Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8099470" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's not what the podcast says.&nbsp; The podcast says that you're normally detected unless some special circumstance occurs.&nbsp; The example given was a group of orcs losing track of an invisible mage after the barbarian's turn where he attacks the orks and after the rogue's turn when he blows up a bunch of gunpoweder, at which point the podcast says a GM could rule the orcs lose track of the invisible mage, but they also may not.&nbsp; So, to follow along, mage turns invisible and the orcs know where she is.&nbsp; Then the barbarian attacks, and the orcs probably still know, but might not -- it would appear that the designers don't think this enough, but that it, in combination with other things, may contribute to a total circumstance.&nbsp; Then the rogue goes, and blows up gunpowder.&nbsp; It's not clear if the designers think this is sufficient on it's own to make the mage hidden, but do think that it's not an unreasonable call when in conjunction with the barbarian attacking.&nbsp; And, the specifically point this out as the orcs having bigger things to worry about than keeping track of the mage -- ie, not that the mage just slips away, but that the GM decides the orcs stop caring enough to track her.&nbsp; That's the podcast situation, that's what it says.&nbsp; What it doesn't say is &quot;hey, GM's it's always just up to you, no guidance, your call.&quot;&nbsp; The podcast is full of guidance, from the baseline that invisible creatures are locatable usually to what the designers think is sufficient conditions to allow for a different call.&nbsp; Your claim that the podcast vindicates your de novo analysis and presumption of being hidden absent reasons otherwise is backwards.&nbsp; The podcast advocates in the other direction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8099470, member: 16814"] That's not what the podcast says. The podcast says that you're normally detected unless some special circumstance occurs. The example given was a group of orcs losing track of an invisible mage after the barbarian's turn where he attacks the orks and after the rogue's turn when he blows up a bunch of gunpoweder, at which point the podcast says a GM could rule the orcs lose track of the invisible mage, but they also may not. So, to follow along, mage turns invisible and the orcs know where she is. Then the barbarian attacks, and the orcs probably still know, but might not -- it would appear that the designers don't think this enough, but that it, in combination with other things, may contribute to a total circumstance. Then the rogue goes, and blows up gunpowder. It's not clear if the designers think this is sufficient on it's own to make the mage hidden, but do think that it's not an unreasonable call when in conjunction with the barbarian attacking. And, the specifically point this out as the orcs having bigger things to worry about than keeping track of the mage -- ie, not that the mage just slips away, but that the GM decides the orcs stop caring enough to track her. That's the podcast situation, that's what it says. What it doesn't say is "hey, GM's it's always just up to you, no guidance, your call." The podcast is full of guidance, from the baseline that invisible creatures are locatable usually to what the designers think is sufficient conditions to allow for a different call. Your claim that the podcast vindicates your de novo analysis and presumption of being hidden absent reasons otherwise is backwards. The podcast advocates in the other direction. [/QUOTE]

Verification