|
Pg. 302 details creatures' ability to detect enemies with other senses, like echolocation.
My reading of the paragraph is that a creature using echolocation never has 100% accuracy on an enemy like a person with sight has on an enemy they can clearly see.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure echolocation should be just as accurate as sight (all things being equal).
Can you spell out your reading in more detail? I'm not seeing that at all.
|
|
Can you spell out your reading in more detail? I'm not seeing that at all.
It says using echolocation... Treating creatures as "heard" of it can directly hear them, concealed if they're in a noisy chamber, sensed if it had located them, and unheard of they can't hear location at all.
The bit "sensed if it had located them" seems to imply echolocation only provides a sense, as in not full 'sight."
Plus, of. 301 says hearing is an imprecise sense, but with a bat, in real world, it's quite precise.
"'Heard' if it can directly hear them" means they're perceived precisely in that case, 'heard' being the echolocator's equivalent of 'seen'.
"Sensed if it had located them" is the same as it would be for a human's sight.
Echolocation A bat can use its hearing as a precise sense at the listed range.
The listed range for a Giant Bat being 40 feet.