Shadow Stride vs. Fleeting Ghost vs. Secret Stride

[Black Knight Irios]

I disagree with you Abdul.

Two of the benefits of being hidden is being invis and silent.

If I loose the benefits of being hidden at the end of the action that ends my state of being hidden, how can I be visible and noisy (if I don't shout or the like) before the end of that action.

I'm pretty sure that your interpretation is right but what stops me ruleswise from interpreting it that way? And common sense is not a possible answer.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the answer is just that it is unworkable otherwise. If a move action for example doesn't make you visible when you move out of concealment until the END of the action then it is JUST as if you had Fleeting Ghost all the time for everyone!

In other words you could move from one cover to another, in the open and in plain sight and as long as you end your move in cover you would just make a stealth role and be able to stay hidden the whole time. Why have FG and SS then? So my response is that the existence of those powers tells us that such an interpretation is not what was intended by the designers. You need special powers to be that stealthy.

Of course I am not saying DM discretion cannot help you here either. If the rogue in my campaign darts out with Deft Strike and makes an attack on an orc at the back of the orc band while the other orcs are all up front hammering on the rest of the party I might well rule that if he slays the guy he's attacking then maybe he can make a stealth roll that would let him get back to concealment before the other orcs happen to notice. But remember, you have to watch out with stuff like that. Players will start to assume they can do things that run over the top of what they would really need to have a power to perform, and then they end up with the benefit of the power without needing to select it.

The other problem that could arise is what about lurker monsters? If a PC rogue can pull off something like that just using stealth, then so can monsters. And remember, EVERYTHING has a Stealth skill check number. At some point if you get too lenient, you will have 100 stealth and perception rolls going on every single encounter.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I think you didn't get it.

I'm sure you mean SS not FG. And even if you said SS instead of FG it is not the same that I was saying.


I said, you remain hidden with all benefits (i.e. being invis and silent) until the end of the action (compare to SR1).

But I didn't say that you can roll a stealth check at the end of that action. Which by no means is equal to everyone has FG and/or SS per default.

So it will never cause that big issues with PCs/NPCs/Monsters that don't have access to those powers.
Indeed dangerous would be a creature with high stealth and an attack that allowed to move before and after the attack all in a single action. This could lead to creature that is "invis" nearly all the time in the right environment.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I think you are wrong MyISPHatesENWorld, there is no being unseen when you use stealth, there is only being hidden. [/i]

According to the FAQ, there most definitely is unseen...

"If you take an action which causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until the completion of the action." Updated Stealth Rules

"16. What are the benefits of being hidden?

There are several benefits of being hidden from an enemy - you have combat advantage against them and they will have a more difficult time targeting you because you are unseen. Page 281 of the Player's Handbook explains the rules for targeting unseen creatures." - FAQ

Here is a specific rule (I assume that SR1 trumps GR1-4):

SR1 Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.

This is where you're breaking from what the rules say and moving into trying to make them say what you want. This isn't a specific rule, it is part of the stealth rules. It explains what happens when you take an action that causes you to no longer be hidden, there is no exception involved.

You are no longer hidden. You retain the benefits of being hidden, which isn't the same thing. This is an important point that you continue to change. The benefits of being hidden are defined in the FAQ entry - You have combat advantage and are unseen, that's it.

One of the benefits of being hidden is being invis. But that is in fact not even relevant. SR1 states that you retain the benefits of being hidden, and one of those benefits is being hidden by itself.

There is no wording in the rules as written, including updates or FAQ that that supports your position. The rules do not say. "If you take an action which causes you not to remain hidden, you remain hidden until you resolve the action."

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Thank you, for backing up your point with rules.

Ok, there must be something like unseen ruleswise. But it is no definded term. OTOH, invis is one. And invis is probably what they should have written.

This is what is written in the stealth update:

Success: You are hidden, which means you are silent and invisible to the enemy (see “Concealment” and “Targeting What You Can’t See,” page 281).

The FAQ doesn't add anything to that, it calls invis unseen which is simply not good because it substitutes unseen for invis and unseen is not a defined term ruleswise. Even worse, they left out that you are silent.

So either the FAQ is erroneous or the updated stealth rules.

You admit that I have all the benefits of being hidden regarding SR1 (I still call it SR1 but I agree that it does not trump GR1-4). Ok it doesn't say you are still hidden but you retain the benefits. Indeed, that is not the same. Now we take a look at the benefits of being hidden: invis + silent, stealth update (or unseen FAQ).
Result: You are not hidden but invis and silent which is equal to being hidden most of the time. There might be powers/etc. that require you to be hidden but most of the time there is no big difference between being hidden and just having the benefits of being hidden.


And with this I'm back to saying that the last sentence of SS is useless ruleswise and depending on the interpretation of FG, FG is bettter than SS.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Thank you, for backing up your point with rules.

I posted the same rules in my original post.

The FAQ doesn't add anything to that, it calls invis unseen which is simply not good because it substitutes unseen for invis and unseen is not a defined term ruleswise. Even worse, they left out that you are silent.

So either the FAQ is erroneous or the updated stealth rules.

Or you are wrong, which in a discussion of what the rules are is the answer here. If one of the rules has to be wrong to fit your interpretation, your interpretation is incorrect.

The "benefits of being hidden" don't need to include silent, because there is no benefit to being silent that would matter. If they can't hear you, they "sense some other sign of your presencs."

"If an invisible creature is not hidden from you, you can hear it or sense some other sign of its presence and therefore know what space it occupies, although you still can’t see it." -PHB update, Targeting What You Can't See

You admit that I have all the benefits of being hidden regarding SR1 (I still call it SR1 but I agree that it does not trump GR1-4). Ok it doesn't say you are still hidden but you retain the benefits. Indeed, that is not the same.

I don't admit anything. I state that, per the update, you retain the "benefits of being hidden" and that per the FAQ, the "benefits of being hidden" are that you have combat advantage and are unseen. The phrase "the benefits of being hidden" as opposed to "hidden" occurs only in two places - in the description of what happens when you take an action which causes you to not be hidden, and the FAQ entry describing those benefits.

Now we take a look at the benefits of being hidden: invis + silent, stealth update (or unseen FAQ).
Result: You are not hidden but invis and silent which is equal to being hidden most of the time. There might be powers/etc. that require you to be hidden but most of the time there is no big difference between being hidden and just having the benefits of being hidden.

Being invisible and silent is not the equivalent of being hidden, unless you are hidden - i.e. you have succeeded on a stealth check and have not taken an action which causes you to not be hidden (excepting powers/abilities that change that).

And with this I'm back to saying that the last sentence of SS is useless ruleswise and depending on the interpretation of FG, FG is bettter than SS.

And, the rules as written don't support that. The only way that works is if the FAQ or update is "wrong" and as they are the rules, they aren't.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I posted the same rules in my original post.

Probably a better layout or form of presentation in the last post.

Or you are wrong, which in a discussion of what the rules are is the answer here. If one of the rules has to be wrong to fit your interpretation, your interpretation is incorrect.


The "benefits of being hidden" don't need to include silent, because there is no benefit to being silent that would matter. If they can't hear you, they "sense some other sign of your presencs."

"If an invisible creature is not hidden from you, you can hear it or sense some other sign of its presence and therefore know what space it occupies, although you still can’t see it." -PHB update, Targeting What You Can't See

You are right here.

I don't admit anything. I state that, per the update, you retain the "benefits of being hidden" and that per the FAQ, the "benefits of being hidden" are that you have combat advantage and are unseen. The phrase "the benefits of being hidden" as opposed to "hidden" occurs only in two places - in the description of what happens when you take an action which causes you to not be hidden, and the FAQ entry describing those benefits.

I agree.

Being invisible and silent is not the equivalent of being hidden, unless you are hidden - i.e. you have succeeded on a stealth check and have not taken an action which causes you to not be hidden (excepting powers/abilities that change that).

I did not say that they were the same, I said that they were nearly the same.

But never the less, most players will be happy to be unseen, even so the enemy knows which square they occupy because they still have CA for their attack(s) and are well protected from OAs.

And, the rules as written don't support that. The only way that works is if the FAQ or update is "wrong" and as they are the rules, they aren't.

You are right and I'm wrong.

As above.

And SS is only better than FG if you definitely must be hidden, like sneaking past guards that sound the alarm if there appears to be something off.

And this is greatly dependant on the interpretation of FG, i.e. how much power you read into FG.


To summarize this:
I think we both agree on how the stealth rules work.
But we can still discuss the multiple interpretations of FG.

 

[darkwing]

On further consideration, FG is actually useful more often than SS, because the majority of the time (from what I've seen), Rogues go "(hidden already) attack with CA (lose hidden) -> move (hide)" which means you have to go move your speed again, although if you used Deft Strike, you might only need to move 2 back to where you were, so maybe you don't need it at all.

This. Hiding after an attack is infinitely more useful than staying hidden without attacking. Well, maybe if this were a solo game and I were trying to sneak into the castle to steal something, staying hidden would be more useful. But our group plays a group combat game where if you're not attacking almost every turn, you're doing something wrong.

 

[Smeelbo]

Fleeting Ghost, Reconsidered Yet Again

While I've reached no final decision on how to correctly interpret Fleeting Ghost, I am being more and more swayed by the argument that it acts like an exception to Becoming Hidden, rather than being a weaker version of the paragon feat Secret Stride.

I noted earlier, and in some other threads, that if Fleeting Ghost were intended to simply remove the movement penalty for a Stealth Check, it would have been written more like this:

Effect: Move up to your full speed. If you can make a Stealth check at the end of this move, you do not take the normal penalty from movement on this check.
​

In other words, it would modify the Stealth check you could already make, rather than explicitly granting a Stealth check at the end of the move. It has been pointed out that this wording is awkward, and that "common sense" should be used, but then I read the wording on this feat, immediately before Shadow Stride in the PHB, page 122:

Dangerous Theft, Rogue Utility 10:
Encounter, Martial
Free Action, Personal
Prerequisite: You must be trained in Thievery.
Effect: On your next action, ignore the -10 penalty when you make a Thievery check to pick a pocket during combat.
​

Compare this language to Fleeting Ghost and Shadow Stride. Clearly, the authors of the rogue utilities knew how to write a power so that it modified a check, as opposed to granting a check.

Now consider the Stealth Errata:

Becoming Hidden: You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you’re outside the enemy’s line of sight.
​

If Fleeting Ghost were intended only to remove the penalty from a Stealth check, leaving all other requirements intact, then it would have been worded similarly to Dangerous Theft, above. Because Fleeting Ghost explicitly grants a stealth check, I conclude that Stealth check is an exception to Becoming Hidden, which would otherwise preclude that Stealth check at the end of a normal move.

One can reasonably argue that the developers simply botched the wording, but the fact that the wording of Fleeting Ghost was not errata'd, while Shadow Stride was reworded, combined with the precedent of Dangerous Theft's wording, strongly suggests that the wording of Fleeting Ghost reflects their intent, and therefore the Stealth check is intentionally granted and intended to be an exception to the Stealth Errata.

Smeelbo

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ah, but Smeelbo, you missed one thing.

Any time you take an action that makes you NOT hidden anymore, you CANNOT make a Stealth roll to become hidden (again) during that action. THIS is the restriction which is specifically lifted by FG. It also grants you a (worthless) stealth roll at the end of the action even if you can't actually become hidden, but I think that is a moot point. My only argument on the limitations of FG is it doesn't give you any power to stay/become hidden in a situation where you couldn't do so before, but it does grant you a roll in a case where you wouldn't normally get one.

Here's my example:

A rogue is behind a pillar and out of LOS of a guard. He wants to move to another pillar that is say 5 squares away. By normal stealth rules he can't make a stealth roll once he reaches the other pillar because the action he just took (moving) revealed him. He would have to take ANOTHER action to become hidden again. If he uses FG, then he gets that roll 'for free'. If instead of using FG he used SS then he could STAY hidden as he crossed the open area where the guard can see and there is no cover.

In the case of normal stealth or FG the guard will obviously know there is someone around, and in fact can pretty much deduce exactly where they are (behind the 2nd pillar), but with FG the rogue is at least able to be technically hidden again if he passes the new stealth check (and he gets no -5 penalty for moving more than 2 squares to this check). With SS the guard is completely oblivious to the existence of the rogue, assuming again the stealth roll is made and again with no -5 penalty. This could be a significant point because a hidden rogue behind the pillar might well be able to trigger an attack with CA if the guard for example decides to come over and investigate.

I think it is a bit odd that SS makes you start hidden, which in a few cases might actuall make it weaker than FG, but I'm guessing the reason is avoiding some corner cases where SS could be abused. They are both at-will anyway, so a rogue that likes to be really sneaky is likely to take both and it wouldn't often be an issue.