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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9040976" data-attributes="member: 6801845">They have to consolidate rules a bit. I'm not sure what 4 places you're talking about, the rules on hiding are in a few paragraphs.  I guess you could say you have to look at 2 places because of obscurement but you really have to work at it to make it as complex as you try to make it sound.  Besides, if you don't have cross references, the book would be a mess.Up to the DM.  Seriously ... this is not hard. Is the target distracted by that barbarian trying to smash his face in or are they staring at the exact spot the rogue is hiding?  Did someone just cause an explosion or make a scene in order to distract the guard or is the guard alert, attentive and looking down a featureless, well-lit hallway?Yeah, I know you aren't happy with that, but I greatly prefer it to the way 4E handled it - that an action didn't break hidden until the action was complete.  So a rogue could come out of the shadows, move 30 feet and stab someone in the face even though the person being stabbed was intently watching for the rogue to come out?  No thanks.Do they have a reason to not use passive perception?  You can't constantly be making "active" perception checks for hours on end, that's what passive perception is for.  Active checks are for actively searching.Which is also why it shouldn't be hard-coded into board game-like rules.  I want complexity and flexibility.  Besides, it's always going to be up to the DM whether or not the environment allows stealth.  Unless you make hiding into invisibility you have to have something to hide behind, some obscurement or some distraction.  But the combination of those things is nearly infinite and only limited by the imagination of the DM and players.</blockquote>

Verification