Stealth and hiding behind allies.

[eriktheguy]

There was a thread on this about a month ago. It inspired lots of hate.

 

[Nytmare]

So I found references to the rule about the "only against ranged attacks" thing, but I also found lots of other references claiming that is is applicable to stealth, and haven't been able to find a direct rules quote attached to any of them.

 

[Nikosandros]

but I also found lots of other references claiming that is is applicable to stealth,

The rule for the stealth skill explicitly state that you can't use a creature as cover to remain hidden.

 

[eamon]

Hi (OP here) - I know there was a thread about this a while ago. However that thread was about whether you can use allies to make a stealth check in the first place. Clearly, no consensus was reached on that point, and I don't want to reopen that suggestion.

Now, it's not clear to me whether you can use stealth at all if you have superior cover merely by virtue of allies, but that's not a question I'm trying to address here. I'm wondering what the consequences are of allowing such cover to initially grant stealth. Since you lose stealth unless you have some cover or concealment that's not granted by allies, even if you let allies grant stealth initially you'll need some other concealment or cover to sustain it.

That is, however, actually possibly: you could well have another source of cover or concealment that's just not enough to grant stealth by itself, but is enough to sustain it.

 

[Flipguarder]

Is there a power that grants invisibility while hidden. Because that would make this conversation much more applicable to real fake life.

 

[eamon]

Is there a power that grants invisibility while hidden. Because that would make this conversation much more applicable to real fake life.

How do you mean? Do you mean being effectively invisible? Being hidden always implies being invisible to those you're hidden from (that's common sense but also the rules). If you mean being hidden might be used as a prereq for some power permitting invisibility?

I'm not sure I understand why you'd need that: even unrelated cover (say, from a tree or whatnot) would suffice to sustain cover - if you somehow manage to get it using superior cover or total concealment in the first place.

 

[macrochelys]

How do you mean? Do you mean being effectively invisible? Being hidden always implies being invisible to those you're hidden from (that's common sense but also the rules). If you mean being hidden might be used as a prereq for some power permitting invisibility?

I assume it was a reference to Hide in Plain Sight (rogue 16 utility PHB1 p123), which is a minor action to:

Effect: You must already be hidden to use this power. You are invisible until you leave your current square. No other action that you perform makes you visible.

If you let someone hide due to cover provided by allies, then a rogue can always just park themselves in the most advantageous spot in the room rather than having to find some way to first get cover to hide.

 

[Dice4Hire]

This is one area of 4E that my group and I avoid like the plague.

 

[eamon]

If you let someone hide due to cover provided by allies, then a rogue can always just park themselves in the most advantageous spot in the room rather than having to find some way to first get cover to hide.

After the rogue rolls his stealth check but for Hide in Plain sight kicks in, the rogue would need some sort of cover or concealment to remain hidden - so you can't just park yourself in the most advantageous cover and do need to get some cover (or concealment) to hide - just not necessarily superior cover which isn't granted by allies or total concealment granted. Admittedly, that's not so hard.

Hide in Plain sight is a weird power. What's this "hidden" status they speak of? Creatures aren't hidden, they're hidden from specific other creatures.

 

[Jhaelen]

From the undisputed fact that allies provide cover. If something (or in this case someone) can provide cover, it's a logical extension that enough of that something (or positioned correctly) can provide superior cover.

I don't think that's a logical extension at all. It's a failed attempt at extrapolation.

I'll allow a square to provide superior cover if >= 1.8 Medium or larger allies occupy it (none of them being prone or insubstantial).