Community

jaj22 wrote:

I like this argument. It's simple, it's as close to RAW as anything else and it fixes all the ugly stuff.

I don't mean to criticize your uncle bobs argument, because I inherently agree with the logic used, but I should point out I specifically ferreted an answer on that from the CSR after I asked this. I wrote this response because I still cannot figure out what makes a reach attack so unique compared to a 5 to 3 square ranged attack. What on earth makes one count an ally as cover and the other not? How is that supposed to make any sense?

I digress:

Yes, I know it does, but this means allies do not grant cover, they do so only circumstantially (against ranged attacks). This now goes back to my original question, if allies don't give you cover except in a specific circumstance (ranged attacks) how does this mean you can use them as cover for stealth checks?

I'm sorry, but I can't parse these two contradictory parts together in my head by the rules. Either allies provide cover or they don't. If allies provide cover against ranged attacks that is fine, but surely this cover is circumstantial only in the case of checking for line of effect from a ranged attack. It just makes utterly no sense and must mean that allies block line of sight (otherwise the stealth check would automatically fail), but this is not indicated anywhere in the PHB.

How does this specifically work and where in the rules (sorry for being so pedantic, but it's quite important) supports the interpretation? As far as I can see, ranged cover is circumstantial and the book is 100% clear that allies do not get cover from melee attacks or similar.

Your answer above was the following, again, I'm sorry to be pedantic but your answer said that "Allies do grant cover". So is this a specific special circumstance of cover and where is this specifically covered in the book (aside from the passage on page 280). How can allies NOT provide cover against a reach melee attack and yet be providing cover against the same creature at the same time?

It just doesn't make any sense and I'm trying to parse together where in the rules it supports this special kind of cover you're describing. The answer you've given makes a new kind of cover "allied cover", which is nowhere in the book. Allies don't block line of sight (or do they) so surely by the description of stealth on pg 188 of the PHB, if they don't block line of sight you can't count them as cover for a stealth check. Or do they? I can't tell, because it's clear from the reach example they aren't obscuring line of sight.

This is my issue. An ally only gains cover from another in the circumstance of drawing line of effect with a ranged attack, but nowhere in the rules does it state allies constantly provide cover in all circumstances when you're not drawing a line of effect for a ranged attack (where they do provide cover). If melee, spell effects and other non-ranged targeting works fine without an ally interfering as cover, doesn't that mean allies aren't cover unless you're drawing a line of effect for a ranged attack?

I finally got a specific answer:

"CSR"]Ok, let me try to explain this again. The rules that are on page 280 of the Player's Handbook give three exceptions to allies and granting cover. Those are melee, close and area attacks. Stealth checks are not listed as an exception, which is the same for ranged attacks as well.

I understand your point of view and how this can seem confusing.

Unfortunately, there isn’ wrote:

Ok, let me try to explain this again. The rules that are on page 280 of the Player's Handbook give three exceptions to allies and granting cover. Those are melee, close and area attacks. Stealth checks are not listed as an exception, which is the same for ranged attacks as well.

I understand your point of view and how this can seem confusing.

Unfortunately, there isn’t an official answer for the situation you describe. I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!

So what you're looking at is actually the exceptions that are listed, not the normal way things are supposed to be with ranged attacks being the exception. This changes the logic above dramatically, because now allies are cover is the norm and those three scenarios are the exceptions (not the other way around, IE when allies count as cover).

IMO, after reading the RAW and considering all the rules for cover, line of sight and such, I still feel the RAW actually supports that allies cannot be used for stealth checks (not just basic common sense). Unfortunately, the CSR response I got removed the "common sense" objection and how I was mechanically ruling it (allies provide cover only when a ranged LoE is drawn for a ranged attack, not any other time and so you cannot stealth behind them).

After explaining the enemy leapfrog conga line to my players, they quickly decided that this sort of ridiculousness was not good for the game.

Aegeri wrote:

So what you're looking at is actually the exceptions that are listed, not the normal way things are supposed to be with ranged attacks being the exception. This changes the logic above dramatically, because now allies are cover is the norm and those three scenarios are the exceptions (not the other way around, IE when allies count as cover).

That's if you accept the CSR answer, but they're answers don't necessarily reflect that of the developers and their reading of the rules is fallible just as everyone else's is.

There is no explicit, general rule that says creatures grant cover to anyone. There is only the rule that states that creatures grant cover to their allies in the specific case that a ranged attack is being made against them, so there is nothing in the RAW to support that creatures grant cover to their allies as a general rule. The fact that the rules never explicitly state that creatures do not provide cover for stealth checks does in not imply that they do.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that the designer's intended the rules to be used this way.