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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gos_jim" data-source="post: 4407255" data-attributes="member: 73890">Yes, I corrected myself in my post up above, thank you Ganadai.bardolph, Paul Strack, thank you for the feedback, and I agree with both of your statements.bardolph, as far as stealthing after ducking behind a table goes, it is no different from the pre-compendium rules, which I didn't particularly have a problem with other than that they were very open to interpretation. In fact, in KotS they have goblins getting stealth by ducking under tables, it is a recommended tactic. If you have a problem with that, then as a DM you could rule that the character is simply unable to get superior cover from the cover they are behind. A table would be one of those situations. I will probably be doing that, thank you for mentioning it.I also have no problem at all with the "stealth shuffle". It doesn't bother me if a rogue has to step back and step forward to "re-stealth", only allowing them to get CA at range once every two rounds. That is perfectly fine with me, and seems balanced. My personal issue with it is that there seem to be arbitrary positions where superior cover is granted when you would think it shouldn't be (as in my diagram), especially along diagonals. This means that SOME rogues will have to do the shuffle, but others if they get lucky on a weird corner, are twice as effective. I don't mind if they get superior cover every round if they're behind a murder hole, but I'd rather them not get it just because their enemy is diagonal to them rather than along a straight line.Paul Strack, I appreciate your input and discouraging movement is definitely not something I want to do. I am constantly telling my players that in 4e, mobility is incredibly important. I am not attempting to solve this issue. However, I think that the "stealth shuffle", as bardolph put it, back and forth at a corner, is a rather superficial amount of "movement" to partake in. I don't think it is a big loss if the need to do it is removed. Thanks again both of you for your thoughts on my ideas.Mistwell: To get stealth every other round using the new rules (compendium rules, not my house rules), you could do this:R1. Standard Action: Attack from a corner (with normal cover, Troll A in my diagram), possibly with CA from being stealthed previously.R1: Move Action: Move back a step to get superior cover, stealth.Next RoundR2: Move Action: Move to the corner. You still have cover, so you retain stealth.R2: Standard Action: Attack from corner with CA.To get it every round, you can do this:R1: Standard Action: Attack from a corner (with superior cover, Troll B in my diagram), possibly with CA from being stealthed previously.R1: Move Action: Move 0 squares, re-stealth. (It's debatable whether this is allowed or not. If not, you could step back 1, then step forward again because you will still have superior cover in your end space at the corner).R2: Standard Action: Attack from the corner again, with CA again.This is the one thing about the new rules I don't like. It requires the "stealth shuffle" for purely arbitrary reasons. As shown in the diagram, Troll A is ACTUALLY more hidden than Troll B, but Troll A has to move back and forth and he can only get CA every other round, while Troll B can just sit pretty and get CA each attack, AND he has better defense. This is the problem my change is attempting to address. It's not a problem with the new Stealth rules, those are tight. It's a problem with the existing Cover rules (in my opinion).</blockquote>

Verification