Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8203852" data-attributes="member: 71699">Three issues I see with your ruling are<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The inconsistency in application - you seem to take "You can't hide..." to imply "you can stay hidden" but not "you can hide". Surely if anything, the language speaks to the latter even more strongly than the former?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Weakens some game features - this might be a wash. It really depends how much a group values those features.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Strengthens Stealth - the skill is already a must-take for many characters, this reading makes it very powerful in play. It's particularly problematic that the condition that allows remaining hidden also applies disadvantage to Perception.</li> </ol>Regarding 1. in particular, it is really hard to see how you justify reading that way. The balance issues are just whatever each table wants to value or tolerate, but the language issue feels like you really have to squint at the page. One can fall back to DM discretion, but then that falls afoul of conceding words meaning (that is, a reading that concedes meaning to all the words ought to be preferred to one that makes some of them empty of meaning).EDIT Incidentally, I hope I am properly ascribing rulings - I think you are saying remains hidden, but can't become hidden, ordinarily in light cover, right?</blockquote>