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

[Astrosicebear]

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.)

Not really sure how the logic is flawwed.

"Total Concealment (–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls):
You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in
a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured
square and not adjacent to you."

"A variety of powers and other effects can render you
invisible, effectively giving you total concealment."

"INVISIBLE
-You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision.
-You have combat advantage against any enemy that
can’t see you.
-You don’t provoke opportunity attacks from enemies
that can’t see you."

Example :You are 5 squares away in a thick fog storm. For some reason you have the ability to see through the fog, I do not. You can see me, I cannot see you. You have total concealment, I have none. You have Combat Advantage.



And I do not think that "you have combat advantage against any enemy that cant see you." is limited to invisibility only.

 

[Warbringer]

Actually,
if the conditions (in a totally obscured square) or (in a heavily obscured
square and not adjacent to you) are met, then Total Concealment grants the condition invisible.

May have been clearer if they'd used if...then

Any, invisibile grants total concelament is a one way condition (unless the above is of course met)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wait, question.

Are people arguing that you can use cover granted by an ally to use Stealth and gain Combat Advantage against an enemy?

If so, I can give quotes why this doesn't work. Is this what people are debating? I feel like I must be missing something very important.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Wait, question.

Are people arguing that you can use cover granted by an ally to use Stealth and gain Combat Advantage against an enemy?

If so, I can give quotes why this doesn't work. Is this what people are debating? I feel like I must be missing something very important.

That is what somone was asking, yes.

 

[Harr]

Wait, question.

Are people arguing that you can use cover granted by an ally to use Stealth and gain Combat Advantage against an enemy?

If so, I can give quotes why this doesn't work. Is this what people are debating? I feel like I must be missing something very important.

Please do give the quotes as that was the initial question, (even though Crosswind seems to have cleared the issue).

Some other no-less-interesting stuff has cropped up, though, I am interested now in finding out the difference between "Total Concealment" and "Invisible" as well. 4e being SO focused on keywords and discrete states, I think they are separate things. Astrosisebears proposes that one includes the other (in the end that's probably something that will have to wait for 4e Sage Advice or something like that).

Even though there are different interpretations possible, I believe there IS an intended meaning for all of this, not just a "hey guys you just go ahead and interpret yourself that" from the designers. And the balance of the game is struck when using those intended meanings. That's what I'm trying to get at, though it's probably way too early to do that yet.

 

[fnwc]

Are people arguing that you can use cover granted by an ally to use Stealth and gain Combat Advantage against an enemy?

If so, I can give quotes why this doesn't work. Is this what people are debating? I feel like I must be missing something very important.

Let's hear it. I'm curious about this as well, without having read the 4th edition rules on it.

 

[Crosswind]

Not really sure how the logic is flawwed.

"Total Concealment (–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls):
You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in
a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured
square and not adjacent to you."

I return, against my better judgment. =(

This is listing the effects that grant total concealment. Logically: IF target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square not adjacent to you THEN it has total concealment.

This is very different than: IF it has total concealment THEN it is invisible, etc.

"A variety of powers and other effects can render you
invisible, effectively giving you total concealment."

A true statement. Again: IF you are invisible, THEN you have total concealment. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

"INVISIBLE
-You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision.
-You have combat advantage against any enemy that
can’t see you.
-You don’t provoke opportunity attacks from enemies
that can’t see you."

IF you are invisible, THEN these effects apply to you. Get it?

And I do not think that "you have combat advantage against any enemy that cant see you." is limited to invisibility only.

...So, despite the fact that that line is specifically inside the "INVISIBILITY" block of text, you think it's a general statement, and not specific to the INVISIBILITY?

Like I have said. You can make up any rules you want for your own games, and misinterpret things ("Hey, I found the statement 'I can trade +2 attack for +2 damage' inside the Power Attack block. That's probably not limited to power attack, right? I can do that whenever...") all you like. It's your game.

-Cross

 

[Deverash]

Under Total Concealment(PHB 281), first sentence
"You cannot see the target."

>> I'd take the other sentence to be examples of what you can do to not be able to not see the target. That sentence is rather declareative, and isn't altered by the next sentence at all that I can see.

Under Combat Advantage(PHB 280), in the box
"The following conditions give an attacker combat advantage against the defender.

When the defender ...
<deleted>
Unable to see the attacker"

Under Stealth(PHB 188)
...
Success: You avoid notice, are unheard and hidden from view. If you later attack or shout, you are no longer hidden.

From that, yes, if you move in to concealment, you can make a Stealth check vs. the targets passive Perception to get combat advantage for that one attack. After the attack, you'd be visible, unless you take another action and manage to stealth that one too.

On the issue of cover and stealth, it's really unclear. The rule on using your allies as cover is specifically for your enemy using a ranged attack against you. A clearer defination would be great.

 

[Xorn]

Skill Checks in combat are a Standard Action.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Let's hear it. I'm curious about this as well, without having read the 4th edition rules on it.

Actually I might have been wrong!

I was remembering something about distracted assailants, which looks like it is exactly the opposite of my assertion. In other words, sometimes, you don't even need concealment or cover to use Stealth!