Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Paul Strack" data-source="post: 4390580" data-attributes="member: 71340">That's the main rationale for my "stealthy attack" rule. It is a DM's bargain between me and my rogue player. I make it easy for her to get the CA for her attacks, but more costly for her to get the defensive benefits of hiding. As a result, she uses the "stealthy attack" in almost every combat, but only attempts to hide defensively when the conditions are right and there is a good reason for her to do so.That way, the more complicated hiding rules only come up rarely. The Trained Only option keeps the stealthy attack as the rogue's special sauce, though my Warlock just multi-classed into Ranger to pick up Stealth as well.EDIT: I forgot to add earlier: when I rule that when you make a stealthy attack (as opposed to hiding), you only need to beat your target's perception, not the whole group of enemies. This lets the rogue be effective against grunts even if there is a super perceptive master bad guy in the group.Also, the stealthy attack idea wasn't mine, originally. I stole it from someone else on this forum who pointed out that Stealth would be a lot simpler if you distinguished hiding (defensive) from using stealth for attacks (offensive). Unfortunately, I can't remember who it was and the forum has no search feature. Yes, it would be displacement with the full Invisibility concealment penalties. So, Invisibility displacement is better than Stealth displacement, which is as I think it should be.</blockquote>

Verification