Search results

Right, but if it doesn’t end when an enemy looks at you, neither must the invisible condition when granted by the Hide action, since it doesn’t say otherwise. Again, this is very obviously not intended, but it is what the rules literally say (or rather, don’t say).

They do not, because again, the invisibility spell obviously isn’t supposed to end when a creature looks at you, but doesn’t say so, implying that the condition it grants should not normally end under those circumstances. But the hide action grants the same condition and does not specify that a...

Well, I stand corrected. That’s way more complex than I thought it was.

It’s been a minute since I played, but I thought it used radii rather than cones.

I’m not interested in trying to help a problematic DM-player dynamic, I just think the rules should actually say how they’re obviously meant to work. Not sure about the 3rd party game, but BG3 handles it in a way that a human couldn’t reasonably reproduce. You can press a button to crouch, and...

If this ruling is such common sense, what’s the problem with the rules text just saying it explicitly, for the benefit of those whose sense is not so common?

The name of the condition isn’t the problem. The problem is that people have different intuitive expectations about the results of the two most common sources of the condition, yet neither the condition itself nor those two sources explicitly define what happens when someone directly looks at...

I’m not making any argument to the contrary. I’m saying most reasonable people have an intuitive expectation that a magic spell called invisibility would make you transparent, and hiding behind a tree would not, and the rules as written do not meet that intuitive expectation.

Who’s “you all”? I’ve been on record requesting more technically precise language since D&D Next.

I agree they aren’t antithetical, but that extra work is pretense in a literal sense. You’re doing that extra work to present a more convincing illusion that the game mechanics represent real things. The underlying truth will always be that they’re just game mechanics though. To be clear, I...

Other than survival instead of perception, this tracks pretty closely with what I arrived at by walking through the basic play pattern, so I’d call that a pretty solid fishing rule. Survival makes plenty of sense here too; I’d personally say either option works.

I’m sorry, do you intuitively expect a different result than magical invisibility making you unable to be seen when a creature looks directly at you, and hiding not doing that?

Oh, I think I have that book, maybe I’ll check that adventure when I get home to help inform my feedback. Odd that it has this bonus for number of fish caught but doesn’t include rules for how the players are expected to go about catching them…

That’s fine, but there are still a lot of people who strongly prefer when the game pretends it works that way.

13th Age does this, it’s pretty cool. I think Dungeon World might too, though I don’t remember for sure. Well, I’m sure it wasn’t acceptable to all players then, and it wouldn’t be now either. Different people have different preferences in this regard. But I’ll say for me, the 13th Age approach...

Sure, but there’s a lot of daylight between monsters built like PCs and monster damage being completely unrelated to the weapons they use (or more accurately, monster equipment being completely unrelated to the damage they deal, since ultimately they’re always going to deal whatever damage their...

Well, think about it in terms of the fundamental play pattern. What are the players trying to accomplish and how? I would assume trying to catch a fish by casting a line with a hook and bait. Can that fail? Absolutely. How? Well first of all, a fish might not bite. Does that have a meaningful...

For a lot of folks, they’d rather a feature explicitly state that it’s giving such a bonus. Or at least like, have it be 1d8+1 slashing damage and 1d12 poison damage since it’s already doing extra damage via poison on its bow attacks anyway. Just something to make it feel more like the longsword...

Yes, but the current rules for the hide action mention it as an explicit case of a circumstance in which you can hide. I was using “an enemy gains line of sight to you” as kind of a shorthand for “when you no longer meet the requirements to take the Hide action.” Makes sense to me, I like that...

This is where DM discretion comes into play. The rules already say the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, which I think is as it should be. The problem is that they don’t leave the same room for the DM to determine when a character is no longer hidden. I think being...