Clarification on Superior Cover

[CajunAzn]

the picture on page 280 shows lines drawn from someone's square to corners of other creatures squares. Notice, how if you draw lines from that corner to every corner of the troll in the back's square, that he "should" have superior cover.

How do you know that diagram isn't refering to cover granted for a ranged shot? In my opinion that diagram is there to visually illustrate how obstacles (wall) and enemies (goblin) block lines of sight, while allies don't. Look over that page again, and you'll see what I'm saying.

However, even without the stealth errata though, it seems clear that they meant creatures only to provide normal cover. Stealth errata just really seals the RAI, for me.

As I have been told many times before, what you think the rules meant to do, has nothing to do with what the rules as written.

As I have shown above, the rules clearly allow for you to use stealth behind an ally to become, then remain hidden (with the help a external concealment/cover).

It sounds very much like, now that I has found a suitable compromise that also follows the rules, you can't bring yourself to agree with simply because your opinions on RAI.

So please point out the rules-error in my steps to becoming hidden, or admit that this is a valid and legal interpretation.

 

[fuzzlewump]

(Darn, lost my post. Here's a brief version.)
EDIT: That ended up less brief than intended. Man, this must be what Celebrim feels like most of the time.

Rules as written, you have a case for your compromise, based on the "Determining Cover" section on page 280. Nothing explicitly says that allies can't provide superior cover if it's not a ranged attack, so you can roll with that. Rules as intended, I think you are wrong. If that's all you wanted go ahead and take your e-trophy, but otherwise, for you or whoever is interested, let's continue.

On the OP, I believe you were wrong on both RAW and RAI. It wasn't that I don't believe in RAI, it's that the wording and intentions are clear. In this case, as you know from reading my posts, there is a contradiction. A ranged attack is superior covered based on "Determining Cover" and regular covered based on everything else in the page. This contradictions leads me to the conclusion that a choice must be made. I describe in more detail in previous posts. I'll pose questions to recreate the choices:

1. For a ranged attack, can a creature provide superior cover? (You seem to be agreeing with me for a "No.")

2. Whatever you decide for question one, why would that be different for stealth versus ranged attack?

Imagine a case where a ranger is readying a ranged attack for a hafling; when he steps into a position behind another creature that would grant him superior cover as far as you are concerned, for stealth, the ranger will shoot his arrow at the hafling. The halfling, on his turn, walks behind the creature and uses stealth. By your interpretation and compromise, the halfling is allowed to do this, assuming concealment is also involved. So, when the Ranger fires his shot, with your interpretation, the halfling will be invisible to the ranger's eyes but his arrow will only suffer the penalty for cover and concealment.

I don't believe that the RAW even truly supports this, but it doesn't explicitly disallow it, because of the vagueness of the "Determining Cover" section in general, so your interpretation is valid and legal based on it. When taken in the context of the rest of the rules, and when you consider it intuitively that a ranged attack can't suffer superior cover, but your eye sight can, I feel that the RAI swings toward my direction, that allies can't provide superior cover no matter what for.

Before you bring up how you were intuitively arguing your OP, and we jumped on you, the thing was, you were wrong. I don't think anyone agreed that it was intuitive for you to be able to hide behind your friends in broad daylight. Your compromise certainly brought up an interesting point, that maybe darkness would make it possible. I don't agree because I never agreed that allies can grant superior cover, but that made the decision more interesting.

To be clear on what I'm saying about the contradiction, playing a by-the-book RAW game would mean that a ranged attack would have to have superior cover and cover at the same time if the situation called for it. That is to say, not every case can be simply read and applied, discretion must be taken. In your OP, you applied discretion in the wrong way, based on the general consensus of the board. In this case, I'm applying my discretion in a useful way, that actually is intuitive.

 

[CajunAzn]

Rules as written, you have a case for your compromise, based on the "Determining Cover" section on page 280. Nothing explicitly says that allies can't provide superior cover if it's not a ranged attack, so you can roll with that. Rules as intended, I think you are wrong. If that's all you wanted go ahead and take your e-trophy, but otherwise, for you or whoever is interested, let's continue.

So at least, WAR, we are agreed the rules allow for ally-based stealth, in the manner I have described.

The 'e-trophy' will simply be a clarified (by-the-rules) application of stealth at my table, which is the whole point I started this thread in the first place.

1. For a ranged attack, can a creature provide superior cover? (You seem to be agreeing with me for a "No.")

2. Whatever you decide for question one, why would that be different for stealth versus ranged attack?

Ok fuzzle, I really didn't want to get side-tracked into a discussion about this, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt about the ranged attack limitation. But if you insist on pressing this point (even though, WAR, it will have no effect on the rules for stealth) then let's examine the rule:

Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.

(In my own personal opinion, this passage is simply meant to show that melee attacks are the exception to the normal cover rules, whereas ranged attack do follow the normal rules.)

Nowhere does it specifically say allies can't grant superior cover for ranged attacks. Is "Superior Cover" also not a form of 'cover'?

But that is for another rules debate thread, because even if you are right, simply saying "since ranged rules work like this, that means you can't apply the normal cover rules for stealth" is not a valid WAR argument.

I know it's tough, but as I learned, on this forum, it's about the literal rules and only the literal rules.

===

So let's stick to the topic at hand and determine is my proposition:

Ally can grant superior cover for a stealth check, but you simultaneously need a non-ally source of concealment/cover to stay hidden.
​

legal by the rules?


Draco, samir, eriktheguy, abdul (if you're still following) I would really like your opinion on this.

 

[fuzzlewump]

(In my own personal opinion, this passage is simply meant to show that melee attacks are the exception to the normal cover rules, whereas ranged attack do follow the normal rules.)

Nowhere does it specifically say allies can't grant superior cover for ranged attacks. Is "Superior Cover" also not a form of 'cover'?

Good point, but I think reading it literally could have two different conclusions. "Cover," in this instance, could refer to -2 to attacks or it could refer to the general rule. But, I think you are correct. This would have been easier with different terminology, like, the rule being "Cover" and you can have "Light cover" or "heavy/superior cover" or something like that.

It still leaves the diagram as incorrect/vague, unless the bold "Cover" is also referring to the general rule.

I think your compromise, considering this, is solid. I think I will continue to roll with creatures only granting cover(as in, not superior), but just because I find it strange that a single creature in some cases can be as covering as an arrow slit or a window, from particular angles. 4E geometry just makes it all messed up, as well.

 

[CajunAzn]

Wow, I was bracing myself for a 'fuzzle-storm' response, lol

But hey, I am so glad we finally agree on something! As you said, if they simply put in more precise terminology it would make the rules alot clearer. The diagram included.

But I have a theory, that the editors of the book wanted something that was "newb-friendly" and "not so full of jargon." So they stripped out all this 'excess' terminology in an effort to make it appear simpler.

===

But I am also left wondering, why suddenly everyone is so silent. Is it because I am no longer 'against the rules' that people have lost interest in whether my interpretation is legal?

 

[fuzzlewump]

Wow, I was bracing myself for a 'fuzzle-storm' response, lol

Haha, yeah, I remember when I didn't post at all and now look at how far I've fallen, I'm some kind of long-winded fuzzle-stormer. EDIT: And... there I go again.

The oddest thing about cover, to me, is the angles. If you are in a straight horizontal or vertical line set up like YOU ALLY ENEMY, then the YOU have light cover from the ENEMY, and from the compromise YOU can't stealth. Do the same set up, but put them in a diagonal line, as you did in your OP, and suddenly it's superior cover, which is its own can of worms, as well as the opportunity to stealth. In the game world/narrative, however, nothing changed. This is especially true because of 1-1-1 movement, but even if it's 1-2-1 movement, the only difference is how far apart they would be, the amount of cover shouldn't change.

The second oddest thing is that it doesn't matter how many things are in the way. It can be YOU ALLY ALLY ALLY ALLY WALL WALL ALLY ENEMY, all in the straight line, and you would still only have cover. In fact, even if there is a 10x10 block of allies between you in the enemy, as long as that enemy can draw imaginary lines along the edges of their spaces, which would require YOU and ENEMY to be in a horizontal or vertical line from eachother, it's still only cover. Although, maybe at some point you rule that he loses line of effect, despite only suffering from cover. Or that some amount of blocked squares in a row means superior cover, and then total cover or whatever.

The only issue I see unresolved in all of this, is why they put in that you can't stealth behind allies if they're good enough cover to get superior cover from, which like the examples, would be like an arrow-slit. I guess it's because they're so mobile, that the enemy would catch a wayward arm or foot and notice you, as opposed to a stationary object where you can hide behind easily for awhile. I guess them saying that you can't use an ally as cover for stealth leads me to my personal ruling that an ally, especially just ONE ally, can't give superior cover.

Come to think of it, does an obstacle have to fill a square? Enemies certainly don't, to get superior cover as described. Can you get superior cover from being diagonally behind a thin tree that you could normally share a space with, and thus stealth behind it and only it? The tree isn't even a creature, so concealment wouldn't be required. Maybe just if its a 'sufficiently large' tree to save us all the headache?

What if turns out the tree is actually a living Ent or something. Then, when your DM tells you can't maintain stealth behind it, you'd know.

 

[DracoSuave]

Do you guys even know what cover IS?


Cover is a physical barrier between you and the target that can stop your mojo from affecting it, but not enough to completely protect them.

Okay?

Now... Superior Cover is... well... MOAR cover. It works by covering more of the target!

So... cover is something that blocks shots...

Enemies don't count as cover, because they don't block shots! That's easy!

Allies count as cover because they will intentionally act as a barrier to block shots and attacks, with their parrying weapons and shields and mystic wards and stuff. That's easy!

They, however, cannot act as superior cover because in order to do so, they have to actually get shot with stuff they can't block for themselves.

In otherwords, they are gonna get hit instead. Some have the ability or power to take hits for their friends, but to act as superior cover, you have to be more than just a guy with a shield looking to stop stuff.


What I find halarious, is the argument at all that allies, who are themselves not eager to be shot, could act as cover as effective as an immobile 10 by 10 brick wall. When your cover itself has a goal of surviving and not getting killed to death, relying on it to hold still for any reason is somewhat of a failure.


Now... had anyone in this argument made a case for concealment perhaps there'd be a different story.

 

[CajunAzn]

The oddest thing about cover, to me, is the angles. If you are in a straight horizontal or vertical line set up like YOU ALLY ENEMY, then the YOU have light cover from the ENEMY, and from the compromise YOU can't stealth.

As you say, there is a difference between horizontal/vertical and diagonals, in terms of superior cover from allies, but this carries over to any rules that depend on cover, not just stealth. And you could say this about D&D's unrealistic assumption that diagonals are equal to horizontals for the purposes of distance. That just isn't true, but I didn't write the rules.

As for your second scenario:

The second oddest thing is that it doesn't matter how many things are in the way. It can be YOU ALLY ALLY ALLY ALLY WALL WALL ALLY ENEMY, all in the straight line, and you would still only have cover.

Acutally the corners of walls (solid obstacles) are consider to block lines of site. So even just 1 wall grants total cover (ie. 4 lines of sight blocked).

However if you change all the walls to allies then you get an unrealistic situation, where a row of allies only counts for cover. Again, that comes from D&D's over simplification that running along edges of ally sqaures is somehow equivalent to open ground. Just like with D&Ds diagonal equality assumption, it works for short distances, but if you stretch it, you're bound to come up with a conundrum.

If it were me, I would house rule that 2 or more ally edges counts as that line of site being blocked for the enemy. But again, we are debating WAR, so I guess that's irrelavent for this discussion.

Overall, I think a few cases of iffy scenarios (what rule doesn't have them?), isn't enough to justify throwing the whole mechanic in the garbage. In real world gameplay, it gives the stealthy characters (especially ranged ones) more chances to actually use their stealth skill in combat. It certainly is much more interesting than just standing in a flanking position. And it encourages party cooperation to make it work, which IMHO is a good thing.

The only issue I see unresolved in all of this, is why they put in that you can't stealth behind allies if they're good enough cover to get superior cover from, which like the examples, would be like an arrow-slit. I guess it's because they're so mobile, that the enemy would catch a wayward arm or foot and notice you, as opposed to a stationary object where you can hide behind easily for awhile.

This has exactly been my point all along...allies aren't the same as static obstacles, so the cover (for the purposes of stealth) that you get from them is only for the initial moment.

In that moment, you must be stealthy enough hide yourself in a bush let's say (ie. the stealth check w/terrain concealment). But when you are hidden, it would be unrealistic to allow the character to just move from ally to ally as if they are obstacles. Which is where the "to remain hidden" rule comes in.

Doesn't this all make sense?

===

Anyways, that was largely in RAI discussion. But if no one has any furthur objections to the RAW of my proposition, I'm going to go ahead and edit the first post as the "conclusion" of this thread.

 

[DracoSuave]

The problem with this idea is that Stealth requires slow, careful, silent movements.

Allies in battle are not pieces of cover that are conducive to slow, careful, or silent movements if you're trying to be unseen behind them. Period.

Using them as cover for the purpose of not being seen is somewhat reaching. It's based on finding loopholes in a ruleset but it's not actually based on something that has versimiliatude. During times like that, a DM is MORE than justified to shut it down, with no more of an argument than 'Dude, he can clearly see you, cause you're not hiding behind anything. No, that avenger dancing back and forth doesn't exactly count as enough of a physical barrier that you can hide behind him in combat.


Now... if it were precombat, you COULD use an ally as a diversion while you go sneakeh sneakeh, but once you go into combat, the level of awareness of potential threats skyrockets where this is no longer an option. They're specifically watching for people to go sneaky sneaky, so you have to do better than hiding behind Speedy McDodgeystab.

 

[CajunAzn]

First let me say, it seems like now we debating in the realm of RAI. So I'm going to assume you believe my proposal is legal, just not what you think RAI, correct?

If thats the case, then let's carry on the RAI debate:

The problem with this idea is that Stealth requires slow, careful, silent movements.

Allies in battle are not pieces of cover that are conducive to slow, careful, or silent movements if you're trying to be unseen behind them. Period.

That's why, after considering your guys' well thought out responses, I added the factor terrain concealment/cover. Are you not prepared to accept, that even for a moment, you could be covered enough by an allow to slip into a bush/shadow?

Using them as cover for the purpose of not being seen is somewhat reaching. It's based on finding loopholes in a ruleset but it's not actually based on something that has versimiliatude. During times like that, a DM is MORE than justified to shut it down, with no more of an argument than 'Dude, he can clearly see you, cause you're not hiding behind anything.

As I said before, what you consider to be a loophole, other may consider to be by-design. I don't think that using your ally as momentary cover to slip into a spot of camoflauge/shadow is that far-fetched at all. But I am not going to tell you what you want to house-rule at your own table. But for my own table, I can see it adding to the depth and fun of the game (while remaining within the RAW).

===

And thank you for your input, Draco. I respect all of your comments because, in the very least, they have allowed a definite conclusion on the RAW, while giving wider perspective on the RAI.

Btw, thank you also for expanding my vocabulary on each of your posts