I had an interesting judgement call that included one character with See Invisibility directing another character to strike an invisible target. In addition, one character possible move through an invisible targets square. Please let me know if there was a rules error in the following.
The scene includes two Cambion targets, Cam 1 & Cam 2, and three PCs (1 Warlock, 1 Monk, 1 Bard). The room is brightly lit. The two cambion are at less than half health and decide to retreat. They are flying 40-ft up in the air. They cast Invisibility on themselves and take the hide action; then move 60-ft towards the exit of the room. They are now at a height of 0-ft and at the exit of the room nearly entering a 10-ft wide hallway, flying side by side. The hide action resulted in Cam 1 still being detected by the PCs and Cam 2 not being detected by the PCs. The Monk moves to attack Cam 1. In the process of moving towards Cam 1 the character moves into the square where Cam 2 is located and stops to make attacks.
1. I made the judgement that Cam 2 would not be interfered with because the creature does not occupy the entire 5ft-sq and is trying to flee thus it moves out of the monk’s way. However; two creatures cannot occupy the same square at the end of a turn, so I moved Cam 2 back 5-ft. I don't believe the rules clearly state what should have happened. If they do please let me know. What ruling would you have made?
Continuing through the round of combat the Bard casts See Invisibility.
2. I indicated that the Bard could see both Cam 1 & Cam 2. The passive perception of the character would not have been enough to see the Stealth check of Cam 2 normally, but since it was a brightly lit room I believe the rules state Cam 2 would have been seen. Please let me know if there was an error.
The Bard moves to within 10-ft of Cam 2 and declares the position and points the direction of Cam 2 to the other characters. The Warlock moves to within 5-ft of Cam 2 and declares he wishes to make a melee weapon attack.
3. I make the judgement call that the Warlock does not know the position of Cam 2 and the attack would miss because the Bard may have indicated the location, but the Warlock does not know the position of Cam 2, because the creature is invisible and has a Stealth check greater than the passive perception of the Warlock. I don't believe there is any indication in the rules regarding this scenario and it puts the DM in a position of making a ruling because the Warlock is guessing at the position of Cam 2. Is there an error in my interpretation of the rules? What ruling would you have made?
I allow the Warlock to change its action to make a ranged weapon attack at disadvantage with a bag of corn meal. The attack roll is a 22 and I make a ruling that was enough to cover Cam 2 with corn meal. The results it the death of Cam 1 by the end of the round and the death of Cam 2 one round later.
While typing this up I realized I allowed the Cambion to make both a Hide action and Cast a Spell action in the same turn. That is not allowed per the rules and is an error. I also came to the conclusion that if I allowed the Warlock to make the melee attack at disadvantage the same result would have occurred, and therefore saying yes to the melee attack would have been more exciting for the story and the characters. I also realize the corn meal area attack should have prompted a Dex save from Cam 2 rather than been a ranged weapon attack.
These particular Cambions are modified from the monster manual because this is the Red Hand of Doom adventure with orcs rather than hobgoblins. The spell list is changed to include Invisibility. The speed of the Cambion is kept the same at 30-ft, fly 60-ft. The skills of the Cambion are kept the same with a Stealth of +7.
Clarification on rules and advice on rulings are welcome and appreciated.
Thank you.
Cooperjera wrote:
Cooperjera wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Cooperjera wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Cooperjera wrote:
In his guide, they also argue with him about the "hidden" condition that he seems to think is in the rules. When I read the rules for Hiding on page 177, all the examples are in regards to not being hidden from the creature that detects you, not from everyone.
Lilika wrote:
I just reread your guide, and it appears to be very factual and accurate. The section that gets, in my opinion, misquoted from page 177 is that if you are seen by a particular creature than you are not hidden from that particular creature. I disagree with the interpretation that you are not still hidden from creatures that still don't see you. People throw around the expression that to be hidden you must be unseen, I think the only thing that we can take from the rules is that your are not hidden from the creature that sees you.
Lilika wrote:
First of all, is there really any reason why using the hide action matters? If you are invisible you gain all benefits you would gain from hide too.
See page 72-73 of player basic rules:
If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the “Unseen Attackers and Targets” section later in this chapter.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Well, from the rules I quoted I think it's quite clear that invisibility gives the same advantages as hidden. You might read it differently, but I read it like that. So you still have disadvantage on attack and still need to guess the position correctly.
Aaron's point is a bit different, though. The question is, can you instantly know the location of a creature that is invisible but not hidden? Like a creatures casts invisibility and then moves, how would someone know where it is? Wouldn't it at least require an action to read the traces the creature left to determine its position?
I guess you are referring to this paragraph in the rules:
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if youmake noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a
vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can’t
be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage
might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
@Rya
No you don't gain the same things. Invisible (page 291) gives the following benefits:
Can't be seen.
You are considered Heavily Obscured for the purposes of hiding (meaning you can roll to hide anytime while invisible)
As a result of not being seen, attacks against you by creatures who can't see you have disadvantage
As a result of not being seen, attacks you make against creatures who can't see you have advantage
You are still heard and any tracks you leave can be seen.
Hidden:
Creatures do not know your location and must guess
Until you lose hidden, you must not be seen or make noise
As a result of being hidden, attacks against you have disadvantage
As a result of being hidden, the first attack you make against a creature you are hidden from has advantage. You then lose hidden on a hit or miss with that attack.
If you are seen, you lose hidden
If you are heard, you lose hidden
If you give away your location or your location is discovered, you lose hidden. You can typically find the location of someone hidden via passive or active perception.
@Aaron
Well, there's for example a "Survival" check for "following tracks". Also generally, wouldn't you usually think how long something takes to determine whether an ability check requires an action or not? Plus isn't the DM to decide whether something is trivial or not? Because knowing exactly where an invisible creature walked to is something I would not consider trivial.
@Noctaem
"Can't be seen" on invisible kind of includes the benefits that hide gives. Why do you think the section is called "Unseen attackers and targets" and not "Hidden attackers and targets"?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
With this same group of players they have encountered the following:
1. Environment of fog cloud (heavily obscured) and being attacked by Infernal that have taken the Hide action. In the party at the time is a paladin. Paladin uses his ability to detect the Infernal and thus communicates the location of the previously hidden infernal to the rest of the PCs. The PCs take a Ready action to attack the Infernal as they get attacked.
This scene is easy to manage for the DM. The infernal were detected by the paladin and the PCs used a reaction attack (Readied action) to respond to attacks from the infernal. The attacks were at disadvantage. The party, other than the paladin, indicate to the DM that they agree they cannot perceive the infernal and thus are not able to make attacks without guessing.
2. Environment of magical darkness from the spell, and silence from Zone of Silence. The PCs are assaulting the enemy with surprise and casting the spells. They time the surprise to allow Darkness to be cast last and allow all characters to be within 5-ft of an enemy NPC. The NPCs do not move through the combat. The PCs do not move through the combat. All characters, except the Warlock with Devils Sight, are attacking with disadvantage.
This scene is easy to manage for the DM. The location of the NPCs and PCs were known prior to being heavily obscured and silenced. The location of the PCs and NPCs did not change through combat. Therefore, there is no need for any character to guess the location of any other character. The odd thing to note is the use of the barbarians Pack Tactics ability in this environment. Environmental effects to not alter that ability, but if the barbarian is not seen and not heard then I question the ability working. I allowed it to work because Magic.
3. The final scene is listed in the first post. This was more complicated because it does not use the Ready Action action and there is movement from a character that is both unheard and unseen. The exception is the Knowledge Cleric / Rogue with a 26 passive perception that can perceive just about anything.
This scene is more difficult to manage because, in my opinion, each character is limited to knowing what they can perceive. If they are informed of something they cannot perceive then they acquire some knowledge, but not enough to eliminate the need for guessing. More specifically, the information that was transmitted in the turn of the Bard was not enough to mitigate the need for guessing.
Noctaem wrote:
Cooperjera wrote:
The idea that if a hidden creature is spotted by one enemy then he is no longer hidden from every creature that doesn't spot him is absurd. This is a comprehension failure of the highest order.
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
When it says that you lose hidden if you are seen or heard
ArialBlack wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Remind us Noctaem; quote the rule which makes you think that if one person notices a hidden creature, then that creature is no longer hidden even from those that failed to notice it.
ArialBlack wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Cooperjera wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
guachi wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I'll never understand how or why people communicate that way.
I'm sure it makes a terrible impression on newcomers here, and nurtures apprehension in those who would otherwise engage with this community.
Noctaem wrote:
But the question you asked doesn't make sense if you're asking it based on what you quoted me saying. In the quote, I didn't say anything about someone being hidden... Like I don't get what you're asking me. Who is no longer hidden? What are you even talking about?
Noctaem,
In your first post on this thread you said:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Right, my interpretation is I think the same as popstar's and OoftaMeg's. You're hidden from a creature if it doesn't know where you are. You must be unseen and unheard to be hidden, but being unseen and unheard doesn't guarantee that you are hidden.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Obviously, if you are hiding and are noticed by just one person, you are contractually obligated to stand up with your hands in the air and shout, "okay, you got me," which immediately makes everyone else, even insects crawling on a lump of coal on the other side of the planet, notice you too. I can imagine how this is happening all the time to everyone. Given how many creatures might exist in this fictional game world, or metaverse even, with even just a tiny fraction, say one in a billion, playing hide-and-seek at any one time, and just those being discovered for the first time, each moment of every single day, each creature being constantly bombarded with everything that everyone else notices, like some mad drug induced, lovecraftian stream of consciousness overload. Anyone that could stay sane after such deluge of omniscience could probably fold space too.
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Isn't that way to handle it quite complicated, though? You'd need to keep track who exactly is hidden from whom.
Also, even if someone tells a character "He is there!", the creature is still hidden from that character?
Also, how do you treat the Hide action then, does the person using it need to define from who he wants to hide?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I don't find it to be difficult. Most of the time, if a creature sees you, it will tell its allies where you are, so you are no longer hidden from any of them. If the observer can't or won't do that, then you remain hidden from creatures who don't know where you are. It is at worse as complicated as the cover rules, where you can have cover from some creatures but not others. Most of the time though it is simpler, because most of the time there isn't much practical difference between this and the 'condition' interpretation.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Yeah, I guess in my case those "nonsensical" situations don't occur because I treat hiding like invisibility with the only difference that it expires after an attack and someone can make it expire by doing a successful perception check. And I make "If someone spots a hidden target, he will tell his friends about it" automatic to explain why it always is all or none.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I was responding primarily to the tongue in cheek claim that when a person is seen while hiding, the king of the next country over also now knows the guy is no longer hidden.
But if a hidden creature loses hidden within the range of your senses, you now know where it is. You can either see it, hear it, smell it, etc.. whatever sense applies.
Noctaem wrote:
Lol the comparison you're making is again, like compariong apples to oranges and calling them all kiwis. Nice try though. Both texts are not similar at all.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Cooperjera wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Cooperjera wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
p3ck wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
The rules on hiding are pretty limited. From the hiding rules on page 60 of the basic rules
Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.
It's obvious that it's the perception check of a single person/creature vs the stealth check of the person doing the hiding. I don't know where noctaem is deriving his "everyone automatically knows where you are" rule.
It's a mystery wrapped inside a conundrum made more obscure by the fact that he will only point to his thread where he makes the assertion as proof that he is correct.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
One more simple example.
Bart is hiding from Marge and Homer behind the couch:
Homer and Marge are searching for Bart. Marge makes a perception check which is higher than Bart's stealth check. Homer's perception check is lower than Bart's stealth check.
Bart is not hidden from Marge.
Homer still can't see (or sense) Bart. Bart is still hidden from Homer.
Marge says "Bart is behind the couch". Homer still doesn't know exactly where behind the couch Bart is. Bart is still hidden from Homer.
Homer can target the area where he thinks Bart is based on what Marge said or he can move into a position where he can see behind the couch at which point Bart will no longer be hidden from him.
Some people approach games, including RPGs, as if they were written as computer code. Every variable must be defined in the code. If a variable is not defined in the code, it is meaningless. If a variable is defined in the code, it means exactly, and only, that explicit definition.
I, personally, do not agree with this approach. But I will not go as far as to say it is a 'wrong' approach. But it is very different than many people seem to take. I believe Noctaem tends to interpret the rules this way. (Again, this is *not* a criticism; just recognizing a different approach to the game)
This approach is what leads to the conclusion that a low wall will, by default, affect the archer standing behind it as much as the target 100' away. It is the approach that leads to believing that every creature automatically 'just knows' exactly where every other creature is that is 'within range'. The rules said that if you are hidden, then people don't know where you are. It defined a variable, and that is the only way that variable is defined, so it must mean exactly, and only, that explicit definiton. Since Hidden is the only way described as 'not knowing', that must mean that in every other situation, you must 'just know'.
There is a certain logic to that. But it means that for these people (and Noctaem is not the only one) a PC can walk into a completely dark room 100'x100', and will 'know' where every creature is in that room. Even if they are standing still, even if there is other noise going on, even if some are in combat and some are not. Because the game gave you a definition of Hidden..... so everything that is 'not hidden' must not meet that definition.
Similarly, definitions tend to be very binary. It is A=B or A != B.... there is no in between. So in this case, if you are Hidden, then no creatures know where you are. If even a single creature spots you, then you no longer meet the definition and 'lose' Hidden. If you are not Hidden, then as above, every single creature (in "range") must know where you are.
Nocteam directly addressed this as "All it says is that if you are hidden and you are seen, you lose hidden"
For the record, how I discuss the rules on the internet in a rules forum should not be used as a metric for how I DM at a table with players..
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
jaelis wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Cromatic wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Cromatic wrote:
I think Cromatic's point is that the word 'usually' in that paragraph shows that it is not 'always', which is evidence against Noctaem's assertion that if one creature spots you, then every creature in range must spot you.
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Cromatic wrote:
I said this in another thread, but it bears repeating: The rules for perception, stealth, hiding, unseen attackers, surprise, and noticing threats all have consistent language.
Trying to argue each in a vacuum just creates inconsistency, with no real benefit to the game.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Cromatic wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Cromatic wrote:
I would certainly allow a deception check (for example) to allow surprise in some situations.
General rule is that one side has to be unaware of a threat.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote: