# MP2: Cunning Sneak/Stealth questions



## Alomir (Feb 19, 2010)

I'm going to bet that these questions are a surprise to no one...

(1) Several new rogue powers in Martial Power 2 have an effect after the attack that is some flavor of "You shift (some number) of squares, and you can make a Stealth check to become hidden".

Question: does this override the normal Becoming Hidden rules? ('You can make a stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment')

- If it doesn't, this effect seems...  less than useful. 
- If it does, I have a follow-on question - what about the 'Remaining Hidden' rules? ('If you no longer have cover or concealment against an enemy, you don't remain hidden from that enemy') 

(2) Other after-the-attack effects:
* If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden
* You do not expend this power if you were hidden from the target when you made the attack

Question: This may be semantics, but should I read that as "hidden BEFORE you attacked" instead of "hidden WHEN you attacked", as attacking itself makes you lose your hidden status?

(3) Question: is this going to be a logistics nightmare to play out? (Sorry, that's an opinion question, not strictly a rules question)

 - A


----------



## SabreCat (Feb 19, 2010)

(1) I would read it as requiring the normal Becoming Hidden rules. You attack, then duck back out of sight and make your Stealth check. If you've got an Action Point, you can make another attack from hiding maybe... then use your move action to go hide again, that sort of thing. ^.^

(2) "Hidden when you attacked" is legit. You don't become unhidden until after the action that caused you to lose the hidden status.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 19, 2010)

I'll be interested in the consensus. Alomir is converting his brawny rogue in my game to a sneaky one! Which actually means I'll need to understand the damn stealth rules. Thanks for any opinons you can give.


----------



## KidSnide (Feb 19, 2010)

Alomir said:


> Question: does this override the normal Becoming Hidden rules? ('You can make a stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment')




I don't have MP2 in front of me, but my recollection was that one of the Stealthy build's major advantages is that a stealthy rogue could make a stealth check based on only regular cover or concealment (but not the cover you get from standing behind your allies).  That should make getting stealth a lot easier.



Alomir said:


> Question: This may be semantics, but should I read that as "hidden BEFORE you attacked" instead of "hidden WHEN you attacked", as attacking itself makes you lose your hidden status?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I believe SabreCat is correct.  This is one of the reasons that a shift/move-and-attack power is good for a rogue.  If a rogue takes a move action to get into position and then attacks, the move action has the potential to break stealth.  If a rogue uses a power that lets him move from cover and attack _as a single power_, then the attack gets the benefit of however hidden the rogue was before the move.

This is why Deft Strike, IME, is the essential must-take rogue at-will.  It lets you reliably move out of superior cover and make your ranged attack while still having a move action to duck back behind superior cover to re-establish stealth.  This is an important ability because superior cover is typically not a space you can attack from.  With a stealth rogue build, you can attack and re-stealth from regular cover, making manuevering less complicated.



Alomir said:


> (3) Question: is this going to be a logistics nightmare to play out? (Sorry, that's an opinion question, not strictly a rules question)




I've played with a few rogues with different levels of rules talent.  IME, it will be an unbearable nightmare until both you at PCat learn how the stealth rules work.  After that, you'll have trouble figuring out why anyone found it confusing in the first place.  (It's real easy once you get used to identifying the squares that give you cover.)

-KS


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 19, 2010)

Please note that I do not own MP2 yet, as the weather has been terrible in Ohio.  So, this is solely based off your description of the powers.



Alomir said:


> (1) Several new rogue powers in Martial Power 2 have an effect after the attack that is some flavor of "You shift (some number) of squares, and you can make a Stealth check to become hidden".
> 
> Question: does this override the normal Becoming Hidden rules? ('You can make a stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment')
> 
> ...




The way you describe the power, I would rule that it provides a kind of hiding in plain sight advantage.  So, in this case, you shift the number of squares the effect calls for, then make a Stealth check.  If you make the check, you are hidden.  Remember, in 4E specific > general, when it comes to rules, so in this case, the power supersedes the general stealth rules.




Alomir said:


> (2) Other after-the-attack effects:
> * If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden
> * You do not expend this power if you were hidden from the target when you made the attack
> 
> Question: This may be semantics, but should I read that as "hidden BEFORE you attacked" instead of "hidden WHEN you attacked", as attacking itself makes you lose your hidden status?




See explanations provided above by SabreCat.




Alomir said:


> (3) Question: is this going to be a logistics nightmare to play out? (Sorry, that's an opinion question, not strictly a rules question)




I don't think so, but ymmv.


----------



## chitzk0i (Feb 19, 2010)

Mr. Wilson said:


> The way you describe the power, I would rule that it provides a kind of hiding in plain sight advantage.  So, in this case, you shift the number of squares the effect calls for, then make a Stealth check.  If you make the check, you are hidden.  Remember, in 4E specific > general, when it comes to rules, so in this case, the power supersedes the general stealth rules.




Specific beats general, but only on the rules it's actually changing.  If it just says "make a stealth check", it is not modifying the _outcome_ of that stealth check in any way.  You would refer to the normal stealth rules to determine whether what this check actually does.


----------



## Ruined (Feb 19, 2010)

KidSnide said:


> I don't have MP2 in front of me, but my recollection was that one of the Stealthy build's major advantages is that a stealthy rogue could make a stealth check based on only regular cover or concealment (but not the cover you get from standing behind your allies).  That should make getting stealth a lot easier.
> 
> -KS




Here's the reference for the Shadowy Rogue class feature.

*Cunning Sneak:*  If you end a move action at least 3 squares away from your starting position, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden if you have any concealment or any cover, except for cover provided by intervening allies.

It also reduces the penalties for moving and trying to stealth.


----------



## Markn (Feb 19, 2010)

Ruined said:


> Here's the reference for the Shadowy Rogue class feature.
> 
> *Cunning Sneak:*  If you end a move action at least 3 squares away from your starting position, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden if you have any concealment or any cover, except for cover provided by intervening allies.
> 
> It also reduces the penalties for moving and trying to stealth.




Correct.  What Cunning Sneak gives you, is that once you establish being hidden by having total cover, you can maintain being hidden with only cover or concealment and not total cover/concealment.  Without this, the only way to become hidden is with total cover or complete concealment.

Few other things of note:

Sabrecat is correct in his reading of question 1 and 2.  To expand on his second answer a bit - once you are hidden, you only become unhidden after the completion of an action.  Thus, if you move and no longer have cover you are no longer hidden since the move action is completed.  However, if you use an attack action and it lets you shift, then attack you are considered hidden (and thus get CA and sneak attack damage) until after the power has resolved.  Once the power is resolved you are no longer hidden.  As others have said, powers that let you move and attack as part of the same power are ideal for rogues who consider hiding their forte.  Now combine this with Cunning Sneak and you could then move 3 squares after that attack where you have cover and you can attempt to hide again instead of requiring complete cover to hide again.  This is the key here!

Also, as others have said, once you get your head wrapped around it, its a pretty simple rule.  Its just gettting the understanding of whats happening to begin with that makes hiding seem scary to deal with.

Hope that helps


----------



## KidSnide (Feb 19, 2010)

Markn said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > *Cunning Sneak:*  If you end a move action at least 3 squares away from your starting position, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden if you have any concealment or any cover, except for cover provided by intervening allies.
> ...




That's not quite right.  Normally (i.e. _without_ Cunning Sneak), you can maintain being hidden with only cover or concealment and not total cover/concealment.  

What Cunning Sneak gives you is the ability to *become* hidden with non-superior cover, provided that you have moved at least 3 squares from your starting position.

-KS


----------



## Sagiro (Feb 19, 2010)

Markn said:


> Correct.  What Cunning Sneak gives you, is that once you establish being hidden by having total cover, you can maintain being hidden with only cover or concealment and not total cover/concealment.  Without this, the only way to become hidden is with total cover or complete concealment.
> ...



Just curious -- what about this:

*Cunning Sneak*: If you end a move action at least 3 squares away from your starting position, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden if you have any concealment or any cover, except for cover provided by intervening allies.​
...makes you say "once you establish being hidden by having total cover..."?

I haven't seen MP2, but from the quoted text, I'd say that you could be standing out in the open (and completely unhidden) at the start of your turn, then move 3+ squares into some underbrush (normal concealment) or behind a small tree (non-total cover), and get to make a Stealth check.  If you succeed you are now hidden, and you can then attack (with Deft Strike from behind the tree, for instance) and get Sneak Attack damage.

Is that right?


----------



## KidSnide (Feb 19, 2010)

Sagiro said:


> *Cunning Sneak*: If you end a move action at least 3 squares away from your starting position, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden if you have any concealment or any cover, except for cover provided by intervening allies.​
> I haven't seen MP2, but from the quoted text, I'd say that you could be standing out in the open (and completely unhidden) at the start of your turn, then move 3+ squares into some underbrush (normal concealment) or behind a small tree (non-total cover), and get to make a Stealth check.  If you succeed you are now hidden, and you can then attack (with Deft Strike from behind the tree, for instance) and get Sneak Attack damage.
> 
> Is that right?




That is completely right.  (At least by my reading of the rule...)

-KS


----------



## Markn (Feb 19, 2010)

My bad on that one part.  KidSnide is right.

I was looking at it from the perspective that once you had hidden status, and attacked you would normally require complete cover to get hidden again.  I completely overlooked the fact that you can just move 3+ squares to cover/concealment and try to hide even before attacking with Cunning Sneak.  

I guess thats why this is a forum and not a "I shall tell thee how the rules work" sort of thing.


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 19, 2010)

Alomir said:


> I'm going to bet that these questions are a surprise to no one...
> 
> (1) Several new rogue powers in Martial Power 2 have an effect after the attack that is some flavor of "You shift (some number) of squares, and you can make a Stealth check to become hidden".
> 
> ...




It allows you to make a stealth check to become hidden.  Normally that's something you do during a move action under certain circumstances, but if the power says you do it, you do it.

That said, you don't necessarily get to keep that Stealth check if you're in a position where you're not able to maintain it.  You cannot use the ability to hide in plain sight; you negate being hidden immediately if you cannot maintain it immediately.

There are powers that exist that change this scenario of course.

What this means in a practical sense, is that you make your check, and then normal cover and concealment will do fine to make the check and keep hidden.  And if that movement was more than 2 squares there's no penalty to the check.



> (2) Other after-the-attack effects:
> * If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden
> * You do not expend this power if you were hidden from the target when you made the attack
> 
> Question: This may be semantics, but should I read that as "hidden BEFORE you attacked" instead of "hidden WHEN you attacked", as attacking itself makes you lose your hidden status?




Attacking makes you no longer remain hidden; however: *All situations that cause you to lose hidden status by your own actions only apply when your action is complete*

So, if you move out into the open, you're hidden until the move is done.



> (3) Question: is this going to be a logistics nightmare to play out? (Sorry, that's an opinion question, not strictly a rules question)
> 
> - A




Nope.


----------



## Alomir (Feb 22, 2010)

Thanks all for the replies!



DracoSuave said:


> It allows you to make a stealth check to become hidden.  Normally that's something you do during a move action under certain circumstances, but if the power says you do it, you do it.
> 
> That said, you don't necessarily get to keep that Stealth check if you're in a position where you're not able to maintain it.  You cannot use the ability to hide in plain sight; you negate being hidden immediately if you cannot maintain it immediately.



This is just what I was thinking - you get to make the check, but it's only going to be relevant if you have cover or concealment (but not superior/total, due to Cunning Sneak), unless there are other powers/effects in play.

----------



DracoSuave said:


> Attacking makes you no longer remain hidden; however: *All situations that cause you to lose hidden status by your own actions only apply when your action is complete*.
> 
> So, if you move out into the open, you're hidden until the move is done.



This is pretty cut and dried (and thus I like it) - but where is it from? I cannot find that exact phrase in the rules. Also, it seems to contradict this part of the stealth rules:



> Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action.



If you do not lose hidden status until the end of the action, you would not need to "retain the benefits".

----------

Assuming it's a failure of mine to find/understand the rules, and hidden status is retained until end of action, this raises another real question: 

(4) If my rogue is hidden, makes an attack that with an after-the-attack effect that includes "make a stealth check to become hidden", and successfully makes his stealth check - was he ever NOT hidden at any point in there? 

If hidden status is retained until end of action, then he never lost hidden status - but this just doesn't quite feel right (this could easily be a melee attack as well as a ranged attack).

----------

For reference, here's the stealth rule about attacking (rather nebulous):



> Remaining Hidden: You remain hidden as long as you meet these requirements.
> ...
> Don’t Attack: If you attack, you don’t remain hidden.


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 23, 2010)

Alomir said:


> Thanks all for the replies!
> 
> This is just what I was thinking - you get to make the check, but it's only going to be relevant if you have cover or concealment (but not superior/total, due to Cunning Sneak), unless there are other powers/effects in play.




Superior/total is irrelevent.  You've -made- the check, so you only need normal to maintain it.  What you need superior/total for is when you make a steath check as part of a normal action.  Outside that case, you do not.

----------



> This is pretty cut and dried (and thus I like it) - but where is it from? I cannot find that exact phrase in the rules. Also, it seems to contradict this part of the stealth rules:
> 
> If you do not lose hidden status until the end of the action, you would not need to "retain the benefits".




Is there a meaningful difference between being hidden until the end of the action and having all the benefits of being hidden until the end of the action?

The difference, in practical terms, isn't important enough to worry about.  There MIGHT be a corner case where you have a power that kicks in when you become unhidden that also happens to be a free action... but other than that singular instance, it doesn't matter a bit.

----------



> (4) If my rogue is hidden, makes an attack that with an after-the-attack effect that includes "make a stealth check to become hidden", and successfully makes his stealth check - was he ever NOT hidden at any point in there?




Yes.  

Technically, as soon as he makes the attack, however that doesn't affect him mechanically until after the -action- is complete.

However:

After the attack, the stealth roll is irrelevant; he is not hidden, unless the power somehow allows you to make a check to -remain- hidden.

*Not Remaining Hidden:* If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. *You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.*



> If hidden status is retained until end of action, then he never lost hidden status - but this just doesn't quite feel right (this could easily be a melee attack as well as a ranged attack).




Well, it doesn't matter when he loses it.  He still has the full benefit of being hidden (including enemies not being able to see him, important for opportunity attacks) until after the -action- is complete.  

However, it shouldn't be a problem, after the action is complete, he doesn't get to make his stealth roll because one can not become unhidden and become hidden in the same action.


----------



## jester_gl (Feb 23, 2010)

I always have a quick interrogation regarding stealth attacking: Can you charge and retain the hidden status until after the attack, thus avoiding OA and getting CA?  Since charge is a single action consisting of moving then attacking I would say yes, but I'm not sure.


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 23, 2010)

jester_gl said:


> I always have a quick interrogation regarding stealth attacking: Can you charge and retain the hidden status until after the attack, thus avoiding OA and getting CA?  Since charge is a single action consisting of moving then attacking I would say yes, but I'm not sure.




Yes, and that is actually the major calling card of the Aerialist Rogue.


----------



## Alomir (Mar 3, 2010)

A question about Fleeting Spirit Strike:

*Fleeting Spirit Strike*
Encounter        Martial, Weapon
Standard Action      Melee or Ranged weapon

Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling.
Effect: Before the attack, you shift 3 squares.
Cunning Sneak: After the shift, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden.​Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. You shift 3 squares.
Cunning Sneak: After the shift, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden.​If I understand the consensus above, when a power says "you can make a Stealth check to become hidden", you get to do just that; whether or not you get to keep the hidden status depends on the circumstances.

So, say my rogue uses Fleeting Spirit Strike to shift three squares, but it's into open terrain, no cover or concealment; he makes his stealth check and becomes hidden, but then loses it immediately. Does he still "retain the benefits of being hidden" for the attack itself? Or, does that not qualify as "my own actions" in "All situations that cause you to lose hidden status by your own actions only apply when your action is complete"?


----------



## Alomir (Mar 3, 2010)

My apologies for the late response, I didn't read part of this carefully enough when it was originally written.



DracoSuave said:


> <answer to my question: (4) If my rogue is hidden, makes an attack that with an after-the-attack effect that includes "make a stealth check to become hidden", and successfully makes his stealth check - was he ever NOT hidden at any point in there?>
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



I'm having a hard time reconciling this answer with Fleeting Spirit Strike, above. Is it either/or for the two rolls to become hidden? Can a rogue NOT shift, become hidden, attack, shift, become hidden?

EDIT:
Ah, here's my problem - it seems like we're applying a double standard:
(1) on the one hand, we're saying that the rogue CAN make the stealth roll, even though the rules normally say he can't, because the power says he can (making the stealth check without total/superior - heck without any cover or concealment) (whether or not he keeps hidden is irrelevant for whether or not he can make the roll)
(2) on the other hand, we're saying that he CANNOT make the stealth roll, because the rules say he can't, even though the power says he can (making a stealth check - or not, in this case - because he lost hidden status during this action).

In both cases, the power says yes, but the rules say no - and we're making opposite decisions for the two. That does not sit well. Am I misreading something here?


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 3, 2010)

I've told Alomir I'm just giving all monsters a +35 bonus to perception to solve this question.


----------



## KidSnide (Mar 4, 2010)

Alomir said:


> I'm having a hard time reconciling this answer with Fleeting Spirit Strike, above. Is it either/or for the two rolls to become hidden? Can a rogue NOT shift, become hidden, attack, shift, become hidden?
> 
> EDIT:
> Ah, here's my problem - it seems like we're applying a double standard:
> ...




Under normal circumstances, you make a Stealth check at the end of a Move action.  

I read "After the shift, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden." to be an exception to that rule.  In other words, Fleeting Spirit Strike (and other similar powers) gives you the ability to make a stealth check during the power, which otherwise you wouldn't be able to do.  For example, you can't use Deft Strike to move into superior cover and then hide because Deft Strike is not a Move Action.  Fleeting Strike is better.

Accordingly, I don't think Fleeting Strike is an exception to any of the other stealth rules.  So, this is how I see it working:

*1) If You Start Hidden*
You can use the first shift to move into position.  Making a stealth check here is mostly useless because you are already hidden.

Needless pedantic complexity behind the spoiler block:
[SBLOCK]It's only "mostly useless" because maybe you're not hidden from all the enemies, so you might want a second shot at hiding from a super-perceptive enemy with some sort of immediate power.

Also, while we're getting super-pedantic, if you shifted more than 2 squares, you need to make a stealth check to stay hidden because shifting more than 2 squares triggers the "Keep Still" part of the stealth rules.  However, this "Keep Still" stealth check is totally irrelevant because (1) even if you are revealed, you gain the benefit of stealth through the end of the action under the "Not Remaining Hidden" rule, and (2) you're going to be revealed anyway when you attack *right now*.

[/SBLOCK]
Then you can attack.  Whether or not you kept cover with the initial shift, attacking ends your hidden status, but that's OK because it's all a part of the same action and you keep the benefit of being hidden.

Then you can shift again, but you can't make a stealth check because of the "Not Remaining Hidden" rule:
*Not Remaining Hidden:* If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. *You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.*

If you start hidden and want to finish hidden, you need to use your move action to make the stealth check at the end of your turn.

*2) You start unhidden and want to attack from hiding*
If you start your turn unhidden, then you can use the first shift to move into cover (regular or superior - it doesn't matter because you're a Cunning Sneak) and then you get to make a Stealth check because the power is an exception to the normal rule.

Then you attack, same as above.

Then you shift again, same as above.  If you want to end the turn hidden, you have to use your move action.

*3) You start unhidden, don't care about attacking from hiding, but want to end hidden.*
If you start your turn unhidden, you can also use your first shift to move into, say, a flanking position.  (Or, you could just get close to a dazed guy, or use any of the many other ways of getting combat advantage.)

Then you attack.  You don't gain any benefit of being hidden because you never were.

Then you shift again.  If you shifted into cover (again the type doesn't matter because you're a Cunning Sneak) you can make a stealth check because the power makes an exception to the usual rule of when you can make one.   

Unlike examples #1 and #2, you never fell under the "Not Remaining Hidden" rule because you had never been hidden.  So, in this example you could get your attack off and then end up hidden without using a Move Action.  (This could be very useful if - for example - you're dazed or needed to use your Move Action to get in range.)

-KS

P.S.  Just to be clear, I'm not saying anything different from DracoSuave.  I just thought it might be easier to understand if I spelled out the scenarios.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 4, 2010)

Super-useful. Thank you very much for laying it out.


----------



## Alomir (Mar 4, 2010)

Thanks for the re-phrasing, KidSnide. However, I understood the end result of DracoSauve's proposal  pretty well, I believe - which can be summed up as "override Becoming Hidden, but do not override Not Remaining Hidden". However, I don't think my main concern was addressed.



KidSnide said:


> Under normal circumstances, you make a Stealth check at the end of a Move action.
> 
> I read "After the shift, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden." to be an exception to that rule.  In other words, Fleeting Spirit Strike (and other similar powers) gives you the ability to make a stealth check during the power, which otherwise you wouldn't be able to do.  For example, you can't use Deft Strike to move into superior cover and then hide because Deft Strike is not a Move Action.  Fleeting Strike is better.
> 
> Accordingly, I don't think Fleeting Strike is an exception to any of the other stealth rules.



I'm sorry to disagree, but - why not?

To be clear, my concern is this: we have two situations where (a) the stealth rules say you cannot make a stealth check to hide, and (b) the power says you can; in one case, we're saying that the power wins, and in the other, that the rules win - and I don't see why they are being treated differently. In both cases, the power says, literally, "After the shift, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden"; in both cases, the stealth rules say that one cannot become hidden, due to (some reason). The two reasons here are:
* one cannot become hidden due to lack of total concealment/superior cover
* one cannot become hidden because hidden status was lost during the same action
Those aren't identical, of course, but I don't see why they are different in a way that results in us making different rulings.

Here's an example of where this gets weird (Logan is my Cunning Sneak rogue).

Case A:

```
y
   ------------   <--short wall providing cover
    xB                             
                                  
     L
```
B=bad guy, L=Logan

Logan uses Fleeting Spirit Strike to shift to position x, strike, shift to position y, and then make a stealth check to become hidden. Logan started out in plain sight, so no problems here.

Case B:

```
y
   ------------   <--short wall providing cover
    xB                             
     O
     L
```
Same as Case A, except that I put a big pillar between Logan and the bad guy, so Logan starts out hidden. Logan performs exactly the same move as Case A. However, he started out hidden, so according to the thoughts above, he cannot become hidden at the end. How would the presence of the pillar make a difference in whether or not Logan can become hidden after moving around to position y? If anything, starting out hidden should make it easier, not impossible.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 5, 2010)

Well, I'll explain -that- pretty easily.

You can have a power that tells you to make a roll in unusual conditions.  The power doesn't contradict any rule at all, in fact.  Making a stealth roll at times other than a move action doesn't contradict the rule that -allows- you to make a stealth roll during move actions.  It merely gives another opportunity to do such.

What you fail to notice is that the power does not contradict ANY rule.  It does not try to.  If it did, it would be worded like 'May a stealth check, even if you've become unhidden this action' or 'make a stealth check to remain hidden'.

These powers do not, and therefore do not have a contradiction to the rules.

Another example is if you're immobilized.  Having a power that tells you to shift doesn't allow you to shift when you're immobilized.

And a more absurd example would be damage rolls.  Powers don't state all possible damage bonuses that could apply; if things worked as you claim, then powers could never do more damage than stated in their text.  Obviously, this cannot be the case.

'It's a power that does it' is not contradiction enough.  It actually has to -contradict- the rules to not be governed BY the rule.



---------------


As for the fluff:  There's two kinds of Cunning Sneak powers.  Some of them require stealth, and others grant you stealth.

The first is for coming out of ambush, and the second is for going back into ambush.

You're using a power incorrectly in this instance... so you're jumping someone, and then trying to get back into hiding, when the technique is not meant for jumping out at someone.  That makes its execution clumbsy.

There ARE powers, however, that allow you to jump out, hit someone, then jump back in, and they are not so clumbsy.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 5, 2010)

Wierd. It seems utterly bizarre to me that the same power won't let you hide if you started behind a pillar instead of in the open.

I'm seriously considering house ruling this, because I can't seem to grasp my mind around the logic. Stealth shouldn't need to be this complicated.


----------



## mneme (Mar 5, 2010)

Hmm.  You would think that a power that lets you make two Stealth checks to remain hidden (with an action that unhides you in between) would be intended to break the normal rule that you can't make a stealth check during an action where you become unhidden, wouldn't you?  That feels like an explicit exception to me.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 5, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Wierd. It seems utterly bizarre to me that the same power won't let you hide if you started behind a pillar instead of in the open.
> 
> I'm seriously considering house ruling this, because I can't seem to grasp my mind around the logic. Stealth shouldn't need to be this complicated.




Some powers are for ambushes.

Some powers are for going back into cover.

Most powers that are for ambushes don't hide you after.  (there are exceptions)

Most powers that are for going back into cover aren't for ambushing.

Pretty simple if you think of them as techniques with uses.

Exploits are tools, think of it like martial arts kata.  An attack that is for weakening an opponent isn't for distracting an opponent.  Exploits can be envisioned kinda like that.

This are superhuman martial arts schticks here, not 'I walk out and hit a guy and walk back in.'



> mneme said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm.  You would think that a power that lets you make two Stealth checks to remain hidden (with an action that unhides you in between) would be intended to break the normal rule that you can't make a stealth check during an action where you become unhidden, wouldn't you?  That feels like an explicit exception to me.
> ...


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 5, 2010)

I do appreciate you guys spending the time to help us grok this, by the way. Over and above the call of duty.


----------



## KidSnide (Mar 5, 2010)

Alomir said:


> Thanks for the re-phrasing, KidSnide. However, I understood the end result of DracoSauve's proposal  pretty well, I believe - which can be summed up as "override Becoming Hidden, but do not override Not Remaining Hidden". However, I don't think my main concern was addressed.




As DracoSuave said, that's not right.  The power doesn't override any "Becoming Hidden" rule, it just provides a trigger that allows you to hide.  It's like a Healing Surge trigger.  Just like Second Wind lets you trigger a healing surge, Move lets you make a stealth check (at the end of your move).  Healing Word doesn't override the Second Wind rule, it just provides _another_ opportunity to spend a Healing Surge.  Similarly, Fleeting Ghost Strike provides two additional opportunities to hide.



Alomir said:


> To be clear, my concern is this: we have two situations where (a) the stealth rules say you cannot make a stealth check to hide, and (b) the power says you can; in one case, we're saying that the power wins, and in the other, that the rules win - and I don't see why they are being treated differently.




Again, there is no stealth rule that says you cannot make a stealth check to hide.  There is only the rule that says you *can* make a stealth check to hide after a move.  There's no conflict.



Alomir said:


> In both cases, the power says, literally, "After the shift, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden"; in both cases, the stealth rules say that one cannot become hidden, due to (some reason). The two reasons here are:
> * one cannot become hidden due to lack of total concealment/superior cover
> * one cannot become hidden because hidden status was lost during the same action
> Those aren't identical, of course, but I don't see why they are different in a way that results in us making different rulings.




Those are treated differently because Logan is a Cunning Sneak and the benefit of Cunning Sneak is that it lets you become hidden with only regular concealment/cover (instead of total/superior) if you moved 3 squares from your starting position.  That's the exception to the normal rule.  There isn't an exception to the rule about re-hiding when your hidden status was lost during the same action.



Piratecat said:


> Wierd. It seems utterly bizarre to me that the same power won't let you hide if you started behind a pillar instead of in the open.




The difference is that, when Logan starts behind the pillar then he's gaining the benefit of being hidden for the whole move-attack-move.  In the pillar example, Logan gets combat advantage during the attack at square "x".  That's a plus which comes at the expense of not being able to re-hide (without using a move action or other power to do so).

If Logan didn't like the trade, he just shouts before attacking.  That free action ends his hidden status.  Then he can use his turn as if there pillar wasn't there.



Piratecat said:


> I'm seriously considering house ruling this, because I can't seem to grasp my mind around the logic. Stealth shouldn't need to be this complicated.




I agree that it's a little difficult to determine the reason for this rule.  I guess it prevents regular rogues from dashing from stealth through no-cover and back into superior cover without revealing themselves first?  Otherwise, every rogue would have half the benefit of Shadow Stride.

That said, a house rule won't really affect much since 90 times out of a 100, Logan will have a free Move action at the end of this power if he wants to re-stealth or some other way to get combat advantage.

-KS

EDIT: Long pause mid-post.  Again, agree with what DracoSuave says...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 6, 2010)

it is simple:

with those powers you may make a hide check even if they are not move actions.

with cunning sneak you can hide in the semi open


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 7, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> it is simple:
> 
> with those powers you may make a hide check even if they are not move actions.
> 
> with cunning sneak you can hide in the semi open




Well, yes, but these powers don't care about semi open or not.  They just say you can go ahead and do it.

For the question regarding open terrain... yes, you become hidden, and then lose it immediately, but retain the benefits for the entirety of the power.  But you can't then become hidden again, because it's the same action.

NICE power.

You can either use it to ambush someone from hidden (regardless if you started there or not), or you can use it to smack someone then go into hidden.

What you cannot do is both with it.  There ARE powers that do that, and they are specialized for that purpose.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 7, 2010)

Ok, no problems with that:

so you sneak in a hit on the run, surprising your enemy while covering your own attack with your own body... maybe a thievery check would be more appropriate but who cares.^^


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 7, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ok, no problems with that:
> 
> so you sneak in a hit on the run, surprising your enemy while covering your own attack with your own body... maybe a thievery check would be more appropriate but who cares.^^




I just handwave it with a 'Well, Batman can do that.'


----------



## Jools (Mar 9, 2010)

Its nice to see the (frankly, absurdly complicated) stealth rules considered in such detail. The content of this thread is somewhat off though due to one detail that people are missing. The gist of this thread seems to be that the utility of Gloaming Cut is that you can shift and then hide in cover IF you are a cunning sneak. HOWEVER, cunning sneaks cannot reap such a benefit as the class feature specifically states that you MUST use a MOVE action.  So if we accept the logic of this thread Gloaming Cut is a pretty useless power, one that allows you to make a stealth roll at the end of the action which is guaranteed to be immediately null and void (unless you're invisible or somesuch, of course). Oh WOTC, why do you have to make it all so complicated!


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 11, 2010)

Jools said:


> Its nice to see the (frankly, absurdly complicated) stealth rules considered in such detail. The content of this thread is somewhat off though due to one detail that people are missing. The gist of this thread seems to be that the utility of Gloaming Cut is that you can shift and then hide in cover IF you are a cunning sneak. HOWEVER, cunning sneaks cannot reap such a benefit as the class feature specifically states that you MUST use a MOVE action.  So if we accept the logic of this thread Gloaming Cut is a pretty useless power, one that allows you to make a stealth roll at the end of the action which is guaranteed to be immediately null and void (unless you're invisible or somesuch, of course). Oh WOTC, why do you have to make it all so complicated!






			
				MP2 said:
			
		

> You don't take a penalty to Stealth checks for moving more than 2 squares, and you take a -5 penalty instead ofa -10 penalty to Stealth checks for running.
> If you end a move action at least 3 squares away from your starting position, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden if you have any concealment or any cover, except for cover provided by intervening allies.




You should reread the feature before you claim it says you must do anything.

I see a lot of 'you may, you can, you don't take a penalty' but not a lot of 'you must do it this way'

But, going through MP2, a lot of people look at this power and ask 'How come I can't use it if I started hidden?'


Contrast with:

Shadow Steel Roll 
Rogue Attack 3
Encounter   -- Martial, Weapon
Standard Action  -- Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be Wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling.
Effect: Before the attack, you shift your speed, and you can make a Stealth check to become hidden.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC. If you are hidden when you attack, you remain hidden after the attack.
Hit: 1 [W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Cunning Sneak: The attack deals extra damage equal to your Intelligence modifier.



The above power is the exact same level as Fleeting Spirit Strike, but it actually DOES allow you to shift, hide, attack, and remain hidden afterwords.

The trade-off to be able to hide and attack and be hidden afterwords, for the same level power, is 1[W] of damage.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 11, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> it is simple:
> 
> with those powers you may make a hide check even if they are not move actions.
> 
> with cunning sneak you can hide in the semi open



So, in the case my character stands in superior. He doesn't hide, yet. In the next round, the player decides that hiding would be a good idea.

Has he to spend a move action to stand in the same square as before to hide?


----------



## Dekana (Mar 11, 2010)

Yes. If you're not using some power that gives you the ability to hide, you need to use a move action to do so. Stealth checks take place "At the end of a move action." I imagine this as pulling brush over yourself or adjusting your position so as to lower your profile.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 12, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> So, in the case my character stands in superior. He doesn't hide, yet. In the next round, the player decides that hiding would be a good idea.
> 
> Has he to spend a move action to stand in the same square as before to hide?




He has to spend a move action to do something, but it doesn't have to be movement.  A shaman could move his conjuration and hide;  A warlord can use the power Knight Move, and hide.

And that is the cost of him deciding not to hide earlier; it costs nothing to do.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 12, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> ...A warlord can use the power Knight Move, and hide.
> 
> ...




 And I just was convinced there were a logic behind this...


----------



## eamon (Mar 12, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> And I just was convinced there were a logic behind this...



The logic could be that it requires some amount of time and an activity that's not too focused - something measured by the action cost.

I must admit I'm not entirely sure _why_ the rules say that when an action causes you to not remain hidden you cannot become hidden again as part of the action.  This was added in the stealth errata, so presumably there's some reason for it (it's not just historical cruft from earlier versions), but the motivation eludes me...


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Mar 13, 2010)

Well, I can see why the designers might be concerned about untouchable PCs/monsters who constantly attack and then hide every round...

Now, how feasible that is to actually pull off is another question, but I can understand how doing so could be seen as a "bad thing" from a game design perspective.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 13, 2010)

eamon said:


> The logic could be that it requires some amount of time and an activity that's not too focused - something measured by the action cost.
> 
> I must admit I'm not entirely sure _why_ the rules say that when an action causes you to not remain hidden you cannot become hidden again as part of the action.  This was added in the stealth errata, so presumably there's some reason for it (it's not just historical cruft from earlier versions), but the motivation eludes me...




Because you lose the benefits of being hidden only at the end of the action.

So what happens, is you become revealed at that time--if you could become stealthed during that action again you'd have a conflict of re-stealthing, then becoming revealed anyways.

Also, it's to prevent shinanegans like running from cover to cover in broad daylight without using a specific power to do so.


----------



## eriktheguy (Apr 12, 2010)

I'm pretty certain you do not require superior cover/total concealment to make a stealth check with gloaming cut. It says to make a check, not to make a check if you meet ... requirements. Once you are hidden you must meet the requirements for remaining hidden.
This is very important to a build I'm using. Hybrid warlock rogue with shadow walk. He can't take the cunning sneak feature until he hits level 11, so he needs some way to become hidden and then shadow walk allows him to remain hidden. Gloaming cut meets that requirement.
Moreover, if gloaming cut doesn't work for everyone, then it doesn't work for cunning sneaks either, as cunning sneaks only gain their stealth roll with normal cover or concealment when they are using a move action.
Someone already pointed this out, and someone else said they were wrong, but I didn't see a good argument against.


----------



## chitzk0i (Apr 12, 2010)

eriktheguy said:


> I'm pretty certain you do not require superior cover/total concealment to make a stealth check with gloaming cut. It says to make a check, not to make a check if you meet ... requirements. Once you are hidden you must meet the requirements for remaining hidden.



If there was a power that went something like "Minor action.  Effect: Make an intimidate check.", would you let the user intimidate unbloodied enemies into surrendering?  

Gloaming cut doesn't say anything about circumventing the normal stealth rules.  It just lets you make a check at an additional time.


----------



## eriktheguy (Apr 12, 2010)

chitzk0i said:


> If there was a power that went something like "Minor action.  Effect: Make an intimidate check.", would you let the user intimidate unbloodied enemies into surrendering?
> 
> Gloaming cut doesn't say anything about circumventing the normal stealth rules.  It just lets you make a check at an additional time.




If a power said "make an intimidate check" you could make an intimidate check against every foe, and only non-bloodied foes would be effected. You are allowed to target non-bloodied foes with intimidate, but they suffer no effect on a hit.

But this is just a technicality, I understand what you are trying to say. What if intimidate could only target bloodied foes, and a power said "make an intimidate check against each adjacent foe". Would you be able to make the check against un-bloodied fores? The answer is yes. If a power (specific) tells you that you can use a skill against all adjacent foes, then you use the skill against those foes without having to meet the normal requirements for using the skill.

If a power says "you score a critical hit" or "you gain combat advantage for this attack" you gain those bonuses even if you do not meet the prerequisites for those effects. The power does not need to state 'even if you didn't roll a 20, even if you do not have flanking, etc'.

Gloaming strike states that you make a stealth check, therefore you make a stealth check. The power need not list a statement for each requirement of stealth that you do not meet. You make your stealth check and proceed to the portion of the 'becoming hidden' rules that describe the effects of success or failure.

Note that the rules for stealth also state that you cannot become hidden as part of the same action that caused you to become revealed. Attacking causes you to become revealed, so by your argument gloaming strike would never be able to grant a stealth check, because it does not specifically state "you may become hidden even if this action caused you to become revealed".

You might argue further that it is 'obvious' that the power is intended to allow you to make a check as part of the same action that caused you to become revealed, but that it is not obvious that the check is intended to work without cover or concealment. This argument doesn't hold any water if you are going by RAW. Powers under RAW function according to how they were written, not how they were intended to work. Note that sometimes Wizards CustServ makes a ruling that is different than RAW, so we will see how that works out.

Edit: There are clearly some errors on Wizard's part in the wording of these powers. If you read the "shadowy rogue" description, it suggests that you should take attack powers that grant movement to benefit from the cunning sneak class feature. This suggests that Wizard's intended for cunning sneak to be used when hiding with powers such as gloaming strike, which in turn implies that Wizard's intended for other characters to require total concealment and superior cover when using these powers. Note that this is contradictory because:
1: Cunning sneak only works with move actions, therefore it has no effect on the powers that Wizard's suggests using it with.
2: Gloaming strike does not require any cover or concealment to make the stealth check as I have argued in this thread, which has been confirmed by their CustServ
http://community.wizards.com/go/thr...stomer_Service_Answers&post_num=591#391307925
I hope to see some errata and clarification soon


----------

