Is Stealth the new Grapple?

[BASHMAN]

One of the things 4e was designed to do was fix some of the more tedious rules of 3.x. The viral video of the French guy saying "ze game remainz ze same" showed how much of a groaning game-stopper the 3.x grapple system was. 4.0 grapple is definately much easier to use... but now it seems like 4.0 has its own hard-to-use mechanic in Stealth. I don't think anything has caused more confusion or frustration in 4.0 than people using stealth in combat. So, is Stealth the New Grapple? If not, what is?

 

[TK Lafours]

Actually, I think the answer is yes. But it's not as bad as all that. I think if nothing else, they will have learned from the grapple fiasco and will more than likely provide better stealth rules soon. Hopefully in the next book or a dragon magazine article. At least, I have my fingers crossed for it.

Right now, somebody at WotC should be testing and figuring out those new rules while somebody else is making room in an upcoming publication for them.

Edit: Hopefully they'll liberally borrow from the nice revamp/re-explanation that has so generously been provided on these boards.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Complicated, confusing, and potentially imbalanced? Why yes.

Ironically, if you ever had to deal with 1e "pommelling, grappling, and overbearing," the 3e version of grappling felt downright workable and balanced at all levels of play, by comparison, on a first read-through.

 

[the_redbeard]

I'd agree that the stealth rules were poorly written in that they needed to state them more explicitly.
The FAQ says to use the Targeting What You Can't See rules. To me, being "hidden from view" is equivalent to "What you can't see" so applying those rules was a no brainer. But those rules (before the FAQ) did not explicitly reference mere stealth (instead calling specifically full concealment/cover and invisibility) so those in favor of the 3.5 stealth paradigm refused to use those rules.

I disagree that they are a problem in play. Time will tell, but in the few instances of play I've been in, comparing a stealth roll to passive perception has not been a big deal.

I think the hardest thing about the stealth rules is that they are different than 3.5. You can stealth in combat. In fact, some classes (rogue especially, warlock and ranger less so) should stealth in combat to reach their potential. Maintaining the 3.5 interpretation of stealth under powers those classes.

 

[Paul Strack]

I agree that Stealth is one of the most messed-up rule sets in 4E and needs fixing. It's nowhere near as bad as 3E grapple.

I've been able to get Stealth to work with a couple house rules to tide me over until it gets an official fix. My house rules for 3E grapple were "You can't grapple; the rules are too complicated and broken to fix".

 

[James McMurray]

We never had any trouble with the stealth rules.

 

[BASHMAN]

We never had any trouble with the stealth rules.

Well, that is a powerful argument, but I still think that Stealth rules were not written very clearly in the way that Grapple was.

 

[zoroaster100]

I think it's worse than 3rd edition Grapple rules. I never had trouble understanding how the grapple rules were supposed to work. I am still confused how Stealth is supposed to work in combat. I love 4th edition, but this is one area I am frustrated with and still waiting for word from WOTC to clarify the rules in a way that makes sense to me.

 

[Stormtower]

I think a primary weakness of the new edition is a lack of examples of play. The Stealth section (even with errata) could definitely use this. A few diagrams, maybe a round-by-round description of how the devs intended Stealth to function... this would go a long way towards ensuring a more uniform and balanced play experience.

Right now, yeah. Stealth is the new Grapple. It doesn't have to remain so, however.

 

[Phesic]

I fail to see anything confusing in the stealth rules.

If you have cover or concealment, you can stealth. If you don't, you can't, unless the thing you're hiding from is distracted.

What is the complication?