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: 4393461" data-attributes="member: 71699">Hi Redbeard. Thank you for your comments. On the whole a refreshing relief. I may change some of my streamlined rules, but I'd like to talk them through first, starting with minor action use. My reasoning for minor is much as you have it 'you need to end the action in a stealth-able condition'. Since you aren't hidden unless you first hide, in play that often means I see the following: Ranged attack > want to move through c/c hidden > hide > move. Stealth had to be with a minor. The mechanical reason is that Stealth must be fed #squares moved before it knows what penalty, if any, to apply; but the user desires that no squares be moved unhidden. Since Stealth must pend its hide determination to the end of a move action, the user must hide prior to moving, or we get into retroactive state rewrites and/or some wording on PHB188 becomes meaningless. Deft strike > need to get back to c/c > move > hide. Stealth had to be with a minor. Stealth must consider the entire action when making its hide determination at the end of that action. That's how it takes into account #squares moved, for example. The whole move action can't qualify for Stealth use, since part of it falls outside c/c, or we get into deciding some words on PHB188 have no meaning... always a possibility <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Attack > still in c/c > don't want to move > hide. It makes zero difference if you Stealth with a minor or move, as move trades down to minor. In c/c not hidden > want to move through c/c hidden > hide > move. It makes zero difference if you Stealth with a minor or standard, as standard trades down to minor. In c/c hidden > want to move through c/c hidden > move. No Stealth use required, you're already hidden. In open > want to move to c/c > move > hide > attack. Stealth had to be with a minor. Diversion in open and hide > move to c/c hidden. This is done with a power or skill (Bluff) other than Stealth that grants a check. No minor needed. Spotted! > want to move to new c/c > Fleeting Ghost and hide. This is done with a power or skill (Bluff) other than Stealth that grants a check. No minor needed. And so on... There are cases conjurable where it makes a difference: sometimes a Ranger will be trying to get in a Hunter's Quarry, or a Rogue will want to use a power that costs a minor. However, the RAW does very often lead to Stealth being either free with a power or skill other than Stealth that grants it, or with a minor or action trading down to a minor.  Using Stealth with a minor is allowed by RAW, and at present I literally believe it is RAI to push that out to a general principle, once a wide range of cases are considered. Stealth is good enough players quickly get over any reservations they have, and happily go on using it. It makes Rogue powers like Fleeting Ghost more valuable, and has nice balance against the cost of finding the hider. Is it a house rule? I'm saying no, but I understand your arguments for yes. Is it a good rule, that's what I'm asking you <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=":)" />  'If the rules do something, they shouldn't try to hide it.' What I found the TWYCS rules were doing, once we backed away from the 10 points over condition for targets not hidden by something on top of Stealth, was making me as DM try and pick squares in a fair way. Players whine when you guess their square, since they feel you might be using information their enemies don't have (of couse, you're trying not to) so I was erring on the side of picking the wrong square. Then I resorted to weighted dice. Finally, I looked at the odds, thought about the hassle I was having picking squares and assigning odds, and looked for something to produce as close as possible to the same outcome. Displacement fit the bill. So Displacement arose as a direct implementation of the intent of the rules. The DM needs to fairly pick a square, resulting in a %age chance the hider won't be in the square aimed at. With Displacement, if the second roll misses, that's what is considered to have happened. It's consistent, and hassle free. My question to you would be, what other methods have people found for fairly picking squares? Finally, hi Mistwell when I said PEACH, you are correct that I didn't anticipate people pulling out the RAI claim and PEACHing that alone. I was hoping they'd feel more interested in looking at the rules themselves and enhancing them. Some people have done that, and I'm grateful to those people. What I sense though is you might not really care about the RAI claim, but it might be you want to see rules that really do adhere to what we know while playing well. The RAI claim is a hook to hang those fears on, but your opposing it doesn't tell me much. Can you pull out your specific and tangible issues with the rules, so we can talk them over? -vk</blockquote>

Verification