Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6904112" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Compare the following:A) "Then is it impossible to hide unless you make no noise at all?"andB) "Then it's impossible to hide unless you make no noise at all? Interesting."A is a question that doesn't seem like it has anything behind it but desire for an answer. B is phrased as a statement despite punctuation choice, because "is it" and "it is" are very different, and further supports a reading of the answer being assumed by not just asking a question, but also seeming to regard that assumed answer with the second statement.Hopefully that helps.The game rules do not assign a decibel threshold. That doesn't mean the game rules don't assume that the DM is going to decide what is or isn't too loud to hide while doing, or that there is anything wrong with two DMs having different opinions of what is or isn't too loud.But it does mean that DMs discussing the issue have to be careful about stating their own decision as if it were the one and only possible according to the game rules.I'm not entirely sure that knocking over a vase is meant to be an example of a very loud noise though. There are many kinds of vases, and many kinds of surface that a vase could be knocked over onto, and even many definitions of what constitutes a vase having been knocked over.It could be intended as an example of a moderate, or even a quiet, noise.  I'm not going to engage in what would be a semantic argument to point out that my prior argument is not semantic. If the designers meant something other than loud things, they meant not-so-loud things. We can tell because they said "make noise" rather than "make loud noise". The likely answer to why they suck at examples is this: almost everyone sucks at examples because we forget that everyone reading the examples doesn't necessarily have the same idea in their mind that you have in yours while picking examples.Yes, I mean that I consider moving as fast as you can on foot to be running.My prior comment was not vague.Yes - because I don't think it makes sense to need a class feature to run, and it takes a class feature to dash more than once.It's my version of a reminder that I am not speaking for literally everyone's DM everywhere.I don't have to declare how I would rule at my table in order to say that there are more ways to rule on a matter than just the one you've presented and be correct.And what you call "weasel words" I call accounting for that a DM could do something, but isn't required to in any way - you know, exactly what I said, and nothing more, which is conveniently what I am always meaning by the words I choose.</blockquote>

Verification