NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9422000" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Because the invisible condition was already there and did exactly what they needed to do. Which you yourself were saying before. It is obvious that the stealth and hiding rules are meant to act like conditional invisibility, just like the rules on heavy obscurement. It is equally obvious that magical invisibility works differently. They could have renamed the condition, sure, but they didn't need to, because the intent is clear here. So what, because no one was asked to rate it, no one could read it in the playtest documents before now? Nobody was making these claims during playtest 6, when these EXACT rules were in the playtest document. Why do you need to be in cover instead of it saying "this attack doesn't end the invisibility condition granted by the Hide action"? Why does it specify the Hide actions invisibility and not any other sort of invisibility? Because the intention of these abilities is clear. It is not meant for you to stand in the middle of a white room and be invisible just because no one took an action yet.So they should have two identical conditions that do the exact same thing, but each have a different name? Would this discussion LITERALLY be any different if it was "concealed condition" instead? Since people would still argue that the rules text says you can't be seen, so you can't be seen to be found even if you stand in the open, it would be the exact same thing. Because this isn't about the actual differences, it is about being pedantic about "Well, ACTUALLY, it doesn't say..." even as it makes no sense to read it that way.</blockquote>

Verification