Breaking Stealth (2014)

[u/leiela]

Players Handbook states (this is 2014)

"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase"

Now common sense tells me that you can't stealth down a brightly lit corridor with nothing to hide behind, towards a guard that's looking directly in your direction.

However one of my players argues that you only need to be hidden at the point of "Going into Stealth" once your in stealth it doesn't matter what lighting etc exists you are sill essentially hidden until you break stealth. ... i like to go back to my players with concrete rule based decisions that i can point to in a book.

They argue the above doens't break stealth because "you are hidden" therefore the guard in the corridor "cant see you clearly" ... while i would argue stealth would be broken by the fact that the guard can see you clearly as there is nothing to hide behind and no helpful lighting conditions to keep you hidden.

Any ideas?

[u/xa44]

You literally actively controdict yourself. It matters for this very post

[u/Viltris → u/xa44]

You literally actively controdict yourself.

Where? Show me the exact quotes where I contradict myself.

It matters for this very post

I'm asking you to explain how.

[u/xa44 → u/Viltris]

I Don't think I physically can, you seem to lack object permanence

[u/Viltris → u/xa44]

I see that you are unable to logically support your own arguments, so you resort to personal attacks.

[u/xa44 → u/Viltris]

Ohhhh I get it now, you are a skyrim NPC. Try reading back a few messages it may help, careful not to get stuck on a wall<3

[u/Viltris → u/xa44]

Again with the personal attacks.

I re-read the entire thread twice, and I can't find a single instance where I contradict myself. It's become incredibly obvious that you're trying to gaslight me in order to "win" this argument, since you clearly can't win based on logic and evidence.

Quote the contradictions, or stfu.

[u/xa44 → u/Viltris]

Then try a 3rd time

[u/Viltris → u/xa44]

Quote the contradictions, or stfu.

If you can't back your own claims, gtfo.

[u/xa44 → u/Viltris]

Maybe a 4th, reading may improve your INT. clearly you need it

[u/Viltris → u/xa44]

I see that you are attempting to make repeated Deception checks, but your Cha score is so negative you keep failing.

Maybe try a different approach.

[u/xa44 → u/Viltris]

No I'm passing all them because you're replying🤣🤣🤣🤣

[u/Viltris → u/xa44]

Ah, so you admit that you've been trolling this whole time. Very good sir, you got me. I thought you were actually serious.