Clarification on Superior Cover

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, here's the one real concrete rules issue that I have with your idea. WHEN does this condition get rechecked? Every time an enemy moves? Every time an ally moves? Exactly when? See you're asking me to create a rule that says WHEN we recheck whether or not someone is hidden. There is no such rule in the game at this time because its always been assumed to be a continuous state where the conditions to be hidden must always prevail in order to stay hidden.

So this is not as simple as you make it out to be.

In terms of the whole concept of what is fun or not or what creatures ought to be able to do that is totally a matter of opinion and we really can't debate that in terms of rules questions.

My FEELING is that stealth is a mechanism that is intended to allow PCs to sneak around, not one that is intended to allow them to exploit obscure loopholes in the rules to gain an advantage. I don't think other people really provide anything like the amount of concealment needed to actually hide. I mean go outside with 3 friends and try it. Its beyond unlikely to work. It might work in a situation where there is dim light, but THAT alone WILL make it work by our interpretation. Likewise if there is anything else that grants ordinary cover besides your allies.

So these are the reasons I have and opinions about it that don't make me think its the way things should be played. However I certainly am not dictating what happens in your games and I don't think its going to break the game to let people do it, though the 'when does it end' question may create some questions of its own I'm sure you can figure them out.

I am curious what WotC community Q&A would say about this though. Try posting the question there. There are some people there that are far cleverer at analyzing these things than I am.

 

[CajunAzn]

Hi Samir and SWAT thanks for joining on the discussion...

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.

Could you quote source for this? I am very interested in actually hearing the designers' opinions on this.

===

I think what all you guys are forgetting is that ultimately you too are apply what you feel is the RAI to how you read the RAW. And consequently arriving at a logical conundrum and that defies common sense.

The "rules as written" simply say that after you have gained stealth, "You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden."
​

You are trying to force everybody into a tunnel-vision viewpoint that that means "instantaneous loss of stealth", regardless if this interpreation leads to something that is unbelievable or completely unfair to the players.

Whereas, I am offering another interpretation, with the very reasonable assumption that "something must change your cover", in order to resolve this logical inconsistancy.

Furthurmore, I have shown that this allows for increased group tactics, communication between the party members, more options for clever stealthy characters, and just an overall more dynamic experience at the table.

All of you just keep sticking to your "letter of law" type arguments without regard to the larger picture...

===

Why would it be unrealistic that players can provide cover for a sneaky character? Police and Army teams use this tactic all the time, to shield key personnel, to allow reconnaissance units to slip under enemy lines, etc. Granted they aren't just "a bunch of friends trying to hide", they are trained professionals (which is what I assume the party represents) and the stealthy character is someone who has mastered the art of staying unseen on the battlefield.

Have you guys actually sat down and just imagined for a moment what depth this group coordination based stealth adds to the game?

Each new round, presents a new battlefield for the team to coordinate to grant combat advantage, hide weak or vulnerable characters, provide path of cover for a stealth character to move, etc. Every role contributes: Strikers need to watch for hideable sqaures; Defender can move up close to block lines of sight; Leaders can move enemies and allies around, and Controllers can take out nullify the perceptive abilities or large groups of creatures and they all need to work together to make it work.
​

This is not some game-breaking loophole, it encourages party teamwork and genuinely adds to the depth to the game. Perhaps you don't consider this as adding to the "fun" of the game, but I think anything that pulls the players more into the combat and encourages party cooperation and tactics is more fun.

I ask you what kind of depth does your "cover vanishes instantly" interpretation add to the game? It certainly doesn't make it more logical or believable. It arbitrarily deprives characters of stealth checks they just succeeded on. And it detracts from the usefulness of stealth and careful party positioning in general. I don't see any advantages here...

Why everyone is so supportive of some interpretation that leads to catch-22's and offers no role-playing advantages?

===

As I said before, the Stealth mechanic is errata which means the developers took the time to rewrite the rules to better fit their intended purpose.

Don't you think it's possible the developers intentionally put the "creatures don't count as cover" in the "Remaining Hidden" section but not in the "Becoming Hidden" section for a reason? I think its pretty clear it was meant to allow players to use ally-cover to start stealth, but continually keep them on their toes and be dynamic to maintain it. Does anyone else see the cleverness in this design? It's possible to stealth behind allies, just alot harder than hiding behind obstructions...

And I don't think the developer simply "forgot" to put it in. This is errata, and I give the developers a bit more credit than being that absent-minded. But let's just say, for the moment, that this was an oversight.

This "oversight" just so happens to vastly increase the depth of the game, encourage party cooperation, and another level of tactical thinking that engages everyone at the table. If this is an "oversight", then I hope they make this type of "error" more often.

 

[DracoSuave]

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 is misrepresenting our argument.

Our argument is that the rules flat out state that if you do not have cover, you become unhidden, and that allies do not count as cover for this purpose.

This is a fact. This is straight from the rules itself.

What we then state is that if it IS possible to use allies in the first place, it's a moot point -because- you become nonhidden immediately.

See, what we are doing is attacking the premise that you can use allies as cover for stealth. What -you- are doing is assuming that premise is true, and using that to deny what is a fact.

An example of this argument in a different form:

Our case:

I look up, and see the sky is blue. You present a case that the sky is not, in fact blue, and we counter that if that is the case, then clearly something must happen to the light to reach us to give it that blue color. Regardless, we still see a blue sky.

Your case:

You present a supposition that the sky is not blue. If the sky is not blue, you continue, it cannot be the case that we see a blue sky. Therefore, because we cannot possibly see a blue sky, the sky cannot, in fact, be blue.

It's a circular argument, and a poorly built one at that. You cannot assume your premise is true, use that to 'disprove' something else (especially something that is -defined as true-), then use that 'disproof' to make the claim your case must be true.

------------------------------

More over, the argument that it 'increases tactical depth' is misleading. Tactics involves choices on both sides. The option to become stealthed is an option. As well, however, the ability to make a move that renders your opponent unstealthed is -also- an option. Tactics isn't about always being able to do what you want. It's about being able to outplay someone else.

Being able to hide behind allies does not meaningfully add to the tactical aspect of the game for that reason.

What you are really doing is not arguing Rules as Written or Rules as Interpreted. You're arguing from a Rules as Would Grant Me Advantage which is a very poor standpoint when it comes to debates over Rules as Written.

And Rules as Written is explicit: If you have no cover, and allies do not count as cover, you are not hidden. Period. Simple. Concise.

The logical incongruence occurs when you start to add the rediculous notion that because of the absense of the mention of allies in a previous statement, that this

a) somehow magically means they intend allies as cover for entering stealth despite a written rule stating allies do not count as cover for keeping stealth

and

b) this somehow magically negates the existing rule and acts as a contradiction, meaning that it does not apply as written, but requires some bizarre interpretation that it is checked for when -you- change the situation, rather than that the situation never happens to begin with.

The corollary to Specific Beats General, I'll call it Drake's Corollary, is that in the absense of a contradiction, you apply the general rule. Because that's what it is there for.

In this case, the absense of mentioning allies, either as cover or not as cover in getting stealth is NOT a contradiction of the specific rule saying that you do not count allies when maintaining stealth. On top of this, the specific rule for allies not counting as cover DOES contradict the rules for cover in the case of stealth.

Therefore, you apply the rule regarding allies not as cover (Specific beats General) and you do not apply this non-existant trump that you've invented solely to make your case for your house rule. (Drake's Corollary).

 

[CajunAzn]

In my last post, I had so many arguments to respond that I didn't get I chance to answer Abdul's question about exactly when do you start applying the "no creatures as cover to remain hidden" rule.

The answer is quite simply you start applying "no creatures as cover rule" exactly when the conditions that granted you cover for the stealth check no longer exist.

What were the "conditions that granted to you cover". It was an ally, that blocked 3+ lines of sight of the enemy.

Therefore, the ally that granted you cover must, at all times, remain blocking 3+ of the enemy's lines of sight or you lose the stealth you rolled for. (This makes sense, because your roll the stealth check to see if you are dextrous enough to sychronize and position body behind your ally, so that enemy couldn't get a clear look at you from that particular angle).

If that ally shifts so that he's no longer providing superior cover or the enemy shifts, "the conditions that provided you stealth" cease and you automatically lose the stealth. In practice, this means all it takes is for the enemy to shift just 1 square to the side for you to become visible. Furthurmore, your ally is restricted to moving along the lines of sight (ie. staying in front of you) his whole turn.

This is why it takes exceptional tactics and teamwork to set up the situation for your hidden status to last until your next turn. But overall, it's a completely self-consistent, well-defined, and realistic interpretation.

 

[CajunAzn]

Draco, I'll be honest...I couldn't follow you post, past your analogy with the blue sky...

But if I understand you correctly, you were essentially saying:

1) I misrepresented your argument
2) My argument is unsound because I use circular reasoning


Ok, I'll do my best be short and concise as possible, because I realize this thread is quickly going to get out hand if we don't limit our replies.

1) If you recall your first post in this thread, you said:

Well, I suppose you could -technically- use another creature to make a Stealth check.

And then after that, you no longer count as hidden because creatures don't count for that purpose.

Isn't that the same as saying 'Allies can grant superior cover for a hide check, but that ally instantly ceases to count as cover to maintain that hide."?

===

2) I don't think my reasoning is circular at all. The last step of my reasoning relies on a common sense adjustment, because the rules would lead to logical inconsistancy if read literally.

Heres my reasoning, step-by-step:

1) "An ally can grants superior if 3+ lines of sight are covered (from any corner)"

2) "Superior cover is a sufficient condition for starting a stealth check"

-> Conclusion: you can use ally cover to start a stealth check. Even you agree with me up to this point.

3) If you succeed on a stealth check, it doesn't make sense that Stealth granted goes away for no reason.

4) Therefore, some reason must be given for the stealth check to be invalidated.

-> This is where we split.

- You are saying according to the rules, the reason is an sudden change of status from the ally granting cover to not granting cover, as per a strict interpretation of "to remain hidden".

- I say, this is not logical. Every change is condition, must be effected by some cause. The simplest reasonable cause is that "the conditions for the stealth check to be made" change or no longer exist (as defined in my previous post to Abdul).

---

Who's right? That depends on if you use letter of the law inpretation vs. heuristic reasoning.

At no point have I pre-supposed something in my argument. But I have used general reasoning to support my viewpoint over yours as to how to interpret the rules.

 

[fuzzlewump]

It's not a house-rule I would use given the complexity; the party would spend way too much time trying to set up stealth instead of just going around for the flank. A dynamic waste of time, in most cases I imagine.

By the way, unless you intend to prove on how this increases anyone's fun, or at least have a good theory as to why it would given the drawbacks (time, complexity) I would leave that part out. I don't agree that is is realistic, well-defined, interesting, or dynamic. If you're going to make a "rules as they should be" argument, you should head over to the house rules forum.

This is a rules forum, and determining the letter of the "law," as it were, is the idea. And the rules for maintaining cover are clear as day, even if cover isn't.

For an example of cover not being clear: check out the picture on page 280 of the PHB. When lines are drawn from that archer's attack origin corner to every corner of that trolls space, clearly 3 of those lines are blocked, and yet the troll only has "Cover." The "Creatures and Cover" section seems to echo the same sentiment, "when you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover." That is, no matter how many things are in the way, your target will only have cover. You can argue that this, for some reason, only is meant to be applied to ranged attacks and for stealth it's completely different, but it is still unclear. The maintaining stealth with allies is not.

 

[CajunAzn]

Hello fuzzlewump,

The difference here is that I am trying to get clarification the rules, not just trying to create a house rule. I am trying to clear up an inconsistency in the rules that invalidates a stealth check for no reason.

The rules are not clear as day as to what the status of the ally that granted you cover right after the dice hit the table. A strict interpretation suggests the ally is simultaneously cover and not-cover at that moment. Therefore a clarification is needed by Wizards.

What I am saying is: to make sense of the stealth rules, in their current state, you can't apply the "no creatures as cover rule" to the initial condition that granted the stealth in the first place.

===

Determining lines of sight actually isn't that complex, anyways it's the DM thats doing it, so the players aren't bogged down at all.

They are more focused looking at the board and see if they can form a strategy to gain an advantage. If you actually play a real game like this, you will see it's not cumbersome, but does add an extra element of teamwork. Anyways, half the time, the player don't bother becuase they know they can take the monsters toe-to-toe. But sometimes this just isn't the case.

It gives your stealthy players the option of having more opportunities to apply their stealth skill. After all, just standing in flanking positions and wacking the enemy, doesn't achieve the same effect as sneaking up on your enemies from an RP perspective.

Seriously, doesn't anyone agree, that ally-based cover is great for adding strategy and flavour? There are so many applications and what's the cost? Player don't need to do it, but the option is there those groups that do.

 

[DracoSuave]

1) If you recall your first post in this thread, you said:



Isn't that the same as saying 'Allies can grant superior cover for a hide check, but that ally instantly ceases to count as cover to maintain that hide."?

Not quite.

'I suppose' indicates that I am accepting it -may- be possible. The tone of the sentance is to indicate that if it were possible, that there would be no point anyways, because of the reason you stated above. The subjunctive mode is used to indicate something that may or may not occur, and that is the verb form I used.

===

2) I don't think my reasoning is circular at all. The last step of my reasoning relies on a common sense adjustment, because the rules would lead to logical inconsistancy if read literally.

It is. What I am saying is that there'd be a logical inconsistancy if it were interpreted as you say, because of what is stated literally. You are stating that what is stated literally cannot be because you believe in what you say, and therefore because of that, it cannot be taken literally... which is a fallacious argument.

In other words, we both agree that reconciling your interpretation with the literal wording of the rules leads to an incongruency. However, where we differ is that you claim it means the rules cannot be taken literally, where as I claim that it is because your interpretation is wrong, and that the literal rules work fine.

Which has more weight?

Heres my reasoning, step-by-step:

1) "An ally can grants superior if 3+ lines of sight are covered (from any corner)"

2) "Superior cover is a sufficient condition for starting a stealth check"

-> Conclusion: you can use ally cover to start a stealth check. Even you agree with me up to this point.

I acknowledge that it could be true. I actually believe that is not the intent of the rules, but my belief in the intent is irrelevent.

3) If you succeed on a stealth check, it doesn't make common sense that Stealth granted goes away for no reason.

Agreed. There must be a reason.

4) Therefore, some reason must be given for the stealth check to be invalidated.

The stealth check isn't invalidated. The hidden status is canceled. There's a difference here.

-> This is where we split.

- You are saying according to the rules, the reason is an sudden change of status from the ally granting cover to not granting cover, as per a strict interpretation of "to remain hidden".

I am saying that by failing to satisfy the requirements for cover, that you cannot remain hidden. The rules say this as well.

- I say, this is not logical. Every change is condition, must be effected by some cause. The simplest reasonable cause is that "the conditions for the stealth check to be made" in the first place no longer exist (as defined in my previous post to Abdul).

But there IS a cause. The cause is that you fail to satisfy the conditions for remaining hidden. Which means that if there is an incongruity, one must be willing to examine the rules interpretation as the problem, rather than the literal rules.

Who's right? That depends on if you use letter of the law inpretation vs. heuristic reasoning.

At no point have I pre-supposed something in my argument.

Except, of course, that your interpretation is correct, and therefore the rules as written cannot be so.

When, in fact, logic states that the rules as written are correct, and therefore your interpretation cannot be so.

If A and B are a contradiction...
Then either A and NOT B, or NOT A and B.
Therefore, if A is true, B must not be true.

Therefore, your interpretation cannot work.

But I have used general reasoning to support my viewpoint over yours as to how to interpret the rules.

You haven't actually applied logic. See above.

 

[tiornys]

If this has been covered, forgive me, but I didn't see it on a quick scan of the discussion. Assuming that you can use allies to make a stealth check but then immediately lose stealth if the allies are the only source of cover you have, doesn't that imply you could use allies to achieve stealth with the assistance of some other cover (like a table), and then maintain stealth on the strength of that cover? If so, that would actually be extremely useful.

t~

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No amount of logic chopping is going to solve this debate. Its still the same debate, which is that one side claims stealth is only reevaluated on the basis of some sort of 'change' and the other side considers it a state which is only true when specific conditions are met.

The problem I see with the former argument is that there is STILL no entirely clear definition of when hidden status is reevaluated. It seems as if in this scenario allies can provide cover for stealth purposes for an indefinite period of time and that clearly isn't what the designers intended. You make it sound as if the party has to constantly do something to maintain it, but this is not true. As long as the PCs remain in the same situation the hidden character can remain hidden FOREVER and in many combats, probably most indoor situations, this means forever. Clearly this is not what the rules intended.

I don't intend to argue about this anymore. The position you take is not tenable IMHO. The wording of the rules can be stretched, spindled, and mutilated to a point where what you suggest isn't absolutely clearly against some very strained interpretation of RAW but I simply do not believe that it is the correct RAI interpretation and no amount of you telling me that your opinion of how stealth should work is better than mine will change either of our positions.

I think stealth should not allow you to hide in this situation unless some other type of cover is also present or some other ability exists which allows the character to maintain the gained hidden status IMMEDIATELY from the moment it is established exists.

I don't believe that allies provide the quality of cover needed to stay hidden. You say 'the police do this all the time', but that's silly. Sure a WALL of police standing shoulder to shoulder can hide things going on behind them from people that are at some distance. This is not the kind of situation the 4e combat rules envision. I wouldn't even call it a combat situation and there are other rules that the DM can use out of combat to deal with this kind of thing.

If the area where the hiding character is located is dimly lit, obscured, contains covering terrain, etc that the character can use to maintain the hidden status after using his allies for a hide check (which I am granting you RAW doesn't forbid) then he can stay hidden. He can't stay hidden behind his allies without such assistance. That IMHO is RAW and RAI.

You don't need to respond to this, I understand your arguments infinitely well at this point and I don't feel a need to continue the discussion. Its been an interesting look at how many oddball interpretations of things there are and I appreciate your polite tone and it was a nice discussion. I just think its a waste of time to continue going in circles. Again, post to WotC Q&A and see what the AAA rated rules lawyers say. They're always fun to talk to.