Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CajunAzn" data-source="post: 5073750" data-attributes="member: 87718">Hi Abdul, thanks for your input, but I don't really think you've given any example from the rules that contradicts my interpretation of superior cover from allies or puts a definite yes on the "you lose cover immediately" issue.  As I said, the last arguments were heuristic. I was simply stating that on a general level, if you give the designers any credit (this was an errata after all), you wouldn't insist on defining "remains" as "instantly after, even though positions/lines of sights are unchanged". It contradicts basic logic.  While I don't want to sidetrack the discussion into other powers too much. I'll just offer this:  For Fleeting Ghost it says "you can move and make a shealth check". Nowhere does it say that you now don't need superior cover/total concealment. Even if you were to stretch it and say "well it implies you don't need cover/concealment" I would ask you again, "is this a plausible and fair" interpretation. Of course the answer is no. However in my case, arguing that cover doesn't instantly vanish (without positions/lines of sight changing) is the plausible and fair conclusion.  Again, I agree with you: You must test to see at all times if the conditions that provided you stealth still remain. If the ally hasn't moved and the enemy hasn't moved, then the conditions that provided you stealth do remain and your stealth check stiil is valid. It is a perfectly natural and logical conclusion. But again, this is by no means an easy situation to set up - require a lot of tactics and party cooperation.  I agree with you, as I mentioned in my post about Shade Form, coupling this tactic with certain feats, makes this tactic much more flexible. These feats aren't made redundant the stealth mechanic, they are made more powerful and versatile (as feats should).  Another example that comes to mind is the Warlock's Shadow Walk which grants concealment until the end of the next turn. In fact, for the Warlock we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because he would constantly have concealment regardless of positions/lines of sight.  In the opening post I already quoted the passage that shows that allies can grant superior cover:  There is no specific rule that says this method for determining cover doesn't apply to Stealth checks. Therefore, this general rule applies.  As I said before, that is exactly why the developers made it impossible for you to just stand there and remain hidden. Allies aren't the same as obstacles, so you can't remain hidden passivey - you must continually move, set up your position, and stealth. I really appreciate all your guys' input. But even after all this discussion, there is no concrete evidence as to why the narrow (and nonsensical) interpretation that "your cover instantly vanishes", is inherently better than my "stealth check applies as long as position hasn't changed" interpretation. Therefore, we must rely on what interpretation is most intuitive and fair. And I don't think anyone would say that instantly denying a player (and his party) the stealth they worked so hard for is either intuitive or fair.  Even on the heuristic level, my interpreation wins out. Ally-based stealthing adds an interesting dynamic to the game - it provides more fun to stealthy characters and encourages party cooperation/tactics. Strikers, defender, controlllers, and leaders all play a crucial part in making this tactic work. Your interpretation, on the other hand, doesn't add anything to the game and infact makes it very non-intuitive.</blockquote>

Verification