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: 9422940" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Fine, a special sense then. My point is, invisibility is definitionally the inability to see something with normal vision, even when it’s right in front of you.There are no secret rules. The rules do what they say they do, and don’t do things they don’t say they do. If the intent is for leaving cover or concealment to end the invisible condition gained by use of the hide action, the rules for the hide action should say that. They don’t. The fact that it made it to print this way suggests to me that it is, in fact, the intent, but if it isn’t there should be errata issued as soon as possible.I define it as the rule defines it: with a successful wisdom (perception) check against a DC equal to the result of the hiding creature’s dexterity (stealth) check. By the general rules, this is done with either passive perception, or the search action. So yes, there is something in the rules that says it takes an action.Effectively invisible, sure. Not literally invisible. Your body still reflects light, there’s just currently either no light hitting you or some other opaque object(s) in the way. Now, it would not be unreasonable for the rules to represent this “effective invisibility” with the invisibility condition, but then those rules would need to specify that said “effective invisiblity” ends as soon as there is light reflecting off of you and no opaque objects blocking the view of you.Because the flaw in the wording that enables this is so glaringly obvious, it leads me to believe it’s more likely to have been intentional than a mistake. Especially because they allegedly read every comment in the playtest surveys and I pointed out this “mistake” in every survey since UA6, and I know I’m not the only respondent to have done so. So, either they were aware of this mistake and forgot to fix it, or it isn’t a mistake.The cover or obscuration isn’t what grants the benefits. The condition grants the benefits, and the rule defines the initial conditions required to use the action that grants the conditions, and separately lists the events that can end the condition. Leaving cover or concealment is not listed among these events, and I believe that to be intentional. Because they want to enable you to come out of cover to attack someone without being seen, and seemingly just don’t care that this approach also enables you to come out of cover to simply walk past the enemy without being seen, and remain unseen indefinitely. Which is what I take issue with. They should care about that.</blockquote>

Verification