How to rule Deft Strike regarding corners and new stealth?

[NeoNick]

Suppose we have a corridor shaped like an L. The L is 6 squares high and 4 squares wide. A monster (M) is standing at the top of the L and a PC rogue (P) comes sneaking from the right in the vertical part.

M
_
_
_
_
_ _ _ P

The PC makes a move and ends stealthing. The PC then moves two squares left (se figure 2 below).
1a) Is that square considered to be offering superior cover? (edit changed wording from total cover to superior cover)And by what rules please? I've seen something about how many corners the monster can see - but I'm not sure where to read the rules for this?

M
_
_
_
_
_ P _ _

1b) Can the PC make an attack with CA (and thereby getting Sneak Attack) from this set up?

1c) Is the monster getting cover in figure 2 when the PC attacks him? How much, -2 or -5?


Deft Strike
Now suppose the PC had Deft Strike and wanted to move from his position in figure 1 to his position in figure 2 and attack from that square.
2a) Can the PC use the at-will-attack? Would his hidden status be brought to his position in figure 2? And thus the PC get CA?


2b) What if the PC moved one step further with Deft Strike (se figure 3 below), obviously starting one step more to the left. Could he Sneak attack from that square (even though it's out in plain view for the monster)?

M
_
_
_
_
P _ _ _

 

[NeoNick]

I now think I've discovered the answer to at least question 2b). In the DDI-rules it says:
Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden. You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.

That blows CA from picture 3) I guess. But I'm still very unsure about picture 2?

 

[abyssaldeath]

Suppose we have a corridor shaped like an L. The L is 6 squares high and 4 squares wide. A mob (M) is standing at the top of the L and a PC rogue (P) comes sneaking from the right in the vertical part.

M
_
_
_
_
_ _ _ P

The PC makes a move and ends stealthing. The PC then moves two squares left (se figure 2 below).
1a) Is that square considered to be offering total cover? And by what rules please? I've seen something about how many corners the mob can see - but I'm not sure where to read the rules for this?

M
_
_
_
_
_ P _ _

1b) Can the PC make an attack with CA (and thereby getting Sneak Attack) from this set up?

1c) Is the mob getting cover in figure 2 when the PC attacks him? How much, 2 or 5?

1a) Since the PC hid while he had total cover and moved to the corner while at the very least has cover then the pc is still hidden.

From compendium
Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden. You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.

1b)Yes

1c)I'm not sure.

Deft Strike
Suppose the PC had Deft Strike and wanted to move from his position in figure 1 to his position in figure 2 and attack from that square.
2a) Can the PC use the at-will-attack Would his hidden status be brought to his position in figure 2? And thus the PC get CA?


2b) What if the PC moved one step further with Deft Strike (se picture no 3 below), obviously starting one step more to the left. Could he Sneak attack from that square (even though it's out in plain view for the mob)?

M
_
_
_
_
P _ _ _

2a)yes

2b)no (unless the mob was distracted in some way)

 

[Nifft]

Suppose we have a corridor shaped like an L. The L is 6 squares high and 4 squares wide. A mob (M)

... and this is where I stopped reading.

Is it really that hard to spell "monster"?

-- N

 

[s-dub]

Shouldn't the player get CA due to surprise?

Or is combat already happening?

 

[NeoNick]

... and this is where I stopped reading.

Is it really that hard to spell "monster"?

-- N

I changed it. Didn't know people took offense for writing mob. sorry

 

[NeoNick]

Shouldn't the player get CA due to surprise?

Or is combat already happening?

Hmm, you may have a point there. I didn't think about that. It may be easiest to think about it happening in combat.

 

[Nifft]

I changed it. Didn't know people took offense for writing mob. sorry

In 3.5e, "Mob" is a Swarm-like template for humanoids, so I find it annoyingly ambiguous. The video game connotation doesn't help its case, either.

- - -

According to the new rules as I think they read:

1) No. Total cover means M can't target any corners, and it clearly can target at least one.

1b) Yep.

1c) Nope, no cover.

2a) If P was hidden, and takes an action which breaks hiding (e.g. makes an attack), he retains the benefit of hiding for that action (e.g. combat advantage on the attack).

2b) Yes, but only if both the move and attack are part of the same action. Since a single power grants both movement and an attack, it's fine.

Cheers, -- N

 

[NeoNick]

Thanks Nifft.

I especially needed your clarification "Total cover means M can't target any corners..." That means he must start hiding before the corner seen in fig 2 (as Abyssaldeath also wrote, but I didn't quite get then).

Even if it's permitted I dislike the idea of somebody taking an attack action (like Deft Stike) without seeing it's target at the start (which is happening when the Deft rogue moves away from all line of sight, including HIS OWN TO THE FOE, and then comes charging back and in the blink of an eye can target the correct mob). I think that may be fine if the PC starts standing behind an arrowslit or a curtain with a tiny hole for him to see through, but I'm really not liking the targeting unsen monster business.

Well, well. We'll have to discuss this in our group to see how we can handle it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I especially needed your clarification "Total cover means M can't target any corners..." That means he must start hiding before the corner seen in fig 2 (as Abyssaldeath also wrote, but I didn't quite get then).

First up - we should be talking about superior cover, NOT total cover. The stealther needs superior cover or superior concealment to start stealth. Total cover will suffice - that DOES mean "no corners", but it should generally be easy to decide that someone completely cannot see someone.

Additionally, the DMG says "a significant terrain advantage gives superior cover" and "most of the time this is all you need to know"

Next up, since we're being retentive here (because we passed the 'judgement call' bit and into the wargames-style absolute ruling), I think it actually falls to the subject of the stealth attempt to prove whether the attempt is possible or not. So - whomever is controlling the foe would have to go through the process.

Next - superior cover is thorougly bizarre. It requires that, choosing any corner of a square you occupy, you can see only ONE corner of the target.

Which wierdly means that in your example, the rogue in figure 2 (I think - label your diagrams) is NOT in superior cover. In fact it's not possible for him to get superior cover while he's against the wall, against any foe - he'll either be totally out of sight, or in regular cover.

If, however, he stepped away from the wall, and east (assuming ^ is north), then he could get superior cover against some foes (who would have to be much further west than the foe in your example).

In short - superior cover is whacky for the purposes of stealth.

Even if it's permitted I dislike the idea of somebody taking an attack action (like Deft Stike) without seeing it's target at the start.

The fact that it's difficult is the reason it requires a power to do. If you can't do this with the power, then the fact that it's useable at range becomes almost worthless.

Besides - is there really a difference between doing this and, say, moving and then attacking - after all: the player didn't know the foes were there before he moved, right?

P.s. foe for the win - much shorter than monster