Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
Well, I'm a big fan of Hudson's Bay starts, kinda jump in, see how everything is working and take stock of everything. I'm likely to allow extra retraining if everyone is okay with that.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The Retaking of Forgehold OOC-4E (Full)
- Thread starter Charwoman Gene
- Start date
Shalimar
First Post
Sounds good Gene but its fine either way, not really a big issue.
I would like to talk about the Stealth stuff here instead of the IC thread so we don't clutter that thread up.
Mal-
Saying to forget what the designers intended as to how often sneak attack should apply is rediculous. Almost every round is not the same as 50% of the time. How is it reasonable to sit there and say that the guy who wrote the rules is smoking something when he is explaining the intent of the rules?
If the game designer gives the intent of how something should work, I think I'd weight that more than the interpretation of a player who has maybe a month with the rules in hand, no offense intended, but we have had it for a month, they have been designing, testing, and updating the rules for a year or more its only natural that they'd know what they intended the rule to be. I do wish you'd stop making declarations of what can and cannot be done and placing more weight on your pronouncements then on what the designers intended (and have stated they intended). It comes off as very condescending towards me when you state it as if you could not possibly be wrong and obviously know better than the designers what the designers intended.
I'm not trying to be harsh with the above, just trying to put it in a way so that you can understand how your arguement is coming off to me.
I would like to talk about the Stealth stuff here instead of the IC thread so we don't clutter that thread up.
Mal-
Saying to forget what the designers intended as to how often sneak attack should apply is rediculous. Almost every round is not the same as 50% of the time. How is it reasonable to sit there and say that the guy who wrote the rules is smoking something when he is explaining the intent of the rules?
If the game designer gives the intent of how something should work, I think I'd weight that more than the interpretation of a player who has maybe a month with the rules in hand, no offense intended, but we have had it for a month, they have been designing, testing, and updating the rules for a year or more its only natural that they'd know what they intended the rule to be. I do wish you'd stop making declarations of what can and cannot be done and placing more weight on your pronouncements then on what the designers intended (and have stated they intended). It comes off as very condescending towards me when you state it as if you could not possibly be wrong and obviously know better than the designers what the designers intended.
I'm not trying to be harsh with the above, just trying to put it in a way so that you can understand how your arguement is coming off to me.
Atanatotatos
First Post
I wonder why these intents are never clear RAW...
My problem is, does Mira have line of sight to the kobolds where she is now??
My problem is, does Mira have line of sight to the kobolds where she is now??
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
Yes, both she and the kobold have LOS and cover mutually.
Atanatotatos
First Post
Okay, that's the problem. If we're talking about RAW, they don't see each other, since the corner of the wall touches the only line that connects their squares. P. 273, "seeing and targeting". Am I missing something?
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
Atanatotatos
First Post
Ooooookay. I' m missing everything today. Please understand, it's early in the morning and i didn't sleep much. I completely forgot the lower left corner)however, the upper left is indeed covered by the corner of the wall). No problem then. You can clearly use cover to hide from enemies (stated in the stealth skill description). So what's the problem?
"How often a rogue should get sneak attack damage" doesn't make much sense to me. The rules state when you get it. When you DO get it, that depends on terrain, battle formation, and player's tactics, not on Mike Mearl's opinion.
"How often a rogue should get sneak attack damage" doesn't make much sense to me. The rules state when you get it. When you DO get it, that depends on terrain, battle formation, and player's tactics, not on Mike Mearl's opinion.
Shalimar
First Post
The opinion matters due to ambiguity in the stealth rules. When things are ambiguous you should take into account the intent and use the interpretation that best matches the intent.
In this case of the current fight with corners as cover its 100% clear, the ambiguity is in the ability to use other characters as Cover. The rules state that you can use them for Cover, but specifically mentions they can't be used as cover against melee attacks (well duh a melee attack requires you to be next to the person you are attacking so obviously there isn't an ally between you and the guy attacking you) it doesn't say you cannot use the cover for stealth as it specifically says you cannot use it for cover against melee attacks, that is the ambiguity.
Because the game designers intended that sneak attack should be able to be applied almost every round, I would go with then the the possible meaning of the ambiguity that they can in fact use stealth with the cover provided by an ally to get combat advantage.
Atanatotatos
First Post
there is no ambiguity to me. If an ally doesn't grant cover in melee, it doesn't grant cover for stealth purposes.Cover is relative. So an ally may grant cover against an enemy, but not against a different one at same moment... If you're not sure Just jump over their head and flank them. It's more cinematic ^^
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
That makes no sense. Melee does not equal allies.
Similar Threads
