New stealth stuff from WotC

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

It's unfortunate that you find all 80+ Rogue powers less fun than tumble.

It's unfortunate you can't come up with a better line than this. Want to try for an intelligent response?

You can't get the benefit of a bunch of the 80 powers without having combat advantage. You can't use all 80 powers, instead being limited to a comparative few of them, especially through the first 10 levels. Most of them can't be used at will and are limited to once per encounter or once per day. If you can't move around, the game is less fun to play as a rogue or ranger. If you can't move around as a rogue or ranger, you can't perform your role as a striker.

 

[Kordeth]

But it says:

It says if you "take an action" that causes you to become unhidden, you remain hidden until the action resolves. "No longer have cover/concealment" is not an action, it's just something that happens, so you don't get the benefit of "remaining hidden till the action is resolved."

Even if you apply the rule here, there's ample evidence (see for example immediate reactions and movement) that each square of movement should be treated as its own action for these sorts of purposes. In other words, when you move into a square that doesn't have cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden when that square of movement is resolved.

 

[clearstream]

It says if you "take an action" that causes you to become unhidden, you remain hidden until the action resolves. "No longer have cover/concealment" is not an action, it's just something that happens, so you don't get the benefit of "remaining hidden till the action is resolved."

Even if you apply the rule here, there's ample evidence (see for example immediate reactions and movement) that each square of movement should be treated as its own action for these sorts of purposes. In other words, when you move into a square that doesn't have cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden when that square of movement is resolved.

'...that causes you...' Walking out into the open 'causes you' to become unhidden. The reason this plays as it does is to avoid bugs that otherwise arise due to immediate interrupts and trim branching wordings that complicate the rulings. I concur with you that squares must be considered individually, but that is far from calling each step an action!

The enemies miss out on a few OAs, which the Rogue likely dodged anyway, and the rules play clean and fast.

-vk

 

[BASHMAN]

Yeah, but 4e is supposed to be an improvement on 3.x. This makes playing a 4e rogue less fun than playing a 3.x rogue. In 3.x, you could at least tumble at will..

Stealth = the New Grapple

 

[Paul Strack]

I am in the camp that these rules nerf Stealth too much. I was convinced in another thread that Superior Concealment/Total Concealment was too much of a restriction for Stealth.

Other than the SC/TC requirement, though, these rules look pretty good to me. Clean and simple and not so many degenerate cases. Right now I am planning on using them, but am considering relaxing the requirements to just Normal Cover/Total Concealment. Allowing you to hide behind normal Cover would give Rogues back their CA but keeps the door closed to Warlock Stealth-fu.

 

[Benly]

Even if you apply the rule here, there's ample evidence (see for example immediate reactions and movement) that each square of movement should be treated as its own action for these sorts of purposes. In other words, when you move into a square that doesn't have cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden when that square of movement is resolved.

So then, logically you just have to move through a square with total cover or concealment to hide as long as you then retain concealment? Warlocks are back on top, I guess.

My big problem with this change is that it returns us to the 3.x mentality of "a rogue is a frontliner who stands across from a fighter, flanking and whaling away" rather than the previous 4e "a rogue sneaks around, shanks at the right moment, and then fades back into the shadows".

 

[jaelis]

It says if you "take an action" that causes you to become unhidden, you remain hidden until the action resolves. "No longer have cover/concealment" is not an action, it's just something that happens, so you don't get the benefit of "remaining hidden till the action is resolved."

Not sure I understand your point here. The action causing you to loose cover/concealment is movement, it seems like you would retain the benefit until the movement is resolved.

Even if you apply the rule here, there's ample evidence (see for example immediate reactions and movement) that each square of movement should be treated as its own action for these sorts of purposes. In other words, when you move into a square that doesn't have cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden when that square of movement is resolved.

I agree it could be interpreted that way, and it seems pretty reasonable. (So you would not get an oppy for leaving the square you were hiding in, but you would thereafter.) But the text itself seems ambiguous, since each square of movement is not always treated as a separate action.

 

[jaelis]

Hmm. So if a rogue with deft strike moved out of cover and attacked (all as one action), would he get combat advantage?

Seems like it depends on how you want to interpret the "Not remaining hidden" clause.

 

[Kordeth]

You can't get the benefit of a bunch of the 80 powers without having combat advantage.

Sorry, what? There are no rogue powers that require you to have combat advantage, and quite a few that give you combat advantage.

You can't use all 80 powers, instead being limited to a comparative few of them, especially through the first 10 levels. Most of them can't be used at will and are limited to once per encounter or once per day.

That's how every class works, so I don't really see how that's a problem.

If you can't move around, the game is less fun to play as a rogue or ranger. If you can't move around as a rogue or ranger, you can't perform your role as a striker.

You can move around, you just don't have a skill that lets you completely ignore the dangers of OAs like you had in 3.5. There are absolutely feats and powers you can use to improve your mobility. Hell, take Nimble Strike as your at-will and you can use a move action to shift one square away from an enemy, then use your standard to move two more squares and attack. That's three squares of movement and an attack without provoking OAs unless you move through another creature's threatened space, and that's almost exactly what you got with Tumble in 3.5.

 

[clearstream]

I am in the camp that these rules nerf Stealth too much. I was convinced in another thread that Superior Concealment/Total Concealment was too much of a restriction for Stealth.

Before you do that, you might like to consider that Rogues going the Stealth route still have at-will ignore the SC/TC requirement.

If you go back to C/C you make Warlocks best at sneaking, followed by Rogues, then Rangers, then Wizards.

If you run it by the Compendium, you make Rogues best at sneaking, followed by Rangers, then Warlocks and Wizards about even.

How would you like the classes to be ranked for sneaking?

-vk