As far as I know, Kuo-Toa are the only creatures with a feature called Other-Worldly Perception. The 5th ed. text for this monster states: "The kuo-toa can sense the presence of any creature within 30 feet of it that is invisible or on the Ethereal Plane. It can pinpoint such a creature that is moving."
Let's leave aside the portion about the Ethereal Plane for a minute, since it is much more common that a Kuo-Toa would be fighting invisible PCs.
Since the devs have stated that invisible creatures still need to Hide and/or intentionally use Stealth in order not to be detected, this seems like a really weak ability. From my interpretation of the text, pinpoint just means that the Kuo-Toa knows that the creature is there. That does not remove disadvantage when attacking. Also, creatures without Otherworldly Perception can basically do the same thing with a successful Perception check, esp. if an Invisible creature is not being stealthy.
So Otherworldly Perception is almost the same as Not having Otherworldly Perception in regards to invisible creatures. And has no benefits when dealing with a creature that simply does not move while invisible. I'm struggling to understand how this is useful 95% of the time.
It is not almost always the same as a lack of the ability - they know when an invisible creature is nearby even if that creature has successfully hidden. That is a pretty huge improvement. Sure, they might not know exactly where it is, but it gives them enough information to stop doing whatever it is they are doing (particularly if they are doing something they do not want observed) and start rolling active perception checks, rather than relying on their passive perception.
And, unless the person was already standing still and the Kua-toa walked to bring them within 30 feet, the approach of the invisible person would allow the Kua-Toa to pinpoint exactly where they moved across the 30 foot threshold. That forces the invisible person to either be still (exactly where the Kua-toa knows they are) or retreat out of range, making it harder for them to get close or interact with certain things within the effect’s range.
In the same situation, a human might not even know they are being observed until something happens to alert them to the presence of another (invisible person moving something; invisible person rolling under the human’s passive perception). A kua-toa gets to bypass that period of “I still think I am alone” and go right to “hey, I am no longer alone.”
It’s an interesting ability that’s unique within the system, I 100% agree. I think Caerwyn’s right, it’s basically designed with role playing immersion in mind, to give the DM a tip on how to run them. I feel it’s strange there isn’t anything about it or how it influences their behavior in the fluff below though. Still, that’s something I feel all monsters could use a little bit of, a limited AI script for what and why they do certain things in combat.
It is not almost always the same as a lack of the ability - they know when an invisible creature is nearby even if that creature has successfully hidden. That is a pretty huge improvement. Sure, they might not know exactly where it is, but it gives them enough information to stop doing whatever it is they are doing (particularly if they are doing something they do not want observed) and start rolling active perception checks, rather than relying on their passive perception.
Okay, most of the time, a creature that using the Hide action isn't moving. You can't very well move while Hidden unless you are behind full cover, right? Maybe I'm not seeing all the angles here. That's why I'm asking.
It's also kind of strange that none of the Kuo-Toa, including the spellcasters, innately have See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge (i know, not in this edition).
It is not almost always the same as a lack of the ability - they know when an invisible creature is nearby even if that creature has successfully hidden. That is a pretty huge improvement. Sure, they might not know exactly where it is, but it gives them enough information to stop doing whatever it is they are doing (particularly if they are doing something they do not want observed) and start rolling active perception checks, rather than relying on their passive perception.
Okay, most of the time, a creature that using the Hide action isn't moving. You can't very well move while Hidden unless you are behind full cover, right? Maybe I'm not seeing all the angles here. That's why I'm asking.
It's also kind of strange that none of the Kuo-Toa, including the spellcasters, innately have See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge (i know, not in this edition).
An invisible creature always has cover for the purpose of taking the hide action - that is a major draw of invisibility. Regularly an invisible creature will be moving (likely slowly and carefully), in an attempt to take full advantage od their invisibility.
It is far from as good as Truesight or Blindsight, but it certainly is better than regular sight when it comes to detecting invisible creatures.
For a practical example of when it might be used:
The party is tasked with infiltrating a lessor lord’s house and taking an orb. The party has access to Invisibility and Pass without Trace and a rogue with high stealth - it would be pretty darn impossible for any regular guard to detect the rogue under normal circumstances. For flavour and/or difficulty, the DM does not want to use a creature with Truesight or Blindsight (they tend to be powerful or magical creatures, not necessarily something a lesser lord might keep around).
A kuo-toa mercenary would know an interloper is going for the orb, even if that interloper was invisible and consistently rolling 20+ on stealth checks due to Pass without Trace. That kuo-toa guard could then alert everyone, changing a few easy “oh look, my absurdly high checks beat your passives” into a manhunt to find the thief.
The Otherworldly Perception trait is special because it can sense the presence of any invisible creature within 30 feet of it wether hidden or not, and even pinpoint it if moving.
"The kuo-toa can sense the presence of any creature within 30 feet of it that is invisible or on the Ethereal Plane. It can pinpoint such a creature that is moving."
Mechanically, the way that I interpret this ability is that a kuo-toa cannot be surprised by an invisible creature from within 30 feet, regardless of whether or not that creature was successfully hidden and regardless of whether or not that creature is behind physical full cover. Interestingly, it seems that a creature within 30 feet who is NOT invisible could still surprise a kuo-toa if successfully hidden, which is a little weird.
Beyond surprise, suppose we are already in an ongoing combat. An invisible creature within 30 feet is successfully hidden and has not yet moved. That creature is unseen and unheard and its location is unknown. However, once that creature makes an attack, it gives away its position as per the rules for hiding. At this point, normally an invisible creature could attempt to hide again in an attempt to make its location unknown again. However, within 30 feet of a kuo-toa this seems to be impossible now. It could become unseen and unheard but its location would always be known (even behind full physical cover) since it can be pinpointed whenever it moves -- unless it moves and stays beyond 30 feet. The creature would still have the benefits of being an unseen attacker in the future but defensively being unseen but not being able to hide is mechanically less desirable since it can always be targeted (assuming you don't have to actually see the target).
Okay, most of the time, a creature that using the Hide action isn't moving. You can't very well move while Hidden unless you are behind full cover, right? Maybe I'm not seeing all the angles here. That's why I'm asking.
It's also kind of strange that none of the Kuo-Toa, including the spellcasters, innately have See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge (i know, not in this edition).
An invisible creature always has cover for the purpose of taking the hide action - that is a major draw of invisibility. Regularly an invisible creature will be moving (likely slowly and carefully), in an attempt to take full advantage od their invisibility.
Sorry, but I don't understand where you are drawing the inferrance that "an invisible creature always has cover for the purpose of taking the hide action." I'm not seeing that anywhere in the PHB. I looked through the "Unseen Attackers" section and the "Cover" sub-heading. Where are you drawing the above statement from?
Invisibility is not the same thing as full cover certainly, since a creature behind full cover cannot be targeted by an attack or spell directly. It is also not the same thing as 3/4 cover, even if, mathematically, the +5 to AC is similar to disadvantage on the attack roll because +5 to AC can stack with advantage whereas advantage never stacks with more advantage.
The party is tasked with infiltrating a lessor lord’s house and taking an orb. The party has access to Invisibility and Pass without Trace and a rogue with high stealth - it would be pretty darn impossible for any regular guard to detect the rogue under normal circumstances. For flavour and/or difficulty, the DM does not want to use a creature with Truesight or Blindsight (they tend to be powerful or magical creatures, not necessarily something a lesser lord might keep around).
A kuo-toa mercenary would know an interloper is going for the orb, even if that interloper was invisible and consistently rolling 20+ on stealth checks due to Pass without Trace. That kuo-toa guard could then alert everyone, changing a few easy “oh look, my absurdly high checks beat your passives” into a manhunt to find the thief.
Thank you for providing an example of what you are explicating. Nevertheless, I remain a bit confused. Are you saying that a Kuo-Toa does not need to make any sort of Perception check when an invisible/ethereal creature is within 30 feet whether or not there is full cover blocking line of sight between the Kuo-Toa and the invisible creature? If that was the case, shouldn't the writers have used much more direct language to say that? And as up2ng pointed out, if the creature is Not invisible but still behind full cover within 30 feet of Kuo-Toa, then it is Not automatically perceived, correct? This is sounds silly. Somehow, the invisible creature behind full cover is easier to notice than the same not-invisible creature behind full cover.
It means the Kuo-Toa knows what square you're in, and can attack you (at disadvantage) - whereas any other creature would need to roll Perception to know you're there, and guess at which square to swing or shoot at (at disadvantage). It's ... significant. Even if you're standing still, well, you're still in the same square, so the Kuo-Toa still knows, unless you move out of the 30' range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Thank you for providing an example of what you are explicating. Nevertheless, I remain a bit confused. Are you saying that a Kuo-Toa does not need to make any sort of Perception check when an invisible/ethereal creature is within 30 feet whether or not there is full cover blocking line of sight between the Kuo-Toa and the invisible creature? If that was the case, shouldn't the writers have used much more direct language to say that? And as up2ng pointed out, if the creature is Not invisible but still behind full cover within 30 feet of Kuo-Toa, then it is Not automatically perceived, correct? This is sounds silly. Somehow, the invisible creature behind full cover is easier to notice than the same not-invisible creature behind full cover.
To be perfectly honest, I do not think they could find a more clear way to write these rules - not a single other person on this thread is confused about what the rules mean or how to apply them and every single answer here has been congruent with one another.
There are some poorly written D&D rules, but this is not one of them - if it were, you would see some squabbling as folks tried to say “I think it actually means this” when responding to you. This is not a problem with the rules language.
As for it being silly that it makes it easier to find something invisible than not, yes, that is literally the point. Mechanically it is designed to flip the narrative on invisibility, giving DMs the ability to surprise players who might be using the invisibility spell, without rendering all stealth useless, as Truesight and Blindsight might.
in the lore, it also makes sense. Kuo-toa are creatures with a broken view on reality, manipulated for generations by Mind Flayers. These manipulations have left them with a unique ability to see into the unseen, giving them special skills when dealing with unseen entities that they do not receive with anything visible.
In nature, it also makes sense. There are plenty of creatures in the real world whose eyes work better in certain spectrums of light, outside of our own rather limited wavelength options. You could think of this as a creature whose eyes are no better or worse than others in the regular visible spectrums but who have a wider spectrum encapsulating invisibility and etherealness.
Or, if none of the above perfectly reasonable explanations work for you, you could just accept that Kuo-toa are inherently supposed to be a little silly. After all, these are creatures who can believe in a fictional god so much, that their fictional belief becomes real for everyone.
The rules are what they are, and there are plenty of mechanical and lore reasons they function the way they do. You might just be overthinking this.
I think the point of the OP is just saying that this is not a very good ability, which is true. It really only makes any difference if a creature is both Invisible and successfully Hidden. But there are lots of situations where an Invisible creature won't bother to hide since it already has the benefits of being Unseen.
Mechanically, the way that I interpret this ability is that a kuo-toa cannot be surprised by an invisible creature from within 30 feet, regardless of whether or not that creature was successfully hidden and regardless of whether or not that creature is behind physical full cover. Interestingly, it seems that a creature within 30 feet who is NOT invisible could still surprise a kuo-toa if successfully hidden, which is a little weird.
I agree a Kuo-tao wouldn't be caught unaware and surprised by invisible creatures. Basically whenever the invisible condition is involved, the Otherworldly Perception trait may factor in.
Sorry, but I don't understand where you are drawing the inferrance that "an invisible creature always has cover for the purpose of taking the hide action." I'm not seeing that anywhere in the PHB. I looked through the "Unseen Attackers" section and the "Cover" sub-heading. Where are you drawing the above statement from?
This statement can be found in the invisible condition;
Invisible
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.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
To be perfectly honest, I do not think they could find a more clear way to write these rules - not a single other person on this thread is confused about what the rules mean or how to apply them and every single answer here has been congruent with one another.
There are some poorly written D&D rules, but this is not one of them - if it were, you would see some squabbling as folks tried to say “I think it actually means this” when responding to you. This is not a problem with the rules language.
Assuming that what you say is how the rule is supposed to be interpreted, here is how I would have written the text for Other-Worldly Perception to prevent any ambiguity:
"The kuo-toa notices the presence of any creature within 30 feet that is invisible or on the Ethereal Plane, regardless of cover. If that creature moves, the kuo-toa can pinpoint its location."
Instead, the rules text use the more ambiguous construction "sense the presence of". There is no term of art for "sense the presence" in D&D. However, the word "notice" appears multiple times in the PHB, including within the "Activity While Traveling" heading and the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" heading.
It is also worth noting that Other-Worldly Perception is written in such a way as to avoid mention of objects. For instance, the Arcane Eye spell creates an invisible eye which can be moved by the caster. The eye here is not a creature, nor does it have hit points. But it is clearly an object of some sort since it cannot move through a solid barrier.
Also, the 5th edition Kuo-Toa does not state how the Kuo-Toa has this sense. It just exists for no particular reason. In contrast, the 3rd edition Monster Manual version of the Kuo-Toa has a similar ability: Keen Sight. Therein it states: "Kuo-toas have excellen vision thanks to their two independently focusing eyes. Their eyesight is so keen that they can spot a moving object or creature even if it is invisible, ethereal, or astral. Only be remaining perfectly still can such objects or creatures avoid their notice." This is much more clearly written and gives both the DM and the player some idea how to overcome this ability, such as with a Blindness spell.
Sorry, but I don't understand where you are drawing the inferrance that "an invisible creature always has cover for the purpose of taking the hide action." I'm not seeing that anywhere in the PHB. I looked through the "Unseen Attackers" section and the "Cover" sub-heading. Where are you drawing the above statement from?
This statement can be found in the invisible condition;
Invisible
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.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
Sorry, what? The text you copy-pasted says nothing about cover. It uses the term "heavily obscured", which is not the same thing as having cover.
Wizards could have used notice, but they did not - and the answer is pretty obvious why. In choosing their descriptive term, “notice” would imply that the kuo-toa observes the invisible creature much the same way as a guard might notice someone if the guard rolled high enough on perception. That is not what is happening here. Here, they wanted to design a flavourful ability that clearly read “the kuo-toa knows something is there, but they do not 100% have their sight on it.” If the ability read “it notices the invisible creature” the plain language reading would be “it effectively sees that creature” since “notice” in the rules is often used synonymously with “see” (note: Notice is not actually a “term of art” as you claim—it just is a commonly found word).
It is very obvious that is not the flavour Wizards is going for - they want something that feels more in line with a Kuo-toa’s disconnect from reality. They want something that works slightly differently than regular sight, representing the unique properties of the creature.
That is good game design, and they managed to convey that in a simple, plain English way. Frankly, “sense the presence,” beyond being incredibly easy to understand in plain English, is such a common fantasy trope that it surprises me there are D&D players who do not instinctively understand the fantasy element Wizards was so clearly going for.
Try not to overthink it. There is not some deep meaning or other thing you are missing - this is one of those cases where “reading the rules explains the rules.” Overthinking it is just going to send you further down your current rabbit hole, where you seem to be trying to find some hidden meaning in something that already conveys every element in the plain text.
I much prefer the 3rd edition text for Keen Sight, since it is A) inclusive of invisible objects, and B) states how the Kuo-Toa has this ability.
We are going to have to agree to disagree about whether "sense the presence of" is actually better than "notice". To me, "notice" is more clear since that is language clearly used in the PHB. "Sense the presence of" is not used anywhere in the PHB nor is it clearly defined in the monster statblock, so it's more difficult for the DM to interpret.
Moreover, you have not assured me that your interpretation is definitive, as you also stated the following:
An invisible creature always has cover for the purpose of taking the hide action - that is a major draw of invisibility. Regularly an invisible creature will be moving (likely slowly and carefully), in an attempt to take full advantage od their invisibility.
Cover and invisibility are not the same thing but you are claiming that an invisible creature always has cover in re: Hide action. I'm sorry, but this damages your credibility in re: to a rules-based discussion about invisibility.
Sorry, what? The text you copy-pasted says nothing about cover. It uses the term "heavily obscured", which is not the same thing as having cover.
I know, i wanted to post the statement refering to heavily obscured for the purpose of hiding sorry for the confusion, i should have made my intentions more clear.
Having cover and being obscured is two different things and the only place i can remember in the game that infer being obscured by cover for the purposes of hiding is the halfling's Naturally Stealthy trait.
As Plaguescarred points out, being behind cover is different from being in a heavily obscured area -- each of these are defined pretty precisely in the game. It's been mentioned in the thread that these two terms are often used interchangeably (I've done it myself within this thread) but really we should all be careful not to do this in discussions where it makes a difference. Here is where things went wrong and confusion ensued in this thread:
Okay, most of the time, a creature that using the Hide action isn't moving. You can't very well move while Hidden unless you are behind full cover, right?
This is technically incorrect and it makes a difference here. The rules for Hiding do not require cover at all. They (generally) require a heavily obscured area. From the Hiding sidebar in the PHB Chapter 7 we have:
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly . . . An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.
What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.
From Chapter 8 we have this:
Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.
A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured.
A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
Here we see 3 examples of heavily obscured areas that may not provide full cover. Situationally, a DM could rule that a thin layer of dense foliage that provides enough of a heavily obscured area to allow Hiding also only provides half cover or three-quarters cover even when no portion of the creature is visible. This is because a range attack such as an arrow could sometimes travel straight through the foliage and strike the creature with full force. This is in contrast to the rules for full cover which we get from Chapter 9:
obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm . . . A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
So, in the case of total cover there is an obstacle that physically blocks line of sight and is sturdy enough to block ranged attacks. As a consequence, this also satisfies the definition of being a heavily obscured area as long as the relevant creatures stay positioned in such a way that the line of sight remains blocked. Therefore, being behind total cover is a suitable place to attempt to hide and remain hidden while moving. But it's not the only place.
I guess you could say that all areas behind full cover are heavily obscured but not all heavily obscured areas are behind full cover -- and for the purposes of Hiding you only require the less restrictive concept of a heavily obscured area.
It means the Kuo-Toa knows what square you're in, and can attack you (at disadvantage) - whereas any other creature would need to roll Perception to know you're there, and guess at which square to swing or shoot at (at disadvantage). It's ... significant. Even if you're standing still, well, you're still in the same square, so the Kuo-Toa still knows, unless you move out of the 30' range.
It's an exceptional ability. Situational, sure, but unless you rarely use invisibility, or consider it a meagre advantage, surely you see that negating it is massive?
Attacks are still made with disadvantage - but at least you needn't guess where the target is on top of that, and if you have casters, you A) don't need attack rolls, and B) know where to target your faerie fire, dispell or whatever.
It's massive. But of course, like all abilities, it's usefulness must be measured against the cost. For the Kuo-Toa, I estimate the cost was likely zero.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I have a feeling that you are thinking that this ability is doing more than it actually does. Invisibility is not negated by this ability. You normally only have to guess where an invisible creature is if they are successfully Hidden (this is not automatic by virtue of being Invisible -- even an Invisible creature must pass a stealth check to become Hidden). A Hidden creature gives away its position when they attack. At that point, even if they are Invisible you do not have to guess their location (with or without this ability). Such a creature would typically then have to use an Action AND pass a stealth check AND have the ability to move to a new location in order to become Hidden again. If they choose not to do that then having this ability makes no difference against that Invisible creature any longer.
if you have casters, you A) don't need attack rolls, and B) know where to target your faerie fire, dispell or whatever.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with A). If the spell normally requires an attack roll it will still require an attack roll. The ability makes no difference here. With point B) the ability usually makes no difference here either in terms of being able to target the Invisible creature. The Invisible creature normally can only avoid being targeted if they are also Hidden (which is uncommon but is the one scenario where this ability would make a difference as mentioned previously in the thread). Plus, Faerie Fire is a strange example since that spell does not target a creature anyway and even Hidden creatures can be affected by AOE spells. Alternatively, some spells require that you can see the target. Once again the ability would make no difference there either -- you cannot see Invisible creatures with or without this ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As far as I know, Kuo-Toa are the only creatures with a feature called Other-Worldly Perception. The 5th ed. text for this monster states: "The kuo-toa can sense the presence of any creature within 30 feet of it that is invisible or on the Ethereal Plane. It can pinpoint such a creature that is moving."
Let's leave aside the portion about the Ethereal Plane for a minute, since it is much more common that a Kuo-Toa would be fighting invisible PCs.
Since the devs have stated that invisible creatures still need to Hide and/or intentionally use Stealth in order not to be detected, this seems like a really weak ability. From my interpretation of the text, pinpoint just means that the Kuo-Toa knows that the creature is there. That does not remove disadvantage when attacking. Also, creatures without Otherworldly Perception can basically do the same thing with a successful Perception check, esp. if an Invisible creature is not being stealthy.
So Otherworldly Perception is almost the same as Not having Otherworldly Perception in regards to invisible creatures. And has no benefits when dealing with a creature that simply does not move while invisible. I'm struggling to understand how this is useful 95% of the time.
It is not almost always the same as a lack of the ability - they know when an invisible creature is nearby even if that creature has successfully hidden. That is a pretty huge improvement. Sure, they might not know exactly where it is, but it gives them enough information to stop doing whatever it is they are doing (particularly if they are doing something they do not want observed) and start rolling active perception checks, rather than relying on their passive perception.
And, unless the person was already standing still and the Kua-toa walked to bring them within 30 feet, the approach of the invisible person would allow the Kua-Toa to pinpoint exactly where they moved across the 30 foot threshold. That forces the invisible person to either be still (exactly where the Kua-toa knows they are) or retreat out of range, making it harder for them to get close or interact with certain things within the effect’s range.
In the same situation, a human might not even know they are being observed until something happens to alert them to the presence of another (invisible person moving something; invisible person rolling under the human’s passive perception). A kua-toa gets to bypass that period of “I still think I am alone” and go right to “hey, I am no longer alone.”
It’s an interesting ability that’s unique within the system, I 100% agree. I think Caerwyn’s right, it’s basically designed with role playing immersion in mind, to give the DM a tip on how to run them. I feel it’s strange there isn’t anything about it or how it influences their behavior in the fluff below though. Still, that’s something I feel all monsters could use a little bit of, a limited AI script for what and why they do certain things in combat.
Okay, most of the time, a creature that using the Hide action isn't moving. You can't very well move while Hidden unless you are behind full cover, right? Maybe I'm not seeing all the angles here. That's why I'm asking.
It's also kind of strange that none of the Kuo-Toa, including the spellcasters, innately have See Invisibility or Invisibility Purge (i know, not in this edition).
An invisible creature always has cover for the purpose of taking the hide action - that is a major draw of invisibility. Regularly an invisible creature will be moving (likely slowly and carefully), in an attempt to take full advantage od their invisibility.
It is far from as good as Truesight or Blindsight, but it certainly is better than regular sight when it comes to detecting invisible creatures.
For a practical example of when it might be used:
The party is tasked with infiltrating a lessor lord’s house and taking an orb. The party has access to Invisibility and Pass without Trace and a rogue with high stealth - it would be pretty darn impossible for any regular guard to detect the rogue under normal circumstances. For flavour and/or difficulty, the DM does not want to use a creature with Truesight or Blindsight (they tend to be powerful or magical creatures, not necessarily something a lesser lord might keep around).
A kuo-toa mercenary would know an interloper is going for the orb, even if that interloper was invisible and consistently rolling 20+ on stealth checks due to Pass without Trace. That kuo-toa guard could then alert everyone, changing a few easy “oh look, my absurdly high checks beat your passives” into a manhunt to find the thief.
The Otherworldly Perception trait is special because it can sense the presence of any invisible creature within 30 feet of it wether hidden or not, and even pinpoint it if moving.
Mechanically, the way that I interpret this ability is that a kuo-toa cannot be surprised by an invisible creature from within 30 feet, regardless of whether or not that creature was successfully hidden and regardless of whether or not that creature is behind physical full cover. Interestingly, it seems that a creature within 30 feet who is NOT invisible could still surprise a kuo-toa if successfully hidden, which is a little weird.
Beyond surprise, suppose we are already in an ongoing combat. An invisible creature within 30 feet is successfully hidden and has not yet moved. That creature is unseen and unheard and its location is unknown. However, once that creature makes an attack, it gives away its position as per the rules for hiding. At this point, normally an invisible creature could attempt to hide again in an attempt to make its location unknown again. However, within 30 feet of a kuo-toa this seems to be impossible now. It could become unseen and unheard but its location would always be known (even behind full physical cover) since it can be pinpointed whenever it moves -- unless it moves and stays beyond 30 feet. The creature would still have the benefits of being an unseen attacker in the future but defensively being unseen but not being able to hide is mechanically less desirable since it can always be targeted (assuming you don't have to actually see the target).
Sorry, but I don't understand where you are drawing the inferrance that "an invisible creature always has cover for the purpose of taking the hide action." I'm not seeing that anywhere in the PHB. I looked through the "Unseen Attackers" section and the "Cover" sub-heading. Where are you drawing the above statement from?
Invisibility is not the same thing as full cover certainly, since a creature behind full cover cannot be targeted by an attack or spell directly. It is also not the same thing as 3/4 cover, even if, mathematically, the +5 to AC is similar to disadvantage on the attack roll because +5 to AC can stack with advantage whereas advantage never stacks with more advantage.
Thank you for providing an example of what you are explicating. Nevertheless, I remain a bit confused. Are you saying that a Kuo-Toa does not need to make any sort of Perception check when an invisible/ethereal creature is within 30 feet whether or not there is full cover blocking line of sight between the Kuo-Toa and the invisible creature? If that was the case, shouldn't the writers have used much more direct language to say that? And as up2ng pointed out, if the creature is Not invisible but still behind full cover within 30 feet of Kuo-Toa, then it is Not automatically perceived, correct? This is sounds silly. Somehow, the invisible creature behind full cover is easier to notice than the same not-invisible creature behind full cover.
It means the Kuo-Toa knows what square you're in, and can attack you (at disadvantage) - whereas any other creature would need to roll Perception to know you're there, and guess at which square to swing or shoot at (at disadvantage). It's ... significant. Even if you're standing still, well, you're still in the same square, so the Kuo-Toa still knows, unless you move out of the 30' range.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To be perfectly honest, I do not think they could find a more clear way to write these rules - not a single other person on this thread is confused about what the rules mean or how to apply them and every single answer here has been congruent with one another.
There are some poorly written D&D rules, but this is not one of them - if it were, you would see some squabbling as folks tried to say “I think it actually means this” when responding to you. This is not a problem with the rules language.
As for it being silly that it makes it easier to find something invisible than not, yes, that is literally the point. Mechanically it is designed to flip the narrative on invisibility, giving DMs the ability to surprise players who might be using the invisibility spell, without rendering all stealth useless, as Truesight and Blindsight might.
in the lore, it also makes sense. Kuo-toa are creatures with a broken view on reality, manipulated for generations by Mind Flayers. These manipulations have left them with a unique ability to see into the unseen, giving them special skills when dealing with unseen entities that they do not receive with anything visible.
In nature, it also makes sense. There are plenty of creatures in the real world whose eyes work better in certain spectrums of light, outside of our own rather limited wavelength options. You could think of this as a creature whose eyes are no better or worse than others in the regular visible spectrums but who have a wider spectrum encapsulating invisibility and etherealness.
Or, if none of the above perfectly reasonable explanations work for you, you could just accept that Kuo-toa are inherently supposed to be a little silly. After all, these are creatures who can believe in a fictional god so much, that their fictional belief becomes real for everyone.
The rules are what they are, and there are plenty of mechanical and lore reasons they function the way they do. You might just be overthinking this.
I think the point of the OP is just saying that this is not a very good ability, which is true. It really only makes any difference if a creature is both Invisible and successfully Hidden. But there are lots of situations where an Invisible creature won't bother to hide since it already has the benefits of being Unseen.
I agree a Kuo-tao wouldn't be caught unaware and surprised by invisible creatures. Basically whenever the invisible condition is involved, the Otherworldly Perception trait may factor in.
This statement can be found in the invisible condition;
Assuming that what you say is how the rule is supposed to be interpreted, here is how I would have written the text for Other-Worldly Perception to prevent any ambiguity:
"The kuo-toa notices the presence of any creature within 30 feet that is invisible or on the Ethereal Plane, regardless of cover. If that creature moves, the kuo-toa can pinpoint its location."
Instead, the rules text use the more ambiguous construction "sense the presence of". There is no term of art for "sense the presence" in D&D. However, the word "notice" appears multiple times in the PHB, including within the "Activity While Traveling" heading and the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" heading.
It is also worth noting that Other-Worldly Perception is written in such a way as to avoid mention of objects. For instance, the Arcane Eye spell creates an invisible eye which can be moved by the caster. The eye here is not a creature, nor does it have hit points. But it is clearly an object of some sort since it cannot move through a solid barrier.
Also, the 5th edition Kuo-Toa does not state how the Kuo-Toa has this sense. It just exists for no particular reason. In contrast, the 3rd edition Monster Manual version of the Kuo-Toa has a similar ability: Keen Sight. Therein it states: "Kuo-toas have excellen vision thanks to their two independently focusing eyes. Their eyesight is so keen that they can spot a moving object or creature even if it is invisible, ethereal, or astral. Only be remaining perfectly still can such objects or creatures avoid their notice." This is much more clearly written and gives both the DM and the player some idea how to overcome this ability, such as with a Blindness spell.
Sorry, what? The text you copy-pasted says nothing about cover. It uses the term "heavily obscured", which is not the same thing as having cover.
Wizards could have used notice, but they did not - and the answer is pretty obvious why. In choosing their descriptive term, “notice” would imply that the kuo-toa observes the invisible creature much the same way as a guard might notice someone if the guard rolled high enough on perception. That is not what is happening here. Here, they wanted to design a flavourful ability that clearly read “the kuo-toa knows something is there, but they do not 100% have their sight on it.” If the ability read “it notices the invisible creature” the plain language reading would be “it effectively sees that creature” since “notice” in the rules is often used synonymously with “see” (note: Notice is not actually a “term of art” as you claim—it just is a commonly found word).
It is very obvious that is not the flavour Wizards is going for - they want something that feels more in line with a Kuo-toa’s disconnect from reality. They want something that works slightly differently than regular sight, representing the unique properties of the creature.
That is good game design, and they managed to convey that in a simple, plain English way. Frankly, “sense the presence,” beyond being incredibly easy to understand in plain English, is such a common fantasy trope that it surprises me there are D&D players who do not instinctively understand the fantasy element Wizards was so clearly going for.
Try not to overthink it. There is not some deep meaning or other thing you are missing - this is one of those cases where “reading the rules explains the rules.” Overthinking it is just going to send you further down your current rabbit hole, where you seem to be trying to find some hidden meaning in something that already conveys every element in the plain text.
I much prefer the 3rd edition text for Keen Sight, since it is A) inclusive of invisible objects, and B) states how the Kuo-Toa has this ability.
We are going to have to agree to disagree about whether "sense the presence of" is actually better than "notice". To me, "notice" is more clear since that is language clearly used in the PHB. "Sense the presence of" is not used anywhere in the PHB nor is it clearly defined in the monster statblock, so it's more difficult for the DM to interpret.
Moreover, you have not assured me that your interpretation is definitive, as you also stated the following:
Cover and invisibility are not the same thing but you are claiming that an invisible creature always has cover in re: Hide action. I'm sorry, but this damages your credibility in re: to a rules-based discussion about invisibility.
I know, i wanted to post the statement refering to heavily obscured for the purpose of hiding sorry for the confusion, i should have made my intentions more clear.
Having cover and being obscured is two different things and the only place i can remember in the game that infer being obscured by cover for the purposes of hiding is the halfling's Naturally Stealthy trait.
As Plaguescarred points out, being behind cover is different from being in a heavily obscured area -- each of these are defined pretty precisely in the game. It's been mentioned in the thread that these two terms are often used interchangeably (I've done it myself within this thread) but really we should all be careful not to do this in discussions where it makes a difference. Here is where things went wrong and confusion ensued in this thread:
This is technically incorrect and it makes a difference here. The rules for Hiding do not require cover at all. They (generally) require a heavily obscured area. From the Hiding sidebar in the PHB Chapter 7 we have:
From Chapter 8 we have this:
Here we see 3 examples of heavily obscured areas that may not provide full cover. Situationally, a DM could rule that a thin layer of dense foliage that provides enough of a heavily obscured area to allow Hiding also only provides half cover or three-quarters cover even when no portion of the creature is visible. This is because a range attack such as an arrow could sometimes travel straight through the foliage and strike the creature with full force. This is in contrast to the rules for full cover which we get from Chapter 9:
So, in the case of total cover there is an obstacle that physically blocks line of sight and is sturdy enough to block ranged attacks. As a consequence, this also satisfies the definition of being a heavily obscured area as long as the relevant creatures stay positioned in such a way that the line of sight remains blocked. Therefore, being behind total cover is a suitable place to attempt to hide and remain hidden while moving. But it's not the only place.
I guess you could say that all areas behind full cover are heavily obscured but not all heavily obscured areas are behind full cover -- and for the purposes of Hiding you only require the less restrictive concept of a heavily obscured area.
It's an exceptional ability. Situational, sure, but unless you rarely use invisibility, or consider it a meagre advantage, surely you see that negating it is massive?
Attacks are still made with disadvantage - but at least you needn't guess where the target is on top of that, and if you have casters, you A) don't need attack rolls, and B) know where to target your faerie fire, dispell or whatever.
It's massive. But of course, like all abilities, it's usefulness must be measured against the cost. For the Kuo-Toa, I estimate the cost was likely zero.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I have a feeling that you are thinking that this ability is doing more than it actually does. Invisibility is not negated by this ability. You normally only have to guess where an invisible creature is if they are successfully Hidden (this is not automatic by virtue of being Invisible -- even an Invisible creature must pass a stealth check to become Hidden). A Hidden creature gives away its position when they attack. At that point, even if they are Invisible you do not have to guess their location (with or without this ability). Such a creature would typically then have to use an Action AND pass a stealth check AND have the ability to move to a new location in order to become Hidden again. If they choose not to do that then having this ability makes no difference against that Invisible creature any longer.
Next:
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with A). If the spell normally requires an attack roll it will still require an attack roll. The ability makes no difference here. With point B) the ability usually makes no difference here either in terms of being able to target the Invisible creature. The Invisible creature normally can only avoid being targeted if they are also Hidden (which is uncommon but is the one scenario where this ability would make a difference as mentioned previously in the thread). Plus, Faerie Fire is a strange example since that spell does not target a creature anyway and even Hidden creatures can be affected by AOE spells. Alternatively, some spells require that you can see the target. Once again the ability would make no difference there either -- you cannot see Invisible creatures with or without this ability.