Is this busted

[Skrum]

I'm attempting to bring Skill Tricks and other high-level uses of skills to 5e. What do we think of this -

Stealth (Vanish): If you are standing in dim light or darkness, you may take the Hide Action, and if you succeed, you gain the Invisible condition until the beginning of your next turn. The condition ends early if you attack, force a saving throw, enter an area of bright illumination, or take some other action that would immediately give away your position, at the DM’s discretion.

Any character with expertise in stealth would gain this ability. Is this too strong? I'm really tripping over the sight rules; by default combatants know a lot about other creature's locations, but actually hiding while invisible is quite strong. I'm just thinking of a rogue using this with a +10 modifier every turn and being continually untargetable.

[Kane0]

Skill tricks you say? I remember something along those lines a while back, ill see if i can dig up the thread

Edit: Here it is, incomplete as it was

[Theodoxus]

Stealth (Vanish)

I think it's a little strong, but since you need to roll Hide and beat any observers Perception, it's probably fine. I'm just thinking about other abilities that do the same thing (Shadow Monk, Firbolg, etc.) and you're tapping on their pinky toes, but not slamming your foot down... But I would use it as a cautionary tale for any other skill tricks you want to propose... this is about as far into someone else's 'bag' as you want to tread.

[Skrum]

Maybe there should be a -5 modifier to the check? Disadvantage?

Thing is, most monsters and monster stat blocks don't have skill proficiencies. Beating 5 enemies' perception checks isn't all that daunting if the most perceptive of the bunch has a +2. A rogue can easily have +10 by level 5 and +13 by level 9. Adv too, if magic items are in play.

These skill tricks are intended to be nifty, flavorful little moves that characters can use; not build-defining actions that can spammed. This feels like it would just shove the meta of the game in a certain direction.

[sithlordnergal]

I think this is perfectly fine, for a few reasons:

1) You need Expertise in Stealth. Which means you need Rogue levels, Bard levels, or a Feat, and you need to spend that limited ability on Stealth specifically


2) You need to use the Hide Action. Unless you're a high level Ranger or have 2 levels of Rogue, that will take a full Action.


3) This ends if you attack, force a saving throw, enter an area of bright illumination, or take some other action that would immediately give away your position, and it only lasts until the start of your next turn.

The duration is too short to really be a utility ability, since you'll stop being invisible before you can make another check. Meaning you can't really use it to just sneak across a dimly lit room with nothing to hide behind, unless you can cross the entire room in one go. I can see this ability mainly being used as a way to get out of sticky situations, where you can turn invisible and move to avoid being targeted by an enemy. Which is nice...but if you're using your Action/Bonus Action to avoid being targeted, and not doing anything in return, then you're going to eventually lose.


4) Gloomstalkers basically have this ability but better when they're in Darkness. And they don't need to make an ability check to do it. This seems like a solid side grade. Not as strong as the Gloomstalker, and used in different situations, but mostly on par.


5) By the time Rogues get Reliable Talent, most major NPCs have a way to deal with Invisibility. A lot of NPCs start having Truesight or Blindsight at CR 11 and above, which renders Invisibility useless. As long as you keep the wording to "You gain the Invisible condition", they bypass the invisibility without any checks involved. And a creature automatically fails Stealth checks if they do not have a way to break line of sight if they aren't invisible.


6) Being invisible does not make you untargetable. Enemies can still guess at where you are, certain spells and abilities do not require you to see the target, and AoEs are gonna hit you regardless. For example, this ability would be useless against someone who uses Dissonant Whispers. Dissonant Whispers does not require you to see the target, or know where they are. It just says "You target a creature in range". Unless the invisible guy moved 65 feet away from the enemy, they're getting hit.

[Mastikator]

Dim light gives light obscurement, someone with the Skulker feat can hide in dim light. Dim light imposes a -5 passive perception.

There are things you could do with skill tricks using stealth, like be detected on purpose at a false position. Or hide from someone you're adjacent to by staying out of their field of view.

[Theodoxus]

Displacement would be an interesting option instead of invisibility.

[Rukelnikov]

I would change dim light or darkness to light or heavy obscurement, and probably word it more like "when you take the hide action, to any creature you would be considered to be lightly or heavily obscured, you are instead considered to be invisible" or something along those lines, a creature with tremorsense doesn't care if you are in dim light or darkness.

But tbh, with regards to stealth, vision and obscurement in general, you can't make hard rules, since there are no real rules to build on, combat breaks out in the middle of market packed like a concert, do you accurately know the position of each and every creature? An archer is arching shots on you from inside the courtyard of a keep, do you know their position? A toad moving around 1 mile away from you, do you know it's position?

These rules are purely DM fiat.

[kazaryu]

"
too strong" isn't really something anyone can say. by adding things this you're making PC's stronger generally, and PC's with easy access to expertise even stronger. whether or not its "too strong" depends entirely on your specific table, and how often the DM runs specific types of scenarios, and how high perceptions skills are typically on monsters.

generally what you should consider that this being an ability tied to expertise means that its being specifically given to the people that are most likely to succeed on the check anyway. so while..yeah, there's a check, that by itself may not be as limiting as you think. I do agree with what others have said about being careful not to step on too many toes. I myself have been developing a similar idea for a while but my struggle has been coming up with for bonuses that are fitting, interactive, and most of all...unique.

as a minor notpick, is there a particular reason why you have it grant the invisible condition? hidden and invisible already do the same general things, and the things you put into the ability that would break the invisibility would also tend to break the hidden condition anyway. just seems superfluous as far as i can tell.

[Skrum]

Dim light gives light obscurement, someone with the Skulker feat can hide in dim light. Dim light imposes a -5 passive perception.

Doesn't dim light give disadvantage, is that what you mean by -5?

Yes this would reduce the value of Skulker; my skill tricks for Medicine encroach on Healer too. But honestly, I don't care. I really don't like those kind of feats being in direct competition with "optimal" feat/ASI choices, and players feeling like they need to accept making themselves worse in order to get unusual or flavorful abilities.

There are things you could do with skill tricks using stealth, like be detected on purpose at a false position. Or hide from someone you're adjacent to by staying out of their field of view.

Maybe, but I'm trying to avoid massive blocks of rules text too. In the case of the "false position" one, I'm leery of stuff that implies that enemies will take a certain course of action. It just gets funky; how compelled are they to follow it? What actions would they take? It just gets annoyingly murky.

Displacement would be an interesting option instead of invisibility.

Interesting option! Like mirror image, or like blur?

[Skrum]

as a minor notpick, is there a particular reason why you have it grant the invisible condition? hidden and invisible already do the same general things, and the things you put into the ability that would break the invisibility would also tend to break the hidden condition anyway. just seems superfluous as far as i can tell.

Uhg, I hate the vision rules. Yes I suppose I could use Hidden and not Invisible, and then reword the whole thing to be "you can take the Hide action as long as you are in dim light or darkness." Or maybe just steal the language from Skulker.

The idea though was that you can hide without having anything to hide behind; do the Batman, ninja, disappear into the darkness at will thing.

I think this is perfectly fine, for a few reasons:

1) You need Expertise in Stealth. Which means you need Rogue levels, Bard levels, or a Feat, and you need to spend that limited ability on Stealth specifically


2) You need to use the Hide Action. Unless you're a high level Ranger or have 2 levels of Rogue, that will take a full Action.


3) This ends if you attack, force a saving throw, enter an area of bright illumination, or take some other action that would immediately give away your position, and it only lasts until the start of your next turn.

The duration is too short to really be a utility ability, since you'll stop being invisible before you can make another check. Meaning you can't really use it to just sneak across a dimly lit room with nothing to hide behind, unless you can cross the entire room in one go. I can see this ability mainly being used as a way to get out of sticky situations, where you can turn invisible and move to avoid being targeted by an enemy. Which is nice...but if you're using your Action/Bonus Action to avoid being targeted, and not doing anything in return, then you're going to eventually lose.


4) Gloomstalkers basically have this ability but better when they're in Darkness. And they don't need to make an ability check to do it. This seems like a solid side grade. Not as strong as the Gloomstalker, and used in different situations, but mostly on par.


5) By the time Rogues get Reliable Talent, most major NPCs have a way to deal with Invisibility. A lot of NPCs start having Truesight or Blindsight at CR 11 and above, which renders Invisibility useless. As long as you keep the wording to "You gain the Invisible condition", they bypass the invisibility without any checks involved. And a creature automatically fails Stealth checks if they do not have a way to break line of sight if they aren't invisible.


6) Being invisible does not make you untargetable. Enemies can still guess at where you are, certain spells and abilities do not require you to see the target, and AoEs are gonna hit you regardless. For example, this ability would be useless against someone who uses Dissonant Whispers. Dissonant Whispers does not require you to see the target, or know where they are. It just says "You target a creature in range". Unless the invisible guy moved 65 feet away from the enemy, they're getting hit.

I really appreciate this perspective, and it makes me inclined to just roll with it.

[Pex]

Be mindful some (sub)classes have abilities you might accidentally (on purpose?) duplicate. Your Vanish idea is one such thing. I think Shadow Monks do that. It doesn't make this a bad idea, but it would be poor form to make a subclass obsolete by giving their ability to anyone. If the class ability is autosucceed but your skill trick requires a roll depending on personal taste that might be enough of a difference. However, there is argument if the DC is low enough and/or your skill modifier is high enough you autosucceed anyway or only fail on a Natural 3 or less that difference is irrelevant. High level rogues don't roll below 10 either way. If this doesn't bother you at all so be it, but it is worth considering.

[Skrum]

Be mindful some (sub)classes have abilities you might accidentally (on purpose?) duplicate. Your Vanish idea is one such thing. I think Shadow Monks do that. It doesn't make this a bad idea, but it would be poor form to make a subclass obsolete by giving their ability to anyone. If the class ability is autosucceed but your skill trick requires a roll depending on personal taste that might be enough of a difference. However, there is argument if the DC is low enough and/or your skill modifier is high enough you autosucceed anyway or only fail on a Natural 3 or less that difference is irrelevant. High level rogues don't roll below 10 either way. If this doesn't bother you at all so be it, but it is worth considering.

Yus

Cloak of Shadows
By 11th level, you have learned to become one with the shadows. When you are in an area of dim light or darkness, you can use your action to become invisible. You remain invisible until you make an attack, cast a spell, or are in an area of bright light.

The monk's version has no duration (big deal), is harder to break (medium deal), and doesn't require a skill check (less of a deal). But it's also supposed to be an 11th level ability? Uhg that's not good. Yeah I don't think I mind trampling on that. It shouldn't be an 11th level ability.

[Kane0]

There is also the 5th level Warlock invocation One With Shadows

... but i've yet to ever see anyone actually take and use that...

[Skrum]

There is also the 5th level Warlock invocation One With Shadows

... but i've yet to ever see anyone actually take and use that...

That's cause it's hot garbage!! I have zero problem trampling over junk like that.

[Mastikator]

Doesn't dim light give disadvantage, is that what you mean by -5?

Yes this would reduce the value of Skulker; my skill tricks for Medicine encroach on Healer too. But honestly, I don't care. I really don't like those kind of feats being in direct competition with "optimal" feat/ASI choices, and players feeling like they need to accept making themselves worse in order to get unusual or flavorful abilities.

Advantage/disadvantage on ability checks give a +/-5 modifier on passive ability checks. (PHB chapter 7 - passive checks) "If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score."

Maybe, but I'm trying to avoid massive blocks of rules text too. In the case of the "false position" one, I'm leery of stuff that implies that enemies will take a certain course of action. It just gets funky; how compelled are they to follow it? What actions would they take? It just gets annoyingly murky.

Why does it need to compel the enemy? They make choices and draw conclusions based on information that they have. If a player gives their enemy misinformation the enemy will take actions based on that misinformation and make mistakes.

The simplest example of this I can think of his tricking a dog you've thrown a ball. If you know what a dog does when you throw a ball you can get it to do that without even having a ball.

If you know that hobgoblins almost always go to investigate noises, you can make them go investigate an empty bush by throwing a rock into the bush.

If you know that during a fight, a hobgoblin goes to uncover a hidden rogue from their last known location, you can trick it into going into a trap or hazard or disadvantageous position by tricking it you are somewhere else. There's no compulsion needed, and no guarantees it will work.

This should work for both rational enemies as well as emotional enemies. If you can make a rational enemy make mistakes by manipulating its knowledge you should be able to an emotional enemy make mistakes by manipulating its emotions (through the charisma skills in that case).

[Rynjin]

Doesn't this technically NERF Stealth in a niche way? Now people with See Invisibility can still see you, as opposed to you being hidden from both mundane and supernatural sight.

It might be better off just poaching the Hide in Plain Sight wording from previous editions.

A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

Which also serves the purpose of not turning the mundane into the supernatural in an attempt to make the mundane better, if that makes sense.

If you need "5e simplified text" for the ability, you could word it as such: "If you are standing in dim light or darkness, you may always attempt to take the Hide action even while being observed."

[Skrum]

Doesn't this technically NERF Stealth in a niche way? Now people with See Invisibility can still see you, as opposed to you being hidden from both mundane and supernatural sight.

It might be better off just poaching the Hide in Plain Sight wording from previous editions.



Which also serves the purpose of not turning the mundane into the supernatural in an attempt to make the mundane better, if that makes sense.

If you need "5e simplified text" for the ability, you could word it as such: "If you are standing in dim light or darkness, you may always attempt to take the Hide action even while being observed."

Hmm. There's two reasons I like using the invisible condition
1) it has a much more controllable and defined duration. In this case, it lasts one round at most. The idea being is this ability lets a character slip away or momentarily disappear, not indefinitely melt into the shadows.

2) "invisible" makes it clear that it is usable in combat, standing next to enemies. Hiding gets messy, IME. People start parsing what's "possible," and the ability stops working in predictable ways.

[Psyren]

FWIW, Hidden condition in 2024 is going to grant Invisible as well, so you're on the same thought track as the devs.