Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CajunAzn" data-source="post: 5074319" data-attributes="member: 87718">Hello fuzzlewump, The difference here is that I am trying to get clarification the rules, not just trying to create a house rule. I am trying to clear up an inconsistency in the rules that invalidates a stealth check for no reason. The rules are not clear as day as to what the status of the ally that granted you cover right after the dice hit the table. A strict interpretation suggests the ally is simultaneously cover and not-cover at that moment. Therefore a clarification is needed by Wizards.  What I am saying is: to make sense of the stealth rules, in their current state, you can't apply the "no creatures as cover rule" to the initial condition that granted the stealth in the first place. === Determining lines of sight actually isn't that complex, anyways it's the DM thats doing it, so the players aren't bogged down at all.  They are more focused looking at the board and see if they can form a strategy to gain an advantage. If you actually play a real game like this, you will see it's not cumbersome, but does add an extra element of teamwork. Anyways, half the time, the player don't bother becuase they know they can take the monsters toe-to-toe. But sometimes this just isn't the case.  It gives your stealthy players the option of having more opportunities to apply their stealth skill. After all, just standing in flanking positions and wacking the enemy, doesn't achieve the same effect as sneaking up on your enemies from an RP perspective. Seriously, doesn't anyone agree, that ally-based cover is great for adding strategy and flavour? There are so many applications and what's the cost? Player don't need to do it, but the option is there those groups that do.</blockquote>

Verification