New stealth stuff from WotC

[Saeviomagy]

That is the way that it is written.

But all it means is that you are not "silent and invisible to the enemy". He still can't see you because there is a wall in the way.

 

[Paul Strack]

Do you agree with my analysis of the Ranger at-will ability Nimble Strike, that it allows you to gain CA every round through stealth? You start behind superior or full cover while stealthed, shift one square and attack with combat advantage from stealth as part of nimble strike, then move back and stealth behind the superior or total cover. Repeat next round.

You are definitely right. If you play with the new Stealth rules as written, Deft Strike is a must-have for rogues and Nimble Strike becomes very good for Rangers. Both would let you get CA every turn by popping in and of out LOS.

It still nerfs both ranged-attack rangers and rogues, though, because they can't easily get CA with their better Encounter powers and Dailies. Getting CA with another power would generally be a two-turn combo:

Turn 1) Attack (no CA), move out of LOS and hide

Turn 2) Move back to corner (normal cover only), Attack with CA and your choice of power.

Repeat

Also, if your target moved to get LOS between Turn 1 and Turn 2, you lose your CA.

 

[Paul Strack]

Paul Strack, I appreciate your input and discouraging movement is definitely not something I want to do. I am constantly telling my players that in 4e, mobility is incredibly important. I am not attempting to solve this issue. However, I think that the "stealth shuffle", as bardolph put it, back and forth at a corner, is a rather superficial amount of "movement" to partake in. I don't think it is a big loss if the need to do it is removed.

The "stealth shuffle" does not have to be back to your original location. When you move to re-hide, you can go to a new location, provided there is an appropriate one nearby. The rogue in my game darts from cover to cover as she advances on the enemy, which is very rogue-ish and rather entertaining. It's a distinct contrast to the fighter and warlord who tend to just wade forward and draw fire.

I am tempted to suggest you allow a "press against cover" action after a move to get a Stealth check. If you do that, though, you are effectively allowing Stealth behind normal cover with just an extra minor action. You may not want to be that generous.

 

[bardolph]

I have no problem at all with the "stealth shuffle". It doesn't bother me if a rogue has to step back and step forward to "re-stealth", only allowing them to get CA at range once every two rounds. That is perfectly fine with me, and seems balanced. My personal issue with it is that there seem to be arbitrary positions where superior cover is granted when you would think it shouldn't be (as in my diagram), especially along diagonals. This means that SOME rogues will have to do the shuffle, but others if they get lucky on a weird corner, are twice as effective. I don't mind if they get superior cover every round if they're behind a murder hole, but I'd rather them not get it just because their enemy is diagonal to them rather than along a straight line.

I agree that that is silly. I also think that the "count the corner" rule is silly, and I'm going to houserule that even with only one corner exposed, you still have normal cover.

Paul Strack, I appreciate your input and discouraging movement is definitely not something I want to do. I am constantly telling my players that in 4e, mobility is incredibly important. I am not attempting to solve this issue. However, I think that the "stealth shuffle", as bardolph put it, back and forth at a corner, is a rather superficial amount of "movement" to partake in. I don't think it is a big loss if the need to do it is removed. Thanks again both of you for your thoughts on my ideas.

The reason why I like the "stealth shuffle" is that it requires a field of cover or blocked LoS, rather than an isolated square. Because your character could be here, and could be there, it makes sense that your enemies lose track of you when you stealth. If you're stuck in a single square (behind a chair, for example), there's no mystery as to where you are, so it doesn't make sense that you can Stealth to gain CA.

The "stealth shuffle" works (fluff-wise) because you are actually vacating the space where the enemies last saw you, so as far as they know you've left the battle.

EDIT: Holey Moley, I didn't consider the 2 squares from Deft Strike. That's a fantastic solution to the Rogues CA problem.

 

[Jhaelen]

Actually, in the 'new RPGA' way of things, games are not nearly as strict as they once were. DMs can alter the modules and make rulings to make the game more fun for everyone.

Fun > Rigid Standardized Rules.

Glad that was finally realized.

Thanks for the quote. I hadn't realized there had been a change of philosophy in the new RPGA. It definitely sounds like a wise move to me. This might even get me interested...

 

[clearstream]

I am tempted to suggest you allow a "press against cover" action after a move to get a Stealth check. If you do that, though, you are effectively allowing Stealth behind normal cover with just an extra minor action. You may not want to be that generous.

Will you begrudge me a small *cough* at this point? Under my lasting-condition RAI I suggested it was mechanically inevitable that hiding occurs using a minor action. I still believe that is the case.

End of move is good too, but not quite as good. End of move + a minor action? Sounds a little restrictive. End of move if in SC/TC + a minor action if only C/C? Unnecessary branching.

So... minor action... well, why not?

-vk

 

[Ragnar69]

I like the new rules. The old ones have been a joke.
"Oh, I am a 6'4" Dragonborn rogue but I can use my Dwarven buddy or a small bush to hide behind. And my pal the warlock could be everywere but certainly not in that patch of darkness in an otherwise brightly lit room."

 

[Paul Strack]

EDIT: Holey Moley, I didn't consider the 2 squares from Deft Strike. That's a fantastic solution to the Rogues CA problem.

Not quite. It still means no easy CA for the rogue's ranged attack powers. So you only get once-per-turn CA with the equivalent of a basic attack. No more "rogue nuke" of a Sneak Attack plus a Daily power.

I think you can still play a rogue under the new rules, but they are a pretty major nerf to the rogue's offensive powers. I think it makes the rogue pretty clearly inferior to the ranger.

 

[sobelius]

Not quite. It still means no easy CA for the rogue's ranged attack powers. So you only get once-per-turn CA with the equivalent of a basic attack. No more "rogue nuke" of a Sneak Attack plus a Daily power.

I think you can still play a rogue under the new rules, but they are a pretty major nerf to the rogue's offensive powers. I think it makes the rogue pretty clearly inferior to the ranger.

Deft Strike causes you to *move* two squares, therefore you would have to make another stealth check when you move, just prior to the attack, but at the point you make the check you are no longer in superior cover so you can't make a stealth check.

Instead, you could go around the corner and stealth. Then on your next turn, use Tumble to *shift* half your move speed around the corner -- shifting is not the same as moving (at least with regard to Opportunity Attacks, so the same could be said here) so you don't have to make another stealth check. You can now make the attack with CA.

Unfortunately, Tumble is an encounter power.

Having said the above, I find this whole discussion too rules-lawyerish. I've told my players if they can describe a stealthy act that is cinematic without being over-the-top, and makes sense in terms of physical logic, then I'll give them a stealth check.

 

[gos_jim]

sobelius, the new rules state that stealth is not removed until the END of the action that causes you to lose stealth. So using a standard action to Deft Strike means you are stealthed the whole time, even during the move, because the move is only PART of the action that removes stealth. It doesn't stop halfway through before your attack, it is removed after your attack, at the resolution of the standard action.

Also, your example of using Tumble would not actually work. The rules don't care about whether you are shifting or moving normally. They specifically state "If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy." As well, they say "If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action."

So if you Tumbled around the corner as your move action, once you are in view you are performing an action that causes you not to remain hidden. After your movement is resolved, you lose stealth. Then when you attack, you are not stealthed and do not have CA.

If you deft strike, you are stealthed until after your attack is resolved, because it is the standard action "Deft Strike" that causes you to not remain hidden. The movement and attack are all stealthed, thus CA.