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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarkB" data-source="post: 4392460" data-attributes="member: 40176">You seem to have missed the point. Just because the rules (or, in this case, not the rules, but a developer's offhand comment) state that you can do something, that doesn't mean that every single monster in the Monster Manual will do that thing, perfectly and automatically.Telling allies where someone is hiding is all about communication, and not all monsters will communicate or cooperate perfectly in combat. The degree to which they do so should be at the DM's discretion, not hard-coded into a set of rules, as it is with your Stealth rules. Actually, I rather suspect he intended Z, a specialised Monster power that he would rather not allude to in too great detail for fear of spoiling the surprise if he does go ahead and make such an encounter. I merely gave X, a Light spell, as a simple way to accomplish the same thing using an existing class power.At this point I'm going to have to ask you to point to the rule that says that you can grant an ally a free, automatically successful stealth-busting Perception check simply by pointing and saying "He's over there." Otherwise, your option Y does not exist in any ruleset but your own. I think my earlier posting of an alternative ruleset went some way in that direction. Your streamlined rules are mostly fine, except in the areas of how easily opponents can narrow down a hidden character's position, and your concept of a single successful Perception check being sufficient to utterly defeat a character's Stealth check for all creatures allied to the spotter.Your counter-argument that altering either of those factors will both make Stealth too effective and consume extra time is reasonable, but it does not address the stance of the rules on the issue.I'm not sure what the middle ground would be between your interpretation and mine, or whether it could be ruled in a relatively simple matter, but I'm happy to try. I'll consider some possibilities and post again tomorrow.</blockquote>

Verification