Close your eyes. Can you touch your nose? Can you touch your knee? Even if you could not see yourself humans have a sixth sense of sorts that gives them knowledge of where parts of their body are. You can make the argument against equipment I guess, but that is really spliting hairs.
Closing your eyes is equivalent to being blinded; that condition already exists with its own set of penalties.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My personal stance would be to say that you can't see yourself while invisible, but I'd handwave any relatively minor results (like aiming a bow), since being invisible is supposed to be a good thing. But more blatant/obvious things, like reading a scroll that you're holding, would be disallowed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay then what is the check penalty for picking a lock when you can't see your tools?
Disable Device does not specify that you must be able to see your tools, so there is no penalty.
What effect does not being able to look at your components have on spell casting?
Casting Spells: "To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any)." Being unable to see your components does not prevent you from manipulating them. So any spell that doesn't require being able to see your components is unaffected.
What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?
The Strouhal equation for cruising flight (fA/U = 7 beats per second * 0.18 meters per beat / 9.5 meters per second) yields a Strouhal number of roughly 0.13 indicating the average cruising airspeed velocity of an unladen European Swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles an hour. This would convert to a tactical fly speed of 120 feet.
What penalty do you take on attacks with missile weapons since you can't aim them?
An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents. There is no mention of a penalty on ranged attacks.
How much longer does it take to get something from your backpack?
It is a move action to Retrieve a stored item. There is no mention of taking longer while invisible.
What is the increase in reloading time for crossbows and guns?
Loading a crossbow or Loading a Firearm requires a hand free, and the action varies depending on weapon, ammunition, and feats. There is no mention of that action changing while invisible.
When using a just drawn double weapon how do i know which side is the +2 flaming side and which is the +2 frost side?
Even though the fire or cold does not harm the wielder, it is still sheathed in fire or cold, so the warm end of your weapon is likely the flaming side.
Please answer using qoutes from developers or Text and not personal opinions.
HTH.
someone whose opinion I trust
That's a mistake!
What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?The Strouhal equation for cruising flight (fA/U = 7 beats per second * 0.18 meters per beat / 9.5 meters per second) yields a Strouhal number of roughly 0.13 indicating the average cruising airspeed velocity of an unladen European Swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles an hour. This would convert to a tactical fly speed of 120 feet.
He didn't specify what species of swallow. Off the bridge you go.
My personal stance would be to say that you can't see yourself while invisible, but I'd handwave any relatively minor results (like aiming a bow), since being invisible is supposed to be a good thing. But more blatant/obvious things, like reading a scroll that you're holding, would be disallowed.
I think that this is a very "sane" interpretation, both in the spirit of the game and coherent with the rules of the game (although the other way would not have been incoherent with the rules either...)
I'd be curious to know what was the intention of the developers nonetheless.
|
|
Note that Makarnek referenced:
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief):That section is clearly explaining illusions that do allow for saving throws. Such illusions are normally patterns, and are mind affecting while glamers(which is what illusions are) are not.
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Illusions are under the glamer subschool which has a very real effect on an object by changing the qualities of the subject making it seem to be different.
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.Compare this to patterns which create the perception of unreal things that don't exist at all, and are thus mind affecting. That is also why undead which are immune to mind affects are immune to phantasms and patterns, but not glamers.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
Very excellent points. It's nice to hash these things out before they come up in-game.
At my table, an invisible character cannot read a scroll she's holding, nor any other writing. If she sets the scroll down, it becomes visible and she can read it.
Now I have a mental image of an invisible mage getting out a scroll and then tossing it in the air so that it "leaves his possession" and thus becomes visible before he catches it again on the way down. Others see "a scroll pops into existance, falls a short distance and then stops, unrolls itself, and an unseen voice begins saying arcane words in a strong voice".
I really dont understand the point of all this. The Invisibility spell doesnt give any negative effects. Nowhere in the rules does it point out a single disadvantage for being invisible. RAI is easy. While invisible you can still interact with all your gear as you could before you became invisible. Otherwise they would point out what was different.
Trying to give some negative effect (like being unable to read scrolls) is just a blatant nerf of the spell as intented. Could the description be more clear? Sure. Because it isnt are we to start using real world qualities to fill in the gap? Absolutly not. Its magic.
You are invisible to others. You can still see yourself and your gear. Or the spell gives you the ability to interact with all your gear as you could before. Either way thats clearly RAI because the developers didnt place any negative effects on the spell. Seriously. This should not even be an issue.
I really dont understand the point of all this. The Invisibility spell doesnt give any negative effects. Nowhere in the rules does it point out a single disadvantage for being invisible. RAI is easy. While invisible you can still interact with all your gear as you could before you became invisible. Otherwise they would point out what was different.
Being unable to see a person or that person's gear, without exception, is neither positive nor negative. It is an alteration to reality. Now, whether that's positive or negative to the target of the invisibility or you (if you have a stake in the game) depends on whether invisibility helps to further your/his goals or not. Just like every other spell has proper and improper applications.
Now, here's what I'd like to know. For those of you who think you can see yourself: where's your rules support for that? I keep reading about how a person and his gear or an object weighing less than 100 lbs. can't be seen. I have read no examples of exceptions other than where it specifically made the exception in Invisibility Sphere.
in fact, if you were to then pick up the scroll, it would remain visible until you were to "tuck it into clothing".I buy a large print scroll that can be read from a distance of 5-6 feet. I pull scroll out, open it, and drop/place it on the ground. Now that it is not a part of my gear I can read/use it.
Please don't tell me you have to have contact with the scroll to utilize it.
Is it visible or invisible when you pull it back out from under your clothing?
If it's visible all you have to do is drop, pickup, and tuck your scrolls the round after you go invisible.
Very excellent points. It's nice to hash these things out before they come up in-game.Note that Makarnek referenced:
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief):That section is clearly explaining illusions that do allow for saving throws. Such illusions are normally patterns, and are mind affecting while glamers(which is what illusions are) are not.
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Illusions are under the glamer subschool which has a very real effect on an object by changing the qualities of the subject making it seem to be different.
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.Compare this to patterns which create the perception of unreal things that don't exist at all, and are thus mind affecting. That is also why undead which are immune to mind affects are immune to phantasms and patterns, but not glamers.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
I meant to type glamers are a subschool of illusions.
It does not change anything. I just wanted to fix it before someone thought I did not know what I was talking about. :)
I buy a large print scroll that can be read from a distance of 5-6 feet. I pull scroll out, open it, and drop/place it on the ground. Now that it is not a part of my gear I can read/use it.
Please don't tell me you have to have contact with the scroll to utilize it.
RAW probably not, but it is RAI, just like command word activated items are assumed to be in your possession.
To rule otherwise would mean someone else can read a scroll that you are holding.
in fact, if you were to then pick up the scroll, it would remain visible until you were to "tuck it into clothing".I buy a large print scroll that can be read from a distance of 5-6 feet. I pull scroll out, open it, and drop/place it on the ground. Now that it is not a part of my gear I can read/use it.
Please don't tell me you have to have contact with the scroll to utilize it.
Is it visible or invisible when you pull it back out from under your clothing?
If it's visible all you have to do is drop, pickup, and tuck your scrolls the round after you go invisible.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature
You actually have to put it down or drop it by RAW to make it visible.
in fact, if you were to then pick up the scroll, it would remain visible until you were to "tuck it into clothing".I buy a large print scroll that can be read from a distance of 5-6 feet. I pull scroll out, open it, and drop/place it on the ground. Now that it is not a part of my gear I can read/use it.
Please don't tell me you have to have contact with the scroll to utilize it.
Is it visible or invisible when you pull it back out from under your clothing?
If it's visible all you have to do is drop, pickup, and tuck your scrolls the round after you go invisible.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creatureYou actually have to put it down or drop it by RAW to make it visible.
Then you tuck it under your coat and it's unable to be seen by others. However when you pull it out again is it visible or invisible? That's my point above.
|
Note that Makarnek referenced:
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief):That section is clearly explaining illusions that do allow for saving throws. Such illusions are normally patterns, and are mind affecting while glamers(which is what illusions are) are not.
I'm sorry but this is not clear at all. That is a subsection under the general Illusion heading. It applies to all illusions. The heading does not say "Saving Throws and Patterns" it says "Savings Throws and Illusions" so I don't see why you would narrow that down to just patterns.
Glamers may be different then Patterns but both are not real, as stated in the paragraph between figments and glamers:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can.
For this reason alone I would say that all illusions can be subject to a saving throw, as long as it is studied carefully or interacted with.
Also, I notice that Invisibility does allow a saving throws, though is says "(harmless)". Looking up the definition of that criteria it reads:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
That should seal the deal right there. If a character knows Invisibility is being cast on them allow a saving throw (with appropriate modifiers) and go with that.
Then you tuck it under your coat and it's unable to be seen by others. However when you pull it out again is it visible or invisible? That's my point above.in fact, if you were to then pick up the scroll, it would remain visible until you were to "tuck it into clothing".I buy a large print scroll that can be read from a distance of 5-6 feet. I pull scroll out, open it, and drop/place it on the ground. Now that it is not a part of my gear I can read/use it.
Please don't tell me you have to have contact with the scroll to utilize it.
Is it visible or invisible when you pull it back out from under your clothing?
If it's visible all you have to do is drop, pickup, and tuck your scrolls the round after you go invisible.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creatureYou actually have to put it down or drop it by RAW to make it visible.
I'm going to rule, in my game, that it's invisible when you pull it back out--that once it is enveloped in the invisibility, it "sticks". I think this is a relevant question regardless of one's ability to see oneself or otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That should seal the deal right there. If a character knows Invisibility is being cast on them allow a saving throw (with appropriate modifiers) and go with that.
I don't see that. I see that if you make the saving throw, you are not invisible.
Then you tuck it under your coat and it's unable to be seen by others. However when you pull it out again is it visible or invisible? That's my point above.in fact, if you were to then pick up the scroll, it would remain visible until you were to "tuck it into clothing".I buy a large print scroll that can be read from a distance of 5-6 feet. I pull scroll out, open it, and drop/place it on the ground. Now that it is not a part of my gear I can read/use it.
Please don't tell me you have to have contact with the scroll to utilize it.
Is it visible or invisible when you pull it back out from under your clothing?
If it's visible all you have to do is drop, pickup, and tuck your scrolls the round after you go invisible.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creatureYou actually have to put it down or drop it by RAW to make it visible.
Pulling it out a second time after it is invisible is no different than pulling it out the first time it was invisible. It would still have to be dropped or put down to be seen by anyone. Pulling it out of the coat does not stop it from being invisible.
Then you tuck it under your coat and it's unable to be seen by others. However when you pull it out again is it visible or invisible? That's my point above.Pulling it out a second time after it is invisible is no different than pulling it out the first time it was invisible. It would still have to be dropped or put down to be seen by anyone. Pulling it out of the coat does not stop it from being invisible.
I'm not sure that's so clear. It says "disappears" not "becomes invisible". So, it's reasonable to question if the item regains the invisibility state itself or if it's just, sort of, hidden from view within something that is itself invisible. I think it could go either way and I'm ruling in my game that it does.
Very excellent points. It's nice to hash these things out before they come up in-game.Note that Makarnek referenced:
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief):That section is clearly explaining illusions that do allow for saving throws. Such illusions are normally patterns, and are mind affecting while glamers(which is what illusions are) are not.
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Illusions are under the glamer subschool which has a very real effect on an object by changing the qualities of the subject making it seem to be different.
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.Compare this to patterns which create the perception of unreal things that don't exist at all, and are thus mind affecting. That is also why undead which are immune to mind affects are immune to phantasms and patterns, but not glamers.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
EDIT: removed a bunch of blabbering that didn't make any sense.
I'm not sure that's so clear. It says "disappears" not "becomes invisible". So, it's reasonable to question if the item regains the invisibility state itself or if it's just, sort of, hidden from view within something that is itself invisible. I think it could go either way and I'm ruling in my game that it does.Then you tuck it under your coat and it's unable to be seen by others. However when you pull it out again is it visible or invisible? That's my point above.Pulling it out a second time after it is invisible is no different than pulling it out the first time it was invisible. It would still have to be dropped or put down to be seen by anyone. Pulling it out of the coat does not stop it from being invisible.
That ^^
|
Close your eyes. Can you touch your nose? Can you touch your knee? Even if you could not see yourself humans have a sixth sense of sorts that gives them knowledge of where parts of their body are. You can make the argument against equipment I guess, but that is really spliting hairs.Closing your eyes is equivalent to being blinded; that condition already exists with its own set of penalties.
The question was could you see yourself. If you can not see something you are essentially blinded. My point is even if you could not see your body parts, you would be aware of where they were and what they were doing.
Indeed, a nice analysis, however it explicitly states in the spell description that Invisibility is both an illusion (glamer) AND is subject to a saving throw.
I think the key difference is that no ones gets the saving throw until they have a reason to disbelieve the illusion (as opposed to a mind-affecting illusion, for which you get a saving throw upon casting to ignore its affects). Attacking someone directly is a special case in which your enemies get an immediate successful save against your glamer.
Not really. The saving throw is "Will negates" not "Will disbelief". If it were an illusion figment and not a glamer (which "changes a subject's sensory qualities"), it would say "Will disbelief".
And illusory wall, for instance, states "Will disbelief (if interacted with)"
That is a subsection under the general Illusion heading. It applies to all illusions.
It applies to illusions with which you can save via disbelief. That's why it says (Disbelief).
For example: Ghost Sound has Saving Throw "Will disbelief."
For this reason alone I would say that all illusions can be subject to a saving throw, as long as it is studied carefully or interacted with.
So if you attack someone under the effect of Blur or Displacement, or if you're attacked by someone using Greater Invisibility you get to save to negate their spell? That's an interesting (and somewhat crippling) house rule.
Also, I notice that Invisibility does allow a saving throws, though is says "(harmless)". Looking up the definition of that criteria it reads:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.That should seal the deal right there. If a character knows Invisibility is being cast on them allow a saving throw (with appropriate modifiers) and go with that.
This is totally correct. An unwilling target of invisibility can attempt to make a saving throw to negate the spell. The target of an invisibility spell is you or the creature touched. So if you cast Invisibility, targeting yourself, and choose to make a Will save, and succeed on that will save, then the invisibility spell is negated and nothing happens (other than expending the spell slot). If you fail that save, you and your gear becomes invisible. If you cannot see things that are invisible, then you cannot see yourself or your gear, because they are invisible.
I'm sorry but this is not clear at all. That is a subsection under the general Illusion heading. It applies to all illusions. The heading does not say "Saving Throws and Patterns" it says "Savings Throws and Illusions" so I don't see why you would narrow that down to just patterns.Glamers may be different then Patterns but both are not real, as stated in the paragraph between figments and glamers:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can.For this reason alone I would say that all illusions can be subject to a saving throw, as long as it is studied carefully or interacted with.
Also, I notice that Invisibility does allow a saving throws, though is says "(harmless)". Looking up the definition of that criteria it reads:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.That should seal the deal right there. If a character knows Invisibility is being cast on them allow a saving throw (with appropriate modifiers) and go with that.
You are incorrect. The section says "Saving Throws and Illusions ". That means it is referring to illusion spells that have saving throws and can be disbelived. In the case of invisibility it says "Saving Throw Will negates (harmless)". That means the subject can resist the spell affecting them if he does not want to be invisible. That is how all "harmless" spells work. It is basically you deciding to not be affected by a normal beneficial spell. It is not you making a save and being forced to accept the spell anyway.
Spells that allow for disbelief are different.
Saving Throw
Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).
None: No saving throw is allowed.
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
The spells that have Disbelief are the one that can be disbelieved.
If a spell allows for disbelief the person making the save can inform his buddies and they get a +4 to their saves.
---------------------------------------------------
Now let us go back to invisbility
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless)
We know that harmless says:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
We know that negate says:
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
The effect of the invisibility spell is to make someone invisible. By making that will save you are choosing to try to avoid becoming invisible.
As I pointed out above you can't disbelieve it because:
1. The spell does not say "Saving Throw Will disbelief "
2. It is a glamer, which actually changes the sensations of something or someone, unlike patterns which create things that don't exist.
Not really. The saving throw is "Will negates" not "Will disbelief". If it were an illusion figment and not a glamer (which "changes a subject's sensory qualities"), it would say "Will disbelief".And illusory wall, for instance, states "Will disbelief (if interacted with)"
What are you trying to say? If you don't get the saving throw when you have a reason to think there is an invisible person in the room (e.g. when you have a reason to disbelieve that there *isn't* someone else in the room with you), then when DO you get a saving throw? You surely don't get one automatically...
Funny, while I typed that the above two posts cleared up the confusion for me. The saving throw isn't for everyone, it's for the unwilling target of the spell.
Noticing an invisible person has nothing to do with saving throws. That is done by the perceptions skill. You never get a saving throw versus an invisibility spell unless the spell is cast on you. Note that the harmless saves are restricted to the target of the spell.
|
|
Lol the defence for seeing yourself nerds the spell hard. A save every time you attack...And not being able to see yourself doesn't?
Not necessarily. There are plenty of POSSIBLE effects that a strike or series of strikes could be: invisible force effects, physical invisibity (such as invisibile stalkers) or incorporeal monsters and other magic mean that unless someone can CAREFULLY examine the invisible creature and interact with it in ways that may or may not involve out of combat time, then it remains invisible. Basically, it translates into the gut feeling that most people have of invisibility, that it doesn't really affect the recipient negatively (unless they try crossing a highway), and it can't be broken by someone saying, "Hey, he's invisible, I disbelieve!"
(Actually, that's the part that ticked folks off when the ruling was made. The 'carefully examine' clause does away with it, because you're probably just 'carefully examining' air if you're doing it at a distance.)
What it does is make some other invisible things easier or harder to deal with. Say, an invisible bridge, or an invisible podium. Those are special cases anyway, usually.
You are claiming that attacking someone invisible or being attacked by someone invisible is not "interacting" with him?
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
Invisibility does not allow for Will disbelief, and so cannot be disbelieved. The subject is invisible, period, full stop.
The Invisibility spell doesnt give any negative effects. Nowhere in the rules does it point out a single disadvantage for being invisible.
If your allies can't see where you are, and you get caught by a fireball, that's a disadvantage. If they can't see you, they can't target you with friendly spells like Haste or Stabilize, or feed you a health potion without fumbling for your square. While invisible, you can't use your gaze attack or benefit from Mirror Image or Blur. Those are all disadvantages that stem from being invisible, which is what the Invisibility spell makes you.
I think Dragonamedrake was referring to other things like not being able to pull the correct item out of your backpack because you can't see them.
I think Dragonamedrake was referring to other things like not being able to pull the correct item out of your backpack because you can't see them.
I'm sure he was. But the point Grick (and I) made is that negative consequences are not always spelled out when they are self-evident. If you're blinded, can you pull things out of your backpack or read scrolls? It's self-evident that not being able to see changes the logistics of activity. If I say that your legs are crippled and you can't stand, do I also have to clearly state that you can't also run or jump? It's the logical consequence of things.
You and your gear are made unseeable. There are consequences, possibly good and possibly bad to your goals as a result of this--but ultimately this is perspective-only.
I think Dragonamedrake was referring to other things like not being able to pull the correct item out of your backpack because you can't see them.
In his post he was using the lack of negative effects to justify being able to read invisible scrolls.
Showing that there are disadvantages to being invisible disproves his assertion.
While you are subject to the Invisibility spell, you and your gear are invisible.
If you can't normally see invisible things and you have not employed magic to do so, then you can't see yourself or your gear.
For most items, this is irrelevant.
For scrolls, which state you must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll, this poses a problem.
You don't have a problem knowing which end of your weapon is flaming when you are blinded. You don't lose track of your potions when you are in an area of supernatural darkness. And you don't stop being able to fire arrows while invisible.
But in all of those cases, you would be unable to activate a scroll, because you are unable to see and read the writing on it.
I think Dragonamedrake was referring to other things like not being able to pull the correct item out of your backpack because you can't see them.
Correct. Nowhere in the rules does it state that you recieve any sort of negative for being invisible when trying to interact with your own gear.
I have seen others asking for proof that you can see yourself. Well where is your proof that you cant? Does the spell say you cant? Does the spell (or any other section of the book for that matter) give any sort of negative effect for being invisible? No. There is nothing.
All of this is pure conjecture based on what you "THINK" should happen when someone is invisible, however the rules just dont support your opinion. Houserule it all you want, but thats exactly what it is. Its not cheesing a spell when you follow the rules. Expecially when the rules are both supported RAW and RAI.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As a rule of thumb, I won't (as the GM) do anything numerical unless it's spelled out. Same goes for changing action types and other hard-coded thing. So when it comes time to decide how a certain situation affects a given activity, it becomes a question of "Is this blatant enough to be disallowed altogether, or should I just let it go and get on with the damn game?"
That's a much easier question to answer, and has yet to inspire an argument at the table.
Does the spell say you cant?
Yes.
Invisibility: "The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too."
If you cannot see things that are invisible, then you cannot see things that are invisible. Since your gear is invisible, and you cannot see things that are invisible, you cannot see your gear.
Does the spell (or any other section of the book for that matter) give any sort of negative effect for being invisible?
Yes. Many of them were covered a few posts up.
All of this is pure conjecture based on what you "THINK" should happen when someone is invisible, however the rules just dont support your opinion.
What the rules don't support is being able to see invisible things when you can't see invisible things.
Expecially when the rules are both supported RAW and RAI.The rules are supported by the rules?
It would be much easier to take you seriously if it weren't so obvious you're flinging terms around without even knowing what they mean.
Rules of Invisibility. Im very familiar with the terms we are discussing. And honestly I could care less if you take me seriously. Its much easier to attack someone's grammer or word usage then to defend your point... I get that. But you could try and be a bit less rude. It only reflects poorly on yourself.
I have my opinion. You have a different one. Deciding you dont like mine doesnt mean you have to fling insults.