Question: Rogues, Ally-cover, and Sneak-Attacking every round

[Harr]

Since we have some playtesters here I thought I'd ask a question we haven't been able to answer on the WotC Q&A boards.

So, rogues can make a stealth check to hide when they have cover. standing behind an ally gives cover. Stealth skill in the PHB supposedly says to roll 'as part of the stealthy action', and says you have Combat Advantage when the target is 'unaware' of you.

Sooo... can a rogue stand behind the cover of an allied fighter (ie, the fighter standing between him and the monster), make a stealth check every round to attack stealthily, and effectively sneak-attack every round?

I think clearly the answer would be 'No', but I'm having a hard time coming up with why. Any insight into this would be appreciated

PS, if anyone is interested the thread where I discuss this is here (I'm Tropico).

 

[themilkman]

Hmmm... I know that you get automatically noticed if you leave your cover or concealment, but according to the rules, there's no reason why you can't stand behind an ally, roll stealth to gain CA, throw a dagger as a sneak attack, and repeat as necessary. That is, however, quite dumb.

 

[Voss]

I thought standing behind an ally didn't provide cover? It didn't in DDXP or KotS.

 

[Harr]

I thought standing behind an ally didn't provide cover? It didn't in DDXP or KotS.

It provides one-way cover, defensive cover. Which is to say, if the fighter stands between the mosnter and the rogue, the rogue would have cover from the monster, but not the other way around. As I understand it.

 

[Harr]

Hmmm... I know that you get automatically noticed if you leave your cover or concealment, but according to the rules, there's no reason why you can't stand behind an ally, roll stealth to gain CA, throw a dagger as a sneak attack, and repeat as necessary. That is, however, quite dumb.

It's dumb and I really don't think it's covered by the rules. I mean, if you move behind the fighter, the monster saw you getting behind the fighter, right? So even if you successfuly stealthed, it's still "aware" of your last location.

Since the rule says the monster has to be "unaware" of you for you to get Combat Advantage and be able to sneak-attack, I would understand that you need to hide and move away from the square where you were last seen (while still remaining in stealth) in order for an opponent to be "unaware" of where you are.

But this is just my interpretation obviously and apparently the PHB isn't any more clear on any of this

 

[Astrosicebear]

It provides one-way cover, defensive cover. Which is to say, if the fighter stands between the mosnter and the rogue, the rogue would have cover from the monster, but not the other way around. As I understand it.

I was a lucky one who got the books early. I see nothing in the PHB about defensive cover. There is a distinction between cover and concealment, although it really doesnt pertain here if allies do not provide any cover at all.

Also in the stealth entry it specifically says you must remain under cover or concealed to remain unnoticed. So as soon as you stepped out to throw or make the attack you would be noticed. (Wonder how this works for attacking from hiding really).

Also under combat advantage you have to be able to see your opponent to have CA against them.

Many arguments, but in 4e there are alot easier ways to get CA than this.

 

[Harr]

This is quoted from the WotC boards:

PHB Page 280, "Creatures and Cover", "When you make a ranged attack against an enemy, and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. You allies never grant cover to your enemies."

The discussion has actually been going on for a bit we really can't find any definitive answer, so maybe we'll just have to wait for a playtester or a designer to give an official response.

I agree there are (many) easier ways to get CA, but I know my Rogue player is just the type to try to pull something like this, so I'm keenly interested.

 

[Crosswind]

Unclear why people are discussing this. The rule is obvious:

The target only has cover for the purposes of making the ranged attack. It does not have cover for any other purpose.

Therefore, you do not have cover from the target. Therefore, you cannot sneak attack.

-Cross

 

[Harr]

Ah, there we go. I knew a fresh set of eyes on it would discover something we'd overlooked. Happens to the best of us. Thanks

Edit -> Wait no, ok, that eliminates the "standing behind an ally", but what if the rogue is crouching inside some bushes that provide cover. He can still just roll a stealth check every round and sneak attack every round as long as he just squats there?? Same problem. Unless sneak-attack every round is not considered something that's too good (I think it is).

 

[MarkB]

Ah, there we go. I knew a fresh set of eyes on it would discover something we'd overlooked. Happens to the best of us. Thanks

Edit -> Wait no, ok, that eliminates the "standing behind an ally", but what if the rogue is crouching inside some bushes that provide cover. He can still just roll a stealth check every round and sneak attack every round as long as he just squats there?? Same problem. Unless sneak-attack every round is not considered something that's too good (I think it is).

Wouldn't the bushes also grant your opponent cover against you? Can you have Combat Advantage versus an opponent who has cover?