Black Arrow Madness

[Nytmare]

uhm are you certain that works? I thought Cover as defined by the PHB is provided by objects. Allied Creatures provide cover against , not being actual cover.

Oh ho HO.

Worries officially put to rest.

 

[frankthedm]

Oh ho HO.

Worries officially put to rest.

Glad to be of help.

 

[Caliber]

Are we sure that's still the case for the feat in question? The pertinent text says

Deft Strike (rogue): If you move into an obscured space or gain cover before making a ranged attack with this exploit, you can make a Stealth check against your target’s passive Perception as a free action to gain combat advantage against your target until the start of your next turn.

An ally normally isn't enough Cover for Stealth checks, but isn't this a case of specific trumping general?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I don't think so..

Intervening enemies are providing a cover bonus to AC for the *target*, making it harder to hit on that ranged attack. Intervening allies can be ignored by the attacker.

The text of the feat is refering to the *attacker* gaining cover relative to the target, which to my reading means 'hide behind something'

Two seperate mechanical effects for the same word

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Ok 1st things 1st.

Black Arrow Style requires him to use Deft Strike to gain the benefit of this feat. So he will not be using Sly Flourish.

Secondly I think it has already been stated that PC's do not provide obscurement or cover for the purposes of Stealth.

I do not know your comfort level and knowledge of the 4th edition rules, but I would recommend that you have the players provide you with at the minimum their feats and attack powers prior to game day. This allows you to research them and know what they can and can not do. i.e the Kobold using Black Arrow Style with Sly Flourish is not allowed.

 

[Nytmare]

Black Arrow Style requires him to use Deft Strike to gain the benefit of this feat. So he will not be using Sly Flourish.

Who said anything about Sly Flourish?

 

[Caliber]

I don't think so..

Intervening enemies are providing a cover bonus to AC for the *target*, making it harder to hit on that ranged attack. Intervening allies can be ignored by the attacker.

The text of the feat is refering to the *attacker* gaining cover relative to the target, which to my reading means 'hide behind something'

Two seperate mechanical effects for the same word

Buh?

The attacker (Rogue) is gaining Cover vs the target (Enemy) by moving behind an ally (Paladin). That seems to fit the wording of the feat I quoted above doesn't it? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Who said anything about Sly Flourish?

Deft Strike is good for positioning, but Sly Flourish has superior damage. When I played a Rogue, though admittedly for only one level, I found myself using Sly Flourish a lot more than Deft Strike, especially for ranged attacks.

Regarding cover, this is the text from the block on Cover in the PHB:

When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.

The Stealth errata (see PHB2 or errata for PHB) says absolutely nothing about the interaction creatures and stealth. Of course, creatures don't normally provide superior cover. So RAW, Black Arrow Feat will allow him to dart behind allies to gain cover from enemies.

An ally normally isn't enough Cover for Stealth checks, but isn't this a case of specific trumping general?

I would say so.

Now, RAI? I would say BAF should not include allies. It's clearly written to allow Sniper Rogues to gain CA more often, and that's fine. However, it should be something like ducking around a pillar, not hiding behind the Fighter.

 

[frankthedm]

Buh?

The attacker (Rogue) is gaining Cover vs the target (Enemy) by moving behind an ally (Paladin). That seems to fit the wording of the feat I quoted above doesn't it? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Allies only provide cover against ranged attacks. If the provided actual cover, then they would grant the +2 Versus , &. Part of the argument involves how the PHB defines cover.

 

[Caliber]

Allies only provide cover against ranged attacks. If the provided actual cover, then they would grant the +2 Versus , &. Part of the argument involves how the PHB defines cover.

Ah ok! I understand the argument now.

See, but I'd respond with this:

Determining Cover: To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover.

Emphasis placed by me. It might be Cover that doesn't count in all instances, but it does still seem to be Cover.

Edit: More specifically, I'd say that Area/Close attacks ability that specifies that they don't consider enemies as granting Cover is a specific property of Area/Close attacks which overrides the general property of enemies as providing cover to their allies. Did that make sense?