Yes, but on the other hand, since the heavy smoke probably blocks Line of Sight, P can't see M.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How to rule Deft Strike regarding corners and new stealth?
- Thread starter NeoNick
- Start date
NeoNick
First Post
First I should correct my "Total Cover" to "Superior Cover". It seems the correct wording, thanks Saeviomage. 
Attacking non seen foes
Ragarding the question of "Is it possible to attack an opponent you cannot see from your starting square" I've heard some thoughts from a friend playing miniature-games (as well as D&D).
In the miniature-games he plays, it semms to be common that you can not attack somebody that you cannot see from your starting square.
I do not know what ambitions 4ed D&D has to be played as a miniature game (as the 3.5 "Miniatures Handbook" was to handle both skirmishes and mass battles) - but perhaps the rules should be streamlined to handle both roleplaying fights on a grid as well as minature skirmishes? If that's the case then Deft Strike (and charge) might take a hit in the cases when the PC cannot see the foe at his starting square?
Easy and quick game-play
I'm glad the stealth-rules were streamlined (even if both my rogue and my ranger will suffer from it) but as I'm also a DM I want to avoid any too complicated implications of the new rules. If it's possible I'd like to avoid counting corners or avoid any strange discussions where "line of sight" might not be the same as "line of effect" regarding rogues. The "attacking a non visible foe" (except the player can see the foe on the battle map) is IMHO in the same line of questions regarding Deft Strike & the new stealth.
We will discuss this on Monday when we play next time.
Thanks for your input all!
Attacking non seen foes
Ragarding the question of "Is it possible to attack an opponent you cannot see from your starting square" I've heard some thoughts from a friend playing miniature-games (as well as D&D).
In the miniature-games he plays, it semms to be common that you can not attack somebody that you cannot see from your starting square.
I do not know what ambitions 4ed D&D has to be played as a miniature game (as the 3.5 "Miniatures Handbook" was to handle both skirmishes and mass battles) - but perhaps the rules should be streamlined to handle both roleplaying fights on a grid as well as minature skirmishes? If that's the case then Deft Strike (and charge) might take a hit in the cases when the PC cannot see the foe at his starting square?
Easy and quick game-play
I'm glad the stealth-rules were streamlined (even if both my rogue and my ranger will suffer from it) but as I'm also a DM I want to avoid any too complicated implications of the new rules.
If it's possible I'd like to avoid counting corners or avoid any strange discussions where "line of sight" might not be the same as "line of effect" regarding rogues. The "attacking a non visible foe" (except the player can see the foe on the battle map) is IMHO in the same line of questions regarding Deft Strike & the new stealth.We will discuss this on Monday when we play next time.
Thanks for your input all!
Last edited:
DracoSuave
First Post
First off, it's assumed that a party of adventurers aren't a bunch of two-bit mickeymouse amateurs so terrible at going in and bringing war to the enemy that they fail to communicate. Even if the rogue is hidden away, his buddy is able to say 'There's a guy over here' in one way or another. Given that the Rogue is not likely to be absolutely retarded, he'll be able to deduce there's an enemy somewhere.
Not to mention, he's -specifically trained- in the art of moving out and shooting or stabbing something. How do we know this? He -has the power to move out and shoot or stab something.- Just like we know a Wizard with Scorching Burst has the ability to summon bursts of flame. It's on the damn character sheet.
So, the rogue uses his natural training, pops out from hiding, and then in the same action, starts the murder. It happens in movies all the time.... suddenly the hero comes out from his hiding place and starts shooting guys with supercool accuracy. Is it how it happens irl? Irrelevant, this is a heroic fantasy game, not a real life combat simulator, and it doesn't even -pretend- to be a simulation of real-world martial warfare. It -does- try to simulate the cool moves and action you see in fantasy action movies, and that's the yardstick that must be used.
So, the rogue pops out.... and he's got the drop on the guy, because the rogue is just that quick and sneaky. Someone using a move action and then an attack is just a bit too slow, but the rogue can do both, so he gets the drop. Well, needless to say, after that, the rogue's cover is blown... but the rogue can then use a move action to head right back to his cover, Stealthing again.
Yes, this is how it is intended to work.
Not to mention, he's -specifically trained- in the art of moving out and shooting or stabbing something. How do we know this? He -has the power to move out and shoot or stab something.- Just like we know a Wizard with Scorching Burst has the ability to summon bursts of flame. It's on the damn character sheet.
So, the rogue uses his natural training, pops out from hiding, and then in the same action, starts the murder. It happens in movies all the time.... suddenly the hero comes out from his hiding place and starts shooting guys with supercool accuracy. Is it how it happens irl? Irrelevant, this is a heroic fantasy game, not a real life combat simulator, and it doesn't even -pretend- to be a simulation of real-world martial warfare. It -does- try to simulate the cool moves and action you see in fantasy action movies, and that's the yardstick that must be used.
So, the rogue pops out.... and he's got the drop on the guy, because the rogue is just that quick and sneaky. Someone using a move action and then an attack is just a bit too slow, but the rogue can do both, so he gets the drop. Well, needless to say, after that, the rogue's cover is blown... but the rogue can then use a move action to head right back to his cover, Stealthing again.
Yes, this is how it is intended to work.
NeoNick
First Post
As we've just seen a huge change to the stealth rules I wouldn't dare to use such words. Some thoughts/intentions from designers on how to keep stelathed strikers away from getting focused fire (except for one or two held up by the tank) have just been blown to pieces.
Perhaps you have some special insights that Wizard of the Coast always wanted to come to this usage of Deft Strike - but for some unknown reason, botched it in the original rules in PH and therefore had to change the stealth-rules to come to back to their intentions?
"Working as intended" can only be used IMHO when the designers had a clear defined objective how something was to be. In this case I think the rules have been changed by popular demand (or shall I say popular complain
) and that the designers now are trying to get both a) promote fast gameplay (without a gazzilion of perception rolls) and b) balanced damage output between classes. I think they do not yet have a firm grip on how stealth should work and they are awaiting "the verdict" from the message boards...
Last edited:
DracoSuave
First Post
I meant that it is intended to use stealth as often as feasible. It's as much a part of combat as flanking was a part of 3.5 (and by extension 4), and they've said as much repeatedly
NeoNick
First Post
Ah, sorry for perhaps jumping too hard on your statement DracoSuave. /bow/
I've heard "working as intended" too often as a way of /in my eyes/ dismissing sensible discussions. Only the original designers can use those words IMHO and ONLY if they had a firm and clear picture of what they wanted in the first place.
I've heard "working as intended" too often as a way of /in my eyes/ dismissing sensible discussions. Only the original designers can use those words IMHO and ONLY if they had a firm and clear picture of what they wanted in the first place.
DracoSuave
First Post
Ah, sorry for perhaps jumping too hard on your statement DracoSuave. /bow/
I've heard "working as intended" too often as a way of /in my eyes/ dismissing sensible discussions. Only the original designers can use those words IMHO and ONLY if they had a firm and clear picture of what they wanted in the first place.
Zarrite!
The new stealth just clarifies their intent, while still being fairly free and open when combats are designed to the DMG guidelines. There -should- be spots of excellent cover/concealment in battles from time to time.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
It's easy to see how asymmetric Cover (regular variety) works: just put a dude right around a corner, and put the other dude several squares away from the corner. The dude at the corner has at least one of his "edges" covered by the corner's wall. The other dude does not benefit from the corner at all.
The way I see it, Superior Cover is only asymmetric if the beneficiary has some kind of special terrain feature, like an arrow slit, working in his favor.
Cheers, -- N
The way I see it, Superior Cover is only asymmetric if the beneficiary has some kind of special terrain feature, like an arrow slit, working in his favor.
Cheers, -- N
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Ah, I think I made the same mistake in reverse - it's Total Concealment...
That makes perfect sense to me, and basically resolves half of my issues with the system.
The other half is what you stated about concealment - there isn't a non-optional rule for upgrading it.
I believe there is an optional rule somewhere though - to the tune that 5 or more squares of concealment between you and your target counts as total concealment: but I can't remember where it comes from. Sage advice? The DMG? An adventure? Can anyone remember?
WampusCat43
Explorer
I've got player using his Deft Strike in this manner quite a bit. I have no problem with it; my only concern is whether he would get Sneak Attack after the first round if he continued doing it. I've just been handling it like this:
If he makes a stealth check on the previous turn, the attack has CA.
He uses Deft Strike to pop out, attacks, then uses his move action to duck back around the corner, making another Stealth roll.
If he makes it (vs. an active Perception check), he can repeat the process.
P*ss on checking square corners to square corners.
Now, the foe is aware somebody just shanked him, of course, so it's free to go off searching for the offender, or ready an action to zot him right back with a ranged attack, but it's in a world of hurt if it's locked down by a fighter. Again, I think it's realistic, and it's fun for the player (and, it can work both ways).
If he makes a stealth check on the previous turn, the attack has CA.
He uses Deft Strike to pop out, attacks, then uses his move action to duck back around the corner, making another Stealth roll.
If he makes it (vs. an active Perception check), he can repeat the process.
P*ss on checking square corners to square corners.
Now, the foe is aware somebody just shanked him, of course, so it's free to go off searching for the offender, or ready an action to zot him right back with a ranged attack, but it's in a world of hurt if it's locked down by a fighter. Again, I think it's realistic, and it's fun for the player (and, it can work both ways).
