Would you allow this?

[billd91]

That is one of the most preposterous arguments I've seen on this forum. The idea that the hider has to become unhidden before he is seen by a perception check is just absurd. That's not the order of events. The order of events is hidden-->seen by normal vision-->unhidden.

You're reading WAY more into the argument than is being implied.

 

[Maxperson]

You're reading WAY more into the argument than is being implied.

He's using that argument in a vain attempt to refute the fact that you can see a hidden person with normal vision. The only way it refutes my argument is if the order of events is hidden-->unhidden-->perception check(normal vision). If he is acknowledging that the order is hidden-->perception check(normal vision)-->unhidden, then he is admitting that the person is not invisible, since to be invisible you cannot be seen with normal vision.

 

[billd91]

He's using that argument in a vain attempt to refute the fact that you can see a hidden person with normal vision. The only way it refutes my argument is if the order of events is hidden-->unhidden-->perception check(normal vision). If he is acknowledging that the order is hidden-->perception check(normal vision)-->unhidden, then he is admitting that the person is not invisible, since to be invisible you cannot be seen with normal vision.

If the stealthy character is successfully hidden, in fact you can’t see them with normal vision—they’re too good at staying out of it. That’s the effect of blowing your perception check. The “invisibility”of being successfully hidden may be relatively easily broken by such mundane things as a change of vantage point without having to resort to magical means of cutting through an invisibility spell. But the basic equivalence of the condition is there as long as the failed perception applies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

He's using that argument in a vain attempt to refute the fact that you can see a hidden person with normal vision. The only way it refutes my argument is if

The context is 4e, in which Hidden and Invisible have precise, clear meanings.

Since that's the context, you have been unequivocally proven wrong. No amount if ranting, dictionary definitions, or attempts to manufacture ambiguity are going to change that.

But, only when the tangent drifted into that context.

In 5e, you could have this whole argument in natural language, and, in the end the DM would rule, and that's be the end if it. You'd neither of you be right or wrong, nor would the DM, but the convention is to abide by the ruling.

 

[pemerton]

You're reading WAY more into the argument than is being implied.

If the stealthy character is successfully hidden, in fact you can’t see them with normal vision—they’re too good at staying out of it. That’s the effect of blowing your perception check. The “invisibility”of being successfully hidden may be relatively easily broken by such mundane things as a change of vantage point without having to resort to magical means of cutting through an invisibility spell. But the basic equivalence of the condition is there as long as the failed perception applies.

On this occasion, we are in agreement!

 

[Maxperson]

If the stealthy character is successfully hidden, in fact you can’t see them with normal vision—they’re too good at staying out of it. That’s the effect of blowing your perception check. The “invisibility”of being successfully hidden may be relatively easily broken by such mundane things as a change of vantage point without having to resort to magical means of cutting through an invisibility spell. But the basic equivalence of the condition is there as long as the failed perception applies.

That's a false in two ways which I have shown. First, a perception check doesn't use x-ray vision, super telescopic vision, or any other type of vision other than normal, so using it sees the hider with normal vision. Second is this gem, which doesn't even require a perception check. "Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy." All the enemy has to do is walk around the box you are hiding behind and normal vision sees you just fine.

 

[Maxperson]

The context us 4e, in which Hidden and Invisible have precise, clear meanings.

Yes they do, and invisibility requires that you be unable to be seen by normal vision, which hiding doesn't provide. When you hide you can be seen with normal vision by walking around the object the rogue is hiding behind or making a perception check. An invisible person cannot be seen by precise, clear 4e definition via normal vision. Therefore, hiding cannot be invisibility as 4e defines it. The use of the world in the stealth area is an unfortunate mistake that simply means unseen, not invisible as 4e defines it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes they do, and invisibility requires that you be unable to be seen by normal vision, which hiding doesn't provide

You are working very hard to make a clear, simple thing conform to your expectations of ambiguity and needless complexity.

Simply repeating the same mistakes won't make them into a valid alternate interpretation.

When you hide you can be seen with normal vision by walking around the object the rogue is hiding behind or making a perception check.

No, you are no longer Hidden in those instances. Once you are no longer Hidden, you are no longer Invisible to the creature that made the check or that you no longer have cover or concealment from. You may still be Hidden from and thus Invisible to other creatures.

An invisible person cannot be seen by precise, clear 4e definition via normal vision. Therefore, hiding cannot be invisibility as 4e defines it. The use of the world in the stealth area is an unfortunate mistake that simply means unseen, not invisible as 4e defines it.

You are reasoning backwards. Being invisible to creatures you have successfully hidden from is an attribute of Hidden, not a prerequisite for it.

The argument you are making is of the same fallacious and laughable form as insisting that, since humans demonstrably cannot fly by flapping their arms, it is absolutely impossible for them to pilot aircraft.

 

[billd91]

That's a false in two ways which I have shown. First, a perception check doesn't use x-ray vision, super telescopic vision, or any other type of vision other than normal, so using it sees the hider with normal vision. Second is this gem, which doesn't even require a perception check. "Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy." All the enemy has to do is walk around the box you are hiding behind and normal vision sees you just fine.

Actually, a perception check will absolutely involve any senses that are appropriate - so they certainly could use x-ray vision, super telescopic vision, and every other type of vision including normal. But that's not the point. The important distinction you keep missing is whether or not the check succeeds. With a failure, it doesn't matter whether or not the hiding character can be spotted by normal vision, with the failed check, the clueless character cannot see them with normal (or even any) vision and won't unless the situation changes. The fact that the ability to be unseeable by the observer's normal vision is conditional doesn't negate the fact that, for that observer under those conditions, the stealthy character is literally as invisible as one under a magical invisibility power.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, a perception check will absolutely involve any senses that are appropriate - so they certainly could use x-ray vision, super telescopic vision, and every other type of vision including normal.

Yes, I was a bit focused on normal vision. Other vision types do work with perception.

But that's not the point.

No it isn't.

The important distinction you keep missing is whether or not the check succeeds.

That's absolutely the important part. The wording of invisible is "You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision." Not isn't seen. Not won't be seen. Not will not be seen. But can't be seen. As in, it's not possible to see an invisible person with normal vision. That means that the only important part is whether you can(as in it's possible) see someone who is hidden. If someone can(not will) see a person, that person is not invisible, even if hiding.

With a failure, it doesn't matter whether or not the hiding character can be spotted by normal vision, with the failed check, the clueless character cannot see them with normal (or even any) vision and won't unless the situation changes.

Or the check again the next round and succeed with normal vision, which means that the person CAN see them, even if he failed the first time.

The fact that the ability to be unseeable by the observer's normal vision is conditional doesn't negate the fact that, for that observer under those conditions, the stealthy character is literally as invisible as one under a magical invisibility power.

Just unseen, really. The problem is that they contradict themselves by using the word invisibility in the stealth text, and then providing a definition for invisibility which precludes stealth. WotC has a history with problems like this.