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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7218831" data-attributes="member: 16814">To be clear, you started with people normally notice everything around them and then segued into a distraction might be sufficient to have someone not normally notice you slipping away.  I was still on the first part and hadn't yet arrived at the second, mostly because the second was predicated on the assumption of general awareness by normal people.People are rarely aware of their surroundings in any great detail, and this extended to even high stress combat environments where it takes constant effort to keep 'on a swivel'.  That's well represented by passive perception.  So, that said, it really doesn't require a distinct distraction to slip away and hide from someone.  If they're focused on you, sure, hard.  If they aren't, someone skilled as taking advantage of lapses of attention wouldn't even require the distraction to slip away.  Pickpockets, for instance, are quite skilled at blending into their surroundings and avoiding notice.  So, no, I disagree a distraction is required.  Sufficient, yes, but not necessary.As for repeated pulling the same trick, that falls into the DM's discretion about 'appropriate conditions for hiding.'  I apply disadvantage for using the same hiding place twice in a row, because I find it less appropriate a hiding place.How so?  Pointing out that when you design a system that will accommodate both a permissive case and a strict case based on adjudication you have to design to the permissive case.  If you design a system that doesn't support the most permissive case as a default, well, then, it doesn't support the most permissive case and you've failed your design goals.  You can design a system that allows the permissive case and then add adjudication so that people can limit the use as they wish.  This is exactly how the hiding rules in 5e work.  The design explicitly supports the permissive case, and then explicitly allows for adjudication to limit that permissive case.  Pointing this out isn't trying to win the argument at all costs, it's pointing out an excellent design in the 5e rules that achieves the design intent of you having stealth work one way in your game and I can have it a different way but we're both playing by the rules.  I'm not winning anything, here.Discussion would require that you actually provide input, though.  Saying 'I'm calling it cheesy but can't explain why' isn't discussion, it's dismissive.  Snarking back was a bit peevish, yes, but come on, you brought up something being cheesy and then ducked out on it.  And I'm the one avoiding actual discussion?That's a bit of assumption, there, that I don't recognize my views as my opinions.  That's not a problem I have.  I generally assume that most people here recognize my posts are my opinions, just as I do for them.  If it help you out, though, you're free to imagine 'in Ovinomancer's opinion' at the end of all of my posts.  That's a nice shift of the goalposts, from twin x-bows to hiding in the same place over an over.  I agree your construction is pretty silly and unreasonable.  There is, though, a wealth of other situations that involve ranged rogues that don't involve hiding over and over in the same place very time while all the bad guys watch.  You know, maybe next time you hold up a strawman, you might consider beforehand that my response is likely to point out all of the other, non-strawman situations that also exist.The point where Elfcrusher exemplifies the behavior he's accusing me of.  Ironic.</blockquote>

Verification