strawpberry
Explorer
EDIT: double post
Last edited:
that would be the somehow see from the Invisible conditionBecause they may not be "seeing" you. See: Blindsense, tremorsense, etc.
no it doesn't, you can e.g. sneak attack, which means you leave the coverThe Hide action rule is written with the assumption that the hiding character will remain hidden,
No, in the sense that this is the condition you gain from the invisibility spellOnly in the sense that some insist that invisible means "impossible to see", rather than "is not (currently) visible".
“Impossible to see” is literally what the word invisible means. Unseen would be a better term for “not currently being seen.”Only in the sense that some insist that invisible means "impossible to see", rather than "is not (currently) visible".
From Webster's Dictionary.“Impossible to see” is literally what the word invisible means. Unseen would be a better term for “not currently being seen.”
Specific beats general. It's a specific hiding rule that overrides the general invisibility rules.I think that any legitimate way of finding the hidden character has to count. Otherwise, why say it? Also, if the character is invisible as per "cannot be seen" then how does a search (perception) break the Invisible condition in the first place?
John Cena aside, Camouflage ≠ Invisibility in the real world.
There are a lot of things (shields, hitpoints, ranged attacks) that function very differently in D&D than they do in virtually any context outside of D&D.
I would guess that it is not Rules as Intended, but I cannot say that with 100% certainty because a lot of things that I felt were odd rules actually were RAI in the edition of the game from which the 5e24 update appears (to me) to have taken some influence.
The players would lynch the DM if that happened. They simply outnumber them. This is going to be a player thing in practice.