Samir
Explorer
Unbelievable or not, this is exactly what the rule says. Hidden has no minimum duration. You lose it as soon as you are no longer able to "remain hidden," and as per the book, you can't remain hidden by cover granted from allies.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.
If it is your opinion that this change will make the game more dynamic and tactical, then by all means, houserule it. Nobody is trying to stop you from doing that.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.
Interpreting RAW, by definition, requires letter of law type arguments. We are telling you what the book says, and you are simply telling us that you think the book is wrong.All of you just keep sticking to your "letter of law" type arguments without regard to the larger picture...
Again, this is solidly in the realm of "what it should be" rather than "what it is." Nobody here is arguing that your interpretation isn't fun. That's not something we can or want to disprove. You asked for a rules clarification of the RAW, and we gave it to you.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?
If you disagree with the RAW, house rule. You have every right to do this. If you truly feel your way is better, implement it.
If you want to argue the RAI, that's more up to interpretation than RAW, but don't mix up the two, and state clearly which you want to discuss.