New stealth stuff from WotC

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

This is really no different than the way we've always played it in 3.x.

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.

That makes Rogues who go the Stealth route the best sneakers in the game. Pre-compendium it was Warlocks, Rogues, Rangers. Now it's Rogues, Rangers, Warlocks, as it should be.

-vk

Yeah, but now best strikers is Rangers - Warlocks - Fighters - pretty much anyone else - rogues. Losing two standard actions to get combat advantage (which supposedly, per Mike Mearls, the game's math assumes the rogue has pretty much all of the time), then wasting entire turns not attacking to get into position to make a sneak attack leaves rogues with pretty much the lowest damage output in the game. It also creates a trap where you have to take Bluff to perform as a rogue, adds CHA as a necessity to all rogue builds and makes brutal scoundrels decidedly inferior.

 

[jaelis]

What many people may find counter-intuitive is that if you get hidden, then on a later turn move flagrantly through open squares adjacent to severa enemies, you remain invisible during that move action right under the noses of those enemies.

At the end of that move action you are no longer hidden (and can't rehide without another action).

Well, I'd say as you get the advantage of being hidden while moving. For instance, no one could take an opportunity attack on you. That seems OK to me... you surprised them by showing up someplace they didn't expect.

Also look at Fleeting Ghost. It seems to grant a check without needing SC or TC. So end your move in a C or C square and hide, and then follow up with a second move, hidden, to a new location.

I think fleeting ghost just negates the penalty for movement.

 

[bardolph]

What many people may find counter-intuitive is that if you get hidden, then on a later turn move flagrantly through open squares adjacent to severa enemies, you remain invisible during that move action right under the noses of those enemies.

I don't think this is a correct reading of the "Keep Out of Sight" section. This section clearly states that if you lose cover/concealment, you are no longer hidden. This is a requirement for staying hidden, not a condition that you check only at the end of an action.

So, in the scenario you describe, the creatures would automatically be alerted and be able to take opportunity attacks as appropriate.

However, with a successful Bluff check for Distraction, the rogue would be able to make this move.

 

[Mengu]

What many people may find counter-intuitive is that if you get hidden, then on a later turn move flagrantly through open squares adjacent to severa enemies, you remain invisible during that move action right under the noses of those enemies.

Compendium says:

Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy.

I think the intent is pretty clear on this one.

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.

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

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wow, that is pretty...idiotic. You can only use stealth against an enemy against whom you have Total Concealment, which is defined as:

"Total Concealment (–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls):
You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in
a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square that is not adjacent to you."

So you can only hide from a person when they already have absolutely zero chance of seeing you in the first place.

I guess I can understand their drive to nerf the warlock, but this is just stupid. An invisible person, or a person firing through an arrow slit, really doesn't need stealth. And now no one else can get it.

So much for the rogue being "expected to get combat advantage with every attack."

It's not that silly really...

In combat, you need to have no line of sight from someone to you in order to enter 'stealth mode' and thats just plain common sense. If they can see you clearly, you ain't gonna be hiding so they can't see you any more.

Once you have hidden from them, ordinary concealment and moving slowly allows you to effortlessly maintain that hiding. This is nice.

It also specifies the way in which CA can be gained by sneaking snipers, which is helpful.

The only people that miss out here are Warlocks whose requirement to move 3 or more squares to gain concealment means that they can't effortlessly maintain their stealth, but have to make another skill check at -5 to continue to be hidden - which is still a pretty good deal, really.

I wonder if this will appear in errata, or whether this (and how many other things?) will be added to the compendium by, er, stealth?

Cheers

 

[Lauberfen]

The 5' pillar won't work. There is no situation when a 5' pillar grants superior cover, as you'll always be able to see 2 vertexes along one edge of the pillar.

This update is great, going above and beyond my house rules.

 

[JDillard]

EDIT: Ninja'd, like, 3 times over.

 

[jaelis]

I don't think this is a correct reading of the "Keep Out of Sight" section. This section clearly states that if you lose cover/concealment, you are no longer hidden. This is a requirement for staying hidden, not a condition that you check only at the end of an action.

So, in the scenario you describe, the creatures would automatically be alerted and be able to take opportunity attacks as appropriate.

However, with a successful Bluff check for Distraction, the rogue would be able to make this move.

But it says:

Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.

So that would suggest no oppy attacks.

But I guess there is still some uncertainty. If you move out from cover, do you retain the benefits for only the first square you move through, or for the entire move action.

If you interpret it as the whole move action, it also means you can't move out of cover, cross an open space to new cover, and hide again.

 

[Felon]

What the....????

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.

 

[FadedC]

We've been pretty much playing it like that all along in 4e, and the the rogue has been able to sneak attack on about 95% of his attacks. He doesn't do it by hiding, he does it by flanking and other forms of getting combat advantage.