Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6979321" data-attributes="member: 6787503">I don't think obscured and seen clearly are intended to be in opposition. I mean, sure, seen absolutely clearly is completely unobscured, but I don't think that's the meaning that was intended when clearly was added, especially considering that the original text was thought to have captured the intended meaning well enough to have published it in the first place. How do we get from merely seen to seen with absolute clarity? No, mostly seen clearly can be somewhat obscured, but not enough to hide. Mostly obscured is not seen clearly enough to deny hiding, although you might be seen un-clearly. Heavily obscured areas include things like dense woods and moonlit nights, areas where a certain degree of visual clarity is possible, so it isn't as if "blocks vision entirely" or even "imposes the blinded condition" have the kind of absolute meaning in the fiction which you seem to favor.From the most recent update (10/24/16) of the Player's Handbook Errata PDF:Using Ability Scores Hiding (p. 177). The text clarifies that the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, and the first sentence of the second paragraph starts as follows: “You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly …”This just basically reiterates what the actual text changes were. What this particular erratum tells us is that Crawford felt the need to state more obviously that it's the DM's duty, not the player's, to decide when it's even possible to make a DEX (Stealth) check to hide. The addition of 'clearly' throws a shade on the notion that this decision might be taken out of the DM's hands because a creature has line-of-sight to the one trying to hide, a concept which doesn't really appear in the PHB (not sure about the DMG) anyways. For example, in the fiction you can be seen on a moonlit night, but not clearly enough to prevent you from hiding.I said whether or not you are seen clearly is binary. Either you are or you aren't. It sounds to me like your "seen clearly" is binary as well. You just put the line between completely un-obscured and lightly obscured, whereas I put it between lightly obscured and heavily obscured. The way I reconcile lightly obscured with seen clearly is that "seen clearly" doesn't have to mean "seen with absolute clarity". It can mean "seen clearly enough for the purpose of denying an attempt to hide". Thanks. I feel the same way about how you choose to interpret the rules at your table. I'm actually interested in understanding how that plays out differently at your table, because I'm having some difficulty reconciling everyone being able to hide (with the DM asking for a check) when only lightly obscured (if I'm correct in understanding that as your position) and certain rules which imply that heavily obscured provides some added utility to the hider. For example, the invisible condition's statement that the invisible creature is heavily obscured for the purpose of hiding would seem meaningless if everyone could hide when only lightly obscured. Why would it say "heavily obscured" instead of just "obscured"? What added value for the purpose of hiding is there to being heavily obscured?</blockquote>

Verification