D&D 5E L&L for November 18

[Mistwell]

I'm here to discuss a new edition of D&D. Your pedantry about what apples to apples means and how I've misused it is just annoying me. Please drop it.


I'm a simulationist. If there's a state called invisibility in the game it should work just one way. That was one of the good things about 3e. When the DM says "Invisible", regardless of source, you know what it freaking is.

Given few other things work that way, why should invisibility?

Traditionally in fantasy literature, there are different kinds of invisibility. The invisibility of the Rings of Power was different from ordinary invisibility in the Tolkien universe. The invisibility of a normal Cloak of Invisibility was different from the invisibility of Harry's Deathly Hallows cloak of Invisibility. So traditional fantasy makes distinctions between different kinds of invisibility.

And then the editions of D&D sometimes also had different types of invisibility - some that disappeared on an attack and others that did not, some that blocked sound as well and others that did not, some which make you chameleon-like instead of see-through, etc..

I see nothing about being a simulationist that requires there be just one type of invisibility in the game. Any more than there is only one type of ray spell, one time of area attack spell, or even one type of cold spell.

I'd much prefer if the DM says invisible, you're not sure as a player what kind that means. Bring back some mystery to magic for goodness sake, enough with players knowing everything about the mechanics of the game so much that they instantly know what everything is and are constantly tempted to use player knowledge instead of character knowledge for how to deal with new things the character has never encountered.

 

[jmucchiello]

The mechanics of 1e/2e/3e invisiblity spell vs improved invisibility spell had differences in duration and whether the spell would dispel after an attack. Those differences however did not affect the game mechanics of "being invisibile". And in 3e those mechanics applied to all invisibility because "not being seen" has only one game mechanic. All the differences you are talking about above have nothing to do with the 50% miss chance and -4 to attack bonus. The differences you are discussing are the flavor of the invisibility. I never said the flavor had to be uniform. I said the mechanics had to be uniform.

I suspect we will not agree.

 

[Mistwell]

The mechanics of 1e/2e/3e invisiblity spell vs improved invisibility spell had differences in duration and whether the spell would dispel after an attack. Those differences however did not affect the game mechanics of "being invisibile". And in 3e those mechanics applied to all invisibility because "not being seen" has only one game mechanic. All the differences you are talking about above have nothing to do with the 50% miss chance and -4 to attack bonus. The differences you are discussing are the flavor of the invisibility. I never said the flavor had to be uniform. I said the mechanics had to be uniform.

I suspect we will not agree.

You're right, we disagree. 3e had multiple types of mechanical invisibility. There was the Chameleon spell, which was mechanically different from the invisibility spell (which itself had several variations), which was mechanically different from Cloud Mind. You're arguing for one type of invisibility when, for example, 3e had at least three variants on the concept.

And in anticipation of you claiming those are not all invisibility, read Cloud Mind. It says you're invisible, but the mechanics are different, not just the fluff.

 

[jmucchiello]

I never said 3e was perfect. I want invisibility to be a single thing mechanically. I doubt I will get it since DDN does not seem to have the concept of system mastery that the 3e designers claimed 3e had. I can't really tell though just from this article. Mearls is not saying it can't be just one mechanic. He's just saying he doesn't want it to step on the toes of a core class ability.