Uncanny Dodge vs. Blindness

[James McMurray]

Large has to have an in-game definiteion because it means something different in the context of creatures. "Hidden" on the other hand, does not. Its common English usage is just fine for the game.

Note that I did not say "hiding creatures are invisible", I said "hidden creatures are invisible". If you make a high enough spot check to see the assassin behind the curtain, he is no longer "hidden" to you, and is therefore no longer "not viewable", and therefore no longer "invisible". He could still be considered invisible to others, for example the party cleric who rolled a 1 and is about to have a rather unfortunate introduction scene involving his spleen and 4 inches of poisoned steel.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I said "hidden creatures are invisible". If you make a high enough spot check to see the assassin behind the curtain, he is no longer "hidden" to you, and is therefore no longer "not viewable", and therefore no longer "invisible".

!?

So a hidden creature is visually undetectable, unless you visually detect him, in which case he's no longer hidden and thus visually detectable?

Just as well I visually detected him, or he would have been visually undetectable!

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Yep, that's it exactly. It flows better when you use synonyms instead of repeating the phrase "visually detect" but the meaning is the same.

If you can't see someone (for whatever reason), they are invisible to you. The moment you can see them, they are no longer invisible to you.

Perhaps if you explain what' confusing you about that statement, I can find a different way to say what I mean that will make more sense to you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Perhaps if you explain what' confusing you about that statement, I can find a different way to say what I mean that will make more sense to you.

Let's say we have an Unstoppable Juggernaut. It's Unstoppable. It is impossible to stop.

You're suggesting that once it is stopped, it is no longer Unstoppable.

But it goes deeper that that. Because it turns out that it was possible to stop it, it was never actually Unstoppable; it was merely Unstopped.

A hidden creature can be visually detected. At the point that it is visually detected, it is no longer hidden... but this also proved that it was not, while hidden, visually undetectable. It was visually undetected, but not visually undetectable, or it could never have been visually detected.

Since it was never actually visually undetectable, it was never invisible, since "visually undetectable" is the definition of the invisible condition.

And if it was never invisible, it could not gain the +2 Attack bonus that applies to invisible creatures.

It wasn't invisible; it was hidden. And that bonus does not apply to hidden creatures, or to creatures with total concealment; it applies to invisible creatures.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Ah, I see. You are viewing invisible as meaning "not visually detectable". I'm viewing it as meaning "not visually detected". One is a statement of capability, the other a statement of current condition.

Since I doubt you'll change your definition (it is after all a quote from the rules) then I doubt we'll ever come to an agreement on this.

I can only imagine what sort of convoluted spaghetti rules nightmare your games must be. Luckily me and my players know when to apply a liberal helping of common sense and use englsh instead of only the tiny subset of it defined in the PHB glossary.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, I see. You are viewing invisible as meaning "not visually detectable".

That's what the Condition Summary says.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Obviouly I know that's what the condition summary says. Otherwise I wouldn't have said that it was a quote from the rules.

One last attempt here:

Do you agree that, in English, the following statements are true?

"hidden" = "not visible"
"not visible" = "invisible"

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you agree that, in English, the following statements are true?

Honestly, and not just being pedantic for the sake of it?

Not exactly true.

In the same way that in English, "scarlet" is approximately the same as "red", and "crimson" is approximately the same as "red", but the words represent subtleties that go beyond those approximations... "invisible" and "hidden" are not identical.

It's the whole three-hundred-words-for-snow thing. To someone who is interested in ballet, "snow" pretty much covers all the subtlety they need. To someone who likes skiing, they want a few more words to convey assorted deeper meanings. And to someone who lives up near the Arctic Circle, whose life depends on knowing what the weather conditions and ground conditions are, they want finer resolution still.

"Invisible" and "hidden" don't convey exactly the same meaning, IMO.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Then we'll never come to an agreement, because we can't even agree on the language we're using. That's just one of the problems with being a race that doesn't enjoy instant mind-to-mind communication. C'est la vie.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Then we'll never come to an agreement, because we can't even agree on the language we're using. C'est la vie.

c'est

Cest \Cest\ (s[e^]st), n. [L. cestus: cf. OF. ceste.] A woman's girdle; a cestus. [R.] --Collins

la

\La\, n. (Mus.) (a) A syllable applied to the sixth tone of the scale in music in solmization. (b) The tone A; -- so called among the French and Italians.

\La\, interj. [Cf. Lo.] 1. Look; see; behold; -- sometimes followed by you. [Obs.] --Shak.

2. An exclamation of surprise; -- commonly followed by me; as, La me! [Low]

vie

\Vie\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Vied; p. pr. & vb. n. Vying.] [OE. vien, shortened fr. envien, OF. envier to invite, to challenge, a word used in gambling, L. invitare to invite; of uncertain origin. Cf. Invite, Envie.] 1. To stake a sum upon a hand of cards, as in the old game of gleek. See Revie. [Obs.]

2. To strive for superiority; to contend; to use emulous effort, as in a race, contest, or competition.

-----

What? Can't we even agree on the language we're using?

-Hyp.