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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5308639" data-attributes="member: 18280">Upfront, yes, there has been a modification of my original position.  Absolutely.  Any rational person, faced by evidence that a current position is wrong, is going to modify it. You may have specifically said many pages ago when "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", but you referred to that as a "houserule" and said that the DM shouldn't be blamed for following the RAW.The RAW does not say that a rogue looking into a room will have a clear view of a bodak's features, and that the bodak will be gazing at him.  Nor does the rogue have 100% concealment when hidden (or he would need no Hide check), so the caveat that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation.Yes, I acknowledge that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation.  No, I did not consider that before it was brought up (although, I will point out, I don't consider it particularly relevant now).  Yes, that is an alteration of my earlier stated position.  No, that alteration is not relevant to this situation.Whatever method the DM uses to "deciding what position a creature might be facing" is houseruling unless there is something in the RAW to make that determination.  Houseruling is a rather basic part of DMing.  Houseruling poorly (making arbitrary decisions that screw the players) is bad DMing, as in the example case.  Houseruling poorly on a consistent basis would certainly make me regard one as a bad DM.If one takes your example of modern camouflage, you will note that the gentleman is specifically not looking at the camera.  Having spent my time in the military, I can tell you that we are prone to notice certain shapes and patterns.  The actual the point of camo is to break up the apparent shape of the object or person, so that it "blends into" background shapes that you might not notice.Eyes are something that we tend to notice.  If you are looking into a pair of eyes, and that pair of eyes is looking at you, there is an overwhelming chance that you will become instantly aware of the other person, if you were not already aware.  A large part of successfully hiding is to avert the face and avoid the desire to look directly at the potential observers.(This effect can be noticed with images, but it is far more effective with an actual hider and observer....Even in the dark, in Basic Training, when camo was being demonstrated, I was able to notice a soldier in camo who had successfully hidden when he looked toward me.  In the dark.  In the forest.  And his face was covered in camo paint as well.  It literally felt like a "snap" of awareness that he was there.)Yup.RC</blockquote>

Verification