Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Graf" data-source="post: 4269852" data-attributes="member: 3087">People are already doing this (at least in my KotS game). It's a nightmare for a DM. You don't need anything other than warlock to do it. (though you're right, training stealth makes it much better)Stealth in 4e is worse than grapple. The rules are on three different pages.The most important &quot;targeting what you can't see&quot; doesn't even come up in the stealth section. It's sucktacular.Here's how it works (for the purposes of discussion this is &quot;by RAW&quot; -- so 'common sense' or 'I'm Old Skool, I'd never allow that as a DM' don't enter the picture.)Character A is the warlock character. Character's x,y,z are the enemies.Steath is not an action (it's not even a free action, it's &quot;part of another action&quot; -- so weird, so people &quot;spend second wind stealthily&quot;, whatever )A attacks, and moves 3 squares. He's concealed till his next turn. Since no rule mentions that he loses the concealment he can do whatever he likes (play the bongos, stand on his hands) and still be concealed.(of course, if he speaks, attacks or carries a light source he &quot;breaks stealth&quot; but he's still concealed -- so it seems like he can just attack, take-any-none-prohibited-action (drink a potion, draw a weapon, etc), and &quot;re-stealth for free&quot;).At the end of A's turn they make an opposed stealth roll (-5 -- because it moved more than 2 squares in it's turn) vs it's opponent's passive stealth checks. BUT the perceiver (in this case x,y,z) have to &quot;beat&quot; the stealth check by 10 to actually see the hider (A).[Yes, it says, &quot;beat&quot; even though the perceivers (x,y,z) aren't rolling].If the perceivers (x,y,z) don't &quot;beat&quot; A by 10 then they know he's there, but not what square he's in. Just his &quot;existence&quot; and &quot;direction&quot;.Of course, since he's just blasted the snot out of somebody, his &quot;existence and direction&quot; are probably pretty well known to the monsters anyway.Effectively, our warlock, A, is at +5 to a skill check that will allow him to not get attacked next round.In our example we'll say that x (Kobold Wyrmpriest) sees A but y &amp; z (Kobold Dragonshields) don't. A has concealment vs all three but, in game terms, y &amp; z &quot;don't know what square he's in&quot;.&nbsp; [You have to make another check if you make an immediate action or AoO... but that suggests that our guy can be running around and hitting people and still maintain his stealth. Sorta weird since attacking is supposed to break stealth normally.]Then, on their respective turns y &amp; z both can spend a minor action to make a &quot;perception check&quot; vs the last stealth check of A.Wait? You didn't write down A's last stealth check? Oops.Anyway, assuming you've been keeping track of A's last stealth total then y&amp; z can spend their action &amp; roll perception. If they win they know direction and existence and if they win by 10 they know the square.(9 minions? 9 rolls by RAW anyway)But wait, x (the wyrmpriest) knows where the character is... can he say &quot;ten feet in front of you bozo!&quot;? The book appears to be silent. If y &amp; z try to attack randomly how is the DM (who already knows where A is) supposed to determine which squares they go for? The book appears to be silent. The kicker is that it's &quot;free&quot; for the warlock to do this. It doesn't cost them anything to &quot;try to do-whatever-I'm-doing-stealthily&quot; so there's no reason why they wouldn't do it Every. Single. Round.Yeah, I'm thinking some parts of the rules didn't get playtested too much.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Graf, post: 4269852, member: 3087"] People are already doing this (at least in my KotS game). It's a nightmare for a DM. You don't need anything other than warlock to do it. (though you're right, training stealth makes it much better) Stealth in 4e is worse than grapple. The rules are on three different pages.The most important "targeting what you can't see" doesn't even come up in the stealth section. It's sucktacular. [U][B]Here's how it works [/B][/U](for the purposes of discussion this is "by RAW" -- so 'common sense' or 'I'm Old Skool, I'd never allow that as a DM' don't enter the picture.) Character A is the warlock character. Character's x,y,z are the enemies. Steath is not an action (it's not even a free action, it's "part of another action" -- so weird, so people "spend second wind stealthily", whatever ) A attacks, and moves 3 squares. He's concealed till his next turn. Since no rule mentions that he loses the concealment he can do whatever he likes (play the bongos, stand on his hands) and still be concealed. (of course, if he speaks, attacks or carries a light source he "breaks stealth" but he's still concealed -- so it seems like he can just attack, take-any-none-prohibited-action (drink a potion, draw a weapon, etc), and "re-stealth for free"). At the end of A's turn they make an opposed stealth roll (-5 -- because it moved more than 2 squares in it's turn) vs it's opponent's passive stealth checks. BUT the perceiver (in this case x,y,z) have to "beat" the stealth check by 10 to actually see the hider (A). [Yes, it says, "beat" even though the perceivers (x,y,z) aren't rolling]. If the perceivers (x,y,z) don't "beat" A by 10 then they know he's there, but not what square he's in. Just his "existence" and "direction". Of course, since he's just blasted the snot out of somebody, his "existence and direction" are probably pretty well known to the monsters anyway. Effectively, our warlock, A, is at +5 to a skill check that will allow him to not get attacked next round. In our example we'll say that x (Kobold Wyrmpriest) sees A but y & z (Kobold Dragonshields) don't. A has concealment vs all three but, in game terms, y & z "don't know what square he's in". [You have to make another check if you make an immediate action or AoO... but that suggests that our guy can be running around and hitting people and still maintain his stealth. Sorta weird since attacking is supposed to break stealth normally.] Then, on their respective turns y & z both can spend a minor action to make a "perception check" vs the last stealth check of A. Wait? You didn't write down A's last stealth check? Oops. Anyway, assuming you've been keeping track of A's last stealth total then y& z can spend their action & roll perception. If they win they know direction and existence and if they win by 10 they know the square. (9 minions? 9 rolls by RAW anyway) But wait, x (the wyrmpriest) knows where the character is... can he say "ten feet in front of you bozo!"? The book appears to be silent. If y & z try to attack randomly how is the DM (who already knows where A is) supposed to determine which squares they go for? The book appears to be silent. The kicker is that it's "free" for the warlock to do this. It doesn't cost them anything to "try to do-whatever-I'm-doing-stealthily" so there's no reason why they wouldn't do it Every. Single. Round. Yeah, I'm thinking some parts of the rules didn't get playtested too much. [/QUOTE]

Verification