Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8099382" data-attributes="member: 16814">Let's remind ourselves that the grid in D&amp;D is already a massive simplification and that an invisible creature, even if located to a grid space, is still very difficult to hit (disadvantage automatically).&nbsp; If you were to translate this to a less codified situation, &quot;locating&quot; an invisible creature means you can attack it and have a chance of hitting it.&nbsp; It just means you're not wildly guessing that something is out there and shooting entirely randomly.&nbsp; Invisibility in 5e already has this baked into the effect without turning it into a total guess.For example, in the OP, if the monk becomes hidden at 100', it doesn't help the monk at all because he was on the grid up to that point and then removed -- the players can easily guess that same square and have the exact same chance to hit the monk as if he was &quot;located&quot; to that square.&nbsp; So, then, it only matters if the monk becomes hidden earlier and then the players have no idea at all where the monk is -- no clues except his started off in that direction.&nbsp; If this is the result you think should obtain on the monk merely because he's invisible, cool, but that makes that effect super-duper powerful.&nbsp; The &quot;normal&quot; of locating just means you have a good enough guess so that if you make an attack you have a chance to hit.&nbsp; This is what the argument is about, not that you know exactly where the invisible creature is, but that you have a good enough guess that you have a chance to make a successful attack.&nbsp; The 5' square, while much less accurate a location that you seem to think it is, is just because that's how 5e sets things up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8099382, member: 16814"] Let's remind ourselves that the grid in D&D is already a massive simplification and that an invisible creature, even if located to a grid space, is still very difficult to hit (disadvantage automatically). If you were to translate this to a less codified situation, "locating" an invisible creature means you can attack it and have a chance of hitting it. It just means you're not wildly guessing that something is out there and shooting entirely randomly. Invisibility in 5e already has this baked into the effect without turning it into a total guess. For example, in the OP, if the monk becomes hidden at 100', it doesn't help the monk at all because he was on the grid up to that point and then removed -- the players can easily guess that same square and have the exact same chance to hit the monk as if he was "located" to that square. So, then, it only matters if the monk becomes hidden earlier and then the players have no idea at all where the monk is -- no clues except his started off in that direction. If this is the result you think should obtain on the monk merely because he's invisible, cool, but that makes that effect super-duper powerful. The "normal" of locating just means you have a good enough guess so that if you make an attack you have a chance to hit. This is what the argument is about, not that you know exactly where the invisible creature is, but that you have a good enough guess that you have a chance to make a successful attack. The 5' square, while much less accurate a location that you seem to think it is, is just because that's how 5e sets things up. [/QUOTE]

Verification