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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 4389830" data-attributes="member: 71699">Yes. Check my other thread Stealth - the low down UPDATED. Those apply here. I've done two things First, I read Mearls' remark about enemies sharing information the way I like. Since Mearls never clarified that remark, no one has the high ground about his real intent. Once it's decided that if one enemy knows where you are, they all do, things become a lot simpler. Second, per RAW, I don't allow hiding to elide over transient losses of cover or concealment. Once hidden RAW allows stealth to continue over movement, or any other action that doesn't explicitly break it. That means there is a hidden condition in effect. In play then, you tend to see variations on the following. Attack > Hide > Move, or Attack > Move > Lose C/C > Hide, or Hide > Move (hidden) > Wait or Attack. It's fast and clean to let players use the minor to hide, and it fits with the description of minor actions. Everything else flows from there, within RAW etc, as mechanical necessity. Noting that displacement is just a means to emulate randomising the square an enemy picks to attack. Stealth as it stands goes against Mearls' principle that if the game does something, it shouldn't hide it. What I've mainly done is resolve everything mechanically inevitable, and made honest and consistent the benefits. RAI. As for is it good, fun, and fair to hiders. Hiding is still a damn good defence that gives CA very effectively: using the above RAI DMs can grant checks to hide with few reservations. -vk</blockquote>

Verification