Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8097871" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Again, the default is that you know where a creature is unless it's hidden from you.&nbsp; Invisibility took great care to not say that you are hidden, but instead that you can always try to hide.&nbsp; I get where you're coming from -- you have a picture in your head that's hard to reconcile with this approach.&nbsp; However, unless we're going to make an argument that the rules never state that you know where another creature is explicitly, then we can only go with what Invisibility explicitly says.&nbsp; That's how the exception based bundle of rules that are spells are intended to operate -- they tell you exactly what they do differently.&nbsp; If was going to make the argument that you don't automatically detect creatures absent being hidden, then we're now in a really weird place where I'm can make lots of nonsensical arguments about what might happen.&nbsp; I think it a good idea to stick to the idea that creatures are detected unless hidden, or unless the GM rules so due to situations in the environment.&nbsp; At which point, invisibility shouldn't be, by itself, a reason to rule non-detection occurs because the rules for invisibility had that option available and instead deliberately chose a lesser stance.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8097871, member: 16814"] Again, the default is that you know where a creature is unless it's hidden from you. Invisibility took great care to not say that you are hidden, but instead that you can always try to hide. I get where you're coming from -- you have a picture in your head that's hard to reconcile with this approach. However, unless we're going to make an argument that the rules never state that you know where another creature is explicitly, then we can only go with what Invisibility explicitly says. That's how the exception based bundle of rules that are spells are intended to operate -- they tell you exactly what they do differently. If was going to make the argument that you don't automatically detect creatures absent being hidden, then we're now in a really weird place where I'm can make lots of nonsensical arguments about what might happen. I think it a good idea to stick to the idea that creatures are detected unless hidden, or unless the GM rules so due to situations in the environment. At which point, invisibility shouldn't be, by itself, a reason to rule non-detection occurs because the rules for invisibility had that option available and instead deliberately chose a lesser stance. [/QUOTE]

Verification