D&D 5E What Rules do you see people mistake or misapply?

[Oofta]

Speaking of proving stuff, can you show me where I ever made that argument? Or even broached it? That has nothing to do with the point I've been making about your example. Maybe you could just send me that Ulysses S. Grant when you've fail to find it?...

What other argument are you making? I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove or argue, other than to provoke a response so you can reply with a "gotcha".

My argument is simple: there are situations where an invisible creature can be detected and situations where they cannot unless you have supernatural abilities.

 

[Yunru]

Well while I can't see Corwin because he's blocked I would still like responses to my situations pour favour.

With the invisible stalker, can I not feel the air currents when I am close?
With the invisible potted plant, does it not leave a clean patch where dust cannot settle?

 

[Corwin]

What other argument are you making?

The only one I've expressed in this thread. You responded to it. You just failed to address it. Its not even a trick question or anything. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it. Maybe you could give it another go? This time responding to what I actually wrote, rather than what you wanted me to have asked?

 

[Corwin]

Well while I can't see Corwin because he's blocked...

The way this new ignore function works still takes some getting used to. But I think I like it.

[also notices subtle mimicking of my points...]

 

[Oofta]

And as a DM you can *STILL* do so. You say, The invisible stalker / statue has a stealth check of XYZ. The PC's only get Passive perception, and if that number isn't high enough, they don't notice the invisibility (unless they are actively looking). With a +10 skill, and invisible, a passive perception of 25 could easily be the target number.

Nothing I've seen says invisibility is 100% perfect in it's application. In fact the rules kinda support otherwise. Perhaps there is a shimmer in the air, a slight flicker, a refraction of the light... something. In fact *per* the monster manual:



So in fact and invisible stalker, standing perfectly still, DOES do things to give away its presence (it makes noise and likely stirs up dust/whatever).

The invisible statue, could easily be doing the same. Of course you as the DM can easily say "DM Fiat, you guys suck, and you have no means of detecting this super trap that I have made!!! Bwahahaha!"

I'm still waiting for someone to show where it states you have to take the hide action to be undetected in the book. Because this thread is not supposed to be about how you run your game, but what the rules say.

Use hyperbole and avoid the subject all you want, that doesn't change the rule or lack therein.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well while I can't see Corwin because he's blocked I would still like responses to my situations pour favour.

With the invisible stalker, can I not feel the air currents when I am close?
With the invisible potted plant, does it not leave a clean patch where dust cannot settle?

Which again, you detect automatically? That's the issue I have. Should be a high perception check. Some guy invisibly flies away in a fight... you don't get to automatically know where they are.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What of the dust-free spot the invisible plant's base is resting on?

Which could be dust free because there was a perfectly visible plant taken away 2 min ago.

 

[Oofta]

The only one I've expressed in this thread. You responded to it. You just failed to address it. Its not even a trick question or anything. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it. Maybe you could give it another go? This time responding to what I actually wrote, rather than what you wanted me to have asked?

Your link doesn't work.

EDIT: to be clear, it goes to a page, but not a specific post.

 

[Corwin]

Your link doesn't work.

EDIT: to be clear, it goes to a page, but not a specific post.

Huh. Weird. Works for me when I clicked on it. Takes me to post #168 (by my login's count). The one I came into this conversation with. Directly quoting you. The one you responded to but failed to address. If your browser is having trouble, just scroll up a bit. I'm sure you'll find it easily enough. It was only about an hour-and-a-half ago.

 

[Oofta]

Huh. Weird. Works for me when I clicked on it. Takes me to post #168 (by my login's count). The one I came into this conversation with. Directly quoting you. The one you responded to but failed to address. If your browser is having trouble, just scroll up a bit. I'm sure you'll find it easily enough. It was only about an hour-and-a-half ago.

Or you could just ... I don't know ... copy and paste.