Timeline for Spell attacks while hidden
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2021 at 14:13 | vote | accept | Dfvx990mq321pl | ||
| Jul 31, 2020 at 3:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackRPG/status/1289033247561834497 | ||
| Jul 30, 2020 at 21:02 | comment | added | Dfvx990mq321pl | @Zimul8r I was trying to use examples of spells specifically with spell attacks that are also not very obvious (in my opinion at least) in order to make these two rules conflict. There is a surprisingly small list of those types of spells. Regardless, from the two answers provided so far, it seems like the "making an attack" rule overrules the "spells without obvious effects are not noticeable," which I'm okay with. | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 0:49 | answer | added | user-781943 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 0:08 | answer | added | Gandalfmeansme | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 0:08 | comment | added | Zimul8r | There are non-obvious spells, but these examples are not two of them. There's nothing in the spell description to imply that the black beam of Ray of Enfeeblement is in any way non-obvious. Also, there is no reason to assume that being touched is non-obvious. Perhaps like "Targets" suggests, use Detect Thoughts? | |
| Jul 29, 2020 at 23:05 | history | edited | V2Blast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added DDB links; fixed quote formatting
|
| Jul 29, 2020 at 23:04 | history | edited | MikeQ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formatting
|
| Jul 29, 2020 at 22:57 | history | asked | Dfvx990mq321pl | CC BY-SA 4.0 |