New stealth stuff from WotC

[Danceofmasks]

That's not the issue!

The issue is, every table has to be run under the same rules, and every player has to take actions with an understanding of the possible consequences and mechanics of their actions.

Handing out copies of the FAQ+errata is feasible on a large scale.
Informing individuals of rules changes piecemeal is not.

 

[Oldtimer]

Nimble Strike (the rogue at will that lets you shift 2 + attack)

It's named Deft Strike and it's a move not a shift, but otherwise you're quite correct.

 

[clearstream]

But it is likely to go away.

Baring a new announcement, the Compendium does NOT yet over rule the PHB.

Copying this here for Mark. If the Compendium isn't in effect then...

I asked

A long question about whether you rolled opposed checks for your Perception against Stealth checks, even though there's wording under Passive Checks and Perception that makes it seem like you don't. (Full text is found in another thread here on Enworld.)

To which was answered

When making a stealth check everyone else rolls a perception check against your stealth check, per the stealth entry and the example of opposed checks on page 178 of the Player's Handbook.

This goes against the Passive Checks and Perception wordings, but adheres to the Opposed Checks and Stealth wordings. If it is not intended that you sometimes roll dice in opponents' turns, the text of Opposed Checks (178) is remarkably lacking.

-vk

 

[the_redbeard]

Copying this here for Mark. If the Compendium isn't in effect then...

I asked

A long question about whether you rolled opposed checks for your Perception against Stealth checks, even though there's wording under Passive Checks and Perception that makes it seem like you don't. (Full text is found in another thread here on Enworld.)

To which was answered

When making a stealth check everyone else rolls a perception check against your stealth check, per the stealth entry and the example of opposed checks on page 178 of the Player's Handbook.

This goes against the Passive Checks and Perception wordings, but adheres to the Opposed Checks and Stealth wordings. If it is not intended that you sometimes roll dice in opponents' turns, the text of Opposed Checks (178) is remarkably lacking.

-vk

Well, that's a CS that hasn't gotten the memo.

I asked CS if the Compendium was official with the stealth contradiction.
CS said the Compendium was official.

But if your CS said that stealth rolls against everyones perception rolls (omg - that just slowed the game down!), then one of the CS responses was wrong.

The compendium says, (after blatantly reversing the PHB):

"STEALTH
Stealth: At the end of a move action.
Opposed Check: Stealth vs. passive Perception. If multiple enemies are present, your Stealth check is opposed by each enemy’s passive Perception check."

So one of the CS responses are wrong.

I'm also really pi**d that a rule reversal was snuck in to the Compendium without the errata or FAQ being up dated. How the heck were we supposed to know (and there are still errors in the damn compendium.)

 

[the_redbeard]

So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall

That is the way that it is written.

 

[clearstream]

What the_redbeard said.

Remember, Perception combines Spot Hidden and Listen. They hear you shuffling around back there, putting your magic underpants on your head and so forth...

-vk

 

[alanpossible]

hmmm

Inside combat, isn't stealth just a means for the ranged rogue to gain CA?

Melee rogues have flanking, but (it seems) struggle to gain stealth.
Ranged rogues have stealth, but can't get flanking

<shrug> seems fair to me. Under this, rogues should be able to get stealth almost every round

 

[Jhaelen]

That's not the issue!

The issue is, every table has to be run under the same rules, and every player has to take actions with an understanding of the possible consequences and mechanics of their actions.

Handing out copies of the FAQ+errata is feasible on a large scale.
Informing individuals of rules changes piecemeal is not.

What are you talking about?
Is this some kind of RPGA thing? MY table plays according to MY rules.

Besides, there's been strong evidence that the Compendium is supposed to be used as the basis for RPGA games. The DDI Character Planner is going to use these rules to check if a character is RPGA-conform.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

I'm also really pi**d that a rule reversal was snuck in to the Compendium without the errata or FAQ being up dated. How the heck were we supposed to know (and there are still errors in the damn compendium.)

So you would rather wait two weeks (or however long its going to take) in order for the errata to update then have them release rules with the compendium (something that is obviously able to update faster)? Fine, then just ignore the new stealth rules and everything pertaining to it until its updated.

I mean seriously, people are complaining about the order in which these updates come out. Its ridiculous.

 

[Danceofmasks]

What are you talking about?
Is this some kind of RPGA thing? MY table plays according to MY rules.

Besides, there's been strong evidence that the Compendium is supposed to be used as the basis for RPGA games. The DDI Character Planner is going to use these rules to check if a character is RPGA-conform.

Consistency is a priority at any event where the same game is run multiple times.
Anything less will lead to bitching at a minimum.

It's more critical in the RPGA than elsewhere, sure. As people have lost characters due to cross-table rules inconsistencies.
Understand that the purpose of a head DM is to reinforce one set of blanket rules, as the reason they're usually called on is to adjudicate alleged DM screw-ups.

I've witnessed dozens of events wherein players have complained that they've been shortchanged due to having had to play under a GM who didn't write the game in question, and failed at running it the way it was supposed to be run.
Now where the games are systemless, or one that comes pre-broken (such as BESM), GM fiat is required to run the game at all.

The set of protocols that creates the highest degree of consistency is the one that works best.

Now, sure you can run D&D in a sub-optimal manner if you wish, and there are work-arounds (such as reading PC sheets, anticipating possible PC tactics, and informing them before the session begins of the recent rules changes) but they are unnecessary effort.