Search results

I am abandoning responses #2 and #3, because they aren't really what I believe and were just argument for argument's sake (not fruitful). Though I do like your suggestion of "hunker down = superior cover". I re-read Total Concealment and see what you are saying. If I insist that you need...

Well, the adventure I am running is 3rd level, so that's all I care about right now. However, I think the following would be fair for a one-shot, 6-hour, 3-encounter convention game: Levels 2-5) 1 Potion of Healing Levels 6-10) 2 Potions of Healing Levels 11-15) 1 Potion of Vitality Levels...

Hmm. That's a pretty good point. It means that, if you don't assume that Total Concealment is a requirement for TWYCS, then you can hide behind normal Cover or Concealment and thereby "upgrade" it to Total Concealment. Since my argument hinges on there not being a mechanical benefit to hiding...

I've modified the original post to remove references to Total Concealment and required movement because they run counter to many peoples ideas and are muddying the point I am trying to make. The key point I am trying to argue is that sometimes hiding gives you just a Combat Advantage and...

I'd argue that in that case, the archer can't be directly targeted at all, even by TWYCS, because he ducked behind blocking terrain and there is no LOS. What if you are obscured from some but not others? Do your enemies still have to "guess" your square if they have allies that can point out...

That isn't the argument I am making. The argument I am making is that *sometimes* Stealth grants you only a Combat Advantage, and other times it grants you both a Combat Advantage and protection from attacks via TWYCS. My argument is based, not on the Stealth rules, but on the TWYCS rules. In...

I admit that I worded this poorly. I should have said something like "benefit from TWYCS". I agree that it makes things more complex. Given that a lot of people disagree vigorously on how to rule on Stealth, I think some sort of compromise position is needed. Splitting the Stealth benefits...

All right, since you seem to have accepted that, let me ask the following question: 1) Do you need cover or concealment from all enemies in order to be able to hide? My answer differs depending on the level of benefits you wanted to get. To gain TWYCS, I would say yes, you need cover or...

Let's leave aside the question of Total Concealment vs. Normal Concealment for now. I'm willing to argue that once you accept my basic premise. I even acknowledged in my original post that I could be wrong there. It doesn't matter much for the basic scenario, because it could be a thick hedge...

I think there are some fairly common circumstances where you opponent can't see you but would still know where you are (your location square). There are those you listed above, plus the common pretty common condition where one of his allies can see you and can point out your location (because he...

The separation between the two is mainly to clarify arguments. I think most people are reasonably comfortable with the offensive benefits of hiding, because they are necessary for rogues to be competitive as ranged strikers and for everyone else provide a relatively small bonus (+2 to hit)...

I split the argument out into a separate thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4402171#post4402171 I think the distinction is still valid because there are two possible benefits from being hidden: 1) Combat Advantage 2) Protection by Targeting What You Can't See. You only...

That's not the heart of my argument. The key point I am trying to get across is there is a big difference between "hidden but location known" and "hidden and location unknown". This is because the only mechanical benefit from TWYCS is if your opponent must guess your location square. The TWYCS...

I believe I've figured out how to cut through the Stealth issues. I think the problems come from trying to shoehorn all the Stealth rules into single hidden status. I contend that there are in fact two levels of hidden status implied by the rules, with different benefits and requirements. For...

This is for a one-shot adventure with pre-generated characters, not a campaign. I am trying to figure out a fair number of potions to give them in those circumstances. Right now the consensus seems to be one or two each is fair (at 3rd level, anyhow).

I happen to agree with you. My example above was pointing problems that result from a simple one-tier interpretation of hidden. I believe that the rules imply two levels of hiding, not one. Lesser Hidden) You are simply hidden from view. Greater Hidden) You are hidden and your location is not...

Thanks to everyone for all the input. The party potentially has 2 leaders out of 6 characters (a Cleric and a Warlord). It is conceivable, but unlikely, that neither character will be picked. Given that, I sticking with 1 potion each, which seems to be the consensus. I'm running a playtest...

Sounds reasonable to me. Past level 10 it wouldn't matter much anyway, because you should keep retraining the feats to upgrade your multiclass powers.

My interpretation: If you are hidden but only have normal cover/concealment, your enemy can attack you with just the usual c/c penalty but no further limitation, because being hidden only grants a combat advantage. If you are hidden but have Super Cover/Total Concealment, your enemy is limited...

My interpretation is the you cannot use Stealth in either case. I think you need c/c for the entire move. After all, the RAW states "Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily.", not "Part of whatever portion of an action you are trying to perform stealthily." If you are...