Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 6645187" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I think the issue is that hiding and stealth are too complex for a dice-based game to have rules to resolve it in a manner that's: A) consistent with reality and works like players expect hiding to work (doesn't spoil suspension of disbelief by, say, letting players hide on the pitcher's mound at Wrigley field during the World Series, or making characters visible because their unmoving form is not concealed from drunk party goers two rooms away); B) is balanced as a gameplay and combat option (doesn't dominate, isn't useless); and C) is quickly resolved by a die roll or two (i.e., not including phrases like 'See Table 16-Z for effects of rain on perception, and Table 16-AA for effects of rain on stealth').It's basically not possible to do A, B, and C.&nbsp; In fact, it's proven so difficult that nobody has done it right in any system I've seen.&nbsp; They're either quick to play, but inconsistent, or mostly consistent and difficult to resolve (or impossible without the DM tipping his hand).&nbsp; And then the benefits of being hidden or stealthy are often too little for the cost or effort, or the benefits are so good or so cheap that you're a walk-through-walls Kung Fu Ninja Splinter Cell Assassin.&nbsp; In some cases, they haven't done A, B, or C.4e's rules were the most codified and strict rules for stealth the game has ever had, and there were still ambiguities and unrealistic situations.&nbsp; And those rules were pretty heavily criticized as too powerful due to the so-called <a href="http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2739081" target="_blank">&quot;Hidden Club&quot;</a>.So, I'd argue that the assumption that errata can fix stealth rules is somewhat questionable, at best.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 6645187, member: 6777737"] I think the issue is that hiding and stealth are too complex for a dice-based game to have rules to resolve it in a manner that's: A) consistent with reality and works like players expect hiding to work (doesn't spoil suspension of disbelief by, say, letting players hide on the pitcher's mound at Wrigley field during the World Series, or making characters visible because their unmoving form is not concealed from drunk party goers two rooms away); B) is balanced as a gameplay and combat option (doesn't dominate, isn't useless); and C) is quickly resolved by a die roll or two (i.e., not including phrases like 'See Table 16-Z for effects of rain on perception, and Table 16-AA for effects of rain on stealth'). It's basically not possible to do A, B, and C. In fact, it's proven so difficult that nobody has done it right in any system I've seen. They're either quick to play, but inconsistent, or mostly consistent and difficult to resolve (or impossible without the DM tipping his hand). And then the benefits of being hidden or stealthy are often too little for the cost or effort, or the benefits are so good or so cheap that you're a walk-through-walls Kung Fu Ninja Splinter Cell Assassin. In some cases, they haven't done A, B, or C. 4e's rules were the most codified and strict rules for stealth the game has ever had, and there were still ambiguities and unrealistic situations. And those rules were pretty heavily criticized as too powerful due to the so-called [URL="http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2739081"]"Hidden Club"[/URL]. So, I'd argue that the assumption that errata can fix stealth rules is somewhat questionable, at best. [/QUOTE]

Verification