Stealth in Combat

[Volabit]

I wasn't planning on posting again but this has me curious.

To Volabit: Can you quote where it says you can't hide behind an ally that is providing you cover?
I read both pages you quoted 280 and 281 and neither makes any distinction on what kind of cover isn't included in making stealth rules. The book is written on an exception basis so one can only assume that unless they specifically state that you can't then you must be able to.

Page 280. The graphic labeled Cover. The attacker has line of effects to the troll and cover to the troll because of the Goblin in front of the troll. He aslo has line of effect to the bugbear while and ally is between them, but it clearly states "No Cover" in large green white letters.

Now it says "Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and the other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.." When you make a ranged attack they have cover, not when you move to make a stealth check they have cover. Only when you attack not move do they gain cover, and you can't make a stealth check as part of an attack as stated by WotC officials. The paragraph later goes on to say "Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks." Again, first part says right out, allies NEVER grant cover to your enemies, can't read that any other way.

Sorry I ommitted this in my original post, was late and felt like razzing Sanzuo since I saw him on But I hope that answers your question Ozzie

 

[Xorn]

Only one person has done any mudslinging Harr, and we've been making light of them now (and my genitalia). My case (and most of the comments here) are discussing the rules as written (and interpretations) versus the rules as intended (from what the CSRs have been consistent on) and stating our opinions of it.

I don't like the ease of getting combat advantage from cover/concealment as opposed to getting combat advantage at range. If, as a rogue, you want combat advantage as often as possible, there is little incentive to close into melee. I don't like that. Some don't think it will be a big deal.

But please don't start suggesting things out of thin air; where you get the idea I'm having an argument with my gaming group over a forum is beyond me, but I assure you, it's ridiculous. I'm just talking about 4E rules that I don't like, in a 4E rules forum, and one of my players happens to read the same forum. That's it.

 

[Volabit]

I've adjusted my name in the dialogs so that Volabit doesn't beat me up. The first question is at the bottom, reading up.

Thanks Xorn, I appreciate you posting that in it entire original form, minus the name change to avoid furture potential beatings

This allows everyone to make their own reading on it and not that of a paraphrase. so again thank you.

 

[ozziewolf]

Page 280. The graphic labeled Cover. The attacker has line of effects to the troll and cover to the troll because of the Goblin in front of the troll. He aslo has line of effect to the bugbear while and ally is between them, but it clearly states "No Cover" in large green white letters.

Now it says "Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and the other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.." When you make a ranged attack they have cover, not when you move to make a stealth check they have cover. Only when you attack not move do they gain cover, and you can't make a stealth check as part of an attack as stated by WotC officials. The paragraph later goes on to say "Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks." Again, first part says right out, allies NEVER grant cover to your enemies, can't read that any other way.

Double check the picture and what it represents. The arrows are all going away from the player. The player is labeled "attacker" The picture simply represents that the two monsters have cover from the wall but the bottom monster doesn't have cover because allies do not grant cover to monsters.

Infact if you look the very top troll has cover because of the goblin infront of him and not because of the wall. So yes your allies infront of you do provide covers against your enemy.

Edit: As for not stating that when you move and stealth. Remember the rulebook is written on an exception basis so unless it specifically states otherwise then yes it does provide cover for the purpose of stealth. If you don't believe me that the book is written on an exception basis then look at the section for provoking opportunity attacks and granting combat advantage. It specifically says when certain situations don't give you combat advantage or don't provoke OA's.

 

[Volabit]

Double check the picture and what it represents. The arrows are all going away from the player. The player is labeled "attacker" The picture simply represents that the two monsters have cover from the wall but the bottom monster doesn't have cover because allies do not grant cover to monsters.

Infact if you look the very top troll has cover because of the goblin infront of him and not because of the wall. So yes your allies infront of you do provide covers against your enemy.

Ahh yes, thanks you are correct, it states which of the defenders does have cover. But it's Ranged attack only as the rule says. This Diagram is showing a ranged attack to either a troll or a Bugbear.

So it means the reverse it true, on the same diagram if the Bugbear were to make a ranged attack against the labeled 'attacker', since the bugbear is firing through an enemy to the 'attacker', the attacker has cover, but as the rules say, only for a ranged attack. So if the 'attacker' is a 'rogue' instead, he has cover against ranged attacks only from the bugbear. But the rules say from attacks only, and the rogue can't stealth when others attack him, it is not his turn. If the bugbear isn't making a ranged attack, then the 'rogue' doesn't have cover.

 

[Deverash]

Cover never applies to close or area attacks, and melee cover only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles.

Not really on topic, but cover does apply to close an area attacks. The lines to determine whether cover exists, though, start in the origin square, not the attackers square.

Concealment may be what you were thinking of that does apply to area/close attacks.

 

[Forrester]

By the way, with the 6th level Rogue utility Chameleon (it's at-will), the ranged rogue is never losing sneak-attack. If he loses cover because the Schmoe in melee decides to walk up past the fighter-tank and find him, Chameleon would trigger and the rogue would remain hidden "in plain sight". The rogue just has to regain cover on his turn and shoot again. Or shoot, and then hide, that works too.

Before, I thought that the ranged-rogue hiding behind his allies might not be broken as the bad guys can just walk up and find him eventually -- the rogue may be hidden, but the baddies would know generally what square he was in. With Chameleon being at-will, they'll walk past the fighter and just not see him.

Wow . . . the whole 99%-of-the-time-hidden-thing is pretty damn close to being true IMHO . . . go kobold shuriken rogues!

BTW, the argument that warlocks and (hahahahahahaha) rangers can keep up with the damage output of an always-sneak-attacking rogue is over, right?

 

[Volabit]

Not really on topic, but cover does apply to close an area attacks. The lines to determine whether cover exists, though, start in the origin square, not the attackers square.

Concealment may be what you were thinking of that does apply to area/close attacks.

Pg. 280 "Creatures and Cover:" Second sentence reads "Your Allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."

Pg 281 the "Cover against an Area Attack" show the Bugbears gaining no Cover from their allies, but the Goblin gaining Cover from the statue.

So yes you can gain cover from objects but not from other creatures it seems. I believe that is what Xorn says in the last part of his sentence, 'only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles'. I think you two are saying the same thing, just different ways of going about it.

 

[wocky]

Given the ease of stealthing and getting combat advantage (as per my understanding of the rules and that of most people in this thread) I'm considering house ruling a -5 penalty to attempting to hide while in combat... do you think this would fix things somewhat?

As for hiding behind allies... I think this could have an extra -5 penalty, since allies move around during battle and hiding behind them requires synchronizing one's own movements with that of the ally... still, I wouldn't have a problem with disallowing this altogether.

I believe the stealth rules are not all they should... and I have no problem with house ruling them to make them what I'd expect. I'd appreciate any ideas you have of how these rules should work. Why did things work better in 3.5? Wasn't it mostly the same? Higher DCs to hide?

 

[Otterscrubber]

Enemy | Enemy
Fighter | Warlord



Rogue | Empty

This rogue can move right one square "stealthily" and gain combat advantage. Next round he can move left one square "stealthily" and gain combat advantage. Against level appropriate foes, a rogue trained in stealth should have combat advantage almost every round, unless he does something silly, like try to wade into the melee.

The reason I dislike Stealth As Intended™ is because it feels like one of those "if you don't do this every turn you're shorting your character's potential" type of actions.

Just because you are stealthed does not grant you combat advantage. If you have already attacked an opponent and they are aware of you then you do not have combat advantage unless you are invisible. Stealthed is not the same as invisible, which is a condition that grants combat advantage.