<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 4E D&amp;D: The Stealth Rules and You</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html</link>
	<description>One gamer's opinion of everything RPG</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:16:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: 4E D&#38;D: Revisiting the Stealth Rules &#124; RPGCentric » One gamer's opinion of everything RPG</title>
		<link>http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html/comment-page-1#comment-770</link>
		<dc:creator>4E D&#38;D: Revisiting the Stealth Rules &#124; RPGCentric » One gamer's opinion of everything RPG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:03:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpgcentric.com/?p=5#comment-770</guid>
		<description>[...] month, I wrote a post regarding the way that the stealth rules work in D&amp;D 4E.  Since that time, Wizards has [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] month, I wrote a post regarding the way that the stealth rules work in D&amp;D 4E.  Since that time, Wizards has [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reveal</title>
		<link>http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html/comment-page-1#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>reveal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:20:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpgcentric.com/?p=5#comment-56</guid>
		<description>@Rob - Your capped text is exactly what I wrote to CS and asked about because that confused me. The text really should say &quot;WHEN YOU &lt;i&gt;COULD&lt;/i&gt; MAKE A RANGED ATTACK&quot; instead, if CS is to believed.

I do think it would be cool if two players decided to play &quot;combat tandem&quot; and have a medium sized creature provide cover for a small creature. The tank sees the enemy using ranged attacks and says, &quot;Hey! Halfling Rogue! Get behind me and attack those suckers! I&#039;ll wait for them to get closer!&quot;

That would be awesome. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Rob &#8211; Your capped text is exactly what I wrote to CS and asked about because that confused me. The text really should say &#8220;WHEN YOU <i>COULD</i> MAKE A RANGED ATTACK&#8221; instead, if CS is to believed.</p>
<p>I do think it would be cool if two players decided to play &#8220;combat tandem&#8221; and have a medium sized creature provide cover for a small creature. The tank sees the enemy using ranged attacks and says, &#8220;Hey! Halfling Rogue! Get behind me and attack those suckers! I&#8217;ll wait for them to get closer!&#8221;</p>
<p>That would be awesome. <img src='http://rpgcentric.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html/comment-page-1#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:53:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpgcentric.com/?p=5#comment-54</guid>
		<description>I have a counterpoint that may help you sleep at night ; ). It simplifies things, although it requires that you ignore Evan T. over at Wizards.

&quot;Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are 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.&quot;

We know that allies never grant cover to your enemies, so we can assume that it&#039;s not the fact that there&#039;s a creature in the square that&#039;s granting the cover ... it&#039;s something to do with the creature&#039;s allegiance and intent. So a body standing there doesn&#039;t actually grant cover, in and of itself. 

Now notice that the rules only stipulate that your target has cover WHEN YOU MAKE A RANGED ATTACK. So it&#039;s as if you, as the target, suddenly have a split second of cover and could make a stealth check ... if only you were taking an action. But you&#039;re not, so it&#039;s moot for the purposes of combat advantage. As soon as the ranged attack is complete, your cover is also gone, and so is your opportunity to make a stealth check.

Another way of looking at it is that the ally, as a free action possible only when you&#039;re being attacked at range, is choosing to give you cover against that precise attack.

In the game system, I think that keeps things much easier but doesn&#039;t harm the rogue&#039;s power level much. And if a rogue has a way to make a stealth check as an interrupt, or even a stealth check and an attack as an interrupt, they could absolutely get combat advantage for that interrupting attack ... they deserve it, after all of that effort!

Thanks for your efforts toward an easy-to-understand interp.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a counterpoint that may help you sleep at night ; ). It simplifies things, although it requires that you ignore Evan T. over at Wizards.</p>
<p>&#8220;Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are 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.&#8221;</p>
<p>We know that allies never grant cover to your enemies, so we can assume that it&#8217;s not the fact that there&#8217;s a creature in the square that&#8217;s granting the cover &#8230; it&#8217;s something to do with the creature&#8217;s allegiance and intent. So a body standing there doesn&#8217;t actually grant cover, in and of itself. </p>
<p>Now notice that the rules only stipulate that your target has cover WHEN YOU MAKE A RANGED ATTACK. So it&#8217;s as if you, as the target, suddenly have a split second of cover and could make a stealth check &#8230; if only you were taking an action. But you&#8217;re not, so it&#8217;s moot for the purposes of combat advantage. As soon as the ranged attack is complete, your cover is also gone, and so is your opportunity to make a stealth check.</p>
<p>Another way of looking at it is that the ally, as a free action possible only when you&#8217;re being attacked at range, is choosing to give you cover against that precise attack.</p>
<p>In the game system, I think that keeps things much easier but doesn&#8217;t harm the rogue&#8217;s power level much. And if a rogue has a way to make a stealth check as an interrupt, or even a stealth check and an attack as an interrupt, they could absolutely get combat advantage for that interrupting attack &#8230; they deserve it, after all of that effort!</p>
<p>Thanks for your efforts toward an easy-to-understand interp.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reveal</title>
		<link>http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html/comment-page-1#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>reveal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpgcentric.com/?p=5#comment-25</guid>
		<description>@Nimblegrund - Actually, that scenario wouldn&#039;t play out that way. In 4E, longspear&#039;s don&#039;t have a range, so they&#039;re not ranged weapons. They are strictly melee weapons and, as you said, allies don&#039;t provide cover from melee attacks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Nimblegrund &#8211; Actually, that scenario wouldn&#8217;t play out that way. In 4E, longspear&#8217;s don&#8217;t have a range, so they&#8217;re not ranged weapons. They are strictly melee weapons and, as you said, allies don&#8217;t provide cover from melee attacks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nimblegrund</title>
		<link>http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html/comment-page-1#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Nimblegrund</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpgcentric.com/?p=5#comment-24</guid>
		<description>Dealing with the accidentally shooting your ally mess was a big pain.

Anyway.

Sounds like about the only chink in the game logic is say...

(rogue) (defender) (minion with a longspear)

In this case, the rogue makes a stealth check.  The minion cannot see the rogue, because the defender gives cover.   Rogue is hidden from view. 

Minion&#039;s turn. He goes to attack with the longspear, which gives him reach.  Because this is a melee attack, the rogue does not have cover, therefore is not hidden... so now he is visible?  And after the attack, does the rogue go back to being hidden, since the minion no longer has reach, therefore the rogue has cover again, therefore the old stealth check stands?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dealing with the accidentally shooting your ally mess was a big pain.</p>
<p>Anyway.</p>
<p>Sounds like about the only chink in the game logic is say&#8230;</p>
<p>(rogue) (defender) (minion with a longspear)</p>
<p>In this case, the rogue makes a stealth check.  The minion cannot see the rogue, because the defender gives cover.   Rogue is hidden from view. </p>
<p>Minion&#8217;s turn. He goes to attack with the longspear, which gives him reach.  Because this is a melee attack, the rogue does not have cover, therefore is not hidden&#8230; so now he is visible?  And after the attack, does the rogue go back to being hidden, since the minion no longer has reach, therefore the rogue has cover again, therefore the old stealth check stands?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reveal</title>
		<link>http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html/comment-page-1#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>reveal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:54:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpgcentric.com/?p=5#comment-18</guid>
		<description>@skade - That hasn&#039;t been an issue since 3.0. In 3.5 and 4, the target simply gains a bonus to AC because of cover and there is no chance of accidentally hitting said cover if you miss the target AC.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@skade &#8211; That hasn&#8217;t been an issue since 3.0. In 3.5 and 4, the target simply gains a bonus to AC because of cover and there is no chance of accidentally hitting said cover if you miss the target AC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: skade</title>
		<link>http://rpgcentric.com/4e-dd-the-stealth-rules-and-you.html/comment-page-1#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>skade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rpgcentric.com/?p=5#comment-16</guid>
		<description>So, perhaps I am simplifying things here too much, but if your allies granted you cover, would that not also mean that on a miss that there should be a chance that the missed shot hit the cover (the allied player) instead of simply missing? The whole point of cover after all is that something blocks the ranged attack, and while no one cares if a tree or low wall gets an arrow, I bet the wizard minds being a human shield for the rogue. By ruling that an ally can grant cover to other players it really seems to open up other problems. Also, even more simply, no one stands perfectly still in combat, so two medium creatures standing in a more or less straight line, while dodging, ducking, weaving, looking about, casting spells, drawing weapons, etc, they would not offer enough static positioning to effectively hide behind, probably not even a medium to small creature. Now, for diminutive or fine, sure. But a halfling ducking under my legs won&#039;t hid him, and if someone misses shooting him I just got an arrow in my ass.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, perhaps I am simplifying things here too much, but if your allies granted you cover, would that not also mean that on a miss that there should be a chance that the missed shot hit the cover (the allied player) instead of simply missing? The whole point of cover after all is that something blocks the ranged attack, and while no one cares if a tree or low wall gets an arrow, I bet the wizard minds being a human shield for the rogue. By ruling that an ally can grant cover to other players it really seems to open up other problems. Also, even more simply, no one stands perfectly still in combat, so two medium creatures standing in a more or less straight line, while dodging, ducking, weaving, looking about, casting spells, drawing weapons, etc, they would not offer enough static positioning to effectively hide behind, probably not even a medium to small creature. Now, for diminutive or fine, sure. But a halfling ducking under my legs won&#8217;t hid him, and if someone misses shooting him I just got an arrow in my ass.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

