[Ranger] Nimble Stike = Buffed Up Spring Attack?

[Mistwell]

It took me a while to figure out the real value of Nimble Strike, but now that I figured it out I think it's useful for pretty much any Archer Ranger that trains Stealth, and often more useful than twin strike (which is usually thought of as the clearly superior at-will ranger power).

If there is any concealment or cover in the room (and usually there is), nimble strike is like spring attack.

All you have to do is move to cover or concealment, then:

Example A:

1a) Shift out from cover/concealment,
2a) Nimble strike for 1[W]+dex Damage,
3a) Shift back into cover/concealment,
4a) Roll stealth check (Odds are quite high you beat the opponents perception check),
5a) You are now "hidden", which has a number of effects including preventing line of sight, and preventing combat advantage against you (in addition to gaining the normal advantages of cover/concealment).
6a) Repeat from Step 1

Now the question is, is there any way to gain combat advantage using this tactic? When you are hidden, you gain combat advantage. However, once you move out from cover/concealment, you are no longer hidden.

Could you, for instance:

Example B:

1) Stealth into a square of cover/concealment,
2) Nimble strike from within that concealment/cover and gain combat advantage for that strike,
3) Shift into different concealment/cover and make a new stealth check to start the process again for the next round?

Could you do this back and forth between two squares of cover/concealment?

If you do get combat advantage, then your nimble strikes will be Dex+2 vs. AC, Dam 1[W]+dex. Which seems like it will often be more powerful than twin strike that grants 2 atks, Dex vs. AC, Dam 1[W].

 

[keterys]

It feels weird to be able to stealth as part of a shift for some reason. At least, with no penalty.

But eh, seems valid. It was my understanding that you can attack with combat advantage if you're stealthed at start of the action... so using Deft Strike or Nimble Strike to move in then attack seems valid. I didn't research too carefully, though.

 

[Mistwell]

It feels weird to be able to stealth as part of a shift for some reason. At least, with no penalty.

But eh, seems valid. It was my understanding that you can attack with combat advantage if you're stealthed at start of the action... so using Deft Strike or Nimble Strike to move in then attack seems valid. I didn't research too carefully, though.

Well, since stealth grants combat advantage, there would be no point to that combat advantage if you couldn't attack (at least once). The attack itself blows your stealth thereafter until you can stealth again, but I'm thinking for that attack you still gain combat advantage (or else there would be no point to stealth granting combat advantage if you could never use that combat advantage).

However, you still have to have moved into a square with cover/concealment to make the attack. If you move outside of it, then you are apparently instantly seen and lose the combat advantage.

And I see Customer Service Agrees:

 

[Zurai]

You cannot stealth as part of an attack. Regardless of the fact that it's a shift, the shift from Nimble Strike is still part of the attack.

 

[Mistwell]

You cannot stealth as part of an attack. Regardless of the fact that it's a shift, the shift from Nimble Strike is still part of the attack.

You can't do a stealth as part of something that would unstealth you. NORMALLY an attack unstealths you (and the customer service answer clearly covers a normal attack). However, shifting does not unstealth you, and in this case the shift part is what is in question. The attack itself unstealths you, but there is no reason why you could not stealth as part of the shift granted by that power

Besides, you can use stealth as part of any action you are trying to do in a stealthy manner. Hence, you could shift into the new concealment/cover, and then take a minor action to adjust your belt (or whatever), and roll a stealth check as part of that minor action. As long as you are in a square of cover/concealment, and you did not attack from that square that round to blow a stealth check, I see no reason why you couldn't roll a stealth check and gain the advantages of stealth if you beat the opponent's perception check.

Heck, you could take a free action while in cover/concealment to flip your opponent a stealthy bird and roll a stealth check as part of that free action even! The hard part was getting into new cover/concealment from the space you attacked, not finding room for an action to use your stealth skill.

 

[Otterscrubber]

When you are hidden, you gain combat advantage.

Not exactly. You gain combat advantage from stealth if the enemy is unaware of you, which is different from them simply not being able to see you.

Being "hidden" is not the same as being invisible which clearly states that you gain combat advantage from an enemy who can't see you. This is a vaguely worded skill and I wish they would clarify exactly what it means to be "hidden" or "unaware". I'm pretty sure i know that they mean, but everyone seems to have a different take. All in all I wish this skill would be clarified as I have a hard time believing they meant this skill to allow perma-invis to anyone who has it and a tree or box nearby to hide next to. Or even changing it to from having cover or concealment to merely concealment. I don't know, it just seems skeevy to me.

 

[The Grackle]

You can't do a stealth as part of something that would unstealth you. NORMALLY an attack unstealths you (and the customer service answer clearly covers a normal attack). However, shifting does not unstealth you, and in this case the shift part is what is in question. The attack itself unstealths you, but there is no reason why you could not stealth as part of the shift granted by that power

I agree that the actual attack breaks stealth, not the whole attack power. Otherwise, a warlord power that grants movement to allies, like Warlord's Rush, would unstealth a rogue/ranger even though the warlord was the one who attacked.

Heck, you could take a free action while in cover/concealment to flip your opponent a stealthy bird and roll a stealth check as part of that free action even! The hard part was getting into new cover/concealment from the space you attacked, not finding room for an action to use your stealth skill.

I'm not sure that free actions count. Not that there's a rule against it, but the custserv responses tend to call out stealthing with minor or move actions.

 

[Mistwell]

Not exactly. You gain combat advantage from stealth if the enemy is unaware of you, which is different from them simply not being able to see you.

I disagree. The text of the stealth rules, and the customer service answer, both disagree with you.

Being "hidden" is not the same as being invisible which clearly states that you gain combat advantage from an enemy who can't see you.

I never mentioned invisible. Under stealth, if you make a stealth check (something you can do when you enter new cover/concealment), and it beats your opponents perception check, you gain combat advantage. It has nothing to do with being invisible.

This is a vaguely worded skill and I wish they would clarify exactly what it means to be "hidden" or "unaware". I'm pretty sure i know that they mean, but everyone seems to have a different take.

Which is why I went to the trouble of taking a screen-shot and hosting the image of the customer service answer on this topic, which clarifies the issue.

All in all I wish this skill would be clarified as I have a hard time believing they meant this skill to allow perma-invis to anyone who has it and a tree or box nearby to hide next to. Or even changing it to from having cover or concealment to merely concealment. I don't know, it just seems skeevy to me.

It's not invisibility. It's simply a +2 attack bonus, if you beat their perception. Which USUALLY simply negates the target's cover/concealment bonus (which they get because you just moved behind cover or into concealment, which grants the target and equal amount of cover/concealment unless it is a special case like an ally).

 

[Ziana]

Different customer service reps have provided contradictory answers on Stealth In Combat, to the point where they started refusing to answer those questions because they're working on errata or developing consistent guidelines. See the Stealth in Combat thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230323 I believe the CSR quoted above was giving an answer based on faulty understanding of the intended rules. We've seen this several times now.

Stealth applies in two situations: Out of Combat and In-Combat.

Out of Combat is where terms like "unaware" or "avoiding notice" really apply. This is RP type situations like sneaking up on a guard whose back is turned, or distracting the innkeeper so the rogue can get upstairs. Once stealth fails, NPCs are aware of the player, and combat or other results ensue. This is also the usage that can help grant surprise once combat starts.

You make a stealth check when you attempt to perform an action stealthily. PHB188 doesn't distinguish between in-combat or out-of-combat (which is part of why people get confused). Important points are that stealth is not a mode or condition as in 3E, it is a method attached to any other action, including attacks. You can move stealthily, attack stealthily, throw a switch stealthily, etc.

In-combat, you can't sneak up behind monsters because they are considered to be aware of their surroundings in all directions: there is no "facing". However, the necessary conditions for stealth are cover or concealment, so you you can make use of these to perform stealth attacks.

Combat Advantage is a minor bonus. There are numerous ways to gain it, and I believe it is part of the intended design of 4E combat that players be encouraged to make effective use of tactics to gain it. The design of the system encourages it: rogues and fighters will position for flanking, they'll use special abilities to stun/daze/blind or knock down their opponents.

Using terrain to make stealth attacks provides a *chance* (stealth DC) of gaining combat advantage for ranged attackers who are making the effort to make use of cover or concealment. Using pillars, crates, bushes etc. to launch attacks at targets who can't adequately anticipate their attacks, is effective tactics. Since melee fighters can many ways of gaining CA each round, it is not unbalanced in any way for rogues or rangers using stealth to make ranged attacks from cover to also have a possibility of gaining CA.

 

[Mistwell]

I did want to point out an issue I encountered last night when using this tactic.

Forgive the somewhat sloppy image, I am new at image manipulation:

Assume the ranger is B (in center), and his target is 3 (Goblin directly down from him). The cover down from him is a low altar, which can be shot over but which provides some cover.

Ranger B shifted diagonal (up and to the left) one space to arrive at that spot (he started one space down and to the right). He makes a stealth check behind that cover, and beats Goblin 3's perception check. So, he has combat advantage over Goblin 3 (+2 attack bonus).

Except, he just gave Goblin 3 cover by moving behind that altar. Cover is a -2 attack bonus. Which means his combat advantage bonus is negated by the cover that help gain the combat advantage to begin with.

This happened quite frequently as we tested it in last night's game. It was easy to gain new cover or concealment to make a stealth check, and it was easy to beat the foes perception check, but pretty much every time the taking of that cover or concealment was also granting the foe the same cover or concealment, negating the bonus (though making the Ranger harder to hit as well).

The only situations I could see where the Ranger actually gets a net +2 bonus from stealth is when they take cover from an ally, or from concealment which doesn't impact them but does impact the opponent (like lighting effects such as shadows).

Am I interpreting this correctly? Does most cover and concealment tend to grant cover/concealment to the target as well, thus negating the normal +2 attack bonus from combat advantage?