NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9421392" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Well, I used total cover in the example because that explicitly prevents the covered creature from being seen by creatures it has cover from. This created a clear contrast between the initial state, where the guard could not see the rogue (so she would have advantage on attacks against him and he would have disadvantage on attacks against her) and the later state where the guard had moved to a position from which she no longer had cover from him, in which case he could then see her (and he could therefore attack her without disadvantage and she could not attack him with advantage). But by my reading he would still need to make a Perception check to end the condition even if she didn’t have any cover from him. He might want to do this to prevent her from having advantage on initiative, or from moving to a position where he once again can’t see her on her turn, and therefore being able to attack him with advantage, without having to use another action or bonus action to hide again first.Interestingly, 3/4 cover does not prevent the covered creature from being seen. So, if we look at this example again assuming 3/4 cover instead of total cover, the rogue can still hide to gain the condition, but doing so will really only grant her advantage on initiative checks, since the guard would be able to see her from any position, so she would never be able to benefit from advantage on attacks against him or impose disadvantage on his attacks against her.</blockquote>

Verification