I brought up evolution as a way to explain the idea that even without magic it’s possible for there to not be any motion when a creature is breathing. There are also worlds where a mimic could be a normal animal, so that’s good there too. You, hilariously, are aaking if evolution even applies to aberations while being dead-set on them breathing, as if that isn’t a comically easy thing to hand-wave away if we’re saying the creature is a proper, built-for-purpose monster.
The book says “motionless” and “indistinguishable”. Those words mean “without motion” and “with nothing to [visually] distinguish it from the object it is trying to imitate”. There is no breathing motion because then it would not be motionless and there is nothing to tell it apart. Both of those are ok in a game context because there other ways to discover the monster.
We aren’t talking about your subjective opinion and your original comment was an “um actually” in relation to someone else’s so if you want to know why you’re having this conversation it’s because you started it.
Note that a feature applying while motionless doesn’t mean it is motionless. And based on the rules, no, there are no other ways to notice the monster if it is motionless. Motion is the only way to spot a mimic, because if it’s not moving, you can’t distinguish it.
Look at the comment above mine. THAT was an um actually. OP described a perception check for a mimic, the comment I replied to said “um actually, there wouldn’t be a perception check”, and I replied with why there would be. Why are you making me the villain for defending the post?
I brought up evolution as a way to explain the idea that even without magic it’s possible for there to not be any motion when a creature is breathing. There are also worlds where a mimic could be a normal animal, so that’s good there too. You, hilariously, are aaking if evolution even applies to aberations while being dead-set on them breathing, as if that isn’t a comically easy thing to hand-wave away if we’re saying the creature is a proper, built-for-purpose monster.
The book says “motionless” and “indistinguishable”. Those words mean “without motion” and “with nothing to [visually] distinguish it from the object it is trying to imitate”. There is no breathing motion because then it would not be motionless and there is nothing to tell it apart. Both of those are ok in a game context because there other ways to discover the monster.
We aren’t talking about your subjective opinion and your original comment was an “um actually” in relation to someone else’s so if you want to know why you’re having this conversation it’s because you started it.
Note that a feature applying while motionless doesn’t mean it is motionless. And based on the rules, no, there are no other ways to notice the monster if it is motionless. Motion is the only way to spot a mimic, because if it’s not moving, you can’t distinguish it.
Look at the comment above mine. THAT was an um actually. OP described a perception check for a mimic, the comment I replied to said “um actually, there wouldn’t be a perception check”, and I replied with why there would be. Why are you making me the villain for defending the post?