NOW LIVE FOR 14 DAYS ONLY! -- Archetype Anthology: A Dozen Archetypes for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! From dual-wielding tempests to planar explorers -- a softcover collection of new archetypes for your 5th Edition game!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8097741" data-attributes="member: 6855114">There are limits and there are limits. At some point, I agree that the possibility to defend yourself against an invisible opponent was much needed and at a certain point the nerf was and still is necessary.  But beyond a certain point, the nerf becomes a joke exactly because the nerf goes too far and as many have shown isn't even truly supported both by the rules and the logic. Blindly applying a rule might be RAW but certainly not RAI. The goal is to give a fighting chance to actually hit an invisible opponent in combat. When an invisi le opponent is more than a hundred feet, it should not be so easy to determine his exact position.Now if the invisible one were to fire projectiles or cantrip or spells, then it would be an other matter. The arrow would be visible as soon as it is fired, the fire bolt would trace a neat path as to where the invisble one is. His voice could reveal his position too. But just moving away does not and should not reveal your exact location.</blockquote>