Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Machus" data-source="post: 4357743" data-attributes="member: 72271">It is without a doubt, one of your own pre-conditions.&nbsp; It's apparently Xorns only pre-condition.&nbsp; Both are house rules.&nbsp; I'm concerned this being in the 4e rules forum, people will mistakenly believe this is a valid interpretation of the rules.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, that's your rule, that is not in the PHB for 4e.Gaining cover or concealment is the RAW requirement for making a stealth check.&nbsp; As GM, you deny that check on the basis of...your new rule.&nbsp; The GM can be consulted, yes, but if they use a house rule as the basis for the denial, it's still a house rule. A better mechanic is to simply give the player a penalty to stealth checks, when you think it will be harder, as the GM, based on the situation (not on a house rule).&nbsp; For instance, if glass is covering the floor, sure it may be harder to make a stealth check.&nbsp; But that's GM discretion, it's not written.&nbsp; Maybe he has to make an acrobatics roll (to avoid the glass), while also makeing a stealth check.&nbsp; Denying it outright?&nbsp; Not good.&nbsp;Precisely.&nbsp; Now read your words.&nbsp; &quot;get into a new position unobserved&quot;.&nbsp; Unobserved means you are not seen/heard/noticed.&nbsp; So in effect you are setting the requirement that in order to make this next stealth check, the players must ALREADY be unobserved!&nbsp;You are requiring them to be not-noticed, to obtain via stealth the status of not-noticed.&nbsp;Using your example, let's assume the rogue is moving unnoticed to some concealement.&nbsp; Wait, why bother?&nbsp; He is already unnoticed by your admission.&nbsp; He already will then have total concealment and CA if he attacks.&nbsp;You've only made it clear that there are now three pre-conditions in your house rule:Player must move to concealment or cover, unobserved OR, in conjunction with a bluff check, OR, after a good distraction.&nbsp;I don't disagree that this may work for you.&nbsp; If a rogue keeps hiding in the same spot over and over, they may not be quite so surprised when he jumps out for the third time right?&nbsp; But if they are engaged in comabt with other party members, they are probably distracted already....&nbsp;&nbsp;But nothing has changed to the opponnents when he teleported, which is why I used that example.&nbsp;If the rogue was ALREADY unseen, the opponents COULD NOT be aware of whether or not he teleported.&nbsp; And the fact that he did teleport is then irrelevant.&nbsp; In RAW it makes no difference.&nbsp;&nbsp;SS lets you move while still hidden, without concealment/cover.This has the following benefits:1. You will not trigger opportunity attacks as you move past opponents.2. Your opponents have no in-game knowledge to help drive their search for you.&nbsp; In other words, they are still presuming you may be near your original hiding spot.Think of sneaking past guards in a lit portion of a hallway.&nbsp; You can do this with SS.&nbsp; You cannot do this otherwise, you are auto-seen.&nbsp;I think a GM giving penalty to re-hiding in the same spot, in the middle of combat, is probably healthy for everyone, I will probably adopt something similar based on these discussions.&nbsp; But that's dependant on the environment.&nbsp; Flat out denying it is not as healthy IMO.&nbsp; But either way both are GM rulings outside of the 4e rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Machus, post: 4357743, member: 72271"] It is without a doubt, one of your own pre-conditions. It's apparently Xorns only pre-condition. Both are house rules. I'm concerned this being in the 4e rules forum, people will mistakenly believe this is a valid interpretation of the rules. Yes, that's your rule, that is not in the PHB for 4e. Gaining cover or concealment is the RAW requirement for making a stealth check. As GM, you deny that check on the basis of...your new rule. The GM can be consulted, yes, but if they use a house rule as the basis for the denial, it's still a house rule. A better mechanic is to simply give the player a penalty to stealth checks, when you think it will be harder, as the GM, based on the situation (not on a house rule). For instance, if glass is covering the floor, sure it may be harder to make a stealth check. But that's GM discretion, it's not written. Maybe he has to make an acrobatics roll (to avoid the glass), while also makeing a stealth check. Denying it outright? Not good. Precisely. Now read your words. "get into a new position unobserved". Unobserved means you are not seen/heard/noticed. So in effect you are setting the requirement that in order to make this next stealth check, the players must ALREADY be unobserved! You are requiring them to be not-noticed, to obtain via stealth the status of not-noticed. Using your example, let's assume the rogue is moving unnoticed to some concealement. Wait, why bother? He is already unnoticed by your admission. He already will then have total concealment and CA if he attacks. You've only made it clear that there are now three pre-conditions in your house rule: Player must move to concealment or cover, unobserved OR, in conjunction with a bluff check, OR, after a good distraction. I don't disagree that this may work for you. If a rogue keeps hiding in the same spot over and over, they may not be quite so surprised when he jumps out for the third time right? But if they are engaged in comabt with other party members, they are probably distracted already.... But nothing has changed to the opponnents when he teleported, which is why I used that example. If the rogue was ALREADY unseen, the opponents COULD NOT be aware of whether or not he teleported. And the fact that he did teleport is then irrelevant. In RAW it makes no difference. SS lets you move while still hidden, without concealment/cover. This has the following benefits: 1. You will not trigger opportunity attacks as you move past opponents. 2. Your opponents have no in-game knowledge to help drive their search for you. In other words, they are still presuming you may be near your original hiding spot. Think of sneaking past guards in a lit portion of a hallway. You can do this with SS. You cannot do this otherwise, you are auto-seen. I think a GM giving penalty to re-hiding in the same spot, in the middle of combat, is probably healthy for everyone, I will probably adopt something similar based on these discussions. But that's dependant on the environment. Flat out denying it is not as healthy IMO. But either way both are GM rulings outside of the 4e rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification