Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9451365" data-attributes="member: 6779196">My problem is not that the stealth rules need that sort of consideration, it’s that they don’t leave room for that sort of consideration. The rules are, by my reading, crystal clear in allowing the player in scenario 2 to remain hidden, and in order for the DM in that situation to rule as they do in your example, they must rule contrary to what the rules text explicitly describes. Which is certainly what I would do, but I don’t like having to rule more restrictively than RAW. I think this is a glaring issue in the RAW because it forces DMs who want to rule in accordance with the internal logic of the fiction into conflict with the RAW.I don’t think they’re hard to figure out how they mean to work. I think it’s plain as day that they’re meant to work exactly as they say they do, and that’s a problem for me because the way they say they work sucks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9451365, member: 6779196"] My problem is not that the stealth rules [I]need[/I] that sort of consideration, it’s that they [I]don’t leave room[/I] for that sort of consideration. The rules are, by my reading, crystal clear in allowing the player in scenario 2 to remain hidden, and in order for the DM in that situation to rule as they do in your example, they must rule contrary to what the rules text explicitly describes. Which is certainly what I would do, but I don’t like having to rule more restrictively than RAW. I think this is a glaring issue in the RAW because it forces DMs who want to rule in accordance with the internal logic of the fiction into conflict with the RAW. I don’t think they’re hard to figure out how they mean to work. I think it’s plain as day that they’re meant to work exactly as they say they do, and that’s a problem for me because the way they say they work sucks. [/QUOTE]

Verification