Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8097865" data-attributes="member: 16814">Is the default assumption that you notice other creatures?&nbsp; I say yes, this is the general rule.Does Invisibility directly alter this assumption?&nbsp; I say it does not.&nbsp; If it were to do so, it would specifically state so.&nbsp; Instead, it specifically states a lesser position, that invisible creatures may always try to hide.&nbsp; I don't think this is a redundant statement to an inferred intent that invisibility should largely trump the general rule of noticing other creatures.&nbsp; Instead, it points to the already established way to avoid notice -- hiding.&nbsp; In other words, Invisibility has specific language on how it interacts with hiding, which is to say it enables it more broadly than usual, but no language at all on if invisibility makes you less likely to be notices.So, what does this mean?&nbsp; To me, it's still clear that the default assumption is that creatures are noticed unless they're hidden or the situation/environment calls on the GM to make a ruling.&nbsp; Invisibility, despite having every opportunity, doesn't change this, instead it specifically addresses enabling hiding.&nbsp; So, invisibility, by itself, doesn't alter the general rule.&nbsp; However, given that the GM is expected to make rulings on how to apply the rules of the game to specific situations, it's clear that the general rule for noticing creatures isn't set in stone but strong guidance to the GM on how to rule.&nbsp; As such, I would not say that invisibility alone can cause you to lose track of a creature.&nbsp; If the situation would be one that I would already consider to need looking at to determine if a creature gets to be hidden (as in location unknown), then, yeah, being invisible's going to weigh heavily in that favor.&nbsp; Narratively, this is pretty easy to describe, if you haven't pre-decided to not to, at least.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8097865, member: 16814"] Is the default assumption that you notice other creatures? I say yes, this is the general rule. Does Invisibility directly alter this assumption? I say it does not. If it were to do so, it would specifically state so. Instead, it specifically states a lesser position, that invisible creatures may always try to hide. I don't think this is a redundant statement to an inferred intent that invisibility should largely trump the general rule of noticing other creatures. Instead, it points to the already established way to avoid notice -- hiding. In other words, Invisibility has specific language on how it interacts with hiding, which is to say it enables it more broadly than usual, but no language at all on if invisibility makes you less likely to be notices. So, what does this mean? To me, it's still clear that the default assumption is that creatures are noticed unless they're hidden or the situation/environment calls on the GM to make a ruling. Invisibility, despite having every opportunity, doesn't change this, instead it specifically addresses enabling hiding. So, invisibility, by itself, doesn't alter the general rule. However, given that the GM is expected to make rulings on how to apply the rules of the game to specific situations, it's clear that the general rule for noticing creatures isn't set in stone but strong guidance to the GM on how to rule. As such, I would not say that invisibility alone can cause you to lose track of a creature. If the situation would be one that I would already consider to need looking at to determine if a creature gets to be hidden (as in location unknown), then, yeah, being invisible's going to weigh heavily in that favor. Narratively, this is pretty easy to describe, if you haven't pre-decided to not to, at least. [/QUOTE]

Verification