New stealth stuff from WotC

[Ganadai]

Personally, I like the new compendium stealth rules, despite the fact that they nerf my archer.

Before, I could stand at the end of a wall where I had cover, but still had LOS to the enemy, and roll a stealth check to gain combat advantage as a part of my attack. It seemed to help balance archers with other strikers since you can never gain combat advantage by flanking with a ranged weapon. Now I'll have to spend a round to step back one square from the corner to gain stealth if I want the +2 AB from combat advantage.

However, it does help limit the rogue's ability to gain combat advantage every round, which helps balance the 2d6 damage from sneak attack with the 1d6 of the other strikers. It also prevents other classes, such as my archer , from slowing down the game by rolling stealth checks every round. It also keeps rogues from being able to stand in a square adjacent to you with light concealment (dim light or smoke) and gain combat advantage against you. That seemed really screwed up and unfair to me.

 

[jaelis]

I think the worries about the rules coming out in the compendium are overblown. Most people will know about it, and in fact it is no harder to pass out a print out of the updated rule from the RC than it would be to pass out a printout of the updates themselves.

I do have a concern though. What if they stop doing the normal updates, and everything goes through the RC? That would be OK, but eventually we have to pay to use the RC, so people without a DDI membership would get no access to errata.

I hope that won't be how it ends up working.

 

[clearstream]

Well, that's a CS that hasn't gotten the memo.

You might recall the question went in just prior to the Compendium entry being unearthed. I can't know the precise timing, but it seems likely the ruling was only in regard to PHB Stealth.

But if your CS said that stealth rolls against everyones perception rolls (omg - that just slowed the game down!), then one of the CS responses was wrong.

To me it's a matter of balance. Passive means the Rogue's skill nearly invariably works, against many enemies not even failing on a 1. I would personally restrict rolling to alert enemies, because I feel that if those guys are effectively spending actions in their own turns to keep a look out, a passive check makes no sense at all. I'm not trying to reopen this argument: you have excellent reasons for your view and were it relevant I may have come to change my mind.

The compendium says, (after blatantly reversing the PHB):

"STEALTH
Stealth: At the end of a move action.
Opposed Check: Stealth vs. passive Perception. If multiple enemies are present, your Stealth check is opposed by each enemy’s passive Perception check."

So one of the CS responses are wrong.

I absolutely agree with you. If the CSR was addressing his response toward the Compendium version, then his response was flatly wrong. However, I feel we have good grounds to believe his response was addressed toward post-FAQ PHB Stealth. If as you suspect the Compendium entry is not yet official, that again supports this view.

-vk

 

[Branduil]

I think this foes too far the other way in nerfing Stealth. I'd rather they nerfed the Warlock concealment.

 

[chaotix42]

Errata in the compendium? Ok, looks good, but this still interacts poorly with the Targeting What You Can't See rules on pg. 281 of the PHB. I'm just about ready to write off that sidebar altogether. I still like the active Perception checks to spot invisible creatures being a minor action though...

 

[MarkB]

I'm very happy with this set of rules - they seem to be a lot easier to use consistently, they feel a lot more right intuitively, and should be reasonably simple to use in-game.

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

No, you go behind the brick wall and make your Stealth check to establish whether you gain the Hidden condition. If you do, then when you later emerge into normal cover or concealment you remain hidden. If you don't, then enemies who beat your Stealth check see you as soon as your cover/concealment drops to less than total.

Your Stealth check result doesn't affect the normal rules for total cover/concealment, so a failed check doesn't let anyone see you who doesn't have line of sight to you.

 

[keterys]

The issue is, every table has to be run under the same rules

Actually, in the 'new RPGA' way of things, games are not nearly as strict as they once were. DMs can alter the modules and make rulings to make the game more fun for everyone.

Fun > Rigid Standardized Rules.

Glad that was finally realized.

It's true for tournaments, of course, but those are far less common.

Edit: Adding the quote from RPGA in case you're wondering -
'But perhaps the most important thing that's changed is the philosophy behind being a DM for our shared-world games. In the past, emphasis was placed on tournament-style play. Under this philosophy, adventures had to be run "as written" to provide a "consistent" play experience. Tournament-style play is an artifact of the past, and while it does have its place (like the D&D Championship Series) it runs counter to the experience of an accessible shared-world campaign. Now, the DM has been given one golden rule: Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure when possible. DMs are now empowered to adjust adventures to accomplish this task, just like they would in their home games. Having a good play experience is now the number one priority.'

 

[Mistwell]

Personally, I like the new compendium stealth rules, despite the fact that they nerf my archer.

Before, I could stand at the end of a wall where I had cover, but still had LOS to the enemy, and roll a stealth check to gain combat advantage as a part of my attack. It seemed to help balance archers with other strikers since you can never gain combat advantage by flanking with a ranged weapon. Now I'll have to spend a round to step back one square from the corner to gain stealth if I want the +2 AB from combat advantage.

As an archer, which I assume is a ranger, you should have Nimble Strike. If I am reading the rules correctly, Nimble Strike allows you to do what you did before. You start behind superior of full cover while stealthed, shift one square and attack with combat advantage from stealth as part of nimble strike, then shift back and stealth behind the superior or total cover. Repeat next round. In fact, it's even in the ability fluff "You slink past your enemy's guard to make your attack...". It think that's how it was always intended to be used.

 

[gos_jim]

OK this is going to be a long post, so get ready.

I like the new rules. I don't think it's too much of a pain for a rogue to have to be completely concealed or hidden to be able to stealth. This does nerf ranged rogues a little bit, but not a huge amount.

However, what I don't like is now I need to be very aware of how superior cover works vs. normal cover, and how someone can achieve superior cover. Previously, I basically just said cover is usually normal cover unless they are really blocked, by like an arrow slit. Now that rogues need to be aware of how to work Superior Cover, I sat down and drew up a couple scenarios, and found that I don't like how D&D handles it at all. For example:

In the diagram above, Troll B has superior cover from Hero, while Troll A only has normal cover. But it's quite obvious that more of Troll B is visible to Hero. Because of the ruling that lines along a wall or corner don't get blocked, Troll A is easier to hit than Troll B.

The same goes for Elf B. Elf B has normal cover, being on the exact opposite side of a pillar. Elf A though has superior cover, because only one corner is available from each corner of Hero.

This to me means that a rogue who wants to get superior cover to hide has to be very knowledgeable about how the GAME TERMS define superior cover, rather than thinking "Oh, I want to hide behind this wall." In a non-diagonal situation such as Hero->Troll A above, there is in fact NO WAY that Troll A can get full cover unless they step back away from the corner they are up against. That means they can only stealth once every 2 rounds, while Troll B can stealth every round, simply because he is on a diagonal.

I don't mind that a rogue can only get CA every other round if they do it ranged. That's perfectly fine with me. But I don't like that if you set yourself up arbitrarily based on how the game works, you CAN get it every round, if you are able to work on a diagonal.

I have a proposed solution, and I'd like your guys' input on it. (This is obviously a home rule sort of thing, but I think it fits here in the discussion of the new stealth rules pretty well)

I propose that the rules for cover be changed to this:

A defender has normal cover if a line from one of the attacker's corners can reach 1-3 of the defender's corners, no cover if a line can be drawn to all 4 corners, and (obviously) superior cover if a line cannot be drawn to any corner.

However, a defender may spend a minor action to "press" against cover. This gives them superior cover against anyone who they previous only had normal cover against. Stealth can not be used as a part of this minor action (because stealth is now a part of a move action only). Superior cover achieved in this way is lost after any other action is resolved.

What this means is that in most combat situations, people will only have "normal cover" or "no cover". If they have normal cover, they can spend a minor action to get superior cover, but if they pop out to attack, or if they cast a spell, or do anything else, then it just becomes normal cover again. Because the cover is removed AFTER the action, you can use a move action to make a stealth check after using a minor to "press" against normal cover to become stealthed.

This means that yes, a rogue CAN get Combat Advantage every turn, by doing the following:

1. Standard Action: Attack from cover. If previously stealthed, attack with CA.
2. Minor Action: Press against cover to get superior cover.
3. Move Action: Stealth, lose superior cover but gain stealth.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 as desired.

However, this takes ALL of their actions, and prevents them from moving if they want to keep the cycle up (unless of course they are moving such that they would keep Superior Cover through other methods, by being completely blocked from view or whatever else), so it may not always be the best course of action.

This also works if someone is standing behind a low wall. Use a minor to "hunker down" to get superior cover, a move to stealth, then a standard to pop up and attack, losing stealth.

It sounds complicated but really it's just a way for people to do what you always see "in the movies", and that is to really take advantage of cover in a pro-active way, rather than drawing lines every round to get crazy technical and worrying so much about positioning. I think this is a nice middle ground between the previous stealth rules (pretty much stealth every round) and the new stealth rules (stealth every other round, or every round if you're lucky enough to be on a diagonal). Now it's stealth every round if you give up everything else, no matter what type of cover you are behind, so it's no longer an automatic thing anymore.

And because it's action-based, someone could always use a readied action to attack "when that rogue pops out" so that they attack against them with standard cover rather than superior or whatever else.

I know it was long, but I think it's pretty balanced and fair, I just don't like how cover and superior cover currently work, so please let me know what you guys think.

 

[amysrevenge]

I'm printing this picture.

(Your house rules seem neat, but as I'm likely to be playing only RPGA games, they won't be of much use to me personally.)