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="Nytmare" data-source="post: 5089343" data-attributes="member: 55178">I find it really implausible actually.  There's a difference between pointing to a thing and having people look at that thing, and pointing to nothing and having people know exactly what bit of nothing in amidst all the other nothing you're talking about.I play paintball religiously.  On a team full of people who play religiously. About 75% of the team is ex-military and special forces guys mixed in with the weekend warriors and trigger happy teenagers.  We deal with people trying to point out invisible people all day long.  It's a whole lot of: *point*  (where?) *point point* "Where?" (by the tree!) "I don't see him?"      That's a +2 to perception at best, not instantaneous and complete shared knowledge.That's exactly what I was saying, but shooting at someone eats up a standard action and pointing and giving a list of directions is (arguably) a free action.  Shoot who I'm shooting at makes sense.  Shoot who I'm stabbing makes sense.  Shoot the guy in this square on the imaginary grid doesn't.Unfortunately, I don't see anything in the rules that talks about this explicitly, and that makes it a house rule.  The bit about "opposed by each enemy's passive Perception check" however would mean a completely different thing if it said  "opposed by the best passive Perception of all enemies".You can't argue that it's easy to find invisible people because everyone is an awesome, highly trained, magic-wise ninja and then claim that the highly trained, invisible, magic ninja, with eyebite isn't equally awesome.</blockquote>

Verification