New stealth stuff from WotC

[Plane Sailing]

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

It is unfortunate that you choose to insult someone. You're banned from this thread.

 

[Armadillo]

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.

Sure. The rogue would have combat advantage due to being hidden at the begining of their turn. At the end of their turn, after moving out to attack, the rogue would not be hidden.

 

[Bolongo]

Rogues going the Stealth route still have at-will ignore the SC/TC requirement.

If you're talking about Fleeting Ghost, then I disagree with your reading of that power. It removes the -5 penalty, nothing more.

 

[Mengu]

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 Deft 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.

To add to what Kordeth said, you also are often protected by a Fighter or a Paladin as you are moving around, drawing opportunity attacks. When an enemy takes an opportunity attack against you, you possibly get Artful Dodger bonus, and maybe even Defensive Mobility Bonus. If that enemy is marked, he takes a -2 penalty on top of that, so good luck to him hitting your ultra high AC. To top it off, if that enemy is marked by the paladin, he takes some divine challenge damage. If that enemy is marked by the fighter, the fighter gets to smack him thanks to combat challenge. And when you do get hit, well, you have a cleric or warlord for that.

 

[jaelis]

Sure. The rogue would have combat advantage due to being hidden at the begining of their turn. At the end of their turn, after moving out to attack, the rogue would not be hidden.

But some people have been suggesting that you would only benefit from being hidden for the first square of your movement, since each square of movement counts as a "mini-action" for some purposes. (Opportunity attacks, for instance.)

I like letting deft strike work. But that would mean you could not move away from one hiding place and then hide again in another (all as the same action). And I don't really like that.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

They're putting original rules content into the compendium, and just waiting for someone to stumble across it and notice it's there? Not just original rules either, but rules that contradict the PHB?

That's not the way a compendium is supposed to work. At least publich the original content outside of the compendium, then reference it.

The issue with making a tabletop RPG simultaneously online is that a significant chunk of your player base is not going to be using the most up-to-date version of the rules. They're actually creating rules disparities in the edition less than two months after release. It's a problem, no doubt about it. I can't use the rules as written because they're terribly vague, but I'm not always going to have access to the web to have the most recent version.

This is a discussion for another thread though.

 

[Kordeth]

'...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!

What if it wasn't your movement that causes you to lose cover. What if a bad guy takes a move action and steps around the corner, then moves another five squares. Does he not see you crouching behind the wall, even though you're in plain sight, until he finishes moving?

The only way it makes any kind of rational sense (and doesn't make the rogue utility 10 Shadow Stride a useless power) is if you read the literal meaning of "action that causes you to become unhidden" (that is, the action itself causes you to be unhidden--"attacking causes you to be no longer hidden" versus "if you lose cover/concealment, you are no longer hidden," where it's the loss of C/C that unhides you, not the action of moving) or if you follow the reaction rules of effectively treating each square of movement as its own "action" for purposes of resolving Stealth.

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.

No, because the rules ror making a Stealth check are more stringent than the rules for remaining hidden. You make a Stealth check at the end of a move action, and have to have superior cover/total concealment.

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".

Rogues can still do that, they just have to rely on distractions and trickery more. Don't forget there are utility powers that can help with this.

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.

No, because a) it makes no sense logically and b) it renders Shadow Stride a do-nothing power. The action of moving isn't what unhides you--you can move while hidden as long as you follow all the rules. It's losing cover/concealment that unhides you, and that's not an action.

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.

That's because most times it doesn't have to be. In this case, it does (or we need to accept that losing cover is not an action and thus causes you to unhide immediately, not at the end of the action that caused you to lose cover/concealment), for the reasons pointed out above.

 

[Kordeth]

But some people have been suggesting that you would only benefit from being hidden for the first square of your movement, since each square of movement counts as a "mini-action" for some purposes. (Opportunity attacks, for instance.)

I like letting deft strike work. But that would mean you could not move away from one hiding place and then hide again in another (all as the same action). And I don't really like that.

Personally, I like letting Deft Strike work too--I'd just make that a special exception for the power though: "Special: If you are hidden when you use this power, you remain hidden until after the attack, even if moving would cause you to lose cover or concealment."

Personally, I'm okay with needing a level 10 utility power to run out of one hiding place and get to another one while remaining hidden.

 

[Pielorinho]

I am in the camp that ...

Paul! It's Daniel, from Chapel Hill. Do I have the right Paul Strack here?

If so, good to see you around!

Daniel

 

[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