Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dour-n-Taciturn" data-source="post: 5983670" data-attributes="member: 6692615">You may feel that a Rogue's stealth will not be trumped by effects such as Invisibility or Silence.&nbsp; You stated that the Wizard would have to expend significant resources to best the Rogue in stealth.&nbsp; You also seem to keep clinging to the point of who the target is, rather than the effect of the magic compared with its mundane counterpart.&nbsp;&nbsp; To re-iterate, an Invisible Wizard or even Pig-farmer Joe, will have a significant advantage over even Mr. Sneaky Pete the Rogue.&nbsp; See Invisibility or any counter spell effect now forces the opponent to expend their resources; ask yourself if you want to waste a spell slot on See Invisibility, unless you know you will be facing invisible opponents.&nbsp; BTW, a 50% miss chance (assuming you could locate the correct area) is pretty significant versus, say, 0%.Eliminating long term effects was not something I am opposed to, at least not entirely, it's the action economy I feel is ill conceived and lends itself to exploitation.&nbsp; If you feel that a 2nd level spell cast within a round that lasts all day is a fair effect, then you and I will have to drop this point of discussion.&nbsp; Examples of &quot;you can still be heard&quot;, or &quot;they can still hit you half the time&quot;, do not lend argument to how these potent spells, coupled with a long duration, with relatively little investment in action economy, do not out-compete their mundane counterparts, or at the very least provide a significant advantage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dour-n-Taciturn, post: 5983670, member: 6692615"] You may feel that a Rogue's stealth will not be trumped by effects such as Invisibility or Silence. You stated that the Wizard would have to expend significant resources to best the Rogue in stealth. You also seem to keep clinging to the point of who the target is, rather than the effect of the magic compared with its mundane counterpart. To re-iterate, an Invisible Wizard or even Pig-farmer Joe, will have a significant advantage over even Mr. Sneaky Pete the Rogue. See Invisibility or any counter spell effect now forces the opponent to expend their resources; ask yourself if you want to waste a spell slot on See Invisibility, unless you know you will be facing invisible opponents. BTW, a 50% miss chance (assuming you could locate the correct area) is pretty significant versus, say, 0%. Eliminating long term effects was not something I am opposed to, at least not entirely, it's the action economy I feel is ill conceived and lends itself to exploitation. If you feel that a 2nd level spell cast within a round that lasts all day is a fair effect, then you and I will have to drop this point of discussion. Examples of "you can still be heard", or "they can still hit you half the time", do not lend argument to how these potent spells, coupled with a long duration, with relatively little investment in action economy, do not out-compete their mundane counterparts, or at the very least provide a significant advantage. [/QUOTE]

Verification