Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8099549" data-attributes="member: 6802765">I would only be able to agree with you if I thought there were more constraints on a DM ruling whether or not to apply a default than there are on a DM ruling directly on the result. While I think it's certainly true that you put more constraints on your DM ruling than [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] puts on his, I think that is a result of a difference in DMing styles, rather than a result of whether or not there is a default that invisible creature's squares are known.For example, if I understand correctly, [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER] takes Oofta's approach that there is no default, but has chosen to tightly constrain the DM ruling at their table to whether or not the invisible creature is within 30'. Your approach, as you mentioned in your post, doesn't have a strict distance limit, so your ruling is less constrained than [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER]'s ruling, even though [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER] does not believe there is a default and you do. Similarly, it's easy to envision a hypothetical DM who agrees with you that there is a default, but is extremely erratic and unpredictable on when they rule that the default doesn't apply.Let's take my table as another example. I approach the issue as [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] does, and I do not believe there is a default that the square of invisible creatures is known. (I also don't think it matters, but I'm setting that aside for purposes of using myself as an example.) I resolve questions about whether an invisible creature's square is known using the basic mechanic of the game: I decide whether it's obviously known, obviously unknown, or if I'm uncertain I call for a perception check (passive or otherwise) against a DC set by the DM. Let's say that instead I switch to your approach and agree that the default is that the square of invisible creatures is known. In cases where I would have ruled perception to be uncertain or an automatic failure, I'm going to depart from the default, and the end result is absolutely identical. In practical terms, nothing at all has changed at my table. I'm not suddenly more consistent as a result of switching to your approach, because how consistent I am depends on my DMing style, and not on whether or not I believe there is a default.Does it make sense why I don't agree with you that DMs that follow your approach will necessarily be more consistent than DM's who follow [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER]'s approach?</blockquote>

Verification