January and Beyond!

[Destil]

I can see the shade as is, but that's because I don't like darkvision at heroic tier. It's the reason I wouldn't allow by the book drow in my game, and at one point I thought it was a 4E basic design principle. Loosing a healing surge is a decent enough trade off for that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Some people get too hung up on the -1 healing surge.

It's entirely possible that people will look at the -1 surge and balk, even if it isn't that big of deal, though.

Recollect Weapons Of Legacy, a solid attempt at making a weapon that grew with the character, scuttled because it gave you a few penalties, while sloppier, weaker magic items did fine, just because they didn't.

Or even the old/new Magic Missile. The extra mental oomph from not having a chance to miss, even though it's probably a less potent power overall.

And there you have it, a perfectly good striker, with a huge Stealth modifier, capable of going side-by-side with a rogue. At 11 surges per day, he's not missing any healing. He can strike from hiding in melee (Mobile Blade grants him the move action he needs) or from range (thanks to high Dex).

It's a different sort of calculation for LTR than for a single combat, though. Having a Shade for your striker instead of a Half-Orc means shorter combat bursts, less milestones, more rests, and a slower pace overall.

Which, again, might not matter REALLY.

But it's a mental thing. A psychology thing. An emotion thing. A race with a penalty might just be unappealing as all get-out, when there are plenty of options for racial choice that DON'T have a penalty. Races that make your character stronger, always, rather than stronger in some ways and weaker in others.

Not that I'm against races with penalties per se (I actually value a little "devil's bargain" element), just that in 4e's crowded field, you need to measure up against races that are all good stuff.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just a point:

being able to hide is NOT a damage mitigation strategy, because damage is a group thing, not an individual thing.

What do I mean?

You meet a foe. You hide.

The foe simply targets another party member with no penalties.

It only mitigates damage if every party member is hidden or otherwise inaccessable.

Secondly, the power is going to be heavily campaign dependant on whether it does anything at all in combat. For instance in the campaigns I've played in, stealth every round for hanging at the back of the party is easy to gain: there's almost always a corner somewhere, and most classes have an attack power that will let them make use of it for stealth each and every round, while attacking at the same time.

Thirdly, out of combat the power is problematic, because it's more of a "this power works by taking options away from everyone else". Either the power has virtually zero effect out of combat because stealth out of combat isn't that hard to get via a little roleplaying or it means that everyone else suddenly has problems obtaining stealth because the power has to be worth something, right? Otherwise shades are just bad, right? So no, you can't distract the guard with a thrown rock into the bushes. You should have rolled a shade instead of a human.

Incidentally, I have a stealth-focussed rogue who uses up his surges so often that I DID pick durability. I consider the -1 surge a significant penalty. Not enormous, but certainly more generally-negative than small.

I don't think that last comment is really fair. If you select the physically weakest combination of races, classes, and stats available, and then complain that your character is to physically weak, its the game's fault? Im not saying that the Shade gets full value for that surge they are giving up, but for goodness sake, if somone builds a fighter with a 12 strenght and can't hit anything is the game at fault or the player for buidling a really stupid character?

If someone builds a fighter with 12 strength, they're playing against the archetype. It's not likely to be something that you accidentally do without someone noticing and saying "hey, you might want a higher strength than that".

If someone builds a shade rogue, they're playing directly to an archetype, and the fact that they've made a sub-par character is likely to be quite a surprise.

 

[Aegeri]

Thirdly, out of combat the power is problematic, because it's more of a "this power works by taking options away from everyone else". Either the power has virtually zero effect out of combat because stealth out of combat isn't that hard to get via a little roleplaying or it means that everyone else suddenly has problems obtaining stealth because the power has to be worth something, right? Otherwise shades are just bad, right? So no, you can't distract the guard with a thrown rock into the bushes. You should have rolled a shade instead of a human.

This is an absolutely fantastic point and I think goes back to one of my examples earlier. In that example I had some PCs held up at a crossing by some soldiers, with the rogue in the middle of the group. The player decided she wanted to hide away, just in case something happened or to get the drop on the soldiers. Her passive insight was high, so she immediately guessed correctly these guys were faking being soldiers - most likely bandits.

The creatures were not "distracted" from her however, but the warlord made a successful bluff check to draw the soldiers (potential bandits) attention. During this she made a stealth check - bearing in mind the stealth rules say that you can hide from distracted creatures - easily making it to duck away into the bushes. By the time they figured something was up she had moved around them and then got the drop on the suspicious soldiers. The PCs attacked on her signal for a surprise round and found out they were indeed bandits.

Now with a shade all that happens is they use the racial power and move around, but the exact same result occurs anyway. Unless I specifically decided to thwart the bluff check or just make it not possible to do, there is nothing about this situation the shade can do anyone else couldn't do.

 

[hayek]

It's useless outside of combat because of the way the stealth rules work. It's two main benefits don't apply and while you could use allies to hide, that's the only thing it allows you to do differently. This is an extremely minor benefit, given that a warlock could simply walk three squares and do the same thing with his class feature for no cost whatsoever (as he will gain concealment)! That's a pretty niche use and will have extremely limited utility, while in combat it is a massive detrimental action sink.

I agree with you on the combat side of things, Aegeri.

As for out of combat - I don't think the 'make a stealth check out of combat if the DM says creatures are distracted' is equivalent to the Shade's ability. In the frequently mentioned example of waltzing through an open courtyard in a guarded castle - some guards may be distracted every now and then, but as a DM I wouldn't let someone use the 'distracted' clause to sneak through a castle with guards everywhere. I think the Shade's ability lets you do more, as even in such a highly guarded location, the Shade could move through the area while hidden.

However, I can see how it's somewhat open to DM interpretation, so depending on how your DM rules on stealth, the Shade's ability might not be valuable.

 

[Aegeri]

The "hidden" condition is even better than invisibility, because enemies don't know what square you're in.

Actually this isn't entirely true, if enemies find where you are you become no longer hidden (they beat your stealth or you no longer have cover/concealment to remain hidden). Then you have no further defensive benefit anymore. Whereas the difference between hidden and genuinely invisible is that you always have total concealment when invisible. If you're a shade hiding behind something to remain hidden and the enemy moves past - meaning you no longer have cover - you are now automatically no longer hidden from that enemy. If you're invisible, you don't care because your total concealment to remain hidden "follows" you everywhere. So even if you get discovered you can become hidden again whenever you want and enemies melee/ranged attacks will take a -5 penalty anyway (even when they know where you are).

This is also why the shade in melee - I've been busy btw since the original discussion - flat out fails to work. Unless he can generate cover or concealment in his square, allies are poor substitutes to become hidden. I like to compare what happens to chess, where your king being threatened by another piece (like a queen) pins the piece in the way in place. For example if the shade hides behind the fighter for cover, the fighter is now "pinned" in place because if he moves breaking cover - the enemies now immediately see the shade. So even in combat this works incredibly poorly, because if the monster moves around as soon as it breaks the cover from the ally it will see the shade then pound him into the dirt. Plus the shade loses the benefit from being hidden in the first place (CA, -5 etc). If the shade hides behind the fighter, then the fighter gets punted away by a push/pull/slide, whoops there goes your hidden condition.

For the rules source:

Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy.

I hate to say it, but unless Klaus has some tactic I don't know about I cannot make his shade slayer remotely viable in melee combat. Without another source of concealment/cover that isn't an ally, creatures can easily break his stealth and hence cause him to mostly waste a standard action doing nothing. The above in melee with allies for cover is insanely difficult to do. Not to mention the other disadvantage of hidden: If one enemy sees you then what square you're in is irrelevant, because the guy you're trying to hide from will know. Then it's a simple shift around the obstructing ally and bam: Your hidden condition is gone and he can whack the stick off you without penalty.

In the frequently mentioned example of waltzing through an open courtyard in a guarded castle - some guards may be distracted every now and then,

That is just the problem. Once you are hidden you can easily remain that way by being out of sight, in the dark and similar - the shade still has to have cover, concealment or an ally (unlikely in this scenario) to remain hidden. Same with anyone else. All they need is the first stealth check and everything else is irrelevant after-wards except if you have cover or concealment. Nothing about the shades racial changes that, so what the shade could sneak through neither would the normal stealth trained character have a problem with. So this powers combat utility is where the argument does need to be focused.

 

[I'm A Banana]

FWIW, even if the ability is the bees knees, tracking stealth/invisibility/lighting/cover/concealment/etc. in combat is a hundred hassles, as the rule debates here point out.

While I was playing my Gnome Assassin, I focused on gaining "hidden" at every opportunity, and it sort of dragged the combat to a crawl as every enemy rolled Perception checks and checked Invisibility rules and I asked questions about lines of sight and blah blah blah.

So I'd hope that, regardless of what else the Shade can do, it matches the Essentials philosophy on doing stuff with a simplicity that makes it easier to play.

Because otherwise, if someone DOES opt to play a shade, you're giving their DM the gift of a rulesey headache.

 

[Knightfall]

Even when creatures are aware of you, you can hide behind an ally and then keep hidden as you move to flank the enemy, or reach the enemy leader, etc. UngeheuerLich has the right idea when comparing the shade with a lurker.

I'll have to refrain from saying more, lest some shadow hound come drag me kicking and screaming into the Shadowfell.

This deserves more XP. Unfortunately, not from me.

And I like the -1 surge penalty. Of course, I'd prefers that 4e races have negative modifiers like with previous editions.

 

[The Little Raven]

Nothing about the shades racial changes that, so what the shade could sneak through neither would the normal stealth trained character have a problem with. So this powers combat utility is where the argument does need to be focused.

The merely-trained character couldn't move hidden through an area of bright light with only his allies to hide behind, while the Shade could. The Shade could also begin hiding in with partial concealment or partial cover, while the merely-trained character could not.

While I do agree that a Standard Action is a bit much for what this power does (a Minor sounds better to me, since it still requires a Move action to stealth), it does have benefits beyond what a Stealth-trained character can do.

 

[Aegeri]

The merely-trained character couldn't move hidden through an area of bright light with only his allies to hide behind, while the Shade could. The Shade could also begin hiding in with partial concealment or partial cover, while the merely-trained character could not.

Actually this is not correct for an out of combat situation.

Outside combat, the DM can allow you to make a Stealth check against a distracted enemy, even if you don’t have superior cover or total concealment and aren’t outside the enemy’s line of sight. The distracted enemy might be focused on something in a different direction, allowing you to sneak up.

So this is not true and neither the shade nor the trained PC can remain in stealth without cover or concealment. In the shades case he can use another PC, but the instant that PC ceases serving as cover his hidden condition is broken - making it unpredictable and unreliable at best. Especially because if the enemies are paying attention - where a regular stealth check wouldn't work - then it will be easy to break the cover from an ally and expose him (Which requires no passive perception or a roll - if you lack cover or concealment from an enemy, you are simply no longer hidden).

"Distracted" is the only really debatable point here and depending on the position of the guards, using the other PCs as cover can range from doable to impossible as again, you break hidden the instant you lack cover (assuming the enemies are not distracted). As you occupy a single square with nine squares adjacent to it. If an NPC can draw a line through any square unobstructed by a PC you no longer have cover and boom, you are no longer hidden. So we would have to assume distracted NPCs for this to be viable and at that point, you can make a stealth check anyway even without needing your allies. So again, we're no better off outside of combat than anyone else. The only situation I can see this argument being truly viable is you have nine other creatures (all your allies) around you. This would provide a wall of cover that you could hide in - very assassin's creed like this. Then again it's also the most obvious thing ever, which begs the question what on earth you're trying to do with the stealth in the first place unless it's a very specific scenario.

If someone could generate their own concealment (a warlocks shadow walk is a good example) they wouldn't need any of this to begin with. They could stealth out of sight and just walk around the corner - they will always have concealment and so it doesn't matter if the enemies can see them or not (or if they are distracted). Not to mention that it isn't that hard in 4E to get some invisibility or concealment to make this possible for just about anyone. Not even at a huge resource cost either - certainly not at the massive resource cost of a viable racial power.

it does have benefits beyond what a Stealth-trained character can do.

It pretty clearly doesn't and thus far, nobody has successfully argued why this is better out of combat than say a cunning sneak (or just anyone regularly trained in stealth for that matter). It's sole advantage is that you can use it to stealth while adjacent to an ally, but this then relies on the ally providing 'cover'. As cover is drawn from sight lines between an enemy and the shade, it is very hard for a medium PC to consistently provide cover to the shade. A group of PCs moving as a group with the shade in the middle would do it - but I don't have to tell you how immensely obvious such a formation is to anyone looking at it. Not to mention if enemies are reasonably spread it can be almost impossible to prevent someone drawing a clear line between the characters and breaking cover (and therefore stealth). So there is very little benefit to doing this, especially given the examples people are giving for how stealth is normally used.