When will WOTC clarify the Stealth rules?

[Otterscrubber]

To be frank, I think the whole stealth argument is some people trying to twist the rules to get a further advantage in combat. I see no need for WOTC to write an entire article ( which could be on a different topic) to clarify this (and most likely raise more questions)

Plus, of course, even IF the article were written, those who disagree would just say it is unofficial, anyway.

So why bother? Just ask you DM, much faster and more meaningful.

I agree, even if something "official" comes out the folks who insist that you can hide behind a crate and make an enemy totally forget you are there in such a way as to make him less able to defend himself from crate-huggers will either house rule it or find some other viewpoint that will allow them CA. I disagree with it, but everyone gets to play the game they want to play.

 

[Machus]

It should be pretty obvious that a little bit of official help is needed here. Look at the interpretations on the various forums -- it can swing from stealth really doing nothing other than allowing you to hide out of combat...sometimes, to literally being 100% untargetable while attacking someone each round. That's quite a spread, with all sides under the delusion that they have it "correct".

But the stake in the heart are the CSR responses. Bless them as they are mortals as we are, apparently no more immune than the rest of the community to the confusing powers wielded by "4e stealth." If WOTC just pulled those CSR responses from their server and saw the breadth of contradictory and convoluted responses, they'd be sure it's a well deserved subject to tweak.

Most sane interpretations are based on the rules, with minor GM rulings to smooth it over (like the halfing/troll ally cover case mentioned above). But relying on GM approval of core mechanics always taints things in my experience, for the players and the GM alike.

The reason I'm optimistic is that the potential changes in wording to fix it seem small and relatively isolated. Hopefully that means it's a lower threshold for them to take offical action on.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I'm disappointed that this is being left up to individual DMs. As an RPGA DM, I wish to support a uniform play experience (when appropriate and possible) for players, regardless of which table they are playing at.

My own interpretation of the cover/stealth rules argument is that the rules are quite clear... an ally ONLY counts for cover when calculating ranged attacks. Creatures cannot hide behind each other unless there is some other mitigating factor present (such as a troll hiding IN A CLOUD OF FOG behind a goblin... but in that case, it's the fog cloud and not the goblin providing concealment, and not cover).

Any other interpretation of this rule is just rules-lawyering munchkinism. The rule is quite clear and no one at my tables will be stealthing by hiding behind other PCs.

You might be able to pull off what they did in new Indiana Jones movie and have someone hide behind an equal sized person. But no way a large creature hides behind a small one.

DMs should be able to adjudicate this with minimal difficulty by thinking about size and placement and the like.

 

[zoroaster100]

I definitely think clarification is needed. I am an attorney and consider myself at least reasonably capable of understanding rules, and I have read the rule book and read the arguments on both sides. Even after all my effort, I still am not 100% sure how the rules for Stealth should be interpreted. I think there are several different reasonable interpretations floating around (and some less reasonable interpretations as well). Sure, some will choose to house rule or ignore WOTC's clarifications. But as a DM who simply wants to try running 4E for my players the way the designers intended (at least until I see how well the rules work when run as intended), I am really eager for some guidance from WOTC.

 

[cbbakke]

Until the designers make a formal determination, I think the best players can do is be consistent. However you use stealth for the players is how it is used for the monsters.

The other thing we can try to do in the mean time is use common sense and try to judge situations as fairly as possible

 

[Ganders]

Eventually there will be a version of the D&D Game Table at the D&D Insider website that keeps track of all the math of combat modifiers automatically (Think computer game with shared map). At that time, whichever method that program uses (whatever is easiest for the programmers to code into the system) will become the 'correct' method.

Real people can leave things undefined and 'up to your DM' as long as they want, but that computer program will have to work *somehow*.

 

[essenbee]

One problem is that Stealth rules seem to be tied to vision, confusing them with the concealment rules, when they're just as much based on hearing

You're right about hearing being a vital part, but the rules cover it as well, when they talk about avoiding notice. There is no confusion on this point at all.

 

[essenbee]

Eventually there will be a version of the D&D Game Table at the D&D Insider website that keeps track of all the math of combat modifiers automatically (Think computer game with shared map). At that time, whichever method that program uses (whatever is easiest for the programmers to code into the system) will become the 'correct' method.

Real people can leave things undefined and 'up to your DM' as long as they want, but that computer program will have to work *somehow*.

But that is not how the Virtual Table is going to work at all - it is not going to work out the maths, they've stated that many times.

 

[essenbee]

...use common sense and try to judge situations as fairly as possible

This.