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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5075281" data-attributes="member: 63214">No, I specifically showed you how the Before, During, and After interpretation is wrong. Not that I see how it would matter if it was meant to read that way anyway. Feel free to try and refute that, but it's not a difference of opinion. The first thing presented is make a check, and the second thing is the conditions that must exist for you to make that check. That is clearly contradicting what you are saying. So, only part of the rules gets applied instantly and the rest waits? The reason I brought up the Giant and rock example is because if you lose cover you are instantly brought out of it. What if the Giant had a readied action, when the halfling goes behind rock, I pick up the rock. So, the halfling only gets stealth for a split second before the giant picks it up. The amount of time, like I said, doesn't matter. The instant you try to hide behind a ally, it fails, in the same way. Also, please respond as to why you only get superior cover from stealthing, but not for ranged attacks, realistically, and reasonably, as the standards you are holding high. Half of the argument is assuming you can even get superior cover from allies. I personally think that there is nothing unfair about saying allies can't be cover, because they can't be used as cover to even become hidden. Imagine, if that were the case, as I believe it is, there would be no unfairness. The player's wouldn't believe that they are entitled to anything, and nothing would be taken away. Please read my post and tell me why superior cover should only apply to seeing if you have stealth, and not ranged attacks. Why according to your opinion the stealth rules are meant to be read chronologically, and yet the very first two paragraphs contradict that. Why is not allowing stealth behind allies unreasonable and "rules lawyery" given my previous post explaining how you haven't proven how it is reasonable or realistic to allow it. Please read my points, so we can have a meaningful discussion. I have read the thread.EDIT: I like that compromise for those that think allies can provide superior cover, but eh, it's not like this is going to be submitted to the supreme rules database of awesome. Do whatever makes you happy and your game fun. Good gaming.</blockquote>

Verification