Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Y'know what, let me take a moment here to clarify some things, because there is truth to what kenclary and others have said (and I've even touched on a bit too) that I am detracting from because of the fact that we are discussing this in the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
D&D - and most TTRPGs - are ran by fluctuating between two different states: Narrative Forward and Mechanics Forward. Most TTRPGs lean towards one more than the other, and I would argue D&D tends to lean more Mechanics Forward, but both are still very important and differentiate how the game is run. I have been arguing from a very Mechanics Forward standpoint because, well, *broad gesture to where we are right now.*
In D&D, the game runs mostly Mechanics Forward during combat and most high-octane situations where every moment matters. Outside of that, it tends to mostly run Narrative Forward. Let me give a couple of hypothetical examples on how I would run similar scenarios in these different situations.
First, in a Narrative Forward (non-combat/etc.) situation, if a player were to say to me the following:
"Could I cast Invisibility on myself and then sneak across the courtyard?"
I would absolutely not respond with:
"Well, sure. You can take the Magic action to cast Invisibility to become Invisible, but then you have to wait 6 seconds because you've used your action. Then, you need to move into Three-Quarter's Cover (etc.) in order to take the Hide action to make a Dexterity(Stealth) check against a DC 15, and if you succeed you can then sneak across the courtyard..."
This is a very Mechanics Forward answer, and quite frankly would be extremely pedantic in a Narrative Forward situation. Instead, I would simply respond with:
"Sure. You cast the spell and become Invisible. Make me a Dexterity(Stealth) check against a DC of (Insert Guard's Passive Perception Here) to sneak across the courtyard."
In fact, if a Rogue without magic were to say a similar thing to me, such as:
"Can I sneak across the courtyard, running from bush to shadow and staying in cover?"
I would also allow them to do it without getting into the nitty gritty of the rules of the Hide action. I would not be a stickler for them needing to start from Cover/Heavy Obscurement, and I wouldn't care about the minutia of them potentially making a bit of noise or going "into the open." I would simply handle it narratively, allowing the results of their ability check (Stealth) against my chosen DC to dictate the narration of what happens.
I believe this Narrative Forward way of playing the game is what kenclary is arguing for, and if so they are correct. There are in fact rules governing this, which I had linked previously in this thread. What is important to note here is the player is not choosing to make a Stealth check as they would be able to with the Hide action; the GM is asking for one in order to resolve the outcome of this narrative situation based on what the character is trying to do.
Now, in a Mechanics Forward situation (such as combat), if a player were to say to me:
"Could I cast Invisibility on myself and move to the other side of the battle field without anyone noticing me?"
I would respond along the lines of:
"Unfortunately, no. You would be using your action to take the Magic action, and although you would gain the Invisible condition, your location would still be known. You would still need to take the Hide action in order to attempt to conceal yourself and become hidden."
Now, if kenclary is saying that - in such a Mechanics Forward situation - simply taking the Magic action to cast Invisibility should be enough for the player to ALSO make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in order to conceal their location, then that is absolutely incorrect and very much - as I have said - applying mechanics that don't exist and breaking the game's intended action economy.
All this is to say... It's complicated! I have been arguing from a very Mechanics Forward standpoint, but I have been making it out to be more black and white than it truly is.
Apologies if these questions have already been answered, I'm playing catch up in this thread right now.
Note that even when the attacking creature was already under the effects of Greater Invisibility, the defending creature always knew that creature's location even before it makes its first attack unless that attacking creature was also hidden. In either case, after that attack hits or misses the location is known at that moment. Indeed, to conceal its location after that moment the attacking creature would have to successfully hide. Being invisible does NOT give you advantage on any hide check. It merely satisfies the prerequisites for attempting to hide in the first place (usually).
On that last point, note that in 2024 being invisible in and of itself does not mean that you are "heavily obscured" or are behind cover. Also, the 2014 rules explicitly stated that "an invisible creature can always try to hide" which has been removed from the new rules. Instead, to satisfy the prerequisites for hiding in cases like this we must now use the text which reads that "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". The DM will likely usually rule that an invisible creature may attempt to Hide unless there is some other unusual circumstance happening that would change that ruling.
Yes, RAW the goblin knows where you are in that situation. In a case like this, a DM might ret-con things a bit (straying slightly away from strict RAW) by asking something like "were you attempting to remain quiet and undetected ahead of time? Go ahead and make a Stealth check." The results of that roll determine if you were indeed breathing that hard or not, etc. Essentially giving you credit for having taken the Hide action since you had plenty of time to do so and it would make sense to do so in that situation.
By the RAW, both of these statements are false.
By rule, not making noise requires a successful Hide action. The Hide action is not about concealing movement; it is about concealing your current position whether you are moving or not. It's reasonable to house rule this aspect of the mechanics if everybody at the table agrees that it "doesn't make sense" for a creature to be able to hear another creature that is not moving, but by RAW the default is that such a creature can be heard unless they are hiding.
Mechanically, the Hide action causes your position to become unknown due to being unseen and unheard. One of the things that happens as a consequence of that is that you have the Invisible Condition while hidden.
In this scenario, the goblin always knows where you are and never loses track of you. The first time that you hit the goblin you attacked with advantage because you are an Unseen Attacker. After you move away to another corner of the room the goblin gets a turn and that goblin can choose to attack you with disadvantage (Unseen Target) since you are not hidden. Then, when you hit him again you attacked with advantage again for the same reason as before.
As for the last question, a DM should rule that being invisible meets that requirement in most cases under the portion of the rule which reads: "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."
Yeah as a House Rule I'd say that doing nothing while magically invisible is automatically equivalent to you taking the Hide Action with a special +13 Bonus against the usual DC 15.
Rolling a 1 means that you sneezed.