Posted by petro on December 01, 1999 at 11:28:40:
In Reply to: I see... posted by Rome on December 01, 1999 at 10:39:30:
> > I'm disagreeing that rangers should be able to see assassins who are hidden in the forest. despite being masters of the forest, rangers are not > How do you figure that? > Let's take two people.. one a ranger, the other an assassin. > We're in a forest of pine trees. We got one person, the assassin, who's standing behind a tree, acting sneaky. We got another person, the ranger, who's covered himself in pine needles and stashed himself in a gully with nothing but a small hole to the surface that might give him away. > Who is easier to find? The guy behind the tree, or the guy laying in the ditch covered in pine needles? > Would look to me like they are both basically hiding in the shadows, although the ranger would be doing so in a more complete manner. > Therefor, if we both can agree that a ranger is hidden better than an assassin in a forest, wouldn't it make sense that if the ranger could see other rangers hidden in a similar manner, that the ranger could also find the guy behind the tree? > ...Rome... I can understand your point of view, and agree with it somewhat, but still feel they're two very different specializations however they are linked.
> > masters of the shadows and hiding in the shadows created by the forest, is different than camoing in a bush.
If you had 2 doctors specializing in different fields, one may step out of his field and correctly diagnose a patient in the other doctor's field
of expertise based on common training in med school all doctors receive, but this would not happen 10 times out of 10. I think since the skills
are somewhat similiar a ranger should have a chance to see the assassin, but the skill could fail. Also, given your arguement if the 2 skills are
that similiar should the assassin not have at least a small chance at being able to see the camoed ranger, especially if he has mastered the hide skill?