Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rodney Mulraney" data-source="post: 7217810" data-attributes="member: 6904821">Anyway after all this, I did some searches; sure I read, and listened to all this before, but:<a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834885800626008064" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834885800626008064</a><a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing" target="_blank">http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing</a>Long story short - the DM is always right, so we are both right. Officially they seem to be leaning towards my interpretation of RAW/RAI though. Even specifically mentioning the hide behind the single pillar and popping up to attack and ducking back down, which they (Crawford) agree with me about.Our specific current argument; just make sure you are not completely out in the open when you move, and you keep your stealth, hence just a pc between you and the creature you hid from is enough to maintain your stealth and advantage. Even if you are completely in the open, if the creature is distracted - watching TV, (or dealing with a barbs blows I suppose), you keep your stealth.Crawford stresses as they always do; DM is always right, but as soon as he goes into the details, he seems to be completely agreeing with me.EDIT: It is specified that if you MOVE OUT from where you were hiding and no longer have anything to conceal you, you ARE seen, and lose the adv for your attack. However the specifics/details and the tweet show this is for creatures essentially just waiting for you to come out, otherwise they generally going to be distracted enough for you to maintain your "stealth roll" on approach; which ultimately decides if you were even hidden in the first place anyway.</blockquote>

Verification