D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[James Gasik]

...but awesome.

It is one of the high points of the game. Though the one time I played Rolemaster, I found myself on the Shock and Stress critical tables, and some of the results spawned some pointless bookkeeping (like permanently reducing an enemy's stats mid-combat, which then leads to having to do some derived characteristic calculations just for them to probably die from the next attack anyways).

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is one of the high points of the game. Though the one time I played Rolemaster, I found myself on the Shock and Stress critical tables, and some of the results spawned some pointless bookkeeping (like permanently reducing an enemy's stats mid-combat, which then leads to having to do some derived characteristic calculations just for them to probably die from the next attack anyways).

The first non D&D RPG I ever read was MERP. Fell in love with the crit tables right away.

 

[clearstream]

Just to clarify - @clearstream is stating that it is impossible to incapacitate minions since any damage "destroys" them. Therefore, @clearstream is pretty clearly stating that minions are immune to a specific condition - incapacitated (at least by dealing damage).

(Emphasis mine.) I indeed was saying that any amount of damage destroys a minion without giving the option to knock it unconscious. I did not at any point propose that they were immune to incapacitation through other means.

(As I wrote upthread it's true that "incapacitated" isn't a condition in 4e, but it is referenced on RC 234, which specifies that the "unconscious" condition "applies when a creature is knocked out, cast into a magical slumber, or otherwise incapacitated totally".)

 

[clearstream]

It's a 2nd level spell, a significant resource, especially at lower levels. It's VERY niche; if it doesn't work as advertised that's a big bummer for the player. It's literally the one thing the spell does.

It also SAYS you see invisible things as if they were visible. Not as some shimmering blurry thing. A player should have some warning if a DM will use this interpretation.

The first effect of the invisible condition can't deal with the possibility that it is simultaneously applicable and non-applicable. The game system doesn't handle a creature having advantage on initiative against some but not all of its opponents.

The second and third effects of the condition are explicitly disapplied if a creature "can somehow see you" so they are countered by see invisibility.

I suspect the designers saw this and consciously decided to leave it as it is. So if my character casts invisibility on itself I will at least get advantage on initiative, but I won't get the other two benefits if my foe has see invisibility running.

I suppose it bears mentioning that outside of the first turn of combat, see invisibility does just what would be expected: it counters the applicable effects of invisibility.

 

[Aldarc]

Why the heck are people still banging on about this?

Content generation.

 

[clearstream]

Content generation.

Also irony.

 

[Maxperson]

The first effect of the invisible condition can't deal with the possibility that it is simultaneously applicable and non-applicable. The game system doesn't handle a creature having advantage on initiative against some but not all of its opponents.

The second and third effects of the condition are explicitly disapplied if a creature "can somehow see you" so they are countered by see invisibility.

I suspect the designers saw this and consciously decided to leave it as it is. So if my character casts invisibility on itself I will at least get advantage on initiative, but I won't get the other two benefits if my foe has see invisibility running.

I suppose it bears mentioning that outside of the first turn of combat, see invisibility does just what would be expected: it counters the applicable effects of invisibility.

The blurry ruling stops more than just initiative issues. If the invisible person is blurry, I cannot tell if he is armed or not, or what he is armed with. I can't see if he is wearing armor or what kind. I can't see if he is wearing a spell component pouch or holy symbol.

By not allowing See Invisibility to do what it says it does, which is see the invisible creature as if it was visible, I am being deprived of a lot of relevant information, some of which could be critical to know.

 

[clearstream]

The blurry ruling stops more than just initiative issues. If the invisible person is blurry, I cannot tell if he is armed or not, or what he is armed with. I can't see if he is wearing armor or what kind. I can't see if he is wearing a spell component pouch or holy symbol.

By not allowing See Invisibility to do what it says it does, which is see the invisible creature as if it was visible, I am being deprived of a lot of relevant information, some of which could be critical to know.

Blurry? Where are folk getting blurry from?

 

[Maxperson]

Blurry? Where are folk getting blurry from?

The Jeremy Crawford ruling on the See Invisibility spell. He said that the reason why the invisible creature still had advantage on initiative was because the See Invisibility spell let you see the invisible person like people see the Predator when he is "invisible." You just see a blurry/shimmering creature outline.

 

[clearstream]

The Jeremy Crawford ruling on the See Invisibility spell. He said that the reason why the invisible creature still had advantage on initiative was because the See Invisibility spell let you see the invisible person like people see the Predator when he is "invisible." You just see a blurry/shimmering creature outline.

Terrible ruling, I wonder how well that works out at his table?

The 2024 edition seems to have improved on the 2014 game text, but I suspect for that the earlier version so long as one reads seeing something as it if were visible as synonymous with seeing that thing as if it were not invisible, it works out.