A Soul Knife uses their Psychic Veil to become invisible and as a bonus action teleports anywhere from 10 to 120 ft away with their Psychic Blades, however they don't have the action economy to take the hide action. How much information should other players have on their location? RAW I would say they didn't hide and so everyone should know exactly where the soul knife is. But they were invisible and unlike Misty Step, the teleportation doesn't have verbal components, so I'm not sure how they could possibly discern where they went narrative-wise, especially if they popped up 120 ft away and then backed off another 30 ft with their movement.
The middle ground compromise I'm leaning towards is to give the players a sense of the direction that they teleported, but I'm not sure how I'd justify that using the rules.
And a follow up question in the event the teleport does throw off pursuers. Does any movement after that reveal the PC unless they take the hide action on a subsequent turn.
The rogue turns invisible on their action. Enemies can have a “good guess” where they are (assuming the rogue has not moved), but are at normal disadvantage to hit.
The rogue throws a Soulknife 10-120’ away.. it’s not an invisible knife, but it does disappear when it “lands”.
Was the enemy looking at the location where the rogue disappeared ? Is so, Perception to see if they notice where the thrown knife goes.
If they were not looking, then how would they have any idea where the rogue went to ?
The rogue at the new spot is still invisible, but harder to know “where”, esp. if no one “followed the dagger”.
The rogue still has to make a Stealth roll when they start to “move” again, as whilst they are invisible, that does not make them silent.
The rogue throws a Soulknife 10-120’ away.. it’s not an invisible knife, but it does disappear when it “lands”.
The knife is invisible while wielded due to psychic veil, but I suppose the second it leaves the player's hand, it would cease to be invisible? In which case, if they're right in front of the player when they teleport, would it be fairly easy to notice?
The rogue still has to make a Stealth roll when they start to “move” again, as whilst they are invisible, that does not make them silent.
This makes the most sense, but I was wondering if this was effectively giving them an extra action to hide if they moved during the same turn. Maybe the answer is it does, and it's not really a big deal.
I never make not knowing one's location automatic and without failure, its one of the only benefit for hiding once invisible or otherwise unseen, along with becoming unheard. And it come with a chance of failure being a Stealth vs Perception contest. So unless the Hide action is specifically taken and a check made successfully, i wouldn't grant such benefit.
Otherwise in such case, the invisible creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
The reason you don't get a bonus or advantage to Hide from creature that can't see you is because it's a requirement to do it in the first place. The benefit of being invisible essentially is that you can always try to hide.
The reason you don't get a bonus or advantage to Hide from creature that can't see you is because it's a requirement to do it in the first place. The benefit of being invisible essentially is that you can always try to hide.
I will admit that I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with the idea that invisibility doesn’t seem to confer any benefit to hiding, but you’re absolutely right. Someone in total cover doesn’t get a bonus to their stealth check, so why should someone invisible? The benefit is that they even get to make the roll at all. Dunno why I’ve never understood it.
You do have to first break line of sight in order to have the privilege of hiding. The grass would have to heavily obscure you for the purposes of hiding, I think you could definitely make an argument for that if you drop prone.
So someone in total cover, say behind a hedge, doesn't get any benefit over someone moving in ankle deep grass for a stealth check?
Correct.
It's not designed as a true stealth game or such. It's a generic game with stealth elements that are added as options in a simplistic form. The same is said for all aspects, even combat - there's a lot about everything that will not always be realistic or fully designed. D&D is a jack of all trades master of none style game. For flexibility and variety of gameplay options it has something for all types. However, that flexibility and variety has the cost that it cannot go into too specific detail about any one option or provide in-depth rulings. As such some rules do not make realistic sense.
D&D is a game with stealth as an option - but it is not a stealth game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
So someone in total cover, say behind a hedge, doesn't get any benefit over someone moving in ankle deep grass for a stealth check?
The benefit is that the one heavily obscured behind a hedge can try to hide, while the one in the grass cannot, being seen.
Hiding is primarly defensive, not offensive. Except for few features such as Skulker feat, Halfling's Naturally Stealthy and Elf's Mask of the Wild features letting one hide even when still seen,, the biggest benefit other than Unseen Attackers and Targets is not knowing one's location. It's strong defensively when you hide, move while your token is removed from the map and the attacker cannot target you with effect requiring seeing you and must select a space to attack, with strong possibility to automatically miss if the wrong one is picked.
But without hiding, an unseen creature, wether invisible or heavily obscured by foliage, already have the advantage of Unseen Attackers and Targets, so all hiding does more then is making it unheard and it's location unknown.
The rules for invisibility vs hiding are pretty bare bones and don't make much sense logically.
Why creatures know the location of invisible creatures is: because rules. How creatures know the location of invisible creatures is: up to DM narrative.
Well, it looks like I will need to explore this part of the game, and maybe create some homebrew rules. It just seems to me that there should be a scale for hiding where there is unhidden, partially hidden, mostly hidden, and fully hidden. "Enemies" rolling against that would have different modifiers for anything better than unhidden. But let me get to a point where I think I really understand the rules first.
As you may have guessed, we don't do a lot of hiding when initiative is rolled; sword swinging and spell slinging YES, but hiding, no.
I was able to sneak up on a band of bandits in the woods and we got the drop on them, but that was before initiative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
So pretty much in this case, they used their action to become invisible, and then a bonus action was used to teleport away in lieu of taking the hide cunning action. I would be less inclined to give the rogue the benefit of psychic teleportation and the attempt to hide when they chose one over the other.
Well, it looks like I will need to explore this part of the game, and maybe create some homebrew rules. It just seems to me that there should be a scale for hiding where there is unhidden, partially hidden, mostly hidden, and fully hidden. "Enemies" rolling against that would have different modifiers for anything better than unhidden. But let me get to a point where I think I really understand the rules first.
I wouldn't bother trying to work out these rules for yourself. I'm sure there's plenty of suggestions on these (and other) forums, for more advanced rules for hiding/invisibility.
Well, it looks like I will need to explore this part of the game, and maybe create some homebrew rules. It just seems to me that there should be a scale for hiding where there is unhidden, partially hidden, mostly hidden, and fully hidden. "Enemies" rolling against that would have different modifiers for anything better than unhidden. But let me get to a point where I think I really understand the rules first.
As you may have guessed, we don't do a lot of hiding when initiative is rolled; sword swinging and spell slinging YES, but hiding, no.
I was able to sneak up on a band of bandits in the woods and we got the drop on them, but that was before initiative.
How far away people typically notice things isn't well defined. So it'll end up being DM purview. Some folk will take a hard-line and argue unless a hide action is specifically taken then all creatures know that creature's location. But this leads to absurd results like every creature knowing the the location of every other creature on the planet.
But, absent a defined system in the game for how far away people notice things, and how many building's/wall's/miles' worth of cover between you and a creature it takes to let them be unnoticed without having to explicitly take a hide action, you'll end up with weird results. Because there isn't a concrete printed answer saying what that distance or condition or situation is.
Most DMs just go with their gut, it seem. EG. You don't know the mayor is walking around the town market 14 blocks away because there are several dozen buildings between you and over 2 miles of distance is probably a safe bet. But it isn't defined by the rules as such. Technically, unless he's hiding, you'd know his location, they'd argue. But I've never seen anyone actually play that way, safe to say everyone comes to their own homebrew solution.
Is 120ft far enough to become unnoticed while invisible? There is no RAW answer, not truly, so the DM is just going to have to wing it. Whether for good or ill that is often the answer in 5e.
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.
I say only within combat range perception is concerned, nothing outside the battle map exist ☺
As far as an encounter is concerned, this is adequate.
Since the rogue must see where their teleport ends, I would be inclined to say that soul blades still leaves them on the battle map in most instances. If the rogue has perception of their destination, likely someone else on the field does too.
If the rogue landed out of a perceivable area of a particular character, then maybe you could argue that character doesn’t know where the rogue ends up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A Soul Knife uses their Psychic Veil to become invisible and as a bonus action teleports anywhere from 10 to 120 ft away with their Psychic Blades, however they don't have the action economy to take the hide action. How much information should other players have on their location? RAW I would say they didn't hide and so everyone should know exactly where the soul knife is. But they were invisible and unlike Misty Step, the teleportation doesn't have verbal components, so I'm not sure how they could possibly discern where they went narrative-wise, especially if they popped up 120 ft away and then backed off another 30 ft with their movement.
The middle ground compromise I'm leaning towards is to give the players a sense of the direction that they teleported, but I'm not sure how I'd justify that using the rules.
And a follow up question in the event the teleport does throw off pursuers. Does any movement after that reveal the PC unless they take the hide action on a subsequent turn.
How I’d play it.
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. This was very helpful, but I have some follow up questions.
The knife is invisible while wielded due to psychic veil, but I suppose the second it leaves the player's hand, it would cease to be invisible? In which case, if they're right in front of the player when they teleport, would it be fairly easy to notice?
Contested against a stealth check from the player?
This makes the most sense, but I was wondering if this was effectively giving them an extra action to hide if they moved during the same turn. Maybe the answer is it does, and it's not really a big deal.
I never make not knowing one's location automatic and without failure, its one of the only benefit for hiding once invisible or otherwise unseen, along with becoming unheard. And it come with a chance of failure being a Stealth vs Perception contest. So unless the Hide action is specifically taken and a check made successfully, i wouldn't grant such benefit.
Otherwise in such case, the invisible creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
I would give them a bonus or advantage on their stealth roll if an enemy were looking for them.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
The reason you don't get a bonus or advantage to Hide from creature that can't see you is because it's a requirement to do it in the first place. The benefit of being invisible essentially is that you can always try to hide.
I will admit that I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with the idea that invisibility doesn’t seem to confer any benefit to hiding, but you’re absolutely right. Someone in total cover doesn’t get a bonus to their stealth check, so why should someone invisible? The benefit is that they even get to make the roll at all. Dunno why I’ve never understood it.
So someone in total cover, say behind a hedge, doesn't get any benefit over someone moving in ankle deep grass for a stealth check?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
The person moving in ankle deep grass can’t try to hide at all.
You do have to first break line of sight in order to have the privilege of hiding. The grass would have to heavily obscure you for the purposes of hiding, I think you could definitely make an argument for that if you drop prone.
Correct.
It's not designed as a true stealth game or such. It's a generic game with stealth elements that are added as options in a simplistic form. The same is said for all aspects, even combat - there's a lot about everything that will not always be realistic or fully designed. D&D is a jack of all trades master of none style game. For flexibility and variety of gameplay options it has something for all types. However, that flexibility and variety has the cost that it cannot go into too specific detail about any one option or provide in-depth rulings. As such some rules do not make realistic sense.
D&D is a game with stealth as an option - but it is not a stealth game.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The benefit is that the one heavily obscured behind a hedge can try to hide, while the one in the grass cannot, being seen.
Hiding is primarly defensive, not offensive. Except for few features such as Skulker feat, Halfling's Naturally Stealthy and Elf's Mask of the Wild features letting one hide even when still seen,, the biggest benefit other than Unseen Attackers and Targets is not knowing one's location. It's strong defensively when you hide, move while your token is removed from the map and the attacker cannot target you with effect requiring seeing you and must select a space to attack, with strong possibility to automatically miss if the wrong one is picked.
But without hiding, an unseen creature, wether invisible or heavily obscured by foliage, already have the advantage of Unseen Attackers and Targets, so all hiding does more then is making it unheard and it's location unknown.
The rules for invisibility vs hiding are pretty bare bones and don't make much sense logically.
Why creatures know the location of invisible creatures is: because rules. How creatures know the location of invisible creatures is: up to DM narrative.
Well, it looks like I will need to explore this part of the game, and maybe create some homebrew rules. It just seems to me that there should be a scale for hiding where there is unhidden, partially hidden, mostly hidden, and fully hidden. "Enemies" rolling against that would have different modifiers for anything better than unhidden. But let me get to a point where I think I really understand the rules first.
As you may have guessed, we don't do a lot of hiding when initiative is rolled; sword swinging and spell slinging YES, but hiding, no.
I was able to sneak up on a band of bandits in the woods and we got the drop on them, but that was before initiative.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
So pretty much in this case, they used their action to become invisible, and then a bonus action was used to teleport away in lieu of taking the hide cunning action. I would be less inclined to give the rogue the benefit of psychic teleportation and the attempt to hide when they chose one over the other.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I wouldn't bother trying to work out these rules for yourself. I'm sure there's plenty of suggestions on these (and other) forums, for more advanced rules for hiding/invisibility.
How far away people typically notice things isn't well defined. So it'll end up being DM purview. Some folk will take a hard-line and argue unless a hide action is specifically taken then all creatures know that creature's location. But this leads to absurd results like every creature knowing the the location of every other creature on the planet.
But, absent a defined system in the game for how far away people notice things, and how many building's/wall's/miles' worth of cover between you and a creature it takes to let them be unnoticed without having to explicitly take a hide action, you'll end up with weird results. Because there isn't a concrete printed answer saying what that distance or condition or situation is.
Most DMs just go with their gut, it seem. EG. You don't know the mayor is walking around the town market 14 blocks away because there are several dozen buildings between you and over 2 miles of distance is probably a safe bet. But it isn't defined by the rules as such. Technically, unless he's hiding, you'd know his location, they'd argue. But I've never seen anyone actually play that way, safe to say everyone comes to their own homebrew solution.
Is 120ft far enough to become unnoticed while invisible? There is no RAW answer, not truly, so the DM is just going to have to wing it. Whether for good or ill that is often the answer in 5e.
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 say only within combat range perception is concerned, nothing outside the battle map exist ☺
As far as an encounter is concerned, this is adequate.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Since the rogue must see where their teleport ends, I would be inclined to say that soul blades still leaves them on the battle map in most instances. If the rogue has perception of their destination, likely someone else on the field does too.
If the rogue landed out of a perceivable area of a particular character, then maybe you could argue that character doesn’t know where the rogue ends up.