New stealth stuff from WotC

[Danceofmasks]

Well, that's cool and all, but you can't go to a con and say, "I found this in the compendium the other day!"
'cos frankly, you can't expect every DM to read every part of the compendium.
Print out the errata and FAQ, and those you can bring to a table and claim them as official.

I like the change though.
Should update the errata stat.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

I know this is getting into House Rule territory, but I'd like a way for a rogue (maybe others) to do stuff like get their back up against a 5' column and have superior cover to try and achieve stealth rather than just saying "well, you're in this square and I can draw these lines so you don't have superior cover." Maybe on a case by case basis allow a stealth check with a penalty in situations with regular cover if it's conceivable that the person could become completely obscured. Maybe actions are what it should take, like the minor action to go prone and move action to stand up. After all, if you have cover from a low wall but go prone you should be able to get superior cover instead, so maybe you could similarly say that with a minor action you could stand flat against a 5' diameter pillar and roll stealth to be hidden from someone on the other side, and then would need another minor action (or maybe move) to go back to a regular stance in the square?

 

[Stalker0]

So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall

 

[gribble]

So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall

Nope, they use their perception check (i.e.: all five senses) to locate you and be able to react effectively to your attacks launched from behind the wall.

 

[Khime]

Well, that's cool and all, but you can't go to a con and say, "I found this in the compendium the other day!"
'cos frankly, you can't expect every DM to read every part of the compendium.
Print out the errata and FAQ, and those you can bring to a table and claim them as official.

I like the change though.
Should update the errata stat.

I'd rather have the updates as they happen, with up-to-the-minute and current rulings in the compendium, rather than waiting for the errata sheet's publication cycle to finish.

 

[nittanytbone]

This makes Nimble Strike (the rogue at will that lets you shift 2 + attack) quite potent. You can move behind total cover, hide, then Nimble Strike out to get an attack with CA.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I'd rather have the updates as they happen, with up-to-the-minute and current rulings in the compendium, rather than waiting for the errata sheet's publication cycle to finish.

Sure, that'll work for home games.
Would have too many logistics issues for head GMs at cons, etc.

 

[Paul Strack]

So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall

My best interpretation for the revised Stealth rules is that they are not so much about hiding where you are (generally somewhere you enemy already can't see you). They are about your ability to retain your hidden (that is invisible) status when leave your location and move into lesser concealment.

If you put it that way, it's more reasonable sounding (though I am still not completely happy with it).

 

[Paul Strack]

I know this is getting into House Rule territory, but I'd like a way for a rogue (maybe others) to do stuff like get their back up against a 5' column and have superior cover to try and achieve stealth rather than just saying "well, you're in this square and I can draw these lines so you don't have superior cover." Maybe on a case by case basis allow a stealth check with a penalty in situations with regular cover if it's conceivable that the person could become completely obscured. Maybe actions are what it should take, like the minor action to go prone and move action to stand up. After all, if you have cover from a low wall but go prone you should be able to get superior cover instead, so maybe you could similarly say that with a minor action you could stand flat against a 5' diameter pillar and roll stealth to be hidden from someone on the other side, and then would need another minor action (or maybe move) to go back to a regular stance in the square?

I am still mulling over house rules to de-nerf things a bit, because I expect my players to be pretty unhappy with the new rules. My rough idea at the moment is this:

Better Hiding (Trained Only): Your Stealth training teaches you how to take better advantage of partially obscuring terrain. You are able to hide behind normal Cover as well as Superior Cover.

I definitely want it to be trained only. I am on the fence on whether to allow if for normal concealment as well (mainly having to do with whether I decide to keep Shadow Walk nerfed).

 

[Khime]

Sure, that'll work for home games.
Would have too many logistics issues for head GMs at cons, etc.

Given that these new rules were discovered within hours of appearing in the compendium, any GM who is planning to be in charge of a convention who is somehow aware of the existance of FAQs and errata, but also somehow completely ignorant of these changes, is frankly not paying attention.

Since at this point the compendium combines the original rules, the current errata, and soon-to-be-published errata, a convention-head GM who is trying to look up rules in a dead tree version of the rules while cross-referencing a bunch of printed-out corrections pointing to various places in each book sounds like he's the one adding logistics issues to his job.