Search results

So I guess I'd say: The halfling could conceivably get the drop on the orc because the orc stopped paying attention and isn't actively watching the box. If we drop back out of combat-rounds because nothing's happening? Sure.

Huh, that's fascinating. I'm now back to not really having a coherent model of the rule, and suspecting that none exists.

Strictly speaking, if it hasn't taken the Hide action, it's not hidden, period. Whether or not you know where it is. But that you think a deduction is trivial doesn't mean it's not a deduction. Object permanence is an assumption about the world, and in a fantasy setting, it's not even all that...

That turns out not to matter. The game differentiates between "seen" and "not seen" much more than it differentiates based on whether or not you have a belief about something's location, even if that belief is correct. If you can observe the target, you can attack normally. If you can't, I...

If you don't actually see a thing, you don't know its location, you just have a belief which might be correct.

Thought experiment: You don't have blind-fighting or anything similar. You're standing twenty feet from someone. You cast Zone of Truth, and you can tell that someone did not make the save, and they tell you exactly where that person is. You shoot at them with a crossbow. Do you take penalties...

Consider: I go into a box, then I use an item which teleports me as a bonus action. You know I'm in the box because you saw me get into the box. The key about not being observed is, you have no way of knowing whether someone's still there or not.

i feel i should point out: for this, you might find Dungeons: The Dragoning to be a better fit, system-wise. It is excellent at that kind of game.

That is a really good point. The rules clearly distinguish between "take the hide action" and "move into a location where you can't be seen".

But that's not my interpretation. It's what happens if I actually apply yours. What actually happens is, you move behind the pillar, or into the box (not hiding, moving), and then after the watcher can't see you, you "hide". Because they aren't still watching you once you are in the box. Now...

Exactly! That is why your position is nonsensical: Because it's absolutely clear that crawling into a box is hiding using that sense of the word, and the rules don't say "hiding from a creature that is watching you is ineffective", they say you can't hide from a creature that is watching you...

And shouting "you're really stupid" at someone is part of the act of attacking them. Using plain English. Don't assume that every meaning of every word is applicable when discussing rules. This is like discussions in 3E of whether waving your arms was "moving". If you want to know whether you...

This is not specified, and it doesn't need to be, any more than I need to know the exact strokes a fighter uses to "hit something with a sword". He's doing the thing which converts an action into Being Hidden.

I don't know. I'm not a rogue. Possibly looking for something in the area behind the pillar he can lean up against to make himself less obvious. Maybe grabbing a handful of dust from the floor and smearing it on his clothes so he blends in better. I don't know the mechanics, and I don't need...

I would tend to say that, taken at face value, if at a given instant you are not observed, and you have an action available, you can then take a Hide action. This doesn't mean that people suddenly forget that you exist. And if they go to where you are, and you're not concealed from them, of...

Adventure Paths, probably. Sets of related modules, in Pathfinder land.

So, looking at it... I think I've concluded that you were probably saying "could afford", not "actually buy", yes? ... If so, I think I agree, but it seems to me that if you know that people misunderstood a post, it might be more efficient to just explicitly make the clarification than to ask...

Totally possible. But they are distinguishable things, and in general, when people have talked about "roleplaying", they have consistently meant it in terms of character. There's cases where it might be a bit ambiguous, and there's cases where you can read it that way if you don't mind...

The key question is: Is that a social contract between the players or between the characters? Because what you describe sounds to me like cases where the other characters would be expressing displeasure because of things the characters believe. Basically, say the PC is "fired outright" from...

The passage I quoted doesn't explicitly say "hey, just so someone who comes along 40 years from now doesn't get confused, I want to clarify that I'm talking about the personalities, not just the raw statistics, of these characters". But think about it: If you're just "fulfilling a function"...