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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6375763" data-attributes="member: 42582">My contention is that the stealth rules are ambiguous and unclear. If your reply is "No, not at all, they just suffer from poor organisation" I'm not sure how much you're disagreeing with me. I've already pointed to that poor oragnisation as one of the sources of confusion: for instance, that the concealment rules are in a different place from the stealth rules; and that the cover rules are in a different place from the concealment rules, don't refer back to those rules, and use the word "conceal" in a way that is different from the way it is used in the concealment rules.This is a reason that I stated upthread for why I find the rules confusing. Because I think the most natural reading of the rules is that (unless you're an elf or hafling) you do need heavy concealment or opaque total cover to be hidden, but I think that is counterintuitive from the point of view of verisimiitude.The only text I've seen that favours the 4e approach - thanks to  [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] pointing it out in his blog - is also confusing, because (i) it is in a different section of the rules, under the heading "Activity while travelling", and (ii) it seems to indicate that it is subordinate to, rather than adding to, the rules in the hiding sidebar.Yes, I understand that is how you read it. MerricB reads it basically the same way, based on the text about not being in the open in the "activies while travelling" section.I can see how that interpretation is extracted. My view is that it is not the only feasible interpretation, and certainy not one that occurred to me until it was pointed out.Purely from the point of view of autobiography, when I first noticed threads complaining about the stealth rules I assumed they must be mere whinging, because the 4e rules are pretty clear and I assumed that some version of them would just have been ported over. Then when I looked at the rules I found myself agreeing with the complainers!For me, here is the confusion:If my PC is hidden behind an opaque wall in an otherwise open, clear-aired area, then what happens if the wall is disintegrated? My opinion is, at that point, the presumption that my PC is not seen is defeated, without the need for any opposed checks to be made and compared. For me, the next question is - what other visual cues, less obvious than that, will also end the hidden state without the need for checks? And for me, the answer is found in the sentence "You can't hide from a creature that can see you". And in dim light or thin mist you can be seen, however poorly.I share Dausuul's concern, here, and I alluded to it upthread.The reply from  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], that the perceiving player has to declare the mode of their perception, doesn't really work for me - first, because hearing (unlike, say, head direction and the opening or shutting of the eyes) is to a signficant extent non-voluntary; second because you can both look and listen at the same time; third, because passive perception by definition doesn't involve any action declaration.So it is silly if, while the wood elf is hidden behind a wall I get a passive perception chance to notice it, but once the wall is disintegrated and all that is between me and the elf is some light mist or foliage it actually becomes harder for me to spot it (-5 to the passive perception check). The rule about disadvantage to perceptions relying on sight seems to me more relevant to a character who is deaf, or to an attempt to spot something small or far off, than to trying to spot a sneaking elf.I also think the reading of a wall, or similar opaque total cover, as providing "heavy obscurement" and imposing the blinded condition is quite counterinutive. The rules on p 65 of the Basic PDF say that "a creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition", including suffering disadvantage on attacks. But an opaque wall is not "an area" which a creature is in - in fact, a creature can't occupy the same area as a wall! And a wall doesn't impose disadvantage on attacks - it just blocks them.I agree that the interface, in AD&D, between the rogue stealth rules and the elf/halfing/ranger stealth rules is not clear; and nor is the interface between the rouge stealth rules and the surprise rules.As best I have managed to make sense of it in a recent re-reading, only a rogue can hope to auto-avoid an encounter outside of the surprise rules (by sneaking past it) whereas a ranger, elf or halfling can only avoid an encounter if they successfully surprise.</blockquote>

Verification