New Discussion Thread

Atanatotatos

First Post
I thought we'd still have to decide wether to use the Stealth errata or not, tho.

My proposal (if I remember right) was no Stealth with light concealment, but yes to Stealth with light cover, albeit at a -2 penalty.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

covaithe

Explorer
Oh, right, the stealth mess. Well, I would certainly support a houserule to un-break that, but I think it should probably be proposed and voted on as a houserule rather than taken as a built-in exception to the errata pre-approval.
 

Lord Sessadore

Explorer
So, is anyone out there cooking up an adventure? There's currently six of us (paladin, warlord, fighter, warlock, and two wizards) sitting in the tavern, waiting for something to do ;)
 



Lord Sessadore

Explorer
Ooh! Ooh! I'm a defender!!

Heh, but seriously, I already asked Halford about joining the Ebon Mirror adventure, and I believe he said he has someone already :( Ah well, we'll just wait for the next adventure to come along, I don't think it'll be too long (or rather I hope it won't, haha.)
 

Dunamin

First Post
Oh, right, the stealth mess. Well, I would certainly support a houserule to un-break that, but I think it should probably be proposed and voted on as a houserule rather than taken as a built-in exception to the errata pre-approval.
I remember Stealth being a hot topic some time ago, but think I never really got into what issue there might've been with the errata.

Anyone care to give me the lowdown? :)
 

covaithe

Explorer
In the PHB, making a stealth check requires either cover or concealment. But warlocks get concealment very easily, so they found that warlocks were all loading up on stealth and getting to hide almost at will. They errata'd stealth to require superior cover or improved concealment -- those are the wrong terms, but I can't remember the right ones just now -- which are much harder to get. This fixed warlocks, but it was a big nerf to rogues, making it very difficult to stealth in combat, and thus harder to get combat advantage, which rogues rely on.
 

Lord Sessadore

Explorer
I remember Stealth being a hot topic some time ago, but think I never really got into what issue there might've been with the errata.

Anyone care to give me the lowdown? :)
Disclaimers: it's 3am, so I might be fuzzy, and I wasn't involved in any L4W talks on Stealth. Those given, I just reread the Stealth errata. I'll try to keep this neutral ;) Oh, and here is the link to the errata.

What I remember from the general hubbub about it when it came out was mostly that it made it a lot harder to gain and keep stealth. I believe the biggest change was that you need total concealment or superior cover (pick one corner of enemy's square, draw a line to each corner of your square; if 3 or more lines are blocked, you have superior cover) to make a Stealth check to become hidden. That makes it a lot harder to gain stealth mid-combat.

Also, to remain hidden you have to maintain cover or concealment (don't need superior cover or total concealment anymore, just some degree of either). The language used says "you remain hidden as long as you meet these requirements." Retaining cover or concealment is one of these conditions. The clause about cover or concealment is most clear - as soon as you no longer have cover or concealment, you aren't hidden anymore. However, there's a clause after the stuff about remaining hidden: it says that if you perform an action that breaks the requirements for staying hidden, you keep the benefits of being hidden until the end of the action. There were a lot of debates over this, especially with movement and powers that involved movement. Most of them devolved to whether or not each square of movement counts as a separate mini-action with regards to Stealth rules or not.

One particular case I remember reading about was with Fleeting Ghost, lvl 2 rogue utility. "Move your speed and make a Stealth check," the power states. Some argued this let you make a Stealth check regardless of cover or concealment, some that this let you waive the clause about keeping cover or concealment (saying the power lets you zip across open spaces and remain hidden), and others that it only lets you waive the -5 penalty for moving more than 2 squares. Another was with Deft Strike. Say you're behind a corner in a hallway (total cover = can make Stealth check), you become hidden, then use Deft Strike to move out from behind the corner (no cover anymore) and make a ranged attack. You keep the benefits of being hidden until the action is resolved - but is the action moving out of cover, or is both the movement and attack counted as the action? In other words, does this grant you combat advantage?

I think the errata'ed rules have a point from a realistic perspective, but 4e hasn't been that concerned about realism historically (for the whole 6 months of history it has ;)). I think the main complaint was that making stealth harder to achieve it hurts rogues when they don't have a flanking partner available.

There, hopefully that's not too long, and hopefully it sheds some light on the issue. I think covaithe said basically the same stuff in about 1/10 the words ... meh. I'm going to bed now :yawn:
 

Dunamin

First Post
Gotcha, thanks guys.

Neither the case with and without errata seem like optimal solutions - I spent a feat for my PC to be trained in Stealth without really being aware what sort of mess it was, it would seem. :erm:

Offhand, Ata's proposal sounds good to me: No stealth with light concealment, but ok with light cover.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top