Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xorn" data-source="post: 4292806" data-attributes="member: 61231">Volabit, if you had taken the time to point out I have tiny genitals I think your post would have been complete.  I have thoroughly cited where I'm reading each rule (Bluff, Stealth, Cover/Concealment, Targeting What You Can't See, and CSR responses to the WotC Answers Stealth from the DDI rules forums), but incorrectly assumed that everyone reading the thread could read the table of contents and index.  My apologies.  I have never stated that I'm right or anyone else is wrong.  I've stated (quite clearly, I feel) that I hate the stealth rules as intended.I even came up with a nifty Stealth As Intended™ slogan, which means, "Read the last 5 pages, and insert that here."  Again, whatever I've done to you personally to draw your ire, I apologize.Cover never applies to close or area attacks, and melee cover only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles.  So that only leaves ranged cover.  And the rules as they are written indicates that an ally in front of you creates a blocked line of sight.  If you draw a line to each corner of the target square from one of your corners, if 1-2 lines are blocked by terrain or the enemy's allies, they have cover.  If 3-4 lines are blocked (but you still have line of effect), they have superior cover.  This is clearly illustrated in the cover rules, so break out your PHB and read away.Feel free to disagree, and present your points as to why, but I'm actually a little miffed that you labeled me as reactionary and unwilling to read all the rules.  While you're decreeing that your method is right, maybe you should head over to DDI and read the "WotC Answers Stealth!" thread (you've read it, right, because it has responses from CSRs six times in there) and each CSR reply contradicts the previous one.The only thing they all consistently point out is that you are supposed to be able to make a Stealth check in combat as long as you have a successful Bluff, or cover/concealment.  They can't agree on if you have to start/remain/end in cover/concealment, they can't agree on if you can "stealthily" attack, they can't even agree on if you have to move out of the square you start it, and they just said "technically the rules allow it" when addressing using cover granted by an ally.So going on what I know is consistent, and Stealth As Intended™ (I hope I've thoroughly explained the importance of that slogan now), it's ridiculously easy to sneak attack whatever target you like from range as a rogue.  The warlock and ranger can only do their extra damage to the closest target.  For the ranger to double shoot, they have to make two attack rolls.  Assuming the rogue and ranger both have a 50% hit chance, 25% of the time the ranger misses with both, 50% of the time they hit once, and 25% of the time they hit with both.  They average a single hit.  The rogue will average a single hit, which gets their ability mod damage added.But one more time, in the most direct way I can state it, so you don't feel the urge to label me as reactionary and unaware of the rules as written and/or intended:I understand how Stealth As Intended™ works; I think it sucks, because it makes achieving a sneak attack in melee harder than achieving a sneak attack from range.  If you like it, that's fortunate for you, because that's how the mechanic is intended.  I reserve the right to think it sucks without being insulted for it.</blockquote>

Verification