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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phmas" data-source="post: 4394593" data-attributes="member: 56322">Hi, first post here <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. Sorry about my english, not a native speaker here...First, I would like to say that i DM for my group and we really like to play by the official rules, as much as possible. Second, that I know 4e needs some abstractions for the rules to work, and so far i had not one problem with that, until I saw the Stealth rules and started to regularly read the discussion threads about it here in ENWorld.My first complain it's about how I find absurd the actual rules about Stealth in combat. I can't see how someone could hide in concealment and still become "invisible". Total concealment? OK. But in concealment you can still be seen, AFAIK. Imagine someone in front of you, at night (lets say that's dim light - concealment), in completely featureless desert. He then makes a successful Stealth check and... voilá! He's invisible to you, you could not see where did he go, even though he was right in front of you. Ok, right, one could argue that in this situation, the DM should disallow the Stealth check. But what about the Shadow Walk (warlock) class feature? As I imagine the power, you cloud yourself in shadows, thus making you harder to see (concealment). You then make a Stealth check and suddenly all enemies can't see you, can't tell where did you go EVEN THOUGH there is a floating ball of shadows right in front where you "were" and you couldn't possibly be anywhere because there is no other place to hide (remeber the featureless desert). Heck, even my players think that's completely nuts! (and they're pretty good power gamers <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />).Second, if making a Stealth check essentially upgrades your concealment to total concealment, that makes total concealment much less impressive. Also, it surely slows down the play, as it pretty much increases the number of dice rolled in each round (considering I have a Ranger and a stealthy warlock in my current group, and I'm not considering steathy monsters): stealth checks compared to passive perception checks is fine by me, but if i'll have to use active perception checks each round PLUS having to ramdomly select a square every round... That completely spoils the fun for me.If, OTOH, a stealth check while in concealment would only make it harder to predict your movements (thus granting you the benefit of CA) but not  "invisible" (you would still be tagetable and only have concealment, not total concealment), that would solve part of the problems I think. So, you can use total concealment and a Stealth check to completely unnoticed, but with concealment (or cover for the matter), you can only use a stealth check to gain CA. Imagine a scene as the warlock clouds himself in shadows and uses it to hide his rod from view. If he's successful, the enemy will not know exactly when he will attack, but he's aware the warlock is there and can target him normally (albeit a -2 penalty form concealment).I know that's a house rule, but this is one thing I thought with my players: 95% of the time, only concealment or cover comes in play. So, not only this solves a "possible" balance problem (like invisilocks) and doesn't slow down much the play (you don't have to use the Targeting What You Cannot See rules every round), but I think its much more fit to my imagination and doesn't invalidate a strategy for Stealthy characters at all.</blockquote>

Verification