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: 7219100" data-attributes="member: 6904821">Sorry, I don't mean to avoid questions or anything. It is just you must realise that the way you do things is really quite different to how standard 5e does them. So I thought you didnt know how standard 5e mechanics these things. Since you are now saying you are merely having a different interpretation and that you find my intrepretation odd, well that is pretty confusing for me. I cant understand why you think what you do is consistent with the RAW whereas what I advise is "odd".creatures PP is operational as long as they are conscious. Stealth is rolled because you can roll lower than monsters PP and they notice you, maybe if you have high mods to stealth you cant roll lower than a monsters PP... but that is an edge case. Also how is it possible to sneak up on anything if you do it your way? You'd never get to them since the obstruction is in the way and if you go around it you are no longer concealed and they spot you?Well really it doesnt matter how you fluff up things and what mechanics you homerule; I mean I homerule or flout the rules lots, that is good and all, but the issue here is really about what the 5e standard rules say we should do.I mean maybe the OP here actually is interested in homerules for the question, if that is the case, then I would be wrong about that, but it seems to me the OP is a rules clarification question, not a request for houserulling ideas.EDIT: Oh sorry, I just realised you are the OP. In your OP though you laid out what you think which is pretty much the same as what I think, and as far as I think it is the mechanics of standard 5e. What we disagree about is a side issue then.EDIT2: Ok, sorry about the edits - the thing you found odd was my distinction between hiding and stealth, and perception not being vision, but the totality of perceptual aparatus of a creature, right? Well that is emphasised by Crawford in the mentioned podcast.</blockquote>

Verification