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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MyISPHatesENWorld" data-source="post: 4393671" data-attributes="member: 65684">It is quite obviously not RAI. "Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily" in no way invokes any intention that it costs an additional action whenever you do it as... um... "Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily"...As a player of a rogue in two seperate campaigns, with a third coming soon, and having played another class in a party with a rogue, I can say that you're definitely not speaking about all players. Or all DMs, as no DM I'm playing with or planning to play with has expressed any need to reduce the use of stealth, particularly via fun-sapping action penalties. And, I won't be doing anything like this to my players in my campaign.Being able to get some group of players to put up with stuff doesn't make it RAI or a good rule. Some people put up with arbitrary nerfings and fun-sapping house rules that make me think they answer game postings with D/S and S/M tags from the personals section of an alternative newspaper.It's a house rule. It's a good house rule if you and all of your players like it.If it were not a house rule, and were used to replace the exisisting rules on stealth, it would be a bad rule. It needlessly limits how players can use stealth, robbing characters of offensive and defensive benefits from a combination of having or gaining access to the skill, a good score in the requisite ability, and possibly abilities/powers/feats related to the skill and/or prohibits the use of other abilities/powers/feats/actions they may be able to take on a turn. Adding an action cost to anything is a big deal. Adding an action cost to something that is expected to be used frequently, and you've acknowledged stealth is intended to be used frequently......is a bigger deal. Particularly when you consider that one of the classes most affected, rogues, has bonuses that encourage the use of different weapons in different situations. For multiclass rogues that use an implement or non-rogue weapon in one or both hands sometimes, it is even worse.What you say you think about stealth in the quote above, combined with your previous statement of......make it really plain that you know you're making a set of house rules to address an issue that you have with the current rules as written and intended.This......combined with your twisted use of the general skill mechanic as a way to limit when player's use stealth (something you actually repeated twice, in a short span, in your earlier posting), gives the impression that in addition to nerfing stealth and by extension the classes it most benefits (without any compensation for lost offense, defense, and actions), you want more control.And making things less fun for one of the players so you can have more control is pretty much contrary to my understanding of the RAI in every way. In 4e, players can do cool, fun, stuff by default. Your house rules would shift it to your players (at least the ones that benefit from stealth) doing cool, fun, stuff with your special dispensation or being penalized for doing cool, fun, stuff. As DM, you're free to add any limitation that you want to what players do in your campaign, but I don't want to play a game that works that way. Maybe this skill (<a href="http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20080721" target="_blank">http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20080721</a>) is really the one that needs work...</blockquote>

Verification