Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Paul Strack" data-source="post: 4402289" data-attributes="member: 71340">I think there are some fairly common circumstances where you opponent can't see you but would still know where you are (your location square). There are those you listed above, plus the common pretty common condition where one of his allies can see you and can point out your location (because he made his spot check or because he has a clear line of sight).Under those conditions, I think it is clear that you would still have a combat advantage against the enemy who can't see you but would not benefit from TWYCS. That is the rules-based argument I am making.The meta-reason I am making this distinction is that there seem to be two extremes in the Stealth debate.1) The &quot;you are making Stealth too hard and now my rogue is useless&quot; camp.2) The &quot;you are making Stealth too good and now it is better than invisibility&quot; camp.I think those extremes come from an either/or interpretation of hidden. If hiding is easy, it is too good defensively, but if hiding is hard, the offensive capacity of rogue's gets nerfed.If, however, you accept that there is a middle ground where you get Combat Advantage but not TWYCS, you can draw the lines in such a way that rogues are still effective but Stealth is not the single best defense in the game.If you are willing to accept that there are two tiers of benefits then I am willing to debate with you on where exactly the lines between the levels are drawn.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Paul Strack, post: 4402289, member: 71340"] I think there are some fairly common circumstances where you opponent can't see you but would still know where you are (your location square). There are those you listed above, plus the common pretty common condition where one of his allies can see you and can point out your location (because he made his spot check or because he has a clear line of sight). Under those conditions, I think it is clear that you would still have a combat advantage against the enemy who can't see you but would not benefit from TWYCS. That is the rules-based argument I am making. The meta-reason I am making this distinction is that there seem to be two extremes in the Stealth debate. 1) The "you are making Stealth too hard and now my rogue is useless" camp. 2) The "you are making Stealth too good and now it is better than invisibility" camp. I think those extremes come from an either/or interpretation of hidden. If hiding is easy, it is too good defensively, but if hiding is hard, the offensive capacity of rogue's gets nerfed. If, however, you accept that there is a middle ground where you get Combat Advantage but not TWYCS, you can draw the lines in such a way that rogues are still effective but Stealth is not the single best defense in the game. If you are willing to accept that there are two tiers of benefits then I am willing to debate with you on where exactly the lines between the levels are drawn. [/QUOTE]

Verification