Search results

No, it doesn't. See my later post. I was basing it on what the article in the OP claimed, but that was incorrect. The actual rules are much the same as 2014.

It seems a simple enough module to ignore. Nothing else really hinges on it afaict. Monsters don't use them either (perhaps the MM will present it as an option for named NPCs or something) so it certainly won't break the game. I don't think any of the effects are powerful enough to significantly...

Oh, actually, it turns out the rules for drawing and stowing weapons are no different from before, from what I can tell. So you can in fact only equip or unequip one weapon as part of making an attack with it. So no switching from greatsword to rapiers and back again. Also, Dual Wielder...

Yes, actually, you could use the greatsword for your regular attack, switch to a scimitar for Extra Attack (+Light/Nick attack), then back to greatsword for your DW bonus action attack. Dual Wielder specifies it doesn't. Sorry, should have included that. TWF also only affects the attack you get...

Okay, so if I'm following all these interactions properly: Wielding two Light weapons lets you make an extra attack with one of those weapons as a bonus action (no bonus damage from your ability modifier). The Nick weapon mastery (found on scimitars, among other things) lets you make the extra...

It's not really a thread about coming up with the best stealth rules - it's a thread to discuss the ones that the forthcoming edition of D&D has, and how to interpret them. Some people consider them a total mess, others think they're merely ambiguous, and some think they work fine. In amongst...

Having now seen significantly more of the PHB and all of the rules covering stealth, hiding, vision, etc., I have some thoughts. First of all, it really is the Player's Handbook, huh? The actual rules are pretty sparse, and there's almost zero guidance for a DM running the game! A lot of stuff...

Fair point. Actually, do the rules for attacks generally require a target to be seen? Because if they do - and now I'm typing it out, I find it hard to believe they don't - then there absolutely is something in the Invisible condition that prevents attacks being made against you, and you can...

The monster could make an opportunity attack and have disadvantage on the attack roll, as per the Invisible condition. Nothing in the Invisible condition prevents you being attacked. And after being attacked, I think it would be a fair ruling to say the PC had made a "noise louder than a...

Okay, that's just...not what proving a negative even means.

I'm not saying it isn't that. I'm saying it isn't necessarily that. It can't always be that, because then how would Hide work? And the spells grant the condition, but they also tell you how it applies and how you can lose it, with implications for the game's fiction about what's actually going on.

No, that's asking me to prove a negative - you're asking me to find you were it says something isn't something else. That's not how D&D's rules work. I could equally ask you to show me where it says a Longsword doesn't deal 33d10 damage. The rules say what they do, not what they don't do, or the...

That's a fair point. We don't have the vision rules yet. I've been reading "somehow sees you" as being a reference to Blindsight, Truesight, etc., with which ones might apply dependent on the method by which you gain the Invisible condition. There may be some more "common sense" approaches...

Um. Isn't that what I've been saying...? The Invisible condition does what it says it does, which is just the three things listed (Surprise, Concealment, Attacks Affected). Whether you get it from the Hide action or by casting a spell or having a magic item or whatever, that's what the condition...

The rules are right there on page 1, man. It says what the Invisible condition actually does. There's nothing else there.

Well, as I've said a couple of times, while Hide and Invisibility both grant the Invisible condition, they both impose different methods of losing it which change how they work to some extent. Much like how you might get the Poisoned condition from being bitten by a snake or from a demon cursing...

And it does require some rewiring of your brain. Multiple people in this thread have challenged me on saying that the Invisible condition says nothing about not actually being visible in the way that most of us understand it, as if I personally don't know what the word means. This isn't coming...

Yeah, everyone is bouncing off that "you have the Invisible condition" bit in the Hide action, and struggling to come back from that. Look back at my posts in this thread: I've had to reiterate that, in rules terms, "Invisible" doesn't mean "invisible" time and time again. It all works, it just...

I just wish they'd called the Invisible condition Concealed or something. That's all this is: semantic confusion. The rules work fine if you don't get hung up on the fact that Invisible doesn't mean what you think it means based on how things have worked in the past.

It isn't the same condition - the Invisible condition granted by the Hide action is contingent on other factors, such as not making noise. So no, I would not necessarily rule it the same way because it's a different situation.