Uncanny Dodge vs. Blindness

[Caliban]

Over the last month I've sent several e-mails to the Sage, so far he's only answered one or two. Here's the most recent response, for those of you who use Sage answers:

From:TSRsage@aol.com
Date:Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:10:25 EST
Subject:Re: Uncanny Dodge vs. Blindness
To:caliban_loreseeker@yahoo.com

In a message dated 2/19/04 3:23:44 PM, caliban_loreseeker@yahoo.com writes:

In 3.5, does Uncanny Dodge still prevent you from losing your Dexterity bonus to AC while Blinded or in complete darkness? <<


​

Yes.

​

​

>> The Blinded condition no longer makes reference to invisibility, and Uncanny Dodge only says that it works when facing invisible opponents or when flat-footed. (It uses to say that all opponents are effectively invisible, now it says that all opponents have total concealment.)<<


​

::sigh::

 

[James McMurray]

It looks to me like he's a bit exasperted at people's inability to equate total concealment with invisibility.

 

[Darklone]

It looks to me like he's a bit exasperted at people's inability to equate total concealment with invisibility.

Hehehehehe.

Ah well. Did he answer by chance whether a hiding char is considered to be invisible?

 

[James McMurray]

Hehehehehe.

Ah well. Did he answer by chance whether a hiding char is considered to be invisible?

Do you have 100% concealment when hiding? If so, then you aren't visible, and hence you are invisible. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you have 100% concealment when hiding? If so, then you aren't visible, and hence you are invisible. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

It's been badly done in 3.5, though.

An invisible creature gains +2 to attacks, and also gains total concealment.

If someone has total concealment through means other than invisibility, do they gain +2 to their attacks?

If so, why didn't they just say "a creature with total concealment gains +2 to their attacks", and have the only benefit of invisibility be "you gain total concealment"?

The +2 bonus isn't mentioned under the Concealment rules. It only appears in the Table of Attack Roll Modifiers, against the title of "Invisible".

It's not even clear whether or not a successfully hiding creature is considered to have total concealment, or considered invisible...

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

I think its pretty clear that a successfully hiding creature has total concealment. If they weren't totally concealed, they'd be partially seen, in which case they wouldn't actually be hidden, would they? It isn't necessary for the rules to spell out every single condition, especially when there is only one logical conclusion.

Hidden = not seen = totally concealed = not visible = invisible = +2 to attacks

It isn't like there are any huge leaps of logic or guesses being made, its just a matter of knowing what the word "hidden" means.

If they tried to spell out every possible rule occurrence in the rules, we'd be playing a game by Avalon Hill instead of WotC, and we'd all be referencing the rules by referring to them as "paragraph 1.2.2.4, sub paragraph a."

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think its pretty clear that a successfully hiding creature has total concealment.

"You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway."

So if I have concealment, and I Hide, I have total concealment.

Can I then move out of the area of concealment, yet remain Hiding, since (because I'm hiding) I have total concealment, obviating the need for a Hide check?

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think its pretty clear that a successfully hiding creature has total concealment.
...
It isn't like there are any huge leaps of logic or guesses being made, its just a matter of knowing what the word "hidden" means.

That's actually the problem though, isn't it? "Hidden" is anything but well defined.

Ah well. Thanks for the info, Caliban.

 

[James McMurray]

hidden

adj 1: not accessible to view

"Not accessible to view" means "not viewable" which means "not visible" which of course is the definition for "invisible." I fail to see why people (not necessarily any people in this thread) think that the PHB needs to redefine common English words in order to give them meaning in the game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Not accessible to view" means "not viewable" which means "not visible" which of course is the definition for "invisible." I fail to see why people (not necessarily any people in this thread) think that the PHB needs to redefine common English words in order to give them meaning in the game.

Hmm? Like "Large", for example?

Five feet tall? That's one large dwarf!

But he's not a Large dwarf. "Large" is a defined term.

Invisible is also a defined term. "Visually undetectable"... and it refers you to the Invisibility description.

Someone who's Hiding isn't visually undetectable. They can be seen with a decent Spot check.

If someone's invisible, even with a spectacular Spot check sufficient to tell you exactly where they are, you still can't see them. If they're hiding, you can.

-Hyp.