Timeline for Do features that let you see things within your "line of sight" let you see invisible creatures and objects?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2021 at 6:43 | comment | added | Guillaume F. | I do agree that "line of sight" is context-sensitive and can change meaning. I just disagree with Sage Advice's statement that the English language is clear on whether the frightened condition works when a creature has a unobstructed path to the source of their fear but the source itself is invisible. | |
| Aug 28, 2021 at 6:34 | comment | added | Exempt-Medic | @GuillaumeF. I believe you've missed my point. "Line of sight" is not a game-defined term and as such has no set meaning. Instead, it is context-sensitive and can even change meaning depending on how/when it is used. In fact, the OP points out how this phrase is actually used to mean two entirely different things. "If you can’t see something, it’s not within your line of sight." implies "If it's within your line of sight, you can see it" and yet we also see this phrase used: "You can see invisible [things] [...] that are within line of sight." These are incompatible, with strict logic | |
| Aug 28, 2021 at 6:30 | comment | added | Guillaume F. | I find the "the game uses the English meaning of the term" ruling unsatisfying. In English, "line of sight" means something like "a straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision". Of course, in real life there is no invisible objects - the English language doesn't tell us whether you have a line of sight when there an unobstructed path to an object that is itself invisible. Another example where using the plain English meaning of the term for the rules actually confuses more than clarifies. | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 13:29 | history | answered | Exempt-Medic | CC BY-SA 4.0 |