Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xorn" data-source="post: 4294194" data-attributes="member: 61231">A melee rogue can sneak attack every round if he has someone to flank with.&nbsp; A ranged rogue can sneak attack every round if he has cover/concealment.&nbsp; There's no crit hits/fails in skills... if you roll a 1 with +12 stealth, then you have a sneak attack against +3 Perception, period.&nbsp; I myself have issue with this--not even because of whether or not sneak attack is overpowering every round (I don't really think it is) but what is the incentive to actually melee?&nbsp; The only requirement to be a &quot;sniper rogue&quot; is to have a high Dexterity, be trained in Stealth, and carry a lot of bolts/shurikens.I think it is way too easy to regain combat advantage through stealth mid-combat under the intended rules.&nbsp; On top of that, the exact definition of what you have to do is not clear.&nbsp; One CSR says you can &quot;stealthily attack&quot;.&nbsp; One says you have to move to a new square.&nbsp; One says you have to end in cover/concealment, another says you have to start in it, another says the whole move has to be in it.&nbsp; It's a messy, undefined blob--and that's why I don't like it.&nbsp; Most of 4E combat is clearly defined, without grey areas.&nbsp; Stealth is not one of those aspects.For a rule that's going to apparently apply to every character trained in Stealth every single round, I don't like it being so loosely defined.As stated, plenty of people have stated they have no problem with a rogue sneak attacking from range every single turn.&nbsp; I respect their opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that I have huge issues with it being tactically smarter to NOT go backstab people.&nbsp; You know, like rogues used to.I'm also not wild about my party's ranger adding ANOTHER +2 to her hit rolls any turn that her stealth roll is over a 1.&nbsp; Apparently WotC has decided they need to regroup and talk about it too, because the CSRs have stopped answering this question, and started a canned response of &quot;We've taken this to the rules guys for an official errata.&quot;So really I think all we can do is say, &quot;We know this much is intended, we know this part is a grey area, and we know how we each feel about it.&quot;Xorn dislikes the current Stealth As Intended™.&nbsp; Note that requiring a Bluff or Total Concealment/Superior Cover doesn't make it terribly harder, but it does mean that it's not easier to sneak attack every round from range than melee.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xorn, post: 4294194, member: 61231"] A melee rogue can sneak attack every round if he has someone to flank with. A ranged rogue can sneak attack every round if he has cover/concealment. There's no crit hits/fails in skills... if you roll a 1 with +12 stealth, then you have a sneak attack against +3 Perception, period. I myself have issue with this--not even because of whether or not sneak attack is overpowering every round (I don't really think it is) but what is the incentive to actually melee? The only requirement to be a "sniper rogue" is to have a high Dexterity, be trained in Stealth, and carry a lot of bolts/shurikens. I think it is way too easy to regain combat advantage through stealth mid-combat under the intended rules. On top of that, the exact definition of what you have to do is not clear. One CSR says you can "stealthily attack". One says you have to move to a new square. One says you have to end in cover/concealment, another says you have to start in it, another says the whole move has to be in it. It's a messy, undefined blob--and that's why I don't like it. Most of 4E combat is clearly defined, without grey areas. Stealth is not one of those aspects. For a rule that's going to apparently apply to every character trained in Stealth every single round, I don't like it being so loosely defined. As stated, plenty of people have stated they have no problem with a rogue sneak attacking from range every single turn. I respect their opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that I have huge issues with it being tactically smarter to NOT go [i]backstab[/i] people. You know, like [i]rogues used to[/i]. I'm also not wild about my party's ranger adding ANOTHER +2 to her hit rolls any turn that her stealth roll is over a 1. Apparently WotC has decided they need to regroup and talk about it too, because the CSRs have stopped answering this question, and started a canned response of "We've taken this to the rules guys for an official errata." So really I think all we can do is say, "We know this much is intended, we know this part is a grey area, and we know how we each feel about it." Xorn dislikes the current Stealth As Intended™. Note that requiring a Bluff or Total Concealment/Superior Cover doesn't make it terribly harder, but it does mean that it's not [i]easier[/i] to sneak attack [i]every round[/i] from range than melee. [/QUOTE]

Verification