Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IcyCool" data-source="post: 2452025" data-attributes="member: 20308">And I've already done this one too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  "Surrounding" does not equal "Outlining".For example.  Let's say the aura extends 100 feet from the target (in all directions, it is an emanation after all, not a cross section).  You "see" a roughly 100 foot by 100 foot magical blob.  Why does this allow you to see the creature inside of that blob?  Perhaps you are deciding that the aura simply extends only millimeters from the individual being cloaked?So now an aura is a simple line marking the outer boundaries of a thing?  Really?  Where does it state that in the definition of aura?Ah, I see the problem now.  You are calling my argument a "sticking point", based off what you want an aura to be.  Hmm.  I will agree that the outer edge of the aura is an outline of the aura, which also contains the creature, but I still don't see where you are getting that this is an outline of a creature.  I suppose if you decided that the aura of an invisibility spell is like a skin-tight fitting you could certainly claim it negated invisibility.  Then again, the AS spells don't say that they negate the miss chance from invisibility.  They don't say you can't hurl lightning bolts as a free action either, FWIW. (I know you didn't say this, but making up rules based off of what the RAW doesn't say is FUN! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />)As the size of an aura isn't listed in the RAW, you'll need to look at what the spell lets you do.  It lets you see magical auras.  It doesn't say that it negates the miss chance from invisibility.  You seem to think that not mentioning negating the miss chance is the same thing as saying that it negates the miss chance.  That is incorrect.  (I think this is a logical fallacy called "Error of Omission", or something like that).Out of curiousity, can you show me an example of another game rule that you think lets you do something it doesn't state?</blockquote>

Verification