... but it also still means you are concealed. ...
That's the issue. No, RAW does not also mean that. ...
Citation needed.
The condition lists "Concealed." as one of its effects. Please cite, where, in writing, the rulebook says that RAW doesn't mean what it says.
This is standard format for the English language when dealing with things such as rules, laws, or academia. You provide a term and then you define precisely what the term means in order to avoid confusion like this. Factors of the term that are not mentioned in the definition are then not assumed to be within the scope.
As an example, the Concealed term also does not mean you are wearing make-up, although with strict use of the English language the use of concealer would make you Concealed.
This is standard format for the English language when dealing with things such as rules, laws, or academia. You provide a term and then you define precisely what the term means in order to avoid confusion like this. Factors of the term that are not mentioned in the definition are then not assumed to be within the scope.
I see no evidence from the RAW that they are using that format.
There is also a standard format to use a simple label followed by an elaboration.
So which standard is in use here? Neither of us can prove a negative, and neither "standard" is shown to be positively in use. Which leads me to conclude that I must study context to interpret the text. Context like the words "invisible" or "concealed" or the many places in the rules that infer that the Invisible Condition makes you unseen.
As an example, the Concealed term also does not mean you are wearing make-up, although with strict use of the English language the use of concealer would make you Concealed.
"With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. " Advantage with mascara and lipstick? 😊
This is standard format for the English language when dealing with things such as rules, laws, or academia. You provide a term and then you define precisely what the term means in order to avoid confusion like this. Factors of the term that are not mentioned in the definition are then not assumed to be within the scope.
I see no evidence from the RAW that they are using that format.
There is also a standard format to use a simple label followed by an elaboration.
So which standard is in use here? Neither of us can prove a negative, and neither "standard" is shown to be positively in use. Which leads me to conclude that I must study context to interpret the text. Context like the words "invisible" or "concealed" or the many places in the rules that infer that the Invisible Condition makes you unseen.
Except that, if you want to insist on context, the Invisible Condition is applied in situations were the creature is not, in fact, invisible (e.g. gelatinous cube).
But, and this is the real thing, you're the one insisting that it is RAW, but you're also admitting you can't prove which standard is in use.
I, on the other hand, am maintaining that your interpretation is possible, just not clearly RAW.
Notice how my position allows for an inability to prove which standard is in use, but yours does not?
The fact that it takes interpretation is the problem- they really should have left Invisibility as the explicit "absolutely cannot be seen by normal vision" and done a second condition for the Hide Action.
Except that, if you want to insist on context, the Invisible Condition is applied in situations were the creature is not, in fact, invisible (e.g. gelatinous cube).
They are unseen. Prove me wrong.
A hidden person is also unseen.
But, and this is the real thing, you're the one insisting that it is RAW, but you're also admitting you can't prove which standard is in use. I, on the other hand, am maintaining that your interpretation is possible, just not clearly RAW. Notice how my position allows for an inability to prove which standard is in use, but yours does not?
RAW, without authorial intent (RAI), is subjective. I'm not the one asserting the text can't be correct.
“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When we dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, we’re studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
(emphasis added) My context is from the text itself; yours is from unfounded assumptions about the intent of a lexical structrure.
"Transparent. Even when the cube is in plain sight, a creature must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the cube if the creature hasn’t witnessed the cube move or otherwise act."
It doesn't even have the Invisible Condition. It is transparent, yet still provides cover to its contents, yet is unseen under the above conditions.
Oh, and by the supposed logic of undeclared "definitions", "transparent" doesn't mean "see-through" it just means you need to search for it. Where are all the absurdist "no-one can see a window until it moves" takes?
"Transparent. Even when the cube is in plain sight, a creature must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the cube if the creature hasn’t witnessed the cube move or otherwise act."
It doesn't even have the Invisible Condition. It is transparent, yet still provides cover to its contents, yet is unseen under the above conditions.
Oh, and by the supposed logic of undeclared "definitions", "transparent" doesn't mean "see-through" it just means you need to search for it. Where are all the absurdist "no-one can see a window until it moves" takes?
Oops. You are correct. I misremembered the gelatinous cube.
Except that, if you want to insist on context, the Invisible Condition is applied in situations were the creature is not, in fact, invisible (e.g. gelatinous cube).
They are unseen. Prove me wrong.
A hidden person is also unseen.
But, and this is the real thing, you're the one insisting that it is RAW, but you're also admitting you can't prove which standard is in use. I, on the other hand, am maintaining that your interpretation is possible, just not clearly RAW. Notice how my position allows for an inability to prove which standard is in use, but yours does not?
RAW, without authorial intent (RAI), is subjective. I'm not the one asserting the text can't be correct.
“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When we dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, we’re studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
(emphasis added) My context is from the text itself; yours is from unfounded assumptions about the intent of a lexical structrure.
Yes. Part of what that means is that when an explanation is given for something like Concealed you are not suppose to drag in extra verbiage. (i.e., in this context the term has been explained and that explanation is expected to stand on its own, not rely on additional meanings the term may have).
Your context is not merely the text itself. You want to use the verbiage that exists outside of that context (the wider usage of the word Concealed), preventing it from standing on its own.
Yes. Part of what that means is that when an explanation is given for something like Concealed you are not suppose to drag in extra verbiage. (i.e., in this context the term has been explained and that explanation is expected to stand on its own, not rely on additional meanings the term may have). Your context is not merely the text itself. You want to use the verbiage that exists outside of that context (the wider usage of the word Concealed), preventing it from standing on its own.
Yeah, the text, which says things like "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself" and "You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition" and "For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible".
I "need" that context to understand the plain english meaning of the word "concealed," in order to conclude that the Invisible Condition is not meaningless.
You are not going to convince me that the text is useless. You are not going to convince me to even respect the interpretation that it is useless. I can read with my own eyes.
Yes. Part of what that means is that when an explanation is given for something like Concealed you are not suppose to drag in extra verbiage. (i.e., in this context the term has been explained and that explanation is expected to stand on its own, not rely on additional meanings the term may have). Your context is not merely the text itself. You want to use the verbiage that exists outside of that context (the wider usage of the word Concealed), preventing it from standing on its own.
Yeah, the text, which says things like "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself" and "You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition" and "For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible".
I "need" that context to understand the plain english meaning of the word "concealed," in order to conclude that the Invisible Condition is not meaningless.
You are not going to convince me that the text is useless. You are not going to convince me to even respect the interpretation that it is useless. I can read with my own eyes.
And again, the issue isn't what you are reading. The issue is what you are inserting that is not written.
You want to insist that you are right because you are allowed to do something you aren't allowing others to do.
You want to insist that you are right because you are allowed to do something you aren't allowing others to do.
Where/when have I not allowed other people to interpret RAW?
I may think they're wrong, and will repeat that opinion as I see fit. Especially if I think they're spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in a rules forum.
But everyone gets to interpret RAW, and DMs can make the rulings they want to make. RAW is not absolute, and cannot be absolute without RAI.
My apologies. I think you are using RAW in a way that the vast majority do not (or at least in a way I did not understand), and that has led to me misunderstanding your position.
Typically (I believe), when people refer to something as 'RAW' they are trying to say that it is written this way and there is no other possibility of understanding. They may not be excluding houserules, but they are taking the position that there is only a single reasonable interpretation of what is written and anything outside of that is 'not Rules As Written'.
It now appears to me that when you are saying that something is 'RAW' you are still saying that it is your interpretation of RAW and you are not saying that there are no other reasonable interpretations of RAW.
The permission to interpret is the thing that I believed you were only allowing to yourself, but as long as you are willing to agree that other people's interpretation, even though you might disagree with them, may be valid interpretations than I have no real issue with what you are saying.
Unless I'm mistaken, the people (person?) arguing that Hide is perfectly fine and intuitive as is (while also allowing someone to stand out in the open after a successful roll and not be "found") seem to have left the thread some time ago. As far as I can tell, the argument has devolved into "what makes hide—and to what degree is it—unintuitive" with people arguing from different angles, but all ultimately making the same point: that hide needs some work.
A few people are saying that the text works perfectly well without needed interpretation, but leads to unintuitive conclusions that need to be corrected by the DM, while others are saying the text itself isn't tenable without some heavy lifting from the DM to make it work in an intuitive manner.
Not to open this kettle of worms again, I sort of agreed with that poster. Not that you can dance in front of someone, but that by successfully making a stealth check you are maybe tossing a rock to distract people as you move across a open area. accepting that the check is being abstracted into a turn based system with no defined facing. Though yes at some level it would be impossible. But outside of some white room characters would be able to stealth in almost any situation they would normally be in as long as they role play is as trying to hide. In the case of the white room, no cover blah blah, id give the room sort of like a lair effect of hidden people are seen.
As DM i'm more likely to rule an enemy is distracted for brief time only, so that a hidden character can remain unnoticed while moving from cover to cover or get to an enemy to attack it.
But going in enemy's line of sight to dance a whole turn is not what i'd determine circumstances appropriate for hiding or may simply say you stop being hidden immediately after making noise like this.
Not that you can dance in front of someone, but that by successfully making a stealth check you are maybe tossing a rock to distract people as you move across a open area. accepting that the check is being abstracted into a turn based system with no defined facing. Though yes at some level it would be impossible. But outside of some white room characters would be able to stealth in almost any situation they would normally be in as long as they role play is as trying to hide. In the case of the white room, no cover blah blah, id give the room sort of like a lair effect of hidden people are seen.
This can also come down to DM and game style.
Some DMs will have you search a room for clues by just rolling Investigation vs some DC. Others will have you describe your methods first, and use that to adjust the DC. Others still may skip the rolling altogether and have you describe what you are doing bit-by-bit, letting player caution be the thing that finds clues or sets off traps...
No reason sneaking around guards couldn't have the same variance. Especially outside the rigors of combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Citation needed.
The condition lists "Concealed." as one of its effects. Please cite, where, in writing, the rulebook says that RAW doesn't mean what it says.
This is standard format for the English language when dealing with things such as rules, laws, or academia. You provide a term and then you define precisely what the term means in order to avoid confusion like this. Factors of the term that are not mentioned in the definition are then not assumed to be within the scope.
As an example, the Concealed term also does not mean you are wearing make-up, although with strict use of the English language the use of concealer would make you Concealed.
I see no evidence from the RAW that they are using that format.
There is also a standard format to use a simple label followed by an elaboration.
So which standard is in use here? Neither of us can prove a negative, and neither "standard" is shown to be positively in use. Which leads me to conclude that I must study context to interpret the text. Context like the words "invisible" or "concealed" or the many places in the rules that infer that the Invisible Condition makes you unseen.
"With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. " Advantage with mascara and lipstick? 😊
It's clearly not RAI, but if you're talking about RAW it doesn't matter whether the interpretation is nonsensical.
We can all share different interpretations. Mine is that;
RAW & RAI You can't see something that has the Invisible condition without away to specifically do so such as Blindsight, Truesight, See Invisibility.
Except that, if you want to insist on context, the Invisible Condition is applied in situations were the creature is not, in fact, invisible (e.g. gelatinous cube).
But, and this is the real thing, you're the one insisting that it is RAW, but you're also admitting you can't prove which standard is in use.
I, on the other hand, am maintaining that your interpretation is possible, just not clearly RAW.
Notice how my position allows for an inability to prove which standard is in use, but yours does not?
The fact that it takes interpretation is the problem- they really should have left Invisibility as the explicit "absolutely cannot be seen by normal vision" and done a second condition for the Hide Action.
They are unseen. Prove me wrong.
A hidden person is also unseen.
RAW, without authorial intent (RAI), is subjective. I'm not the one asserting the text can't be correct.
“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When we dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, we’re studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
(emphasis added) My context is from the text itself; yours is from unfounded assumptions about the intent of a lexical structrure.
Aside: funny thing about the Gelatinous Cube writeup...
"Creatures inside the cube have Total Cover..."
"Transparent. Even when the cube is in plain sight, a creature must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the cube if the creature hasn’t witnessed the cube move or otherwise act."
It doesn't even have the Invisible Condition. It is transparent, yet still provides cover to its contents, yet is unseen under the above conditions.
Oh, and by the supposed logic of undeclared "definitions", "transparent" doesn't mean "see-through" it just means you need to search for it. Where are all the absurdist "no-one can see a window until it moves" takes?
Oops. You are correct. I misremembered the gelatinous cube.
Yes. Part of what that means is that when an explanation is given for something like Concealed you are not suppose to drag in extra verbiage. (i.e., in this context the term has been explained and that explanation is expected to stand on its own, not rely on additional meanings the term may have).
Your context is not merely the text itself. You want to use the verbiage that exists outside of that context (the wider usage of the word Concealed), preventing it from standing on its own.
Yeah, the text, which says things like "With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself" and "You see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition" and "For the duration, you see creatures and objects that have the Invisible condition as if they were visible".
I "need" that context to understand the plain english meaning of the word "concealed," in order to conclude that the Invisible Condition is not meaningless.
You are not going to convince me that the text is useless. You are not going to convince me to even respect the interpretation that it is useless. I can read with my own eyes.
And again, the issue isn't what you are reading. The issue is what you are inserting that is not written.
You want to insist that you are right because you are allowed to do something you aren't allowing others to do.
Where/when have I not allowed other people to interpret RAW?
I may think they're wrong, and will repeat that opinion as I see fit. Especially if I think they're spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in a rules forum.
But everyone gets to interpret RAW, and DMs can make the rulings they want to make. RAW is not absolute, and cannot be absolute without RAI.
My apologies. I think you are using RAW in a way that the vast majority do not (or at least in a way I did not understand), and that has led to me misunderstanding your position.
Typically (I believe), when people refer to something as 'RAW' they are trying to say that it is written this way and there is no other possibility of understanding. They may not be excluding houserules, but they are taking the position that there is only a single reasonable interpretation of what is written and anything outside of that is 'not Rules As Written'.
It now appears to me that when you are saying that something is 'RAW' you are still saying that it is your interpretation of RAW and you are not saying that there are no other reasonable interpretations of RAW.
The permission to interpret is the thing that I believed you were only allowing to yourself, but as long as you are willing to agree that other people's interpretation, even though you might disagree with them, may be valid interpretations than I have no real issue with what you are saying.
That's totally fair. This thread is on page 54.
Not to open this kettle of worms again, I sort of agreed with that poster. Not that you can dance in front of someone, but that by successfully making a stealth check you are maybe tossing a rock to distract people as you move across a open area. accepting that the check is being abstracted into a turn based system with no defined facing. Though yes at some level it would be impossible. But outside of some white room characters would be able to stealth in almost any situation they would normally be in as long as they role play is as trying to hide. In the case of the white room, no cover blah blah, id give the room sort of like a lair effect of hidden people are seen.
As DM i'm more likely to rule an enemy is distracted for brief time only, so that a hidden character can remain unnoticed while moving from cover to cover or get to an enemy to attack it.
But going in enemy's line of sight to dance a whole turn is not what i'd determine circumstances appropriate for hiding or may simply say you stop being hidden immediately after making noise like this.
This can also come down to DM and game style.
Some DMs will have you search a room for clues by just rolling Investigation vs some DC. Others will have you describe your methods first, and use that to adjust the DC. Others still may skip the rolling altogether and have you describe what you are doing bit-by-bit, letting player caution be the thing that finds clues or sets off traps...
No reason sneaking around guards couldn't have the same variance. Especially outside the rigors of combat.