WotC CS answers some Stealth and Shadow Walk questions

[Paul Strack]

I keep thinking Bluff is once per encounter. Is it twice?

There two uses of Bluff that give you CA, Feint and Diversion. That is probably what he meant.

I like the clarity of the Compendium rules for Stealth, but they do nerf Stealth hard. I was just convinced in another thread that requiring Superior Cover and Total Concealment was much too restrictive. Total Concealment already means you can't be seen. So you can't hide unless you are already hidden? It makes Stealth nearly impossible to use.

I think the rules would be reasonable if you drop the requirement back down to regular cover or concealment, though. I've already been leaning toward something like this in my house rules.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

That's a good point. I don't have KotS, but it might have been written with old Stealth in mind. We might see more SC or TC in future modules. Have you looked at Fleeting Ghost? As written, it grants you a check without looking to see if you have SC or TC. Not much help for Rangers, but that is At-Will ignore the cover requirement to get hidden for a Rogue.

That makes fleeting ghost a required power, limiting choice. And, if they nerf stealth like this, odds are fleeting ghost will change as well.

I keep thinking Bluff is once per encounter. Is it twice?

"Once per combat encounter, you can create a diversion to hide."
"Once per combat encounter, you can try to gain combat advantage against an adjacent enemy by feinting."

Two different uses of the skill, both costing a standard action.

About the 5-squares thing: as DM I'd likely let my Rogues and Rangers start an encounter hidden, if there were woods or whatever around the encounter area and they weren't seen approaching. That might not be right for KotS of courses... or is it?
-vk

I'll reply more specifically about this when I figure out how the spoiler tags work. Essentially, even for an encounter you could reasonably do this, a rogue is still stuck being penalized actions to perform its role as a striker. And one of the principles of 4e was supposed to be not penalizing players for performing their roles.

But, the game sucking by default, but the DM can make special allowances to allow you to have some fun doesn't make me want to keep my books (and I'm feeling pretty good about not chucking the receipts the other day). I'm also feeling pretty good that I didn't have to pay $15 a month for WotC to eliminate functionality to reduce support calls.

 

[Khime]

The rolled damage for an attack is never less than 1 point. This insures that creatures with negative damage mods (say, from low Str) do at least some damage. That has nothing to do with how much damage the target takes. If they have a resistance that ignores that 1 point, they take 0 damage.

I'm still digging, but I've yet to find this mentioned anywhere in 4th edition rules. The closest I've come is the reminder that when processing "Miss: Half Damage" that you round down, so if you roll a 1 for damage, your 'miss' damage is 0.

 

[buzz]

I'm still digging, but I've yet to find this mentioned anywhere in 4th edition rules.

You're right. I poked around quickly and can't find it either. It was true in 3.5, though.

I have a feeling that it's no longer necessary. I'm not sure there are any monsters in the 4e MM that have a damage expression that includes a penalty, e.g., "1d4-1". A quick search of my PDF doesn't reveal any, at least. Ergo, no creature is ever going to roll 0 damage (before any other effects that halve the damage, for example).

I suppose it's possible for a PC with a really crappy score relevant to the damage expression currently being used...

 

[clearstream]

I think the CSR is correct. There is no Move 0. Moving less then 5 = 5,4,3,2,or 1 not 0, 0.5, -1, -2.1753, -3, etc., which are all less then 5. They probably didn't feel that they needed to say "A move = between 1 and max squares in integers". A move = 0, just means you didn't move, so no action was taken.

Moving a -ve number is meaningless of course, but what about Speed 1? Why wouldn't can choose a lesser distance apply to them as necessarily 0?

And is it really so reasonable to insist that if a player wants to spend a move action, they must step one away and back again to stay where they are? Urm... that makes them more able to hide than staying put? So I'm standing behind the one piece of SC or TC in a dungeon room; it's one square wide. I must step out from behind it where my enemies can see me, and then back, to hide. That's a mighty puzzling ruling.

Is there a way in which letting the player move 0 is overpowered or breaks the game?

-vk

 

[buzz]

Is there a way in which letting the player move 0 is overpowered or breaks the game?

My knowledge of Powers is no encyclopedic enough to definitively say one way or the other, but the concept certainly seems rules-lawyery to me.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Is there a way in which letting the player move 0 is overpowered or breaks the game?

-vk

Honestly, I can't think of one. The only thing I can think of is for some reason wanting a prohoibition on moving 0 in the middle of some sort of power that lets you attack, make a move as a move action, then make a secondary attack or something that for thematic reasons really doesn't want you to attack two targets from the same place.

Something like: You attack and if it hits you do 2[W] damage. Then, if you have the brutal scoundrel feature, and you complete a move action before the end of your next turn, you can make a secondary STR vs. AC attack against an adjacent target. You could limit it to making an attack against a different adjacent target in the same way as Cleave is limited now, so I don't see any real benefit to not allowing the move 0.