« first day (2899 days earlier)      last day (1850 days later) » 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

8:28 PM
So the responses on my question have been somewhat less than helpful. Is there a better way I could rephrase my core question so that it's clearer what I'm trying to get at?
Rereading it, I feel like I may have overcomplicated the question (it just feels cluttered) but I'm not sure how to trim away extraneous detail without missing the point.
@Xirema What dont you like about the given answer
Ah i see your comment - here is something that might clear it up
"invisible" is not actually a condition, although it sort of behaves like one. But we use the plain english definition of invisible to apply the mechanics to it. If you can see it then to you it is not invisible, by definition
@SirCinnamon As I pointed out in the comments under it, it misses the point of my question: from my reading, Invisible granting Disadvantage/Advantage is an innate feature of the condition, and it's not clear that I'm supposed to infer that it's a consequence of being Unseen.
@SirCinnamon It is a condition though. In the PHB appendix, the section on Conditions, Invisible appears there.
I quoted the literal text of what's found there in my question.
Between Paralyzed and Incapacitated.
And the spell Invisibility simply reads
> A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
@Xirema If it's not capital I in the spell text then i would argue that the Invisibility spell doesnt actually apply the condition of invisible
But my mistake on it no tbeing in the conditions section
@SirCinnamon I thought this same thing!
The DNDBeyond page for Invisibility does hyperlink to the Invisible condition in its description.
8:39 PM
@Xirema fwiw I'm wasn't negging your question (or at least that was not my intent) with my comment.
So I hope I was not perceived that way.
What a poorly written condition anyway
@SirCinnamon I'm honestly not sure why invisible needs to be a condition actually
"For the purposes of hiding you are heavily obscured" also for all other purposes you act as heabvily obscured but we include that separately
@SirCinnamon TBH, if that's the takeaway from all this, that "The Invisible Condition was written poorly, don't take it as gospel", that would honestly satisfy my issue.
@Xirema I more place the blame on invisibility spell maybe.
8:42 PM
Like heavily obscured = Attackers treated as blinded = disadvantage on attacks etc. Why would they not just say "you effectively heavily obscured to creatures without a way to see you"
No reason they can't both be written poorly though
@Rubiksmoose Well, my question wasn't really about the spell though. Lots of creatures/class features let someone turn invisible at will/once per rest anyways, so it's not like I'd lay the blame on the Spell.
@Xirema Sure sure. I get that.
@Xirema I decided to remove my comment. I don't think it was helpful or needed.
@Xirema I think there might be some fat that could be trimmed on the question but youre right, it's more valid than i initially thought
@SirCinnamon I mean, if it took you rereading and me reexplaining the question to make it seem valid, then that's a pretty clear sign the question is badly written. =P
8:47 PM
But I also think that I'm going to agree with that answer - Invisibility restates the fact that unseen creatures have those adv/disadv rules, it doesnt add them again
Just so i can stay sane
@Xirema This happens a lot with RAW-type questions like this.
Yeah, theres a lot of lawyering to be done - I would recommend trimming your quotes to the relevant sentence and including a link to the full text, and maybe adding a tldr summary at the top or bottom
The funny thing is that the See Invisibility spell doesn't have this problem.
> For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible, and you can see into the Ethereal Plane. Ethereal creatures and objects appear ghostly and translucent.
Emphasis mine.
Whatever. I think your earlier observation that the condition is poorly worded is probably what I've settled on. I think I'll just add that as an answer and leave it be, soak up the Karma losses.
@Xirema Does that solve the problem though? Because your thesis is that just being seen isn't enough to remove the dis/adv right? Because the condition doesn't word the dis/adv to be based on the fact the creature can't be seen.
Bluh, my mind is melting trying to parse all this stuff out.
9:00 PM
@Rubiksmoose Yeah this is really the problem with the condition - Its qualities are A) Can't be seen, is transparent, etc and B) Harder to hit, easier to be hit by, regardless of point A
@SirCinnamon Yeah so I don't think even see invisibility sidesteps the issue.
IMO Point B is a restatement of the condition of being unsees as defined elsewhere and is just a corollary or point A, not it's own sub-condition
Which, honestly, is actually really good evidence that this is a wrong interpretation.
@Rubiksmoose A wrong interpretation RAI, but a lot of people will obsess about RAW - which i dont blame them for really
@SirCinnamon much better phrasing yeah.
9:03 PM
The RAI here is so obvious its hard to even parse the RAW in a way that doesnt force it to work the way intended
@SirCinnamon Indeed lol
Obviously true sight and see invisibility negate all benefits of invisibility
@SirCinnamon You're not wrong. I cannot imagine a world where the designers intended the effects to behave the way I parsed them out.
@Xirema That would be really wacky
@Xirema I would add to your answer that the ruling doesn't make sense in that it really makes see invisibility and truesight much weaker and have no effect almost on invisible creatures.
I think maybe a "if a creature is able to see the invisible creature, they do not get any benefits of the invisible condition with respect to that creature." would be a fix for that condition.
@Rubiksmoose That's a good point.
9:51 PM
Broadly speaking, RAW is supposedly useful as a common shared baseline for people from different groups and playstyles to talk about their games with each other, while other ways of understanding each others' games require identifying differences between groups and styles.
Its popularity mostly evolved in the context of online forums in which strangers help each other with their games; the idea of applying RAW literally while playing a game, rather than using it as a rhetorical/analytical tool, comes from the unrelated conception of system rules as physical laws of the game world.
Thoughts on this question?
Q: How does a change in Constitution affect an NPC/monster/wild-shaped druid's hit points?

OakIf an effect or spell changes an NPC's Constitution (e.g. the Belt of Dwarvenkind or the fortitude Ioun Stone), how does it affect that creature's max HP? I'm interested in Constitution decreases as well, I guess. I'm also curious about how Con changes from such items/sources affect a druid in W...

As I noted in a comment, his additional edits seem to be the start of an answer rather than part of the question itself.
He replied:
"Haha yeah, I posted and kept doing research, but I'm still not clear on the answer, so I am posting all of my new findings in the question to help with the answering"
Is there a certain approach we should take to this sort of situation?
10:24 PM
I think he should probably rollback those edits and move that info into a self-answer (drawing the best conclusion he can based on the info he has)
10:41 PM
(I've said as much in a comment now)
I know recently (this year, maybe) somebody posted a meta along the lines of "what should I do if I've discovered the answer to my own question...?"
I might be thinking of this one?
Q: Should I post updates to my questions when they are resolved?

link64Is it considered 'best-practice' to come back and edit a question with the actual solution that was used in the situation? For example, I have a question (Playing a loyal character without it being boring) that attracted a number of good answers of which I selected one as being the best for my s...

Is it just a coincidence or in D&D5e levels, max attributes, DC and the check dices were all of them made on purpose 20?
11:03 PM
Is it impossible to have a DC above 20?
@MikeQ I think it's possible, but not for characters. Divine or monster races can have attributes up to 30, which gives 1d20+10 = 30. It's possible (for them) to beat a DC 20. I think.
@EnderLook DCs can be above 20, attributes can be above 20 (even for PCs with a Manual of Gainful Exercise etc), what do you mean by check dice?
I remember a design article back during the D&D Next phase, talking about how making everything cap at 20 simplified the math or something.
@GreySage I'm sorry I don't know it in english. With check dice I mean: "Throw a d20+CON to check if you can do that or fail"
11:30 PM
Ahh... found it!
Q: Edit the question or answer your own question?

ThanuirAs far as I know, it is okay to answer your own questions. It is also recommended to show your progress with a question, and this is easily accomplished by editing the question itself and incorporating the progress there. When should I answer my own question and when should I edit the outcome in...

@V2Blast do you feel like this comment captures the things Oak needs?
Hi @Oak, and welcome. I'm going to throw a couple of links your way and invite you to either read more in meta.rpg.SE or hop into Role-playing Games Chat if you've got questions afterward. 1: Edit the question or answer it yourself?. 2: Can I answer my own question? (I'm curious what exactly you mean when you say "it got mad at me." If you get a moment I hope you'll let me/us know in chat. 3. We discourage "Edit:" syntax. — nitsua60 ♦ 50 secs ago
11:54 PM
@nitsua60 Yep, that seems good!
Thanks for your earlier comments--they were good pointers.
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

« first day (2899 days earlier)      last day (1850 days later) »