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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 6940191" data-attributes="member: 6855114">If you go strickly by the rules you are wrong. That is why you can enter in a room and say:"Hey! An invisible magical longsword is in that room. How do I know? It did not take the hide action so it is not hidden and I perfectly know where it is. The PHB says so..."Now sarcasm off. Of course the hidden rule is relatively simple to understand and I believe that we all do but it does not make logical sense. Strict interpretation of the rule(s) gives them a valid point. Now the hard part is going a step further from the rule and use logic without refering to the rules. Go outside and asks any gamer of any system if an invisible creature is easily detected and all of them, will say no. 5ed rule says the opposite. Not hidden = position known for sure. And that can lead to some ridiculously situation with some games.If I go straight by the rules, an opponent using improved invisibility in a silenced zone will be steadily attacked (with disadvantage) by his ennemy simply because he did not use the hide action. In any other system if I were the enemy of the invisible wizard, I would be toast but in 5ed, by strict use of the rule, I'll just have disadvantage to hit. Poor mage will be in for a nasty surprise and will start to use shield if I have a meager +6 to hit... When a rule is badly written, you have to use your logic. Get out the :" Refer to the rule" and use your logic. Not everything that is and can be hidden must take an action to do so whatever the rule says. Hemlock is perfectly right in his statement even if the rule says otherwise.Funny that you bring this up. I ruled that it was possible. It is really helpful for rogues that a few illusion can help them get into a nice position.</blockquote>

Verification