RAW does not say that invisible entities are always ("in any event") auto-detected

[Tanarii]

Right. At a distance in which it is physically possible to see something (1 mile, for the barbarian), there are 3 potential outcomes:

1. The creature is not hidden --> it is noticed
2. The creature has False Appearance --> it is not noticed
3. The creature is hidden --> a contest of stealth vs perception occurs

Since this is your claim, care to quote some RAW to back it up? So far, no one else can.

[gloryblaze]

Since this is your claim, care to quote some RAW to back it up? So far, no one else can.

I've never claimed that this is strict RAW - it's how I run my campaign. I will claim that there is nothing in RAW that precludes me from resolving things in this manner, and that I am not using any house rules by doing so. I will further claim that I believe that this is the least complicated resolution method and best facilitates play without bogging down on details. I will maintain that stance unless somebody can satisfiably answer Point 1 of my first post in this thread:

A couple of points:

Point 1:

Can anyone give me an example of a situation that:
A) is not so contrived or stupid to be unreasonable to encounter in actual play
B) involves a player character who is invisible or otherwise unseen, but does not intend to conceal their presence
and C) that player would be unhappy or feel that they were treated unfairly if the DM ruled that an NPC noticed their presence

[Tanarii]

I've never claimed that this is strict RAW - it's how I run my campaign. I will claim that there is nothing in RAW that precludes me from resolving things in this manner, and that I am not using any house rules by doing so.

Oh yeah, that's totally different. You are definitely not using any house rules by doing so. A DM choosing not to worry about if something can or can't be detected when it's not hidden, and just running it as auto-detected, is entirely within RAW.

Same for a DM who decides to use other checks to determine resolution, if they think it's warranted.

I will further claim that I believe that this is the least complicated resolution method and best facilitates play without bogging down on details. I will maintain that stance unless somebody can satisfiably answer Point 1 of my first post in this thread:

Generally speaking, I agree. It's simplest to just have something that's not hiding detected. But sometimes simple resolution isn't satisfactory for a group, and they want more detailed simulation (usually phrased as more 'realistic'), at the cost of complexity.

Personally when I've played, I find it breaks verisimilitude instantly that you know where a target is in the darkness outside your light, and can easily target it with a bow shot. OTOH I don't have a problem with someone firing a fireball into the darkness and wiping everything out. So I keep my mouth shut if that's how the DM wants to run it.

As a DM I generally run it as auto-detect because it's easier to run, even though I find it irritating as a player. But sometimes I plop down enemies (that weren't hiding) on the edge of light when they come in to attack for the first time. If any players don't like it (either way) they have yet to complain.

[RSP]

No one has been able to provide a RAW quote to back up that this is the case, as of yet. The best we've got is a "usually" rule, and it's for combat. If you're in combat, usually if you leave hiding you will be noticed.

Attempts to reverse engineer this into into 'always' or 'both in and out of combat' so far don't hold any water.

Edit: Also, I don't think I've ever seen anything to back up the idea that once you've noticed / detected the presence of something, it's also necessarily pinpointed.

The RAW is "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

There's no reason to have any other rules: either the DM has determined something/someone is hiding (and therefore either requires a Perception check of some sort to see, or is determined to be impossible to see), or they determine that thing/character is not hiding and is visible.

There is no reason for any other rules on this. There is no reason to have any general default on noticing "non-hidden" things, because things are either deemed hiding or not, there is no in between.

A character 3 miles away on the other side of a mountain is most likely deemed to fit the criteria for hiding, regardless of whether or not that character is taking the Hide Action, because the DM has determined it's not a necessary factor in this circumstance.

However, if the party Wizard tries Scrying that character on the other side of the mountain, the circumstances have changed and now the DM says "you see the character through your scrying window." This is because the DM determines the situation was not sufficient for the character to be hiding.

[Tanarii]

The RAW is "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

That's a general statement regarding that the DM determines if the option to hide is open. It has nothing to do with the DM determining how to adjudicate resolution of if it's possible to perceive something that's not attempting to hide.

[RSP]

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

That's a general statement regarding that the DM determines if the option to hide is open. It has nothing to do with the DM determining how to adjudicate resolution of if it's possible to perceive something that's not attempting to hide.

No, it's not about the option; it's about the factors needed to Hide, and, therefore when those factors are present, the state of hiding.

It is a general statement, though, one that's saying the DM determines what's required to be hiding. That is, the DM is well within their rights to say "no Hide Action is needed in this case" or "to Hide in this situation, a character would need to take the Hide Action."

If you have a situation where the DM decides the Hide Action isn't necessary, only that a character doesn't move or speak while being Invisible, and that character doesn't move or speak while also is Invisible, then they're hiding and other characters will need to use Perception to notice them (unless deemed an impossibility by the DM).

I understand people sometimes take it to mean "the DM is the adjudicator of whether a character is clearly seen or heard to the extent that it can or cannot take the Hide Action."

However, this doesn't make sense: the DM is always the adjudicator of everything; it's the basis for the whole game. It's as relevant in that regard as starting off the Attack section with "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for attacking," and the lack of that statement starting off the Attack section doesn't mean that players can just decide to make a melee weapon attack against another character a mile away.

Keep in mind, that sentence was added as an errata. Do you really believe Crawford added it because too many times in sessions the DM said "you can't hide" and a Player objected by saying "sorry DM, nothing in the rules says you get to determine that" and the campaigns had to continue with Players telling the DM when they were allowed to Hide?

Of course not, because the game is already established to have the DM be the arbiter of everything. It would be a pointless addition to the Hiding rules and an even more pointless errata, if taken that way.

Moreover, I haven't seen anyone argue against the DM having this ability (to decide something is hiding). I think Crawford said as much in the podcast everyone was quoting. So it seems we all agree that it is in fact the RAI that DMs can decide what is and isn't hiding.

So does it make more sense that they errata'd into the PHB a completely unnecessary rule, that everyone who's ever played the game already understands; or that they errata'd in a rule which clairified the intent of the designers: that the DM has the ability to decide what is or isn't hiding based on the circumstances in their own game?

[smcmike]

Right. At a distance in which it is physically possible to see something (1 mile, for the barbarian), there are 3 potential outcomes:

1. The creature is not hidden --> it is noticed
2. The creature has False Appearance --> it is not noticed
3. The creature is hidden --> a contest of stealth vs perception occurs

If you're trying to tell me that at 1 mile the barbarian can't see the (unhidden) guard clearly enough so there is no auto detection until, say, .85 miles, I say that's a pile of useless horse. As a DM, I would not say:

"Ok Sarah, Gorlim Headsmasher is now a mile from the city walls. Make a perception check. 8? You don't see anything. What do you do now? You continue walking towards the walls? I see. A little less than a quarter mile later, you notice that there's a guard by the wall."

I would say:

"Ok Sarah, when Gorlim is a little over three quarters of a mile away from the city walls, he notices that there's a guard stationed near the gate. How do you want to proceed?"

The second method saves time because Sarah's character was going to notice the guard eventually no matter what (because he's not hidden)

I've never claimed that this is strict RAW - it's how I run my campaign. I will claim that there is nothing in RAW that precludes me from resolving things in this manner, and that I am not using any house rules by doing so. I will further claim that I believe that this is the least complicated resolution method and best facilitates play without bogging down on details. I will maintain that stance unless somebody can satisfiably answer Point 1 of my first post in this thread:

In response to the first scenario, the Barbarian with the special eyes can clearly see just about anything she wants at 1 mile, provided she is looking in the right direction. The scenario I was imagining was what a non-barbarian could see at that distance - a perception check to estimate army size, for instance.

I see now that you aren't arguing that such a check is against the rules, but simply that it isn't worth bothering with. That's fair, and I agree 100% that the rules support a DM never asks for a perception check to spot a creature that isn't trying to hide.

[Saggo]

Sorry for subjecting you to 20 questions.

It's not you, it's me. I find all too often messages are lost as people begin nitpicking over details. I am aware others find value in it, though.

Why do the humans (a&b) have disadvantage on their checks? Blindness does not impose disadvantage.

Not from blindness, from being lightly obscured. If something is heavily obscured, it follows that it is also lightly obscured. It logically follows that they're magnitudes of each other; more importantly if something fulfills the requirements to be heavily obscured, you can be reasonably assured it fulfills the requirements to be lightly obscured.

Here's one more. Sorry.

Two halflings are hiding. One is invisible, hiding in bright light and the other is visible, hiding in dim light. Does a human have disadvantage to detect either halfling?

Invisibility explicitly counts as heavily obscured, so disadvantaged in both situations.

[smcmike]

Not from blindness, from being lightly obscured. If something is heavily obscured, it follows that it is also lightly obscured. It logically follows that they're magnitudes of each other; more importantly if something fulfills the requirements to be heavily obscured, you can be reasonably assured it fulfills the requirements to be lightly obscured.

Interesting. So any perception check to locate something by sound alone is done at disadvantage, by default? This makes sense to me from a balance perspective, but I'm not sure if it is mandated by the rules.

Invisibility explicitly counts as heavily obscured, so disadvantaged in both situations.

I didn't realize this. Good point.

[Saggo]

Interesting. So any perception check to locate something by sound alone is done at disadvantage, by default? This makes sense to me from a balance perspective, but I'm not sure if it is mandated by the rules.

It's not so much that heavily obscured explicitly says that you're lightly obscured, but how many scenarios are there that you qualify for heavily obscured but do not qualify for lightly obscured?

I agree It's a more balanced approach, too.

[Tanarii]

Keep in mind, that sentence was added as an errata. Do you really believe Crawford added it because too many times in sessions the DM said "you can't hide" and a Player objected by saying "sorry DM, nothing in the rules says you get to determine that" and the campaigns had to continue with Players telling the DM when they were allowed to Hide?

Yes. That's exactly why. Because players were used to 3e or 4e having detailed rules saying when you could and when you couldn't hide. It needed to be made crystal clear in 5e when the option to Hide is available: when the DM has determined that circumstances allow it. That's the design intent, but the original wording didn't properly reflect that.

Until the errata this was a point of frequent debate. For that matter, even after it was for a long while. Even the podcast didn't immediately seal this point shut. It took all those hammers to convince some people of the design intent. I should know, I was one of the people that had to be bludgeoned.

[Malifice]

Have you ever tried to find a person in a dark room? If you have you'll realize how ridiculous your auto-detect ruling is in terms of any realism at all.

You and I can stand in a dark room. I'll draw a sword and advance madly around the room swinging the sword in wide arcs. I'm pretty confident at some stage in that six seconds I will be making an attack against you at disadvantage.

That is what the rules represent. Remember in your example you haven't made any effort at all to be quiet or hide (the hide action) so the assumption is you are not being quiet or hiding.

There is no logical reason that having a creature that is unmoving and invisible be automatically noticed would add to the game. It doesn't improve matters, or make the game any better. I suspect that nobody would rule that way at an actual table.

If your character is invisible and not moving you are taking the hide action.

DM: Right Bob, the Wizard has cast invisibility on you, what do you want to do?
Bob: I will stand totally still and quiet.
DM: Okay that's the hide action - roll me a stealth check.

The hide action represents the things that you are doing (standing there totally still and quiet) instead of attacking, casting a spell, dodging, searching, using an item or dashing.

[pwykersotz]

This aco****ing accounts for the strict Combat rules

I just wanted to chime in again and say that this is the most amazing forum expletive deletion I've ever seen. I didn't know it would go after typos like that. Simply amazing.

Don't we have a poster here who usually sums up both sides of an argument using red and blue text? Or was that the 3.5 forums? He's the hero we need, but based on the craziness illustrated here so far, probably not the hero we deserve.

[BurgerBeast]

A couple of points:

Point 1:

Can anyone give me an example of a situation that:
A) is not so contrived or stupid to be unreasonable to encounter in actual play
B) involves a player character who is invisible or otherwise unseen, but does not intend to conceal their presence
and C) that player would be unhappy or feel that they were treated unfairly if the DM ruled that an NPC noticed their presence

Point 2:

Regarding the multiple posts made on "what if the creature was simply standing still, not trying to hide, but was undetectable because it (is invisible, is wearing a coat that matched the wall, etc)?"

We have RAW on this stuff. Check your Monster Manual. For example, check MM p 261 (the entry for "Roper").

"False Appearance. While the roper remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a normal cave formation, such as a stalagmite."

Other monsters have this trait as well - twig blights can look like bushes, for instance.

Does invisibility grant the benefit "You gain the False Appearance trait. When you remain motionless, you are indistinguishable from the terrain behind you."? No, it does not.

Is the guard's hand-made coat that was a gift from his wife a magical item that reads:

"Lovingly-Made Coat of Unintentional Camoflauge (requires attunement by a husband)

You gain the False Appearance trait. While you remain motionless, you are indistinguishable from a normal formation of stone, such as a stone wall."

I maintain that the answer to both of these questions is no.

If, by RAW anyone could be undetectable by standing still without making a stealth check in certain circumstances, then it would be meaningless for monsters such as ropers and twig blights to have this trait, as all creatures would have it.

This post is a pretty good example of how off-the-mark people are about my claim. I am simply saying that invisible creatures are not, RAW, auto-detected all the time.* That’s it.

Spoiler: *

Show

Since this claim is being misunderstood more or less every time I make it, I'd like to clarify this:

If you, as a DM, run the game is such a way that invisible creatures are auto-detected all the time, you are not violating the RAW. You have this right under RAW and I have never denied it.

However, if you insist that, when I do not run the game in such a way (because I choose instead to require perception checks in some cases, and declare auto-failure in other cases), this is not permissible by the RAW, then you are wrong.

That is all.

And for the time being, you can forget about invisible creatures. Let’s talk about visible creatures. RAW, visible creatures are not auto-detected all the time.

RAW, visible creatures may require a Wisdom (Perception) to notice.

Since that is true, it is not particularly astonishing that an invisible creature might require a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice.

End of story.

So, is it really “so contrived” to you? Is it really so unbelievable to you that it might actually require a Wisdom (Percpetion) check to spot a frog at a distance of, say 500 feet?

Because it isn’t to me. I used to hunt and catch frogs as a kid. I had trouble spotting them at distances of 20 feet, sometimes, when actively searching for them while they were not hiding.

So your A, B, and C are a set of demands that are so far removed from my actual claims that they serve no purpose here.

What follows afterward in your post is equally illogical.

Again, i house rule it differently, but the RAW says it pretty clearly: "When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."

Did you stop hiding? No? Keep using the Stealth check score.

Were you discovered? Yeah? Then stop using the check, and the score is no longer used as a contested Wis (Perception) check for searching creatures. That is, you no longer have a Stealth check to use and are no longer hiding (barring the DM deciding you still fit their criteria for hiding).

The context of the "until you are discovered" line is that it immediately follows the line on making the Stealth check to Hide. I don't see a way to interpret that differently.

In other words: if trying to Hide, make a Stealth check and use that score until you're discovered or you stop hiding.

It’s astonishing, to me, that we can read this so differently. Here is my analysis of what you are quoting:

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.
First of all, this is about someone who tries to hide. If someone tries to hide, they make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

If someone is not trying to hide, there is no RAW reason to force a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Conclusion: (1) RAW, there is no need for someone who is not trying to hide to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Why you wish to talk about hiding creatures, when my side of the argument is decidedly not about hiding creatures, is beyond me, but since you want to talk about it, let’s:

Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

It says that your check’s total is contested by “any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.”

If a creature is not “actively searching for signs of your presence,” then the sentence does not apply. So, there is no skill contest by any creature unless that creature “actively searches for signs of your presence.”

You don’t just get to drop that conditional. The skill contest only happens if a creature “actively searches for signs of your presence” and it ends only if (a) you stop hiding, or (b) you are discovered by one such creature.

The sentence says that if you are discovered, “the check’s total is no longer contested.” That’s all it says. It does not say anything about you being auto-detected by everyone within sight-range, or anything remotely like that. It says, if you are discovered by someone who wins a Wisdom (Perception) vs Dexterity (Stealth) contest, then the contest ends. The contest ends. Not “the hiding” ends. The contest ends. The contest that only exists because it was inititated by a creature that actively searched for you. That contest ends.

Just because that contest ends does not mean you’ve stopped hiding. Any creature who has not discovered you still has to discover you. He either has to (a) be told or shown where you are, or (b) has to find you himself. In order to do so, he would have to win a contest against you. Since you haven’t stopped hiding, and he has not discovered you, your Dexterity (Stealth) roll still applies to any contest against him, should he initiate one by actively searching for you. This contest has not ended before it started.

This interpretation is at least equally valid to yours. I would say that in the absence of any other information, they would both be equal in terms of credibility. But once the implications of both views are considered, I think your interpretation loses all credibility. Under your interpretation, if ten people are searching a warehouse for their quarry, all ten people instantly detect the quarry the moment one of them detects him. They don’t have to wait for a signal from the person who detected him. The quarry could do nothing beyond remaining in the same state as he was before being discovered. They just instantly detect him because the moment one of them detects the quarry, according to your view, the quarry is revealed to all (despite no change in the physical conditions of the nine others nor the quarry himself). No, thanks. My interpretation does not lead to similar absurdities so far as I am aware.

Now, since my claim is not about hiding creatures, might I suggest that we move away from the hiding rules?

I disagree. I see the RAW as the DM determines when the conditions are met for hiding. One condition that the DM can factor in is if a character took the Hide Action or not (it doesn't necessarily need to be a condition).

What are you talking about? There are two ways to think about this, and neither is represented here.

(1) If the conditions for hiding are not met, then the character cannot take the Hide Action.
(2) If the conditions for hiding are not met, then the character can take the Hide Action, but he cannot succeed.

Whether the creature took the hide action is secondary to whether the conditions are right for hiding. You don’t ask it first. That’s back-to-front.

If the DM decides the conditions for hiding are not present, then the thing/character is noticed.

No. If the conditions for hiding are not met, then the thing/character cannot hide. Therefore the creature cannot use it’s Dexterity (Stealth) score to oppose detection. Whether the character is noticed is a different question. Since we are usually talking about a human and a human under typical or average circumstances, this is usually an auto-detect, but conditions may vary in multiple ways. It would wrong to suggest that all DMs must enforce 100% auto-detect all the time, RAW does not enforce this.

Spoiler: Spiders and Living rooms

Show

Have you ever been in a living room with another person, and watched a spider walk across the floor, but the other person didn’t notice? Well, what has happened there? Let’s put this in D&D terms.

While that spider was walking across the floor, the conditions for hiding were not met. The spider was in plain sight, in a well lit room, with no obstructions, no shadows, etc. Therefore the spider was not hiding. However, you detected the spider and the other person did not. So what was going on mechanically, behind the scenes?

It is impossible that the spider was hiding while it moved. The conditions were not right for hiding.*

Spoiler: *

Show

I suppose you could quibble over this, but how much more “not right for hiding” can conditons get? An open, well-lit space with a flat floor and no shadows or obstacles, and the people who might see you are within 10-20 feet. If it were me, I would add that the spider is moving silently because of the carpet, but Malifice cannot make that move because according to him the spider is automatically noisy since it is not hiding. (More than likely he would use the result to reverse rationalize, and say that since the mechanics must work in such and such a way, therefore the narrative must be re-written in such and such a way… placing the metaphorical cart before the horse. Something like: Well, since the spider moved quietly enough to go undetected, it must have been hiding, and therefore it was hiding as it moved, and therefore the conditions had to be right for hiding, and therefore it had to be an opposed roll – ignoring the reality of the situation and pigeon-holing it into a mechanical construction for the sake of satisfying a nonexistent ruleset. [apologies to George Orwell's memory])

Can the DM (justifiably) declare that the spider was using Dexterity (Stealth) to hide while he moved? Perhaps, but this would hard to justify when the DM has declared the conditions not right for hiding.

Definitely not auto-success on Wisdom (Perception). If it were, auto-succes, you would have both succeded.

Could it be that there was simply a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the spider? Why yes, that explains it. You succeeded on your perception check against the DC set by the DM. The other person failed on this check.

If the DM decides the conditions for hiding are present, then they determine whether there is a chance the hidden item/character can be noticed and, if so, come up with a DC (either by stating it or calling for a roll).

RAW there is a chance they are noticed. PHB 177: “When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching…”

Keep in mind, a lot of times the DM keeps the vast majority of things hidden with no chance of notice, such as what's behind the wall in the next room: there's no chance the PCs can perceive what's two rooms over from their current location, even though none of the items or creatures in that room is actively trying to hide.

Hah! This is not going to slip past anyone. This has been my point all along. If the DM can say that those creatures are automatically undetected, then that means that some creatures can be undetected while not hiding. I rest my case. That’s how trivial my point has always been. (I think it is fair to presume that, if we added to this example that the creatures are also invisible, this would not improve the chance of detecting them.) So, we have a single counterexample to refute Malifice’s claim.

The distinction (between you and Malifice) is that you appear to be representing this as DM fiat, when in fact most of us know that this is the way the game is meant to be played, and no DM fiat is required because RAW permits this approach.

Malifice goes a step further and claims that RAW those creatures are defined as hiding. If he admitted that they are not hiding, then presumably his whole world would callapse because he’d have to face the fact that, in his own mind, he’s being playing D&D “wrong” since 5e came out.

---

It struck me that I might have a way of illustrating how obtuse Malifice’s stance is, to someone who sees it my way: Malifice Refutes This In Post #287, which would mean that this might be a misrepresentation

Malifice: If you are not hiding, you are automatically heard. <- this is the part that is refuted.

Is equivalent to: If you are not invisible, you are automatically seen.

These are equivalent glimpses of the untrue. Hiding is not the only way to be unheard. Invisible is not the only way to be unseen.

Or: Just because you are not hiding does not mean you are heard. Just because you are not invisible does not mean you are seen.

---

DnD 5e does not have rules regarding vision range in most circumstances. Assuming normal conditions (bright light), the rules do not differentiate between detecting a guard standing 5 feet from you or 500 feet from you. If he's hiding, it's stealth v perception…

So far, so good…

[edit: actually, the rules do not demand that you differentiate between detecting the guard at 5 or 500 feet. However, the rules provide a mechanism by which the DM can do so if he pleases. So, RAW, a DM can differentiate.]

If he's not, you notice him.

False. There is no RAW to back this up. There is RAW, on PHB page 177 [edit: page 178, apologies to gloryblaze for quoting the wrong page], to contradict this.

[RSP]

Yes. That's exactly why. Because players were used to 3e or 4e having detailed rules saying when you could and when you couldn't hide. It needed to be made crystal clear in 5e when the option to Hide is available: when the DM has determined that circumstances allow it. That's the design intent, but the original wording didn't properly reflect that.

Until the errata this was a point of frequent debate. For that matter, even after it was for a long while. Even the podcast didn't immediately seal this point shut. It took all those hammers to convince some people of the design intent. I should know, I was one of the people that had to be bludgeoned.

Nothing in 3E had players able to overrule a DM. I never played 4E, but I doubt a player could overrule a DM in that either.

I don't believe you thought that was the case in 5e either. The basis of the game is the DM runs the game. In no halfway competent game are you going to have the situation of a Player saying "I Hide," followed by a DM saying: "Actually you can't Hide now; you're fully in plain view." Then the Player responding with "Actualy, no, I Hide. Nothing in the rules says you're the one who decides these things," followed by the DM going "well, gee, I guess you're right."

It's ridiculous to suppose that's what was happening in the game.

[gloryblaze]

So, is it really “so contrived” to you? Is it really so unbelievable to you that it might actually require a Wisdom (Percpetion) check to spot a frog at a distance of, say 500 feet?

Because it isn’t to me. I used to hunt and catch frogs as a kid. I had trouble spotting them at distances of 20 feet, sometimes, when actively searching for them while they were not hiding.

So your A, B, and C are a set of demands that are so far removed from my actual claims that they serve no purpose here.

What follows afterward in your post is equally illogical.

I find it somewhat amusing that you deride my post as illogical without even attempting to engage with it - or even, as it appears, read it.

To make something clear, I never have claimed that the RAW demand that every DM adjudicate invisibility, hiding, and perception rules the same way I do. If you'd actually read the thread (rather than going through and cherry picking a few seemingly random tidbits to reply to, devoid of most, if not all, context, which is what it seems like), you'd see that my claim is rather more nuanced. It has three main points:

1) The RAW do not contradict my method of adjudicating hiding, perception, etc.
2) My method of adjudication does not contain any house rules.
3) My method of adjudication is the best at facilitating fun, meaningful gameplay at the table, whereas most other methods lead to pointless hang ups on mostly inconsequential things.

As you can see, I am not claiming that your method is "not permissible by RAW". I am claiming that I find your method to be unnecessarily complicated, beyond the scope of RAI, and unpleasant to engage with - all three of which are things that can equally describe this thread in its entirety.

Now, allow me to engage with what your post actually says - a courtesy you seem to find me undeserving of.

1. Is it contrived that you might need to use a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a frog at 500 feet?

Answer: No. However, it is quite contrived to suggest that my DnD players wish to spend their valuable play time, which consists of only a couple of hours per week, searching for frogs.

Further Commentary:

1) Let's humor this scenario some more. If, for some reason, I as the DM have decided that the players must quest forth to find the fabled Frog of Legend.

The players are standing in a forest clearing. The frog is 500 feet away from them, as you say. Perhaps it is sitting on a tree branch at the very edge of the clearing. I have also decided that due to the frog's size, 500 feet is out of visual range for these characters (none of them are Eagle totem barbarians).

Now, as I see it, there are three ways to proceed:

1) The players do something with no chance of success. For instance, Kim tells me, "I look around the clearing for any mossy rocks the frog might be on." I say, "The clearing is flat and sandy with no meaningful terrain for the frog to hide on or under." The scenario then continues, presumably with one of the next two options.
2) The players enter whatever I, as DM, deem "spotting distance", and auto-detection occurs. Sarah tells me, "I look around the edges of the clearing to see if I spot the frog. Let's say I search a 500 foot perimeter, looking at tree roots and branches, shrubbery, things like that." I say, "During your search, you find a frog that matched the description of the Frog of Legend perched on a tree branch at the outskirts of the clearing." The scenario is now over.
3) The players offer me some vague, game-y BS. Andrew might say "I look for the frog." Kate might ask, "can I make a Perception check to see if the frog is here? Ooh! What about Investigation? I have a +4 Investigation!". If I'm not in the mood to cajole my players about being specific, IC vs OOC, etc, I'll probably say "Sure, make a Perception check." And I'll contest it with? Guess what? I'll either roll a stealth check for the frog, or I might use its passive Stealth. If they succeed, the scenario is over. Otherwise, it continues, and their only recourse is Option 2 (as I typically don't allow re-rolling checks).

Now, since you refused to attempt to engage with my previous challenge, try responding to this one:

Can you name me any scenario where it would be more fun for the players or more mechanically beneficial to the game state if, instead of just tossing out a stealth check for the frog, I mentally decided that because the frog is not necessarily hiding intentionally*, I ought to instead decide on a fixed DC completely unrelated to the frog's stealth score?

Note: I'm not asking you to tell me that it doesn't make sense to use the frog's Stealth because it didn't try to hide, or that the English language demands that the word Stealth has certain connotations. After all, when I (as the DM) call for that Perception check, my players physically cannot know whether I mentally set a fixed DC or used a (passive or active) Stealth check. So no bs about realism or suspension of disbelief or anything. I want an actual, mechanical or quality of life reason to add a 4th option to my flowchart that has been working for me for, what, two or three years now?

*Also to note is that many animals have natural camouflage and purposefully make themselves hard to notice (or perhaps more accurately, their coloring and instinctual behavior ingrained in them by generations of evolution have purposefully made them hard to notice). Thus, the frog example could very easily be said to be one where the unseen creature ABSOLUTELY IS hiding, no doubt about it. This is, however, completely immaterial to my previous comments and my challenge to you, so feel free to disregard this asterisk.

False. There is no RAW to back this up. There is RAW, on PHB page 177, to contradict this.

There is nothing on Page 177 to contradict this. Most of Page 177 describes Constitution checks, Intelligence checks, how to use Dex for attacks, damage, AC, etc. The sidebar on hiding, which is what I will presume you are referring to, even though you lack the basic courtesy or argumentation skill (or both) to even paraphrase it, let alone quote it, addresses hidden creatures, when you can attempt to hide, what happens when you stop hiding, and how to find a hidden creature. It does not reference, at all, what happens when an unhidden object or creature that was previously too far away to be seen enters your field of vision.

[Malifice]

Malifice: If you are not hiding, you are automatically heard.

Erm no.

If you are not hiding, you are not hidden (RAW), unless the DM makes a ruling otherwise.

Being invisible (or being unseen in any other means such as total obscurement - which for the purposes of hiding invisibility 'counts as' in RAW - total cover or your enemy looking the other way, or being blinded) is not IN AND OF ITSELF enough to make you hidden.

You will generally (barring DM ruling) also need to [be silent, conceal other signs of your passage and presence, mask any sounds coming from your person, avoid brushing up against other people] in order to be hidden.

And you do that VIA THE HIDE ACTION.

Example:

Two PCs [A] a Sorcerer and [B] a Rogue, have entered a 30' x 30' well lit dungeon room, when suddenly an Ogre enters the room from a hallway to the North (triggering combat sequencing).

No combatants begin the encounter hidden, so all combatants automatically notice each other. There is no surprise. Initiative is rolled.

DM (checking initiative order): Ok A; its your turn what do you do?
A: I'll cast twinned greater invisibility on myself and B, and then walk quietly past the Ogre to see what else is beyond the hallway it just emerged from.
DM: OK mate. Your action is used for spellcasting, meaning you dont have an action left to take the Hide action, so you are not hidden, and the Ogre will hear your footsteps and the swooshing of your robes and the smell of your spell components or otherwise notice you walking past. It still wont be able to make attacks of opportunity against you though (you're invisible). You also still have your bonus action left.
A: But... I want to be quiet and hide.
DM: You cant Hide this turn (you're casting a spell) which not only makes noise, but also takes time, and uses your action. You can certainly try to Hide next turn if you want.
A: OK cool. I'll do that.
DM: B - Its now your turn. You've just been turned invisible by A. What do you do?
B: Ill advance to the Ogre, and stab it.
DM: Cool, thats the attack action. Roll to hit with advantage.
(B rolls to to hit with advantage due to being invisible, and hits the Ogre triggering sneak attack, dealing 30 points of damage)
DM: Anything else?
B: Yep. I'll now use my cunning action class feature to hide as a bonus action so I can sneak off!
DM: OK mate - roll your Stealth score.
(B rolls a 22 for Stealth - he is a Rogue with Dex 20 and expertise in Stealth... the Ogres passive perception is 12)
DM: The Ogre roars in pain as your shortsword finds cuts it deeply, and then looks about totally confused, sniffing the air. Where do you move to?
B: I'll move to the corner of the room.
DM: OK - Now its the Ogres turn. It roars in anger, and looks about the room, confused. It then turns and starts lumbering forwards swinging its greatclub through the air towards the sounds of the footsteps it heard earlier.... thats you A. Whats your AC?
A: 15.
(DM rolls an attack at disadvantage for the Ogre, hitting and dealing 25 damage. A fails his Con save to concentrate on the spell!)
DM: The Ogre's wild swing connects! You just manage to deflect the blow at the last second with your staff, jarring your arm and dealing 25 damage, and breaking your concentration on the spell! Both you and B now become visible. B - that means you are no longer hidden.
A, its now round 2, and your turn; what do you want to do?
A: Blast! OK... DM this time I will quicken an invisiblity spell, on myself.
DM: OK fine. You're still not hidden. Now what?
A: Yep, but as I quickened the spell, I still have my action left. I'll use action that to Hide.
DM: Cool; make me a Stealth check.
(A rolls and gets... an 18... more than enough to defeat the passive perception of the Ogre).
DM: You made it mate. You utter a single word of magical power, turning yourself invisible. With the rest of your time this round, you lift your robes to stop them whooshing about, and tip toe away from the Ogre, leaving it confused. It turns to face the Rogue... the only thing it can see.. and bellows a Challenge! B - its now your turn, you're no longer invisible or hidden despite your stealth chck of 22. What do you do?
B: Gulp.. I'll hide again...
DM: You cant hide. The Ogre is staring straight at you. I mean; you can try if you really want to but you're just wasting your time...
B: Ok.. Hmmm... I'll slip past the Ogre using cunning action to disengage (as a bonus action), and then move outside the room into the hallway, and then I'll use my action to Dash, getting the hell out of there!
DM: You hightail it out of there. Its now the Ogres turn. It starts to sniff the air around it, trying to find that pesky Wizard. A - The Ogre is taking the Search action (DM rolls the Ogres Perception vs A's Stealth chck result of 18... scoring a 19; a success! The Ogre has detected the Sorcerer, no doubt smelling his spell components. A is now no longer hidden, but the Ogre is now out of actions this turn).
DM: The Ogres eyes light up, and a toothy grin covers its face, as it advances towards your position. It lifts its club in the air... what do you do?
A: Argh! I'll cast Hold Monster...

And so forth.

[BurgerBeast]

I find it somewhat amusing that you deride my post as illogical without even attempting to engage with it - or even, as it appears, read it.

I find it bizarre that you detected derision in my post.

1) The RAW do not contradict my method of adjudicating hiding, perception, etc.
2) My method of adjudication does not contain any house rules.
3) My method of adjudication is the best at facilitating fun, meaningful gameplay at the table, whereas most other methods lead to pointless hang ups on mostly inconsequential things.

I agree with 1 and 2. I disagree with 3. But what does your way of doing it have to do with this thread?

I am claiming that I find your method to be unnecessarily complicated, beyond the scope of RAI, and unpleasant to engage with - all three of which are things that can equally describe this thread in its entirety.

It's not beyond the scope of RAI. And, if you don't like the thread, why join in?

1. Is it contrived that you might need to use a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a frog at 500 feet?

Answer: No. However, it is quite contrived to suggest that my DnD players wish to spend their valuable play time, which consists of only a couple of hours per week, searching for frogs.

I made no such suggestion.

Further Commentary:

1) Let's humor this scenario some more. If, for some reason, I as the DM have decided that the players must quest forth to find the fabled Frog of Legend.

The players are standing in a forest clearing. The frog is 500 feet away from them, as you say. Perhaps it is sitting on a tree branch at the very edge of the clearing. I have also decided that due to the frog's size, 500 feet is out of visual range for these characters (none of them are Eagle totem barbarians).

Now, as I see it, there are three ways to proceed:

No, you're missing the point. I'm not talking about a scenario in which the players are searching for the frog. I'm talking about a scenario in which the players might happen to notice the frog.

Now, since you refused to attempt to engage with my previous challenge,...

Your previous challenge was irrelevant.

...try responding to this one:

Can you name me any scenario where it would be more fun for the players or more mechanically beneficial to the game state if, instead of just tossing out a stealth check for the frog, I mentally decided that because the frog is not necessarily hiding intentionally*, I ought to instead decide on a fixed DC completely unrelated to the frog's stealth score?

Whether or not it is more fun is irrelevant. It's also not a discussion worth having because it's purely subjective.

Whether or not it is more mechanically efficient is also irrelevant. But it is more mechanically beneficial. The short version is this: mechanics ought to match the narrative, and insofar as it is possible the narrative should mirror real life. The more this occurs, the more players can intuit the mechanics, and the more predictable (and therefore "real") the world becomes. This improves immersion, because it empowers players with the knowledge to make more informed decisions. This leads to greater satisfaction. In my opinion, satisfaction is a much more important goal than fun.

This thread is about the RAW. It's a refutation against a claim that RAW enforces one particular ruling. So I'm not sure why you're bringing these other concerns into it. Play how you want. Insist that it's more fun. I don't really care about that.

Note: I'm not asking you to tell me that it doesn't make sense to use the frog's Stealth because it didn't try to hide, or that the English language demands that the word Stealth has certain connotations. After all, when I (as the DM) call for that Perception check, my players physically cannot know whether I mentally set a fixed DC or used a (passive or active) Stealth check. So no bs about realism or suspension of disbelief or anything. I want an actual, mechanical or quality of life reason to add a 4th option to my flowchart that has been working for me for, what, two or three years now?

The reason this is a stupid thing to ask, besides the fact that it has nothing to do with this thread, it is because I never suggested that you should do it my way. Not once. I'm not interested in inventing defenses for positions that I do not hold just to satisfy you.

*Also to note is that many animals have natural camouflage and purposefully make themselves hard to notice (or perhaps more accurately, their coloring and instinctual behavior ingrained in them by generations of evolution have purposefully made them hard to notice). Thus, the frog example could very easily be said to be one where the unseen creature ABSOLUTELY IS hiding, no doubt about it. This is, however, completely immaterial to my previous comments and my challenge to you, so feel free to disregard this asterisk.

Camouflage is a conversation we could have, but it gets complicated. For example, there is a distinction to be made between animals that have coloration that is static but functions as camouflage (i.e. Sharks) versus animals that actually change colour. Also, since colour-changing animals tend to change colour in response to cues, it is often involuntary and therefore not a conscious choice, so in my opinion it can not properly be considered hiding despite the fact that it would certainly make them harder to notice. Long story short, I disagree that it is absolutely a case of hiding.

As a side note, evolution does not purposefully do anything.

There is nothing on Page 177 to contradict this. Most of Page 177 describes Constitution checks, Intelligence checks, how to use Dex for attacks, damage, AC, etc. The sidebar on hiding, which is what I will presume you are referring to,...

No, I gave the wrong page. It's page 178. Sorry. I was talking about the description of Petception: "you might try to spot things that are... easy to miss" which implies that the DM can call for a check to notice something that is easy to miss. Therefore it is necessarily auto-success.

...even though you lack the basic courtesy or argumentation skill (or both) to even paraphrase it, let alone quote it,...

It's been quoted multiple times in the thread. Sorry about the wrong page number.

[BurgerBeast]

Edit: Okay, wait a minute. you took the time to write up a whole sample combat, and in that combat, it was true that every time a character was not hidden, he was auto-heard. So why did you say that I was wrong in pointing out that, according to you, "If you are not hiding, you are automatically heard"?

The rest of this post was edited for clarity

Erm no.

If you are not hiding, you are not hidden (RAW), unless the DM makes a ruling otherwise.

Oh. You appear to have amended your stance. I thought that your stance went like this:

Malifice: If you are invisible and not hidden, you are auto-detected.

Malifice: unseen + unheard = hidden.

From which it follows that:

1. If you are detected, it can only be because you are heard or you leave signs of your passage.

2. Malifice: If you do not leave signs of your passage, you are still auto-detected, so in such a case you must be heard.

C 3. Therefore it must be the case that: if you are invisible and not hidden, you are automatically heard.

To which I figured it follows logically that: C 4. Since invisible people who are not hiding are automatically heard because they are not hidden, it must also be true that visible people who are not hiding must be automatically heard because they also are not hidden.

---

Going back to your statement: If you are not hiding, you are not hidden (RAW), unless the DM makes a ruling otherwise.

If the DM rules otherwise, is he justified by the RAW?

---

So as far as I can tell, these amended statements are still correct. Are they?

1. If you are not hiding and you are invisible, you are automatically heard.

2. If you are not hiding, and you are visible, you are not automatically heard.

[gloryblaze]

The reason I bring up fun, mechanical efficiency, etc is simple.

If we agree that my way follows RAW and does not contain any house rules AND that your way follows RAW and does not contain any house rules*, then the discussion can proceed in two ways:

1) It doesn't. The discussion is over. We are both following RAW, no need to proceed.
2) We decide which way is better. I claim that it's mine. If you have no interest in defending that your method is superior to mine, then I can drop the point with satisfaction, and the discussion is over (at least between the two of us).

*obviously, this is a point of contention. I personally don't see anything wrong with what you're doing RAW, but some people clearly do. However, I do find what you do to be silly and pointless and I would like to take this opportunity to discourage you from continuing, even though I know you will not take this advice.


Irrelevant side note about frogs, just for the sake of closure:

If the players are not searching for a frog, but I, as the DM, want there to be a frog present for flavor reasons, you can be dang sure I'm not calling for a Perception check for that ish. I would just say, "As you walk through the forest, the silence is broken up by the monotonous sound of the leaves crunching beneath your boots and the occasional croak of a frog." If any of my players asked about the frog, I'd let them find the dang frog.

Think about what you post, dude. You proposed the idea of DnD players noticing a frog at 500 feet that is not hiding from them and that they are not searching for in response to a post asking for a situation that isn't utterly stupid and contrived. Wow.

[Malifice]

Oh. You appear to have amended your stance. I thought that your stance went like this:

Malifice: If you are invisible and not hidden, you are auto-detected.

That is my stance. If you are invisible and have yet to take the Hide action, then [in the absence of the DM making an express ruling otherwise] you are not hidden.

Invisiblity does not in and of itself make you hidden. You (as a general rule) must also take the Hide action (once invisible) in order to become hidden.

Going back to your statement: If you are not hiding, you are not hidden (RAW), unless the DM makes a ruling otherwise.

If the DM rules otherwise, is he justified by the RAW?

Of course he is. The DM could rule your sword turns to a feather if he wants to.

Ive maintainted all along that the DM has final say on when you can (or cannot) take the hide action or what is (or is not) hidden.

My point is that the general, default state of affairs/ rule is that a creature (even an invisible creature) is not hidden until it takes the Hide action, unless the DM exersizes his discretion to rule otherwise.

So as far as I can tell, these amended statements are still correct. Are they?

1. If you are not hiding and you are invisible, you are automatically heard.

Yes. Unless the DM rules otherwise due to extenuating circumstances (you're standing in a pool of magical silence, youve been shrunk down to 1cm in size, you're 1000 metres away etc etc).

If the extenuating circumstances are 'I am standing around quietly and not making any noise' then those are not extenuating circumstances.

That is just you taking the freaking Hide action.

2. If you are not hiding, and you are visible, you are not automatically heard.

If you are not hiding, and you are visible, then nearby monsters are assumed to be alert to your presence and know where you are.

Again, a DM is free to rule otherwise. He could rule that your next attack is an automatic critical hit because the monster is distracted as well if he wanted to.

But that doesnt detract from the general rule. If you are invsibile and not hidden (by virtue of the Hide action or exceptional extenuating circumstances), you are not hidden.

You seem to think that 'being quiet and standing still' is some kind of exceptional circumstance that invokes DM discretion to ignore the general rule of 'you need to take the Hide action to be hidden'.

It's not. Its just you taking the Hide action.

[RSP]

Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
Again, i house rule it differently, but the RAW says it pretty clearly: "When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."

Did you stop hiding? No? Keep using the Stealth check score.

Were you discovered? Yeah? Then stop using the check, and the score is no longer used as a contested Wis (Perception) check for searching creatures. That is, you no longer have a Stealth check to use and are no longer hiding (barring the DM deciding you still fit their criteria for hiding).

The context of the "until you are discovered" line is that it immediately follows the line on making the Stealth check to Hide. I don't see a way to interpret that differently.

In other words: if trying to Hide, make a Stealth check and use that score until you're discovered or you stop hiding.

---
It’s astonishing, to me, that we can read this so differently. Here is my analysis of what you are quoting:

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.
First of all, this is about someone who tries to hide. If someone tries to hide, they make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

If someone is not trying to hide, there is no RAW reason to force a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

The "you" in these rule sets are directed at a Player. So when a Player tries to Hide they make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. So you're partially correct with your first statement: if a player is trying to take the Hide Action, they make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

I agree players cannot decide they are hidden on their own. I agree players need the intent to take the Hide Action. I agree a DM cannot force a player to take the Hide Action.

Conclusion: (1) RAW, there is no need for someone who is not trying to hide to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Not necessarily. A DM could call for a Dexterity (Stealth) check if they deem it necessary. From the PHB:

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

and

"When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

So the rules fully the support the DM calling for any check, including a Dexterity (Stealth) check, they deem necessary to carry out the description of actions taken by a PC.

Why you wish to talk about hiding creatures, when my side of the argument is decidedly not about hiding creatures, is beyond me, but since you want to talk about it, let’s:

Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

It says that your check’s total is contested by “any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.”

If a creature is not “actively searching for signs of your presence,” then the sentence does not apply. So, there is no skill contest by any creature unless that creature “actively searches for signs of your presence.”

You don’t just get to drop that conditional. The skill contest only happens if a creature “actively searches for signs of your presence” and it ends only if (a) you stop hiding, or (b) you are discovered by one such creature.

I think you have it wrong. The conditional is "Until you are discovered or stop hiding." That's the swing of the entire statement. Once one of those conditions is met, the rest of the sentence is void.

You're reading it as if it said "When a creature actively searches for you, you compare that check's total to the Wisdom (Perception) check of the creature until you are discovered.

The condition isn't having a creature search, it's the continuation of either being undetected or ending the Hide.

First off, having the statement rely upon the creature searching doesn't even make sense for why search if the hiding has ended?

Second, the grammar and logic flow is pretty well laid out: 'Until A or B, C when D.' If A or B has occurred, then there's no need for C when D. That's fairly basic.

In our case, if the stealthing character is discovered, there is no longer a need to have its Dex (Stealth) score contested against others' Wis (Perception). The conditional has been met so the 'C when D' part is null because it only applied up until the "When" occurs.

Therefore once a creature is discovered, the rest of the sentence is voided and there are no further contests using that original Dex (Stealth) score.

The sentence says that if you are discovered, “the check’s total is no longer contested.” That’s all it says.

That's clearly not all it says, as they have a lot more words in that sentence you've parsed out, and as shown above. You deciding a sentence should only involve some of its word, does not make it so.

It does not say anything about you being auto-detected by everyone within sight-range, or anything remotely like that. It says, if you are discovered by someone who wins a Wisdom (Perception) vs Dexterity (Stealth) contest, then the contest ends. The contest ends. Not “the hiding” ends. The contest ends. The contest that only exists because it was inititated by a creature that actively searched for you. That contest ends.

No it clearly says that until you are discovered, use that score for contests.

Just because that contest ends does not mean you’ve stopped hiding. Any creature who has not discovered you still has to discover you.

RAW, using that Dex (Stealth) score for contests ends. However, I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean the Hiding has stopped.

Each character in the game may have different circumstances to whether or not it is hiding. Likewise, the circumstances of the characters who might perceive that hiding character may be different.

You can be hidden from one creature but not hidden from another, if the DM decides the different circumstances are appropriate to hiding in one and not the other.

This happens all the time when groups try to stealth: you're not hidden from your fellow party members who can see you clearly, but you may be hidden from the monsters.

He either has to (a) be told or shown where you are, or (b) has to find you himself. In order to do so, he would have to win a contest against you. Since you haven’t stopped hiding, and he has not discovered you, your Dexterity (Stealth) roll still applies to any contest against him, should he initiate one by actively searching for you. This contest has not ended before it started.

No. The conditional is "Until discovered." If that condition is met, we no longer have that original score.

You're also completely leaving out the DM's ability to decide on circumstances. The creature can know where a hidden creature is without a) or b). Such is the case of if the hidden creature becomes within plain sight (like an orc turning the corner where the halfling is hiding and the DM ruling the circumstances no longer are appropriate for the halfling to be hiding: the orc was neither told/shown where the halfling was, nor did he win a contest).

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

This interpretation is at least equally valid to yours. I would say that in the absence of any other information, they would both be equal in terms of credibility.

I disagree, obviously, based on the above.

But once the implications of both views are considered, I think your interpretation loses all credibility. Under your interpretation, if ten people are searching a warehouse for their quarry, all ten people instantly detect the quarry the moment one of them detects him. They don’t have to wait for a signal from the person who detected him. The quarry could do nothing beyond remaining in the same state as he was before being discovered. They just instantly detect him because the moment one of them detects the quarry, according to your view, the quarry is revealed to all (despite no change in the physical conditions of the nine others nor the quarry himself). No, thanks. My interpretation does not lead to similar absurdities so far as I am aware.

I started by saying I didn't think it was well written in the rules, however, they're still the rules. Feel free to use different ones in your home game, however, you not liking them doesn't mean they aren't the rules.

And to be fair, my interpretation is completely covered by the rules, whereas your leaves a large grey area not described in the rules of "what is or isn't noticed?" that led to the creation of this thread.

If you're judging rules based on implications, you should accept my point of view as it leaves no grey area: everything is covered by the DM's ability to determine what is or isn't hiding. It should help that my point of view coincides with what are actually the RAW.

Now, since my claim is not about hiding creatures, might I suggest that we move away from the hiding rules?

Hiding is relevant here. By stating we should only discuss your claim you're essentially saying ours are worthless.

RAW the DM decides when conditions are appropriate for hiding. One of these conditions is whether the Hide Action is taken. This means the DM can decide that the Hide Action isn't a necessary condition of being hidden.

If that's the case, then a character can be hidden without taking the Hide Action.

The rule doesn't say "The DM determines when a character can attempt the Hide Action," and for good reason.

My PC may want to try to hide. The DM may tell me, the player, that it's not possible to Hide in the current situation. However, him telling me that is metagaming. If that information isn't something my PC would be aware of, he may very well still try to hide. And by the way, the DM has zero authority, RAW, to tell me my PC cant take the Hide Action, though they can determine whether or not he hides (FYI this is also why I'm against the other interpretation of the first line of the Hiding rules: a player can always take the Hide Action, so it can't be that the DM determines when the Action can be taken. It must be that the DM determines when the actual hiding occurs).

In metagame terms, he'd be attempting the Hide Action even though I, the Player, am aware it will auto fail. The character never does "Actions;" they swing a sword, or creep behind a wall, or waves their hands a certain way while chanting and holding bat guano. Players and DMs talk in Actions, characters act them out.

So we get back to whether things are autonoticed or not. You say it has nothing to do with hiding. I say it has everything to do with hiding.

You say hiding requires intent. I agree, but it can be the intent of the DM or the Player.

You say an invisible character isn't auto noticed; I agree, but it's only when the DM has determined hiding is appropriate.

You say you can be unnoticed and not hidden; I disagree, though I agree you can be unnoticed and not take the Hide Action.

RAW, "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

RAW, "When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

So if your described Action is directing your Mislead illusion, and not doing anything else while invisible, the DM can decide the circumstances are appropriate for hiding and call for a Dex (Stealth) roll, if they decide that's the kind of roll needed to be made.

Now that I wrote all this out, I doubt anyone actually reads it...

[BurgerBeast]

The reason I bring up fun, mechanical efficiency, etc is simple.

If we agree that my way follows RAW and does not contain any house rules AND that your way follows RAW and does not contain any house rules*, then the discussion can proceed in two ways:

1) It doesn't. The discussion is over. We are both following RAW, no need to proceed.
2) We decide which way is better. I claim that it's mine. If you have no interest in defending that your method is superior to mine, then I can drop the point with satisfaction, and the discussion is over (at least between the two of us).

What's so hard about this?

The thread is about whether RAW enforces that a DM must allow everyone to auto-detect invisible creatures that are not hiding. So, we'll go with 1. This should be self-evident. I don't think your way is better, and we don't even share the same assumptions about the game, so there's not much point in worrying about it. This is all beside the fact that the thread is about something else.

*obviously, this is a point of contention. I personally don't see anything wrong with what you're doing RAW, but some people clearly do. However, I do find what you do to be silly and pointless and I would like to take this opportunity to discourage you from continuing, even though I know you will not take this advice.

I don't care about what you find silly and pointless. I would like to take this opportunity point out that you should never offer unsolicited advice. Yes the irony was intentional.

Irrelevant side note about frogs, just for the sake of closure:

If the players are not searching for a frog, but I, as the DM, want there to be a frog present for flavor reasons, you can be dang sure I'm not calling for a Perception check for that ish.

What the DM wants is not a part of the example. Of course the DM can place a frog wherever he wants.

I would just say, "As you walk through the forest, the silence is broken up by the monotonous sound of the leaves crunching beneath your boots and the occasional croak of a frog." If any of my players asked about the frog, I'd let them find the dang frog.

Good for you. Are you entirely incapable of following a line of conversation? I don't care what you would do, and that's not what this thread is about.

Think about what you post, dude.

You know, I'm so glad you said this. I'm going to start thinking about what I post from now on.

You proposed the idea of DnD players noticing a frog at 500 feet that is not hiding from them and that they are not searching for in response to a post asking for a situation that isn't utterly stupid and contrived. Wow.

That's right. This thread is about noticing things that are not hiding, and the probability with which it happens. More specifically, it is about whether the probability is 100% or not 100%. More specifically than that, it is about whether the probability is 100% or not 100% when the creature being noticed is invisible.

If you agree that it is possible to miss a frog from 500 feet, then that's a starting point. It opens the possibility that you might be able to miss a frog from 400 feet, or 300 feet, etc. Which then opens the door to discussing the possibility of missing a cat, a halfling, or a person...

But to give you some perspective: you are accusing me of suggesting that missing a frog at a distance of 500 feet is ludicrous... but the person who opposes me suggested once that, RAW, you could not only spot an invisible pixie at a distance of 1000 feet, you would always spot it. So... yeah... it's the people on my side of the argument that are totally contriving examples in order to win an argument...

Because in real life, despite the insistence of others that it is not realistic, people miss things like this frequently. I can come home from work and walk right past my wife as she lays on the couch, and completely miss her. This is a human being, who is not hiding, unnoticed by another human being when he passes within about 5 feet of her.

I can pass within 10-20 feet of someone whom I know while at the mall, and fail to notice him, even though I looked directly at him, because I didn't recognize him. This sort of thing happens.

I can be at a rock concert, and spend 2-3 hours within 100 feet of someone I know, while he is in plain view, and never even realize that he's there.

And most of this has some form of analogue in D&D. You can run through a room while fleeing from an enemy, and there might be someone in the room who is not hiding, yet you fail to notice him because you're running through the room and don't happen to glance at him. Not so according to some people. You can literally see your best friend or lover on a city street, from behind, but since he or she is wearing a hooded robe that you've never seen him/her wear before, you might not recognize him/her. Not so, according to some people. You can be in a crowded city, and pass within feet of a longtime friend or mortal enemy, but not notice him. Not so, according to some people.

Under the assumption that all creatures are auto-detected unless they are hidden, the world fails to function as it ought to (i.e. as the real world does). So it's a terrible assumption. And that's from the point of view of simply wanting a realistic world. It doesn't even get into the narrative possibilities that are presented by opening the possibility that things can go unnoticed. Many movies make use of this as a means of developing suspense, for example.

[Tanarii]

I don't believe you thought that was the case in 5e either.

Please don't tell me what I think. I assure you I think that they changed this because it wasn't clear to players, who were trying to understand when they could and when they couldn't hide.

In no halfway competent game are you going to have the situation of a Player saying "I Hide," followed by a DM saying: "Actually you can't Hide now; you're fully in plain view." Then the Player responding with "Actualy, no, I Hide. Nothing in the rules says you're the one who decides these things," followed by the DM going "well, gee, I guess you're right."

Right. Instead it prompted an argument when the DM tried to put a stop to pop-up hiding 10ft in front of a guy behind a single column.

In official play, it was worse. Because the DM didnt have the right to rule how it makes sense in official play. They were expected to hew to RAW as closely as possible.

It's ridiculous to suppose that's what was happening in the game.

Clearly you've never seen confusing caused by players and DMs thinking in old edition terms, stupid table arguments over how rules work wasting table time, and official play constraining DMs and putting emphasis on RAW trumping DM freedom to rule.

[smcmike]

Think about what you post, dude. You proposed the idea of DnD players noticing a frog at 500 feet that is not hiding from them and that they are not searching for in response to a post asking for a situation that isn't utterly stupid and contrived. Wow.

Glory, the hypotheticals that have been posted on this thread have generally been designed to illustrate a point about the rules, not for the purpose of illustrating good play. I think it's valuable to discuss what works best at the table, but attacking these hypotheticals is not a particularly honest way to do so. It was never about the frogs.

I agree that the only worthwhile ultimate goal is things that work well at the table, so I'm interested in your point, but, and trust me on this, getting in yelling matches with BurgerBeast is not a productive use of time, particularly since he is only interested in the rules question.

For a slightly more relevant example of a check that may be meaningful in a game, let's modify my giant Orc room.

The party enters an enormous room, shrouded in darkness. They have a light source, but most of the room is hidden by the darkness. An Orc sentry approaches and says "you should leave, now, or we will slaughter you." In the darkness are more Orcs, who were not actively hiding at the time of the party's entrance.

Doug the Rogue says "Can I tell how many orcs are in the darkness by listening?"

The DM could do a lot of things at this point, but I think it's a valid choice to say "maybe," and ask for a perception check, with a set DC for approximate numbers and position of the orcs in the darkness. I think this is much better than automatically laying out a map of the 42 orcs over an unseen grid the size of a football field, simply because the orcs are not actively hiding. I also think it is better than providing less specific information without a check, since it gives Doug a chance to use his skills, and you can give variable response based upon outcome (this is a good opportunity for a tiered check, with multiple possible outcomes). It's certainly a better option than just saying "no," unless the entire point of the exercise is to force the party to make a choice without knowledge - in which case the DM should have designed a different scenario.

That is my stance. If you are invisible and have yet to take the Hide action, then [in the absence of the DM making an express ruling otherwise] you are not hidden.

Invisiblity does not in and of itself make you hidden. You (as a general rule) must also take the Hide action (once invisible) in order to become hidden.

The thing about open-ended exceptions is that they may come up quite often. Still, this stance isn't wrong, since you agree that the rules specifically allow the DM to rule that something that is not Hiding is nevertheless not noticed.

What do you think of Saggo's point that being heavily obscured includes light obscuration, and that checks to find an invisible character are therefore made at disadvantage, by default? My only quibble is that I don't think perception is a unitary check, but if you think it is, doesn't this make sense?

[Tanarii]

What do you think of Saggo's point that being heavily obscured includes light obscuration, and that checks to find an invisible character are therefore made at disadvantage, by default? My only quibble is that I don't think perception is a unitary check, but if you think it is, doesn't this make sense?

In 5e, you're effectively blinded when trying to see a creature that is heavily obscured. That means you automatically fail any Wisdom (perception) checks that rely on requires sight.

Perception isn't required to be a unitary check. Otherwise this rule for the blinded condition could not exist.

Edit: Also Keen Senses for Wolves.

[smcmike]

In 5e, you're effectively blinded when trying to see a creature that is heavily obscured. That means you automatically fail any Wisdom (perception) checks that rely on requires sight.

Perception isn't required to be a unitary check. Otherwise this rule for the blinded condition could not exist.

Edit: Also Keen Senses for Wolves.

Yeah, this is my stance, too. I was surprised by Saggo's responses, though I think they work ok.

Here's a hypothetical for Malafice, then:

Imagine a deaf observer. Three halflings hide about 30 feat away, in an outdoor setting.

One is behind a human, in an area of bright light.

The second is behind a human, in an area of dim light.

The third is invisible, in an area of bright light.

They all roll the same on their stealth check. Does the observer have an equal chance to detect each?

[RSP]

Please don't tell me what I think. I assure you I think that they changed this because it wasn't clear to players, who were trying to understand when they could and when they couldn't hide.

Right. Instead it prompted an argument when the DM tried to put a stop to pop-up hiding 10ft in front of a guy behind a single column.

In official play, it was worse. Because the DM didnt have the right to rule how it makes sense in official play. They were expected to hew to RAW as closely as possible.

Clearly you've never seen confusing caused by players and DMs thinking in old edition terms, stupid table arguments over how rules work wasting table time, and official play constraining DMs and putting emphasis on RAW trumping DM freedom to rule.

If you've played that much D&D, I don't believe you didn't know the DM was the adjudicator of game situations. They are and always have been.

RAW, "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

The rule doesn't say "The DM determines when a character can attempt the Hide Action," and for good reason.

My PC may want to try to hide. The DM may tell me, the player, that it's not possible to Hide in the current situation. However, him telling me that is metagaming. If that information isn't something my PC would be aware of, he may very well still try to hide. And by the way, the DM has zero authority, RAW, to tell me my PC cant take the Hide Action, though they can determine whether or not he hides.

This is also why I'm against the other interpretation of the first line of the Hiding rules: a player can always take the Hide Action, so it can't be that the DM determines when the Action can be taken. It must be that the DM determines when the actual hiding occurs).

In metagame terms, my character is attempting the Hide Action even though I, the Player, am aware it will auto fail. The character never does "Actions;" they swing a sword, or creep behind a wall, or waves their hands a certain way while chanting and holding bat guano. Players and DMs talk in Actions, characters act them out.

So the DM decides when conditions are appropriate for hiding, not when it's appropriate to take the Hide Action. The DM, outside of in-game mind control, cannot determine what Actions a character takes; that's what a Player decides.

From the Adventuring section of the PHB:

"Whether adventurers are exploring a dusty dungeon or the complex relationships of a royal court, the game follows a natural rhythm, as outlined in the book’s introduction:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the results of their actions."

There's more in the intro but this summed up the rules better.

Again, the DM doesn't determine Player's actions, they determine results. That correlates to: the DM doesn't determine if it's appropriate to take the Hide Action, they determine whether you are hiding.

So the point of the errata cannot be "this says the DM determines when its appropriate to take the Hide Action" because that's never a thing in D&D.

The DM determines when the circumstances (whatever they are) are appropriate for hiding. By default, the circumstances include everything relevant to whether a creature is or is not hiding, which includes whether or not the creature took the Hide Action. Which means a DM can decide the Hide Action isn't a necessary condition to actually be hiding (which is relevant to this thread, though not necessarily what we're discussing).

[Saggo]

In 5e, you're effectively blinded when trying to see a creature that is heavily obscured. That means you automatically fail any Wisdom (perception) checks that rely on requires sight.

Perception isn't required to be a unitary check. Otherwise this rule for the blinded condition could not exist.

Edit: Also Keen Senses for Wolves.

Right, blindness fails a check requiring sight. Caveat is relying on sight doesn't mean it's required, as you've shown they're not the same thing.

The silenced halfling required sight, the one capable of making noise didn't. You're relying on sight in either case.

[Tanarii]

If you've played that much D&D, I don't believe you didn't know the DM was the adjudicator of game situations.

One last time, please stop telling me what I knew or didn't know. Or calling me a liar. Whichever it is, it's very rude.

Edit: if you want to say you think I'm stupid for thinking that, go right ahead. I won't find that offensive at all.