Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kordeth" data-source="post: 4402309" data-attributes="member: 5036">But that's not a rules-based distinction. The only effect of targeting someone you can't see (besides the usual rules for targeting someone with concealment) is that you have to guess the square your target is in. If some external factor allows a character to know exactly what square a hidden enemy is in, he still has to &quot;guess,&quot; his guess just happens to be 100% certain. It's like in Battleship--if I've hit two sections of one of your ships in a line, I &quot;know&quot; the next box in that row has a piece of your ship in it, but I still have to &quot;guess&quot; on my turn.Stealth already has enough drawbacks--it requires cover/concealment/distraction, you have to make a roll, it's easily overcome with area attacks. Splitting up into this distinction really makes no sense.Sorry, but I don't think there are two levels, merely circumstances in which it's easier to correctly guess what square the hidden target is in. Consider in your ruling the following scenario. There's a thick wall of brambles that provides concealment. It's 10 squares long. On his turn, Roger the Rogue dashes behind this wall and moves stealthily, stopping in the first square that has concealment. His Stealth check beats Fred the Fighter's Perception check easily, so Roger is now hidden according to the rules on Stealth in the PHB--and yet, under your rules, because he doesn't have total concealment, Fred somehow knows exactly what square Roger is in, even though he has no way of knowing how far Roger continued to move behind the brambles, whether he moved back or forward or is adjacent to the wall, etc. How does that make sense?If you're hidden, you can't be seen. If you can't be seen, your attacker has to make his best guess what square you're in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kordeth, post: 4402309, member: 5036"] But that's not a rules-based distinction. The only effect of targeting someone you can't see (besides the usual rules for targeting someone with concealment) is that you have to guess the square your target is in. If some external factor allows a character to know exactly what square a hidden enemy is in, he still has to "guess," his guess just happens to be 100% certain. It's like in Battleship--if I've hit two sections of one of your ships in a line, I "know" the next box in that row has a piece of your ship in it, but I still have to "guess" on my turn. Stealth already has enough drawbacks--it requires cover/concealment/distraction, you have to make a roll, it's easily overcome with area attacks. Splitting up into this distinction really makes no sense. Sorry, but I [i]don't[/i] think there are two levels, merely circumstances in which it's easier to correctly guess what square the hidden target is in. Consider in your ruling the following scenario. There's a thick wall of brambles that provides concealment. It's 10 squares long. On his turn, Roger the Rogue dashes behind this wall and moves stealthily, stopping in the first square that has concealment. His Stealth check beats Fred the Fighter's Perception check easily, so Roger is now hidden according to the rules on Stealth in the PHB--and yet, under your rules, because he doesn't have [i]total[/i] concealment, Fred somehow knows exactly what square Roger is in, even though he has no way of knowing how far Roger continued to move behind the brambles, whether he moved back or forward or is adjacent to the wall, etc. How does that make sense? If you're hidden, you can't be seen. If you can't be seen, your attacker has to make his best guess what square you're in. [/QUOTE]

Verification