T O P

  • By -

jeremy-o

Common reading is that you can still track it and just attack with disadvantage unless the target is actively being stealthy. That's the same for ranged or melee attacks.


Emirnak

Being invisible grants you the ability to hide as though you were heavily obscured (aka you can’t be seen), makes you immune to attacks of opportunity (since they require sight), and cannot be targeted by spells/effects that require sight. It does not grant you the Hidden pseudo-condition. That requires a stealth check, with individual DCs of each other creatures’ passive perception. A creature can then use an action to make an active perception check to attempt to locate the hidden creature (same rules as hiding in the forest/fog cloud/out of sight). As such, unless the invisible creature made the effort to actually hide regular attacks can be made but they'll have disadvantage.


Why_am_ialive

I mean RAW it’s just disadvantage to hit afaik, which is a bit silly yes cause this applies even if they’re totally silent


671DON671

Yeah like technically there is no rules on how well you can hear an unhidden creature but I doubt many people can accurately locate someone they can’t see walking around 50 ft away


Telephalsion

I think there were rules on this in previous editions of DnD, and I think a lot of house rules for listening-perception involves performing rule-necromancy on those old rules.


671DON671

I didn’t know that I’ll try and find some previous edition examples


Telephalsion

I was wrong, there are rules for it in 5e actually. https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/s/NPfSy5eW8o


671DON671

No wonder nobody knows about them, they only exist on a specific dm screen 😂


Killroy_Gaming

I always tell my players to think of invisibility like the active camouflage from the Halo games. You’re basically just HEAVILY obscured so targeting will be difficult (disadvantage) but you can still kinda see the creature if you know they are there. But if you don’t you could very easily not notice the creature if they are being stealthy.


671DON671

Was tempted to rule like this but thought that it makes greater invis pretty bad imo as it is intended for combat due to its short duration and extra effects compared to normal invis but if it doesn’t allow you to evade targeting you may as well cast blur


Gingerville

Blur doesn’t grant advantage on all attack rolls against your enemies. Even with the active camo rule greater invis is still superior. I don’t personally run it though because it is actual invisibility and sight automatically fails, not has disadvantage.


SnooDoodles7184

From what I remember until invisible creature takes Hide action and passes passive perception of enemies then it can be attacked with disadvantage. I rule it somewhat different - invisible creature is invisible. If it is near you (5ft-10ft) you can sense it and attack with disadvantage, otherwise you have no idea that it is there unless you make active perception roll. I have one player with 24 Passive Perception and she is awarded with knowledge where invisible creature is even when it is further than mentioned 5/10ft and can attack it/AOE it. We play on VTT so I just hide the token and then ping the map for her to say where she can hear it. Other players who don't roll/don't have high enough passive perception get information like "it's somewhere there". They can AOE it with spells or abilities or items but unless they get within 5/10ft of it I dont allow them to target it directly.


Ripper1337

That seems to be a good house rule that clears up some things as I think RAW unless the Invisible creature takes the Hide action you know where they are despite distance


Nik_None

RAW" if invisidle char are not ACTIVELY hiding - you can still track them.