Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 7879893" data-attributes="member: 12377">Everybody (players and DMs) should carefully consider whether they want to participate in a game that relies on technicalities and loopholes like this. Some people really enjoy it -- it gets kind of like a puzzle, and it allows rules-savvy players to predict the outcomes of their decisions. OTOH, it can break immersion, and it actually makes it harder for non-rules-savvy players to predict the outcomes of their decisions.I think one of the problems with 5E is that it tries to straddle the line and have it both ways. It feels like they tried to write it in "natural language" but then at the last minute decided to precisely define things like the terminating conditions of invisibility. I can understand the desire for clarity, as the edge cases of magic spells can lead to some absurd situations. (In one of the Forgotten Realms novels a row of invisible trees is rigged to collapse on an approaching army as part of an ambush. When the trees begin falling, they become weapons used in an attack, and thus become visible.) But part of the promise of 5E was that edge-cases like this would be put explicitly under the DM's discretion.There are other spells that reference "harmful effects." For example, a lot of enchantment spells break or allow a new save "if you or your allies do anything harmful to the target." I swear I've also seen an invisibility-like effect that ended if you "attack, deal damage, or cause a creature to making a saving throw," but now I can't find it. My advice would be to patch invisibility to use language like this, on the grounds that this is how the spell is intended to work.</blockquote>

Verification