The DMG has rules on hearing range (Chapter 2: Exploration). Unless an enemy is intentionally making significant noise, you effectively have to be in/near melee range to hear them.
The table you're linking simply verifies what I said: you need to be in/near melee range to hear someone not making significant noise. The 50 + 2d6 is the "very loud" row.
35 feet -- the average from the 'trying to be quiet' row -- is not melee range, or even near it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You guys may have different meaning for what melee means.
Clearly, or at least of "near melee"
The standard D&D definition for "melee range" is within the reach of a melee weapon. No matter how many features you stack up with your polearm though, I don't think you can get to 35 feet
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hearing them does not allow you to pinpoint their location. You still have to guess at where they are. If you want to pinpoint their location via hearing, you need an ability like Tremorsense.
Mechanically, this is incorrect in 5e. You can see how it actually works by looking at the rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
When you make an attack roll against a target you can’t see, you have Disadvantage on the roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss.
When a creature can’t see you, you have Advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
The "guessing the target's location" refers to situations where you cannot see AND you cannot hear a potential target. The "targeting a creature you can hear but not see" refers to situations where you cannot see but you CAN hear a potential target -- in which case that creature can be directly targeted (because its location is known) and attacked at disadvantage.
"This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see" does not imply that hearing alone can allow you to pinpoint location. It merely references the Disadvantage on the roll. The "If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you miss" refers to all instances of Unseen Attackers, with none of the qualifiers you'd like to read into the rule.
Again, the easiest way to grasp this would be Tremorsense. Under an interpretation that you locate enemies with pinpoint accuracy via hearing, Tremorsense is utterly useless since anyone can get the same benefits without having the ability (or putting up with its restrictions).
In terms of 'melee range', 30' is the standard for movement. Anything within this range (plus reach) can normally be attacked in melee.
I have a feeling we're adding more rules to how Invisibility spells work in the game, or how you can detect a creature with the Invisible condition gained through them (EDIT: when not using Special Senses)
Anyway, my view is pretty similar to how it was explained in the first few answers in the thread.
"This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see" does not imply that hearing alone can allow you to pinpoint location. It merely references the Disadvantage on the roll.
No. That's exactly what it does imply. The entire paragraph needs to be read together in context.
It starts with:
1) If you can't see the target . . . disadvantage.
Within that broad scope, there are two scenarios:
1a) You've successfully guessed the target's location. You've had to guess because you cannot hear it (in addition to not seeing it which was mentioned previously) and because of that you do not know its location. But since you've guessed correctly, you can still attack with disadvantage.
OR
1b) You are targeting the creature directly. You didn't have to guess because you CAN hear it (even though you cannot see it which was mentioned previously) and because you CAN hear it you DO know its location which enables you to directly target the creature. When attacking such a creature you attack with disadvantage.
Finally, outside of this broad scope there is this other possibility:
2) You've failed to guess the target's location. You've had to guess because you cannot hear it (in addition to not seeing it which was mentioned previously) and because of that you do not know its location. Since you've guessed incorrectly, you just miss. No disadvantage, you just auto-miss.
Taken together, this rule fully describes the mechanics of hearing a creature.
The "If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you miss" refers to all instances of Unseen Attackers, with none of the qualifiers you'd like to read into the rule.
No. This ONLY refers to instances of Unseen Attackers that you also cannot hear. See above.
Again, the easiest way to grasp this would be Tremorsense. Under an interpretation that you locate enemies with pinpoint accuracy via hearing, Tremorsense is utterly useless since anyone can get the same benefits without having the ability (or putting up with its restrictions).
This is absolutely false. Tremorsense is a special sense that has its own rules which explicitly allow you to pinpoint the location of a creature in a manner that does not rely on sight or hearing. In situations where you cannot see or hear a creature (such as when that creature is Hidden) and therefore normally do not know the creature's location for those reasons, tremorsense DOES allow you to pinpoint the location of that creature. That's not useless at all. It has a very well-defined use.
In terms of 'melee range', 30' is the standard for movement. Anything within this range (plus reach) can normally be attacked in melee.
That's not what melee range means in this game.
A melee attack allows you to attack a target within your reach.
. . .
A creature has a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet when making a melee attack. Certain creatures have melee attacks with a reach greater than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
. . .
Melee or Ranged. A weapon is classified as either Melee or Ranged. A Melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet, whereas a Ranged weapon is used to attack at a greater distance.
The DMG has rules on hearing range (Chapter 2: Exploration).
This is a reasonable point and is something that a DM should consider when adjudicating situations like those presented in the OP.
It's important to note, however, that these guidelines are not available in the Basic Rules for the game and are not presented in the PHB. So, this is the sort of thing that would be up to the DM to determine if they wanted to add this level of complexity to the question of whether one creature can know the location of another creature beyond what's provided by the concrete mechanics that are given in the Basic Rules for the game.
Well, the "Chapter 2" is called "Running the Game", and we have also this text:
When to Call for a Check
An important time to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check is when another creature is using the Stealth skill to hide. Noticing a hidden creature is never trivially easy or automatically impossible, so characters can always try Wisdom (Perception) checks to do so.
Is that creature you can't see using the Stealth skill to hide so you call for a Wisdom (Perception) check, or is it just using the Invisibility spell?
Having your location unknown with the Invisible condition when you don't Hide gives no way to be detected somehow with some check vs DC.
That's why you have to guess at where they are. Alternatively, you could use one of the many ways to get around these mechanics like See Invisibility, Blindsight, Truesight, Faerie Fire, etc. Similarly, you could Ready an Action to attack once they become visible. Not being able to make a Perception check to see through Invisible is like complaining you can make a save vs. someone hitting you with a Long Sword.
I know, I know... This has been discussed a thousand times already, but I need some precision.
My understanding of perceiving an invisible creature is that you can't see them, but you can at least estimate their location, allowing you to at least target them with an attack, albeit with disadvantage.
But the thing is, I can't find the rule that says that.
Somewhere I can't remember where it says that invisible creatures can be detected by things such as sound, smell or footprints. There is no precise definitions or rules as to when they can / can't be detected because it is extremely situational. An invisible flying creature doesn't leave footprints but if a character throws flour into the air it might be easy to spot the invisible flying creature. A tiny invisible spider will be harder to locate using sound than an invisible elephant wearing bells on it feet. A rotting zombie could be detected using smell, as could a skunk, but an air elemental probably can't be smelled.
Not being able to make a Perception check to see through Invisible is like complaining you can make a save vs. someone hitting you with a Long Sword.
This isn't what the issue is, more that there's no Perception check to detect the location of an Invisible creature that isn't hidden.
I don't think Invisible alone its meant to be better than Invisible + Hide when it comes to location detection.
It isn't. If a creature has both the Invisibility spell version of Invisible and the Hide version of Invisible, making a Perception check only ends the latter. The former still exists.
Thus I infer the likelihood is meant to be that in 2014 the invisible condition is the thing that makes you unseen, Whereas in 2024, Something that makes you unseen is what grants you the invisible condition. The problem is that none of the sources of the invisible condition actually state that you can't be seen either. Despite this a number of things rely on sight are left in a weird position, including the invisible condition itself.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
Except by RAW, if you had invisibility cast on you, you have the invisible condition but at no point has anything said you can not be seen, so does Attacks Affected do anything here? Clearly this isn't meant to be RAI. Right now, in 2024 Invisible is a mess and in desperate need for Errata but to Errata it, hiding would also need to be Errata'ed.
Personally I think the easiest way to do it is to rename the current Invisible condition as the Concealed Condition and then create a new Invisible condition which states you can't be seen (as per 2014) and you have the Concealed Condition. Hiding then gets updated to the Concealed condition while most other things remain referencing the invisible condition which actually makes you unseen (such as the invisibility spell). After all, certain builds now make invisibility much weaker, more so on the creature side. Is an invisible stalker going to be able to sneak past the party Fighter/Paladin/Ranger who has 10 ft blind sight?
Thus I infer the likelihood is meant to be that in 2014 the invisible condition is the thing that makes you unseen, Whereas in 2024, Something that makes you unseen is what grants you the invisible condition.
The fact that See Invisibility and True sight specifically allows you to see invisible creatures, implies that the general case is you cannot see invisible creatures. However, yes I agree 2024 is messed up by their attempt to make Hiding and Invisible use the same rules when they are fundamentally different states.
Not being able to make a Perception check to see through Invisible is like complaining you can make a save vs. someone hitting you with a Long Sword.
This isn't what the issue is, more that there's no Perception check to detect the location of an Invisible creature that isn't hidden.
I don't think Invisible alone its meant to be better than Invisible + Hide when it comes to location detection.
It isn't. If a creature has both the Invisibility spell version of Invisible and the Hide version of Invisible, making a Perception check only ends the latter. The former still exists.
While it's still Invisible after a successful Perception check, it's location should now be known, otherwise Invisible alone is better than Invisible + Hide is what i was saying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
35 feet -- the average from the 'trying to be quiet' row -- is not melee range, or even near it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You guys may have different meaning for what melee means.
Clearly, or at least of "near melee"
The standard D&D definition for "melee range" is within the reach of a melee weapon. No matter how many features you stack up with your polearm though, I don't think you can get to 35 feet
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Even very few monsters have such a big melee reach.
Mechanically, this is incorrect in 5e. You can see how it actually works by looking at the rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets:
The "guessing the target's location" refers to situations where you cannot see AND you cannot hear a potential target. The "targeting a creature you can hear but not see" refers to situations where you cannot see but you CAN hear a potential target -- in which case that creature can be directly targeted (because its location is known) and attacked at disadvantage.
"This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see" does not imply that hearing alone can allow you to pinpoint location. It merely references the Disadvantage on the roll. The "If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you miss" refers to all instances of Unseen Attackers, with none of the qualifiers you'd like to read into the rule.
Again, the easiest way to grasp this would be Tremorsense. Under an interpretation that you locate enemies with pinpoint accuracy via hearing, Tremorsense is utterly useless since anyone can get the same benefits without having the ability (or putting up with its restrictions).
In terms of 'melee range', 30' is the standard for movement. Anything within this range (plus reach) can normally be attacked in melee.
The difference is a creature with Tremorsense can pinpoint the location of creatures that would even be Hidden.
I have a feeling we're adding more rules to how Invisibility spells work in the game, or how you can detect a creature with the Invisible condition gained through them (EDIT: when not using Special Senses)
Anyway, my view is pretty similar to how it was explained in the first few answers in the thread.
No. That's exactly what it does imply. The entire paragraph needs to be read together in context.
It starts with:
1) If you can't see the target . . . disadvantage.
Within that broad scope, there are two scenarios:
1a) You've successfully guessed the target's location. You've had to guess because you cannot hear it (in addition to not seeing it which was mentioned previously) and because of that you do not know its location. But since you've guessed correctly, you can still attack with disadvantage.
OR
1b) You are targeting the creature directly. You didn't have to guess because you CAN hear it (even though you cannot see it which was mentioned previously) and because you CAN hear it you DO know its location which enables you to directly target the creature. When attacking such a creature you attack with disadvantage.
Finally, outside of this broad scope there is this other possibility:
2) You've failed to guess the target's location. You've had to guess because you cannot hear it (in addition to not seeing it which was mentioned previously) and because of that you do not know its location. Since you've guessed incorrectly, you just miss. No disadvantage, you just auto-miss.
Taken together, this rule fully describes the mechanics of hearing a creature.
No. This ONLY refers to instances of Unseen Attackers that you also cannot hear. See above.
This is absolutely false. Tremorsense is a special sense that has its own rules which explicitly allow you to pinpoint the location of a creature in a manner that does not rely on sight or hearing. In situations where you cannot see or hear a creature (such as when that creature is Hidden) and therefore normally do not know the creature's location for those reasons, tremorsense DOES allow you to pinpoint the location of that creature. That's not useless at all. It has a very well-defined use.
That's not what melee range means in this game.
This is a reasonable point and is something that a DM should consider when adjudicating situations like those presented in the OP.
It's important to note, however, that these guidelines are not available in the Basic Rules for the game and are not presented in the PHB. So, this is the sort of thing that would be up to the DM to determine if they wanted to add this level of complexity to the question of whether one creature can know the location of another creature beyond what's provided by the concrete mechanics that are given in the Basic Rules for the game.
Well, the "Chapter 2" is called "Running the Game", and we have also this text:
Is that creature you can't see using the Stealth skill to hide so you call for a Wisdom (Perception) check, or is it just using the Invisibility spell?
Having your location unknown with the Invisible condition when you don't Hide gives no way to be detected somehow with some check vs DC.
That's why you have to guess at where they are. Alternatively, you could use one of the many ways to get around these mechanics like See Invisibility, Blindsight, Truesight, Faerie Fire, etc. Similarly, you could Ready an Action to attack once they become visible. Not being able to make a Perception check to see through Invisible is like complaining you can make a save vs. someone hitting you with a Long Sword.
This isn't what the issue is, more that there's no Perception check to detect the location of an Invisible creature that isn't hidden.
I don't think Invisible alone its meant to be better than Invisible + Hide when it comes to location detection.
Somewhere I can't remember where it says that invisible creatures can be detected by things such as sound, smell or footprints. There is no precise definitions or rules as to when they can / can't be detected because it is extremely situational. An invisible flying creature doesn't leave footprints but if a character throws flour into the air it might be easy to spot the invisible flying creature. A tiny invisible spider will be harder to locate using sound than an invisible elephant wearing bells on it feet. A rotting zombie could be detected using smell, as could a skunk, but an air elemental probably can't be smelled.
Perception check has nothing to do with trying to find an invisible creature. It's good for looking for hidden creatures or discerning illusions.
It isn't. If a creature has both the Invisibility spell version of Invisible and the Hide version of Invisible, making a Perception check only ends the latter. The former still exists.
The problem is they changed what the invisible condition is meant to mean without updating the things that grant the invisible condition.
2014 - The invisible condition means you can't be seen
2024 - There is no such statement
Thus I infer the likelihood is meant to be that in 2014 the invisible condition is the thing that makes you unseen, Whereas in 2024, Something that makes you unseen is what grants you the invisible condition. The problem is that none of the sources of the invisible condition actually state that you can't be seen either. Despite this a number of things rely on sight are left in a weird position, including the invisible condition itself.
Except by RAW, if you had invisibility cast on you, you have the invisible condition but at no point has anything said you can not be seen, so does Attacks Affected do anything here? Clearly this isn't meant to be RAI. Right now, in 2024 Invisible is a mess and in desperate need for Errata but to Errata it, hiding would also need to be Errata'ed.
Personally I think the easiest way to do it is to rename the current Invisible condition as the Concealed Condition and then create a new Invisible condition which states you can't be seen (as per 2014) and you have the Concealed Condition. Hiding then gets updated to the Concealed condition while most other things remain referencing the invisible condition which actually makes you unseen (such as the invisibility spell). After all, certain builds now make invisibility much weaker, more so on the creature side. Is an invisible stalker going to be able to sneak past the party Fighter/Paladin/Ranger who has 10 ft blind sight?
The fact that See Invisibility and True sight specifically allows you to see invisible creatures, implies that the general case is you cannot see invisible creatures. However, yes I agree 2024 is messed up by their attempt to make Hiding and Invisible use the same rules when they are fundamentally different states.
While it's still Invisible after a successful Perception check, it's location should now be known, otherwise Invisible alone is better than Invisible + Hide is what i was saying.