just listen to the Devs and read what they say it is more than clear that being unseen doesn't automatically give you the benefit of being unheard for free. A DM can rule it that way if he want, but he'd make heavily obscured area AoE effect more powerful than they are, and would weaken the Hiding rules in general. Hiding is not free.
Again, I have NEVER insisted on it giving being unheard for free. Not once in these 10 pages. I have said that it does not take an action to attempt. That is not the same thing.
You still have a stealth vs perception contest.
And invisibility should weaken hiding. It needs concentration and requires a spell slot, not to mention the ability to cast. And drops on attacking, needing another slot to renew.
Someone in the heavily obscured area likely cannot see out. It is only around the edges that they can.
And this is crippling to Rogues, since it eats their bonus action simply to stay hidden while moving. Every round they move.
It's the contrary, the Invisible condition says the creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves, so imagine those not even invisible but seen! You can make Dexterity (Stealth) check to move silently, i'd imagine an invisible creature's Hide action would be for that since it doesn't need to do so to become unseen. And making Stealth check to move silently shouldn't make you hidden, only move silently. Hiding require the action, also confirmed by Devs
@alessandro_d_t I am unseen, do I need hide action to move silently in combat or stealth check is included in movement?
@mikemearls still need to use the action
I mean just listen to the Devs and read what they say it is more than clear that being unseen doesn't automatically give you the benefit of being unheard for free. A DM can rule it that way if he want, but he'd make heavily obscured area AoE effect more powerful than they are, and would weaken the Hiding rules in general. Hiding is not free.
Again, I have NEVER insisted on it giving being unheard for free. Not once in these 10 pages. I have said that it does not take an action to attempt. That is not the same thing.
You still have a stealth vs perception contest.
And invisibility should weaken hiding. It needs concentration and requires a spell slot, not to mention the ability to cast. And drops on attacking, needing another slot to renew.
Someone in the heavily obscured area likely cannot see out. It is only around the edges that they can.
And this is crippling to Rogues, since it eats their bonus action simply to stay hidden while moving. Every round they move.
No, It does not eat their bonus action to stay hidden. If they take no attack actions, they do not continue to roll.
HIDING
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
They only have to roll again if they attack, because attacking reveals their location. "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
yes, this may weeking rogues in your eyes. There are mathematical game mechanics at play to equalize the game.
You know the location of an invisible creature if they went invisible in front of your eyes and has not taken the hide action. You know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move without rolling stealth to hide. It is all explained why. Why is this an argument?
Because it isn't true. Here's an in-depth listing of everything the PHB has to say about the topic. The tl;dr is that anyone asserting the fine-grained details of perceiving an invisible creature's location (including claiming automatic success, as you do, automatic failure, skillchecks with DCs, or any other answer) as RAW is incorrect. The PHB offers no clear answer to the question. Any clear answer you offer is home-brew, not RAW.
Anecdotally, I have never personally played under a DM that gives PCs (or NPCs without a specific reason to have it) perfect echolocation like you're describing - and not one of them had to violate any RAW at all to fail to do so. When I DM, I also do not grant it, again without violating the RAW.
"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."
So an invisible creature is Heavily obscured. "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." That means
Blinded
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
So we know we get to attack it at Disadvantage because of the blinded condition. This is confirmed by unseen attackers and targets rule "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."
Hide rules state "An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet". So we know it is unseen, but not unheard". We know that it can attempt to hide as well. This is the action "hide".
"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 you can hear it but not see it, it is no longer hidden. If that is the case then you are not guessing the targets location. Keyword here is OR.
If you are guessing the target's location? Then by default, you can not here it and it is therefore hidden. This is a simple logic conclusion.
You know the location of an invisible creature if they went invisible in front of your eyes and has not taken the hide action. You know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move without rolling stealth to hide. It is all explained why. Why is this an argument?
Because it isn't true. Here's an in-depth listing of everything the PHB has to say about the topic. The tl;dr is that anyone asserting the fine-grained details of perceiving an invisible creature's location (including claiming automatic success, as you do, automatic failure, skillchecks with DCs, or any other answer) as RAW is incorrect. The PHB offers no clear answer to the question. Any clear answer you offer is home-brew, not RAW.
Anecdotally, I have never personally played under a DM that gives PCs (or NPCs without a specific reason to have it) perfect echolocation like you're describing - and not one of them had to violate any RAW at all to fail to do so. When I DM, I also do not grant it, again without violating the RAW.
"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."
So an invisible creature is Heavily obscured. "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." That means
Blinded
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
So we know we get to attack it at Disadvantage because of the blinded condition. This is confirmed by unseen attackers and targets rule "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."
Hide rules state "An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet". So we know it is unseen, but not unheard". We know that it can attempt to hide as well. This is the action "hide".
"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 you can hear it but not see it, it is no longer hidden. If that is the case then you are not guessing the targets location. Keyword here is OR.
If you are guessing the target's location? Then by default, you can not here it and it is therefore hidden. This is a simple logic conclusion.
No, you don't automatically know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move. You don't even know their location if they do not move. They're invisible. You can't see if they've moved or not.
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.An invisible creature can always try to hide.Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.
Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.
What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.
As always, the DM decides.
In combat, the extents of noise that might typically be required to give a position away could be by things "such as shouting a warning or knocking a vase over".
Otherwise opponents, if they happened to have been looking in the direction of the thing they had previously seen, just see it disappear.
Did something turn invisible? Had there previously been an illusion or conjuration that had then expired? Had something somehow been transported to another location? Had you previously for some reason falsely pictured the thing as being there?
All you know is that something that was previously seen, is no longer seen. Unless you can successfully use other senses, you don't know the location of the thing that can't be seen. You can't see it.
No, It does not eat their bonus action to stay hidden. If they take no attack actions, they do not continue to roll.
HIDING
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
They only have to roll again if they attack, because attacking reveals their location. "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
yes, this may weeking rogues in your eyes. There are mathematical game mechanics at play to equalize the game.
What that does not say is "If you do not try to hide, everyone knows exactly where you are at all times."
As for 'mathematical game mechanics,' please show the math.
What it does say is that if you do try to hide, you're hidden until you're discovered or actively stop hiding (hiding means your location isn't known). It basically makes the statement you're asking for, just as a negative statement instead of a positive statement.
"If you do not try to hide, a creature will know your location" and "If you are hidden, a creature does not know your location" means the same thing in the context of the rules provided. If they don't, the Hide action would be rather obsolete wouldn't it?
No, It does not eat their bonus action to stay hidden. If they take no attack actions, they do not continue to roll.
HIDING
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
They only have to roll again if they attack, because attacking reveals their location. "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
yes, this may weeking rogues in your eyes. There are mathematical game mechanics at play to equalize the game.
What that does not say is "If you do not try to hide, everyone knows exactly where you are at all times."
As for 'mathematical game mechanics,' please show the math.
What it does say is that if you do try to hide, you're hidden until you're discovered or actively stop hiding (hiding means your location isn't known). It basically makes the statement you're asking for, just as a negative statement instead of a positive statement.
"If you do not try to hide, a creature will know your location" and "If you are hidden, a creature does not know your location" means the same thing in the context of the rules provided. If they don't, the Hide action would be rather obsolete wouldn't it?
So, under the rules, you know the location of someone the other side of the planet then, simply because they are standing in the open and not trying to hide? That is what "If you do not try to hide, a creature will know your location" means. 'A means B' does not automatically mean that therefore B means A. 'An apple is a fruit' does not equate to therefore if you have a fruit, it must be an apple.
If you are in plain sight, they know where you are unless you do something to prevent them knowing that. If someone moves out of line of sight, it is just as if they were on the other side of the planet as far as sighting.
Normally, one must have some sort of screen or cover to move into in order to break line of sight. Doing that in such a way that you are still unseen and they do not still see you since they know exactly where to look is where the Hide action comes in. You are arguing that invisibility requires two actions to achieve that, casting and Hiding, despite needing a spell slot and concentration. The fact that the invisibility spell exists does not make the hide action obsolete. Maybe in your campaigns everyone has invisibility, on demand no less, but that is not normal at all.
And as for Crawford and Mearls, I have yet to hear them challenged on the accuracy of locating by sound or the ramifications of knowing the location of someone just based on sound.
I have already stated the obvious multiple times, but I'll do it again for your benefit: Your ability to perceive things are limited in the manner described in the rules. I don't know why you and Ravnodaus keep ignoring this, I'm certain it has nothing to do with reading comprehension.
Here is another passage that addresses the topic:
If neither side is being stealthy, creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another.
Again, simply put, if you are not being stealthy (symbolised by a Stealth check) you will automatically be noticed. If you are invisible but still within hearing range and have not made a Stealth check, you are noticed. It doesn't matter if you start the combat invisible or you become invisible during the combat, if you don't take the time to become unheard as well as unseen, you are not hidden and are noticed. And of course, in the end, the DM decides if environmental factors outside the rules have an impact on the mechanics.
Kotah "Normally, one must have some sort of screen or cover to move into in order to break line of sight...."
You do indeed not have to take the Hide to become unseen when you are heavily obscured or there's no line of sight between you and the person trying to perceive you. On that we agree.
"...Doing that in such a way that you are still unseen and they do not still see you since they know exactly where to look is where the Hide action comes in."
No, as you just stated in the previous sentence, you are unseen when there's no line of sight between you and the perceiver. You don't need to take the Hide action after becoming unseen to stay unseen. Taking the Hide action after breaking line of sight and becoming unseen makes you hidden (both unseen and unheard). Being Invisible and being hidden are two separate mechanics.
Obscurement does not apply to viewing out of said area. Scanning through a few forums. everyone agrees that at least with darkness, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that if you are hiding in a closet in darkness, and someone steps into the room the closet is in, and that room being dimly lit, that you inside the closet, can not see the person right in front of you just a few feet in the dimly lit area. So far, people that are saying you can not, because you are in darkness, and in a heavily obscured area (therefore your vision is "blocked"), when given this scenario are either saying "You attack from inside the closet at disadvantage because you can not see your target" or "The rule is broken". Neither makes sense.
Let's start there. I say, your interpretation is neither realistic, nor practical in game setting. My interpretation, which is that you use the rules for whatever obscurity level your target is in, not yourself, works perfectly in this case. In the case of a human rogue with no special sight, can see, from a hidden position, in the total darkness provided by the closet, into the dimly lit area, with disadvantage to perception checks when looking into that dimly lit area. That is the only rule in this scenario that applies (to the rogue), there are no disadvantages to attack OUT of darkness for the person inside darkness, being that at the moment, there are no cover issues or magical issues. The person in Dim light has disadvantage to attack the person in the closet, if said person (in the closet) is not hidden. If that person is hidden, the attacker outside of darkness, in the dimly lit area must also guess the hidden persons location (unless the closet is only one square big, and the character knows this). This is a more realistic approach, as anyone who has ever hid in a closet playing hide-n-go-seek knows. Or anyone going camping at night knows.
What say you to this.
What i say is everyone will most likely play it as you do. But that the rules as they are written, because they make no distinction for darkess and other heavily obscured area, being in a closet would block your vision to the light. You would not be effectively blinded when looking into the lightly obscured area of dim light. but would not see it with your vision blocked by the heavily obscured area you're in. Just like your vision would be blocked if you where in opaque fog for exemple.
If it didn't block vision, then even opaque fog would let you side outside or past it, but by mixing them all with darkness, it creates a problem that the errata never really fixed.
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
Because not all obscurement is created equal.
Dim Light creates an area of Light Obscurement, but not all Light Obscurement is created by Dim Light. Likewise, Darkness creates an area of Heavy Obscurement, but not all Heavy Obscurement is Darkness. Light, as a game concept, is another variable that makes dealing with these conditions easier.
Thank you. But we are not talking about lightly obscured areas. Only heavily obscured areas and specifically darkness, fog, and foliage, in H obscured context only
Your arbitrarily chosen lines don't matter because it all exists on a spectrum. Darkvision treates darkness as dim light, and a several light sources (such as a torch) create areas of both bright light and dim light.
Darkness imposes the same penalties as having one's vision heavily obscured, but they're not the same. A lit brazier or hooded lantern can push back the darkness, but it can't do squat against fog cloud or a similar, natural phenomena. Maybe you can see the area of thick fog, instead of firing blindly into the darkness, but it's still thick fog. And if you're standing in the fog, you're blinded. It doesn't matter if you're looking out or in. Maybe a DM will let you stand on the edge and peer out with no disadvantage. But speculating over what a DM may or may not allow isn't helpful to a RAW discussion.
Obscurement does not apply to viewing out of said area. Scanning through a few forums. everyone agrees that at least with darkness, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that if you are hiding in a closet in darkness, and someone steps into the room the closet is in, and that room being dimly lit, that you inside the closet, can not see the person right in front of you just a few feet in the dimly lit area. So far, people that are saying you can not, because you are in darkness, and in a heavily obscured area (therefore your vision is "blocked"), when given this scenario are either saying "You attack from inside the closet at disadvantage because you can not see your target" or "The rule is broken". Neither makes sense.
Let's start there. I say, your interpretation is neither realistic, nor practical in game setting. My interpretation, which is that you use the rules for whatever obscurity level your target is in, not yourself, works perfectly in this case. In the case of a human rogue with no special sight, can see, from a hidden position, in the total darkness provided by the closet, into the dimly lit area, with disadvantage to perception checks when looking into that dimly lit area. That is the only rule in this scenario that applies (to the rogue), there are no disadvantages to attack OUT of darkness for the person inside darkness, being that at the moment, there are no cover issues or magical issues. The person in Dim light has disadvantage to attack the person in the closet, if said person (in the closet) is not hidden. If that person is hidden, the attacker outside of darkness, in the dimly lit area must also guess the hidden persons location (unless the closet is only one square big, and the character knows this). This is a more realistic approach, as anyone who has ever hid in a closet playing hide-n-go-seek knows. Or anyone going camping at night knows.
What say you to this.
What i say is everyone will most likely play it as you do. But that the rules as they are written, because they make no distinction for darkess and other heavily obscured area, being in a closet would block your vision to the light. You would not be effectively blinded when looking into the lightly obscured area of dim light. but would not see it with your vision blocked by the heavily obscured area you're in. Just like your vision would be blocked if you where in opaque fog for exemple.
If it didn't block vision, then even opaque fog would let you side outside or past it, but by mixing them all with darkness, it creates a problem that the errata never really fixed.
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
Because not all obscurement is created equal.
Dim Light creates an area of Light Obscurement, but not all Light Obscurement is created by Dim Light. Likewise, Darkness creates an area of Heavy Obscurement, but not all Heavy Obscurement is Darkness. Light, as a game concept, is another variable that makes dealing with these conditions easier.
Thank you. But we are not talking about lightly obscured areas. Only heavily obscured areas and specifically darkness, fog, and foliage, in H obscured context only
Your arbitrarily chosen lines don't matter because it all exists on a spectrum. Darkvision treates darkness as dim light, and a several light sources (such as a torch) create areas of both bright light and dim light.
Darkness imposes the same penalties as having one's vision heavily obscured, but they're not the same. A lit brazier or hooded lantern can push back the darkness, but it can't do squat against fog cloud or a similar, natural phenomena. Maybe you can see the area of thick fog, instead of firing blindly into the darkness, but it's still thick fog. And if you're standing in the fog, you're blinded. It doesn't matter if you're looking out or in. Maybe a DM will let you stand on the edge and peer out with no disadvantage. But speculating over what a DM may or may not allow isn't helpful to a RAW discussion.
Sorry but we are not talking about anything other than normal sight without any magical interferentes, since those are applied after the fact. We are talking about RAW interpretation. if you feel that fog is not the same as darkness. And they are both only considered heavily obscured and nothing else, then I understanding is you are choosing to disregard rules for heavily obscured for one, to satisfy the other, as it seems most people are doing. Is this what you are saying?
You don't automatically detect invisible creatures/objects. ^ In that video, if you go to the Invisibility conversation he even STARTS the convo off with "When you're invisible your attack rolls have advantage and people's attack rolls against you have disadvantage. This is true even if they know where you are" If they know. If. IF they know. The assumption you're making that people always know is just false, isn't supported by the rules, or the devs. They say "even if you know where they're at" half a dozen time. The fact they keep carving out the exception that 'oh hey you might not know where they're at but if you do..." and you link that video in support of your argument??? It directly refutes you.
Did you listen to the rest of the video??? You say it refuting me but fail to quote the direct passage that on the contrary address it. I'll put it here for everyone to read.
Jeremy Crawford: When you're in invisible it doesn't mean your silent. If you really want to make sure people don't know where you are, you need to hide, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check and you're hoping that they are not only not gonna notice any visual traces of where you are but they are not gonna hear you
So to resume, being unseen, wether invisible, heavily obscured, or because the other is blinded, doesn't make you hidden for free nor does it make your location unknown automatically. You are not silent because you are unseen. You need to become hidden for that by taking the Hide action and rolling high enought to beat other's Perception. Only then will you also be unseen and unheard as well and then they won't know your location anymore. It's not free nor automatic.
Obscurement does not apply to viewing out of said area. Scanning through a few forums. everyone agrees that at least with darkness, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that if you are hiding in a closet in darkness, and someone steps into the room the closet is in, and that room being dimly lit, that you inside the closet, can not see the person right in front of you just a few feet in the dimly lit area. So far, people that are saying you can not, because you are in darkness, and in a heavily obscured area (therefore your vision is "blocked"), when given this scenario are either saying "You attack from inside the closet at disadvantage because you can not see your target" or "The rule is broken". Neither makes sense.
Let's start there. I say, your interpretation is neither realistic, nor practical in game setting. My interpretation, which is that you use the rules for whatever obscurity level your target is in, not yourself, works perfectly in this case. In the case of a human rogue with no special sight, can see, from a hidden position, in the total darkness provided by the closet, into the dimly lit area, with disadvantage to perception checks when looking into that dimly lit area. That is the only rule in this scenario that applies (to the rogue), there are no disadvantages to attack OUT of darkness for the person inside darkness, being that at the moment, there are no cover issues or magical issues. The person in Dim light has disadvantage to attack the person in the closet, if said person (in the closet) is not hidden. If that person is hidden, the attacker outside of darkness, in the dimly lit area must also guess the hidden persons location (unless the closet is only one square big, and the character knows this). This is a more realistic approach, as anyone who has ever hid in a closet playing hide-n-go-seek knows. Or anyone going camping at night knows.
What say you to this.
What i say is everyone will most likely play it as you do. But that the rules as they are written, because they make no distinction for darkess and other heavily obscured area, being in a closet would block your vision to the light. You would not be effectively blinded when looking into the lightly obscured area of dim light. but would not see it with your vision blocked by the heavily obscured area you're in. Just like your vision would be blocked if you where in opaque fog for exemple.
If it didn't block vision, then even opaque fog would let you side outside or past it, but by mixing them all with darkness, it creates a problem that the errata never really fixed.
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
Because not all obscurement is created equal.
Dim Light creates an area of Light Obscurement, but not all Light Obscurement is created by Dim Light. Likewise, Darkness creates an area of Heavy Obscurement, but not all Heavy Obscurement is Darkness. Light, as a game concept, is another variable that makes dealing with these conditions easier.
Thank you. But we are not talking about lightly obscured areas. Only heavily obscured areas and specifically darkness, fog, and foliage, in H obscured context only
Your arbitrarily chosen lines don't matter because it all exists on a spectrum. Darkvision treates darkness as dim light, and a several light sources (such as a torch) create areas of both bright light and dim light.
Darkness imposes the same penalties as having one's vision heavily obscured, but they're not the same. A lit brazier or hooded lantern can push back the darkness, but it can't do squat against fog cloud or a similar, natural phenomena. Maybe you can see the area of thick fog, instead of firing blindly into the darkness, but it's still thick fog. And if you're standing in the fog, you're blinded. It doesn't matter if you're looking out or in. Maybe a DM will let you stand on the edge and peer out with no disadvantage. But speculating over what a DM may or may not allow isn't helpful to a RAW discussion.
Sorry but we are not talking about anything other than normal sight without any magical interferentes, since those are applied after the fact. We are talking about RAW interpretation. if you feel that fog is not the same as darkness. And they are both only considered heavily obscured and nothing else, then I understanding is you are choosing to disregard rules for heavily obscured for one, to satisfy the other, as it seems most people are doing. Is this what you are saying?
[REDACTED]
A light source will push back darkness and the localized environment will not be heavily obscured because the darkness is no longer present. This does not mean there cannot be other reasons for the area remaining heavily obscured. Nor will the same light source counteract other reasons the environment might be heavily obscured. Darkness is one way an area might be heavily obscured. But it is not the only way, and dealing with that specific cause has its own remedies. Likewise, other causes will have their own remedies.
What's more, Blindsight, Darkvision, and Truesight are all detailed in the rules for Vision and Light; the very source for our rules on lightly and heavily obscured areas. Meaning you cannot divorce them from the conversation.
The rules don't only talk about not being able to see something in an area that is heavily obscured. Remember, the rules for a lightly obscured area explicitly talk about creatures standing in that area. In that context, creatures standing in a heavily obscured area are blinded. It doesn't just apply to peering into that area, and do not take that perceived silence to mean consent. That's not how the rules work.
If you have a problem with rulings made at the table, take it up with your DM after the session is over. And if you are the DM, be prepared to back your rulings up. So far, you haven't made a convincing argument. [REDACTED]
Notes: Please keep comments respectful and constructive.
You know the location of an invisible creature if they went invisible in front of your eyes and has not taken the hide action. You know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move without rolling stealth to hide. It is all explained why. Why is this an argument?
Because it isn't true. Here's an in-depth listing of everything the PHB has to say about the topic. The tl;dr is that anyone asserting the fine-grained details of perceiving an invisible creature's location (including claiming automatic success, as you do, automatic failure, skillchecks with DCs, or any other answer) as RAW is incorrect. The PHB offers no clear answer to the question. Any clear answer you offer is home-brew, not RAW.
Anecdotally, I have never personally played under a DM that gives PCs (or NPCs without a specific reason to have it) perfect echolocation like you're describing - and not one of them had to violate any RAW at all to fail to do so. When I DM, I also do not grant it, again without violating the RAW.
"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."
So an invisible creature is Heavily obscured. "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." That means
Blinded
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
So we know we get to attack it at Disadvantage because of the blinded condition. This is confirmed by unseen attackers and targets rule "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."
Hide rules state "An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet". So we know it is unseen, but not unheard". We know that it can attempt to hide as well. This is the action "hide".
"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 you can hear it but not see it, it is no longer hidden. If that is the case then you are not guessing the targets location. Keyword here is OR.
If you are guessing the target's location? Then by default, you can not here it and it is therefore hidden. This is a simple logic conclusion.
No, you don't automatically know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move. You don't even know their location if they do not move. They're invisible. You can't see if they've moved or not.
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.An invisible creature can always try to hide.Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.
Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.
What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.
As always, the DM decides.
In combat, the extents of noise that might typically be required to give a position away could be by things "such as shouting a warning or knocking a vase over".
Otherwise opponents, if they happened to have been looking in the direction of the thing they had previously seen, just see it disappear.
Did something turn invisible? Had there previously been an illusion or conjuration that had then expired? Had something somehow been transported to another location? Had you previously for some reason falsely pictured the thing as being there?
All you know is that something that was previously seen, is no longer seen. Unless you can successfully use other senses, you don't know the location of the thing that can't be seen. You can't see it.
Rules are rules. You don't have to abide by them. You are unseen when invisible. Not unheard. To be unheard requires the hide action. That's the rules. Otherwise, you attack at the invisible thing at disadvantage. Not in combat? you see it disappear. Is it doing the Macarena while invisible? You hear it. Is it attempting to stay very still? That's the hide action. Want to play it another way? Go right ahead.
And why do you give Fog the superior position and not darkness? As I understand it, you're saying that Fog cloud or fog gives your interpretation it's legitimacy, and because it conflicts with darkness, darkness is broken essentially. Why would or could it not be the other way around. That lighting is fine, that the interpretation I state lends itself to more reasonable activity in darkness, and therefore it is Fog cloud as only heavily obscured that is broken?
Because the rule don't make a distinction one way or another, it handle all heavily obscured the same way, so they either block vision or they don't. They eighter make you effectively blinded when trying to see in the area or it doesn't, Cant just nitpick and choose :)
There's no move action in 5E. When Mike Mealrs say you still need to use ''the action'', he is referring to the Hide action mentioned in the question.
I understand. But isn't that a little one dimensional? I am not changing anything or nitpicking. Everything works the same. Yes. It blocks vision. When looking in. Not when looking out. Why? because that is what it says. You don't think it is possible that maybe the most common issue being "wrong" as far as darkness, and many people ignoring the rule because of it maybe suspect? That perhaps the interpretation may be wrong? Because honestly, it works in almost every scenario as I state it. That the obscurity levels of the area of what you are trying to affect are the rules you follow, not the levels that you are in. The only issue is fog. Which, actually may not even be much of an issue. I honestly fail to see why people think you can't see out of a fog cloud that's only 20ft deep. I think peoples version of what they think a heavily obscured fog cloud actually looks like is not what they think it is, but whatever. Let's say it is. Wouldn't my interpretation cover more ground more reasonably. If it satisfies reasonable gameplay in darkness, and satisfies reasonable gameplay in foliage, then isn't it a possibility that I may be right?
Detecting the presence of an invisible creature is not automatic, no matter how much you claim to the contrary. You're suggesting that an invisible floating spectral creature in a zone of silence can be accurately and precisely targeted in combat 100% of the time. That is... well, it is "a" take. But not one the rulebooks gives.
There are even rules for if you are guessing the correct location of not. Seriously. Just follow the rules:
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.
^ What's that say? What are the 3 ways it lists escaping being noticed? 1. hiding, yes. 2. being invisible. 3. darkness. So, 3 options, not just the single option you're hyperfixated on. You can go unnoticed by being invisible. Per rules.
It then goes on to discuss what happens if you're 'guessing" their location as a result of them being unnoticed and unseen. You gotta guess where they are! You can't track invisible enemies for free. Not here in 5e.
You don't necessarily make noise or leave tracks, though. Those are possible, sure, but not guaranteed. Implying that because you might be able to detect an invisible creature by those things that you somehow then ALWAYS pinpoint their exact location unerringly without effort immediately by those means...two very different takes.
His quote here just reminds people that if you hear an invisible spellcaster talking, you'd be able to figure out where he was, or at least be able to tell something was there...talking. Why? Because being invisible doesn't stop you from being heard. But the potential to be heard doesn't mean you atomatically and unfailingly are deteted every time without so much as a roll or even effort.
You don't automatically detect invisible creatures/objects. ^ In that video, if you go to the Invisibility conversation he even STARTS the convo off with "When you're invisible your attack rolls have advantage and people's attack rolls against you have disadvantage. This is true even if they know where you are" If they know. If. IF they know. The assumption you're making that people always know is just false, isn't supported by the rules, or the devs. They say "even if you know where they're at" half a dozen time. The fact they keep carving out the exception that 'oh hey you might not know where they're at but if you do..." and you link that video in support of your argument??? It directly refutes you.
He's asking about making a hide action "as part of his movement" and the dev replied with clarification that it is an action to hide. Nothing about that interaction supports your argument.
Again, you do not automatically know the location of every being in existence. Hiding is not required for you to fail to see something. No where does the rules require someone to hide in order for you to fail to see them, know where they are, or even know they exist at all.
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.
You know the location of an invisible creature if they went invisible in front of your eyes and has not taken the hide action. You know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move without rolling stealth to hide. It is all explained why. Why is this an argument?
Because not all obscurement is created equal.
Dim Light creates an area of Light Obscurement, but not all Light Obscurement is created by Dim Light. Likewise, Darkness creates an area of Heavy Obscurement, but not all Heavy Obscurement is Darkness. Light, as a game concept, is another variable that makes dealing with these conditions easier.
Thank you. But we are not talking about lightly obscured areas. Only heavily obscured areas and specifically darkness, fog, and foliage, in H obscured context only
Because it isn't true. Here's an in-depth listing of everything the PHB has to say about the topic. The tl;dr is that anyone asserting the fine-grained details of perceiving an invisible creature's location (including claiming automatic success, as you do, automatic failure, skillchecks with DCs, or any other answer) as RAW is incorrect. The PHB offers no clear answer to the question. Any clear answer you offer is home-brew, not RAW.
Anecdotally, I have never personally played under a DM that gives PCs (or NPCs without a specific reason to have it) perfect echolocation like you're describing - and not one of them had to violate any RAW at all to fail to do so. When I DM, I also do not grant it, again without violating the RAW.
No, It does not eat their bonus action to stay hidden. If they take no attack actions, they do not continue to roll.
HIDING
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
They only have to roll again if they attack, because attacking reveals their location. "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."
yes, this may weeking rogues in your eyes. There are mathematical game mechanics at play to equalize the game.
"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."
So an invisible creature is Heavily obscured. "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." That means
Blinded
So we know we get to attack it at Disadvantage because of the blinded condition. This is confirmed by unseen attackers and targets rule "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."
Hide rules state "An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet". So we know it is unseen, but not unheard". We know that it can attempt to hide as well. This is the action "hide".
"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 you can hear it but not see it, it is no longer hidden. If that is the case then you are not guessing the targets location. Keyword here is OR.
If you are guessing the target's location? Then by default, you can not here it and it is therefore hidden. This is a simple logic conclusion.
No, you don't automatically know the location of an invisible creature that attempts to move. You don't even know their location if they do not move. They're invisible. You can't see if they've moved or not.
Hide rules state:
As always, the DM decides.
In combat, the extents of noise that might typically be required to give a position away could be by things "such as shouting a warning or knocking a vase over".
Otherwise opponents, if they happened to have been looking in the direction of the thing they had previously seen, just see it disappear.
Did something turn invisible? Had there previously been an illusion or conjuration that had then expired? Had something somehow been transported to another location? Had you previously for some reason falsely pictured the thing as being there?
All you know is that something that was previously seen, is no longer seen. Unless you can successfully use other senses, you don't know the location of the thing that can't be seen. You can't see it.
What it does say is that if you do try to hide, you're hidden until you're discovered or actively stop hiding (hiding means your location isn't known). It basically makes the statement you're asking for, just as a negative statement instead of a positive statement.
"If you do not try to hide, a creature will know your location" and "If you are hidden, a creature does not know your location" means the same thing in the context of the rules provided. If they don't, the Hide action would be rather obsolete wouldn't it?
I have already stated the obvious multiple times, but I'll do it again for your benefit: Your ability to perceive things are limited in the manner described in the rules. I don't know why you and Ravnodaus keep ignoring this, I'm certain it has nothing to do with reading comprehension.
Here is another passage that addresses the topic:
Again, simply put, if you are not being stealthy (symbolised by a Stealth check) you will automatically be noticed. If you are invisible but still within hearing range and have not made a Stealth check, you are noticed. It doesn't matter if you start the combat invisible or you become invisible during the combat, if you don't take the time to become unheard as well as unseen, you are not hidden and are noticed. And of course, in the end, the DM decides if environmental factors outside the rules have an impact on the mechanics.
You do indeed not have to take the Hide to become unseen when you are heavily obscured or there's no line of sight between you and the person trying to perceive you. On that we agree.
No, as you just stated in the previous sentence, you are unseen when there's no line of sight between you and the perceiver. You don't need to take the Hide action after becoming unseen to stay unseen. Taking the Hide action after breaking line of sight and becoming unseen makes you hidden (both unseen and unheard). Being Invisible and being hidden are two separate mechanics.
Your arbitrarily chosen lines don't matter because it all exists on a spectrum. Darkvision treates darkness as dim light, and a several light sources (such as a torch) create areas of both bright light and dim light.
Darkness imposes the same penalties as having one's vision heavily obscured, but they're not the same. A lit brazier or hooded lantern can push back the darkness, but it can't do squat against fog cloud or a similar, natural phenomena. Maybe you can see the area of thick fog, instead of firing blindly into the darkness, but it's still thick fog. And if you're standing in the fog, you're blinded. It doesn't matter if you're looking out or in. Maybe a DM will let you stand on the edge and peer out with no disadvantage. But speculating over what a DM may or may not allow isn't helpful to a RAW discussion.
Sorry but we are not talking about anything other than normal sight without any magical interferentes, since those are applied after the fact. We are talking about RAW interpretation.
if you feel that fog is not the same as darkness. And they are both only considered heavily obscured and nothing else, then I understanding is you are choosing to disregard rules for heavily obscured for one, to satisfy the other, as it seems most people are doing. Is this what you are saying?
Did you listen to the rest of the video??? You say it refuting me but fail to quote the direct passage that on the contrary address it. I'll put it here for everyone to read.
Jeremy Crawford: When you're in invisible it doesn't mean your silent. If you really want to make sure people don't know where you are, you need to hide, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check and you're hoping that they are not only not gonna notice any visual traces of where you are but they are not gonna hear you
So to resume, being unseen, wether invisible, heavily obscured, or because the other is blinded, doesn't make you hidden for free nor does it make your location unknown automatically. You are not silent because you are unseen. You need to become hidden for that by taking the Hide action and rolling high enought to beat other's Perception. Only then will you also be unseen and unheard as well and then they won't know your location anymore. It's not free nor automatic.
[REDACTED]
A light source will push back darkness and the localized environment will not be heavily obscured because the darkness is no longer present. This does not mean there cannot be other reasons for the area remaining heavily obscured. Nor will the same light source counteract other reasons the environment might be heavily obscured. Darkness is one way an area might be heavily obscured. But it is not the only way, and dealing with that specific cause has its own remedies. Likewise, other causes will have their own remedies.
What's more, Blindsight, Darkvision, and Truesight are all detailed in the rules for Vision and Light; the very source for our rules on lightly and heavily obscured areas. Meaning you cannot divorce them from the conversation.
The rules don't only talk about not being able to see something in an area that is heavily obscured. Remember, the rules for a lightly obscured area explicitly talk about creatures standing in that area. In that context, creatures standing in a heavily obscured area are blinded. It doesn't just apply to peering into that area, and do not take that perceived silence to mean consent. That's not how the rules work.
If you have a problem with rulings made at the table, take it up with your DM after the session is over. And if you are the DM, be prepared to back your rulings up. So far, you haven't made a convincing argument. [REDACTED]
Rules are rules. You don't have to abide by them. You are unseen when invisible. Not unheard. To be unheard requires the hide action. That's the rules. Otherwise, you attack at the invisible thing at disadvantage. Not in combat? you see it disappear. Is it doing the Macarena while invisible? You hear it. Is it attempting to stay very still? That's the hide action. Want to play it another way? Go right ahead.