Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New stealth rules.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9422019" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>No, before I was saying that the invisible condition didn’t actually make the character impossible to see, it just defined what benefits they would receive from being unseen (and also granted them advantage on initiative rolls even if they were seen). We now know that is not the case. The invisible condition does make the character impossible to see. Well, either that or the invisibility spell doesn’t make the character impossible to see, which is equally absurd.</p><p></p><p>Right, but the conditions that end this functional invisibility are listed as</p><p>1. You make too much noise</p><p>2. You make an attack roll</p><p>3. You cast a spell with a verbal component (arguably just a clarification of 1)</p><p>4. An enemy finds you</p><p></p><p>Since the invisible condition does in fact make you impossible to see, salsa dancing in front of an enemy does not satisfy condition 4. It might satisfy condition 1, if you don’t dance quietly enough, hence the listed perception check required to find you. But that requires the enemy to spend a whole action looking for you on its own turn. You are otherwise free to salsa dance to your heart’s content. If this is not the intended function of the rule, then the rule should not be written this way.</p><p></p><p>The name of the condition isn’t the problem. The fact that the condition prevents creatures from finding you by looking at you with their open, functioning eyeballs is the problem, because <em>that’s not how sneaking works</em>.</p><p></p><p>A lot of people, including myself, were making these very claims about it at the time. If you don’t believe me I will go dig up quotes.</p><p></p><p>Because they wanted you to have to run for cover after making the attack.</p><p></p><p>Because they didn’t want the rogue to be able to use this feature to extend the duration of an invisibility spell that was cast on them.</p><p></p><p>Then they shouldn’t have written it that way.</p><p></p><p>No. They should have had two different conditions that worked differently. Because sneaking <em>should not work the same</em> as magical invisibility. Sneaking should stop working when someone looks at you with their open, functioning eyeballs and magical invisibility should not.</p><p></p><p>No, stealth making you unable to be seen <em>is the problem</em>. Mundane stealth <em>shouldn’t do that</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9422019, member: 6779196"] No, before I was saying that the invisible condition didn’t actually make the character impossible to see, it just defined what benefits they would receive from being unseen (and also granted them advantage on initiative rolls even if they were seen). We now know that is not the case. The invisible condition does make the character impossible to see. Well, either that or the invisibility spell doesn’t make the character impossible to see, which is equally absurd. Right, but the conditions that end this functional invisibility are listed as 1. You make too much noise 2. You make an attack roll 3. You cast a spell with a verbal component (arguably just a clarification of 1) 4. An enemy finds you Since the invisible condition does in fact make you impossible to see, salsa dancing in front of an enemy does not satisfy condition 4. It might satisfy condition 1, if you don’t dance quietly enough, hence the listed perception check required to find you. But that requires the enemy to spend a whole action looking for you on its own turn. You are otherwise free to salsa dance to your heart’s content. If this is not the intended function of the rule, then the rule should not be written this way. The name of the condition isn’t the problem. The fact that the condition prevents creatures from finding you by looking at you with their open, functioning eyeballs is the problem, because [I]that’s not how sneaking works[/I]. A lot of people, including myself, were making these very claims about it at the time. If you don’t believe me I will go dig up quotes. Because they wanted you to have to run for cover after making the attack. Because they didn’t want the rogue to be able to use this feature to extend the duration of an invisibility spell that was cast on them. Then they shouldn’t have written it that way. No. They should have had two different conditions that worked differently. Because sneaking [I]should not work the same[/I] as magical invisibility. Sneaking should stop working when someone looks at you with their open, functioning eyeballs and magical invisibility should not. No, stealth making you unable to be seen [I]is the problem[/I]. Mundane stealth [I]shouldn’t do that[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New stealth rules.
Top