Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Persiflage" data-source="post: 5275230" data-attributes="member: 73597">False.  You specifically ruled out my comparison with Detect Thoughts because, and I quote:And now you're saying  you weren't talking about sight at all?The specific function exists: you just don't like it.  Your argument only holds water if "location" can reasonably mean something other than the most obvious interpretation which is "the square something is in"."The specific kind of location you want".  Oh come on.  If "location" isn't defined anywhere, as seems to be the thrust of your argument, then how would the wording "exact location" help?  Where in D&D is "location" used to mean something other than "where something is"?  Are you therefore saying that the Blindsense ability is unclear because "location" isn't defined, or do you let creatures with Blindsense know which square the characters are in, rather than just "somewhere in the room"?What about if you pinpoint a creature's location with a Spot check?What about Tremorsense?  That pinpoints a creature's location if it's in contact with the ground.References to "location" are scattered all through the rules, and they all refer to "the square something is in".What does location mean there?  Yes, that's right, it's a square or number of squares, because that is how you locate something in D&D, at least at a tactical level.  What could this mean, other than the square that enemies are in?Location is not an ambiguous term.No, it is not.  Your argument that it is depends on there being an interpretation of "location" other than the one you seem perfectly happy with in all other contexts: in other words, an inconsistent interpretation that makes the spell do only what you want it to do.At this point, I'm going to say that the burden of proof for your assertion - i.e., that there's sufficient ambiguity in the term "location" to warrant further discussion - rests firmly with you.  The Rules As Written, with their liberal use of the word "location" to mean "where something is", seem to support my argument better than yours.Deary me... alright, they are not SIMILAR then, they are complementary.  For what it's worth, equivalence = "degree of similarity".  Detect Magic only allows you to locate an invisible creature if it has an aura of magic that isn't disguised or suppressed in some way.  See Invisibility allows you to SEE things that are INVISIBLE. OK, that was the sound of one hand clapping...False.  Even if your contention was correct and you didn't know which square an invisible creature was in, the fact that there are more separate auras than "things you can see" means that you've automatically noticed that there's something hidden or invisible in the area and tells you that you need to deploy counter-tactics.  Hell, if the spell registers "presence of magical aura" in Round One and if you can't see anything to be causing it, you know that there's an in-place spell effect that you can't see.Hats off to them for a fairly creative - if pretty useless - tactic.  Face it, if you're low enough level to make this worth your while, then invisibility remains a really serious problem even if you know which square the creature is in.  You might get a round's warning though, which is better than nothing.  If you're high enough level that the total concealment afforded by invisibility is not a problem, you won't be messing about with yawn-inducing Detect Magic tactics.  Besides which, as I've pointed out many times, this is hardly an invisibility gimp: it's a slightly-effective counter-tactic to a limited subset of ways in which something can be invisible.</blockquote>

Verification