Flamestrike
Legend
Replies to Hriston's posts
[sblock]
The fact that you refute proof does not mean it was not proven.
Except that for that to be true you have to change the sentences, the article and the ruleset. Then your reading is consistent, because it's no longer a reading, it's a modification. Which , yet again, IT'S FINE, it's just not an interpretation, AND THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING.
It does not until you refuse to understand that TRY TO applies to both "remain out of sight" (withhold) and "go where i'm not seen - disappear" (withdraw) And both meanings are to be included and must be considered and not discarded because no matter how much you want to try to means ALL OF THAT, not just PART OF IT.
As other have said vanish implies a change. Nevertheless, so does hide.
''Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature''
becomes
"Normally, you can't escape from or remain out of sight if you are in full view. A lightfoot halflling, though, can try to disappear from sight behind a creature."
DON'T. You should read a phrase not to support a statement, but for what and how is written.
Then if you think that it works, and it works for everything else: why your reading should be better, if it's more limited and requires to change the words on what it's written for it to work?
[/sblock]
Replies to Flamestrike's posts
[sblock]
Sigh. No, those are open for DM ADJUDICATION. There's no difference in interpretation "open"ness that the rest of the rules. There's no more "attention, from here to here it's going to be really up to you to guess what we meant" in the hiding rules than everywhere else.
So do i. This does not make any "interpretation" automatically logical, fun, realistic or, in the case we are discussing, interpretation at all.
If you want to play how you play, do it and have fun. I do not find your approach any realistic, fun or a valid interpretation to begin with.
You want to read "you can't hide with red pants"? Go ahead.
Your RULING or HOUSERULE, not interpretation - and that's why:
You read that to hide you need to "go into hiding", and hiding is actually a part of a greater attempt that spans all of your actions (be them lower or upper cased), both taken before or after the actual mechanical attempt: You can't hide behind a pillar since you are seen while going behind a pillar, no matter when you make the attempt to hide, given that to hide you need to not be clearly seen and that getting to not be clearly seen is part of the hiding.
Problem is that the rules do not have such a distinction. And it's clear: You can't hide if you are clearly seen, not if you "were". Once you reach the pillar, you are no longer seen. Thus you can hide.
But: You say that your location is known... Except that for hiding whether your location is known or not does not matter at all, and neither is true that your location is actually known: It's only known UNTIL YOU HIDE and if the creaure(s) can actually perceive your location in some way, otherwise is only assumed - guessed. The fact that i'm behind a tree with no way to get away does not matter to the person hiding: It's still there, not making sounds and not being seen and true location unknown. It might be digging very silently for all the creature(s) he is hiding from know. Or climbing. Or simply have slipped under their radar, somehow.
If this wasn't true it would lead to the situation where you can't EVER hide once you get out of sight UNTIL YOU ALSO GET OUT OF HEARING RANGE, since with just hearing you can pinpoint the location of a creature. And again, that your location is unknown is not a requirement.
Thus you need to change 2 requirements to hide in order for your rulings to be "interpretations". Nothing wrong inherently... it's just not an intepretation.
It's just that the OP hasn't used the its power to determine weather a player can hide or not... DM's ADJUDICATION.
And then end up applying a "you can't go into hiding from a creature that could see you clearly enough" rule instead, somehow.
Neither do i, but apparently using the full spectrum of what hide means is only reserved to specific reading: "going out of sight" and " remaining out of sight" get selectively applied at necessity for argument sake, instead of applying them ALWAYS and see if even one applies. And this is somehow "gamist rules jargon". Right.
I CAN and DO say that the rules do not support your interpretation. I go ahead and went ahead in saying that your interpretation is illogical, irrealistic and that i find it unfun. I also went ahead to say that you are completely free to row your boat as you wish in the first post i made where i disagreed with you. I also say that yours is not an interpretation because it does something that an interpretation must not do: Change the meaning.
I can. But i'm not going to... it's no interpretation for me.
Respectively No, and YES.
Not that could see, or does know your location. So why are you applying those requirements to hide?
But that's not what the rule says: You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly. If you see me moving before hiding it's not important. You can't see me while HIDING. Going is not part of the rule. Ergo there's no ergo. It stops before the attempt, even before the action, or you go all the way, action tracking or not.
There's no DC. I do not hide against a DC, i roll and the value is compared to passive perception. DC is not contemplated.
Prehaps passive perception was enough, prehaps not.. but this does not changes that:
... since you are not stupid and if you happen to not see a creature get out from behind a tree and do not hear anything strange coming from there you assume that the thing you were looking at it's still there. You know, your loved OBJECT PERMANENCE. Weather the creature it's still there or not it's another issue.
Yes, you can... you can try and read the things you are writing objectively, and see that are not consistent one row with the following one. Then reread the RAW applying both meanings of hide, try to see how it would work with each applied in each situation and choose what you prefer: Using it as is or changing something to fit your liking, even if the result is again what you are using now. You'll realize you NEED to constrict specific meanings to words and add rules to what it's there, or at least always prevent some possible use of hiding each time they present.
You'll realize that what you are doing is not interpreting the text but changing it to your liking, which is COMPLETELY FINE. It's just not what an intepretation is.
[/sblock]
Replies to pemerton's posts:
[sblock]
Both, those two phrases are not in opposition, nor do contradict one another. One assumes there's no one looking, the other assumes at least one person looking. If you are not seen at all, anyone can hide anywhere. If you are seen, that specific situation is restricted to halflings
Which was clear and is still based on depriving words of meaning.
It isn't. It's clear. I do not agree and up to this we are all fine. What you are missing is the "INTERPRETATION" part, or the part where you say that your ruling is this way because that's how it's written that the problem comes from.
Exactly like Halflings. Or WE. Or prehaps they disappear. Or become chameleons, but only for people who aren't observant enough. And guess what? It does not matter, since that's up to the specific DM, and that does not change how the rule is written.
No, unless the elf and the human are trying to hide. If they are paying attention to what they do they both are spotted. And even then, it's up to the DM to actually rule if the human or the elf are clearly seen or not, not you nor me. The elf player has the advantage (not capital A) to an ability to show the DM to say "see? I can!", while the human cannot. But if the DM rules that both are hidden, then both are hidden.
Problem is what that coherency comes from, and what mechanical PoV. It's not from a RAW PoV since the meaning of all the instances of hide and vanish have to be changed for that reading to work and it's not working mechanically, since you have a single roll until you are discovered but in your reading you should roll each time someone tries to spot you. That is a contradiction and something you do not account for. Even the fact that you have to take something into account because it does not work should show you that's not how it works, if there's an interpretation that mechanically and with respect to word meaning fits.
RAI you have to destroy english to prove that a specific instance of a rule that overrides another actually fits your castle.
Again, you can say that you play that way, that it's better to play your way, that's more fun or realistic. This is opinable and up to preference, really. What you should not do is saying that your rules are an interpretation of what it's written: It's not. You are simply causing confusion.
[/sblock]
Cool man, but you're wrong.
You read that to hide you need to "go into hiding", and hiding is actually a part of a greater attempt that spans all of your actions (be them lower or upper cased), both taken before or after the actual mechanical attempt: You can't hide behind a pillar since you are seen while going behind a pillar, no matter when you make the attempt to hide, given that to hide you need to not be clearly seen and that getting to not be clearly seen is part of the hiding.
Problem is that the rules do not have such a distinction. And it's clear: You can't hide if you are clearly seen, not if you "were". Once you reach the pillar, you are no longer seen. Thus you can hide.
Again, youre wrong. My intepretation of the passage differs from yours.
Sook all you want, but thats just how it is. Your intepretation is as much a houserule as mine is.