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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5075221" data-attributes="member: 63214">Because allies weren't meant to provide superior cover. Refer to the picture and "creatures and cover" on page 280. If think that that's only meant to apply to attacks, don't you think that attack-only interpretation is an inconsistency? Why would just looking at the enemy give them superior cover, but firing an arrow wouldn't? If we're going to have a rules as they should be, don't you think that if an attack would only provide "cover," that that cover would apply to anything you're doing? If so, why not, realistically?In theory, just looking should give you a greater chance of overcoming the cover than the arrow, because it's a straight line. So the arrow being less hindered than your sight is a huge leap to take.But even if you can't accept that, the rules are incredibly clear that you remain hidden only if you stay out of sight. You can't use allies to stay out of sight. Imagine a giant fan that is rotating and for a split second you can stealth behind it, but then it continues moving and you are visible again. The conditions haven't changed, right? The fan hasn't moved from its square and it's only doing it's normal combat rotation, much like how a combatant in D&D won't be standing still, at all, unless petrified. By your interpretation the person behind the fan would remain hidden as long as they were behind that fan. There is no inconsistency. It might be ridiculous to be able to make a stealth check and then instantly lose it, but that's how it works(according to your interpretation), every time. Perfectly consistent. See above why I believe why you can't even make the stealth check to begin with, and why it doesn't matter either way. Now to discuss the house-rule: I don't think it's believable to be able to hide behind your friends in combat, unless they are perfectly still. Any combatant worth his salt will see you every time. You might be able to prove some real world example, but it's not intuitive, I don't think, to the majority of the posters here. That intuitiveness is a big part of what makes a system fun and easy to use; realism is not something to be sought with every game system, especially not 4E. That's assuming you can prove that's it's realistic, which I really don't think it would be.From a gameplay point of view, drawing lines for cover is actually in the player's hands. The defender has to prove that they have superior cover, not the seer/attacker. Obstacles are one thing, but a stealthed character will have to redraw lines every round to figure out which enemies he can stealth against and which he cannot, because the entire battlefield probably just shifted around (both enemies and allies.) In other words, it could be a colossal waste of time. Even if it is the DM doing all the drawing every round, who cares? It still takes time to draw lines from a corner of every enemies space (possibly around 5, don't want to think about minions) to every corner of the stealthers square. What about multiple stealthers? Could be a mess. To be fair, I already think stealth is a mess using static obstacles, allowing allies just adds to the pile.</blockquote>

Verification