|
5 years ago ::
Jul 22, 2008 - 1:24PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
This is a fun issue that has come up:
Can a rogue or any other character, use an ally as "cover" to make a stealth check? The rules state the following:
"IF a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you (no perception check required)."
Pg188 of the PHB. The rules also state that allies give you cover against ranged attacks, but not in the following circumstances:
"Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close or area attacks."
This implies to me that allies give cover in a special circumstance (ranged attacks) but not against other circumstances like melee and similar.
The question is, can a rogue (or other character) use an ally as "cover" to make a stealth check? Pg 188 demonstrates that this should not be possible, because the enemy has awareness of the character behind the other one and that LOS should not be broken. A creature with reach 3 for example, does not grant cover to the ally standing behind two allies and can clearly target any of them. If it was using a ranged attack it would.
So in a long winded way, can the rogue (or whomever) use the allies as cover to make a stealth check and what specifically in the rules (PHB) supports this interpretation. Ranged cover seems a special circumstance to me, that is only granted on the attack if an ally is intervening. If this is the case, can a rogue make a stealth check if any object is intervening? So we have the following situation:
A...BR where A is a monster using a ranged attack three squares away, B is a paladin and R is the rogue. Can he make a stealth check to hide because of the cover the paladin grants him to As ranged attack (And what rules from the PHB support this).
What about A...B...R where B clearly grants the rogue cover from the ranged attack of A, but the rogue is clearly within LOS of A. Can the rogue make a stealth check?
Again in both cases, does ranged attack cover "apply" all the time and count for blocking line of sight, even when the creature is not using a ranged attack? Because again, the book is clear that allies do not grant cover for melee, area burst effects and similar.
Finally, what about A...BR but this time, A is a creature with a melee reach of 5 (let's just say). Does the rogue get cover from A, who is not using ranged attacks and could clearly draw LOS to the rogue despite the intervening paladin (B)? I can't see how the paladin granting the rogue cover in the above scenario would make any sense and I can't see how it would be supported by the rules either.
Personally, I think that allies providing cover in this manner is inconsistent in the rules and illogical (especially the Dragon making stealth checks behind a row of goblins/rats).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 22, 2008 - 2:37PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2007
|
Please refer to the billion other threads on the subject. Google search
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 23, 2008 - 9:59AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2005
|
By RAW, and supported by CSRs, you can hide behind allies. When you look at the rules to see if you have cover, it says creatures can provide cover. It's that simple. Many DMs do not like this idea though and it SEVERELY cripples the rogue when ruled differently.
There's many houserules people can apply but this forum is not the place for them really.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 23, 2008 - 12:28PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2007
|
I thought the designers mentioned that they "fixed" this issue to prevent halfling rogues from hiding in backpacks...
—fo diggity Twitter: www.twitter.com/fodigg Comic Books You Should Have Read: http://tinyurl.com/ycxe9l7
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 23, 2008 - 1:39PM
#5
|
|
|
I thought the designers mentioned that they "fixed" this issue to prevent halfling rogues from hiding in backpacks... Suddenly it all makes sense. They "fixed" the stealth rules by writing them so badly that no-one would want to use them!
Man, rickrolled in a stealth thread. I deserve it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 23, 2008 - 2:59PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2005
|
Would you define unaware for this purpose because I can't see a rogue making them unaware of them on any sort of regular basis. That's even more crippling then removing the ability to hide behind friendlies.
The rogue shouldn't be doing more damage them because he should be unconscious pretty quick when he can't engage from range in an effective manner.
I don't like discussing houserules usually because any given DM can find any given situation/ power/ability needs a change but I was curious in this case about unaware.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 24, 2008 - 7:25AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
Many DMs do not like this idea though and it SEVERELY cripples the rogue when ruled differently. Funny, that's not my experience at all as the rogue in my group didn't even know he could use allies in this manner and has been doing fine damage. In the playtests and other "amuse myself with some friends for a few hours" things that I do sometimes, particularly when I make new creatures, the rogue has not been 'severely' crippled by the lack of this either.
Personally, after finally poking the CSR enough I am aware of what the ruling is. I find the default ruling so offensively ridiculous however, as do everyone else I've spoken with including my players (amazingly enough, this includes the player behind the rogue) that I have completely ruled it out. Normal cover is still fine of course and I don't believe in being "unaware" of the rogue, otherwise stealth checks are useless in combat full stop (it's very hard to become unaware of something in a battle without heavy line of sight obstructions in the battlefield).
But hiding behind allies just brings up far too much stupid scenarios and abuses for my liking.
Edit: I also wanted to stop the blatantly ridiculous "conga line", where creatures (or players) "leapfrog" one another each turn taking cover from the other character (stealth check) and using a ranged attack to get combat advantage against the target (and sneak attack damage if appropriate).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 24, 2008 - 11:04AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2008
|
Edit: I also wanted to stop the blatantly ridiculous "conga line", where creatures (or players) "leapfrog" one another each turn taking cover from the other character (stealth check) and using a ranged attack to get combat advantage against the target (and sneak attack damage if appropriate). Lol that's exactly why it should not work. If players start doing it every single ranged mob in the game should do it as well.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 24, 2008 - 11:39AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2008
|
pg 280 of the PHB says that your target gains cover from ranged attacks, but never against melee, close or area attacks. Although it doesn't say anything about stealth specifically, since it's a special and limited kind of cover, I don't allow creatures to hide behind their allies.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 24, 2008 - 12:07PM
#10
|
|
|
No
Game Quote of the Week: " Ok take the wizard out of the bag of holding and put the dragonborn in there. "
|
|
|