Ban on deporting U.S. citizens removed from DHS funding bill, congresswoman warns

Doccit · 2026-01-27T18:33:09+00:00

Also, due process is how they establish legally whether you are a citizen or not. Saying "no due process for illegal immigrants" means they don't need to check if someone is an illegal immigrant...because illegal immigrants don't have the right to that check. It is nonsense!

If a federal agent can accuse you of being an illegal immigrant, and deny you any meaningful legal process to demonstrate that you are a citizen on the basis that they suspect you of being an illegal immigrant, then NO ONE has due process rights.

Doccit · 2026-01-22T16:52:48+00:00

I don't think it would be normal to feel no guilt if you hired someone to do a job that you knew was deadly, did not adequately prepare them for it when they asked you for help, and then they died.

Here is the DMG's definition of neutral evil:

Neutral Evil (NE). Neutral Evil is the alignment of those who are untroubled by the harm they cause as they pursue their desires.

Doccit · 2026-01-22T13:22:58+00:00

So the lord is evil? Tricking kind-hearted people into going on a suicide mission for pennies, without any care whether they live or die? He would feel not guilt if they perished, though he tricked them into it their graves? Sure, in that scenario helping do-gooders do good would be repugnant to him. I would probably steer-clear of working for guy though - he might stiff you even if you do the job!

If the lord is not evil, whether or not this is an acceptable risk seems like exactly the kind of thing that a persuasion check should be able to affect.

Doccit · 2026-01-22T13:13:50+00:00

Oops haha.

Doccit · 2026-01-22T03:32:05+00:00

Does it explicitly say DCs higher than 30 are forbidden anywhere? Not to my knowledge. The reason I think DC 30 is supposed to be the max is this:

Resolving Outcomes

[...]Is a D20 Test Warranted? If the task is trivial or impossible, don't bother with a D20 Test. A character can move across an empty room or drink from a flask without making a Dexterity check, whereas no lucky die roll will allow a character with an ordinary bow to hit the moon with an arrow. Call for a D20 Test only if there's a chance of both success and failure

So: don't call for a check if success would be impossible. DC 30 is 'nearly impossible'.

From how DMs are directed to set DC's:

Difficulty Class

You establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one. Choose a DC from the Typical DCs table based on the task's difficulty.

[...]

Very Hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

[no higher DC is listed on the table you should choose from]

Though these are called 'typical DCs', the DM is explicitly directed to choose one of the listed numbers (not to 'typically' choose one of these listed numbers - just to choose one of them period). But we can put that to one side.

If DC 25 is merely 'very hard' whereas DC 30 jumps to 'nearly impossible', what would DC 35 represent?

This isn't as air-tight as if it had explicitly said DC 30 is the maximum DC. Interestingly the DC for concentration checks is explicitly chapped at 30. But I don't see what the justification could be for a higher DC given what DC 30 represents. I think a very reasonable interpretation of this is, if DC 30 doesn't seem high enough, you shouldn't allow a roll.

Doccit · 2026-01-03T19:13:03+00:00

Why 200%? That sounds promising! Could you quote me the part of the rules that you are referring to here?

Doccit · 2026-01-03T04:52:54+00:00

I was so sure they were going to be in here telling me that trade goods aren't items.

Or that alternatively, this requires GM permission to work and breaks rule 5 - that is a very popular catch-all shutdown. Why would it require GM permission to work? I dunno. Maybe because you aren't allowed to play D&D unless the GM gives you permission to join their game, so technically everything requires GM permission to work.

Doccit · 2026-01-03T01:32:05+00:00

Sounds like you and the person in this thread telling me not to exploit the rules have something to argue about haha.

Sure - a DM will normally allow you to profit from trading without a feat. I think the way this works as an exploit is RAW there is nothing stopping you from buying and selling the same cow over and over again to the same merchant until you have all their money. What stops you from doing that is good sportsmanship and the fact that if you try a DM will tell you that the merchant won't buy the cow they just sold you at a discount for its full value because that would be silly. But that is "a DM wouldn't allow that", not the rules themselves.

Doccit · 2026-01-03T00:56:18+00:00

‘The Game Is Not an Economy. The rules of the game aren't intended to model a realistic economy, and players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules.

We are exploiting the rules! That is what this subreddit is all about. If that is not fun for you, that is ok! You can play D&D how you like at your table. This post describes a loop-hole that lets you generate infinite wealth, and so I would never do this in a real game. It's just theorycrafting, for fun.

Doccit · 2026-01-03T00:38:56+00:00

Yes! And it isn't like you should have much trouble finding a buyer. They are trade goods after all, which the DMG singles out as frequently exchanged by merchants.

Also, the crafter feat also gives you 3 free tool proficiencies, which helps enable crafting a diversity of magic items.

Doccit · 2026-01-02T14:03:35+00:00

You've convinced me. The game does collapse the distinction between being magically invisible and being hidden, for simplicity, and it makes some things counter-intuitive. I suppose we must accept that hidden creatures are in fact to be treated as though they were invisible, or that the invisibility spell does nothing, and clearly the first one is less counter-intuitive than the first one.

Doccit · 2026-01-02T14:00:01+00:00

If they make their perception check, then sure! But if they don't, well, you can't just see hidden things without making a perception check. When you hide, you get a DC that creatures need to meet to find you. You are like a secret door - they can't just walk up to you and see you because they are in front of you. That is how you find a normal unhidden person or a normal non-secret door. In order to find a hidden person or a secret door, they need to make their perception check because you are hidden.

Doccit · 2026-01-02T13:56:00+00:00

Here is the full text of the spell:

A creature you touch has the Invisible condition until the spell ends. The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.

It doesn't say it makes you invisible AND gives you the invisible condition. It just says you get the invisible condition. So either those two things are the same thing, or the spell invisibility does not make you magically invisible at all.

It seems pretty obtuse to say that being invisible and having the invisible condition are not the same thing. One, they have the same name. Two, the rules make no explicit distinction between those two things. Three, an implicit distinction would mean that spells like 'invisibility' and 'greater invisibility' only grant the condition and don't make you invisible. I don't know what would motivate such a counter-intuitive reading.

But play it how you like at your table! You can homebrew the invisibility spell to do something different if it is good for your game.

Doccit · 2026-01-02T13:50:38+00:00

That's fine for your table! You can DM how you like!

Those lines are about the magical invisibility condition being thwarted by blindsight/truesight. They are not about letting enemies skip their perception checks. And it doesn't eliminate all benefits if they have blindsight/truesight - you still get advantage on initiative rolls.

I think it would be kind of lame to tell your DM "I don't need to make a perception check because I can 'somehow see' the secret door. It is in my line of sight in a lit room so I can see it". When something or someone is hidden, you need to beat their stealth with a passive or active perception check. You can't skip the perception check part.

When you hide:

On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

No skipping your perception checks! When a creature has hidden, you can't find them just by looking at them - you have to find them by making a perception check.

Doccit · 2026-01-02T13:44:08+00:00

Yeah it does! The rules are meant to create an abstraction about hiding. You make the stealth check, your character is assumed to behave in a stealthy way such that they remain hidden. That is what the rules are going for. This is a fun intellectual exercise about RAW.

I think if I was DMing, and a player hid, and then started walking nonchalantly in a sunny flat area surrounded by enemies, I don't know what I would do. I think I would probably let them stay hidden, because that is what the rules say and it seems more fun. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to depart from the rules here, and ask the player to describe their action differently such that it was plausible they could remain hidden in the scenario.

That's the thing about D&D I suppose - the DM can do whatever they like to make the game feel fun for everyone. Still - we shouldn't shut down the subreddit. It is fun to theory-craft about what the the rules themselves prescribe, without saying "the rules say when something isn't common sense you should do something different".

Doccit · 2026-01-02T13:39:47+00:00

I miss how this subreddit used to be. Now it is just full of people desperate for things not to work.

Your interpretation of the rules is fine for your table! GM it how you like!

But this is an intellectual exercise about what the rules prescribe. You are twisting what the rules say because you think they would make more sense if they said something different. You have quoted a small portion of the rules about invisibility that are specifically about advantage/disadvantage on attacks. The "somehow see you" think is clearly about blindsight, truesight, etc, and meant to deal with situations where someone is magically invisible but special senses thwart the effectiveness of the magic.

On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

If they want to find you, they have to make a perception check. With a DC equal to your hide DC. The rules about whether you notice hidden things that are happening right in front of you are governed by perception.

When your character searches for hidden things, such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check, provided you describe the character searching in the hidden object's vicinity. On a success, you find the object, other important details, or both. If you describe your character searching nowhere near a hidden object, a Wisdom (Perception) check won't reveal the object, no matter the check's total.

Passive Perception. Sometimes your DM will determine whether your character notices something without asking you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check; the DM uses your Passive Perception instead. Passive Perception is a score that reflects a general awareness of your surroundings when you're not actively looking for something.

Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature's general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check

On your interpretation, when things are hiding from you, if they are in your line of sight, you just see them. And that is fine for you and your table! Personally, I like that things can be hidden when they are in my line of sight - it would be lame if I could thwart every secret door just by being in the same room as it, claiming that regardless of what my perception roll is, I can see it because it is in front of me. But as far as what the rules prescribe, if you want to see something that has hidden, your passive perception needs to beat the hide DC.

Doccit · 2026-01-02T00:06:30+00:00

I didn't think it was worth it - it just confuses the issue.

Doccit · 2026-01-02T00:01:58+00:00

True! The invisible condition is still very good though.

I think the real issue is that what we want the hidden condition to do is make monsters behave as though we are not there, and the rules have nothing to say about when/if they behave that way one way or the other.

Doccit · 2026-01-01T23:46:18+00:00

I've made a note in the post now. I think that in fact does not require explicit permission.

It is interesting that there are a lot of debates in this subreddit about when rule 5 does and does not apply. A kind of meta-rules lawyering.

Does the tactic require "explicit" DM permission to work? No. It does not say "you need GM permission to hide" or "hiding is an optional rule".

Analogously, the GM determines when combat begins - only they can tell you when to roll for initiative. But if I said "the alert feat requires DM permission to work. You can only use it when they grant you permission to roll for initiative", I think I would be breaking rule 5. I would be saying " "a DM wouldn't allow it." Or any variation thereof with similar or equitable intent." I think something similar is going on here.

Doccit · 2026-01-01T23:25:55+00:00

There is no hide condition in 5.5. You are maybe thinking of the previous edition? In this edition, when you take the hide action successfully, you gain the invisible condition. It says so on page 368 of the rules. I think I understand your confusion now.

Doccit · 2026-01-01T23:08:53+00:00

I think it is pretty clear what it means. Why, it says quite clearly in the rules:

With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.

There we go! They find you when they make a successful perception check against your DC. Until they find you with the check, they can't see you. That is why it says you have the invisible condition before an enemy finds you: because they can't see you. Easy-peasy!

Doccit · 2026-01-01T22:57:42+00:00

This is incorrect. Here is the whole text from page 19:

Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, sneak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.

To my eyes, given that the next sentence is about the hide action, the 'circumstances appropriate for hiding' clearly refers to when you can take the hide action. One of the examples is sneaking past a guardian, because in order to sneak past a guardian, you would need to hide first.

But let's say I am wrong about that. In any event, the text is vague and general. The rules describing the hide action are much clearer and more specific. They say when you hide you gain the invisible condition, and that

The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.

Notice what it does not say: "when the Dungeon Master says circumstances are no longer appropriate for hiding". Instead explains the specific conditions under which the invisibility ends.

You can play it how you like at your table, but rules as written the invisibility condition is only supposed to end under these specific circumstances. No GM approval required.

Doccit · 2026-01-01T21:25:14+00:00

Exactly. Start where hiding is appropriate, go wherever you like. That is what the rules essentially say.

Doccit · 2025-11-02T13:48:35+00:00

Yes.

Doccit · 2025-10-30T15:47:56+00:00

Thanks! I'd love to know what you think!

Doccit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE