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: 5074293" data-attributes="member: 87718">Draco, I'll be honest...I couldn't follow you post, past your analogy with the blue sky... But if I understand you correctly, you were essentially saying: 1) I misrepresented your argument2) My argument is unsound because I use circular reasoning  Ok, I'll do my best be short and concise as possible, because I realize this thread is quickly going to get out hand if we don't limit our replies. 1) If you recall your first post in this thread, you said:  Isn't that the same as saying 'Allies can grant superior cover for a hide check, but that ally instantly ceases to count as cover to maintain that hide."? === 2) I don't think my reasoning is circular at all. The last step of my reasoning relies on a common sense adjustment, because the rules would lead to logical inconsistancy if read literally.  Heres my reasoning, step-by-step: 1) "An ally can grants superior if 3+ lines of sight are covered (from any corner)"  2) "Superior cover is a sufficient condition for starting a stealth check" -> Conclusion: you can use ally cover to start a stealth check. Even you agree with me up to this point. 3) If you succeed on a stealth check, it doesn't make sense that Stealth granted goes away for no reason.  4) Therefore, some reason must be given for the stealth check to be invalidated. -> This is where we split.  - You are saying according to the rules, the reason is an sudden change of status from the ally granting cover to not granting cover, as per a strict interpretation of "to remain hidden". - I say, this is not logical. Every change is condition, must be effected by some cause. The simplest reasonable cause is that "the conditions for the stealth check to be made" change or no longer exist (as defined in my previous post to Abdul). --- Who's right? That depends on if you use letter of the law inpretation vs. heuristic reasoning. At no point have I pre-supposed something in my argument. But I have used general reasoning to support my viewpoint over yours as to how to interpret the rules.</blockquote>

Verification