Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6590108" data-attributes="member: 42582">Upthread you said there was no ambiguity. Now you are quibbling interpretations with me! Which is to say, the rules bear multiple interpretations. Which is to say, they are ambiguous!If you want more evidence, look at the ten-to-twenty posts above this one, where you will see posters of good will disagreeing over the circumstances in which hiding is possible, the circumstance in which the hidden status may be maintained once it has been achieved, the circumstances in which a character may gain advantage for attacking while hidden, etc.That is more evidence that the rules are ambiguous.And they needn't be. It is possible to write clear rules about stealth, and to shift the burden of adjudication off the rules text and onto the fiction (4e is an example of this). The rules should be written so that the GM has to arbitrate who is distracted, and who has the benefit of concealment/obscurement. But they shouldn't be written so as to cause the sorts of debates that are taking place in this thread, which aren't debates about the proper adjudication of ingame situations, but rather are debates about the basic parameters of the mechanics.</blockquote>