Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CajunAzn" data-source="post: 5075917" data-attributes="member: 87718">Hello Oldtimer and avin, thanks for joining in..&nbsp;To fuzzle,&nbsp;&nbsp;So you are saying it follows the rules, but you don't agree with it? Trust me, I know where you are coming from, but as I have been harped on quite sharply: &quot;that is irrevalent to a rules discussion&quot;.&nbsp;So I'm going to say that's a 'yes' to my question of whether it is legal.&nbsp;To recap again, my proposition is:Ally can grant superior cover for a stealth check, but you simultaneously need a non-ally source of concealment/cover to stay hidden.
This follow directly from the rules:&nbsp;(Refer to the opening post, for an indepth look at steps 1 &amp; 2):1) The rules for Determining Cover state allies grant cover or superior cover based on the number of lines of sight blocked from an enemy.2) The Stealth rules say that superior cover is a sufficient condition to start a hide check.3) If you succeed the check, by the literal interpretation of the rules, you must start to apply the Remaining Hidden rules instantly.4) The Remaining Hidden rules state that having some form of concealment/cover (other than creatures) is sufficient to be counted as kept out of sight. Provided you also stay silent, don't move 3+ sqaures, and don't attack, you remain hidden.&nbsp;Very clear, logical and literal. Just to make it absolutely clear, let's go back to original example:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/597b5366051013" target="_blank"><img src="http://thumbnails9.imagebam.com/6606/597b5366051013.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></a>&nbsp;If the green square which Elly the Ranger is standing has concealment (or she is under the effect of concealment from say a power) then if she succeeds her stealth check she is hidden. Done.&nbsp;Now please everyone, state your opinion and comments, but also state &quot;Yes or No&quot; if this is legal, so we can all arrive a useful conclusion, that people can apply to a by-the-book D&amp;D game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CajunAzn, post: 5075917, member: 87718"] Hello Oldtimer and avin, thanks for joining in.. To fuzzle, So you are saying it follows the rules, but you don't agree with it? Trust me, I know where you are coming from, but as I have been harped on quite sharply: "that is irrevalent to a rules discussion". So I'm going to say that's a 'yes' to my question of whether it is [I]legal.[/I] To recap again, my proposition is: [INDENT]Ally can grant superior cover for a stealth check, but you simultaneously need a non-ally source of concealment/cover to stay hidden. [/INDENT]This follow directly from the rules: (Refer to the opening post, for an indepth look at steps 1 & 2): 1) The rules for [I]Determining Cover[/I] state allies grant cover or superior cover based on the number of lines of sight blocked from an enemy. 2) The [I]Stealth[/I] rules say that superior cover is a sufficient condition to start a hide check. 3) If you succeed the check, by the literal interpretation of the rules, you must start to apply the [I]Remaining Hidden[/I] rules instantly. 4) The [I]Remaining Hidden[/I] rules state that having some form of concealment/cover (other than creatures) is sufficient to be counted as kept out of sight. Provided you also stay silent, don't move 3+ sqaures, and don't attack, you remain hidden. Very clear, logical [I]and[/I] literal. Just to make it absolutely clear, let's go back to original example: [URL="http://www.imagebam.com/image/597b5366051013"][IMG]http://thumbnails9.imagebam.com/6606/597b5366051013.gif[/IMG][/URL] If the green square which Elly the Ranger is standing has concealment (or she is under the effect of concealment from say a power) then if she succeeds her stealth check she is hidden. Done. Now please everyone, state your opinion and comments, but also state "[I]Yes[/I] or [I]No[/I]" if this is legal, so we can all arrive a useful conclusion, that people can apply to a by-the-book D&D game. [/QUOTE]

Verification