Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3548167" data-attributes="member: 2525">And has been pointed out to you, your analysis that it is some sort of extremely minor example that is not applicable to anything else is nonsensical.  The 5 ranks is obviously because it's MORE difficult to sneak up right beside someone and make a melee attack...much more difficult than sniping from hiding in a space and not moving.  Nor is it somehow easier to do it WHILE MOVING.  You know, I know, and everyone knows the limitations you are pointing out are not "benefits", but just limitations because you are doing something more difficult that the normal sniping which would normally not require such limitations to deny dex bonus - the author already assumes it works that way.It's a rule.  It's pretty clear to me and a lot of people.  You may not agree with that interpretation, but then a whole lot of us don't agree with yours.  Hence, we have reached an impasse regarding how to interpret the rules as written.  So in life, we turn to the old standards of how to break an impasse.  Does one interpretation make more sense than another? It's a relevant question which you won't answer - because you know the answer, and it results in a tipping of the scale to the interpretation which you personally (on a logical basis) find "unfair" because you feel it too closely replicates the ability of a powerful second level skill.  No you didn't.  All you did was say "there is nothing about this thing we are talking about in those rules".  Heck, you could have cited the rules for multiclassing and alignment changes, and you would have made the same point - which is to say you feel there is nothing about it.  We disagree on that issue - but it doesn't mean you found some rule that actually directly supports your claim.  Your entire argument is based on logical inference - that the absence of the rule in certain places makes it not a rule.  The rest of us are using similar logical inferences, and you complain we cannot use logic because logic has no place with a rules debate.  It's a silly claim, given what you've been arguing all along.No see that wasn't the question asked.  I asked for a logical reason why you think your interpretation of the rules as written makes more sense than ours, on a "this is the reason why" basis.  Not a rules reason, but a "I can explain it like this".  People do this every single day, with just about every single rules debate I've seen.  It might be a silly reason, but they can always come up with SOME reason.  And if you cannot - which it seems you cannot - it's probably a good sign you've gone down the wrong road in your interpretation.  If you, as a D&D player and DM, one of the most imaginative games ever made, cannot imagine any reason why something could work that way, then it probably doesn't work that way and you should consider alternative interpretations.Because you know how it ends, is my guess.  I'm not sure why it would be that big a deal that the RAW doesn't agree with your personal sense of fairness.  We make house rules all the time.  It's not a bad thing.I didn't side step anything.  I asked him a question.  He tried to answer, but his answer had nothing to do with the question.  It was additional ancillary issues, which I am happy to answer now but only in an ancillary manner such that we both understand that it's a distraction from the main point we are discussing.  This is that moving target issue I mentioned to you earlier.  I find it's best to resolve an issue, and then move on to the next, rather than ignore an issue and throw many more out there hoping something sticks to the wall in a scattergun approach.  It's not a particularly useful approach to debate.No, not either it is the same or it isn't.  Are the ramifications of being blind the same as the ramifications of not being able to see a single target? No of course not.  Nor are the ramifications of an illusion spell that makes you not visible but which causes a wavering in the air and a displacement, and which light passes through, identical to hiding behind cover or concealment and attacking from range.  I can see that invisibility might cause additional changes to the space you are in, along with benefits from light passing through you and being able to move more freely than while you are hiding, that would allow you to attack easier than someone who is in hiding.  Which is why I never said they were identical, just similar in that they are both examples of someone not being able to react to an attack.  Being flat footed during a surprise round, and being attacked by a hidden attacker, are also both examples of someone not being able to react to an attack - but surely you are not trying to raise the strawman that I am trying to characterize both of those things as "identical - the same or not".So, can you give us a reason why your interpretation makes logical sense? Or, can you offer another criteria for breaking our apparent impasse in mutually exclusive interpretations of the rules?</blockquote>

Verification