Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6794584" data-attributes="member: 6775031">The enemy knows that you were there, and is constantly alert for the possibility that you might appear again from any angle. This part is explicitly stated in the book as the general assumption for how awareness works during combat.Your analysis was poorly formatted, due to the constraints of the medium at hand. The short answer is that I agree with (4), and (6) follows from (4), but (7) is based purely on speculation. There is no reason to assume that it is intended for a rogue to hide in order to make sneak attacks every round, especially given that is is much easier to qualify for a sneak attack by virtue of having a nearby ally. If you consider that sneak attack from hiding is only intended to matter against a target that is unaware of you (such as during an ambush - before your ally is in place), then the rules are entirely consistent on this point.No, this issue was settled long ago. My positions concurs with the consensus gathered at that time, and nothing has changed since then. If nobody else is posting here, it's merely because this issue was settled so long ago that it warrants no further discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6794584, member: 6775031"] The enemy knows that you [I]were[/I] there, and is constantly alert for the possibility that you might appear again from any angle. This part is explicitly stated in the book as the general assumption for how awareness works during combat. Your analysis was poorly formatted, due to the constraints of the medium at hand. The short answer is that I agree with (4), and (6) follows from (4), but (7) is based purely on speculation. There is no reason to assume that it is [I]intended[/I] for a rogue to hide in order to make sneak attacks every round, especially given that is is much easier to qualify for a sneak attack by virtue of having a nearby ally. If you consider that sneak attack from hiding is only intended to matter against a target that is unaware of you (such as during an ambush - before your ally is in place), then the rules are entirely consistent on this point. No, this issue was settled long ago. My positions concurs with the consensus gathered at that time, and nothing has changed since then. If nobody else is posting here, it's merely because this issue was settled so long ago that it warrants no further discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification