Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="captcorajus" data-source="post: 6375864" data-attributes="member: 6779503">Okay... wait a second... pause while I blink and then snicker a bit. You are expecting a WRITTEN RULE to cover some obscure circumstance? Your question blatantly shows that you've missed the point entirely... and I don't mean to be offensive, but really? The rules should be flexible enough for the DM to be able to adjudicate fairly situations just like you are describing, without a NEED to have every possible scenario referenced by the rules. I desire to spend my game session PLAYING... not looking up some bizarre rule that covers some obscure situation. And to answer your question... its purely situational. and this is exactly why DM's were invented. Was the wizard actually in the process of LOOKING for the rogue when he disintegrated the wall? If yes, then, guess what, the rogue's 'cover is blown' so to speak. If not, and the wall was just disintegrated due to some other circumstance, and additional cover is nearby, the rogue can attempt a new stealth check at disadvantage, and immediately check the result against the wizard's passive perception. Thus, it seems to me, the rules already cover this situation.</blockquote>