Strip 599 - "RAW vs RAI"

1st Feb 2018, 12:00 AM in Cave of No Return
first Latest
Average Rating: 0 (0 votes)

first Latest

Author Notes:

DragonTrainer 1st Feb 2018, 12:00 AM edit delete
The text I was reading when I made the previous comic strip:



(You have to be registered at ComicFury to leave a comment!)
Snowtwo 1st Feb 2018, 9:00 AM edit delete reply

I'm with Baloney on this one. It's a bit too situational if it's JUST invisible enemies.
Halosty45 1st Feb 2018, 1:53 PM edit delete reply
I think in this case, links in srds might be unhelpful. Uncanny dodge links to the invisible condition, but is it intended to be that way?

I agree with Baloney, but I'd accept Hax's ruling... and look for some way to exploit it later. For example, the exact thing uncanny dodge is intended for: Protecting against sneak attacks. As long as I avoided being invisible, I could sneak attack barbarians and rogues and ninjas if I could sneak up on them... unless I was also invisible on accident.
The42ndGecko 1st Feb 2018, 10:35 PM edit delete reply

Yeah, to see why it's a bad ruling, you only have to do one thing. Consider this scenario.

Two bandits attack someone with Uncanny dodge who is blinded. They are identical, but a wizard casts greater invis on one. For some reason, the invisible bandit has a harder time attacking.

If you go "works on people you can't see" you never get any weird wonky situations like that.
Halosty45 2nd Feb 2018, 2:11 PM edit delete reply
Let me just say before I start rambling, I appreciate the way the author is doing things. GMs make calls, some of them good, some of them bad...

Actually, if I recall correctly They are the same. The person is blinded, so they lose their dex bonus from that- they don't lose it any more or less for the invisible person, plus -2 to their ac. The invisible person doesn't get their +2 to attack for being invisible, so they just equal out.
Now, if one person couldn't be seen in the shadows, and one person couldn't be seen in the same shadows but was also invisible... then it might have that scenario. Except in this case, it could be argued that the person merely hidden in the shadows gets no advantage at all unless being attacked, because stealth merely states they get total concealment, and not that they somehow deny dexterity bonus to ac (unless they are considered invisible by means of stealth)
Pathfinder's text, however, says this:
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.
(it also calls out feint). Since it calls out the other most common ways to lose dex bonus to AC, I feel the intentions of "invisible" are pretty clear.
(You have to be registered at ComicFury to leave a comment!)