Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8097456" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, by the rules [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER] isn't right, nor are you.&nbsp; Page 4 of the PHB tells us that the GM determines if an action succeeds, fails, or is uncertain, and, if uncertain, to use the mechanics (ability checks and the like).&nbsp; So, by the rules, the first pass is for the GM to determine what chance of success the guard has in this situation.&nbsp; It's only if the GM decides that it's uncertain that the guard might notice the monk do we turn to the mechanics.&nbsp; And, at that point, the mechanics heavily suggest that the monk can be locatable.&nbsp; Still, by the rules, this only happens if the GM first determines it's uncertain that the monk is detected and then that those mechanics are the proper ones to adjudicate this situation.That said, the rules do strongly suggest that an invisible creature is not automatically hidden, especially in combat, but page 4 exists because GM's need to consider the situation and not blindly apply one-size-fits-all adjudications that create absurd situations.&nbsp; My preferences is to stick to the rules as much as possible because that creates a stable assumption set so players can make good decisions about risk/reward for a given action, but temper that with what's going on in the fiction.&nbsp; It seems pretty ludicrous to have a invisible monk 100' away from a guard and just watching to be automatically noticed.&nbsp; Of course, there's another great tool you could use here, but it isn't widely liked -- don't narrate what the monk does until after it's determined if he's detected.&nbsp; This lets you narrate a clear reason why the monk was detected instead of trying to align previously narrated fiction with an adverse mechanical outcome.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8097456, member: 16814"] No, by the rules [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER] isn't right, nor are you. Page 4 of the PHB tells us that the GM determines if an action succeeds, fails, or is uncertain, and, if uncertain, to use the mechanics (ability checks and the like). So, by the rules, the first pass is for the GM to determine what chance of success the guard has in this situation. It's only if the GM decides that it's uncertain that the guard might notice the monk do we turn to the mechanics. And, at that point, the mechanics heavily suggest that the monk can be locatable. Still, by the rules, this only happens if the GM first determines it's uncertain that the monk is detected and then that those mechanics are the proper ones to adjudicate this situation. That said, the rules do strongly suggest that an invisible creature is not automatically hidden, especially in combat, but page 4 exists because GM's need to consider the situation and not blindly apply one-size-fits-all adjudications that create absurd situations. My preferences is to stick to the rules as much as possible because that creates a stable assumption set so players can make good decisions about risk/reward for a given action, but temper that with what's going on in the fiction. It seems pretty ludicrous to have a invisible monk 100' away from a guard and just watching to be automatically noticed. Of course, there's another great tool you could use here, but it isn't widely liked -- don't narrate what the monk does until after it's determined if he's detected. This lets you narrate a clear reason why the monk was detected instead of trying to align previously narrated fiction with an adverse mechanical outcome. [/QUOTE]

Verification