Search results

I had said elsewhere that the updated rules seem to be taking some inspiration from 4E. I already thought that may be the case back when the fey warlock and warden* (can't exactly remember what it was called in the preview) classes were shown. Looking at the monster statblocks and how...

Note that the 2024 version specifies the "invisible condition."

The options for actions a mount can take are even less than they already were. As I understand it, a warhorse can no longer attack if it has a rider.

From what I've seen of the new mounted combat rules, those aren't particularly good either.

I've played in enough Adventurer’s League sessions to not be surprised by what a player might attempt to do based on the rules. In addition, as I've said already, there are D&D rules which violate what would make sense in real life, yet they are both RAW and RAI. Absurd? Sure Clear intent...

A lot of things in D&D don't exist in real life. That doesn't mean you cannot use what we do know and extrapolate information. However, even with that, there are times that D&D specifies that things work in-game differently than they would in real life. Other examples include (but are not...

There are prototypes for invisibility cloaks that function by manipulation of light. Infrared light is normally not visible, but there are real-world methods for being able to observe that it is there. Even ignoring that, camouflage and invisibility are defined differently in relation to how...

Some creatures make use of the Ethereal plane to teleport. Such a creature wouldn't get the drop on a Kua-Toa

I do have a double negative there. What I meant to say is that contemporary D&D hasn't always counted being invisible as being hidden. I could be mistaken, but I vaguely recall invisible creatures still needing to make stealth checks to still not be noticed. I'm away from books at the...

That's a good point. Though, oddly, some contemporary D&D rulings have suggested that being invisible doesn't necessarily mean that you are not hidden. Which in and of itself is weird, but that's pre-5e24, so... 🤷‍♂️ Maybe the guard is a dwarf and has tremorsense. You raise a good point...

By beating the DC set by the stealth check

John Cena aside, Camouflage ≠ Invisibility in the real world. There are a lot of things (shields, hitpoints, ranged attacks) that function very differently in D&D than they do in virtually any context outside of D&D. I would guess that it is not Rules as Intended, but I cannot say that with...

Logical from the perspective of how an average person understands eyesight to work? No. Logical from the perspective of the game's established "logic" processes for how Invisible is defined? Yes. Do I personally think it's ridiculous that a DC 15 check leads to a better version of...

Gaining the condition and losing the condition are both defined. I agree with you that the three things you mention are required to use the stealth skill route to gaining the condition. Once the condition is gained, losing it requires one of the things listed for how the condition is lost...

While I believe that makes sense, that's not currently how the invisible condition is stated to work.

Are the guards able to see invisible creatures?

I can see (no pun intended) how that ruling would make sense. However, that is not how the current rules are written. The three conditions you listed are what needs to occur for a PC to gain the Invisible condition. Once the Invisible condition is gained, the Invisible condition lists the...

The general vibe of the layout and how rules options (including keywords) are highlighted... I'm not saying it's a bad thing. My first impressions are simply that a little bit of 4E influence made it into the updated version of the rules. If I could pick something else to add from 4E, I think...