Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9425676" data-attributes="member: 42582">Doesn't that depend on what finding means?In the 4e rules that I quoted upthread, it is clearly state that the invisibility gained from successfully hiding is lost if the character doesn't have cover or concealment. The 4e rules also state that invisibility grants total concealment. So there is (for some sense of "is") an argument (for some sense of "argument") that, as per the 4e rules, the invisibility that results from successfully hiding itself grants the concealment sufficient to retain the benefit of being invisible.But I never saw that argument actually advanced. It was always taken as obvious that it has to be some sort of "external" cover/concealment.Whereas, and conversely, I always saw it as taken for granted that the Invisibility spell does confer total concealment, without the need for any other source of concealment or cover, until it comes to an end.The logic of these new 5e rules seems the same to me. The only issue with the hiding rules is, when is the GM supposed to determine that someone has found the hiding person? Presumably this is a function of the vision and perception rules.</blockquote>