Clarification on Superior Cover

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.
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.

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.
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.

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

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?
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.

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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


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.
Agreed



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?

Indeed, all rules issues boil down to 'how you interpret the rules'. That doesn't mean that all interpretations are equal. Some interpretations are logically inconsistent or somehow else incorrect. I don't believe that your interpretation of the rules here is correct from an objective, computer sort of way. I think a computer (if we somehow had software that read these rules and it didn't explode because of all the contradictions, inconciseness and ambiguity) would say that players can stealth behind allies, but then immediately become visible again.
I don't think that my interpretation of the rules is better than yours. The better interpretation is the one that is the most fun at the table. I think you make a good case for your interpretation of the rules being more fun than ours, and that you should use it at your table. I would do the same.
The people in this thread are simply telling you what we think would happen if the rules are interpreted literally.
The best interpretation of these rules might come from Wizards if they answered it in response to a custserv request. Keep in mind that some of their responses are wrong occasionally, and that sometimes they make rulings that contradict the actual rules simply for the sake of making sense.
I think the rules were originally intended to prevent players from using allies to make a stealth check in the first place.
 

Hi Abdul, first I want to thank you for adding your well thought out opinions to the discussion.

I realize you've kind of given you last word on this issue, but I do feel it is important to clarify that the rules (as I see them) are well defined as to when you lose your hide status.

First, whenever 2 lines of sight from the enemy become unblocked (by your ally moving or your enemy moving) this will cause you to lose your hide status. An area effect might also cause you to shift. You name it...many sitatuations could happen, but the important thing is, you become visible when you stop getting superior cover from the ally to the enemy (ie. condition on which you made the stealth check). Think of this rule as simulating that you made stealth check to see if you're dextrous enough to hide at a particular veiwpoint. If the viewpoint changes, then naturally you lose your stealth.

If you are able to keep your cover status until your next turn, the developers have specifically put in the clause "You can't use another creature to remain hidden" so that you cannot simply stand behind a friend for next action and remain invisible. Think of this rule as simulating that using your ally as cover is much more difficult than a static obstacle. You've got be constantly moving and adjusting to make it work.

This means the first action on your turn, by definition, will take you out of stealth mode, if you are purely relying on allies as cover. However, you may use any move action after that to try to find a spot with superior cover and attempt a hide check again. And the cycle repeats...

Hope that clears things up and sorry to see you go.
 
Last edited:

Hi Tiornys, I want to address you question quickly...

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~

Yes, you are correct. At the moment you succeed the hide check (from superior cover granted by allies), if you have some concealment, or cover from an obstacle - then there is no debate - you are still hidden.

This means that, at the very least, group based stealth tactics can still be applied when you can find square(s) with concealment/cover and cleverly use positioning of your allies to attempt a hide check. (And as a side note, I'm glad you see the usefulness...it certainly makes for a funner experience doesn't it? But remember, monster can use this too, so watch out.)

My concern is that even if you don't have cover/concealment externally, that fact your succeed your hide check should mean something. And you stealth shouldn't be arbrarily taken away...
 
Last edited:

Draco, samir:

At some point you have to admit that our opinion on the RAI, do affect how to interpret the RAW.

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.

We need to clarify exactly what happens at that initial point the stealth check succeeds. Why? Because it will affect how the game is played out:
If you consider that exact moment to count as the time to start applying the "remains hidden" rule, then it's logical to force the character to become unstealthed instantaneously.

However, if you count that moment to be part of the stealth check where the "remains rule" doesn't apply, then it's logical to keep the result of that stealth check until the gameworld changes in a meaningful manner.
This has a huge impact on the game, and in this case, our RAI's affect which path we choose:

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.

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

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.
 
Last edited:

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

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.

You're planning to alter the written rule. House rule.
 

so if I read this correct the OP is saying a character can use an ally to remain hidden as long as the conditions the stealth check were made do not change?

where is this in the rules?

remain hidden as long as the conditions the stealth check were made do not change
I have yet to find where this rule is. Is this in the update errata?
 

Hey erik, thanks for your two-cents, they really give a wider perspective on the issue.

I don't think that my interpretation of the rules is better than yours. The better interpretation is the one that is the most fun at the table.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anyone was a bigot or anything like that. I simply meant to say we need to look at the big wider picture when evaluating what exactly a particular rule means.

I think you make a good case for your interpretation of the rules being more fun than ours, and that you should use it at your table. I would do the same.

I'm honored that you consider my interpretation worthy of being used at your table. Thanks.
 

Hey wrathamon,

To clarify. I'm saying given the apparent contradiction at the moment that stealth check succeeds, the only reasonable way to make the stealth check meaningful (and skill checks should always be meaningful, right?), is to take away stealth only if the lines of sight become unblocked.
 

so if I read this correct the OP is saying a character can use an ally to remain hidden as long as the conditions the stealth check were made do not change?

where is this in the rules?

remain hidden as long as the conditions the stealth check were made do not change
I have yet to find where this rule is. Is this in the update errata?
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...

spend a move action + roll a hide check vs passive perception doesn,´t sound too broken when you compare it to hunters quarry...

So as far as i am concerned as long as the rogue doesn´t do more damage than a ranger or barbarian, i would say its ok.

the real question is:

what is faster: you taking the action to shoot or not remaining hidden... at the moment I would say: simultaneous and then the clause: you receive the effects of beeing hidden until the action is resolved...

actually i am right now more concerned about rangers having combat advantage all the time on twin strike... ;) but then again: they only have a +2 proficency bonus...

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

Bluff vs insight is however a bit underpowered compared to stealth then... but you don´t need a partner then...
 

Remove ads

Top