Clarification on Superior Cover

[eriktheguy]

I have to agree with abdul and draco on this
Literal interpretation of the rules seems to suggest that you can stealth behind allies, but you instantly become unstealthed afterwards.
Your argument is pretty sound to a point OP, but at some point your argument essentially boils down to
"Well it would really make sense IF it was this way, and it seems like the rules might have been MEANT to work this way, and some of the rules only make sense IF it works this way, and it would be fair and balanced and fun IF it worked this way..."
which is a good argument if you are a fun DM running a fun campaign (which I assume you are by your posts), but not a good argument for RAW.
It seems clear that you cannot use allies to effectively stealth in combat.

If this is coming up at your table, I suggest quickly making the following house rules.
1: You cannot use an ally as cover to make a stealth check in combat (just to clarify what this thread seems to have decided)
2:
Feat: clever feat name
Effect: You can use allies for cover in combat for the purpose of making stealth checks. You gain a +1 feat bonus to stealth checks to become and remain hidden.

Don't you think that using a feat emphasizes the difficulty of co-ordinating with allies that you were mentioning? Or do you think its only balanced as a power?

 

[CajunAzn]

Hi Abdul, thanks for your input, but I don't really think you've given any example from the rules that contradicts my interpretation of superior cover from allies or puts a definite yes on the "you lose cover immediately" issue.

Well, its fine to give the developers credit for things, but I can point out dozens, perhaps 100's of instances like this where the developers didn't think everything through. In fact 4e rules are notoriously sloppy compared to almost any wargame you would care to mention. So I would give near zero credence to this line of logic.

As I said, the last arguments were heuristic. I was simply stating that on a general level, if you give the designers any credit (this was an errata after all), you wouldn't insist on defining "remains" as "instantly after, even though positions/lines of sights are unchanged". It contradicts basic logic.

Lets suppose we take your logic at face value. Now, look at Fleeting Ghost. Are you going to assert that it allows a rogue to stand in plain sight and be hidden until the start of his next turn? The same logic which works for allies would have to apply here too, the character gets a stealth check and 'no condition has changed' from that point onwards. We KNOW for a fact that FG doesn't work this way since there are higher level rogue utilities that actually DO work this way and they wouldn't exist if FG already did that.

While I don't want to sidetrack the discussion into other powers too much. I'll just offer this:

For Fleeting Ghost it says "you can move and make a shealth check". Nowhere does it say that you now don't need superior cover/total concealment. Even if you were to stretch it and say "well it implies you don't need cover/concealment" I would ask you again, "is this a plausible and fair" interpretation. Of course the answer is no. However in my case, arguing that cover doesn't instantly vanish (without positions/lines of sight changing) is the plausible and fair conclusion.

Thus I (and I suspect practically everyone that has spent a good bit of time studying stealth in 4e) would say that you DO have to continually test your hidden status. If at any point you don't meet the requirements to remain hidden, you stop being hidden. This means for a character using the baseline stealth skill by itself allies will never give you a meaningful ability to hide.

Again, I agree with you: You must test to see at all times if the conditions that provided you stealth still remain. If the ally hasn't moved and the enemy hasn't moved, then the conditions that provided you stealth do remain and your stealth check stiil is valid. It is a perfectly natural and logical conclusion. But again, this is by no means an easy situation to set up - require a lot of tactics and party cooperation.

Coupled with certain feats or rogue utilities allies CAN provide an opportunity to initiate a hidden status that will last or do certain other things. Chameleon might work for this in some situations (it would have to involve movement on another creature's turn technically).

I agree with you, as I mentioned in my post about Shade Form, coupling this tactic with certain feats, makes this tactic much more flexible. These feats aren't made redundant the stealth mechanic, they are made more powerful and versatile (as feats should).

Another example that comes to mind is the Warlock's Shadow Walk which grants concealment until the end of the next turn. In fact, for the Warlock we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because he would constantly have concealment regardless of positions/lines of sight.

Furthermore I'm not even convinced that allies can give you total cover. An ally is not blocking terrain or covering terrain. The rule is that allies give cover, but its a special rule and says nothing about TOTAL cover.

In the opening post I already quoted the passage that shows that allies can grant superior cover:

PH 280
Determining Cover: To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover.

There is no specific rule that says this method for determining cover doesn't apply to Stealth checks. Therefore, this general rule applies.

My feeling is that you get only a limited amount of cover from allies. Remember, an ally is roughly the same size as you are and certainly doesn't even come close to filling its space. Its very similar to the situation of an obscured square like one containing a bush. No number of bushes will cause the granted concealment to become total concealment. (admittedly the DM may well feel justified in making exceptions for extreme cases and he could make a similar exception if you had MANY allies between you and the enemy).

As I said before, that is exactly why the developers made it impossible for you to just stand there and remain hidden. Allies aren't the same as obstacles, so you can't remain hidden passivey - you must continually move, set up your position, and stealth.

I really appreciate all your guys' input. But even after all this discussion, there is no concrete evidence as to why the narrow (and nonsensical) interpretation that "your cover instantly vanishes", is inherently better than my "stealth check applies as long as position hasn't changed" interpretation.

Therefore, we must rely on what interpretation is most intuitive and fair. And I don't think anyone would say that instantly denying a player (and his party) the stealth they worked so hard for is either intuitive or fair.

Even on the heuristic level, my interpreation wins out. Ally-based stealthing adds an interesting dynamic to the game - it provides more fun to stealthy characters and encourages party cooperation/tactics. Strikers, defender, controlllers, and leaders all play a crucial part in making this tactic work. Your interpretation, on the other hand, doesn't add anything to the game and infact makes it very non-intuitive.

 

[CajunAzn]

Hi Erik, sorry I was replying to abdul while you posted so I'll answer your comments here.

First about your feat suggestion:

If this is coming up at your table, I suggest quickly making the following house rules.
1: You cannot use an ally as cover to make a stealth check in combat (just to clarify what this thread seems to have decided)
2:
Feat: clever feat name
Effect: You can use allies for cover in combat for the purpose of making stealth checks. You gain a +1 feat bonus to stealth checks to become and remain hidden.

Don't you think that using a feat emphasizes the difficulty of co-ordinating with allies that you were mentioning? Or do you think its only balanced as a power?

If it were just my table, think a simpler solution would be just to clarify to everyone at the table the rules for cover granted by allies. As a side note, remember, that there is nothing stoppping smart monsters from applying this same group coordination for stealth advantage.

I have to agree with abdul and draco on this
Literal interpretation of the rules seems to suggest that you can stealth behind allies, but you instantly become unstealthed afterwards.
Your argument is pretty sound to a point OP, but at some point your argument essentially boils down to
"Well it would really make sense IF it was this way, and it seems like the rules might have been MEANT to work this way, and some of the rules only make sense IF it works this way, and it would be fair and balanced and fun IF it worked this way..."
which is a good argument if you are a fun DM running a fun campaign (which I assume you are by your posts), but not a good argument for RAW.
It seems clear that you cannot use allies to effectively stealth in combat.

All rules at some point, boil down to how you interpret them. In this case the rule is: "You cannot use creatures as cover to remain hidden".

The people on this forum seem to imply that "your cover instantly vanishes and wastes you stealth check" somehow is a better interpretation than "your stealth check still applies until positions change (at any moment)"

As I stated before, this is neither intuitive, fair for players, or heuristically beneficial to the fun of the game.

So I have to ask what makes the narrow interpretation inherently better than my interpretation?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I just entirely disagree with you that remaining hidden is something you only check at some specific time. The conditions to remain hidden must prevail at ALL TIMES and one of them is that you have cover/concealment not provided by allies. There is no requirement that anything 'change'.

The stealth rules state that you must "Keep Out of Sight" to remain hidden. They specifically say that allies do not provide that function even though they may provide cover.

The section entitled "Not Remaining Hidden" simply talks about actions you take that cause you to not be hidden anymore. It never states nor can it be construed in any way to mean that you cannot be revealed by other circumstances or that any condition must change.

The example of Fleeting Ghost is INFINITELY relevant. FG grants an unconditional Stealth check. The reason this check does not let you hide in plain sight is ONLY because you instantly fail to meet the keeping hidden requirements. This is exactly analogous to your use of allies.

This is the nut of the argument. Everything else is extraneous. Show me the rules text which says that you only change your hidden status when something changes. Hidden status is a state and can only exist when certain things are true. Being covered by allies is not one of those things that lets it be true. As far as I'm concerned the fact that you can hide behind a wall of allies is simply a rules artifact and the designers had no reason to add text to deal with it simply because its largely irrelevant. Most likely they never even thought to ask themselves this question.

I would strongly advise asking this question on the WotC Q&A forums because there are a LOT of very sharp rules lawyers there and I think you'll learn a lot about stealth very quickly. I think you understand the basics of it pretty well, but believe me there have been a lot of LONG in depth analysis of the whole rule and all its interactions and what various shades of interpretation there are on different things. If you can find some of the older threads there on the topic it will probably help too.

 

[DracoSuave]

The people on this forum seem to imply that "your cover instantly vanishes and wastes you stealth check" somehow is a better interpretation than "your stealth check still applies until positions change (at any moment)"

If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden. You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.

That's straight from the PHB2. It does not say 'If you move yourself out of cover or concealment.' It says... specificly, 'If you no longer have any coveror concealment...' and that's the bottom line. This is a check that is continually active.

For example, there's an Avenger power that creates a zone of concealment. If this zone is destroyed, and the Avenger is in it, he is no longer hidden if he was before--the Avenger's actions or inactions are irrelevant to this argument. The only question to be asked is: Does he have cover or concealment? Yes or no?

An enemy moving to a position where a hidden enemy no longer has cover will make him unhidden. And a player taking an action that renders his cover or concealment non-active will become unhidden.

This is intuitive, this IS fair.

The -instant- you no longer have cover/concealment, to which creatures explicitly do not count, you are no longer hidden. So, using creatures to become hidden does not work well, because they cease to provide you that cover instantaneously. This then results in you not only being unhidden, but unable to become hidden again until the next move action you spend.

Being able to make new stealth checks from running does not change this.

In fact, if you are hidden, move out of cover and into a new place that provides you total superior cover, you cannot make a new check to become hidden. The rules are very clear, if you take an action that results in you being unhidden, you -stay- hidden until the end of that action, and then you -stay- unhidden until after you've taken a new move action.

 

[CajunAzn]

The example of Fleeting Ghost is INFINITELY relevant. FG grants an unconditional Stealth check. The reason this check does not let you hide in plain sight is ONLY because you instantly fail to meet the keeping hidden requirements. This is exactly analogous to your use of allies.

This is the nut of the argument. Everything else is extraneous. Show me the rules text which says that you only change your hidden status when something changes. Hidden status is a state and can only exist when certain things are true. Being covered by allies is not one of those things that lets it be true. As far as I'm concerned the fact that you can hide behind a wall of allies is simply a rules artifact and the designers had no reason to add text to deal with it simply because its largely irrelevant. Most likely they never even thought to ask themselves this question.

I agree this is nut of the argument. Whether you are right or I am right depends on the answer to this question:

"Does your status of being covered instantly change after you make the stealth check?"

Your argument is yes, because you read "You cannot use creatures to remain hidden" as something that applies even to the initial condition that started the stealth.

My arguement is no, because logicially, the conditions that provided you stealth would need to change for you stealth check to be invalidated.

You ask me to show a rule that says something must change for status effects to change. But I could ask you to show me rule that says time and space can stay still, but a creature can simulteously count as cover and not cover.

Neither us have any concrete rules backing up our claims, so we rely on our common sense to interpret this rule and get us out of this contradiction.

So I ask again, which interpretation makes the most sense: "your cover instantly vanishes" or "your stealth applies until something happens to that cover"?

 

[CajunAzn]

Hi Draco, first let me address your minor point:

Being able to make new stealth checks from running does not change this.

In fact, if you are hidden, move out of cover and into a new place that provides you total superior cover, you cannot make a new check to become hidden. The rules are very clear, if you take an action that results in you being unhidden, you -stay- hidden until the end of that action, and then you -stay- unhidden until after you've taken a new move action.

If you read my fifth post, you will see that I never said that you could make the stealth check right away. It must be on a move action other than the first action. Please read that post first.

The -instant- you no longer have cover/concealment, to which creatures explicitly do not count, you are no longer hidden. So, using creatures to become hidden does not work well, because they cease to provide you that cover instantaneously. This then results in you not only being unhidden, but unable to become hidden again until the next move action you spend.

So again we arrive at the "nut" of the argument. So I pose the same question to you...

Which interpretation makes the most sense: "your cover instantly vanishes" or "your stealth applies until something happens to that cover"?

 

[CajunAzn]

Both Draco and Abdul's arguments rest on the very strange interpretation that: Allies can grant superior cover for a hide check, but that ally instantly ceases to count as cover to maintain that hide.

This line of reasoning defies common logic - Why would an ally who was, just a moment ago, granting you superior cover for your hide, suddenly stop covering you? It's counter-intuitive and completely unfair to players who are using tactics and cooperation to gain that advantage.

Why is it so hard to accept that you can't apply the "creatures don't count as cover for remaining hidden" rule to the initial condition that started the hide.

Honestly, what do you think is more likely?

The developers wanted to create a catch-22 rule that completely wastes the players' time and efforts.

OR​

The developers meant that rule to make both you and your teammates be dynamic and creative each turn (in order to maintain the stealth benefit).
​

Why are you trying to force a narrow and completely illogical interpretation that ends up breaking a solid mechanic that is fun and interesting for both the DM and the players?

The alternative is you could just accept that the "no creature as cover rule" doesn't apply to the initial condition (ie. player/enemy positions), but applies to every condition afterwards.

This way you could avoid the sillyness of catch-22s and enjoy a fun and dynamic combat, where every player's and enemy's position counts and can be used in group tactics, and where the players are encouraged to communicate and coordinate their movements to gain stealth. The DM can have fun doing this with the monsters too!

Seriously I hope Wizards gives an official ruling soon to clarify that they never meant to create a recursive logical inconsistancy that leads to futile skill checks, that in turn destroys the stealth reward from tactical positioning.

 

[Samir]

You are taking what you think is RAI and trying to apply it to the RAW. The problem with this is the very purpose of that stealth errata was to remove the ability to become hidden from cover granted by allies.

The inconsistency between ally-granted superior cover in making a stealth check vs. remaining hidden is a minor oversight that grants you no mechanical benefit because you can't remain hidden with only ally-granted cover.

To review:

RAI, you're not supposed to be able to become hidden from ally-granted cover at all.

RAW, due to an inconsistency, you can become hidden, but not remain hidden, from ally-granted cover. Thus, you can make a stealth check with no mechanical benefit.

 

[SWAT]

Honestly, what do you think is more likely?

The developers wanted to create a catch-22 rule that completely wastes the players' time and efforts.

OR​

The developers meant that rule to make both you and your teammates be dynamic and creative each turn (in order to maintain the stealth benefit).
​

I think neither one, as stated, is in any way likely. If we're going to be guessing at what the designers' intentions might have been, I'd say they never meant for Stealth checks to be made while receiving superior cover from allies. After all, they wrote that you can't stay hidden using allies. Using Stealth in such a situation would be like using Thievery to pick the lock on a door that has no lock: instant failure by virtue of circumstances.

If this discussion is even happening, then I suppose the language could have been clearer. But even if you can make the Stealth check to hide and then instantly become unhidden, that's still applying the rules as written, whereas your position requires changes to the rules to work.