The Invisibility spell, and thus the invisible condition have puzzled me for some time now. In our games, it have just turned into an opposite Faerie Fire. You get advantage and opponents get disadvantage to attack you. Outside of combat it have become totally obsolete. The reason is that as we interpret it, perception doesn't by itself require sight by RAW. You can also listen. Furthermore, 5E doesn't have a system for passive-stealth. If you are not actively trying to hide (spending an action), you could just as well be fully visible – everyone will pinpoint your location even when invisible.

This makes no sense. If you are invisible, you should obviously have some sort of auto-hide ability, although not a blanket success since you might be heard.

Possible solution:

After some back and forth I though it might be worth introducing passive stealth for cases when you dont actively try to hide, but factors makes it hard to notice you anyways- such as during nighttime or when invisible.

Going with the way passive perception works, an invisible creature who is not trying actively to hide would get a stealth roll of 10+modifiers. As such, any creature trying locate the creature have to beat that stealth roll actively or passively, or they would not know which square you are in (or that you are anywhere nearby at all). One could also argue there should be a +5 advantage to that stealth check since opponents are limited to hearing only.

The two key points is really about the interaction between sight/hearing and stealth (if perception was only sight-based opponents would automatically fail spot checks), and the second is about passive hiding (since hiding requires an action an invisible wizard walking normally at 30 feet range is basically as easy to spot as a wizard with a blur spell active).

What do people think about this? What is the best way to deal with invisibility for non-hiding characters?

Relevant rules (except those that deal with advantage/disadvantage to attack)

Invisible condition: "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves."

Heavily obscured: A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

Blinded condition: A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.

But there is passive Stealth. There's passive for all the skills. It's 10+Skill. Typically only Perception Investigation and Insight are shown because they come up the most.

This might be overly complicating the issue. This might be a straight up DC roll.

Think of it this way: We have Lief the Nimble with a high Stealth ability - let's say +6 -  and Norm the Ordinary with a +0. 

Both are invisible and walking down a street, and not trying to otherwise hide.  How do they differ? If Lief is not exercising his ability to be quiet and Stealthy, is he intrinsically more quite than Norm?

If you think "yes", then the idea of using Passive Stealth makes sense.

If you think "no", then Lief and Norm should be equally easy/hard to detect. This implies a standard DC for detecting an invisible ( or obscured, or somewhere out in the dark ) character, and it becomes just a straight matter of the detecting Creature's Perception vs. the DC.

Quote from Emmote >>

But there is passive Stealth. There's passive for all the skills. It's 10+Skill. Typically only Perception Investigation and Insight are shown because they come up the most.

This.

Quote from Rasmus_Haugen_Sandvik >>

 The Invisibility spell, and thus the invisible condition have puzzled me for some time now. In our games, it have just turned into an opposite Faerie Fire. You get advantage and opponents get disadvantage to attack you. Outside of combat it have become totally obsolete. The reason is that as we interpret it, perception doesn't by itself require sight by RAW. You can also listen.

This is also true, but it's not as bad as you think either. There are creatures that have bonuses or penalties to their Perception when the check relies on sight/sound. Invisible by itself is not an auto-win, nor should it be. Boots of Elvenkind are the perfect accompaniment to a character that utilizes Invisibility. Getting a Cloak of Elvenkind as well makes it so that, if you don't want to be detected, you probably won't be. Truesight/Tremorsense/Divination spells are always hard counters to Stealth.

So are you saying the a high Stealth ability character is intrinsically more stealthy, even when they're not trying to be stealthy?

This is what using Passive Stealth implies.

It should also be noted that you do not have to constantly hide. Once you hide (with advantage because invisible), you are hidden until you are found, either by someone spending a turn to look for you (which will be contested against your stealth check) or you give yourself away. And as long as you stay invisible, you can always re-hide.

Quote from Vedexent >>

So are you saying the a high Stealth ability character is intrinsically more stealthy, even when they're not trying to be stealthy?

This is what using Passive Stealth implies.

 Yes. It is not like they accidentally hide from people or anything. Their footsteps are naturally quieter and they avoid bumping into things better. That kind of thing.

Quote from Vedexent >>

So are you saying the a high Stealth ability character is intrinsically more stealthy, even when they're not trying to be stealthy?

This is what using Passive Stealth implies.

I would say so yes. They're likely to be more dexterous and light on their feet. For those with really high stealth it may even be a way of life.

Cool - I have no problem with that as a DM ruling, so long as you're aware that's the implication, and you're not "accidentally" giving the high Stealth character a bonus you didn't mean to.

I walk very, very, quietly, to the point that I have had to wear a keychain so I make noise as I move. Then you have the people that walk in such a manner that you can't help but hear them coming. They drag their feet, they land heavy with their steps, they're flat footed as they walk, whatever the case may be. 

Now, you could say that I have a higher DEX score than the other people which gives me a higher passive Stealth. Unfortunately I'm not trying to be sneaky, there is no intent what-so-ever to be sneaky. When you look at passive Perception, there is an intent behind it, to find/see/recognize the things around you.

In the case of Invisibility, I can see an argument for using a passive Stealth though. It is implied that the person is trying to be sneaky, there is the intent. 

See that's why I think passive stealth works. Some people do walk louder than others and if you had to gamify that into D&D I'm not sure I could come up with a better or simpler way than passive stealth.

Quote from Emmote >>

See that's why I think passive stealth works. Some people do walk louder than others and if you had to gamify that into D&D I'm not sure I could come up with a better or simpler way than passive stealth.

Yea, but I feel intent has a lot more to do with it before you choose to apply the passive Stealth.

I'm not trying to be stealthy, I'm just quiet. I don't intend on being unseen and unheard.
Now, if you put some camouflage on me and hand me a paintball gun, you better believe I'll disappear into the woods. My intent is to be unseen and unheard. 

While you might not intend on being quiet and unheard - that's the result. You are more stealthy simply because you're naturally quiet.
Edit: And I think this is particularly key when it comes to invisibility because sight is no longer an issue.

Quote from DMThac0 >>

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a real life reference that may muddle the situation.

I walk very, very, quietly, to the point that I have had to wear a keychain so I make noise as I move. Then you have the people that walk in such a manner that you can't help but hear them coming. They drag their feet, they land heavy with their steps, they're flat footed as they walk, whatever the case may be. 

Now, you could say that I have a higher DEX score than the other people which gives me a higher passive Stealth. Unfortunately I'm not trying to be sneaky, there is no intent what-so-ever to be sneaky. When you look at passive Perception, there is an intent behind it, to find/see/recognize the things around you.

In the case of Invisibility, I can see an argument for using a passive Stealth though. It is implied that the person is trying to be sneaky, there is the intent. 

I get what you are trying to express, but the logic is flawed. The premise of intent is being applied in an invalid way; you are applying the meaning of "intent" differently in both examples. 

There is no "intent" to find/see/recognize things with passive Perception. A creature's "intent" is to do whatever activity they are actually doing.

I intend to walk down a hallway, and I may or may not notice things along the way. That's passive (Perception).

I intend to walk down the hallway, and other creatures may or may not notice me along the way. That's passive (Stealth).

Quote from Emmote >>

But there is passive Stealth. There's passive for all the skills. It's 10+Skill. Typically only Perception Investigation and Insight are shown because they come up the most.

This seems like a good idea on its surface. In my opinion, the problem with passive strealth versus something like passive perception is that they represent the average of a number of attempts at that skill that are always automatically going on in the background. In the case of perception, it doesn't matter if you fail a dozen times. As long as you succeed on the 13th try, you perceive the thing. Stealth works the opposite way. it doesn't matter if you succeed a dozen times, if you fail on the 13th, then you are detected. I am not disagreeing that passive stealth may be a thing, but in my opinion, this is not a valid use of it.

As for whether creatures automatically know the exact location of someone who is invisible, but not hidden, I do not believe they do. My evidence for saying this are the fact that if that were the case, then the rogue's 14th level Blindsense ability and the ranger's level 18 Feral Senses would have no reason to specify that they automatically detect invisible creatures near them. For everyone to automatically know the location of unhidden invisible enemies steps on these high level abilities.

We had a whole thread about this and I fully acknowledge that there are people who disagree strongly with my position. But when my party is facing an invisible enemy who is not hidden, their passive perception gives clues to the location of the enemy and the search action has the ability to not only detect where the enemy is, but also locks onto things like the enemy's breathing, footsteps, etc. This allows the character to maintain the enemy's location even as they move, unless the enemy hides, in which case there is already a well-defined mechanic for handling that situation. Th search action is made against a lower DC for invisible unhidden enemies than would be the case if the enemy were invisible and hidden.

Again - it really boils down to the question, "do you consider someone with a higher Stealth Skill to be intrinsically more stealthy than someone who does not, even where there is no effort being made to be stealthy?"

IMO, Sigred and Emmote are saying "yes", while DMThac0  is saying "no",  that without taking any care to not shuffle feet, or pop their bubblegum, or rub up against a wall, it's likely that the Character would do something that would otherwise give them away - and I would tend to lean that way myself.

I think TexasDevin raises a very interesting point: a passive skill rating represents average behavior, and not a universal behavior. A Character who is walking down the street, invisible, but in no other way is trying to be stealthy would not necessarily take the pains to not trigger any "give-aways", and might give themselves away. It only takes once.

Another way to slice it: If the Character is walking down the street visibly in a crowd, does the high stealth Character naturally and intrinsically blend in, or do they need to be trying to blend in to the crowd?

How does a random passer-by on the street perceive that visible high-stealth-skill Character when they are not trying to be stealthy, vs. their visible low-stealth-skill Character friend who is also not making any effort to be stealthy?

This is all really just a DM ruling choice - so there's no right or wrong answer here.

If you say that the high-stealth-skill Character is more stealthy all the time, then use the Passive Stealth approach.

If you say that the high-steal-skill Character needs to be trying to be stealthy to gain any benefit, then it's a straight Perception-vs-Standard DC, whatever you think the DC is for someone to notice cues generated by an invisible non-stealthing creature.

With no active intent on doing anything on either side it becomes passive stealth vs passive perception for all parties involved. The lower stealth person is more likely to be spotted because they aren't blending in as well whereas the high stealth is blending in.

As soon as it becomes an active check. Either trying to be more stealthy or trying to perceive it becomes a roll vs passive.

I believe that is the point of passive skills. It's what you do when you're not trying.

Sure - like I said, it's clear that's how you're ruling. That's OK. 

Not everyone might rule that way, but now you both have an approach which makes sense for your RAI.

Although how then do you then reconcile the loud boisterous hail-fellow-well-met larger-than-life personality Rogue with the +6 Stealth Skill when they're trying to be stealthy? 

This rabbit hole goes very deep ;)

Quote from Sigred >>

 I get what you are trying to express, but the logic is flawed. The premise of intent is being applied in an invalid way; you are applying the meaning of "intent" differently in both examples. 

There is no "intent" to find/see/recognize things with passive Perception. A creature's "intent" is to do whatever activity they are actually doing.

I intend to walk down a hallway, and I may or may not notice things along the way. That's passive (Perception).

I intend to walk down the hallway, and other creatures may or may not notice me along the way. That's passive (Stealth)

and that's why I said it may get muddled :) 

There's an inconsistency I see, and am even folly of, when it comes to passives that I am trying to get a feel for. When players walk into a town for the first time the DM usually spends a great deal of time expressing all of the things the players perceive. This can be down to minute details such as rats in an alley, faded graffiti 3 streets down, or the smell of something faint on the wind. All of this to give the players a sense of what the town is they're entering. Yet, in a dungeon or wilderness trek where dangers might lurk, the players can miss a creature 30ft away from them, stumble over a trap, or walk right past a hidden cache of loot, all because their passive wasn't high enough. Now, in a dungeon you're keeping an eye out for dangers, you're on edge, and you're semi-lost. All of this can make it easy to miss, or overlook, things as you're delving through the location. However, the moment you enter a new town your senses are heightened to such an extreme?

Now that's just a thought process and can be put aside.

---

The real crux of this comes down to the idea of passives and how they work. It's understood by many that passives are a floor. In the case of passive Perception it's a common practice that you cannot roll under the score. Now if we translate this into passive Stealth, this means that a well built DEX character can start off with a 13 passive Stealth. The passive Perception of most creatures during the beginning of the game is around 10. So entering combat, entering a situation where Stealth is an option for success, these characters will auto succeed. It really shifts the way the DM needs to approach things and makes the stealthy types more powerful. That's not a bad thing, but it does create a whole new dynamic for approaching things like Invisibility.

The reason it changes things is tied to how Perception is viewed. Perception is tied to the five senses, and it is possible for a person to continue to have their perception even with one of those senses lost. You can perceive something by sound even if you can't see it for example. With Stealth we have two functions, visibility and auditory, unseen and unheard. Passive Stealth, so far, has been equated to walking quietly, or the Invisibility condition. You can't be stealthy if you're seen and you can't be stealthy if you're heard, they're intrinsically tied together. How, then, does passive Stealth work if you're unseen but walking loudly, or you're walking quietly but easily seen? It doesn't seem as if it would work, but if my passive Stealth is 13 and your passive Perception is 10, I should technically still be able to sneak up on you.

Quote from TexasDevin >>

Quote from Emmote >>

But there is passive Stealth. There's passive for all the skills. It's 10+Skill. Typically only Perception Investigation and Insight are shown because they come up the most.

This seems like a good idea on its surface. In my opinion, the problem with passive strealth versus something like passive perception is that they represent the average of a number of attempts at that skill that are always automatically going on in the background. In the case of perception, it doesn't matter if you fail a dozen times. As long as you succeed on the 13th try, you perceive the thing. Stealth works the opposite way. it doesn't matter if you succeed a dozen times, if you fail on the 13th, then you are detected.

This is the thing I don't really agree with - that and the idea of a passive skill being the floor that you cannot get below.

I see passives as literally the average. The 'I'm not trying'. When you roll you can get a natural 20 to flawlessly do whatever it is you're trying to do or you can roll a natural 1 and completely fluff it. Normal every day behaviour should fall in-between - and this is the passive 10 value. You then add your modifier on top whether you roll or not.

The problem with the perception vs stealth failing / succeeding 12 times and changing on the 13th I see as flawed. There will be situations - fleeting situations - where the character only gets one chance to perceive. Some DM's might use a roll in that situation but if they weren't actively looking then passive makes sense - and they only got the one chance. So it's not really an average of attempts - it's an average of ability. Someone who has higher perception is naturally better at picking up small details even when they're not trying. Same with stealth and someone stealthy.

I don't know if I'm making any sense. I'm quite bad at getting points across.