Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
Right, so where is the corner of my space when I'm not on a grid?
The corner of your space is, without a doubt, not between your pupil and your eyelid.
Yes, sizes list spaces in square areas,
Thanks for acknowledging that your character does indeed control a square space in combat. Now we can move forward with the conversation.
but the rule you're citing for determining line of sight is only valid for miniature use -- it's an optional rule. Absent that, there's no rule for using spaces to determine line of sight and the default is then the natural language
I hadn’t looked at the DMG in a while and was unaware the rule quoted by the OP is from a section on using miniatures, but I can see that. I don’t think the way line of sight dependent effects are adjudicated ought to vary depending on whether you use miniatures or not, and I don’t think you do either. So since line of sight remains basically undefined in the base game, let’s talk about its natural language meaning.
-- line of sight means you have an unobstructed view of the end-point. At which point, closing your eyes obstructs your view.
I disagree. This is Google's definition of line of sight:
a straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision.
At the point you close your eyes, you're no longer an observer, so whether your view is obstructed no longer has any bearing on whether there is line of sight. The test of whether there is line of sight is if someone with their eyes open would have unobstructed vision in that particular location.Further, even though grid rules have an additional rule, that rule doesn't trump the existing rules, meaning it doesn't supercede other, existing methods of determining line of sight. Instead, that adds a method for grid use to the existing methods. There's no place where it says 'You have a line of sight regardless of any other factors so long as the rules in the Using Miniatures optional rules are met.' That's a ridiculous argument, on multiple levels.
Well, it says if certain conditions are met then there is line of sight. There's no equivocation in that statement, but I realize this is a rule for miniatures use. I just happen to think it agrees very nicely with the natural language meaning.
The basic point here is that if I cannot see something due to an obstruction, I do not have a line of sight. Eyelids are an obstruction.
I think there's a difference in meaning between "is within line of sight" and "can be seen". The designers of the game made liberal use of the latter in many cases, so if that's how they meant the frightened condition to read, they could have written it that way.
The second basic point here is that this ruling doesn't negatively impact anything -- it's not a dodge, it's not better to do this, it is, in fact, worse than the existing rules in every case. Being blind is worse than the bullet point of frightened that relies on line of sight. So, not only am I pointing to where your argument fails to convince on RAW grounds, it's also pointless for gameplay -- the "cure" here is worse than the "disease."
You'll get no argument from me on any of these counts. My objection is mostly aesthetic in nature. If someone enjoys being able to turn off part of being frightened by closing their eyes, who am I to judge?