Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="slaughterj" data-source="post: 6795276" data-attributes="member: 5341">Notably you did not address this part of my statement: &quot;During combat, a Rogue goes behind total cover, makes a successful stealth check and is hidden, and then peeks around the corner in order to make a ranged sneak attack. You are the only I have ever seen take the extreme position that because the Rogue shows a bit of himself in order to make such an attack, that the Rogue is therefore seen by his foe and unable to sneak attack.&quot;That is what you are saying, but NO ONE agrees with that position.&nbsp; Even under the original rules, no one really believed that, but just in case, the errata added in the &quot;not clearly seen&quot; language to make the situations clearer, yet you continue to appear to disregard that errata.&nbsp; What does the errata apply to, if not a situation such as the one I quoted?I get that you might not want a Rogue to readily spam ranged sneak attack from dashing behind total cover and peeking back out each round, perhaps because you feel it unbalancing to get advantage repeatedly that way, and the DM has some discretion to dial that back, but not to the absolute extreme you are going with it.&nbsp; And as a practical matter, there are plenty of combats where a Rogue can't get that positioning anyway, or even if they do, their allies are in the way and providing cover to the foe, effectively halving the advantage anyway, so the Rogue getting some advantage from time to time to for some ranged sneak attack isn't that big of a deal, and in fact is expected else why bother including it as a route for sneak attack (if it was all about surprise from hidden before combat, it could have been set up like the assassin's ability instead).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="slaughterj, post: 6795276, member: 5341"] Notably you did not address this part of my statement: "During combat, a Rogue goes behind total cover, makes a successful stealth check and is hidden, and then peeks around the corner in order to make a ranged sneak attack. You are the only I have ever seen take the extreme position that because the Rogue shows a bit of himself in order to make such an attack, that the Rogue is therefore seen by his foe and unable to sneak attack." That is what you are saying, but NO ONE agrees with that position. Even under the original rules, no one really believed that, but just in case, the errata added in the "not clearly seen" language to make the situations clearer, yet you continue to appear to disregard that errata. What does the errata apply to, if not a situation such as the one I quoted? I get that you might not want a Rogue to readily spam ranged sneak attack from dashing behind total cover and peeking back out each round, perhaps because you feel it unbalancing to get advantage repeatedly that way, and the DM has some discretion to dial that back, but not to the absolute extreme you are going with it. And as a practical matter, there are plenty of combats where a Rogue can't get that positioning anyway, or even if they do, their allies are in the way and providing cover to the foe, effectively halving the advantage anyway, so the Rogue getting some advantage from time to time to for some ranged sneak attack isn't that big of a deal, and in fact is expected else why bother including it as a route for sneak attack (if it was all about surprise from hidden before combat, it could have been set up like the assassin's ability instead). [/QUOTE]

Verification