The Retaking of Forgehold OOC-4E (Full)

[Shalimar]

there is no ambiguity to me. If an ally doesn't grant cover in melee, it doesn't grant cover for stealth purposes.Cover is relative. So an ally may grant cover against an enemy, but not against a different one at same moment... If you're not sure Just jump over their head and flank them. It's more cinematic ^^

The rules state that allies give cover, and then it goes on to list the limitations on the cover that the ally provides, it does not list stealth as one of the things that cover from an ally doesn't grant. Both your interpretation and mine have support, so when things could go either way based on interpretation thats pretty much the definition of ambiguity.

Besides its not like you should need to be totally hidden to have combat advantage. I think its pretty reasonable to be able to use the cover of an ally to let you make a skill check to be able to attack in an unexpected way, especially somene who is bigger than you. Since attacking breaks the stealth anyway, you don't gain the other and sometimes more important benifit of stealth, having the enemy be unaware and unable to attack you.

 

[Atanatotatos]

I'll make an example, tell me if i got it right. There are three adjacent squares:
A
BC

There's a kobold in A, Mal in B, Mira in C. Obviously no cover here. BUT

ABC

Here Mira (C) could make a stealth check (possibly with a ad-hoc penalty) to hide from the kobold (A) and benefit from it with a ranged attack.Right?

 

[Shalimar]

I'll make an example, tell me if i got it right. There are three adjacent squares:
A
BC

There's a kobold in A, Mal in B, Mira in C. Obviously no cover here. BUT

ABC

Here Mira (C) could make a stealth check to hide from the kobold (A) and benefit from it with a ranged attack.Right?

From my understanding and interpretation, yes. If there is an ally directly between Mira and an enemy she can use that obstruction to hide her movements (stealth check) and then make an attack with combat advantage if she is successful.

Even when fighting with an ally though the sneak attack still isn't automatic since she could fail the stealth check, or the positioning could simply be wrong and require her to take an OA to get in the right spot to pull off the stealth. Thats why it does more damage, even if she can get it most times, she can't get it automatically by spending a minor action that she otherwise would have wasted.

 

[Atanatotatos]

I agree with you. What I was arguing is that there's no ambiguity. The RAW seems clear enough to me. You can use stealth if you have cover. Allies grant you cover in regard to ranged attack. Simple. You could even do that with a melee reach weapon, since cover counts for reach weapons, though it wouldn't make much sense...

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I did state that the 50% thing is IMO, repeatedly. Mathematically, it's limpid to me. But in itself, it has no bearing on gameplay.

I'm allowed to express my opinion and I got to say that where you find me condescending, I find your disproportionate reaction a bit annoying, Shalimar.

Considering using your friend as cover, here's what the RAW says:

✦ Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged
attack against an enemy and other enemies are
in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never
grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor
enemies give cover against melee, close, or area
attacks.

My understanding is that creatures granting cover against ranged attack to their allies is an exception since they don't do it for enemies, nor do they do it for melee, close and area attack.

Granted, stealth isn't included in this list of things a creature don't grant cover for but then it is the combat section after all and it's the only mention of creature being considered cover in a specific situation.

For what it's worth, a playtester (posting under Mouseferatu) stated that he asked designer Andy Collins that question and was told that the intent was that allies don't grant cover for stealth purpose.

It was a off-hand comment and its value depends on the reliability you attach to the reputation of this poster (myself I have found him a very serious contributer to the rule forum) but it's the best I could find for an authoritative source with the search function. Here.

I tend to agree with that assessment. I expect the rule was only meant to grant cover against missiles and such.

I don't particularly care one way or the other and won't comment on it again. I like arguing about rules but I'll keep it to the rules forum in the future.

 

[Atanatotatos]

Mal, the paragraph I found more clear was the one about cover in the stealth skill description.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

FWIW, Mouseferatu is not "a playtester" so much as he is Ari Marmell, a WotC Freelancer.

 

[Shalimar]

FWIW, Mouseferatu is not "a playtester" so much as he is Ari Marmell, a WotC Freelancer.

And a good writer in general. He writes books and rules supplements.

 

[Velmont]

Of all that discussion, I know one thing, I'll never have cover on my table top game for stealth... even if I'm a small halfling hding behind a bulky dragonborn Paladin. At least, I'm a Warlock, not a Rogue.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

It's not ambiguous.

It's not "lawyer-perfect" but the RAW is clear. It never gives any actual rule that says you can do it. It says that allies give cover from enemy ranged attacks. It then clarifies that statement making it clear that Melee, close and area doesn't apply to that.

Allies do not provide cover for stealth as a general rule.

Allies can provide cover for stealth in certain circumstances and I can ajudcate that as needed, but it is far from given.

I'm playing it Shalimar's wauy till the end of the adventure.

I'm looking for more info what is the source of the Mearls quote?