Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CajunAzn" data-source="post: 5073905" data-attributes="member: 87718">Both Draco and Abdul's arguments rest on the very strange interpretation that: Allies can grant superior cover for a hide check, but that ally instantly ceases to count as cover to maintain that hide.&nbsp;This line of reasoning defies common logic - Why would an ally who was, just a moment ago, granting you superior cover for your hide, suddenly stop covering you? It's counter-intuitive and completely unfair to players who are using tactics and cooperation to gain that advantage.&nbsp;Why is it so hard to accept that you can't apply the &quot;creatures don't count as cover for remaining hidden&quot; rule to the initial condition that started the hide. &nbsp;Honestly, what do you think is more likely?The developers wanted to create a catch-22 rule that completely wastes the players' time and efforts.
 OR 
 
The developers meant that rule to make both you and your teammates be dynamic and creative each turn (in order to maintain the stealth benefit).
Why are you trying to force a narrow and completely illogical interpretation that ends up breaking a solid mechanic that is fun and interesting for both the DM and the players?&nbsp;The alternative is you could just accept that the &quot;no creature as cover rule&quot; doesn't apply to the initial condition (ie. player/enemy positions), but applies to every condition afterwards. &nbsp;This way you could avoid the sillyness of catch-22s and enjoy a fun and dynamic combat, where every player's and enemy's position counts and can be used in group tactics, and where the players are encouraged to communicate and coordinate their movements to gain stealth. The DM can have fun doing this with the monsters too!&nbsp;Seriously I hope Wizards gives an official ruling soon to clarify that they never meant to create a recursive logical inconsistancy that leads to futile skill checks, that in turn destroys the stealth reward from tactical positioning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CajunAzn, post: 5073905, member: 87718"] Both Draco and Abdul's arguments rest on the very strange interpretation that: Allies can grant superior cover for a hide check, but that ally [B][I]instantly[/I][/B] ceases to count as cover to maintain that hide. This line of reasoning defies common logic - Why would an ally who was, just a moment ago, granting you superior cover for your hide, [I][B]suddenly[/B][/I] stop covering you? It's counter-intuitive and completely unfair to players who are using tactics and cooperation to gain that advantage. Why is it so hard to accept that you can't apply the "creatures don't count as cover for remaining hidden" rule to the initial condition that started the hide. Honestly, what do you think is more likely? [INDENT]The developers wanted to create a catch-22 rule that completely wastes the players' time and efforts. [CENTER]OR [/CENTER] The developers meant that rule to make both you and your teammates be dynamic and creative each turn (in order to maintain the stealth benefit). [/INDENT]Why are you trying to force a narrow and completely illogical interpretation that ends up breaking a solid mechanic that is fun and interesting for both the DM and the players? The alternative is you could just accept that the "no creature as cover rule" doesn't apply to the initial condition (ie. player/enemy positions), but applies to every condition afterwards. This way you could avoid the sillyness of catch-22s and enjoy a fun and dynamic combat, where every player's and enemy's position counts and can be used in group tactics, and where the players are encouraged to communicate and coordinate their movements to gain stealth. The DM can have fun doing this with the monsters too! Seriously I hope Wizards gives an official ruling soon to clarify that they never meant to create a recursive logical inconsistancy that leads to futile skill checks, that in turn destroys the stealth reward from tactical positioning. [/QUOTE]

Verification