As title.
Invis should not drop when you attack people. It's an old legacy mechanic, and it's dumb.
Right now, there is a perfectly reasonable mechanic for Invisibility dropping - it's a glamer and people get Will Saves to see you when they interact with you. That works, and much better than figuring out if you are attacking enemies.
After all, if you pull back a bow string and let an arrow fly, that's an attack. However, if you untie a rope holding up a chandelier that's over your enemies - that's not. This is despite the fact that the basic action in both cases is "releasing tension on a rope in order to cause an object to have that potential energy transfered to it as kinetic energy in order to strike and harm your enemies." And the implications of that are stupid.
OTOH, the thing where people get will saves to see you when you stab them works fine - and covers all of the circumstances where you would want people to risk giving up their invisibility.
-Username17
Invisibilty should not drop when you attack.
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Absentminded_Wizard
- Duke
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Contact:
Re: Invisibilty should not drop when you attack.
Well, your approach fixes the problem of why some actions at a distance (like opening the gate to release the hounds) don't end invisibility, while others (like casting certain spells) do.
The only question is whether having total concealment (in addition to forcing your foes to figure out what general direction you're in to have any chance of hitting you) while still being able to cast spells is too much of a good thing. I'm thinking that's going to be a close call, but I don't have time to try to do a detailed analysis.
The only question is whether having total concealment (in addition to forcing your foes to figure out what general direction you're in to have any chance of hitting you) while still being able to cast spells is too much of a good thing. I'm thinking that's going to be a close call, but I don't have time to try to do a detailed analysis.
Doom314's satirical 4e power wrote:Complete AnnihilationWar-metawarrior 1
An awesome bolt of multicolored light fires from your eyes and strikes your foe, disintegrating him into a fine dust in a nonmagical way.
At-will: Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee Weapon ("sword", range 10/20)
Target: One Creature
Attack: Con vs AC
Hit: [W] + Con, and the target is slowed.
Re: Invisibilty should not drop when you attack.
So there would be no Improved Invisibility then?
Game On,
fbmf
Game On,
fbmf
- Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Re: Invisibilty should not drop when you attack.
They already ditched Improved Invisibility in 3.5
...
It's now Invisibility, Greater
...
It's now Invisibility, Greater
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Invisibilty should not drop when you attack.
I can't for the life of me imagine what Invisibility, Greater should do that Invisibility shouldn't just do all by itself. Maybe last longer, or stick to more people, or something.
I don't much care, actually.
-Username17
I don't much care, actually.
-Username17