Clarification on Superior Cover

[CajunAzn]

If you are contemplating altering a written rule to accomodate an interpretation of a rule that is the result of a loophole in the rules... you are, in fact, in house rule country.

I could throw this back and you and say: well if you don't want your players to use ally-cover to start a stealth check, house rule it in your own game.

But the fact is the RAW do allow for characters to start the skill check via ally cover. And this actually leads to a fun mechanic that emphasizes tactics and teamwork (not typically what a "loophole" or "oversight" does).

But, as I said previously, we need to decide how we apply the "remains hidden" rule at the moment the stealth check succeeds.

 

[CajunAzn]

Hi Ungeheuer, just to give few comments on your post:

actually i could see a ranged rogue using creatures as cover to become hidden for long enough to get out a sneak attack shot...

you hide at the end of the move action, your next action is the standard attack... it is not that you can really hide for a long time, but you can maybe use your ally to get a sneak attack in... Maybe this was the intend...

I'm glad you to see that this may have been the intent. It certainly adds party dymanics without imbalancing the game, doesn't it?

about remaining hidden: coordnated actions to keep a character out of sight for more than a split second is impossible...

Again it all just depends on how you are envisioning the skill and movements of the characters. If you study any type of police/military tactics, you find the blocking the enemy line of sight is a very common strategy to keep lighter/vulnerable units from being targeted.

Seriously, let's say you are the goblin. I'm pretty sure your focus will be the fighter right in front of you, rather than slinky Elly at the back. In fact, I think in a battlefield situation, a normal person wouldn't notice a "trained stealth specialist" at the back at all.

 

[Samir]

This isn't a debate on a house rule, its a debate on how to apply the rules at particular instant.

On the contrary, the RAW may be inconsistent, but it does not contradict itself and what actually happens is clear. As you say:

As it stands, the RAW produce a logical inconsistency at the moment you make the stealth check. The ally provides cover to make the check, but if the check succeeds, the creature stops providing cover at the exact same instant.

Thus, RAW, you can make a stealth check but you don't remain hidden. You want to change this so that you do remain hidden for some period of time. That would be a house rule, would it not?

Since you believe that ally-based stealth was never intended, you will choose the first option. Which means, no sane player would ever attempt the stealth check in the first place.

But if you believe that ally-based stealth was intended (albeit much harder to pull off) then you will choose the second option.

All I can say, is that for this decision it's better to rely on what's more believable, fair to the players, and overall, what adds more depth to game.

To clarify, this decision is to make a house rule. For house rules, yes, one should always rely on what's more believable, fair to the players, and what adds more depth to the game--but these criteria are all based on opinion. You have chosen based on what you feel meets this criteria, and another person might choose differently.

If you want my opinion on RAI, I believe they errata'd that "no ally-cover" rule in for the sole reason of preventing people using ally-cover to stealth. (Why else would they errata it in?) I don't think ally-cover stealth is believable and results in some rather silly situations. I don't think a house rule or looking any further than RAW is necessary in this particular situation. But again, that is just my opinion, and it is clear you think a house rule is necessary, so feel free to implement one.

 

[CajunAzn]

To Samir,

When the rules produce an inconsistency, don't you think it's up to the players to unravel that inconsistency in a meaningful manner?

In that sense, every rules debate, is a "house-rules" debate, because it involves everyone's opinion on what the rules are trying to say. Any situation can be argued two ways, and you can't keep saying that somehow your viewpoint is the absolute only way the rules can be interpreted and implemented.

I've only tried to perform the rules (to the best of my knowledge) in the way they indicate to play. In this case I am reading the rule as something that applies to future conditions, when the player is trying to stay stealthed, and not something that instantly nullifies the cover, because it does make sense.

I've justified my position from a believabilty and gameplay perspective, where again you can only keep on saying this is only way to interpret.

This is erratta, therefore I say back to you, the very reason they made the erratta was to allow ally-cover, but with restrictions that force you to be dynamic each turn. If you think they meant to completely disalllow ally-cover for stealth, why didn't they write the condition in at the beginning?

Every implementation of a rule revolves around our interpretation. And our interpretation always hinges on our opinion of the RAI. For well written rules, there is no problem. But when there is an inconsistency, it is perfectly legitimate to debate it in a rules forum.

 

[CajunAzn]

To illustrate how a rule can be read and consequently implemented in different ways, let's go back to the passage on stealth itself.

Let's take a narrow viewpoint and concentrate only on the part about creatures not counting as cover:

Keep Out of Sight: 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.

If you read this paragraph, and only this paragraph, the I would agree with your interpretation. Your cover vanishes instantly, and this is design flaw/oversight.

But let's read over the whole article (forum policy means I can't quote the whole thing):

(PHB2 222) Stealth: At the end of a move action.

• Opposed Check: Stealth vs. passive Perception. If multiple enemies...
• Becoming Hidden: You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment...
• Success: You are hidden...
• Failure: You can try again at the end of another move action.
• Remaining Hidden: You remain hidden as long as you meet these requirements.
  • Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment...You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.
  • Keep Quiet: If you speak louder than a whisper...
  • Keep Still: If you move more than 2 squares during an action...
  • Don’t Attack: If you attack, you don’t remain hidden.
• Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes...You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.
• Enemy Activity: An enemy can try to find you on its turn. If an enemy makes an active Perception check...

Now we are given the wider perspective of the rule and I now no longer think the previous interpretation is correct.

Notice how the entire rule is laid out in a chronological step-by-step fashion. It's a "Before, During and After" type arrangement, that suggests that the "During" portion shouldn't retroactively cancel the "Before" portion.

Now notice how the "Remaining Hidden" section is laid out. It is a bullet list of conditions that are all phrased in the manner of the player doing something while stealthed on the action after. There is no indication that these rules, should be back-applied to the situation in the "Becoming Hidden" portion.

Therefore it becomes reasonable that the clause: "you cannot use creatures as cover to remain hidden" only applies on the player's next action while stealthed. And I'll emphasize the word choice of "remain" vs "become" to suggest that creature cover was intended as an option to start the stealth condition, but not to keep it (on the next action).

Many of you just ignore this contextual implication while determining when the rule of "remain hidden" should be applied.

===

Many rules in D&D4 only make sense when you take into account the context they are written. For example, Fleeting Ghost: "You can move your speed and make a Stealth check. You do not take the normal penalty from movement on this check."

If I were to blindly just read the first sentance, I might be lead to believe this rule allows me to make stealth rolls in plain sight. However, when I read the context, "You do not take the normal penalty from the movement" Now it becomes clear that the only difference is you don't apply the movement penalties, and the cover/concealement requirements still apply.

===

So I ask everybody to read that passage again, look at my points from a contextual view, and tell me if maybe there's some truth to what I'm saying.

 

[fuzzlewump]

This is erratta, therefore I say back to you, the very reason they made the erratta was to allow ally-cover, but with restrictions that force you to be dynamic each turn. If you think they meant to completely disalllow ally-cover for stealth, why didn't they write the condition in at the beginning?

Because allies weren't meant to provide superior cover. Refer to the picture and "creatures and cover" on page 280. If think that that's only meant to apply to attacks, don't you think that attack-only interpretation is an inconsistency? Why would just looking at the enemy give them superior cover, but firing an arrow wouldn't? If we're going to have a rules as they should be, don't you think that if an attack would only provide "cover," that that cover would apply to anything you're doing? If so, why not, realistically?

In theory, just looking should give you a greater chance of overcoming the cover than the arrow, because it's a straight line. So the arrow being less hindered than your sight is a huge leap to take.

But even if you can't accept that, the rules are incredibly clear that you remain hidden only if you stay out of sight. You can't use allies to stay out of sight.

Imagine a giant fan that is rotating and for a split second you can stealth behind it, but then it continues moving and you are visible again. The conditions haven't changed, right? The fan hasn't moved from its square and it's only doing it's normal combat rotation, much like how a combatant in D&D won't be standing still, at all, unless petrified. By your interpretation the person behind the fan would remain hidden as long as they were behind that fan.

Every implementation of a rule revolves around our interpretation. And our interpretation always hinges on our opinion of the RAI. For well written rules, there is no problem. But when there is an inconsistency, it is perfectly legitimate to debate it in a rules forum.

There is no inconsistency. It might be ridiculous to be able to make a stealth check and then instantly lose it, but that's how it works(according to your interpretation), every time. Perfectly consistent. See above why I believe why you can't even make the stealth check to begin with, and why it doesn't matter either way.

Now to discuss the house-rule: I don't think it's believable to be able to hide behind your friends in combat, unless they are perfectly still. Any combatant worth his salt will see you every time. You might be able to prove some real world example, but it's not intuitive, I don't think, to the majority of the posters here. That intuitiveness is a big part of what makes a system fun and easy to use; realism is not something to be sought with every game system, especially not 4E. That's assuming you can prove that's it's realistic, which I really don't think it would be.

From a gameplay point of view, drawing lines for cover is actually in the player's hands. The defender has to prove that they have superior cover, not the seer/attacker. Obstacles are one thing, but a stealthed character will have to redraw lines every round to figure out which enemies he can stealth against and which he cannot, because the entire battlefield probably just shifted around (both enemies and allies.) In other words, it could be a colossal waste of time. Even if it is the DM doing all the drawing every round, who cares? It still takes time to draw lines from a corner of every enemies space (possibly around 5, don't want to think about minions) to every corner of the stealthers square. What about multiple stealthers? Could be a mess. To be fair, I already think stealth is a mess using static obstacles, allowing allies just adds to the pile.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Notice how the entire rule is laid out in a chronological step-by-step fashion. It's a "Before, During and After" type arrangement, that suggests that the "During" portion shouldn't retroactively cancel the "Before" portion.

Man, you just made that up. You're not quoting anything. That might be how it should be, in your eyes, but that's just not how it is.

Check out how it says "Opposed Roll" before "Becoming Hidden." Read both sections. If taken chronologically, a player will make the roll, and then read on, then realizing that they actually needed superior cover or concealment to make the roll! Your interpretation is going against this standard of "fairness" that you seem to care a lot about. The before, during and after bit is bunk.

Now notice how the "Remaining Hidden" section is laid out. It is a bullet list of conditions that are all phrased in the manner of the player doing something while stealthed on the action after. There is no indication that these rules, should be back-applied to the situation in the "Becoming Hidden" portion.

Okay, imagine a huge rock in the way, your halfling hides behind it. Right after the halfling, a giant picks up the rock. The halfling hasn't taken any actions, therefore the giant's allies can't see the halfling? No. The amount of time between becoming hidden and becoming visible doesn't matter at all, RAW. It can instantaneous, or forever, as long as conditions are met.

Therefore it becomes reasonable that the clause: "you cannot use creatures as cover to remain hidden" only applies on the player's next action (remember it's "action" not "turn") while stealthed. And I'll emphasize they chose the words choice of "remain" vs "become".

Many of you just ignore this contextual implication while determining when the rule of "remain hidden" should be applied.

Refer to above. It doesn't matter if an action is being taken, the instant you no longer "Keep Out of Sight" is the instant you become not hidden. Creatures can't be used as cover. Just read the rules.

So I ask everybody to read that passage again, look at my points from a contextual view, and tell me maybe there's some truth to what I'm saying.

I wouldn't use your rule, but I can see its appeal to some.

 

[CajunAzn]

Man, you just made that up. You're not quoting anything. That might be how it should be, in your eyes, but that's just not how it is.

So we have differing opinions! But I'm not the one saying that my way is the only "right" way to see things. I'm trying to show that the meaning of rules, have to be interpreted in order to apply them. Therefore differing interpretations leads to different implementations...

Okay, imagine a huge rock in the way, your halfling hides behind it. Right after the halfling, a giant picks up the rock. The halfling hasn't taken any actions, therefore the giant's allies can't see the halfling? No. The amount of time between becoming hidden and becoming visible doesn't matter at all, RAW. It can instantaneous, or forever, as long as conditions are met.

Please read my posts to Abdul. Clearly I indicated the lines of sight must remain blocked...in your fan example, the hide check would be for synchronzing your body to movements with the blades of the fan. If you succeed then, you're adept enough to do it, provided the fan stays where it is.

In the previous posts I also explain how the movement of allies in the front, is actually an effective screen for allies in the back: Imagine you are facing off with an enemy party. The fighters storm forward, in full armor, brandishing deadly weapons. Are you honestly telling me your going to be looking in the back, for someone that might be try to hide? Even if you do catch a glimpse (ie. that one unblocked line of sight) you're not going to have clear fix on his position, especially if he's trained in stealth.

I have a feeling you kind of just jumped in without taking the time to read the points that have been given. I know it's a long thread but thats the only way we can have meaningful discussion.

===

What we are specifically debating is: "Do you start applying the no-creature-cover rule at the precise instant that the player succeeds his stealth roll based on said creature?"

If you don't mind being an unreasonable and "rules-lawyering" type DM, then ok, take away the stealth the players just rolled for, regardless of believability, fairness and fun.

But, I was hoping this discussion could lead to a better conclusion than that.

 

[CajunAzn]

You know, I just want add I really appreciate everyones input. They help offer a wider perspective on the issue. In our desire to justify ourselves, we might sometimes adopt a hostile tone. But let me say I fully respect everyone's opinion here.

My intention for starting this thread is try to implement the rules is the best way possible: in a way that stays true in the "spirit of D&D", in the way that's believable, and in a way that's fun to play - but still in a way that follows the rules.

It clear the majority of the people feel that, if you want to play by-the-book D&D you have to take away the stealth they got immediately. This may not be believable/fair/etc. but that's what most people feel are the rules. I respect that.

===

What I propose is that we reach a compromise that makes us both happy.

According to the rules under remaining hidden, you can be in a concealed or covered sqaure for the hidden status to remain.

So let's conclude, that you can use your allies to grant superior cover to make the hide check. But you also need to have concealment or cover (not provided by allies) to stay hidden.

This also improves the believability factor for making the stealth check in the first place: In addition to being obscured by your ally, you have the environmental advantage of dimness, hazyness etc. to make it hard for your enemy to see.

This still allows the party cooperation and tactics benefits for more engaging gameplay, while remaining true to the rules. Best of both worlds.

===

This would be a legal conclusion according to the rules, correct?

 

[fuzzlewump]

So we have differing opinions! But I'm not the one saying that my way is the only "right" way to see things. I'm trying to show that the meaning of rules, have to be interpreted in order to apply them. Therefore differing interpretations leads to different implementations...

No, I specifically showed you how the Before, During, and After interpretation is wrong. Not that I see how it would matter if it was meant to read that way anyway. Feel free to try and refute that, but it's not a difference of opinion. The first thing presented is make a check, and the second thing is the conditions that must exist for you to make that check. That is clearly contradicting what you are saying.

What we are spefically debating is: "Do you start applying the creatures as cover rule at the precise instant that the player succeeds his stealth roll?"

So, only part of the rules gets applied instantly and the rest waits? The reason I brought up the Giant and rock example is because if you lose cover you are instantly brought out of it. What if the Giant had a readied action, when the halfling goes behind rock, I pick up the rock. So, the halfling only gets stealth for a split second before the giant picks it up. The amount of time, like I said, doesn't matter. The instant you try to hide behind a ally, it fails, in the same way.

Also, please respond as to why you only get superior cover from stealthing, but not for ranged attacks, realistically, and reasonably, as the standards you are holding high. Half of the argument is assuming you can even get superior cover from allies. I personally think that there is nothing unfair about saying allies can't be cover, because they can't be used as cover to even become hidden. Imagine, if that were the case, as I believe it is, there would be no unfairness. The player's wouldn't believe that they are entitled to anything, and nothing would be taken away.

I have a feeling you kind of just jumped in without taking the time to read the points that have been given. I know it's a long thread but thats the only way we can have meaningful discussion.

Please read my post and tell me why superior cover should only apply to seeing if you have stealth, and not ranged attacks. Why according to your opinion the stealth rules are meant to be read chronologically, and yet the very first two paragraphs contradict that. Why is not allowing stealth behind allies unreasonable and "rules lawyery" given my previous post explaining how you haven't proven how it is reasonable or realistic to allow it. Please read my points, so we can have a meaningful discussion. I have read the thread.

EDIT: I like that compromise for those that think allies can provide superior cover, but eh, it's not like this is going to be submitted to the supreme rules database of awesome. Do whatever makes you happy and your game fun. Good gaming.