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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8200129" data-attributes="member: 2525">He absolutely is. It's very clear during the interview. I don't think it's open to interpretation, given how often he repeats it, and how often he says it should be common for a ranged rogue to be able to do this. Your view of this would make it incredibly uncommon.How are you still hidden ON A ROOF? You emerge from behind the cover of a roof for a split second to make your attack. That's pretty clear. He's not saying you're somehow attacking THROUGH a roof. You obviously must "emerge" from behind the cover of the roof "for a split second" to "make the attack" that will "get that [hidden] benefit". Yes and he is also saying you can shoot or attack AROUND the cover you're hidden behind, without moving from that spot, by emerging out the side of it to attack. He gives an example for ranged and for melee. Both of them require you not shooting THROUGH the cover you're hiding behind, but emerging out from it without leaving your space. A corner of a building you're hiding behind for melee, or a roof you're hiding behind for ranged, he says you emerge for a split second and attack without moving from your space. That is what I am talking about. There is no getting around he's saying that's a valid situation, AND INTENDED SITUATION, for hide.Look, you're not going to explain away the words "split second where they emerge just to make the attack they get that benefit." Those words have no meaning if the way you thought it worked was the way he was talking about.So now we come down to the question - are you going to continue to misrepresent what he said, or are you going to admit the way you run it isn't how he is saying it was intended? The later is fine, just stop claiming he's saying something different.</blockquote>

Verification