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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 4346828" data-attributes="member: 2525">Despite reasonable minds disagreeing about how stealth works, I do not see any actual rules support for requiring superior cover.  All the stealth rules state you need cover or concealment, not superior cover or total concealment.  If your attack or shout reveals your location you need to go to new cover or concealment before you can establish your stealthy state again, however there is nothing at all that says or implies the new cover has to be superior cover or total concealment.You can certainly adjust DCs, but I don't think the intent is there to make it harder to obtain stealth with only normal cover or concealment.  Stealth doesn't grant the same kinds of benefits it did in 3.5, and indeed the benefits are rather limited and relatively small, which is combat advantage granting for most characters a simple +2 to attack.  And often that +2 to attack will just serve to negate the -2 to attack you're taking because your own cover or concealment will sometimes grant that same cover/concealment to your target.  We went through that in another thread with diagrams, but trust me when I say that if you take cover behind a low wall or concealment in some bushes, you will often be granting that same cover/concealment to your target, thus having a net +0 to attack.The intent seems to be to allow stealth to be used fairly often - not just with superior cover or total concealment (which is relatively rare).  In play, it's not broken, and often has no effect at all.  Those seeking to read it strictly and require superior cover or total concealment seem to be nerfing the rule in a manner that will make it virtually useless, and in a way that really isn't necessary once you play with the rule for a while and see how often it actually helps in a meaningful and significant way.</blockquote>

Verification