Invisibility vs Hidden - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Penkade Feb 25, 2015 11:23:58	The Alert feat (PHB 165) states that "other creatures don't gain advantage on attack rolls against you as a result of being hidden from you". Under the rules for Hiding (PHB 177), it states that "an invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide", implying that an invisible creature isn't hidden by default and must make an effort, and that failing to cover signs of his location (for instance, bumping into furniture) or making any noise would negate the hidden status even though the creature would still be invisible. However, under the description of Invisible (PHB 291), it says "for the purposes of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured." (I assume this only refers to an invisible creature who is actively hiding.) Under the rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets (PHB 194-195), the rule states that "when a creature can't see you, you have an advantage on attack rolls against it." So, the question is: Does the Alert feat negate the advantage of an attacking creature who is invisible if the creature isn't making an effort to hide or remain silent? The argument being made against this is that since the invisible creature isn't being silent, it isn't hidden, so the Alert feat doesn't apply, since it specifies hidden creatures and an invisible creature is not hidden by default. A more ludicrous argument has been made that by plugging your ears, you render the attacker silent, which then makes the Alert feat applicable, effectively arguing that by restricting your own senses, you somehow become more alert. It seems to me that a literal interpretation of the rule would indicate that an invisible creature who isn't actively hiding would retain it's advantage on an attack. Common sense dictates that as an unhidden invisible creature is more obvious than a hidden invisible creature, the advantage should be negated. I lean in favor of the common sense rule but the person arguing it is extremely pedantic and needs irrefutable proof, so I wanted to see what the consensus was over here.
#2 OoftaMeg Feb 25, 2015 11:52:20	The advantage you gain from being unseen is a specific rule that has nothing to do with being hidden. Alertness does not state that it negates the advantage gained by being attacked by an unseen enemy, therefore it does not. Does that answer your question?
#3 jonathonhawke Feb 25, 2015 11:57:42	Since being hidden is not what grants the advantage, I'd say that the Alert feat requires errata, replacing the words "hidden from" with "unseen by". This should resolve your issue as well.
#4 OoftaMeg Feb 25, 2015 12:18:44	On a related note, you are free to allow the alertness feat to negate advantage from unseen creatures as a house rule if it makes more sense to you.
#5 Noctaem Feb 25, 2015 12:20:56	jonathonhawke wrote:
#6 jaelis Feb 25, 2015 13:05:29	From the basic rules for hiding: However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.
#7 jonathonhawke Feb 25, 2015 13:07:16	Penkade wrote:
#8 Coredump00 Feb 25, 2015 13:14:34	I understand the issue you have, but I think there is another aspect. A) If you are invisible, you get advantage B) If you are hidden, you get advantage. Someone that is Alert negates B, but does not negate A. If an invisible person is also hiding.... he would gain advantage in two ways. Alert only thwarts one of those ways, so the attacker would still get advantage. So no, plugging your ears does not help, and an invisible person that decides to Hide is not worse off.
#9 Penkade Feb 25, 2015 14:07:01	But wouldn't being alert make it easier to ascertain the location of someone who's making noise? It seems to me that someone hidden, both unseen and unheard, should be harder to detect (and thus at a greater advantage) than someone who is unseen but can be heard. I suppose I can see the inverse of the argument. Just because you know someone invisible is standing in front of you doesn't necessarily mean you know they're attacking you or what sort of attack they're using. You could protect your head only to receive a hammer blow to the kneecap. Unless they attacker is using a weapon that is noisy enough that you can determine from where it's coming. On the other hand, when someone comes out of hiding to attack you, they're visible at the time of the attack and quick reflexes will allow you to determine how they're attacking and react accordingly, negating their advantage.
#10 jaelis Feb 25, 2015 14:18:45	Penkade wrote:
#11 strider13x Feb 25, 2015 16:01:15	I feel each situation deserves a different ruling based on circumstances. I prefer to player/dm relationship be built on mutual trust that will lead to an interesting story and if I find I am constantly in debate I no longer play with those folks. That said I feel that Alert doesn't negate Advantage due to Invisibility.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Penkade

Feb 25, 2015 11:23:58

The Alert feat (PHB 165) states that "other creatures don't gain advantage on attack rolls against you as a result of being hidden from you".

Under the rules for Hiding (PHB 177), it states that "an invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide", implying that an invisible creature isn't hidden by default and must make an effort, and that failing to cover signs of his location (for instance, bumping into furniture) or making any noise would negate the hidden status even though the creature would still be invisible.

However, under the description of Invisible (PHB 291), it says "for the purposes of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured." (I assume this only refers to an invisible creature who is actively hiding.)

Under the rules for Unseen Attackers and Targets (PHB 194-195), the rule states that "when a creature can't see you, you have an advantage on attack rolls against it."

So, the question is: Does the Alert feat negate the advantage of an attacking creature who is invisible if the creature isn't making an effort to hide or remain silent?

The argument being made against this is that since the invisible creature isn't being silent, it isn't hidden, so the Alert feat doesn't apply, since it specifies hidden creatures and an invisible creature is not hidden by default.

A more ludicrous argument has been made that by plugging your ears, you render the attacker silent, which then makes the Alert feat applicable, effectively arguing that by restricting your own senses, you somehow become more alert.

It seems to me that a literal interpretation of the rule would indicate that an invisible creature who isn't actively hiding would retain it's advantage on an attack. Common sense dictates that as an unhidden invisible creature is more obvious than a hidden invisible creature, the advantage should be negated.

I lean in favor of the common sense rule but the person arguing it is extremely pedantic and needs irrefutable proof, so I wanted to see what the consensus was over here.

OoftaMeg

Feb 25, 2015 11:52:20

The advantage you gain from being unseen is a specific rule that has nothing to do with being hidden.

Alertness does not state that it negates the advantage gained by being attacked by an unseen enemy, therefore it does not.

Does that answer your question?

jonathonhawke

Feb 25, 2015 11:57:42

Since being hidden is not what grants the advantage, I'd say that the Alert feat requires errata, replacing the words "hidden from" with "unseen by". This should resolve your issue as well.

OoftaMeg

Feb 25, 2015 12:18:44

On a related note, you are free to allow the alertness feat to negate advantage from unseen creatures as a house rule if it makes more sense to you.

Noctaem

Feb 25, 2015 12:20:56

jonathonhawke wrote:

jaelis

Feb 25, 2015 13:05:29

From the basic rules for hiding:

However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

jonathonhawke

Feb 25, 2015 13:07:16

Penkade wrote:

Coredump00

Feb 25, 2015 13:14:34

I understand the issue you have, but I think there is another aspect.

A) If you are invisible, you get advantage

B) If you are hidden, you get advantage.

Someone that is Alert negates B, but does not negate A.

If an invisible person is also hiding.... he would gain advantage in two ways. Alert only thwarts one of those ways, so the attacker would still get advantage.

So no, plugging your ears does not help, and an invisible person that decides to Hide is not worse off.

Penkade

Feb 25, 2015 14:07:01

But wouldn't being alert make it easier to ascertain the location of someone who's making noise? It seems to me that someone hidden, both unseen and unheard, should be harder to detect (and thus at a greater advantage) than someone who is unseen but can be heard.

I suppose I can see the inverse of the argument. Just because you know someone invisible is standing in front of you doesn't necessarily mean you know they're attacking you or what sort of attack they're using. You could protect your head only to receive a hammer blow to the kneecap. Unless they attacker is using a weapon that is noisy enough that you can determine from where it's coming. On the other hand, when someone comes out of hiding to attack you, they're visible at the time of the attack and quick reflexes will allow you to determine how they're attacking and react accordingly, negating their advantage.

#10

jaelis

Feb 25, 2015 14:18:45

Penkade wrote:

#11

strider13x

Feb 25, 2015 16:01:15

I feel each situation deserves a different ruling based on circumstances. I prefer to player/dm relationship be built on mutual trust that will lead to an interesting story and if I find I am constantly in debate I no longer play with those folks.

That said I feel that Alert doesn't negate Advantage due to Invisibility.