Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CajunAzn" data-source="post: 5074258" data-attributes="member: 87718">Hi Samir and SWAT thanks for joining on the discussion...  Could you quote source for this? I am very interested in actually hearing the designers' opinions on this.  === I think what all you guys are forgetting is that ultimately you too are apply what you feel is the RAI to how you read the RAW. And consequently arriving at a logical conundrum and that defies common sense.The "rules as written" simply say that after you have gained stealth, "You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden." You are trying to force everybody into a tunnel-vision viewpoint that that means "instantaneous loss of stealth", regardless if this interpreation leads to something that is unbelievable or completely unfair to the players. Whereas, I am offering another interpretation, with the very reasonable assumption that "something must change your cover", in order to resolve this logical inconsistancy.  Furthurmore, I have shown that this allows for increased group tactics, communication between the party members, more options for clever stealthy characters, and just an overall more dynamic experience at the table.  All of you just keep sticking to your "letter of law" type arguments without regard to the larger picture... === Why would it be unrealistic that players can provide cover for a sneaky character? Police and Army teams use this tactic all the time, to shield key personnel, to allow reconnaissance units to slip under enemy lines, etc. Granted they aren't just "a bunch of friends trying to hide", they are trained professionals (which is what I assume the party represents) and the stealthy character is someone who has mastered the art of staying unseen on the battlefield.  Have you guys actually sat down and just imagined for a moment what depth this group coordination based stealth adds to the game? Each new round, presents a new battlefield for the team to coordinate to grant combat advantage, hide weak or vulnerable characters, provide path of cover for a stealth character to move, etc. Every role contributes: Strikers need to watch for hideable sqaures; Defender can move up close to block lines of sight; Leaders can move enemies and allies around, and Controllers can take out nullify the perceptive abilities or large groups of creatures and they all need to work together to make it work. This is not some game-breaking loophole, it encourages party teamwork and genuinely adds to the depth to the game. Perhaps you don't consider this as adding to the "fun" of the game, but I think anything that pulls the players more into the combat and encourages party cooperation and tactics is more fun. I ask you what kind of depth does your "cover vanishes instantly" interpretation add to the game? It certainly doesn't make it more logical or believable. It arbitrarily deprives characters of stealth checks they just succeeded on. And it detracts from the usefulness of stealth and careful party positioning in general. I don't see any advantages here... Why everyone is so supportive of some interpretation that leads to catch-22's and offers no role-playing advantages? === As I said before, the Stealth mechanic is errata which means the developers took the time to rewrite the rules to better fit their intended purpose.  Don't you think it's possible the developers intentionally put the "creatures don't count as cover" in the "Remaining Hidden" section but not in the "Becoming Hidden" section for a reason? I think its pretty clear it was meant to allow players to use ally-cover to start stealth, but continually keep them on their toes and be dynamic to maintain it. Does anyone else see the cleverness in this design? It's possible to stealth behind allies, just alot harder than hiding behind obstructions... And I don't think the developer simply "forgot" to put it in. This is errata, and I give the developers a bit more credit than being that absent-minded. But let's just say, for the moment, that this was an oversight. This "oversight" just so happens to vastly increase the depth of the game, encourage party cooperation, and another level of tactical thinking that engages everyone at the table. If this is an "oversight", then I hope they make this type of "error" more often.</blockquote>

Verification