Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 6986549" data-attributes="member: 61529">No, it doesn't leave that open at all, that's the entire !@#*!#ing point of the word "though". Everyone can "vanish" while not directly observed. Lightfoot halflings can vanish while directly observed if they can move behind a larger creature. Absolutely clear that we are talking about transitioning from unhidden to hidden, and doing so while directly observed. The word "though" gives us the fact that "halfling can try to hide" is being done while directly observed.And you guys keep rotating through these things. There's the "it might not mean becoming hidden" dodge, but "try to hide" and "vanish" are pretty clear. There's the "it might mean while not directly observed" dodge, but (1) the word "though" nails that down plenty, and (2) anyone can hide while not directly observed, meaning there's no power there. And we keep bouncing back and forth between these, and both of them are utterly dispelled. But...Every time we get to the stage where normally you would either concede the point or actually advance a defense, you jump to the other point. If you really get cornered on whether or not we are necessarily talking about becoming hidden, suddenly you say "yes, but maybe he means becoming hidden while not directly observed", and then you want to argue whether this is while-observed. And when you get cornered on the very clear evidence that Crawford absolutely meant "while directly observed", suddenly you jump to "well, maybe it's while directly observed, but just means remaining hidden".But you can't actually defend either of them; you just misdirect and reset the topic by switching points. But you've produced cold concessions (as in "just didn't even respond at all") to both of them many times, because neither of them is remotely defensible. We are absolutely clearly given that the halfling is transitioning to a hidden state from an unhidden state, while directly observed. It's impossible for the sentence to not be about direct observation, because we've got the contrast with "normally under these circumstances you couldn't hide, but despite that a halfling can hide under these circumstances", and because if it weren't direct observation, there would be no way for it to be a special power to become hidden.And that's completely dead, which is why Hriston had to jump to the "maybe it just means remain hidden" thing. But the remain hidden thing is also dead after much discussion of terms like "try to hide" and "vanish", both of which absolutely denote a transition from unhidden to hidden.But every time you give up on one of them, you jump to the other, and because you're topic-switching, that's sort of a free reset. But it's still really annoying and comes across as disingenuous-at-best.Tell you what: You actually get a confirmation from Crawford that this was intended to be in any way ambiguous on this topic, and I'll give $50 to a charity of your choice.My claim:Crawford's statements were intended to unambiguously indicate that the halfling and elf powers allowed a character who was directly observed to attempt to hide (as in "transition from unhidden to hidden"), and that the attempt should have by default the normal chance of success, not be an autofail, even though the character is being directly observed at the time that they take the action.</blockquote>

Verification