Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CajunAzn" data-source="post: 5073450" data-attributes="member: 87718">Again a very good counter argument. Before I address your main argument, first me make a clarification:  In the rules, stealth literally grants you invisibility to the enemies your are hiding from.   Now to your second point which deals with allies and enemies being non-static:   I agree with you, hence why you must make the stealth checks every turn - it's harder to use dynamic cover (i.e. your ally) for stealth than just remain in darkness or behind a wall. As I said before, the developers specifically put in the phrase "You cannot use creatures as cover to remain hidden" so that you couldn't just stand their behind an ally and enjoy the benefits of stealth. You have to move and be dynamic. I've talked about all this in my response before, so I have a feeling you're real beef is in your last point:  It should be clear from my examples previous, that I don't think being hidden stays automatically stays until the next turn. If whatever situation allows you to be hidden (ie. an obstruction or opposing creatures) dissappears or changes position, then you automatically lose your hidden status. Your argument rests solely on the interpretation of the quote: "You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden." directly implying that your ally counts for cover in one moment (when you are making your check), and the split second after, it doesn't count for cover. Now it just comes down what is a plausible/fair interpretation of the rules. Does this split second alteration seem plausible or fair to you?  The stealth check was based on careful alignment of positions and lines of sight. If these positions/aligments do not change, why should the result of the stealth check change? My answer is: it shouldn't (at least not plausibly or fairly to the player). ----- That is my main argument, but you could also make these other heuristic arguments against your interpretation: 1) Do you think the designers intended for you to be able to make a useless stealth roll? 2) The sections under "Remaining Hidden" and "Not Remaining Hidden" were obviously designed to guide players on what to do when stealthed, not create a sudden and unbelievable reversal of the player's hidden status he just earned. 3) Do you think the designers were careful enough to remember to put a condition for remaining in stealth, but not remember the same condition for starting stealth? This would be especially strange since this was a specific errata designed to clear up how stealth worked. Lastly, I just have to say, the stealth mechanic I have described is positive for the game. It encourages teamwork and strategy. It is very difficult to remain continually stealthed, unless a player is always watching the battlefield and noting opportunities. Isn't this what a rogue/ranger/assasin/etc. should do?  I knew sooner or later these points would come up, which is why I said in my OP that an official response from the game developers would be greatly appreciated. I for one, give the developers more credit than just assuming they would create a very arbitrary, "oh, but right after, you lose the stealth" rule.</blockquote>

Verification