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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarkB" data-source="post: 4374454" data-attributes="member: 40176">That's covered by the fact that the DM can rule that a particular circumstance does not allow a Stealth check. In your single-crate-too-small-to-provide-total-cover example, I would fully expect the DM to make that ruling. In that case, the rogue is not hidden and does not gain combat advantage.If, however, there's a larger stretch of cover and the rogue has room to move, then it is more reasonable that he could change position, making a Stealth check as he does so, and if successful the orc is no longer sure which part of the cover he is crouching behind. He is hidden, and has combat advantage. The DM might even reasonably rule that he needs to move at least 3 squares to do this, thus automatically imposing a -5 to his Stealth check.In fact, this is exactly where I would draw the line of DM adjudication when it comes to whether or not a Stealth check is possible. If it is reasonable (due to poor light and/or good cover) that the character could escape notice with a sufficient Stealth check, then he can make one, and the result if successful is that he both evades being seen and gains combat advantage.The rules for detecting a hidden creature are very simple, though: You make a passive perception check when he hides, supplemented by an active check on your turn as a minor action if you choose to do so, each of which oppose his Stealth check. On a success, you detect him and he is not hidden. On a failure, you don't detect him and he gains the full benefits of a successful stealth check, which include not being seen or heard.</blockquote>

Verification