Invisibility and Etherealness?

[dkilgo]

Your Welcome!

Next time we might be able to swap stories over a few pints of ale.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm surprised this has garnered as much attention as it has. I appreciate everyone's efforts. Basically, as shown by this thread, there is not a clear-cut rule that cannot be argued over (what else is new, huh? ). Basically, that is what I was trying to find out. Good arguments have been given for both sides, but that is a side effect of what I was looking for, not the actual answer. Nevertheless, the discussion has given a lot of food for thought on the subject, which is valuable given that a House Ruling will be in order. Thanks much guys!

Personally, I have to disagree. While there's no statement in the book that directly says it, there's plenty of evidence to support *enter arrogant statement here* my point of view *end arrogant statement*

But play it as you will, such is the way of things

 

[hong]

Direct vs. indirect is entirely semantic . Are you invisible because I can't see you,

While someone who can't be seen because they're hiding behind a corner can be said to be "invisible", somehow I doubt that's the intended usage of the word in the context of this thread.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Personally, I have to disagree. While there's no statement in the book that directly says it, there's plenty of evidence to support *enter arrogant statement here* my point of view *end arrogant statement*

But play it as you will, such is the way of things

Well, that's the nature of things that are neither clear-cut nor unambiguous. One person sees one thing, another person sees something quite different. Personally, I find there is enough ambiguity to prevent me from simply acquiescing on the point. Not that there haven't been good arguments.