Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Volund" data-source="post: 7095706" data-attributes="member: 6872597"><p>But it wasn't moving silently. It was a large, heavy creature engaged in melee in a stone tunnel. It wasn't moving or acting in a way that allows creatures to be hidden, and wasn't under a silence spell. My point was that an invisible creature standing in front of you hitting you with melee attacks should just have the benefit of being invisible, not the benefit of being hidden because it isn't trying to hide. I think that was the distinction JC was trying to make in the podcast - stealth and invisibility are not the same, and invisibility should not by itself grant the benefits of stealth. My beef in the encounter I mentioned was that the DM, instead of just giving the shield guardian the standard benefits of invisibility, invented a new mechanic for combating invisible creatures which required us to pick a square to attack with disadvantage. If we hit something, we knew where it was for that turn and that turn only. The next turn it would move and the whole process of trying to locate it by targeting random squares started over again. He even ruled that being hit by it gave us no clue where the attack was coming from. I think he was just improvising to try to make the encounter work like he envisioned. He's a good DM. I just mentioned it because we had the encounter just a few days before I heard the podcast. I was contrasting Crawford's statement - that characters who are looking for an invisible creature will know its general location if it isn't trying to hide - with how my DM ruled that an invisible creature that isn't trying to hide is impossible to find unless you hit it with a weapon.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Volund, post: 7095706, member: 6872597"] But it wasn't moving silently. It was a large, heavy creature engaged in melee in a stone tunnel. It wasn't moving or acting in a way that allows creatures to be hidden, and wasn't under a silence spell. My point was that an invisible creature standing in front of you hitting you with melee attacks should just have the benefit of being invisible, not the benefit of being hidden because it isn't trying to hide. I think that was the distinction JC was trying to make in the podcast - stealth and invisibility are not the same, and invisibility should not by itself grant the benefits of stealth. My beef in the encounter I mentioned was that the DM, instead of just giving the shield guardian the standard benefits of invisibility, invented a new mechanic for combating invisible creatures which required us to pick a square to attack with disadvantage. If we hit something, we knew where it was for that turn and that turn only. The next turn it would move and the whole process of trying to locate it by targeting random squares started over again. He even ruled that being hit by it gave us no clue where the attack was coming from. I think he was just improvising to try to make the encounter work like he envisioned. He's a good DM. I just mentioned it because we had the encounter just a few days before I heard the podcast. I was contrasting Crawford's statement - that characters who are looking for an invisible creature will know its general location if it isn't trying to hide - with how my DM ruled that an invisible creature that isn't trying to hide is impossible to find unless you hit it with a weapon. [/QUOTE]

Verification