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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7529458" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's not all your houserule is doing, and RAW already allows that being unseen allows hiding. After all "cannot be seen" meets tge writen criteria of "can't be clearly seen."Besides, thus started with a correction as to what's RAW, which you asserted you had to be unseen to hide. If you said that was RAW then whike proposing your houserule, I'm unckear how your houserule adds to that in this case.According to RAW, you can always hide when not "clearly seen." What constitutes not clearly seen is variable, but not the ability to hide when it obtains. That last is splitting hairs too fine. Many times a condition of unseen can be removed by a change in circumstance. If you are hiding behind the couch and I walk around it you're no longer unseen. Pointing out that circumstances can change to remove unseen does not mean that you were never unseen.Backing up to your first point here, there exist condition outside of unseen that can allow hiding. Being in a crowd, for instance. Possibly being behind 3/4 cover could be sufficient. It is incorrect to say that unseen is a necessary requirement to hide as a general rule. You can make it so, but I find doing so to be limiting.For what it's worth, there's almost never a question of when hiding is possible in my games.RAW does this your second sentence already. Your last is still incorrect -- if you are hidden you are unseen. If you are unseen, you're not necessarily hidden. If A (hidden) then B (unseen) doesn't imply if B then A, or B if and only if A. You keep arguing the latter and it doesn't follow.</blockquote>

Verification