Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xorn" data-source="post: 4357212" data-attributes="member: 61231">I stopped reading here; I want to see what it's like when you're reading my posts, because you apparently didn't read what I just wrote--seeing as I specifically made this cool little Cause > Effect statement, which included the unheard and hidden from view, and even pointed out that I understand how you're reading it.  (That's the opposite of "leaving the rest off", as a sidebar.)It's pretty apparent to me that you haven't read the tactics I've mentioned repeatedly.  If you don't want to read the tactics in every piece of published material there is and see that not one time is there mention of using Stealth the way you're suggesting, but repeated examples of using it the way I have suggested, then there's not much to discuss, because that's my disconnect with your interpretation.I've given very specific examples, too.  In the Heathen adventure (I'm not giving complete details so as to not spoil the encounter for people that don't want to go read it), but how about I say, "Read page 38 of Dungeon 155" and explain to me--why does that creature, with +14 Stealth, not even SUGGEST using Stealth to become unseen, rather than get into Total Concealment?Now read page 47: You are specifically instructed that the bugbear will use stealth to hide in the smoke, gaining combat advantage--but then absolutely no mention of using stealth thereafter to regain combat advantage without first getting out of sight--why is that?I've been looking--reading everything I can find on the matter--and I haven't found one single example where a person that has been spotted uses stealth to regain combat advantage.  But I have found multiple examples of using Stealth exactly as I'm using it.Why is that, do you think?Could it be just coincidence?  Sure--but every single tactics section I read makes that possibility feel more and more remote.  It seems much more likely to me that Stealth doesn't grant Combat Advantage the way you think it does.  But I can't prove that for sure--I can just play the way I see it, supported by a <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-ton of research on the matter.I would love to find anything, anywhere, in the published tactics that mentions just one time using stealth the way you indicate.  But I haven't, and I don't think it's out there.  Plenty of examples for my way though, which is why I'm happy.  My interpretation seems to match what was intended, as I encounter it.</blockquote>

Verification