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

[ForbidenMaster]

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

But thats not definitive. It does state that you have cover from ranged attacks, and doesnt say that you dont have cover. Personally, I would grant a stealth check. If a fighter is up in your face and I am trying to use him to actively block your line of site to me so that you dont know where exactly I am or what I am doing, I would think that could work (as per a skill check). And its not like its hard to find the rogue. Even if you dont know exactly where he is, just like if he stepped behind a wall, you have some generall idea as to where he is. Therefor all you have to do is just shift and odds are you will be able to have los to the rogue, negating the CA.

XXXMXXX
XXXFXXX
XXXXXXX = R has cover from M
XXXXXXX
XXXRXXX

XXXXXXX
XXXFMXX
XXXXXXX = R doesnt have cover from M after shift.
XXXXXXX
XXXRXXX

 

[ForbidenMaster]

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

A)Yes
B)Can you, yes, if circumstances permit. Do you automatically get it, no.

 

[Crosswind]

Look, of course you're all welcome to interpret the rules however you like. There's a whole Character Optimization board for people who want to fiddle with wording to make the rules do what they want. However, the designer's intent seems pretty clear to me.

The cure-all for this "I HIDE WHERE HE KNOWS I AM" is, of course, on Page 188, under stealth:

"Combat Advantage: You have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you."

I read this to mean that, if a target has seen you in combat, and hasn't lost complete track of you (Namely, knows what square you're in), he's aware of you. And thus, you don't have combat advantage against him.

-Cross

 

[Harr]

"Combat Advantage: You have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you."

I read this to mean that, if a target has seen you in combat, and hasn't lost complete track of you (Namely, knows what square you're in), he's aware of you. And thus, you don't have combat advantage against him.

Exactly.

And thus we come to my interpretation of the rule above:

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.

In other words, if theres a line of trees or shadows or whatever that provide conver/concealment, and the rogue is concealed inside and makes a sneak-attack, he must now hide again and move with stealth along the shadows to a different spot before try to sneak-attack again.

Similar if he stepped into the shadows where the enemy could see him going in: he has to stealth-move to another square before trying to CA and sneak attack.

If there's no "line" of cover/concealment but just something like a 1-square boulder, and the enemy has already seen you walking up to it or you've already attacked from it, then no, you can't sneak-attack using that boulder. It just makes sense.

Yeah I think this is what I'm going with until I get an official answer otherwise, as it seems to me the intended meaning of the rules.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Look, of course you're all welcome to interpret the rules however you like. There's a whole Character Optimization board for people who want to fiddle with wording to make the rules do what they want. However, the designer's intent seems pretty clear to me.

The cure-all for this "I HIDE WHERE HE KNOWS I AM" is, of course, on Page 188, under stealth:

"Combat Advantage: You have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you."

I read this to mean that, if a target has seen you in combat, and hasn't lost complete track of you (Namely, knows what square you're in), he's aware of you. And thus, you don't have combat advantage against him.

-Cross

I agree. However, if the target "knows" where you are at but cannot see you, this is concealment. Concealment also grants combat advantage. Back to square 1.

I am more interested in the interpretation for this for the "shooting from hiding" possibilities.

 

[Vorpal Sword]

The cure-all for this "I HIDE WHERE HE KNOWS I AM" is, of course, on Page 188, under stealth:

"Combat Advantage: You have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you."

I read this to mean that, if a target has seen you in combat, and hasn't lost complete track of you (Namely, knows what square you're in), he's aware of you. And thus, you don't have combat advantage against him.

-Cross

Extrapolating from 3.5, this might not be true. If an invisible rogue is fighting a creature with blindsense, he still gets his sneak attack damage; the monster knows what square the rogue occupies, but still can't see him or prepare in any way for his attacks, so the rogue is able to strike a vital spot for extra damage.

You might rule differently, but there's plenty of precedent from previous rules (as well as from standard fantasy tropes) to support the assassin striking from a spot in the shadows. If the target can't spot the rogue hiding in the bushes, even after he's attacked (I'd say the target gets an automatic Perception check with a hefty bonus), then the rogue gets to sneak attack round after round.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Exactly.

And thus we come to my interpretation of the rule above:



In other words, if theres a line of trees or shadows or whatever that provide conver/concealment, and the rogue is concealed inside and makes a sneak-attack, he must now hide again and move with stealth along the shadows to a different spot before try to sneak-attack again.

First the rogue would need to make a Stealth check vs the targets passive perception. If that passed, he could sneak attack.

On the targets turn, not knowing where the rogue was, he can make an active perception check vs the rogues last stealth result. If he fails he still cant see the rogue.

The rogue of course still needs to stay within cover/concealment.


I would rule in this discussion that the rogue in the situation hiding behind the ally must be one size smaller, and must be directly opposite the target. Any shift in the targets position would reveal the rogue. The rogue would have a few penalties on the stealth check for being in combat and such... so its probably an easy check to make for most combatants... this may play at high paragon/epic levels but not heroic.

 

[Harr]

I agree. However, if the target "knows" where you are at but cannot see you, this is concealment. Concealment also grants combat advantage. Back to square 1.

Hang on a sec. Having concealment, even total concealment, does not give you combat advantage in and of itself. I think what you're referring to is being Invisible gives you total concealment AND combat advantage against opponents who can't see invisible.

Having total concealment gives a -5 to attacks made against you and blocks line of sight but opponents can still guess the general area of where you are and hear you move around.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Hang on a sec. Having concealment, even total concealment, does not give you combat advantage in and of itself. I think what you're referring to is being Invisible gives you total concealment AND combat advantage against opponents who can't see invisible.

Having total concealment gives a -5 to attacks made against you and blocks line of sight but opponents can still guess the general area of where you are and hear you move around.

According to concealment (total) "You can't see the target". Any target that cant see you, you are invisible, thus granting CA. Plain concelament is just a -2. Poor choice of not using 'total' concealment in my previous post.

But short answer is total concelment grants CA.

 

[Crosswind]

Bad logic.

Just because you can't be seen, does not mean you have the "invisible" state, as defined by the PHB.

-Cross (And that's the last I say. Like I said, 4E seemed to have decided to do away with overspecifying every silly case. In doing so, it left itself open to tons and tons of rules lawyers. In the end, you can interpret the game however you like.)