Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9422777" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🙄" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" title="Face with rolling eyes    :rolling_eyes:" data-shortname=":rolling_eyes:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> impossible to see without the use of magic.Because it’s what the rules say. If the intent is not for it to be interpreted that way, then it shouldn’t be written that way. It would be trivially easy to include a “you are no longer In sufficient cover or obscuration” clause to the list of things that end the condition, so I can only assume that the choice not to do so was intentional. Or if it wasn’t intentional and somehow slipped through despite three rounds of playtest feedback, they should issue errata to correct it as quickly as possible.The rules don’t say that. If they did, I wouldn’t have this problem with them.The spell shouldn’t end in that case, the creature with the special sense should just ignore the effects of the condition. Which is how the condition works as-written. I think the invisible condition is fine as-written, the problem is that the hide action shouldn’t grant the invisible condition, because it shouldn’t work the same way the invisibility spell does.Yes, so since invisibility and hiding work differently, they should have different mechanics.But situationally. If you are hidden and the conditions which are causing you to be hidden change, you are no longer hidden. Because you’re not actually invisible, you are just currently not being observed.</blockquote>

Verification