Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Samir" data-source="post: 5075042" data-attributes="member: 84965">On the contrary, the RAW may be inconsistent, but it does not contradict itself and what actually happens is clear. As you say:Thus, RAW, you can make a stealth check but you don't remain hidden. You want to change this so that you do remain hidden for some period of time. That would be a house rule, would it not? To clarify, this decision is to make a house rule. For house rules, yes, one should always rely on what's more believable, fair to the players, and what adds more depth to the game--but these criteria are all based on opinion. You have chosen based on what you feel meets this criteria, and another person might choose differently.If you want my opinion on RAI, I believe they errata'd that "no ally-cover" rule in for the sole reason of preventing people using ally-cover to stealth. (Why else would they errata it in?) I don't think ally-cover stealth is believable and results in some rather silly situations. I don't think a house rule or looking any further than RAW is necessary in this particular situation. But again, that is just my opinion, and it is clear you think a house rule is necessary, so feel free to implement one.</blockquote>