Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flamestrike" data-source="post: 6951622" data-attributes="member: 6788736">Which is irrelevant. I saw (sensed) you hide in the box.So you're not hidden from me.If I watch you open a box, crawl in and close the lid [and then be very quiet] I am watching you hide.You getting in the box is part of you hiding. No box = no hiding. Observer = no hiding.I dont have to sense you now, for you to be not hidden from me. You being hidden (or not hidden) relative to me is a question of the truth of my state of mind as informed by my senses.Heck, I dont have to observe you going into hiding at all. Someone else can watch you go into hiding and convey that information to me. As long as that information is correct, you are not hidden relative to me.Oh but it is. Try and hide from me in an empty room with no box. You need the box to hide in. You also need me to not be watching you go into it.Nah man. Remember hidden and 'unseen' are different things. The game makes a clear distinction between being unseen (invisible, total cover, heavy obscurement) and being hidden. Simply not sensing something doesnt make it hidden under any rule in the game I can see, clearly implying that the game treats 'hidden' as something more than 'not seen' or 'not sensed'.It infers a state of mind in the observer. If you know where something or someone is, they are not hidden from you. This is why you cant hide while being observed. The observation informs the observer of the knowledge of where you are.If that isnt the case, and the ring is hidden from me (according to you, the DM) despite me putting it into the drawer and knowing where it is, whats my Perception DC to find it via the Search action?By the way, note haw if my buddies invisible Imp familiar moved the ring from its hiding spot without my knowlege (usually gained via observation, although he could tell me) then the ring will be hidden from me. Thats only true if the ring is subject to quantum entanglement dependent on my state of mind, or exists only as a form of Schroedingers cat. Unlike electrons, the ring does not exist in a state of uncertainty, its location dependent on my ability to observe it or not.It either is where I left it, and where my friend observed me put it, or it isnt.If it is where I left it, I know where it is, and it is not hidden from me. If some external force has moved it without me knowing (sensing) the move, then it is hidden from me. My subjective knowledge (obtained through me observing the rings location) differs from the objective reality of the spatial location of the ring.Enter the DM. He is able to determine the objective truth of the universe. So he (and he alone) can determine when you can hide from someone, and when you are hidden from a person (when their subjective knowledge of your location and presence does not accord with the objective reality of the same).Thats good because in the context of the word as used in the PHB, I disagree with it.Of course I understand this.  Considering that my entire argument stems from the basis that ['there are different interpretations of 'hide' and 'hidden'] I would be a hypocrite at best to now argue that multiple interpretations do not exist.As to whether I prefer your interpretation over mine, see above. I clearly dont. I let my own empiricism, the words as the appear in context and common sense inform me as to what the correct interpretation is.Of course, I tend towards a level of postmodernism so a refutation of the existence of a 'universal truth and a text that exists in and of itself' is kind of expected.</blockquote>

Verification