Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kordeth" data-source="post: 4405185" data-attributes="member: 5036">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. 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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification