Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
If a halfling is in an empty wrll lit room with a tower shield...
If it was a woodelf and the towershield had a sprig of mistletoe...
It would have to kiss the halfling.
If a halfling is in an empty wrll lit room with a tower shield...
If it was a woodelf and the towershield had a sprig of mistletoe...
It would have to kiss the halfling.
Can charm even an elf!The magical compulsion of mistletoe!
I disagree an opaque total cover can have a mechanical effect on vision as it completely conceal you. So enough cover can let you hide behind if it's of sufficient size and opacity. For exemple you shouldn't be able to hide behing a transparent wall of force, even if it's 50 x 50 ft but you should behind the same wall made out of bricks.
I disagree that you disagree. You misunderstand, which isn't the same thing and isn't a good reason to get into an argument with someone, although it does seem to happen quite often. But let me ask you, do you think the fact that the brick wall is an obstacle that grants total cover is what obstructs vision to something behind it? If so, why doesn't the transparent wall that also grants total cover similarly obstruct vision? Could it be that the rules for obstacles granting cover and the rules for obstructions blocking vision are kept separate to allow the DM to determine whether some fictional element grants cover or obstructs vision as two independent factors? A transparent wall grants cover but doesn't obstruct vision. A heavy curtain obstructs vision bot doesn't grant cover. The brick wall does both. Despite what it says on page 74 of the PBR, an obstacle doesn't need to obstruct vision to provide total cover. In that context, the word concealed is best understood to mean shielded, and not necessarily from view. Cue the natural language police.
[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], in pemerton’s example above, do you consider the human and the halfling to be “in full view” of the “nearby observers” at the time the halfling starts to “be careful” (i.e. takes the hide action)?
If so, can you please explain why the duo are in full view in pemerton’s example but not in my empty room example?
I'd prefer to say "unnoticed" - or, perhaps, "potentially unnoticed" - for the following reason.
If the elves were literally unseen that would, in the context of 5e, seem to suggest that they are invisible, and hence - even if detected - entitled to both an offensive and a defensive boost.
So I prefer to think of it this way - if A turns the corner and elf B is just hanging out in the rain/snow, A won't notice B unless (i) B is making significant noise, or moving rapidly/erratically, or otherwise doing something that automatically vitiates an attempt to hide, or (ii) B, despite being still and quiet, nevertheless is noticed by A (mechanically, the WIS check made for A beats the DEX check made for B).
Once A notices B, though, I would say that A is not only aware of B but can see B. Ie B ceases to be unseen. Which is to say, I envisage Mask of the Wild as closer to camouflage than invisibility.
What I've described doesn't quite capture the flavour of the elves in the Shire whom (if I'm remembering rightly) can be heard singing but not otherwise seen or located. But it's a trade-off to stop Mask of the Wild being too strong.