Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8100531" data-attributes="member: 16814">Okay, I guess I don't follow that there's different levels of not being seen.Well, yeah, the invisible character is hiding when they sneak away.&nbsp; I don't follow the difference in this example.&nbsp; The first character has to run behind cover to hide -- to be not seen -- and then you lose track of him and he can move anywhere he wants that's out of sight.&nbsp; The invisible character doesn't have to run to cover to not be seen, and after hiding can move anywhere they want because they're invisible.&nbsp; This seems like a huge advantage to invisibility in regards to hiding already, so why does it also need to impose disadvantage?&nbsp; Invisible is a strong combo with what?&nbsp; I don't follow.&nbsp; It's very strong when paired with silence, as I said, which seems good cause to grant a free hide attempt or impose disadvantage, as you're now down to only being able to observe signs of passage.&nbsp; If that's what you meant, that's what I meant.&nbsp; If you mean invisible alone is good enough for disadvantage on perception checks, you can do that, but the rules are pretty clear that's not what's on tap.&nbsp; As you've made clear, there's no disadvantage for not being seen by non-invisible creatures in order to hide, and invisibility doesn't call out any exceptions, so it's not meant to have special exceptions on it's own.&nbsp; Perhaps in combination with something else, like silence, or environment, or observers being distracted it makes sense, but the designers actually avoided adding that language into invisibility.&nbsp; You can, obviously, do whatever you like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8100531, member: 16814"] Okay, I guess I don't follow that there's different levels of not being seen. Well, yeah, the invisible character is hiding when they sneak away. I don't follow the difference in this example. The first character has to run behind cover to hide -- to be not seen -- and then you lose track of him and he can move anywhere he wants that's out of sight. The invisible character doesn't have to run to cover to not be seen, and after hiding can move anywhere they want because they're invisible. This seems like a huge advantage to invisibility in regards to hiding already, so why does it also need to impose disadvantage? Invisible is a strong combo with what? I don't follow. It's very strong when paired with silence, as I said, which seems good cause to grant a free hide attempt or impose disadvantage, as you're now down to only being able to observe signs of passage. If that's what you meant, that's what I meant. If you mean invisible alone is good enough for disadvantage on perception checks, you can do that, but the rules are pretty clear that's not what's on tap. As you've made clear, there's no disadvantage for not being seen by non-invisible creatures in order to hide, and invisibility doesn't call out any exceptions, so it's not meant to have special exceptions on it's own. Perhaps in combination with something else, like silence, or environment, or observers being distracted it makes sense, but the designers actually avoided adding that language into invisibility. You can, obviously, do whatever you like. [/QUOTE]

Verification