Line of Sight and Ethereal Plane

Hriston · Aug 20, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
Right, so where is the corner of my space when I'm not on a grid?

The corner of your space is, without a doubt, not between your pupil and your eyelid.

Yes, sizes list spaces in square areas,

Thanks for acknowledging that your character does indeed control a square space in combat. Now we can move forward with the conversation.

but the rule you're citing for determining line of sight is only valid for miniature use -- it's an optional rule. Absent that, there's no rule for using spaces to determine line of sight and the default is then the natural language

I hadn’t looked at the DMG in a while and was unaware the rule quoted by the OP is from a section on using miniatures, but I can see that. I don’t think the way line of sight dependent effects are adjudicated ought to vary depending on whether you use miniatures or not, and I don’t think you do either. So since line of sight remains basically undefined in the base game, let’s talk about its natural language meaning.

-- line of sight means you have an unobstructed view of the end-point. At which point, closing your eyes obstructs your view.

I disagree. This is Google's definition of line of sight:

a straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision.

At the point you close your eyes, you're no longer an observer, so whether your view is obstructed no longer has any bearing on whether there is line of sight. The test of whether there is line of sight is if someone with their eyes open would have unobstructed vision in that particular location.

Further, even though grid rules have an additional rule, that rule doesn't trump the existing rules, meaning it doesn't supercede other, existing methods of determining line of sight. Instead, that adds a method for grid use to the existing methods. There's no place where it says 'You have a line of sight regardless of any other factors so long as the rules in the Using Miniatures optional rules are met.' That's a ridiculous argument, on multiple levels.

Well, it says if certain conditions are met then there is line of sight. There's no equivocation in that statement, but I realize this is a rule for miniatures use. I just happen to think it agrees very nicely with the natural language meaning.

The basic point here is that if I cannot see something due to an obstruction, I do not have a line of sight. Eyelids are an obstruction.

I think there's a difference in meaning between "is within line of sight" and "can be seen". The designers of the game made liberal use of the latter in many cases, so if that's how they meant the frightened condition to read, they could have written it that way.

The second basic point here is that this ruling doesn't negatively impact anything -- it's not a dodge, it's not better to do this, it is, in fact, worse than the existing rules in every case. Being blind is worse than the bullet point of frightened that relies on line of sight. So, not only am I pointing to where your argument fails to convince on RAW grounds, it's also pointless for gameplay -- the "cure" here is worse than the "disease."

You'll get no argument from me on any of these counts. My objection is mostly aesthetic in nature. If someone enjoys being able to turn off part of being frightened by closing their eyes, who am I to judge?

Ovinomancer · Aug 21, 2018

Hriston said:
The corner of your space is, without a doubt, not between your pupil and your eyelid.

Thanks for acknowledging that your character does indeed control a square space in combat. Now we can move forward with the conversation.

I hadn’t looked at the DMG in a while and was unaware the rule quoted by the OP is from a section on using miniatures, but I can see that. I don’t think the way line of sight dependent effects are adjudicated ought to vary depending on whether you use miniatures or not, and I don’t think you do either. So since line of sight remains basically undefined in the base game, let’s talk about its natural language meaning.

What a strange assumption. If I didn't think there was a difference, why did I post?

Of course there are differences in how many things are adjuducated when playing with and without a grid. Line of sight is defined in the base gane as well as many things are: it's the DM's call.

I disagree. This is Google's definition of line of sight:
a straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision.
At the point you close your eyes, you're no longer an observer, so whether your view is obstructed no longer has any bearing on whether there is line of sight. The test of whether there is line of sight is if someone with their eyes open would have unobstructed vision in that particular location.

Well, it says if certain conditions are met then there is line of sight. There's no equivocation in that statement, but I realize this is a rule for miniatures use. I just happen to think it agrees very nicely with the natural language meaning.

Simply put, if you cannot see it, you have no line of sight. Again, if sight is blocked, there's no line of sight. I know rl references are mostly useless, but I actually work professionally with line of sight, and it doesn't matter what blocks it, if you can't draw an unblocked line from a receiver to the source, you don't have line of sight. There's nothing special about eyelids that exclude them from the line between your eyes and what you're looking at.

I think there's a difference in meaning between "is within line of sight" and "can be seen". The designers of the game made liberal use of the latter in many cases, so if that's how they meant the frightened condition to read, they could have written it that way.

Respectfully, there is no difference at all. If I cannot see it, I have no line of sight. This is obvious.

You'll get no argument from me on any of these counts. My objection is mostly aesthetic in nature. If someone enjoys being able to turn off part of being frightened by closing their eyes, who am I to judge?

Are aesthetic arguements that turn on specificly unique readings to achieve no gain actually aesthetic? Rhetorical answer: I don't think so, they're more persnickety than aesthetic.

Plaguescarred · Aug 21, 2018

Two creatures on a different plane of existance aren't within line of sight, except perhaps on the ethereal border.

SkidAce · Aug 22, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
What a strange assumption. If I didn't think there was a difference, why did I post?

Of course there are differences in how many things are adjuducated when playing with and without a grid. Line of sight is defined in the base gane as well as many things are: it's the DM's call.

Simply put, if you cannot see it, you have no line of sight. Again, if sight is blocked, there's no line of sight. I know rl references are mostly useless, but I actually work professionally with line of sight, and it doesn't matter what blocks it, if you can't draw an unblocked line from a receiver to the source, you don't have line of sight. There's nothing special about eyelids that exclude them from the line between your eyes and what you're looking at.

Respectfully, there is no difference at all. If I cannot see it, I have no line of sight. This is obvious.

I believe "line of sight" is a measurement type thing. You can use your vision to determine if anything is blocking the line between A and B.

But closing your eyes just means that you put the ruler away. Person at A can still see you and shoot you with, say an arrow.

Now are you still feared of a creature that you can's see? Good question.

beaumontsebos · Aug 22, 2018

Plaguescarred said:
Two creatures on a different plane of existance aren't within line of sight, except perhaps on the ethereal border.

That's about as logical and concise as you can get. : ) Thanks.

Ovinomancer · Aug 22, 2018

SkidAce said:
I believe "line of sight" is a measurement type thing. You can use your vision to determine if anything is blocking the line between A and B.

But closing your eyes just means that you put the ruler away. Person at A can still see you and shoot you with, say an arrow.

Now are you still feared of a creature that you can's see? Good question.

My line of sight doesn't have to be your line of sight. For instance, to pick something from my professional field, I can't see through my walls, but FM radio frequencies can (to a degree, depending on construction, YMMV).

My not having a line of sight to someone(thing) else doesn't necessarily imply the someone(thing) doesn't have line of sight to me.

However, if the other person is just in darkness, and it's a lack of light only that prevents me from seeing them, there's still a line of sight -- it's unobstructed, just unilluminated. But, if my eyes are closed, no amount of illumination will allow me to see the other person -- my line of sight is obstructed.

Hriston · Aug 22, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
What a strange assumption. If I didn't think there was a difference, why did I post?

Of course there are differences in how many things are adjuducated when playing with and without a grid.

I was speaking more to the resulting difference in the fictional situation. A frightened creature with the source of its fear within line of sight has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls. By your reading of line of sight, it can avoid having disadvantage on all ability checks by accepting automatic failure on ability checks that require sight and granting advantage on attack rolls against it, simply by closing its eyes. That isn't the case if following the rules for using miniatures, at least by my reading, and the resulting difference doesn't sit well with me.

Ovinomancer said:
Line of sight is defined in the base gane as well as many things are: it's the DM's call.

Simply put, if you cannot see it, you have no line of sight. Again, if sight is blocked, there's no line of sight. I know rl references are mostly useless, but I actually work professionally with line of sight, and it doesn't matter what blocks it, if you can't draw an unblocked line from a receiver to the source, you don't have line of sight. There's nothing special about eyelids that exclude them from the line between your eyes and what you're looking at.

What if the receiver is turned off? Would you then say line of sight is blocked because no signal is being received? To me, that is analogous to closing one's eyes.

Ovinomancer said:
Respectfully, there is no difference at all. If I cannot see it, I have no line of sight. This is obvious.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this.

Ovinomancer said:
Are aesthetic arguements that turn on specificly unique readings to achieve no gain actually aesthetic? Rhetorical answer: I don't think so, they're more persnickety than aesthetic.

My reading isn't unique. [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] appears to agree with me when he says, 'I believe "line of sight" is a measurement type thing. You can use your vision to determine if anything is blocking the line between A and B.

'But closing your eyes just means that you put the ruler away. Person at A can still see you and shoot you with, say an arrow.' His statement doesn't address line of sight as belonging to one observer or another. Line of sight is a quality that exists (or doesn't) between two locations. Opening your eyes and looking along the line allows you to make use of the line of sight, but it doesn't create it.

SkidAce · Aug 22, 2018

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one was there to see it, was there line of sight?

Ovinomancer · Aug 23, 2018

Hriston said:
I was speaking more to the resulting difference in the fictional situation. A frightened creature with the source of its fear within line of sight has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls. By your reading of line of sight, it can avoid having disadvantage on all ability checks by accepting automatic failure on ability checks that require sight and granting advantage on attack rolls against it, simply by closing its eyes. That isn't the case if following the rules for using miniatures, at least by my reading, and the resulting difference doesn't sit well with me.

I'm not sure that this is the same thing, though. We're clearly differing on the method, not the results.

What if the receiver is turned off? Would you then say line of sight is blocked because no signal is being received? To me, that is analogous to closing one's eyes.

This is kinda like what I think is wrong with line of sight in general. What do you mean by 'receiver'? I understand what I mean, of course, but receiver is a collective noun meaning many part. The actual emitter/receiver is the antenna, and you don't power those off. The part you're talking about is more analogous to the brain - the part that identifies and decodes the received signal. Which opens the question of 'if you're brain-dead, can you see?' Not really relevant to the discussion, I'd say.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this.

Nod, and a good gaming to you, sir, as well!

My reading isn't unique. [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] appears to agree with me when he says, 'I believe "line of sight" is a measurement type thing. You can use your vision to determine if anything is blocking the line between A and B.

'But closing your eyes just means that you put the ruler away. Person at A can still see you and shoot you with, say an arrow.' His statement doesn't address line of sight as belonging to one observer or another. Line of sight is a quality that exists (or doesn't) between two locations. Opening your eyes and looking along the line allows you to make use of the line of sight, but it doesn't create it.[/QUOTE]