What the heck does Hidden mean!!

[Mistwell]

I think that's wrong. Cover is provided by terrain. Creatures only provided cover against ranged attacks. Perception is not a ranged attack.

It doesn't read as just ranged attacks for me, when read in context.

The example you are quoting involves someone being between two people. By definition, it involves ranged (how else would someone be between you). Hence, the example is saying ranged because that is the primary use of the rule.

But if you look further down in the cover rule (under "Determining Cover"), it's quite clear it's not about range.

To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover.

The rule consistently uses "obstacle or enemy" to refer to what grants cover, not "obstacle or ranged enemy". The way I read it, enemies grant cover to allies of those enemies. It's not about range, it's just that range is when it comes up (by definition).

 

[Xorn]

Well, at least my thread on this has died.

Stealth as written says you AVOID notice. With all the dictionaries cracking open around here, I feel justified in pointing out that it doesn't REMOVE notice. So once you have been spotted, you have to move to a place where you can't be seen before trying to stealth again. (Superior Cover or Total Concealment, which state you can not be seen in the Stealth rules.)

In order to continue to AVOID notice then, you have to make stealth rolls, and stay in cover/concealment. I agree that allies do not provide actual cover for the purposes of Stealth. Actively using Perception in combat is a minor action (Targeting What You Can't See).

If you want to hide, then you're technically "moving stealthily" so they don't see you. If they are already looking at you, be as stealthy as you like, you're already noticed, so you only avoid notice, not erase it.

This is not the Rules As Intended according to CSRs spoken with.

However, Keep of the Shadowfell, written by Mike Mearls and Bruce Cordell, specifically mentions that the goblin have to get out of sight before using stealth to attack from hiding. I interpret that to mean I'm right, you have to have superior cover/total concealment in order to use stealth AFTER you have been noticed.

Now, if you use the Rules As Intended (according to CSRs who contradicted most of what they said) you have some really quirky side effects:

- A first level rogue will in cover/concealment will be able to sneak attack the average kobold 95% of the time from range, making it easier to sneak attack from range than in melee.

- That same rogue will only be able to sneak attack a riding horse 75% of the time, because apparently the horse is has an intricate understanding of crossbows and realizes it's in danger.

- In the Monster Manual, high stealth creatures like the halfling slinger will specifically mention in their tactics to make a stealth check before combat to hide and attack with combat advantage. But then goes on to say that after they are SPOTTED, they stick to cover and attack from range. Not, "they stick to cover and make a stealth check for combat advantage, even though we had to spell out for you to stealth before combat", just... stick to cover. Ranged attacks.

I don't know what the CSRs were talking about, but Stealth in my campaign AVOIDS notice. You want to gain combat advantage after you have been noticed in combat? Bluff check, or Superior Cover/Total Concealment. Now the target has lost sight of you and you have slipped their notice. Resume avoiding.

I'm not posting again, just wanted to summarize everything I said in my 17 page thread.

 

[frankthedm]

It doesn't read as just ranged attacks for me, when read in context.

The example you are quoting involves someone being between two people. By definition, it involves ranged (how else would someone be between you). Hence, the example is saying ranged because that is the primary use of the rule.

But if you look further down in the cover rule (under "Determining Cover"), it's quite clear it's not about range.



The rule consistently uses "obstacle or enemy" to refer to what grants cover, not "obstacle or ranged enemy". The way I read it, enemies grant cover to allies of those enemies. It's not about range, it's just that range is when it comes up (by definition).

The enemy still only grants that cover against ranged attacks.

 

[James McMurray]

If the cover is not large enough to block line of sight, it can't be hidden behind

Is this stated somewhere in the rules or is this your house ruling?

You cannot hide from someone that has an unblocked line of sight to you (phb p. ). If that goblin steps up on the 2' wall, you can't hide. If the wall can't hide you, you can't hide behind it.

My understanding with the RAW was that any cover was condition for a stealth check and if you passed a stealth check your were "hidden".

This is true, but as soon as they have an unblocked line of sight, you can no longer hide. Hiding is kinda like invisibility that can be broken if they look at you.

Again in the rules or your house rules? I can't find anywhere where it says if you pass a stealth check you have total concealment.

The word hidden means unseen. If you're unseen, you qualify for total concealment because they "can’t see the target." (phb p. 281)

See again I'm confused since stealth isn't a condition it isn't something you have. All you've done is passed a stealth check and supposedly made your target unaware of you - even if you are in sight.

Full lungs aren't a condition, but characters have them. Memories aren't a condition, but characters have them (as evidenced by Knowledge skills if nothing else). It doesn't have to be listed as a condition to have an affect on the game.

Ah now see this is the crux of the problem. With the RAW this does not appear to be true especially if you rule that hidden is a condition of passing a stealth check. All you need to pass a stealth check is cover - the rules consider unblocked line of sight to be lacking cover or concealment. So even partial cover (which leaves you somewhat exposed to view) would allows you to be considered "Hidden" - and this in a nutshell is where I think the term "Hidden" needs some offical definition instead of a being vague term the writers of the rules seem to jusyt toss around willy-nilly.

It's not willy-nilly. It's a dictionary.

If the goblin steps up on your wall, you do not have an unbroken line of sight. If he can see you, you are not hidden. For concealment the adjacent square must count as heavily obscured. To grant cover it must count as a low wall. If the GM rules that 2' is a low enough wall to hige a 6' 4" dragonborn, that's cool. I personally wouldn't.

So technically with the RAW you can be hidden, have the monster see you, be aware of you and still get combat advantage against it.

If he sees you, either you're not hidden (which means "unseen") or you were hidden and he madehis perception check, and therefor you aren't hidden.

At least that's how I intrepret the intentions behind hidden.

you think they intended for you to be able to hide behind something that can't hide you, get seen, and still be hidden?

What if a goblin sees you dunk behind a small statue that gives you partial cover? Can you hide from it? The way I see it, according to the RAW you can.

You can, but he's gonna need to be really dumb to not find you pretty quickly.

And he'll probably ask why you're doing all this dunking, when you should be ducking. (unless it's a splash fight at the water park )

 

[Forrester]

The enemy still only grants that cover against ranged attacks.

Oh, lord, this again. Not going to rehash things, but my vote is with the allies-can-provide-cover rules. IF the bad guy were making a ranged attack against the rogue, the rogue would have cover -- how you can interpret this as the rogue doesn't have sufficient cover to use stealth for a ranged attack against the bad guy is really beyond me.

And it's not broken. It's necessary in order to allow ranged rogues to be able to sneak-attack as often as the melee rogues can sneak attack (i.e., most of the time).

 

[Mistwell]

The enemy still only grants that cover against ranged attacks.

If you want to use stealth from cover, you check the cover rules to determine if you have cover.

The rule to determine if you have cover is under the section called "Determining Cover", and it says "To determine if a target has cover...trace imaginary lines...if...lines are blocked by an...enemy, the target has cover."

The "Determining Cover" rule says nothing about ranged attacks, and the "Determining Cover" rule is more relevant to the subject of "Does my ally grant me cover for this non-attack thing I am trying to do" question than an attack section.

 

[the_redbeard]

This whole hidden thing is causing all the trouble, as it appears to imply there's some kind of "stealth state".

Page 188:
Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to
perform stealthily

The stealth ACTION is part of another action during which you are trying to keep hidden.

Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from
view. If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer
hidden.

If you succeed, you are hidden. Yes, this is a state of being.

What are the in-game effects of being hidden, this strange mystical state of being that is being debated?

Also on page 188:
Superior Cover or Total Concealment: If you have
superior cover or total concealment, a creature can’t
see you and can’t be sure of your exact location.

Using the reflexive and associative properties and a dictionary, since

Total Concealment = can't see you
And
can't see you = hidden = successfully stealthing
Then
Successfully stealthing = Total Concealment.

What is Total Concealment?

Superior Cover or Total Concealment: If you have
superior cover or total concealment, a creature can’t
see you and can’t be sure of your exact location. If its
Perception check beats your Stealth check, though,
it knows you are present, knows the direction to
your location, and has a vague idea of the distance
between the two of you. If its Perception check
beats your Stealth check by 10 or more, the creature
can pinpoint your location until the end of your next
turn, even if you move.

With the (I hope) obvious exception that if the opponent's perception merely beats your stealth roll, you lose Total Concealment and only have the concealment or cover that enabled you to stealth in the first place. If you were invisible, or in total darkness against a foe without darkvision, the opponent is fully bound by the conditions in Total Concealment above.

Oh, lord, this again. Not going to rehash things, but my vote is with the allies-can-provide-cover rules. IF the bad guy were making a ranged attack against the rogue, the rogue would have cover -- how you can interpret this as the rogue doesn't have sufficient cover to use stealth for a ranged attack against the bad guy is really beyond me.

And it's not broken. It's necessary in order to allow ranged rogues to be able to sneak-attack as often as the melee rogues can sneak attack (i.e., most of the time).

Thank you.

 

[frankthedm]

The "Determining Cover" rule says nothing about ranged attacks, and the "Determining Cover" rule is more relevant to the subject of "Does my ally grant me cover for this non-attack thing I am trying to do" question than an attack section.

"Determining Cover" includes both obstacles and creatures because the mechanics of tracing the lines work the same. "Cover" itself is defined just a few bullet points above that as "Terrain".

 

[Mistwell]

"Determining Cover" includes both obstacles and creatures because the mechanics of tracing the lines work the same. "Cover" itself is defined just a few bullet points above that as "Terrain".

Frank, we are at an impasse. I think allies grant cover for stealth checks, and I have rules support for it. You think allies do not grant cover for stealth checks, and you have rules support for it. Reasonable minds differ on this topic, I don't see any way to determine which is right without a clarification from WOTC. I'm not sure what else can be said about it that hasn't been already said.

 

[Contents May Vary]

Frank, we are at an impasse. I think allies grant cover for stealth checks, and I have rules support for it. You think allies do not grant cover for stealth checks, and you have rules support for it. Reasonable minds differ on this topic, I don't see any way to determine which is right without a clarification from WOTC. I'm not sure what else can be said about it that hasn't been already said.

Some further discussion on WotC forums (where a CSR said allies DO provide cover - not that I'm saying they are right!):

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1053612

It is so odd that people ether completely get stealth or can’t fathom it. For this one time (and only this time) those that don’t ‘get’ stealth might want to act out what you are trying to do with real people SCA style so you can get a real idea of what hidden actually means.

The problem isn't really the people who don't "get" it. It's the people who claim they "get" it, but fail to agree with each other.

This is in fact a failure on their part to understand that, in reality, they don't "get it" at all!