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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pauln6" data-source="post: 9441021" data-attributes="member: 6777422">I think they were trying to address two problems:Firstly, the notion that rogues can leave their hiding place and not necessarily be seen automatically at the DM's discretion.  This is not a house rule.  DM's discretion is rule 1.  People arguing that a literal interpretation for absurd circumstances causes absurd results are disproving their own point.  If even they think that interpretation is absurd, they they are effectively confirming that DM's discretion isn't really discretion but common sense.Secondly, they wanted the invisibility spell to be better than plain hiding and wanted to cover the movie scenario where someone makes a noise, possibly even monologing, and still can't be found.The key issue seems to be that 'unless they can somehow see you' covers a lot of ground.  The invisibility spell really just needs some text to say you cannot be seen by normal vision or darkvsion.It's not even a case of RAW vs RAI because the language allows RAW to cover both if nonsense results are ignored.I think weapon and shield juggling needs tidying up more than stealth, which should play out fine in practice.As far as initiative goes, it would be more sensible to confirm that where some can see you and some can't,  apply disadvantage to the initiative of those that can't  but their initiative can only be lower than other party members they can see if both rolls are lower.</blockquote>

Verification