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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OB1" data-source="post: 9430315" data-attributes="member: 6796241">I'd certainly be good with all of these rulings as a player, it's all reasonable.  And I don't think that the rule 'needs' to be changed.  There are plenty of DM tools to resolve the kinds of edge cases we're talking about without falling into absurdity.  I'm only suggesting this as a potential 'fix' for those who think the current rule doesn't work as written while also thinking thru how I would rule at my table.For me, Hiding suggests staying in one place, because the circumstance that led to you being invisible changes once you leave the hiding spot.  I'm choosing to resolve that for my players by saying that the Invisible condition ends at the end of your turn to ensure that you can get the benefit of it when coming out of hiding. So at the end of the your example, if I want to keep following the guards without them noticing, that would be a new check based on the changing scene.  In other words, the basic play loop has reset at that point, and the players are describing doing something else, so if there is uncertainty, a new check is needed.And in the combat scene we are discussing, I agree, someone might call out to start Searching for the missing PC sneaking to the Alter, and to me, the tension is increased because the PC has to roll each round, just as the monsters do to Search each round, which could work in either side's favor (PC could roll a higher check next round, etc).  The PC also has to keep using their Action (or likely bonus action as it's probably the Rogue or Monk doing this) preventing them from doing other things.</blockquote>

Verification