Search results

1) That's tough to say. I haven't regularly watched the past few, so I'm not even really sure what is currently considered an Olympic Sport. That being said, the few clips I've seen of Breaking have negatively skewed how I would perceive that. 2) Biathalon 3) Why isn't pole dancing an Olympic...

For me, it depends upon how the game handles equipment, using equipment, and whether or not choices of equipment matter. A big equipment list that does nothing for my character. For example, if a game lists 20 weapons but either a) there is no tangible difference to any of them OR b) 1 or 2...

Back during the 5th Edition playtest, I had thought that was the idea behind a modular ruleset. There would be a basic "core," and then different settings and modules could alter that to introduce other concepts. So, something like Birthright might introduce mass combat; Ravenloft would...

Leaving cover isn't currently listed as a way to lose it. That's one of the issues discussed in the other thread. So, if my character is a pacifist mime, he hides once and stays invisible effectively forever.

As was asked in the other threads, can a character take the Hide action while nobody is around and gain the Invisible condition? If so, even a level 1 character has roughly a 50/50 shot at free invisibility. (D20 + Dex mod + Proficiency bonus)

That's tough to say without the game including facing rules. I can think of a lot of scenarios in which it depends upon what the pieces involved are doing, but most of those scenarios involve things that typically aren't part of the D&D rules. However, I think that could be a reasonable...

Multiple people (including myself) have given ideas for how it might be fixed with as little as 2 or 3 sentences or by simply having a "hidden" condition as part of the game.

I think that's easy to say for someone experienced with the game. It also assumes that D&D often follows what would be intuitive. Questions I've had from new players have ranged from "why can't I target the giant eye of the [Beholder]" to "there aren't any rules that my deity can take away...

You asked how I would approach a player's attempt. I answered. To elaborate further: the check is not impossible; it is simply beyond their capabilities and is likely a poor choice of what to do. That's not much different than a player saying that they want to attempt to bash down an...

They can all somehow see you. They see you when you're sleeping. They know when you're awake.

That's part of what lead to the discussion in the other thread. No matter how you read it, there is a weird interaction with other areas of the rules.

Throughout the thread, I have agreed that the absurd results shouldn't be how it works. There are multiple easy ways to fix it. Though, to my knowledge, none of those ways are part of how the rules are written. It could be that the full PHB contains information that I do not yet have. It...

I think that could work. Alternatively, you could write a lot less by having a "hidden" condition, instead of trying to use "invisible" to mean multiple things.

Fair enough. Wizard: "I cast invisibility." DM: "The kobolds laugh at you for wasting a spell slot that does nothing, right before tossing their spears in your direction."

That's true. What do you posit would be the benefit of casting a spell that grants the Invisible condition?

Using normal vision, can you somehow see creatures who have the Invisible condition?

I agree that there are criteria for how the Invisible condition is gained or lost.

If they can "somehow see you" would cover things like scent, tremorsense, and possibly J.J. Abrams writing the third part of your campaign. Can you somehow see invisible creatures? I understand what you mean. I agree that, as written, results that I feel would be absurd occur. However, how...

Tremorsense (and other special senses) aren't in question. How do you see something that has the "Invisible condition" with normal sight?

The rules (from what very little I've heard thus far) specify that you gain the " invisible condition," and that is defined in a specific way. I'm not sure that makes the use of "invisible" easily understood.