[Ranger] Nimble Stike = Buffed Up Spring Attack?

[Mistwell]

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.

...

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.

The quoted customer service quote agrees with your opinion, but you claim the customer service quote was based on faulty understanding of the rules.

Make up your mind. Either it's a legit tactic (which is what you and the customer service person both seem to say), or this customer service person is wrong (which means it's not a legit tactic).

 

[darkInertia]

Once the rogue has revealed himself from stealth via attack, he cannot restealth again unless he performs another "non attack" attack such as moving to a different set of cover/concealment and then making another successful stealth check.

This is taken from the customer service q/a from mistwell. So once you gain CA and use it in an attack, you'd have to move (sneak) to a different location. This would prevent the sniping with CA from behind just one pillar.

Also, note that the customer service said "set of cover/concealment", not "square." Whether this was an explicit choice of words or not, I think it makes sense for the DM to decide what's a reasonable distance the PC has to move in order to be able to try to gain CA again, as well as how many times the PC can try to use the same cover (e.g. a 10 foot long wall might only be able to be used once, but a 50 foot long wall might give the PC a few chances at CA - eventually though, the monsters might recognize that the character is just running back and forth along the wall and hiding, and even with all the other battle going around him, will make it harder for the PC to gain CA.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Pffft to customer service. I'll believe a word out of their mouths when WotC tell us where they're getting their info from, because it certainly doesn't seem to be the designers, and they're contradicted themselves on a few issues already. Clearly in that particular example they were extrapolating freely, essentially making rules up. I don't see anything in my PHB about "sets of cover", so it's kind of immaterial what made-up house rule the customer service guy likes.

I don't see the problem with this, personally. It seems perfectly realistic and sensible. When you pop in to cover, people can't see you, and they can't anticipate exactly where and when you're going to pop out again. It seems perfectly reasonable to make a Stealth roll when shifting back in to me, because it makes sense that if y'know HIDE behind something and stay still/quiet, you couldn't be seen. It's cinematic, it's cool, and I don't think it's going to cause the game to catch fire.

 

[Ziana]

And that's where the CSR is mistaken. Stealth in 4e is not something you need to "gain" by moving to a square or performing some other action. It's part of any action. If you move stealthily, you roll to determine if you did so successfully. If you attack stealthily, you roll to determine if you did so successfully. Any actions up to that point don't matter, each stealth action can be resolved on its own.

Using stealth so that monsters have no idea where you are (eg, ducking behind cover, then circling around the battlefield from cover position to cover position) is a completely different matter for the DM to resolve, from attacking using cover to conceal your attacks and so make it harder to defend against.

I just got this from Evan T. (Wizard CSR)
Can ranged attackers, eg. rogues and rangers, use cover (eg, walls, pillars) or concealment (eg. bushes, darkness) to make stealth attacks during combat?
You can make a stealth attempt with any action that you do. So, if you have cover or concealment, you can attempt to hide yourself as part of your attack. If you are successful, then you are given combat advantage against your opponents who can not see you.

Is it part of the design intention of 4E that players are encouraged to make use of tactics that can grant Combat Advantage, and using terrain to make stealth attacks is intended and encouraged by the rules?
This stealth system was implemented to make cover and concealment useful to players, and make the environment more interactive.

 

[Alvoros]

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?

In the case of a LOW altar (or a low wall, table etc.) I, as DM, would rule the target DOES NOT have cover from you.....but you have cover from the target.

In the case of a large wall, floor to ceilng pillar etc, than yes, it is POSSIBLE that both sides could have cover from each other.

But, also keep in mind that you do not need SUPERIOR (total) cover, you really only need partial cover to hide as well, so by having only 1 or 2 corners of your square behind cover, you can choose the corner of your square you attack from that provides NO cover to the opponent.

Alvo

 

[Maximillian]

In the case of a LOW altar (or a low wall, table etc.) I, as DM, would rule the target DOES NOT have cover from you.....but you have cover from the target.

This. I always try to think logically about who has cover from what. Arrow slits are designed so the person firing from behind them has optimal firing angles, and people outside can't hit the person inside. Different targets have differing degrees of cover from the same object.

As to hiding, I really don't think it's that big a deal to be fairly generous with the stealth checks. If you're using stealth, you become hidden. I think it's safe to equate that to "unaware."

Really, it's the only thing that makes a rogue capable of doing any ranged Striker type work, and their pretty capable array of ranged attack powers implies they ought to be able to get SA damage on ranged attacks as easily as melee.

 

[Ziana]

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.

The goblin is in the open, he isn't behind the cover: his body is exposed. This form of cover provides it to someone crouching behind it, but not someone 5 feet away. I believe there's room here for DM interpretation as to which characters have cover or not.

If there is a full, solid wall between two characters, neither have line of sight, both have absolute cover. If there is an archer's slit in the wall with one character immediately behind it, and the other character is on the other side, in an empty space 3 squares away, I think it's obvious which of the two has cover, and which does not?

Consider it this way: the line of attack from the ranged attacker's eye and weapon can reach any portion of the target's body. The target is not covered in any way. But behind the altar or arrow slit, a large portion or even all of the attacker's body is covered, meaning it's harder to hit them, and they have a way to hide making it uncertain when or whom they're attacking.

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).

I believe you were doing this all correctly, except treating cover as working equally in both directions. The sniper perched in a window has cover, the person walking in the middle of the street does not.

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?

If cover always works equally in both directions, it's meaningless, and there's no reason to make use of it. There can be situations in which both sides have cover: two sides of a room with barriers to hide behind, or ships which have pulled up alongside. In such a case, both sides would be getting attack penalties. But where one side is making use of terrain cover, and the other side has none, the advantage goes one way, in my opinion.

I believe the easiest way to resolve cover or concealment is to consider who cannot be easily hit or seen. Someone in 1 square of bushes has partial concealment to anyone outside; but the person inside can see others just fine. 2 squares of bushes between two people? They both have concealment. One person in darkness and one in light? The one in darkness is concealed. One person pressed up against a wall and firing around a corner, versus another in the middle of the room? The one at the corner has cover.

 

[Ziana]

As to the value of Nimble Attack, I believe its primary value is to allow the ranger to kite foes. They can shift away from an attacker that has reached them, make one attack, then make a full move action. TW Rangers can use this as a hit & run tactic, while archers can keep foes at a distance.

That said, instead of picturing an altar, try a massive block that fills the square. In that case, Nimble could work like you describe, being used to move out, attack, then move to safety again.

 

[Mistwell]

The actual situation was in Keep on the Shadowfell. The terrain in question included: 1) Boulders (concealment and possible cover), and 2) Heavy Foliage (cover for those attacking from or into the area).

For both situations, I couldn't seem to make it work as cover/concealment for myself to get combat advantage from stealth and simultaneously not cover/concealment for my target.

Now that didn't make it useless. There were still two advantages I got from this tactic:

A) I could negate the cover/concealment penalty with the combat advantage bonus, but my target often could not themselves make a stealth check successfully to gain combat advantage on me. Which meant that if they chose to make a ranged attack against me, they still took the -2 from the concealment/cover I was in/behind; and

B) Often the opponent couldn't get line of sight on me at all, since I was hidden by stealth in the new concealment/cover and their perception failed. Sometimes they could have moved around to try and regain line of sight (since they knew roughly where I was) but almost every time the choice was just to attack someone they could actually see rather than try and pursue the guy who might be behind the rock outcropping or slinking through the heavy foliage.

Those are pretty big bonuses. I was only targeted one time, and that was during the surprise round and I was out in the open. For an archer Ranger in leather armor and relatively low Constitution, that was a pretty good thing.

Nevertheless, it sure seemed like there should have been a way to get combat advantage through stealth without also granting my opponent cover/concealment in this scenario. I could have tried to seek cover behind an ally, but that just didn't "feel" like an appropriate way to use this skill. And due to bright sunlight, there were no real light conditions I could use, unless I could have talked my DM into shadows from boulders of foliage or something.

 

[Mistwell]

But, also keep in mind that you do not need SUPERIOR (total) cover, you really only need partial cover to hide as well, so by having only 1 or 2 corners of your square behind cover, you can choose the corner of your square you attack from that provides NO cover to the opponent.

Alvo

Ah, you are right! For example, in this same graphic:

If I am again the Archer Ranger B in the middle, and my target is Goblin 4 (down and to the right), I can attack from the upper right corner of my square and draw a clean line to each of Goblin 4's corners. However, Goblin 4 cannot draw a clean line from any of his corners to my bottom left corner. Which means I have cover vs. his attacks, but he doesn't have cover vs. my attacks.

Yeah, that would have helped in our game last night. That might be what I was looking for. Thanks!