Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6619161" data-attributes="member: 5834">I don't believe it is a house rule. I discerned all of the above from reading the text including what some consider the "fluff" text. The entire way the Stealth rules are written indicate that the DM will have to take time to rule on many matters concerning Stealth including when a target can see the player. I think that is how it should be. I don't automatically assume because a target breaks cover they are seen. I don't feel the game designers should have to spell this kind of stuff out. I feel requiring that they do so is absurd.  It's like some people think the designers have to write "For that split second you pop out of cover to attack, you are considered unseen" or something like that when it is clear that is how it works for anyone that has seen or played Hide and Seek or seen stealth in films. Overly legalistic players need everything spelled out for them or they call it a "house rule." I have never read the rules in that fashion and never will. To me the Stealth rules are extremely clear both intent and RAW. I don't find they cause arguments save from folks that seem to have this need to have everything spelled out for them. I think if they rewrote them, it would further confuse people and the same arguments would still occur from the same people, just like Pathfinder. Stealth is too variable. DMs have to rule on it either by taking the time to think about it before they play or hashing out problems when they come up. If it is during a game, make a ruling and then discuss it further during downtime. And please don't pretend that because you think RAW says what you think it says that "I'm pretending." Guys that think if you're not following their interpretation of RAW, you're using a house rule are full of crap. You don't tell me that when you break cover, you're automatically seen and don't gain advantage is "the rules." That's your need to have this "for that split second you pop out of cover to attack, you are considered unseen" spelled out for you. I don't need these types of rulings spelled out for me. To me it is like the designers having to write "Your character must breath every round to stay alive". It's so obvious that it doesn't need to be spelled out. And that is where we differ as to our opinions on the stealth rules. I don't think they need to changed in any way. They are clear as written. I doubt any attempt to rewrite them will change that the DM will have to rule on Stealth more often any other ability in the game. A DM ruling on Stealth is not a house rule, but a ruling based on his interpretation of the rules in a given situation...DM rulings based on the rules in a given situation not a house rule. I have sufficient rules to make rulings on stealth, that is all I expect from my game rules. We'll find out over time if your opinion is a vocal minority or a majority.</blockquote>

Verification