Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Machus" data-source="post: 4359102" data-attributes="member: 72271">Yet redbeard is correct.&nbsp;If they succeed at stealth, they are no longer seen, heard, or noticed.The player and DM then simply turn to the &quot;targeting what you can't see rules&quot;.&nbsp; CSRs must scratch their head in wonder...why would they not be using &quot;targeting what you can't see&quot;, when their opponents cannot be seen??&nbsp; Seems crystal clear.&nbsp;It would logically have to be &quot;targeting what you CAN SEE&quot;, or stealth would have to say &quot;you are SEEN&quot;, for that position to be false.&nbsp;1. Is the opponent seen?&nbsp; yes/no.2. if no, use targeting what you do not see rules.3. If yes, do not use targeting what you can't see rules.And GMs have rules for both seen, and unseen.&nbsp;Your interpretation assumes WOTC has then left us with a logical THIRD category.&nbsp; Seen, not seen, and hidden (who are unseen!!).Then it goes on to give is no rules for hidden (who are unseen)&nbsp;&nbsp;-------Players already have an advantage when&nbsp; hiding unobserved.&nbsp; If an opponent sees you stroll up to a pillar, then you disappear, they can act as though you're there. They can area attack that spot, they can stroll up since you lose cover they can see you, they can simply choose to attck that square and take the -5 (or -7?).&nbsp; They don't need to beat your check by 10, they may have enough information ALREADY to attack your square (or do the other things mentioned)&nbsp;Had you gotten to the square unobserved, they'd not know where you were, and to get a better idea they'd have to use the targeting what you can't see rules to locate you.&nbsp; So the game as written already benefits those who stealth while unobserved, and penalizes those who hide while being observed.&nbsp; Entirely consistent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Machus, post: 4359102, member: 72271"] Yet redbeard is correct. If they succeed at stealth, they are [B]no longer seen[/B], heard, or noticed. The player and DM then simply turn to the "[B]targeting what you can't see[/B] rules". CSRs must scratch their head in wonder...why would they not be using "targeting what you can't see", when their opponents cannot be seen?? Seems crystal clear. It would logically have to be "targeting what you CAN SEE", or stealth would have to say "you are SEEN", for that position to be false. 1. Is the opponent seen? yes/no. 2. if no, use targeting what you do not see rules. 3. If yes, do not use targeting what you can't see rules. And GMs have rules for both seen, and unseen. Your interpretation assumes WOTC has then left us with a logical THIRD category. Seen, not seen, and hidden (who are unseen!!). Then it goes on to give is no rules for hidden (who are unseen) ------- Players already have an advantage when hiding unobserved. If an opponent sees you stroll up to a pillar, then you disappear, they can act as though you're there. They can area attack that spot, they can stroll up since you lose cover they can see you, they can simply choose to attck that square and take the -5 (or -7?). They don't need to beat your check by 10, they may have enough information ALREADY to attack your square (or do the other things mentioned) Had you gotten to the square unobserved, they'd not know where you were, and to get a better idea they'd have to use the targeting what you can't see rules to locate you. So the game as written already benefits those who stealth while unobserved, and penalizes those who hide while being observed. Entirely consistent. [/QUOTE]

Verification