Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7529378" data-attributes="member: 16814">As I quoted the rules text to that effect above, yes, you can think that.Circular, as you're assuming that you already have Unseen to have Hidden, which is opposite to the case I'm making -- becoming Hidden grants Unseen if not already had.&nbsp; In which case, Hidden does add to the case as it grants the benefit of being Unseen.&nbsp; You may have forgotten my argument, but I have not.Yes.&nbsp; No.&nbsp; In this case, it's a judgement call by the DM as to whether or not a creature is &quot;clearly seen&quot;.&nbsp; I, personally, do not usually allow lightly obscured by itself to be sufficient, but a good approach to an action declaration could move it to uncertain for me.&nbsp; It would have to be good, though.Circular again.&nbsp; You've stated a case where being fully obscured is normally sufficient to hide, and a case where being lightly obscured is usually insufficient to hide, but this doesn't mean that unseen is required to hide.&nbsp; Unseen is sufficient but not necessary by your arguments.&nbsp; You have not made a case where it's never normally permissible to try to hide absent being unseen.A case mentioned in the basic rules where it's permissible to allow a hiding character to approach a distracted foe in the open.&nbsp; This isn't mechanically unseen, but situationally based on a DM call.The rules clearly state &quot;not clearly seen.&quot;&nbsp; You're trying to take this clear RAW statement and turn it into meaning &quot;must be unseen.&quot;&nbsp; You can make this a ruling for your game, but it's not RAW.&nbsp; I'm 100% fine with you making is a ruling in your game -- plenty of others have done so -- but, again, it's very much not what the rules actually say.Absolutely.&nbsp; skulker can ALWAYS try to hide in light obscurement.&nbsp; Someone else may only be allow to hide in light obscurement due to specific actions or circumstances, like dressing in flowing, dull white robes to take advantage of a fog cloud spell.&nbsp; That someone would not be able to hide in dim light but may be able to hide in a fog cloud due to the specific preparations and actions taken to do so.&nbsp; The skulker could try in both with no special preparations.Light obscurement and hiding is &quot;usually no, but maybe&quot; for everyone else.&nbsp; For the skulker, it's just &quot;yes.&quot;&nbsp; Skulker is really a very under-appreciated feat.&nbsp; It's very strong for rogues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7529378, member: 16814"] As I quoted the rules text to that effect above, yes, you can think that. Circular, as you're assuming that you already have Unseen to have Hidden, which is opposite to the case I'm making -- becoming Hidden grants Unseen if not already had. In which case, Hidden does add to the case as it grants the benefit of being Unseen. You may have forgotten my argument, but I have not. Yes. No. In this case, it's a judgement call by the DM as to whether or not a creature is "clearly seen". I, personally, do not usually allow lightly obscured by itself to be sufficient, but a good approach to an action declaration could move it to uncertain for me. It would have to be good, though. Circular again. You've stated a case where being fully obscured is normally sufficient to hide, and a case where being lightly obscured is usually insufficient to hide, but this doesn't mean that unseen is [I]required [/I]to hide. Unseen is sufficient [U]but not necessary[/U] by your arguments. You have not made a case where it's never normally permissible to try to hide absent being unseen. A case mentioned in the basic rules where it's permissible to allow a hiding character to approach a distracted foe in the open. This isn't mechanically unseen, but situationally based on a DM call. The rules clearly state "not clearly seen." You're trying to take this clear RAW statement and turn it into meaning "must be unseen." You can make this a ruling for your game, but it's not RAW. I'm 100% fine with you making is a ruling in your game -- plenty of others have done so -- but, again, it's very much not what the rules actually say. Absolutely. skulker can ALWAYS try to hide in light obscurement. Someone else may only be allow to hide in light obscurement due to specific actions or circumstances, like dressing in flowing, dull white robes to take advantage of a fog cloud spell. That someone would not be able to hide in dim light but may be able to hide in a fog cloud due to the specific preparations and actions taken to do so. The skulker could try in both with no special preparations. Light obscurement and hiding is "usually no, but maybe" for everyone else. For the skulker, it's just "yes." Skulker is really a very under-appreciated feat. It's very strong for rogues. [/QUOTE]

Verification