Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8376567" data-attributes="member: 16814">I love this argument.&nbsp; It's so tasty.&nbsp; &quot;RAW says I can ignore or change the rules.&nbsp; So, I've change them, or ignored them, or partially ignored them, but, no worries, it's still RAW!&quot;However, how you claim &quot;intent&quot; is very unclear to me as the designers are on record stating the intent and it doesn't align with your approach.&nbsp; The only way to claim this is to say that the &quot;intent&quot; is whatever you want because of the bit you quoted, but then, you can play Monopoly, call it D&amp;D, and still claim you're playing with the &quot;intent&quot; of the rules!The designers are on record saying this is the intent.&nbsp; The rules support it, clearly.&nbsp; There is an action for hiding in combat.&nbsp; There is a rule for unseen attackers.&nbsp; The rogue class gets a special benefit for attacking unseen.&nbsp; There are rules for contests between a creature trying to hide and a creature trying to detect it.&nbsp; There's an entire framework of rules that go directly to resolving the question of &quot;what happens if I try to hide in combat.&quot;&nbsp; I mean, you ask for evidence, but it apparently must be in the form of a printed rule that says, &quot;Lyxen, you can hide in combat and make an attack using the unseen attacker rules.&quot;&nbsp; I mean, there's a rule for what happens if you attack while unseen -- the attacker sees you after the attack!&nbsp; How can this happen if you can't do it to begin with?!Ah, now people with certain approaches would do better to play other games, because this one best aligns with [USER=7032025]@Lyxen[/USER]'s point of view.&nbsp; Just ask them!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8376567, member: 16814"] I love this argument. It's so tasty. "RAW says I can ignore or change the rules. So, I've change them, or ignored them, or partially ignored them, but, no worries, it's still RAW!" However, how you claim "intent" is very unclear to me as the designers are on record stating the intent and it doesn't align with your approach. The only way to claim this is to say that the "intent" is whatever you want because of the bit you quoted, but then, you can play Monopoly, call it D&D, and still claim you're playing with the "intent" of the rules! The designers are on record saying this is the intent. The rules support it, clearly. There is an action for hiding in combat. There is a rule for unseen attackers. The rogue class gets a special benefit for attacking unseen. There are rules for contests between a creature trying to hide and a creature trying to detect it. There's an entire framework of rules that go directly to resolving the question of "what happens if I try to hide in combat." I mean, you ask for evidence, but it apparently must be in the form of a printed rule that says, "Lyxen, you can hide in combat and make an attack using the unseen attacker rules." I mean, there's a rule for what happens if you attack while unseen -- the attacker sees you after the attack! How can this happen if you can't do it to begin with?! Ah, now people with certain approaches would do better to play other games, because this one best aligns with [USER=7032025]@Lyxen[/USER]'s point of view. Just ask them! [/QUOTE]

Verification