Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5088580" data-attributes="member: 53980">As far as I'm aware, listen checks did not allow you to determine the location of a hidden/invisible creature in 3e, only their presence (ie., you hear breathing; you're pretty sure there's someone hiding or invisible nearby).  Only a spot check could pinpoint the square a hidden target was in (AFAIK).  At least in our games, Improved  Invisibility + Fly was a very hard combination to beat.  Just cast and move; you were almost impossible to pinpoint, and practically invulnerable even before the 50% miss chance.  Toss in Silent Spell and you didn't even have to move.It doesn't make sense to me that an invisible creature would be so easy to detect unless there were some consistent, minimal, visual trace.  Most mages don't wear clod stompers, so their footsteps won't necessarily be easy to detect in the midst of a noisy battle.  Not every battlefield can be so heavy with dust that it leaves footprints (the King's anteroom will likely be quite clean, for example).  Given the convenience of cantrips, it's unlikely that the average wizard will smell so bad as to give away his position.  If the mage avoids walking near anyone, they can't feel him brush past or stir the air.  Yet it isn't very easy for an invisible Wizard to move about undetected (particularly without Stealth Training).  In 3e, invisible creatures received enormous Hide bonuses ranging from +20 to +40!  In 4e, there's no bonus beyond the capability to become hidden.  Don't get me wrong, that's how I think it ought to be.  It's just that, IMO, the mechanical change makes the most sense when accompanied with a fluff alteration (invisibility is no longer a perfect visual obfuscation).If the above doesn't disconcert you then, as I said before, think of it as you will.  I wasn't suggesting that mine was an official response.  It is merely my own interpretation, offered in the possibility that it might be helpful to someone.</blockquote>

Verification