Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7018962" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm totally on board with&nbsp; [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] on this one.I guess my answer would be, which ruling makes the game more fun?&nbsp; And, yup, that's going to differ by table.&nbsp; Like I'm a B, the idea of forcing one side (usually the players) to flail around blindly while they play Marco Polo with imaginary elves is about as much fun as watching grass grow.&nbsp; It's extremely frustrating.&nbsp; And, IMO, makes invisibility extremely powerful.&nbsp; If the group (bad guys or good guys) loses an entire round of actions while leaving the other group completely free to do whatever it wants, that's a HUGE benefit.But, again, AFAIC, I go with, &quot;What would be the most fun here?&quot; rule - flailing around blindly or simply imposing a penalty to attack and treat invisibility as a strong, but not overwhelming, buff?So, yeah, I tend to lean on the 4e style interpretation of invisibility.&nbsp; You can't be directly targeted and attacks have disadvantage on you.&nbsp; If you spend the action to Stealth, THEN you are Hidden and require the other side to take actions to find you.&nbsp; This, to me, seems the most balanced way of handling it.-----Just adding a thought.&nbsp; We had an invisible enemy in our last session.&nbsp; Now, the enemy was a powerful wizard.&nbsp; He dropped a Time Stop, chugged a couple of potions and had some other buffs up, including: Fly, Globe of Invulnerability, and Fire Shield.&nbsp; Now, the encounter was at night.&nbsp; Now, we play on Fantasy Grounds, so, we always have a battlemap.&nbsp; The DM proceeded to make the enemy invisible on the map.&nbsp; My argument was that since the baddie is glowing, and in the center of a faintly visible sphere, wouldn't we know pretty much where he was?&nbsp; To speed the game along, I got shot down and told that no, we couldn't detect the baddy by the light he was shedding.&nbsp; To me, this seemed rather strange.And this is where the whole, &quot;If you go invisible, you're automatically undetectable&quot; idea kinda comes in.&nbsp; In my way of adjudicating, since the wizard wasn't taking the hide action, the whole argument would be moot.&nbsp; But, when you start from the position that &quot;If you go invisible, you're automatically undetectable&quot; all sorts of weirdness and corner cases start cropping up.I prefer doing it the way we do it, just for simplicities sake if nothing else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7018962, member: 22779"] I'm totally on board with [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] on this one. I guess my answer would be, which ruling makes the game more fun? And, yup, that's going to differ by table. Like I'm a B, the idea of forcing one side (usually the players) to flail around blindly while they play Marco Polo with imaginary elves is about as much fun as watching grass grow. It's extremely frustrating. And, IMO, makes invisibility extremely powerful. If the group (bad guys or good guys) loses an entire round of actions while leaving the other group completely free to do whatever it wants, that's a HUGE benefit. But, again, AFAIC, I go with, "What would be the most fun here?" rule - flailing around blindly or simply imposing a penalty to attack and treat invisibility as a strong, but not overwhelming, buff? So, yeah, I tend to lean on the 4e style interpretation of invisibility. You can't be directly targeted and attacks have disadvantage on you. If you spend the action to Stealth, THEN you are Hidden and require the other side to take actions to find you. This, to me, seems the most balanced way of handling it. ----- Just adding a thought. We had an invisible enemy in our last session. Now, the enemy was a powerful wizard. He dropped a Time Stop, chugged a couple of potions and had some other buffs up, including: Fly, Globe of Invulnerability, and Fire Shield. Now, the encounter was at night. Now, we play on Fantasy Grounds, so, we always have a battlemap. The DM proceeded to make the enemy invisible on the map. My argument was that since the baddie is glowing, and in the center of a faintly visible sphere, wouldn't we know pretty much where he was? To speed the game along, I got shot down and told that no, we couldn't detect the baddy by the light he was shedding. To me, this seemed rather strange. And this is where the whole, "If you go invisible, you're automatically undetectable" idea kinda comes in. In my way of adjudicating, since the wizard wasn't taking the hide action, the whole argument would be moot. But, when you start from the position that "If you go invisible, you're automatically undetectable" all sorts of weirdness and corner cases start cropping up. I prefer doing it the way we do it, just for simplicities sake if nothing else. [/QUOTE]

Verification