Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThePolarBear" data-source="post: 6959558" data-attributes="member: 6857451">You really should read the rest of the thread, and see where all of this has sparked. Not because i do not think you would be "unqualified to post" here or something, just to have direct knowledge of what has been written and so have a personal idea of how this point was reached.By the way... why are you too directly associating "known position -> no (longer, probably) hiding"? There's something in the rules that lets you say that this is, in fact, a rule instead of a simple explanation on how to adjudicate knowledge of position after certain events "triggers" the question?I ask because that assumption is also part of the discussion. I do not make such an assumption when adjudicating "hiding and remaining hidden": I state my decision on the situation (DM can choose if the conditions allow hiding) and the guidelines for "no longer being hidden" and "you must do so for moving".It's an important part of the "person in a box" and "person behind the pillar" argument.About the state: It's been clarified that the state of "being hidden", at least in combat, requires taking the hide action (unless the dm explicitly says otherwise - as always DM can do whatever they want with the rules) in the rules. It means putting some sort of "effort" in the "changing" of state - something that i agree on and that is also the basis of the "attempting to hide" also means "attempting to stay hidden" point - if there is no effort to begin with, the whole equation falls apart: you are not attempting anything.And please... do not go into physics and metaphysics. It's a game and we are discussing about a part of an abstractact system (that in no way claims to be realistic to begin with) that is responsible for giving informations on how to mechanically express certain situations whose adjudication is left in the hands of a person to judge based on a series of guidelines and personal experience/common sense.How you decide that the ability works has no meaning on how the rules state the ability works. Those are the mechanics given, fluff is the rest. If you want to rationalize: The WE still has to comply to all the other requirements. The only one that was served to them was the "cannot be seen clearly" part. Dex (stealth) is still representative of his ability to not make sounds, leave as little traces as possible and, at least in combat situations, bob and weave in between sudden movements from others and physically react to changes in the environment.About changing his mind: This is where the "attempt to hide = attempt to stay hidden" equation fails. The two things are not the same. It's not the same thing attempting to walk and managing to keep walking, it' s not the same thing to attempt to write and keep writing until you finish a book. The second requires the first to be successful before it can even be attempted. As written there's nothing that prevents the "changing of state" while in plain sight since the exception is exactly about that: normally one cannot but WE and LH can if the situation is appropriate. You gave XP to a post that clearly states that what you think Hriston thinks is not what Hriston thinks."That confirms only that they can hide with observers nearby. Hiding  while observed is nonsense. If you are hidden, you are not being  observed. The article does not confirm that a creature can hide when its  location is known to observers.Also, your posts would be easier to read if you would paste as plain text. Thank you." "Hiding while observed is nonsense" It is. From our point of view. But that is not the reality of the game world and hiding while observed is not possible UNLESS you are a WE or a LH in specific situations. It's not like WE or LH become invisible. They simply can make the most of being obscured in those situations no matter if they are in plain view or not, if the conditions are preexisting or not, if they are already hiding or not. As i said Hriston directly his interpretation makes no sense unless he adds words and meanings when there are none to be added for the phrase to make sense. The fact that the game reality follows rules that are NOT what we are used to should have been apparent from, well... the get go. Trying to apply our rules BEFORE the rules that are explicitly written just because our reality works differently is fine for your game. Trying to change the meaning of some rule and presenting it as fact to others is NOT fine. Hriston is doing something different from both of those: It's claiming that its interpretation is valid by the rules. And that is simply not true - It is a valid adjudication that can be made because the DM has the final say and can prevent anyone that wears red shorts from hiding if wanted to. But all other rules leave no leeway for such an interpretation unless something is changed to said rules - like adding the "you are not longer hidden" to "your position is known" just because "your position is known" and not because something else caused you to be no longer hidden. </blockquote>

Verification