Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 8728110" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Weird. In my post you just quoted, I say one of my premises is that the designers are competent. You then say you don’t want to attribute to me things I didn’t say but then go on to say my premise is the opposite, that they are incompetent, because obviously the rule doesn’t address this interaction. That isn’t the only possible reason for not addressing the interaction. It would have been trivial for them to carve out an exception for hidden creatures the way they did for creatures that are not within five feet, creatures that are not hostile, creatures that can’t see you, and incapacitated creatures had it been desirable to do so. All it would require is to insert a qualifier that says “who isn’t hidden”. The elegance of exception based rule design is that it doesn’t require things that aren’t exceptions to be addressed, so if it isn’t addressed, it can be assumed it’s not an exception. This seems like a flimsy excuse for failing to write “who isn’t hidden”. That's a case where they made an error which they later admitted and made corrections to fix it. No such corrections have been made to the rule for ranged attacks in close combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 8728110, member: 6787503"] Weird. In my post you just quoted, I say one of my premises is that the designers are competent. You then say you don’t want to attribute to me things I didn’t say but then go on to say my premise is the opposite, that they are incompetent, because obviously the rule doesn’t address this interaction. That isn’t the only possible reason for not addressing the interaction. It would have been trivial for them to carve out an exception for hidden creatures the way they did for creatures that are not within five feet, creatures that are not hostile, creatures that can’t see you, and incapacitated creatures had it been desirable to do so. All it would require is to insert a qualifier that says “who isn’t hidden”. The elegance of exception based rule design is that it doesn’t require things that aren’t exceptions to be addressed, so if it isn’t addressed, it can be assumed it’s not an exception. This seems like a flimsy excuse for failing to write “who isn’t hidden”. That's a case where they made an error which they later admitted and made corrections to fix it. No such corrections have been made to the rule for ranged attacks in close combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification