Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThePolarBear" data-source="post: 6962862" data-attributes="member: 6857451">And that's where the rule says you are wrong. The observer cannot follow the elf. The situation is enough for the elf to escape notice. Remember that we are not talking about a light snowfall, it's a snowfall that's heavy enough to make all sight based perception rolls at disadvantage. It is a pretty heavy snowfall, so heavy that the visibility is pretty much the same as anything between 5ft (1.5m) and 10ft (3m) from a single lit candle. Well... that game wise has the same penalities, at least, and you still need to abstract a lot of things. But that's pretty damn dark.I'm not saying it's not a situation where others could not, given enough distance, also hide. The elf can very simply just make others go "uhhhh?" by doing that in front of them (at least by the rules). By the way: I do not remember who posted it and where, nor exactly what was said... but iirc Mearls said that for him the ability represented how magically nature moved to shield WElves from sight when they needed it. Even in this interpretation there's nothing that the elf has to do... is nature moving for him. And it's definetly magical. If you prefer this, use it. Still, there should be no roll as it's something that simply happens. The roll for dex is for all the other components of hiding that are still required and still can make the elf lose "nature protection", as that ability simply levies restrictions and does not confer any other advantage. You can still fluff it up a "seen" elf as "surrounded by snowflace that seem to dance to greet him" or a just discovered elf as "Even if you were sure there was nobody you now notice a set of footprints that should not be there and simply following them with your eyes you notice movement between the flakes, finally recognising the elf shape in between the snow".Edit; Working on answering to post 2.No, the rule explicilty says that to hide you need only to not be CLEARLY seen. The same logic should apply to being "no longer hidden". I can look in the direction of the crates and notice that there's a little bit of cloth above such crates. I might dismiss that as a sack on top of the crates and go on, or i can move to investigate. In both cases i've "seen" the rogue, but DM decision was different on "clearly". I agree that being seen is enough. It implies being seen clearly. But the rule makes a distinction that's important to keep in mind. It's a subtle difference but it's an important one that anyone when adjudicating usually intrinsecally and unconsciously already applies. It's just better to state that openly. And that is why being invisible is not a strict requirement for hiding and the image from Flamestrike is misleading. Waldo is hiding, even if you, at least in theory, by looking at the image you are "already seeing" him. It's why shooting from out of cover can work and why you get spotted when "you give away your location" because of the attack. The two things work together to make you realize what happened, focusing on the figure that attacked. That's why for me neither of those, alone, would be enough to "break" hiding - assuming only those things are the only factors to keep in mind.</blockquote>

Verification