New stealth stuff from WotC

[lkj]

FYI

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080801a


(Sorry if it's already been linked. I didn't see it in my quick skim through responses)

AD

 

[mach1.9pants]

@ Gos-Jim:

I think your interpretation of when a line can be drawn from one corner to another is incorrect. In your diagram you have:
Elf A with standard cover. However if the line drawn from the corner of the hero (going down the line between the squares) can touch the elf corners then it also touches the blocking terrain in front. Therefore the elf has 'total' cover ie no line of effect or sight.
Troll A with standard cover. Again, as with the elf, if the trolls square can be touched with the heroes line (the troll's bottom left corner) it also touches the corner of the blocking terrain. So that troll has superior cover.
EDIT: you even have Troll B gaining superior cover because the line you have drawn goes through a corner, as do the lines drawn for Troll/Elf A- however you have included that corner in the calculation for Troll B but not the A's.

This is how we run it IMC, maybe I am completely wrong RAW wise but it certainly makes more sense for Elf A to be untargetable and Troll A to have superior cover so I will stick with my interpretation

 

[gos_jim]

mach1.9pants: I agree that in this situation, it would make sense for the corner to not count. From my reading of the rules, however, it seems otherwise. Pg 280 of the PHB states:

"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.)"

I understand that the above does NOT mention corners specifically, and it is my interpretation that is making me believe what I believe. But I don't see how running along an edge of a wall is any different from running past a corner. I see no way of interpreting that they are different without saying that the two situations below are different from eachother in some way:

(the right situation is meant to be a corridor along a diagonal)
If running along an edge is fine but running along a corner is not, that would seem to mean that the visibility for the above two situations from the Hero to the Troll are slightly different. Of course it's no cover for both situations because of the upper right corner of the hero, but the point remains. I would be perfectly open to a rules clarification on the subject, but even the fact that we have differing opinions means that the RAW is at least slightly ambiguous. This is also how many I have spoken to believe the case to be.

Perhaps it would make for a better ruleset to claim that the corner doesn't count, but then you get into vision angles and whether or not the corner should count in one situation but not in another. If the angle is particularly shallow then it makes no sense for the corner to block visibility. But if it's a sharp angle, then it makes sense for it to do so. That is the ambiguity that my proposed rules hope to eliminate.

Edit: I would like to say however that I have corrected myself twice now, the elf situation is different from what I originally posted. Line of Sight and Line of Effect do NOT travel along an object's edge or corner, they get stopped, so our Hero in my original diagram does not have line of sight or effect to either elf, and so can not interact with them in any way at all. Cover seems to work slightly differently once line of sight/effect are established. The troll situation remains as stated.

 

[keterys]

Almost feels like there should be some case for 'cannot reach any part of the interior of the target', ie not including corners and edges.

 

[WheelsOnMeals]

@ Gos-Jim:

I think your interpretation of when a line can be drawn from one corner to another is incorrect. In your diagram you have:
Elf A with standard cover. However if the line drawn from the corner of the hero (going down the line between the squares) can touch the elf corners then it also touches the blocking terrain in front. Therefore the elf has 'total' cover ie no line of effect or sight.
Troll A with standard cover. Again, as with the elf, if the trolls square can be touched with the heroes line (the troll's bottom left corner) it also touches the corner of the blocking terrain. So that troll has superior cover.

I believe this is correct, too. The DMG offers more clarification as well:

Choose a Corner:

The attacker chooses one corner of a square he occupies, and draws imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the defender occupies. If none of those lines are blocked by a solid object or an enemy creature, the attacker has a clear shot. The defender doesn’t have cover. (A line that runs parallel right along a wall isn’t blocked.)

The only mention of intersecting with walls is the case where lines running parallel to the wall aren't blocked. Really, this is just to prevent the silly case where two creatures in a long 5-ft wide corridor would have cover from each other and others like it.

I think cover vs. superior cover on the x & y planes (so not including low walls you have to crouch behind, etc.) almost always boils down to this (there may be extreme fringe cases that I'm not thinking of, in which case I would suggest you should use this anyway):​

- Pick the attacker's optimal corner.
- Draw one line from that corner extending through the corner of the obstacle granting cover.
- If <= 50% of the creature is exposed, then it has superior cover. Otherwise, it just has cover.​

-Brian​

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yeah I can definitely see the problem of the corridors!

I think this is a case (as I stated above) of using common sense above the RAW. Otherwise it is just too ridiculous!
YMMV

 

[scrumpyj]

They're putting original rules content into the compendium, and just waiting for someone to stumble across it and notice it's there? Not just original rules either, but rules that contradict the PHB?

That's not the way a compendium is supposed to work. At least publich the original content outside of the compendium, then reference it.

Actually, they're noting it on the front page, and it seems it'll be part of the errata soon. The Q&A linked from the main WOTC D&D page:

Q: I’ve noticed a difference in the Stealth rules in the PH (p188) versus what’s listed in the D&D Compendium. Which is correct?

A: The D&D Compendium reflects a forthcoming update to Stealth. Be sure to check the Updates section of the website in coming days for a full written explanation of these changes.

 

[clearstream]

Notice the enemy states implied by hiding: aware and alert.

You can be alert without being aware, but if you are aware you are alert. Alertness cannot typically be lost once acquired within an encounter. Awareness can typically be lost and reacquired within an encounter.

Using awareness and alertness as tools, we get

A. Not alert to your presence: they have no reason to suspect you are there so they cannot hunt for you or target you.

B. Alert to your presence: they know you might be nearby so they can hunt for you.

C. Aware of your direction and rough distance, or have received that information from an ally with free action: they know where to move to better hunt you and can pick squares to attack in the hope they contain you.

D. Aware of your exact square: they spotted you and can target you if they have LOE.

E. Know your exact square, or have received that information from an ally with a free action, or pick your exact square by chance, but they still can't see you: they can target you if they have LOE, but at -5 (-7 in cover).

Notice that here we've ruled that knowledge of exact square can be passed on with a free action, but that a successful Perception check cannot be. Except for the manner in which it can be lost, hiding = invisible. This avoids E. splitting into two cases with identical consequences on players. It loses little and helps play to allow free actions to share direction and rough distance and exact square.

Notice C. What I hope to do is find a way to resolve 'pick a square' into a simple mechanical step.

Finally notice hunt. I introduce this as jargon to deal with active Perception checks against hidden or invisible foes, differentiating from those used to search for traps and secret things.

-vk

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Actually, they're noting it on the front page, and it seems it'll be part of the errata soon. The Q&A linked from the main WOTC D&D page:

Its a pity they cannot get the Dragon and Dungeon content into the compendium as quickly as they can unannounced errata.

 

[MarkB]

Its a pity they cannot get the Dragon and Dungeon content into the compendium as quickly as they can unannounced errata.

As I understand it, Dragon and Dungeon material doesn't become fully 'finished' and official until it's compiled at the end of a publication month. In the intervening time, it is effectively on public beta-test.