How to rule Deft Strike regarding corners and new stealth?

[MarkB]

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 _ _ _

According to a strict reading of the current stealth rules, yes, so long as he's already made the stealth check to become Hidden on a previous action.

Deft Strike is a single action comprising movement and attack, and according to the Compendium rules, an action that causes you to lose your hidden status only reveals you once that action is resolved. Since the attack is part of the action that revealed you, you are still hidden when you attack.

 

[bobo]

ignore

 

[MarkB]

Kinda hard to show this, but in this example, the player and mob both have superior cover from each other (and the player is still adjacent to the wall). That superior cover that the foe receives probably makes it worth it for the rogue to move though. Overall, it's very uncommon to get superior cover from walls like this.

The line from the player's sw corner to the foe's sw corner touches the corner of the wall (which does not block). All other lines are blocked.

M
_
_ _ P

However, in this example, neither M nor P have line of sight to each other, since the LoS rules are stricter about edges and corners blocking. So they'd be hard-pressed to make any effective ranged attack against each other in this instance.

 

[wighair]

ignore me too!

 

[Oldtimer]

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.

You are right about only needing superior cover, but there is no such thing as superior concealment. Concealment comes from the terrain or feature of the square you're in, not of intervening squares (PHB, page 281).

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.

Correct if you use the rule on page 280, but incorrect if you use the rule on page 273. Using the Line of Sight rules, the monster cannot trace a line of sight to the rogue's upper left corner. Since that corner is touching the wall, any imaginary line drawn from the north-west (assuming ^ being north) will also touch the obstacle and be blocked.

So, going by Line of Sight rules (PHB, page 273) the rouge would have superior cover in figure 2 and the monster would have regular cover from the rogue's attack. That sort of makes sense to me.

 

[RigaMortus2]

... and this is where I stopped reading.

Is it really that hard to spell "monster"?

-- N

Mob is an old programming acronym for Mobile Object Block. Sure, it was invented by programmers, then later adopted as an MMORPG term. But I think we all know the meaning (at least its clear that you did know what was meant by it). Why the offense to it? Just because it is often related to video games?

Do you also "stop reading" when people abbreviate other words, like TS (Twin Strike), StT (Split the Tree), TWFl (Two Weapon Flurry), RoS (Rain of Steel), NPC, PC, DM, etc.?

 

[Nifft]

Mob is an old programming acronym for Mobile Object Block. Sure, it was invented by programmers, then later adopted as an MMORPG term. But I think we all know the meaning (at least its clear that you did know what was meant by it). Why the offense to it? Just because it is often related to video games?

It's ambiguous (see my earlier post); and it's unnecessary.

When jargon serves a purpose, it's fine, but when it can actively obfuscate a discussion ("the angry mob overran the adventurers!" -- "wtf which mob u mean?") then it's a bad word, and needs to be removed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Drakona]

I'm still trying to get my head around the rules for line of effect vs. cover vs. superior cover.

Line of effect is on page 273, and reads thusly:

If every imaginary line you trace to the target passes through or touches a solid obstacle, you don't have line of effect to the target.

Which I think means that

(a) You're able to see some part of the target square from some piece of your square.

(b) Corners and edges block line of effect.

So if you're on opposite sides of a five foot pillar, for example, you don't have line of effect.

Cover, on the other hand, is on page 280, and uses different rules. The relevant bit is at the bottom of the page:

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 enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn't blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle's or enemy's square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover.

That's a little convoluted, but the key things to realize are . . .

(a) If the attacker can see one corner, it's superior cover; if he can see two or three, it's normal cover.

(b) Cover is asymmetric. The attacker picks a corner to "see" from and cover is determined from there.

(c) Lines and corners don't block the effect.

This means that it's very hard to get superior cover while retaining line of sight. The easiest way to get superior cover is to have one corner of your square barely visible around an obstacle--but then you fail the line of sight rules. It's actually pretty hard to show one corner without showing two.

It also means that asymmetric cover is possible, though it's difficult. I've attached a picture of what I think is the smallest case. Grey is an obstacle. Blue has superior cover against red, but red has no cover against blue.

 

[Drakona]

As for how that interacts with "new" stealth . . .

You need superior cover to "become" hidden, but only normal cover to "stay" hidden. So I think ranged rogue combat with Deft Strike looks like this:

- Move action: Get out of line of sight. Make a stealth check. Become hidden.
- Standard action: Deft strike to move to where you can see the target. Ranged attack with sneak attack.

- Repeat!

I don't think you need cover at the end of your Deft Strike movement. New stealth rules say "If you take an action that causes you to not be hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action." What an "action" constitutes is somewhat open to debate, but most people seem to be accepting Deft Strike as a single action.

Getting sneak attack every round seems pretty cool, but you can only ever use Deft Strike. Using an arbitrary power, I think it looks like this:

- Before the fight: Make a stealth check while out of line of sight.

- Round 1 Move action: Move two squares to a square with normal cover from the target. No stealth check is required to remain hidden.
- Round 1 Standard action: Make an attack with sneak attack. Lose combat advantage.

- Round 2 Standard action: Make an attack without sneak attack. Use a cool power.
- Round 2 Move action: Move to somehere with superior cover, likely out of line of sight. Make a stealth check. Become hidden.

- Repeat.

So a ranged rogue with good access to superior cover can get sneak attack every round by using Deft Strike exclusively, or can use arbitrary powers and get sneak attack every other round. And in the rare case that you can find some superior cover that isn't out of line of sight, you can sneak attack every round and use arbitrary powers.

Not That I've Playtested It, Mind You. This Is Just a Thought Experiment.

 

[ElectricDragon]

Wait, you only have concealment in obscured squares?

What about this?


M
SSTSFF
SsSSFF
P

M = Monster A
S = Heavy Smoke
F = Smouldering Fire
T = Monster B concealed in Heavy Smoke
s = Monster C concealed in Heavy Smoke
P = PC

s has concealment from P; T has total concealment from P; but M has no concealment at all from P?

Ciao
Dave