Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9431371" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Except the "basic functionality" of the hide action is not that you can stand in your tent at 7 in the morning and spam click the hide button until you roll a nat 20 and have perfect invisibility for the rest of the day. You are making that up when it is clearly not how the action is supposed to function.Yes, you spend half the paragraph talking in terms of "we could interpret" and "it is possible to" whereas with the stealth rules you are locked in "this is how it works". Then with the fighter stuff, you declare that you could easily houserule it not to work, without affecting the core functionality, but you seem to insist that spamming hide until you get the result you want is core functionality of the hide action, instead of, you know... hiding from an enemy.Why not write that hiding doesn't make you transparent? Why not write that breaking from your cover and standing in front of an enemy allows that enemy to see you? Why not write that you can't hide from nothing 42 times in a row until you roll a natural 20? Why should they have to? Why am I defending these rules? Because I don't think they are sloppy. I don't think they are poorly put together. I think they are actually very good rules that have a lot of flexibility, and answer questions for me about how specific scenes I could never figure out mechanically would work. The idea of mixing hidden and invisible into a single condition to represent being unseen has opened up an entire branch of stealth in social situations, a type of stealth I could never get a mechanical grip on in 2014, completely viable and accounted for under these rules. The problem? The problem is people approaching these rules in bad faith. Creating absurd scenarios, ignoring alternative explanations. All you need to do to "fix" these rules, is accept that "finds you" is broader than a perception check as an action, and they are 100% fixed. Because despite your constant "but they don't SAY that" you know what it means to find something. Then, to fix the invisibility spell, you just have to accept that the invisibility spell works like an invisibility spell. That's it.And what do you think is more helpful for new DMs and players who go online looking for advice? Do you think it will be helpful to a new DM for a player to say "Well, this guy is a DM of twenty years, and he says the rules are terrible because I am totally allowed to keep re-rolling my stealth checks every morning until I crit, and you can't stop me." or "Well, I went online to check these rules because I was slightly confused, and I guess this is a massive issue because there is a hundred page thread where people keep insisting that hiding makes you unseeable, so you can never be seen by a perception check, so if you hide once I guess you are invisible forever? I'm so confused by this game" Or do you think it is FAR more helpful and FAR better if a new DM came to you slightly confused to say "Yeah, the condition says invisible, but for hiding it just means unseen, while the spell makes you invisible like you were thinking. The wording is a little rough, but some common sense makes it obvious." Which one leads to better games in the future? Or do you want option 3 "Invent a reality warping machine and go to an alternative reality where the rules are written to my exact specifications", because I think that one isn't going to happen.</blockquote>

Verification