43

A level 6 Path of the Totem Warrior barbarian (PHB, p. 50) can choose the Eagle totem, which states:

You gain the eyesight of an eagle. You can see up to 1 mile away with no difficulty, able to discern even fine details as though looking at something no more than 100 feet away from you. Additionally, dim light doesn't impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks.

Combine this with the Observant feat (PHB, p. 168):

If you can see a creature's mouth while it is speaking a language you understand, you can interpret what it's saying by reading its lips.

Using this combination, can I read a creature's lips, speaking a language I understand, from a mile away?

V2Blast
  • 49,864
  • 10
  • 220
  • 304
Nicbobo
  • 6,648
  • 7
  • 39
  • 72

2 Answers2

53

Excellent combo.

You quoted all the relevant rules. To read lips, you need to

see a creature's mouth while it is speaking a language you understand

And with the Eagle totem at 6th level, you get to clearly see creatures and fine details (like moving lips) within 1 mile. It is legal and a great idea.

Regarding realism, as pointed out in the comments, it's not very easy (or possible?) to read a human's lips at 100 feet away. Depending on the size of what you are observing (like anything smaller than a Giant creature), the DM can certainly rule that you can't read its lips. That being said, the Observant feat doesn't require anything other than being able to see a creature's mouth, and the Eagle's Eye lets you see fine detail (do moving lips count?), so at least by RaW it should work. It depends on your table and how realistic or rules-adherent you are.

I would allow it as a DM, I think it's an awesome idea and it's something that isn't seen very often. Heh, the Barbarian is actually a ranged sniper/scout guy?

Community
  • 1
BlueMoon93
  • 46,423
  • 32
  • 199
  • 316
-8

Detail does not = Form.

There's a reason objects that are far away appear flatter than objects up close. Our angle of view is much diminished at a distance, and a mile is a long distance. Using the Observant feat, details may be visible but that does not diminish the flatness of viewing objects at a distance. For the sake of lip reading this means the creature or person would need to be turned even more towards the barbarian than usual in order to read their lips. You simply cannot see as much of the 3-dimensional form at a distance.

There is nothing in the feat description that refutes this. The feat only references detail. It does not reference form.

additionally,

RAW leave much to the GM's interpretation

What does "see a creature's mouth" mean?:

  • Any part of it?
  • All of it?
  • Straight on?
  • From the side?
  • Is there a spectrum or can you only fully interpret or not interpret at all?

If it were my ruling to make I would require a very clear angle of view of the mouth at distances over 1/4 mile (about 1300 feet), and unless it was 100% visible at that distance I would reduce the quality of the interpretation. Whether the PC would be aware that they interpreted inaccurately might depend on their wisdom or intelligence score (which barbarians are not particularly known for having in abundance).

Community
  • 1
lightcat
  • 8,402
  • 2
  • 34
  • 77
  • 3
    This ruling seems to contradict the "able to discern even fine details as though looking at something no more than 100 feet away from you" part of the Eagle totem rule, and thus seems to actually go against RAW. Also, the distinction between "form" and "detail" seems rather arbitrary, and I've never heard of any special difficulty in lip-reading from a (flat) television screen where depth-perception is nonexistent. These points together likely explain the downvotes you have been getting. – MrSpudtastic Jan 10 '19 at 16:34
  • 3
    In addition to what @MrSpudtastic said, I would like to point out that this answer uses a lot of real-world logic to determine the outcome of in-game rulings. D&D doesn't work like that. It's this kind of mixing that gives you Peasant Railgun, among other silliness, and it doesn't lead to a very consistent game. This, too, accounts for the downvotes on this answer, I think. – Sardonic Jan 10 '19 at 18:08
  • 2
    This would be improved by including support for the logical step that lip-reading is impossible or even just impaired when no depth is available (such as with one eye closed, or watching a video). Lip-reading is a professional skill employed by real hearing-deaf interpreters and there should be some documentation available to support the assertion if it’s true. – SevenSidedDie Jan 10 '19 at 18:26
  • @mrspudtastic Thank you both for your critiques. There's a difference between the lack of form on tv and that created by distance. A tv image is generally filmed at close quarters and allows a natural angle of view. In fact the reason I'm aware of this effect is because I'm in the film industry and it is very obvious to me. It's as obvious as not being able to see through an object in front of something else. Which btw, according to RAW observant feat does not say you can't do. So why do we apply that to the rules? At some point you have to apply some real world logic to the rules. – lightcat Jan 10 '19 at 18:39
  • Where you draw the line on real world logic is completely your call, and I know exactly where I'd draw the line on this one. – lightcat Jan 10 '19 at 18:40
  • 1
    @lightcat so... a human with a sight to see 1.6 KMs away = ok, but reading lips with a slightly deformed angle = not ok? Seems like a... weird place to make your stand – Patrice Jan 10 '19 at 19:35
  • @patrice I think you all are reading too much into my interpretation. All I'm saying is you can't see as much of 3d form hence the face of the person will have to be turned more towards you at a long distance in order to *see the mouth*. This is literally a very basic aspect of how sight works. Not sure why there's so much blow back on this. Maybe I'm around too many film/photography people and I'm taking for granted people's understanding of how vision works. – lightcat Jan 10 '19 at 22:29
  • 1
    @lightcat not at all, I fully understand that aspect of vision. My point is just that this is a weird place to have your suspension of disbelief. But I guess we all have our different thresholds there. I just find weird (personally) that this is where you draw the line. – Patrice Jan 10 '19 at 22:41
  • @patrice It is so basic, it does not even feel like anything to do with suspension of disbelief. It's just how we see. – lightcat Jan 10 '19 at 23:03
  • @lightcat yes. Because humans are known for seeing things from 1.6km as if they are roughly 30 meters away. What if the eagle totem power 'teleports'light at 30 meters to 1.6km away? Then it wouldn't change physics and still works. Well, except for the photons teleporting... – Patrice Jan 10 '19 at 23:32
  • @patrice that would be cool. – lightcat Jan 10 '19 at 23:42
  • @lightcat and if it's how the power works, that would take care of your issue with vision I believe? Basically that has been my point from the get-go: considering you are giving powers so far beyond the human realm, any 'real world' issue can kinda be handwaved away with a bit of creativity – Patrice Jan 10 '19 at 23:53
  • @patrice it's open to interpretation and I don't interpret it that way. I have no problems with how you or anyone else interprets it as long as you're consistent. I'm not sure why my interpretation which is completely valid has irked so many people. So be it. This convo is starting to go in circles and I'm bowing out. Thanks for your input. – lightcat Jan 11 '19 at 00:19