Search results

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.

I still think (as I said earlier in the thread) that the simplest solution would have been to include a "Hidden" condition. It could function similar to Invisible but it would also be a lesser version and have other criteria for how it is gained or lost. It would have overlap with Invisible...

That would make sense to me, and I think that would be a reasonable thing to have mentioned when writing the rules. Maybe the DMG will include more information.

They've already gained the invisible condition with the first hide. It would make sense to me to extrapolate that the character only be Invisible in relation to the target against which they were attempting to hide, but that would also be a houserule and not something currently supported by the...

I've never heard the name before reading this thread. Maybe somehow I've just always been in social groups that were not familiar with his work. I'll have to use some Google-fu and see if it's something I would enjoy. I'm glad to see fans supporting a product thst they believe in.

I would have them roll for the jump. As they wouldn't achieve the results necessary to make that jump height, they wouldn't. The issue with the invisibility is that, much like the established formula for jumping, the game establishes specific criteria that Invisibility is gained and specific...

And yet they do. A character could still attempt to do it. I used the rules to determine what their strength modifier would need to be to succeed. If a player insisted upon attempting it by jumping off of an airship or jumping from the top of a mountain peak or whatever, I would advise...

I'm not familiar with any of the names involved. What's the elevator pitch about the setting and about the playstyle?

Yesterday, I picked up Dungeon Crawl Classics.