Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8417218" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Ugh, okay, one last comment I guess, because this is actually a fairly interesting point.That's what's wrong (in your opinion) with the rules. Jeremy's sage advice simply explains what those rules are. It may help to think about how total cover works. If you don't make a stealth check to hide, you don't have advantage on attacks and attacks against you don't have disadvantage. You just can't be seen directly. You can compare this to the wording of invisibility. If the rules were that not being seen gives you advantage and others disadvantage, the second point of invisibility would be completely redundant. In such a case, that benefit would instead be conferred by having total concealment, and the text for invisible would simply note that you have total concealment. Instead, the invisible condition confers certain benefits, and in order to counteract those benefits without removing the condition, a second effect has to say that it does so. So, you can target a creature, and it can't try to hide without gaining concealment some other way, but by RAW it still has the benefits of invisibility that aren't explicitly canceled by the spell. The spell doesn't say, &quot;invisible creatures are not invisible&quot;, it says you can see them as if they were visible. Those are not the same statement. To avoid feeling compelled to do this again, I won't be looking at any notifications I get for posts in this thread, any longer. Have fun, folks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8417218, member: 6704184"] Ugh, okay, one last comment I guess, because this is actually a fairly interesting point. That's what's wrong (in your opinion) with the rules. Jeremy's sage advice simply explains what those rules are. It may help to think about how total cover works. If you don't make a stealth check to hide, you don't have advantage on attacks and attacks against you don't have disadvantage. You just can't be seen directly. You can compare this to the wording of invisibility. If the rules were that not being seen gives you advantage and others disadvantage, the second point of invisibility would be completely redundant. In such a case, that benefit would instead be conferred by having total concealment, and the text for invisible would simply note that you have total concealment. Instead, the invisible condition confers certain benefits, and in order to counteract those benefits without removing the condition, a second effect has to say that it does so. So, you can target a creature, and it can't try to hide without gaining concealment some other way, but by RAW it still has the benefits of invisibility that aren't explicitly canceled by the spell. The spell doesn't say, "invisible creatures are not invisible", it says you can see them as if they were visible. Those are not the same statement. To avoid feeling compelled to do this again, I won't be looking at any notifications I get for posts in this thread, any longer. Have fun, folks. [/QUOTE]

Verification