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.
To be unseen and unheard. So it is impossible to move quietly while someone is watching you. And if you are unseen, people know *exactly* where you are, regardless of the reasons you are unseen.... unless you actively hide.
Regardless of the contradictions and absurd situations this creates.
Is that your position?
Are you saying that this applies even if you are wearing Boots of Elvenkind that mask your sound or a silence spell is in effect around you in addition to invisibility?
Its possible to move quietly while being seen, the person would see you but not hear your movement. Not being heard has nothing to do with being seen or not.
Hiding is the by the book way to conceal your position. It is what the Dev are saying. Being invisible or otherwise unseen and in a Silence spell should make someone unseen and unheard. Even though it can still leave tracks, smell and other perceivable cue that hiding cover up etc a DM could always determine it grant hiding freely in such extreme circumstances if it want but without a Stealth score, it will be undetectable is what must be understood though.
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.
Why? Because you keep saying contradictory things.
You just said: "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""
Now, it is entirely possible that your own words don't represent your point of view. But if you mean what you say... that statement is false, and you're wrong. You do not automatically know the location of every creature that isn't actively hiding.
The rules never suggest you should automatically know any such thing. It is absurd to think you could, or should, automatically know anything really, especially something like *checks notes* the location of every creature in existence.
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.
What is the sight range of an invisible creature? And why do the rules provide 3 options for going unnoticed: Hide, invisible, darkness. If somehow you automatically notice creatures even if they're unnoticed.
Maybe you're wrong? Might be worth considering that maybe if a creature is completely unseen that someone might not...you know, see it.
"...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.
You know I just realized where the disconnect is. You think that if something isn't hidden you can pinpoint their exact location, despite the rules never saying this. What is actually happening, is that you are aware of their presence in general. An invisible creature that isn't hiding, you know something is there in a general sense but nothing at all guarantees you know where exactly it is. Just, that it is.
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.
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".
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.
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.
To be unseen and unheard. So it is impossible to move quietly while someone is watching you. And if you are unseen, people know *exactly* where you are, regardless of the reasons you are unseen.... unless you actively hide.
Regardless of the contradictions and absurd situations this creates.
Is that your position?
Are you saying that this applies even if you are wearing Boots of Elvenkind that mask your sound or a silence spell is in effect around you in addition to invisibility?
Its possible to move quietly while being seen, the person would see you but not hear your movement. Not being heard has nothing to do with being seen or not.
Hiding is the by the book way to conceal your position. It is what the Dev are saying. Being invisible or otherwise unseen and in a Silence spell should make someone unseen and unheard. Even though it can still leave tracks, smell and other perceivable cue that hiding masks etc a DM could always determine it grant hiding freely if it want but without a Stealth score, it will be undetectable is what must be understood.
No, based on what you have been arguing, it is not possible to move quietly while seen. You are arguing that you cannot move silently unless hidden and the hidden condition is broken if you are seen. If not being heard has nothing to do with being seen, then why do you need to hide to be quiet?
And now you are arguing that normal PC's can track location by smell. And that hiding masks your smell. Again, citation needed, please.
There are other ways one's general presence can be detected, yes, however never heard of ANY DM allowing precise location from sense of smell. And even if they had something covering that, you would presumably still insist that they were somehow still detectable without a Hide action.
I never said that, you may have misunderstood or you are mixing moving silently, and hiding, which is being unseen and unheard. These are different things.
The rules don't mention precisely how a hidden creature come to make his location unknown to others. But the rules state even invisible's location can still be detected by noise it makes or tracks it leaves etc so it is my assumption that hiding makes whatever necessary to mask your presence to others, whatever that is that someone's Perception can detect.
The rules also dont precise how exactly you detect a hidden creature's presence or location but all we know is that Perception let you ''spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses''
Even a L20 Rogue Stealth expert in the dark must make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to be hidden and have his location unknown. And success is not guaranteed, it can still be detected.
That being invisible would automatically makes your location unknown with no chance of being detected (but not heavily obscured or unseen by blinded etc) makes no sens to me and it's not what the Devs are saying.
And if being invisible would automatically let you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to have your location unknown it would say so. Instead, it says your location can be detected by noises you make or tracks you leave. So its safe to assume that while invisible, your location can still be detected.
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.
Why? Because you keep saying contradictory things.
You just said: "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""
Now, it is entirely possible that your own words don't represent your point of view. But if you mean what you say... that statement is false, and you're wrong. You do not automatically know the location of every creature that isn't actively hiding.
The rules never suggest you should automatically know any such thing. It is absurd to think you could, or should, automatically know anything really, especially something like *checks notes* the location of every creature in existence.
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.
What is the sight range of an invisible creature? And why do the rules provide 3 options for going unnoticed: Hide, invisible, darkness. If somehow you automatically notice creatures even if they're unnoticed.
Maybe you're wrong? Might be worth considering that maybe if a creature is completely unseen that someone might not...you know, see it.
"...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.
You know I just realized where the disconnect is. You think that if something isn't hidden you can pinpoint their exact location, despite the rules never saying this. What is actually happening, is that you are aware of their presence in general. An invisible creature that isn't hiding, you know something is there in a general sense but nothing at all guarantees you know where exactly it is. Just, that it is.
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.
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".
That is not the issue, the issue is when you cast invisibility in combat. If you cast invisibility while in combat and someone sees you, they know your last location. They also know you are still there unless you move. How that happens is up to the players imagination. It could be they see your imprint on the ground. In combat, standing completely still, or otherwise not doing anything to reveal your location is an active skill and according to combat rules, requires an action unless you have cunning action. That action is to hide. How you envision hide working is up to you but since you are already unseen, we can assume it has something to do with noise to have the status "unheard", therefore now hidden. Now. You can attempt to hide in place. But I will likely attack the last place I saw you in. If you move, you must do so stealthily or you will give yourself away to another one of my senses. That is the hide action. That action could be just to move stealthily. It it must be taken to enter the HIDDEN condition. If you are not in combat, certain things will still apply. If you go invisible right in front of someone, these rules still apply, but you aren't doing turns so you can immediately take your hide action, instead of waiting a full turn.
If you are entering combat already invisible, you must still take the hide action to move stealthily. It's just a stealth roll, and that can be done before combat starts. Upon entering combat, the DM must rule who is surprised.
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.
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.
As far as I know, you roll your stealth to do this only once, until you are discovered. Others must roll passive perception against your stealth roll.
You don't roll passive perception, it is a static number. To actively look for an invisible/hidden creature is an action and results in a perception ability check.
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.
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.
Why? Because you keep saying contradictory things.
You just said: "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""
Now, it is entirely possible that your own words don't represent your point of view. But if you mean what you say... that statement is false, and you're wrong. You do not automatically know the location of every creature that isn't actively hiding.
The rules never suggest you should automatically know any such thing. It is absurd to think you could, or should, automatically know anything really, especially something like *checks notes* the location of every creature in existence.
The notes you're checking belong to your own script. I have never said anything of the sort. You have said it multiple times (god knows why), and I have been necessitated to state the obvious time and time again: There are physical limits to your perception, the rules describe them and where the rules don't, common sense should apply (DM discretion). I shouldn't have to initiate my every comment with an outline of common sense in case someone counters with a "but then all creatures in the whole world know where you are".
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.
What is the sight range of an invisible creature? And why do the rules provide 3 options for going unnoticed: Hide, invisible, darkness. If somehow you automatically notice creatures even if they're unnoticed.
Maybe you're wrong? Might be worth considering that maybe if a creature is completely unseen that someone might not...you know, see it.
"...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.
You know I just realized where the disconnect is. You think that if something isn't hidden you can pinpoint their exact location, despite the rules never saying this. What is actually happening, is that you are aware of their presence in general. An invisible creature that isn't hiding, you know something is there in a general sense but nothing at all guarantees you know where exactly it is. Just, that it is.
"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 locationORyou'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. 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 locationORyou're targeting a creature you can hear but not see."
It's not echolocation, more like more or less 5 x 5 feet approximation, being the space the creature occupy that you can still target. 10 x 10 feet for large creature and so on etc...
The creature's location can be detected by the noise it makes and the tracks it leaves. If it doesn't want its location to be detected, it must take the Hide action and attempt to be unheard! It can always try to as the rules say, meaning it's not automatic success.
As far as I know, you roll your stealth to do this only once, until you are discovered. Others must roll passive perception against your stealth roll.
You don't roll passive perception, it is a static number. To actively look for an invisible/hidden creature is an action and results in a perception ability check.
My fault. I did not mean passive but have a habit of just calling it that. You are right.
Disadvantage to hit an invisible creature is how DnD says "This thing is harder to hit because you can't see it, but you know where it is". Remember that it will be exposed if it attacks, giving the victim enough information. I do not think you are technically locking onto the creature though. You are shooting into the space you think it is, hence your higher chance to miss. You know where it is. You can't actually see it.
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.
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.
To be unseen and unheard. So it is impossible to move quietly while someone is watching you. And if you are unseen, people know *exactly* where you are, regardless of the reasons you are unseen.... unless you actively hide.
Regardless of the contradictions and absurd situations this creates.
Is that your position?
Are you saying that this applies even if you are wearing Boots of Elvenkind that mask your sound or a silence spell is in effect around you in addition to invisibility?
Its possible to move quietly while being seen, the person would see you but not hear your movement. Not being heard has nothing to do with being seen or not.
Hiding is the by the book way to conceal your position. It is what the Dev are saying. Being invisible or otherwise unseen and in a Silence spell should make someone unseen and unheard. Even though it can still leave tracks, smell and other perceivable cue that hiding masks etc a DM could always determine it grant hiding freely if it want but without a Stealth score, it will be undetectable is what must be understood.
No, based on what you have been arguing, it is not possible to move quietly while seen. You are arguing that you cannot move silently unless hidden and the hidden condition is broken if you are seen. If not being heard has nothing to do with being seen, then why do you need to hide to be quiet?
And now you are arguing that normal PC's can track location by smell. And that hiding masks your smell. Again, citation needed, please.
There are other ways one's general presence can be detected, yes, however never heard of ANY DM allowing precise location from sense of smell. And even if they had something covering that, you would presumably still insist that they were somehow still detectable without a Hide action.
I never said that, you may have misunderstood or you are mixing moving silently, and hiding, which is being unseen and unheard. These are different things.
The rules don't mention precisely how a hidden creature come to make his location unknown to others. But the rules state even invisible's location can still be detected by noise it makes or tracks it leaves etc so it is my assumption that hiding makes whatever necessary to mask your presence to others, whatever that is that someone's Perception can detect.
The rules also dont precise how exactly you detect a hidden creature's presence or location but all we know is that Perception let you ''spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses''
Even a L20 Rogue Stealth expert in the dark must make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to be hidden and have his location unknown. And success is not guaranteed, it can still be detected.
That being invisible would automatically makes your location unknown with no chance of being detected (but not heavily obscured or unseen by blinded etc) makes no sens to me and it's not what the Devs are saying.
And if being invisible would automatically let you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to have your location unknown it would say so. Instead, it says your location can be detected by noises you make or tracks you leave. So its safe to assume that while invisible, your location can still be detected.
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 totally not what he is saying. He is saying what the rules are. Without anything else that may alter the rules. If you take the invisibility spell inside a space that is magically silenced, the DM has every right to deem you automatically Hidden without a stealth roll/hide action. There are dozens of combinations that may cancel out a rule. But that is not disregarding a rule. A third element is at play. If someone with boots of elvin kind goes invisible. It is another scenario where the DM could choose to automatically give you the hidden condition. That is up to the DM. But boots of elven kind specifically give you advantage on stealth involving moving silently, so he could still make you roll at advantage. The reason is because your steps aren’t the only thing that makes noise. Your clothing makes noise. Bumping into objects makes noise. Farting makes noise. There is chance for error, revealing your location, but being still unseen becasuse of invisibility.
Also..."When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house? " Most humans do not have a high perception skill. This takes years of training and talent, which some PC's have. It's called a high wisdom. You as a normal human are not your character.
Also..."When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house? " Most humans do not have a high perception skill. This takes years of training and talent, which some PC's have. It's called a high wisdom. You as a normal human are not your character.
Oh but my good sir, you are unawares of my years of dedicated training in the fine art of spotting footprints in hard marble floors.
... C'mon. You can admit that there aren't always going to be footprints. Right? I mean, you should be capable of imagining a scenario where there are not footprints. Right?
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.
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?
I'm not disregarding anything. You're the one cherry-picking your argument, and badly, I might add.
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. And if so many people are disagreeing with your interpretation, maybe you should reconsider your position instead of digging in your heels.
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?
I'm not disregarding anything. You're the one cherry-picking your argument, and badly, I might add.
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. And if so many people are disagreeing with your interpretation, maybe you should reconsider your position instead of digging in your heels.
"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. "
That sentence has no bearing. If there is more than one heavy obscurement in the area is not the conversation. Also, Obscurement doesn't stack, and multiple obscurement in the same area have no effect other than the area is heavily obscure, which has it's rules set, however you may interpret that rule. There are no differing heavily obscured rules sets. It is only one rules set. You may view things that are both heavily obscured but feel they have different dynamics, and that is fine. But then you must break raw for one if you choose to treat it differently than another, unless you add another rule set that may over ride or add to the obscurity rules set, like Cover rules.
We understand here Devil sight and true sight, but neither of those alter rule interpretation.
"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."
We are not discussing lightly obscured. We are discussing heavily obscured. Also, Heavily obscured specifically talks about things inside it. Not outside it.
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
Also..."When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house? " Most humans do not have a high perception skill. This takes years of training and talent, which some PC's have. It's called a high wisdom. You as a normal human are not your character.
Oh but my good sir, you are unawares of my years of dedicated training in the fine art of spotting footprints in hard marble floors.
... C'mon. You can admit that there aren't always going to be footprints. Right? I mean, you should be capable of imagining a scenario where there are not footprints. Right?
Have you ever seen hard marble floors? Dirty as Fudge in seconds. Also, Were you crawling around a dirty dungeon? did you wipe your feet before stepping in on said floor? And footprints is an example of how a dm could choose to let you know how you failed your stealth roll. It could just as easily be that you let out a wet one from the crappy jerky you made with your -1 survival check.....
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.
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.
Also..."When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house? " Most humans do not have a high perception skill. This takes years of training and talent, which some PC's have. It's called a high wisdom. You as a normal human are not your character.
Oh but my good sir, you are unawares of my years of dedicated training in the fine art of spotting footprints in hard marble floors.
... C'mon. You can admit that there aren't always going to be footprints. Right? I mean, you should be capable of imagining a scenario where there are not footprints. Right?
Have you ever seen hard marble floors? Dirty as Fudge in seconds. Also, Were you crawling around a dirty dungeon? did you wipe your feet before stepping in on said floor? And footprints is an example of how a dm could choose to let you know how you failed your stealth roll. It could just as easily be that you let out a wet one from the crappy jerky you made with your -1 survival check.....
Your ruling would need to apply universally, not to people with digestive issues and dirty feet. How would you spot the invisible guy who's also flying under the effect of the fly spell?? He's not leaving footprints, regardless of the quality of his his feet or of the ground. If your ruling isn't consistent in this situation it begs you reexamine it.
Creating noise, being heard, is something you only do when you do something else. Hit a dude with a warhammer? Noise. Cast a spell? Noise. Remain motionless? Not so much. Talk to someone? Noise. Knock over a vase? Noise. Hang motionless in the air? Not so much.
Invisibility doesn't help you stay quiet, but... just not doing anything to make noise does keep you quiet. Being invisible doesn't magically grant other creatures better hearing than before. If you walk into a room blindfolded, you're not likely able to pinpoint the exact location of anyone in that room. Not unless they do something to make noise. The fact the game treats them as automatically 'enemy presence detected' is already more than generous. The idea that you can auto-track their exact position is just simply not supported by the rules or by reason.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Its possible to move quietly while being seen, the person would see you but not hear your movement. Not being heard has nothing to do with being seen or not.
Hiding is the by the book way to conceal your position. It is what the Dev are saying. Being invisible or otherwise unseen and in a Silence spell should make someone unseen and unheard. Even though it can still leave tracks, smell and other perceivable cue that hiding cover up etc a DM could always determine it grant hiding freely in such extreme circumstances if it want but without a Stealth score, it will be undetectable is what must be understood though.
Why? Because you keep saying contradictory things.
You just said: "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""
Now, it is entirely possible that your own words don't represent your point of view. But if you mean what you say... that statement is false, and you're wrong. You do not automatically know the location of every creature that isn't actively hiding.
The rules never suggest you should automatically know any such thing. It is absurd to think you could, or should, automatically know anything really, especially something like *checks notes* the location of every creature in existence.
What is the sight range of an invisible creature? And why do the rules provide 3 options for going unnoticed: Hide, invisible, darkness. If somehow you automatically notice creatures even if they're unnoticed.
Maybe you're wrong? Might be worth considering that maybe if a creature is completely unseen that someone might not...you know, see it.
You know I just realized where the disconnect is. You think that if something isn't hidden you can pinpoint their exact location, despite the rules never saying this. What is actually happening, is that you are aware of their presence in general. An invisible creature that isn't hiding, you know something is there in a general sense but nothing at all guarantees you know where exactly it is. Just, that it is.
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.
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".
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.
I never said that, you may have misunderstood or you are mixing moving silently, and hiding, which is being unseen and unheard. These are different things.
The rules don't mention precisely how a hidden creature come to make his location unknown to others. But the rules state even invisible's location can still be detected by noise it makes or tracks it leaves etc so it is my assumption that hiding makes whatever necessary to mask your presence to others, whatever that is that someone's Perception can detect.
The rules also dont precise how exactly you detect a hidden creature's presence or location but all we know is that Perception let you ''spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses''
Even a L20 Rogue Stealth expert in the dark must make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to be hidden and have his location unknown. And success is not guaranteed, it can still be detected.
That being invisible would automatically makes your location unknown with no chance of being detected (but not heavily obscured or unseen by blinded etc) makes no sens to me and it's not what the Devs are saying.
And if being invisible would automatically let you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to have your location unknown it would say so. Instead, it says your location can be detected by noises you make or tracks you leave. So its safe to assume that while invisible, your location can still be detected.
That is not the issue, the issue is when you cast invisibility in combat. If you cast invisibility while in combat and someone sees you, they know your last location. They also know you are still there unless you move. How that happens is up to the players imagination. It could be they see your imprint on the ground. In combat, standing completely still, or otherwise not doing anything to reveal your location is an active skill and according to combat rules, requires an action unless you have cunning action. That action is to hide. How you envision hide working is up to you but since you are already unseen, we can assume it has something to do with noise to have the status "unheard", therefore now hidden. Now. You can attempt to hide in place. But I will likely attack the last place I saw you in. If you move, you must do so stealthily or you will give yourself away to another one of my senses. That is the hide action. That action could be just to move stealthily. It it must be taken to enter the HIDDEN condition. If you are not in combat, certain things will still apply. If you go invisible right in front of someone, these rules still apply, but you aren't doing turns so you can immediately take your hide action, instead of waiting a full turn.
If you are entering combat already invisible, you must still take the hide action to move stealthily. It's just a stealth roll, and that can be done before combat starts. Upon entering combat, the DM must rule who is surprised.
You must be unseen and unheard to be hidden
If you are unseen but heard, you are not hidden
If you are hidden and want to stay hidden, among other things, you must not make noise.
If you are hidden and want to move but stay hidden, you must not make noise. That will involve moving silently.
As far as I know, you roll your stealth to do this only once, until you are discovered. Others must roll passive perception against your stealth roll.
Knowing you're there -vs- Knowing you're there.
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:
Being Invisible puts them into category 2.
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 don't roll passive perception, it is a static number. To actively look for an invisible/hidden creature is an action and results in a perception ability check.
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 notes you're checking belong to your own script. I have never said anything of the sort. You have said it multiple times (god knows why), and I have been necessitated to state the obvious time and time again: There are physical limits to your perception, the rules describe them and where the rules don't, common sense should apply (DM discretion). I shouldn't have to initiate my every comment with an outline of common sense in case someone counters with a "but then all creatures in the whole world know where you are".
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. 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.
It's not echolocation, more like more or less 5 x 5 feet approximation, being the space the creature occupy that you can still target. 10 x 10 feet for large creature and so on etc...
The creature's location can be detected by the noise it makes and the tracks it leaves. If it doesn't want its location to be detected, it must take the Hide action and attempt to be unheard! It can always try to as the rules say, meaning it's not automatic success.
My fault. I did not mean passive but have a habit of just calling it that. You are right.
Disadvantage to hit an invisible creature is how DnD says "This thing is harder to hit because you can't see it, but you know where it is". Remember that it will be exposed if it attacks, giving the victim enough information. I do not think you are technically locking onto the creature though. You are shooting into the space you think it is, hence your higher chance to miss. You know where it is. You can't actually see it.
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.
This is totally not what he is saying. He is saying what the rules are. Without anything else that may alter the rules. If you take the invisibility spell inside a space that is magically silenced, the DM has every right to deem you automatically Hidden without a stealth roll/hide action. There are dozens of combinations that may cancel out a rule. But that is not disregarding a rule. A third element is at play. If someone with boots of elvin kind goes invisible. It is another scenario where the DM could choose to automatically give you the hidden condition. That is up to the DM. But boots of elven kind specifically give you advantage on stealth involving moving silently, so he could still make you roll at advantage. The reason is because your steps aren’t the only thing that makes noise. Your clothing makes noise. Bumping into objects makes noise. Farting makes noise. There is chance for error, revealing your location, but being still unseen becasuse of invisibility.
Also..."When was the last time you noticed anyone's footprints in your house? " Most humans do not have a high perception skill. This takes years of training and talent, which some PC's have. It's called a high wisdom. You as a normal human are not your character.
Oh but my good sir, you are unawares of my years of dedicated training in the fine art of spotting footprints in hard marble floors.
... C'mon. You can admit that there aren't always going to be footprints. Right? I mean, you should be capable of imagining a scenario where there are not footprints. Right?
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.
"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. "
That sentence has no bearing. If there is more than one heavy obscurement in the area is not the conversation. Also, Obscurement doesn't stack, and multiple obscurement in the same area have no effect other than the area is heavily obscure, which has it's rules set, however you may interpret that rule. There are no differing heavily obscured rules sets. It is only one rules set. You may view things that are both heavily obscured but feel they have different dynamics, and that is fine. But then you must break raw for one if you choose to treat it differently than another, unless you add another rule set that may over ride or add to the obscurity rules set, like Cover rules.
We understand here Devil sight and true sight, but neither of those alter rule interpretation.
"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."
We are not discussing lightly obscured. We are discussing heavily obscured. Also, Heavily obscured specifically talks about things inside it. Not outside it.
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area."
You also seem angry.....
Have you ever seen hard marble floors? Dirty as Fudge in seconds. Also, Were you crawling around a dirty dungeon? did you wipe your feet before stepping in on said floor? And footprints is an example of how a dm could choose to let you know how you failed your stealth roll. It could just as easily be that you let out a wet one from the crappy jerky you made with your -1 survival check.....
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:
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'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.
Your ruling would need to apply universally, not to people with digestive issues and dirty feet. How would you spot the invisible guy who's also flying under the effect of the fly spell?? He's not leaving footprints, regardless of the quality of his his feet or of the ground. If your ruling isn't consistent in this situation it begs you reexamine it.
Creating noise, being heard, is something you only do when you do something else. Hit a dude with a warhammer? Noise. Cast a spell? Noise. Remain motionless? Not so much. Talk to someone? Noise. Knock over a vase? Noise. Hang motionless in the air? Not so much.
Invisibility doesn't help you stay quiet, but... just not doing anything to make noise does keep you quiet. Being invisible doesn't magically grant other creatures better hearing than before. If you walk into a room blindfolded, you're not likely able to pinpoint the exact location of anyone in that room. Not unless they do something to make noise. The fact the game treats them as automatically 'enemy presence detected' is already more than generous. The idea that you can auto-track their exact position is just simply not supported by the rules or by reason.
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.