Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the_redbeard" data-source="post: 4392951" data-attributes="member: 22644">I think at least two of these points are house rules, but I applaud that more people are acquiescing to the 4th edition paradigm of stealth rather than holding on to the 3rd edition version. I think VK makes too much of the proforma rule of DM approval of appropriate use of skills. I am undecided of whether ally-provided cover is appropriate for stealth.  There is some sense to a ranged attacker poking out from behind an ally.  This is easily defeated by the perceiver merely moving for a different line of sight, removing the cover and ending the stealth.  I look forward to September errata, and wouldn't argue with whatever the DM at the table ruled.This is definitely a house rule.Looking at 188:You do need an action during a "stealthable" condition (ie, distraction, cover, concealment) to stealth, and it needs to be an action that doesn't contradict stealth (like attacking).  For that stealth to last beyond that mere action, you need to end the action in a "stealth able" condition. I think that is a better summary of 188 than the invented 'minor action'. So a move into concealment, or a move into cover, could be used for a stealth check.  A move out of concealment with a distraction and then ending in concealment could be used to stealth.  I think a minor action for stealth in those situations would be redundant.With the caveat that only intelligent or team work enemies would obviously share information as a free action, I agree.Because enemies can freely share information is a free action as RAW, I think this does meat the test of RAW.  From Mearls' post, I think it is also RAI.  It is also a lot easier for the DM to keep track of one target number.Using Displacement instead of the Targeting What You Can't See rules is a direct contradiction of the new FAQ and bizarre to me.I really believe you should note that as a house rule.  Good for you if you like it. These I agree with.</blockquote>

Verification