Search results

That is now a nasty spell, there is no real getting away from it outside of putting range or cover between you and the caster.

I completely agree, I think that making regular invisible as a hidden/not noticed condition is much better way of looking at this and I think that is the way I will go with it.

No, but they have had spells that do not do what they say in the tin before. For the record, I have always found regular invisibility to be a problem and would much prefer it as a spell that cause people to ignore you rather than a true invisibility. It makes coordination in infiltration...

Find traps is pretty notorious and since 2014 and it is apparently unchanged in the new rules, fails to actually find any traps.

I will respond with "Find Traps"

Personally, I would be quite happy with nerfing the invisibility spell to a type of SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) field. In other word, basic invisibility dos does not prevent others from seeing you, but it means that they generally ignore you because they believe that you are somebody else's...

Looks like a classic case of group think. It works for them because of some shared assumptions but they have not shared those assumption with us.

They also say specifically that "being found" also breaks the invisibility condition.

Fair point but the finding still ends the invisible condition at such point, presumably the character is observable.

That is a fair point but in the meanwhile, we have to wrestle this beast down and make sense of it.

Not sure what you mean here, it appears to have a double negative. Do you mean that there are ruling that invisible is not the same as hidden? What is the source?

In one of teh earlier UAs they did have a hidden condition which was (if memory serves ) nearly identical to the current Invisible condition.

Yes! but in the interest of making this somewhat narratively sane, I would suggest that "A creature find you" includes but is not limited to the Search Action.

The condition (Invisible) ends on making a sound louder than a whisper, the enemy find you, you make an attack roll or cast a spell with a verbal component. I believe your claim is that the only way to find the invisible character is by a search action but the sentence saying why the condition...

Technically correct but the claim is that the Hide action confers invisible of the "cannot be seen type" and thus the character can walk past the guard. Now if the guard can break the invisible condition with a search (perception), that is, a good look se with the mark one eyeball then clearly...

I think that any legitimate way of finding the hidden character has to count. Otherwise, why say it? Also, if the character is invisible as per "cannot be seen" then how does a search (perception) break the Invisible condition in the first place?

They did say that somebody did, and I would love to know how many other did. It is perfectly possible that very few people commented on this.

As did I and commented on them about my issues with the invisible condition in each UA they appeared.

This is pretty much my take on the matter also. I think it is a sensible approach and allows the classic sneak up on the guard and cold cock him.

I think that the biggest advantage for a DM is this reduces cognitive load. The pcs are in stealth mode, the guards if alert are taking a search action every round and perhaps less often if they are less alert and the DM can roll a search for the guard to find the PCs and only worry about the...