Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8099727" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>This is an extremely weak argument, though.&nbsp; We have rules for invisibility.&nbsp; We have rules for hiding.&nbsp; We have design input on RAI that says the normal is that invisible creatures are detected.&nbsp; This isn't at all in the same category as rules for PC's relieving themselves.&nbsp; Asserting that there's a major, unstated rules impact in an area already well covered by the rules requires more effort than saying there's no rules for peeing.&nbsp; Why do we have so many rules in and around invisibility but none of them ever suggest that an invisible creature is usually undetectable but not hidden.&nbsp; What does hiding gain an invisible creature if this is the baseline?&nbsp; Either the assertion is that multiple places in the rules present a largely useless rule for invisibility, or that part of the Ranger 18th level ability is poorly written and doesn't do much.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8099727, member: 16814"] This is an extremely weak argument, though. We have rules for invisibility. We have rules for hiding. We have design input on RAI that says the normal is that invisible creatures are detected. This isn't at all in the same category as rules for PC's relieving themselves. Asserting that there's a major, unstated rules impact in an area already well covered by the rules requires more effort than saying there's no rules for peeing. Why do we have so many rules in and around invisibility but none of them ever suggest that an invisible creature is usually undetectable but not hidden. What does hiding gain an invisible creature if this is the baseline? Either the assertion is that multiple places in the rules present a largely useless rule for invisibility, or that part of the Ranger 18th level ability is poorly written and doesn't do much. [/QUOTE]

Verification