NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8212391" data-attributes="member: 71699">My point is not that I can explain the difference, but rather that I cannot prove they are the same.One might attempt to do so by looking at other ability checks. For example, is trying to climb, and climbing, the same thing? I think they are, but how can one prove that they are? A group could say that trying to climb is rolling the die, and climbing is the product of rolling the die, or something like that.Implied by you are not clearly seen is that you are seen. Just not clearly. Your point might be addressed by denying the sight-based check and going off sound, just as if the hider were invisible in this situation. Thus, no superposition. There is no RAW-mandated penalty for creatures that normally use a combination of senses when relying only on one, but a DM might apply disadvantage.EDIT I think the RAW always requires there to be a point where unseen/unheard abruptly transitions to seen/heard. One view says not being heavily obscured is such a point. Another view says that not being heavily or lightly obscured is such a point. In truth both might be somewhat incomplete, due to "you give away your position if you make noise" and to be hidden your position must be unknown.That's not precisely true. The rules state that you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly. That implies that you can hide from a creature that can't see you clearly. Restating all this isn't productive. I honestly believe that to avail against a position like the one you oppose (and for the record, I also don't agree with) one must show one or both of<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">attempting to hide, and being hidden, are one and the same thing in RAW</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">disadvantage on (or denial of) Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight, and not being clearly seen, are two different things in RAW</li> </ul>So one needs to find cases that crisply demonstrate that. Or I guess to put it another way, if the exchange of yes it is / no it isn't was going to get anywhere, perhaps it should have done so by now <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification