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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5308462" data-attributes="member: 61155">In what way do you find it isn't a "by the book" rules interpretation?   A houserule? There are parts of this discussion that might veer into houserule territory, but this certainly isn't one of them.  We're talking about the DM deciding that someone looking in a window at a creature inside is able to see that creature's face. You truly believe that deciding what position a creature might be facing is houseruling? Isn't that, rather, a basic part of DMing? Deciding where creatures stand in relation to the environment around them? There are various ways a DM could handle it, sure. Some DMs might have it all elaborately mapped out in advance. Some DMs might assign a chance to it and roll. Other DMs might make a decision based on common sense - I suspect that is what happened here. The Bodak was in the back of the room watching the doorway. It had no reason to be hiding its face or turned away. The rogue looked into through a window on the side of the room, and thus had a clear view of the Bodak and its features.  And you feel that decision was a houserule?  You feel that a ruling that gazing upon the front of creature involves gazing upon its eyes is not RAW?  Keep in mind that avoiding a creature's gaze is, by the RAW, not an easy task. Someone actively trying to look away still has a 50% chance of it. So where does it 'by my admission, go against RAW' to rule that someone who is not attempting to avoid doing so, and is in a position to look upon the creature, is likely to see its face?   I'm not quite sure why this keeps getting brought up. Yes, some creatures can turn their gaze off. A malevolent undead with a hatred of all living things, specifically created and bound to guard the location from intruders, isn't likely to do so. Could there be reasons why it would? Maybe, but there are also plenty of reasons why it wouldn't, and that seems likely to be the case here.   Dude, it was many, many, many pages ago when I specifically said that it wasn't unreasonable if a DM wanted to come up with a percentage chance as to whether the Bodak happened to be looking in the right direction. What I objected to was the argument that a person successfully hiding influenced what direction he was looking in at all.  Just to confirm, it does sound like you are now retracting your former arguments? You now are willing to accept that a character can be hidden and still view the features of the creatures they are hidden from?   Isn't that what a Spot check is for? If a rogue is successfully hidden in the shadows, and someone glances in their direction, if that person's Spot check doesn't beat the rogue's Hide check, I'm pretty sure that means the rogue is still successfully concealed. Deciding otherwise is, again, getting into houserule territory.</blockquote>

Verification