# New stealth stuff from WotC



## JDillard (Jul 30, 2008)

I don't think this has been posted anywhere, which makes me think that it's new info.

There's a reasonably lengthy Stealth excerpt in the rules compendium on the wizards site.  http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/compendium 

I can't link directly to the article, but just search for Stealth from there.

The changes seem fairly small, but do look like they get rid of some of the bizarre stuff people were trying to do with stealth actions.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 30, 2008)

Highlights:
- Make a stealth check at the end of a move action only
- When hidden, you are silent and invisible with respect to the enemy you are hidden from
- If you attack, you gain the benefit of being hidden, but are no longer hidden afterward.
- If you move, make a new stealth check
- You can't hide behind another creature
_Edit_: 
- You need superior cover or total concealment to start hiding

Seems pretty clear to me now.  Good find!


----------



## Bolongo (Jul 30, 2008)

The big thing I spotted right away is that they now specify *superior* cover or *total* concealment to allow a stealth check. Instead of just regular old cover or concealment, like it says in the PHB. The Warlock player in my game will not be happy.


----------



## Larrin (Jul 30, 2008)

other highlightL: can be made "only if you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy" so no more warlocks shadow walk=stealth.


----------



## Tsuul (Jul 30, 2008)

Superior Cover , Total Concealment,  or zero Line of Sight to start off the  Stealth check, but after that you only need Cover or Concealment to keep it going.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 30, 2008)

To verify that this strategy would work:

The PCs are in a room with 5' diameter pillars in it.

A rogue moves at normal speed across the room to a location that grants her superior cover against an enemy. Until she ends her movement, she has little or no cover or concealment.

At the end of her movement, she makes a stealth check at no penalty.

Although she has superior cover against the enemy, the enemy has no cover against her.

She uses a standard action to make a ranged attack; she has combat advantage on this attack and can apply sneak-attack damage.

Is this accurate?

It makes ranged rogues a lot better if so.

Daniel


----------



## Valesin (Jul 30, 2008)

Wow, that is pretty...idiotic.  You can only use stealth against an enemy against whom you have Total Concealment, which is defined as:

"Total Concealment (–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls):
You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in
a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square that is not adjacent to you."

So you can only hide from a person when they already have absolutely zero chance of seeing you in the first place.

I guess I can understand their drive to nerf the warlock, but this is just stupid.  An invisible person, or a person firing through an arrow slit, really doesn't need stealth.  And now no one else can get it.

So much for the rogue being "expected to get combat advantage with every attack."


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 30, 2008)

Definitely like that stealth only occurs at the end of a move action....that solves 99% of the major issues with stealth right there.

Not sure I like the total cover or concealment needed to start stealthing....really cuts in to the warlock's ability, and now the rogue can no longer duck behind cover, hide, and then attack (he has to get total cover, which means he won't be able to attack his enemy). That was one of my new favorite things about stealth.

Anyway, hopefully we will get some errata soon to make this official, those aren't little clarifications, that's definitely some strong changes to stealth, especially changing the action type.


----------



## Valesin (Jul 30, 2008)

Pielorinho said:


> To verify that this strategy would work:
> 
> The PCs are in a room with 5' diameter pillars in it.
> 
> ...





Whereas that same rogue in an outdoor setting with light underbrush does...nothing.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Jul 30, 2008)

JDillard said:


> I don't think this has been posted anywhere, which makes me think that it's new info.



It popped up in this thread starting at post 44 if you want more reaction...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237210&page=2


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 30, 2008)

*Valesin*, two points.

First, you can also do it when you have superior cover, which can still let you be seen; it grants an advantage in this respect (essentially making it nearly impossible to hit you, and giving you combat advantage when you have superior cover).
Second, you can move from that position of total concealment to a position of only partial concealment/cover, maintaining the advantage.  The party enters the room and attacks.  You stealth and move forward to a position of partial cover/concealment and attack.  Or you can even run outside the room, stealth, and come back in with a sneak-attack.

Daniel


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 30, 2008)

Valesin said:


> So you can only hide from a person when they already have absolutely zero chance of seeing you in the first place.




Anyone else who moves behind a pillar in combat is just a guy standing behind a pillar.  Everyone knows where he is and the advantage gained is low.  The character trained in Stealth can take advantage of the situation.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 30, 2008)

Valesin said:


> Whereas that same rogue in an outdoor setting with light underbrush does...nothing.



In an outdoor setting with light underbrush, the rogue makes a bluff check, or uses/waits for an ally to impose a combat-advantage-condition on the opponent, or suck it up and move into a flanking position . I'd have some problems with the idea of a rogue hiding from an enemy by ducking down into the shrubbery.

*Stalker*, it's total concealment, but only superior cover. I just played around on my battlemap, and it's often possible to have superior cover against an enemy, but for the enemy to have no cover against you, I think.

Edit:  actually, I think I was wrong. The best you can do is to have superior cover, and the enemy gets regular cover.  And that's harder to get than I thought.

Daniel


----------



## yarael (Jul 30, 2008)

Pielorinho said:


> To verify that this strategy would work:
> 
> The PCs are in a room with 5' diameter pillars in it.
> 
> ...




No the Stealth check would have a -5 penalty, per....
 "Stealth: At the end of a move action.

    Opposed Check: Stealth vs. passive Perception. If multiple enemies are present, your Stealth check is opposed by each enemy’s passive Perception check. If you move more than 2 squares during the move action, you take a –5 penalty to the Stealth check. If you run, the penalty is –10."


----------



## Valesin (Jul 30, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> Anyone else who moves behind a pillar in combat is just a guy standing behind a pillar.  Everyone knows where he is and the advantage gained is low.  The character trained in Stealth can take advantage of the situation.





But the rogue seen moving behind the pillar, because until he gets behind the pillar he can do nothing stealthily, is just some guy behind a pillar that you can't see but you know is there.


----------



## Mengu (Jul 30, 2008)

Basically in combat they don't want you making stealth checks every round to go ninja invisible under a pebble. Outside of combat, you can hide in the shadow of a city wall, or along the edge of some light woods, or hide in your own shadow Desperado style, no problem. This is really no different than the way we've always played it in 3.x. I have no problem with this new ruling.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 30, 2008)

yarael said:


> No the Stealth check would have a -5 penalty, per....



Of course you're right.  Somehow I was thinking that modified only applied to movements made once you were already stealthed, but it clearly refers to the move during which you become stealthy.

Thanks!
Daniel


----------



## bardolph (Jul 30, 2008)

I like these new rules.  Yes it's a big nerf, but a big nerf was needed.  The old rules were a huge pain in the butt, if for no other reason than the ridiculous number of die rolls (even two rolls per attack is painful).

Sniper rogues are much harder to play now, admittedly.  However, there are still ways to get CA in the middle of combat from range.  For example:


Round 1: Surprise Round.  Automatic CA.
Round 2: Win Initiative.  First Strike CA from around a corner, followed by a 2-square move to break line of sight.  Stealth Check - success.
Round 3: 2-square move back to the corner while hidden.  Attack from corner with CA.
Round 4: Attack from corner without CA.  2-square move to break LoS.  Stealth - hidden again.

Rinse and repeat.  After round 4, the rogue will get CA every other attack if no one inflicts a condition that causes CA.  However, with proper application of powers and good teamwork, this rogue can get CA with every attack.

Another thing to note is that rogues can be effective at range AND melee without suffering from MAD.  So, any round that the rogue cannot get CA from range, they can simply move in and flank.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 30, 2008)

Pielorinho said:


> To verify that this strategy would work:
> 
> The PCs are in a room with 5' diameter pillars in it.
> 
> ...



Yes, this works.  However, gaining superior cover from a 5' pillar is not so easy.  Usually, you'll be stuck with normal cover, and so no stealth check.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 30, 2008)

jaelis said:


> Highlights:
> - Make a stealth check at the end of a move action only
> - When hidden, you are silent and invisible with respect to the enemy you are hidden from
> - If you attack, you gain the benefit of being hidden, but are no longer hidden afterward.
> ...




What many people may find counter-intuitive is that if you get hidden, then on a later turn move flagrantly through open squares adjacent to severa enemies, you remain invisible during that move action right under the noses of those enemies. 

At the end of that move action you are no longer hidden (and can't rehide without another action).

Also look at *Fleeting Ghost*. It seems to grant a check without needing SC or TC. So end your move in a C or C square and hide, and then follow up with a second move, hidden, to a new location.

That makes Rogues who go the Stealth route the best sneakers in the game. Pre-compendium it was Warlocks, Rogues, Rangers. Now it's Rogues, Rangers, Warlocks, as it should be.

-vk


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Jul 30, 2008)

Mengu said:


> This is really no different than the way we've always played it in 3.x.




Yeah, but 4e is supposed to be an improvement on 3.x. This makes playing a 4e rogue less fun than playing a 3.x rogue. In 3.x, you could at least tumble at will.



vonklaude said:


> That makes Rogues who go the Stealth route the best sneakers in the game. Pre-compendium it was Warlocks, Rogues, Rangers. Now it's Rogues, Rangers, Warlocks, as it should be.
> 
> -vk




Yeah, but now best strikers is Rangers - Warlocks - Fighters - pretty much anyone else - rogues. Losing two standard actions to get combat advantage (which supposedly, per Mike Mearls, the game's math assumes the rogue has pretty much all of the time), then wasting entire turns not attacking to get into position to make a sneak attack leaves rogues with pretty much the lowest damage output in the game. It also creates a trap where you have to take Bluff to perform as a rogue, adds CHA as a necessity to all rogue builds and makes brutal scoundrels decidedly inferior.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 30, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> What many people may find counter-intuitive is that if you get hidden, then on a later turn move flagrantly through open squares adjacent to severa enemies, you remain invisible during that move action right under the noses of those enemies.
> 
> At the end of that move action you are no longer hidden (and can't rehide without another action).



Well, I'd say as you get the advantage of being hidden while moving.  For instance, no one could take an opportunity attack on you.  That seems OK to me... you surprised them by showing up someplace they didn't expect.  



> Also look at *Fleeting Ghost*. It seems to grant a check without needing SC or TC. So end your move in a C or C square and hide, and then follow up with a second move, hidden, to a new location.



I think fleeting ghost just negates the penalty for movement.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 30, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> What many people may find counter-intuitive is that if you get hidden, then on a later turn move flagrantly through open squares adjacent to severa enemies, you remain invisible during that move action right under the noses of those enemies.



I don't think this is a correct reading of the "Keep Out of Sight" section.  This section clearly states that if you lose cover/concealment, you are no longer hidden.  This is a requirement for staying hidden, not a condition that you check only at the end of an action.

So, in the scenario you describe, the creatures would automatically be alerted and be able to take opportunity attacks as appropriate.

However, with a successful Bluff check for Distraction, the rogue would be able to make this move.


----------



## Mengu (Jul 30, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> What many people may find counter-intuitive is that if you get hidden, then on a later turn move flagrantly through open squares adjacent to severa enemies, you remain invisible during that move action right under the noses of those enemies.



Compendium says:

_Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. _

I think the intent is pretty clear on this one.



MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> Yeah, but 4e is supposed to be an improvement on 3.x. This makes playing a 4e rogue less fun than playing a 3.x rogue. In 3.x, you could at least tumble at will.



It's unfortunate that you find all 80+ Rogue powers less fun than tumble.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 30, 2008)

Valesin said:


> Wow, that is pretty...idiotic.  You can only use stealth against an enemy against whom you have Total Concealment, which is defined as:
> 
> "Total Concealment (–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls):
> You can’t see the target. The target is invisible, in
> ...




It's not that silly really...

In combat, you need to have no line of sight from someone to you in order to enter 'stealth mode' and thats just plain common sense. If they can see you clearly, you ain't gonna be hiding so they can't see you any more.

Once you have hidden from them, ordinary concealment and moving slowly allows you to effortlessly maintain that hiding. This is nice.

It also specifies the way in which CA can be gained by sneaking snipers, which is helpful.

The only people that miss out here are Warlocks whose requirement to move 3 or more squares to gain concealment means that they can't effortlessly maintain their stealth, but have to make another skill check at -5 to continue to be hidden - which is still a pretty good deal, really.

I wonder if this will appear in errata, or whether this (and how many other things?) will be added to the compendium by, er, stealth?

Cheers


----------



## Lauberfen (Jul 30, 2008)

The 5' pillar won't work. There is no situation when a 5' pillar grants superior cover, as you'll always be able to see 2 vertexes along one edge of the pillar.

This update is great, going above and beyond my house rules.


----------



## JDillard (Jul 30, 2008)

EDIT: Ninja'd, like, 3 times over.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 30, 2008)

bardolph said:


> I don't think this is a correct reading of the "Keep Out of Sight" section.  This section clearly states that if you lose cover/concealment, you are no longer hidden.  This is a requirement for staying hidden, not a condition that you check only at the end of an action.
> 
> So, in the scenario you describe, the creatures would automatically be alerted and be able to take opportunity attacks as appropriate.
> 
> However, with a successful Bluff check for Distraction, the rogue would be able to make this move.




But it says:


> 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.



So that would suggest no oppy attacks.

But I guess there is still some uncertainty.  If you move out from cover, do you retain the benefits for only the first square you move through, or for the entire move action.

If you interpret it as the whole move action, it also means you can't move out of cover, cross an open space to new cover, and hide again.


----------



## Felon (Jul 30, 2008)

What the....???? 

They're putting original rules content into the compendium, and just waiting for someone to stumble across it and notice it's there? Not just original rules either, but rules that contradict the PHB? 

That's not the way a compendium is supposed to work. At least publich the original content outside of the compendium, then reference it.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 30, 2008)

We've been pretty much playing it like that all along in 4e, and the the rogue has been able to sneak attack on about 95% of his attacks. He doesn't do it by hiding, he does it by flanking and other forms of getting combat advantage.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Jul 30, 2008)

Mengu said:


> It's unfortunate that you find all 80+ Rogue powers less fun than tumble.




It's unfortunate you can't come up with a better line than this. Want to try for an intelligent response?

You can't get the benefit of a bunch of the 80 powers without having combat advantage. You can't use all 80 powers, instead being limited to a comparative few of them, especially through the first 10 levels. Most of them can't be used at will and are limited to once per encounter or once per day. If you can't move around, the game is less fun to play as a rogue or ranger. If you can't move around as a rogue or ranger, you can't perform your role as a striker.


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 30, 2008)

jaelis said:


> But it says:




It says if you "take an *action*" that causes you to become unhidden, you remain hidden until the action resolves. "No longer have cover/concealment" is not an action, it's just something that happens, so you don't get the benefit of "remaining hidden till the action is resolved."

Even if you apply the rule here, there's ample evidence (see for example immediate reactions and movement) that each square of movement should be treated as its own action for these sorts of purposes. In other words, when you move into a square that doesn't have cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden when that square of movement is resolved.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 30, 2008)

Kordeth said:


> It says if you "take an *action*" that causes you to become unhidden, you remain hidden until the action resolves. "No longer have cover/concealment" is not an action, it's just something that happens, so you don't get the benefit of "remaining hidden till the action is resolved."
> 
> Even if you apply the rule here, there's ample evidence (see for example immediate reactions and movement) that each square of movement should be treated as its own action for these sorts of purposes. In other words, when you move into a square that doesn't have cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden when that square of movement is resolved.




*'...that causes you...'* Walking out into the open 'causes you' to become unhidden. The reason this plays as it does is to avoid bugs that otherwise arise due to immediate interrupts and trim branching wordings that complicate the rulings. I concur with you that squares must be considered individually, but that is far from calling each step an action!

The enemies miss out on a few OAs, which the Rogue likely dodged anyway, and the rules play clean and fast.

-vk


----------



## epochrpg (Jul 30, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> Yeah, but 4e is supposed to be an improvement on 3.x. This makes playing a 4e rogue less fun than playing a 3.x rogue. In 3.x, you could at least tumble at will..




Stealth = the New Grapple


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 30, 2008)

I am in the camp that these rules nerf Stealth too much. I was convinced in another thread that Superior Concealment/Total Concealment was too much of a restriction for Stealth.

Other than the SC/TC requirement, though, these rules look pretty good to me. Clean and simple and not so many degenerate cases. Right now I am planning on using them, but am considering relaxing the requirements to just Normal Cover/Total Concealment. Allowing you to hide behind normal Cover would give Rogues back their CA but keeps the door closed to Warlock Stealth-fu.


----------



## Benly (Jul 30, 2008)

Kordeth said:


> Even if you apply the rule here, there's ample evidence (see for example immediate reactions and movement) that each square of movement should be treated as its own action for these sorts of purposes. In other words, when you move into a square that doesn't have cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden when that square of movement is resolved.




So then, logically you just have to move _through_ a square with total cover or concealment to hide as long as you then retain concealment? Warlocks are back on top, I guess. 

My big problem with this change is that it returns us to the 3.x mentality of "a rogue is a frontliner who stands across from a fighter, flanking and whaling away" rather than the previous 4e "a rogue sneaks around, shanks at the right moment, and then fades back into the shadows".


----------



## jaelis (Jul 30, 2008)

Kordeth said:


> It says if you "take an *action*" that causes you to become unhidden, you remain hidden until the action resolves. "No longer have cover/concealment" is not an action, it's just something that happens, so you don't get the benefit of "remaining hidden till the action is resolved."



Not sure I understand your point here.  The action causing you to loose cover/concealment is movement, it seems like you would retain the benefit until the movement is resolved.



> Even if you apply the rule here, there's ample evidence (see for example immediate reactions and movement) that each square of movement should be treated as its own action for these sorts of purposes. In other words, when you move into a square that doesn't have cover or concealment, you are no longer hidden when that square of movement is resolved.



I agree it could be interpreted that way, and it seems pretty reasonable.  (So you would not get an oppy for leaving the square you were hiding in, but you would thereafter.)  But the text itself seems ambiguous, since each square of movement is not always treated as a separate action.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 30, 2008)

Hmm.  So if a rogue with deft strike moved out of cover and attacked (all as one action), would he get combat advantage?

Seems like it depends on how you want to interpret the "Not remaining hidden" clause.


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 30, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> You can't get the benefit of a bunch of the 80 powers without having combat advantage.




Sorry, what? There are no rogue powers that require you to have combat advantage, and quite a few that give you combat advantage.



> You can't use all 80 powers, instead being limited to a comparative few of them, especially through the first 10 levels. Most of them can't be used at will and are limited to once per encounter or once per day.




That's how every class works, so I don't really see how that's a problem.



> If you can't move around, the game is less fun to play as a rogue or ranger. If you can't move around as a rogue or ranger, you can't perform your role as a striker.




You can move around, you just don't have a skill that lets you completely ignore the dangers of OAs like you had in 3.5. There are absolutely feats and powers you can use to improve your mobility. Hell, take Nimble Strike as your at-will and you can use a move action to shift one square away from an enemy, then use your standard to move two more squares and attack. That's three squares of movement and an attack without provoking OAs unless you move through another creature's threatened space, and that's almost exactly what you got with Tumble in 3.5.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 30, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> I am in the camp that these rules nerf Stealth too much. I was convinced in another thread that Superior Concealment/Total Concealment was too much of a restriction for Stealth.




Before you do that, you might like to consider that Rogues going the Stealth route still have at-will ignore the SC/TC requirement.

If you go back to C/C you make Warlocks best at sneaking, followed by Rogues, then Rangers, then Wizards.

*If you run it by the Compendium, you make Rogues best at sneaking*, followed by Rangers, then Warlocks and Wizards about even.

How would you like the classes to be ranked for sneaking?

-vk


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 30, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> It's unfortunate you can't come up with a better line than this. Want to try for an intelligent response?




It is unfortunate that you choose to insult someone. You're banned from this thread.


----------



## Armadillo (Jul 30, 2008)

jaelis said:


> Hmm. So if a rogue with deft strike moved out of cover and attacked (all as one action), would he get combat advantage?
> 
> Seems like it depends on how you want to interpret the "Not remaining hidden" clause.




Sure.  The rogue would have combat advantage due to being hidden at the begining of their turn.  At the end of their turn, after moving out to attack, the rogue would not be hidden.


----------



## Bolongo (Jul 30, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Rogues going the Stealth route still have at-will ignore the SC/TC requirement.



If you're talking about Fleeting Ghost, then I disagree with your reading of that power. It removes the -5 penalty, nothing more.


----------



## Mengu (Jul 30, 2008)

Kordeth said:


> You can move around, you just don't have a skill that lets you completely ignore the dangers of OAs like you had in 3.5. There are absolutely feats and powers you can use to improve your mobility. Hell, take Nimble Deft Strike as your at-will and you can use a move action to shift one square away from an enemy, then use your standard to move two more squares and attack. That's three squares of movement and an attack without provoking OAs unless you move through another creature's threatened space, and that's almost exactly what you got with Tumble in 3.5.




To add to what Kordeth said, you also are often protected by a Fighter or a Paladin as you are moving around, drawing opportunity attacks. When an enemy takes an opportunity attack against you, you possibly get Artful Dodger bonus, and maybe even Defensive Mobility Bonus. If that enemy is marked, he takes a -2 penalty on top of that, so good luck to him hitting your ultra high AC. To top it off, if that enemy is marked by the paladin, he takes some divine challenge damage. If that enemy is marked by the fighter, the fighter gets to smack him thanks to combat challenge. And when you do get hit, well, you have a cleric or warlord for that.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 30, 2008)

Armadillo said:


> Sure.  The rogue would have combat advantage due to being hidden at the begining of their turn.  At the end of their turn, after moving out to attack, the rogue would not be hidden.




But some people have been suggesting that you would only benefit from being hidden for the first square of your movement, since each square of movement counts as a "mini-action" for some purposes.  (Opportunity attacks, for instance.)

I like letting deft strike work.  But that would mean you could not move away from one hiding place and then hide again in another (all as the same action).  And I don't really like that.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 30, 2008)

Felon said:


> They're putting original rules content into the compendium, and just waiting for someone to stumble across it and notice it's there? Not just original rules either, but rules that contradict the PHB?
> 
> That's not the way a compendium is supposed to work. At least publich the original content outside of the compendium, then reference it.




The issue with making a tabletop RPG simultaneously online is that a significant chunk of your player base is not going to be using the most up-to-date version of the rules.  They're actually creating rules disparities in the edition less than two months after release.  It's a problem, no doubt about it.  I can't use the rules as written because they're terribly vague, but I'm not always going to have access to the web to have the most recent version.

This is a discussion for another thread though.


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 30, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> *'...that causes you...'* Walking out into the open 'causes you' to become unhidden. The reason this plays as it does is to avoid bugs that otherwise arise due to immediate interrupts and trim branching wordings that complicate the rulings. I concur with you that squares must be considered individually, but that is far from calling each step an action!




What if it wasn't your movement that causes you to lose cover. What if a bad guy takes a move action and steps around the corner, then moves another five squares. Does he not see you crouching behind the wall, even though you're in plain sight, until he finishes moving?

The only way it makes any kind of rational sense (and doesn't make the rogue utility 10 Shadow Stride a useless power) is if you read the literal meaning of "action that causes you to become unhidden" (that is, the action itself causes you to be unhidden--"attacking causes you to be no longer hidden" versus "if you lose cover/concealment, you are no longer hidden," where it's the loss of C/C that unhides you, not the action of moving) or if you follow the reaction rules of effectively treating each square of movement as its own "action" for purposes of resolving Stealth.



Benly said:


> So then, logically you just have to move _through_ a square with total cover or concealment to hide as long as you then retain concealment? Warlocks are back on top, I guess.




No, because the rules ror making a Stealth check are more stringent than the rules for remaining hidden. You make a Stealth check at the end of a move *action*, and have to have superior cover/total concealment.



> My big problem with this change is that it returns us to the 3.x mentality of "a rogue is a frontliner who stands across from a fighter, flanking and whaling away" rather than the previous 4e "a rogue sneaks around, shanks at the right moment, and then fades back into the shadows".




Rogues can still do that, they just have to rely on distractions and trickery more. Don't forget there are utility powers that can help with this.



jaelis said:


> Not sure I understand your point here.  The action causing you to loose cover/concealment is movement, it seems like you would retain the benefit until the movement is resolved.




No, because a) it makes no sense logically and b) it renders Shadow Stride a do-nothing power. The action of moving isn't what unhides you--you can move while hidden as long as you follow all the rules. It's losing cover/concealment that unhides you, and that's not an action.



> I agree it could be interpreted that way, and it seems pretty reasonable.  (So you would not get an oppy for leaving the square you were hiding in, but you would thereafter.)  But the text itself seems ambiguous, since each square of movement is not always treated as a separate action.




That's because most times it doesn't have to be. In this case, it does (or we need to accept that losing cover is not an action and thus causes you to unhide immediately, not at the end of the action that caused you to lose cover/concealment), for the reasons pointed out above.


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 30, 2008)

jaelis said:


> But some people have been suggesting that you would only benefit from being hidden for the first square of your movement, since each square of movement counts as a "mini-action" for some purposes.  (Opportunity attacks, for instance.)
> 
> I like letting deft strike work.  But that would mean you could not move away from one hiding place and then hide again in another (all as the same action).  And I don't really like that.




Personally, I like letting Deft Strike work too--I'd just make that a special exception for the power though: "*Special:* If you are hidden when you use this power, you remain hidden until after the attack, even if moving would cause you to lose cover or concealment."

Personally, I'm okay with needing a level 10 utility power to run out of one hiding place and get to another one while remaining hidden.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 30, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> I am in the camp that ...



 Paul!  It's Daniel, from Chapel Hill.  Do I have the right Paul Strack here?

If so, good to see you around!

Daniel


----------



## clearstream (Jul 30, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> I am in the camp that these rules nerf Stealth too much. I was convinced in another thread that Superior Concealment/Total Concealment was too much of a restriction for Stealth.




Before you do that, you might like to consider that Rogues going the Stealth route still have at-will ignore the SC/TC requirement.

If you go back to C/C you make Warlocks best at sneaking, followed by Rogues, then Rangers, then Wizards.

*If you run it by the Compendium, you make Rogues best at sneaking*, followed by Rangers, then Warlocks and Wizards about even.

How would you like the classes to be ranked for sneaking?

-vk


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 30, 2008)

Lauberfen said:


> The 5' pillar won't work. There is no situation when a 5' pillar grants superior cover, as you'll always be able to see 2 vertexes along one edge of the pillar.



 I'm not sure that's true, if you hide directly behind it on the diagonal.  Remember that you have to choose just one corner from which you're going to be tracing. (I'm not great with spatial puzzles, though, so I could be wrong).

Daniel


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Jul 30, 2008)

jaelis said:


> Hmm.  So if a rogue with deft strike moved out of cover and attacked (all as one action), would he get combat advantage?
> 
> Seems like it depends on how you want to interpret the "Not remaining hidden" clause.



I think this is meant to be a strength of Deft Strike, because you keep the advantages of being hidden until the action is resolved.  If you had to use a move action and then attack, I'd argue that you are no longer hidden either at some point during or upon ending that move action (which of the two is up for debate), but in either case before the attack.  With Deft Strike those 2 squares of movement are part of that same action--essentially you can hide and then deftly lunge out from hiding to strike.

Note also that it says that if you move more than 2 squares you need another Stealth check, so that fits nicely with Deft Strike as well.  It also suggests that you could just manage to charge at someone from hiding (minimum 2 squares movement to charge) because charge is also a single, standard action that includes movement, but that you could not charge from hiding and get that combat advantage from having hidden if you charge more than those 2 squares.  Wait...by that compendium not sure that you wouldn't keep the benefit until the entire action is resolved; same issue as whether you lose benefits of stealth during or after a full move's worth of distance is covered.

Notice, though, that with Deft Strike you could potentially dart out 10' from hiding and attack, then move back to the hiding spot (or to a new spot with sup cover or tot concealment), and make another Stealth check.  If going to the old spot or a new spot likewise within 2 squares, you don't even take the -5 penalty.


----------



## Valesin (Jul 30, 2008)

My problem with this ruling is that in an effort to "fix" a (non?)problem with the warlock, they have made an aspect of the game that should be fun and common and completely nerfed it.  The fact that you have to totally block all line of sight to every opponent in order to "hide" harkens way too much back to 2nd edition.  

And really, was the warlock all that broken before?  At the cost of at least one feat (2 if he wants SA 1x encounter) and buying up Dex at the expense of Int and either Con or Cha, you had a guy who could occasionally "vanish" from sight until his next attack.  And he took a -5 to his stealth check to do so, meaning he was rarely all that successful.  

Given the fact that both the rogue and ranger can attack from melee or range *and *each does more damage on average than the warlock *and* they get weapon proficiency bonuses to all their attacks that the warlock will never get, is the ability for the magically sneaky/tricky character to to be occasionally hard to detect worth making stealth in combat nigh impossible?


----------



## Benly (Jul 30, 2008)

Kordeth said:


> Rogues can still do that, they just have to rely on distractions and trickery more. Don't forget there are utility powers that can help with this.





Oh, right. There's, um..

..um..

Okay, let me go over the utility powers here. Just the ones with stealth applications, this could take a while otherwise.

Fleeting Ghost (at-will, 2): What this does depends on who you ask. By an absolutely literal reading, this does in fact let you hide without any cover or concealment, which is pretty fantastic if so. On the other hand, it seems like the intent is to prevent the movement penalties to stealth rather than just be a blank check. Needs clarification.

Master of Deceit (encounter, 2): Useful for starting a distraction, but the problem remains that distractions are 1/encounter.

Chameleon (at-will, 6): Actually if you read this literally it's the best stealth power in the game. Reading literally, you can move out of concealment, trigger Chameleon, and from that point forward remain hidden while whaling on him with a baseball bat as long as you're concealed again by the end of your next turn. This should be the power swap of choice for ninja warlocks in that case.

Shadow Stride (at-will, 10): This.. actually appears to do what Fleeting Ghost is apparently supposed to do. At best it's identical to FG and at worst it's much worse. Weird.

Hide In Plain Sight (at-will, 16): This is a great ability, don't get me wrong, but you have to already be hidden to use it. So it doesn't help with the newly-introduced problem.

Hide From The Light (daily, 22): This is nice but, again, requires you to already be hidden. This being level 22 and daily indicates to me that Chameleon isn't supposed to do what it's written as doing.

Impossible To Catch (encounter, Master Infiltrator PP): Oh! This is the one you were talking about, right? The utility power that now lets you hide again without having to run away, around a corner, and back out from around the corner. I guess that works, yeah.

There are a bunch of utility powers that let you _stay_ hidden, but that's not the problem anymore. The problem now is that you need to run off and around a corner before you can _become_ hidden. There is one power that unquestionably addresses that (once per encounter), and it's actually a paragon path power. Fleeting Ghost addresses it with an extremely literal interpretation; if you are interpreting very literally then it's true that Fleeting Ghost and Chameleon are all you need to be as the ninja.


----------



## Lauberfen (Jul 30, 2008)

Pielorinho said:


> I'm not sure that's true, if you hide directly behind it on the diagonal.  Remember that you have to choose just one corner from which you're going to be tracing. (I'm not great with spatial puzzles, though, so I could be wrong).
> 
> Daniel




Your right, of course. If you hide on the diagonal, there are a few positions (including opposite on the diagonal) that an enemy could only see one vertex from any given corner of their square. I suppose a square pillar _is_ wider across the diagonal...


----------



## jaelis (Jul 30, 2008)

The interaction of Shadow Stride with the new rules seems clear enough to me.

The rogue starts out hiding in square A, where he has cover.  He wants to move to square B, which also has cover.  To get there, he has to move through one or more squares with no cover.

There are two interpretations for the new rules:
1) You stop being hidden as soon as you move into a square with no cover.  Shadow Stride fixes this... when using the power, you can move from A to B and remain hidden the whole time.

2) You stop being hidden at the end of your move action, and cannot immediately hide again.  So now you can get to B, but can't hide once you are there.  Again, Shadow Stride fixes it, and lets you stay hidden the whole time.

So either way, Shadow Stride lets you move from A to B and stay hidden, something that is otherwise not possible.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 30, 2008)

Magus Coeruleus said:


> I think this is meant to be a strength of Deft Strike, because you keep the advantages of being hidden until the action is resolved. If you had to use a move action and then attack, I'd argue that you are no longer hidden either at some point during or upon ending that move action (which of the two is up for debate), but in either case before the attack. With Deft Strike those 2 squares of movement are part of that same action--essentially you can hide and then deftly lunge out from hiding to strike.
> 
> Note also that it says that if you move more than 2 squares you need another Stealth check, so that fits nicely with Deft Strike as well. It also suggests that you could just manage to charge at someone from hiding (minimum 2 squares movement to charge) because charge is also a single, standard action that includes movement, but that you could not charge from hiding and get that combat advantage from having hidden if you charge more than those 2 squares. Wait...by that compendium not sure that you wouldn't keep the benefit until the entire action is resolved; same issue as whether you lose benefits of stealth during or after a full move's worth of distance is covered.
> 
> Notice, though, that with Deft Strike you could potentially dart out 10' from hiding and attack, then move back to the hiding spot (or to a new spot with sup cover or tot concealment), and make another Stealth check. If going to the old spot or a new spot likewise within 2 squares, you don't even take the -5 penalty.




The advantage of Deft Strike over Charge is that Deft Strike does not have to be the last thing you do in your turn. You can then use a move right after to dart back into SC/TC and re-hide.

-vk


----------



## jaelis (Jul 30, 2008)

Using Dex instead of Str for the attack is another big advantage for a rogue.


----------



## JDillard (Jul 30, 2008)

At first I agreed with your interpretation Kordeth, but the more I think about it the more I think the other interpretation of "remaining hidden" is proably correct. 

Here's some thoughts...



Kordeth said:


> What if it wasn't your movement that causes you to lose cover. What if a bad guy takes a move action and steps around the corner, then moves another five squares. Does he not see you crouching behind the wall, even though you're in plain sight, until he finishes moving?




I think so, yes. If it seems really oddly illogical, just assume that when you're moving you're focused more on moving and less on looking all around you. The bad guy doesn't have a chance to notice Rogue until he's finished his move. Then, if the Rogue has no more cover or concealment he gets seen. Otherwise, he stays hidden.



> The only way it makes any kind of rational sense (and doesn't make the rogue utility 10 Shadow Stride a useless power) is if you read the literal meaning of "action that causes you to become unhidden" (that is, the action itself causes you to be unhidden--"attacking causes you to be no longer hidden" versus "if you lose cover/concealment, you are no longer hidden," where it's the loss of C/C that unhides you, not the action of moving) or if you follow the reaction rules of effectively treating each square of movement as its own "action" for purposes of resolving Stealth.




Disagree. As per the new clarification: 



			
				WotC Boards said:
			
		

> Keep Still: If you move more than 2 squares during an action you must make a new Stealth check with a -5 penalty. If you run, the penalty is -10. If the enemy's passive perception check beats your Stealth check, you are no longer hidden.




This happens regardless of if the movement happens within cover or concealment. Which means, Shadow Stride still fairly useful. 

Without, through non-cover: You make a move action from Total Cover through non-cover into Regular cover. You've not "Kept Hidden", because you've gone through non-cover spaces. At the end of the move, you are no longer hidden. (If, and only if, you ended up in another Total Cover space here, you could make a new Stealth check, at -5 for moving more than 2.  This starts up whole new "Hidden" situation).

Without, through cover: You make a move action from Total Cover through Regular cover to another Regular cover space. You move more than two, you must make another Stealth check, this time at -5 (as per "Keep Still").

With, through non-cover: You make a move action from Total Cover through non-cover to a Regular Cover space. Due to Shadow Stride you still count as "hidden" through the entire move, and when you make your Stealth check at the end it has no penalty.

With, through cover: Same as "With, through non-cover"

Seems to me like Shadow Stride is actually pretty fantastic, particularly for an at-will utility.



> No, because a) it makes no sense logically and b) it renders Shadow Stride a do-nothing power. The action of moving isn't what unhides you--you can move while hidden as long as you follow all the rules. It's losing cover/concealment that unhides you, and that's not an action.




I believe, technically, it's the loss of cover or concealment *during* a move action, thus falls into the little bit at the end about remaining hidden until the end of the action.



> That's because most times it doesn't have to be. In this case, it does (or we need to accept that losing cover is not an action and thus causes you to unhide immediately, not at the end of the action that caused you to lose cover/concealment), for the reasons pointed out above.




I think I adequately argued against this. Did I miss anything?


----------



## Pickles JG (Jul 30, 2008)

Benly said:


> Fleeting Ghost (at-will, 2): What this does depends on who you ask. By an absolutely literal reading, this does in fact let you hide without any cover or concealment, which is pretty fantastic if so. On the other hand, it seems like the intent is to prevent the movement penalties to stealth rather than just be a blank check. Needs clarification.
> 
> Chameleon (at-will, 6): Actually if you read this literally it's the best stealth power in the game. Reading literally, you can move out of concealment, trigger Chameleon, and from that point forward remain hidden while whaling on him with a baseball bat as long as you're concealed again by the end of your next turn. This should be the power swap of choice for ninja warlocks in that case.
> 
> ...




_Fleeting Ghost_ is level 2 so it will not be overwhelming; it lets you ignore the -5 for moving quickly when you stealth.

_Chameleon_ is an immediate action so you cant take it on your turn so no ninja death flailing. It lets you count as being in cover/concealed if an enemy moves to where you are not (or your ally's smoke grenade wears off). It does not override the other things that stop you being hidden.

_Shadow stride_ lets you hop from cover to cover while remaining hidden even if the intervening spaces are not covered (which indicates you can lose stealth after any square of movement not just after your whole move action)

_Hide in Plain Sight_ is tricky as you need to be hidden & cant move. So you need temporary cover like the Drow ability to staart it up. Goes nicely with the infiltrator _Impossible to Catch_ :O.

_Hide From the Light _means you can duck into cover & then viola invisible & slow )). Nice power 

The new stealth rules look very good (clear, workable & useful). The only issue for me is becoming unhidden while moving - it seems you can only use it to get CA in ranged attacks, except in very favourable terrain.


----------



## JDillard (Jul 30, 2008)

Pickles JG said:


> _Shadow stride_ lets you hop from cover to cover while remaining hidden even if the intervening spaces are not covered (which indicates you can lose stealth after any square of movement not just after your whole move action)




I really don't think this is the case, although I did for a while there.  It's not a matter of "you lose hidden after any square of movement", it's "you lose hiden after the action in which you didn't remain hidden completes".  

To put it more succinctly: At any point in an action, if you go out of cover, you lose hidden at the end of that action.  It doesn't matter where you end up, only where you went through.  Still makes Shadow Stride useful, but you don't have to have that "lose stealth after any square" bit to make it so.


----------



## Khime (Jul 30, 2008)

Felon said:


> What the....????
> 
> They're putting original rules content into the compendium, and just waiting for someone to stumble across it and notice it's there? Not just original rules either, but rules that contradict the PHB?
> 
> That's not the way a compendium is supposed to work. At least publich the original content outside of the compendium, then reference it.



It could just be that the person who updates the compendium is faster (or gets information sooner) than the person who posts the latest errata PDFs.  Or the official errata releases come out when enough errata have accumulated, but the compendium can be updated piecemeal.


----------



## NeoNick (Jul 30, 2008)

I think this is a *HUGE* *nerf* to mainly rogues. IMHO it will be much harder for them to get CA and their Sneak Attacks.

This is because of two changes: 
- You need superior cover or total concealment to start hiding.
- You can't hide behind another creature.

Earlier rogues could /by our interpretation/ get their so needed CA by getting behind -2 cover (which could be had behind an ally) or -2 concealment. Now this is gone. 

I like 4 ed a lot and it seems every class and power has been nicely balanced and tested EXCEPT stealth! In the stealth-case Wizard really have made an unprofessional job. hrmf


----------



## Festivus (Jul 30, 2008)

Valesin said:


> So much for the rogue being "expected to get combat advantage with every attack."




He didn't say "combat advantage with every attack *from stealth*".  There are many other ways to gain combat advantage, and by round 2 I would be expecting my fighter/paladin type to be on the opposite side of whatever we were fighting so I could have CA.  Then there are the tricks if the fighter is too dumb, I mean slow to get into flank.

I like this clarification, it puts rogues back into the sneaky business where it should have been.


----------



## baberg (Jul 30, 2008)

I guess the rogue in my party just doesn't play like the rest of you.  His combat advantage, 9 times out of 10, comes from either true stealth (hiding around a corner and ambushing the next creature to walk past) or from flanking a target.  My warlock, on the other hand, used the concealment feature every single turn, trying to stealth - and I always though it was just a little bit cheesy.


----------



## Valesin (Jul 30, 2008)

baberg said:


> I guess the rogue in my party just doesn't play like the rest of you.  His combat advantage, 9 times out of 10, comes from either true stealth (hiding around a corner and ambushing the next creature to walk past) or from flanking a target.  My warlock, on the other hand, used the concealment feature every single turn, trying to stealth - and I always though it was just a little bit cheesy.




I guess I just don't see the problem with the guy who creates magical cocealment every time he moves AND doesn't get sneak attack being stealthy.  Cheese would be if the guy who gets multiple SA dice every time he is stealthy were to have a supernatural concealment cloaking him at all times.


----------



## NeoNick (Jul 30, 2008)

Flanking will be very important for rogues after this change and one might wonder where the tumble skill is? I don't think the once per enounter power/utility is enough - the rogue will constantly need to be shifting more squares than one to flank. Remember that the fighter can only push enemies (one of his at-will-attacks), he cannot shift enemies to where he wants them - ergo the rogue need to be behind enemy lines. 

Now I see no reason whatsoever for any unmarked mobs not to try kill flanking rogues. They are easier to hit than the tank and have fewer hitpoints and surges.

And if you think that Artful Dodger is the solution I still don't think so. Even if you get some extra AC on OA, it's often bad strategy to help the monsters get free attacks. The main reason for I don't think AD will help at all is when it's the monster's turn to attack! They will choose the target that is the easiest to hit and has fewest hitpoints, ergo the rogue gets a lot of attacks if he's available. And when that happens the Artful Dodger has no bonuses from his CHA and very likely worse AC than the tank (and that's even when mobs are marked!).


----------



## bardolph (Jul 31, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> The advantage of Deft Strike over Charge is that Deft Strike does not have to be the last thing you do in your turn. You can then use a move right after to dart back into SC/TC and re-hide.



Also, Deft Strike is a DEX-based attack, while a charge is STR.



			
				Benly said:
			
		

> Fleeting Ghost (at-will, 2): What this does depends on who you ask. By an absolutely literal reading, this does in fact let you hide without any cover or concealment, which is pretty fantastic if so. On the other hand, it seems like the intent is to prevent the movement penalties to stealth rather than just be a blank check. Needs clarification.



I think the intent is pretty clear, even if the wording isn't.  Fleeting Ghost waives the -5 Stealth for moving.  That's all.



			
				Benly said:
			
		

> Master of Deceit (encounter, 2): Useful for starting a distraction, but the problem remains that distractions are 1/encounter.



If you're using that distraction to sneak away and end combat, then you can return in 5 minutes and do it again.  Not too shabby.



> Chameleon (at-will, 6): Actually if you read this literally it's the best stealth power in the game. Reading literally, you can move out of concealment, trigger Chameleon, and from that point forward remain hidden while whaling on him with a baseball bat as long as you're concealed again by the end of your next turn. This should be the power swap of choice for ninja warlocks in that case.



Nope.  Immediate Interrupts cannot be performed on your own turn.  However, it's great for when you're behind cover and the enemy creature walks up to you.



> Shadow Stride (at-will, 10): This.. actually appears to do what Fleeting Ghost is apparently supposed to do. At best it's identical to FG and at worst it's much worse. Weird.



No, it's completely different.  FG allows you to move around within a single patch of concealment/cover without taking a -5 penalty, while Shadow Stride lets you cross the open areas in between.



> Hide In Plain Sight (at-will, 16): This is a great ability, don't get me wrong, but you have to already be hidden to use it. So it doesn't help with the newly-introduced problem.



Sure it does.  Example:  You are in a forest, and hide (along with your party).  You wait for bad guys to show up, then ambush them.  Once your party attacks, everyone else becomes visible, EXCEPT YOU.  You can now spend the entire combat firing away with combat advantage AND total concealment (-5 to hit), as long as you don't leave your square.  This is an awesome power.



> There are a bunch of utility powers that let you stay hidden, but that's not the problem anymore. The problem now is that you need to run off and around a corner before you can become hidden. There is one power that unquestionably addresses that (once per encounter), and it's actually a paragon path power. Fleeting Ghost addresses it with an extremely literal interpretation; if you are interpreting very literally then it's true that Fleeting Ghost and Chameleon are all you need to be as the ninja.



In many cases, your Hidden status will exist _before the encounter begins,_ and these utility powers exist to make the most of that advantage.

While rogues are no longer permanently hidden and untargetable, they are certainly still very playable.


----------



## JDillard (Jul 31, 2008)

NeoNick said:


> Flanking will be very important for rogues after this change and one might wonder where the tumble skill is? I don't think the once per enounter power/utility is enough - the rogue will constantly need to be shifting more squares than one to flank. Remember that the fighter can only push enemies (one of his at-will-attacks), he cannot shift enemies to where he wants them - ergo the rogue need to be behind enemy lines.




Well, at level 1 alone there are 2 options that move the Rogue around, 2 that move an enemy around, and 2 that straight up give you combat advantage regardless of flanking.  

The designers understood that the Rogue would mostly be using CA for Sneak Attack, and built a lot of mobility into their powerset because of it.



> Now I see no reason whatsoever for any unmarked mobs not to try kill flanking rogues. They are easier to hit than the tank and have fewer hitpoints and surges. yummie for the monsters




Rogue's have nearly as much AC as a defender, and generally higher Ref defense.  There really shouldn't often be monsters that the Rogue is flanking with the defender that aren't marked, so that makes them even more difficult to hit.  

I wonder how many people complaining about this as a major nerf have actually tried playing the Rogue like this?  I've played in more than one game with a Rogue, and they've had no problem staying alive, getting CA when needed, and doing ridiculously awesome amounts of damage.  

I'm wondering if this is a "looks worse on paper than it really is in play" situation.

The only thing I really see screwed over by this change is the idea of a Rogue solo'ing things.  It can still happen, but it's damn hard.  But then, solo play is not something D&D has ever been built to accomodate, so that's only a rather minor issue at best.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 31, 2008)

JDillard said:


> I don't think this has been posted anywhere, which makes me think that it's new info.
> 
> There's a reasonably lengthy Stealth excerpt in the rules compendium on the wizards site.  http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/compendium
> 
> ...




It is a better written rule, but it is a huge nerf.

But it is likely to go away.

Baring a new announcement, the Compendium does NOT yet over rule the PHB.

When it first came out, myself and others found a few discrepancies between the PHB and the Compendium. I emailed the ones to Ken Troop (think that's the right guy for DDI) and got an email back that yes these were errors and thanks for reporting them.

Having seen all the differences between the PHB and the Compendium, I have to guess that the data they pulled for the Compendium was from an older version of the PHB.

I will say this: the stealth rule currently in the Compendium is a lot clearer.
But it is also more limited to the point of being superfluous (why bother stealthing if I'm already in total cover?) and quite back to the old 3.5 iteration of stealth and contrary to what developers have said they've intended.

The DDI news article for the Compendium calls it a 'first glimpse.' Have there been any other announcements? Since that time, communication from DDI staff was that they knew there were errors that they needed to fix. Since this is so contrary to the PHB, and no faq or errata agrees with it, I have to count this as another error and not a new rule.

One more confirmation that it is not official: this entry is not used by CS in their responses to our questions. They may or may not be consistent on their interpretations but they do go by the official sources. If the Compendium was official, it would be an invaluable tool to CS in their job.


If anyone has word otherwise, please speak up.  This is not a new rule on stealth.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 31, 2008)

Having played a rogue, I think the following:

Total cover and total concealment are not particularly well defined, so pinning a key element of a class on them isn't great. The requirements for both are extremely steep, as can be seen by the previous scenario of the 5' pillar.

It's fairly obvious that almost none of the powers that interact with stealth interact in a clear way with the new rules. It takes a fair bit of interpretation to say that fleeting ghost merely avoids a movement penalty (especially since there is a feat that does the same thing, and fleeting ghost is worded completely differently). I think that there is definately a gaping hole for one or more powers that would allow regular concealment or cover to grant stealth checks. That said, allowing fleeting ghost to pull double duty, and be by far the most valuable stealth power throughout all levels seems to be a bit much.

From what I see, it's going to require a standard action to spot a hiding foe. I think that's extremely harsh, especially for players who will be the brunt of most stealth attacks (monsters are much more likely than players are to have enhanced senses or super-duper stealth powers). It seems to me that a minor action would be far more suitable (minor actions are supposed to be used for any 'enabling' action, and further it would seem to me that looking around should not be something that would take the place of movement or an attack). It's also a lot more fun to be able to move, look around for a foe, and have a chance to actually attack him before he disappears again.

Apart from those points, I think the new rules are great.


----------



## Benly (Jul 31, 2008)

Pickles JG said:


> _Chameleon_ is an immediate action so you cant take it on your turn so no ninja death flailing. It lets you count as being in cover/concealed if an enemy moves to where you are not (or your ally's smoke grenade wears off). It does not override the other things that stop you being hidden.




Correct about the immediate actions, I had missed that. However, why wouldn't it override the "other things that stop you being hidden"? Either it sets out a new set of parameters for what ends your hidden status and overwrites the old one, or it actually does nothing because it sets out a new way to become unhidden without removing the old ones.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 31, 2008)

I like it, it basically means that in combat you cannot 'hide in plain sight' in 3E speak. So you have to have total c/c _to start with_ so the enemy cannot see you but you can use stealth to leave that total c/c and remain unseen/heard. So you can't be standing in a bit of light rubble and suddenly the enemy cannot see you!
Outside combat, if the guy is 'looking in your direction' you can sneak past him or whatever. 
Simple and easy; I am sure there are conflicts within the rules (it is a big change) but IMO this a good basis for stealth rules


----------



## Nail (Jul 31, 2008)

The "new" rules are great...but they're not errata  yet.


----------



## Khime (Jul 31, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> But it is likely to go away.
> 
> Baring a new announcement, the Compendium does NOT yet over rule the PHB.
> 
> When it first came out, myself and others found a few discrepancies between the PHB and the Compendium. I emailed the ones to Ken Troop (think that's the right guy for DDI) and got an email back that yes these were errors and thanks for reporting them.



On the other hand, the errata that is being released is also being incorporated into the Compendium as it comes out.  And with all of the discussions that have been going on over the last few weeks, I have a hard time believing that nobody noticed this discrepancy before... unless it wasn't like this before, and this is in fact a new update.

The last errata has a published date of 7/2.  We're coming up on August; bets that the 'new' stealth is in the next errata sheet?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 31, 2008)

Khime said:


> On the other hand, the errata that is being released is also being incorporated into the Compendium as it comes out.  And with all of the discussions that have been going on over the last few weeks, I have a hard time believing that nobody noticed this discrepancy before... unless it wasn't like this before, and this is in fact a new update.
> 
> The last errata has a published date of 7/2.  We're coming up on August; bets that the 'new' stealth is in the next errata sheet?





Another "sneaky" possibility is that WOTC is releasing these rules on the compendium for our review. Basically they are given us a beta version of the errata, and then seeing what our reactions are. If true its a good idea, this way they haven't comitted to any errata, but can still get a wider perspective on various rules changes.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 31, 2008)

In case anyone missed it (I fail at reading whole thread), a Rogue can get CA via stealth every turn with the compendium thingie.

1) He's at a corner with cover
2) He moves 1 step (gets total cover), and hides.
3) He uses deft strike to move back 1 step, and shoots with CA.
4) Repeat.


----------



## robsenworldaccount (Jul 31, 2008)

I'm glad wotc put out the revision on stealth.

If you don't like the change, you don't like the nerf.

Even if you hate the change, a part of you is thinking; "I understand why these rules were changed"

It's about warlocks and rogues gaining access to stealth too easily.

It's about clarifying the tangled web known as the "stealth" skill.

It's a new edition, everyone has to be ready to accept that the game is not static, and changes will occur.  Admittedly, I would like confirmation that this is not beta, but concrete rule changes.  This we need to ask wotc.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 31, 2008)

It is at _best_ beta.
Compendium isn't, and has no bearing on rules as written, errata, or FAQ.


----------



## Khime (Jul 31, 2008)

They're discussing this over on the Wizard forums, and someone got an answer out of a CSR:

"Yes, these updates are official. The errata page may take some time to update, but rest assured that the rules for stealth found in the compendium are correct."

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16474103#post16474103

It was also noticed that the Compendium text for Bluff has been modified reflecting how you can use Bluff to Hide, referring to making a seperate Stealth check rather than outright using Bluff to hide.

Take this as you will.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 31, 2008)

Well, that's cool and all, but you can't go to a con and say, "I found this in the compendium the other day!"
'cos frankly, you can't expect every DM to read every part of the compendium.
Print out the errata and FAQ, and those you can bring to a table and claim them as official.

I like the change though.
Should update the errata stat.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Jul 31, 2008)

I know this is getting into House Rule territory, but I'd like a way for a rogue (maybe others) to do stuff like get their back up against a 5' column and have superior cover to try and achieve stealth rather than just saying "well, you're in this square and I can draw these lines so you don't have superior cover."  Maybe on a case by case basis allow a stealth check with a penalty in situations with regular cover if it's conceivable that the person could become completely obscured.  Maybe actions are what it should take, like the minor action to go prone and move action to stand up.  After all, if you have cover from a low wall but go prone you should be able to get superior cover instead, so maybe you could similarly say that with a minor action you could stand flat against a 5' diameter pillar and roll stealth to be hidden from someone on the other side, and then would need another minor action (or maybe move) to go back to a regular stance in the square?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 31, 2008)

So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall


----------



## gribble (Jul 31, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall



Nope, they use their perception check (i.e.: all five senses) to locate you and be able to react effectively to your attacks launched from behind the wall.


----------



## Khime (Jul 31, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> Well, that's cool and all, but you can't go to a con and say, "I found this in the compendium the other day!"
> 'cos frankly, you can't expect every DM to read every part of the compendium.
> Print out the errata and FAQ, and those you can bring to a table and claim them as official.
> 
> ...



I'd rather have the updates as they happen, with up-to-the-minute and current rulings in the compendium, rather than waiting for the errata sheet's publication cycle to finish.


----------



## nittanytbone (Jul 31, 2008)

This makes Nimble Strike (the rogue at will that lets you shift 2 + attack) quite potent.  You can move behind total cover, hide, then Nimble Strike out to get an attack with CA.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 31, 2008)

Khime said:


> I'd rather have the updates as they happen, with up-to-the-minute and current rulings in the compendium, rather than waiting for the errata sheet's publication cycle to finish.




Sure, that'll work for home games.
Would have too many logistics issues for head GMs at cons, etc.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 31, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall




My best interpretation for the revised Stealth rules is that they are not so much about hiding where you are (generally somewhere you enemy already can't see you). They are about your ability to retain your hidden (that is invisible) status when leave your location and move into lesser concealment.

If you put it that way, it's more reasonable sounding (though I am still not completely happy with it).


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 31, 2008)

Magus Coeruleus said:


> I know this is getting into House Rule territory, but I'd like a way for a rogue (maybe others) to do stuff like get their back up against a 5' column and have superior cover to try and achieve stealth rather than just saying "well, you're in this square and I can draw these lines so you don't have superior cover."  Maybe on a case by case basis allow a stealth check with a penalty in situations with regular cover if it's conceivable that the person could become completely obscured.  Maybe actions are what it should take, like the minor action to go prone and move action to stand up.  After all, if you have cover from a low wall but go prone you should be able to get superior cover instead, so maybe you could similarly say that with a minor action you could stand flat against a 5' diameter pillar and roll stealth to be hidden from someone on the other side, and then would need another minor action (or maybe move) to go back to a regular stance in the square?




I am still mulling over house rules to de-nerf things a bit, because I expect my players to be pretty unhappy with the new rules. My rough idea at the moment is this:

*Better Hiding (Trained Only):* Your Stealth training teaches you how to take better advantage of partially obscuring terrain. You are able to hide behind normal Cover as well as Superior Cover.

I definitely want it to be trained only. I am on the fence on whether to allow if for normal concealment as well (mainly having to do with whether I decide to keep Shadow Walk nerfed).


----------



## Khime (Jul 31, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> Sure, that'll work for home games.
> Would have too many logistics issues for head GMs at cons, etc.



Given that these new rules were discovered within hours of appearing in the compendium, any GM who is planning to be in charge of a convention who is somehow aware of the existance of FAQs and errata, but also somehow completely ignorant of these changes, is frankly not paying attention.

Since at this point the compendium combines the original rules, the current errata, and soon-to-be-published errata, a convention-head GM who is trying to look up rules in a dead tree version of the rules while cross-referencing a bunch of printed-out corrections pointing to various places in each book sounds like he's the one adding logistics issues to his job.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 31, 2008)

That's not the issue!

The issue is, every table has to be run under the same rules, and _every player_ has to take actions with an understanding of the possible consequences and mechanics of their actions.

Handing out copies of the FAQ+errata is feasible on a large scale.
Informing individuals of rules changes piecemeal is not.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 31, 2008)

nittanytbone said:


> Nimble Strike (the rogue at will that lets you shift 2 + attack)



It's named Deft Strike and it's a move not a shift, but otherwise you're quite correct.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 31, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> But it is likely to go away.
> 
> Baring a new announcement, the Compendium does NOT yet over rule the PHB.




Copying this here for *Mark*. If the Compendium _isn't_ in effect then...

I asked

_A long question about whether you rolled opposed checks for your Perception against Stealth checks, even though there's wording under Passive Checks and Perception that makes it seem like you don't._ (Full text is found in another thread here on Enworld.)

To which was answered

_When making a stealth check everyone else rolls a perception check against your stealth check, per the stealth entry and the example of opposed checks on page 178 of the Player's Handbook._

This goes against the Passive Checks and Perception wordings, but adheres to the Opposed Checks and Stealth wordings. If it is not intended that you sometimes roll dice in opponents' turns, the text of Opposed Checks (178) is remarkably lacking.

-vk


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 31, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Copying this here for *Mark*. If the Compendium _isn't_ in effect then...
> 
> I asked
> 
> ...




Well, that's a CS that hasn't gotten the memo.

I asked CS if the Compendium was official with the stealth contradiction.
CS said the Compendium was official.

But if your CS said that stealth rolls against everyones perception rolls (omg - that just slowed the game down!), then one of the CS responses was wrong.

The compendium says, (after blatantly reversing the PHB):

"STEALTH
Stealth: At the end of a move action.
    Opposed Check: Stealth vs. passive Perception. If multiple enemies are present, your Stealth check is opposed by each enemy’s passive Perception check."

So one of the CS responses are wrong.

I'm also really pi**d that a rule reversal was snuck in to the Compendium without the errata or FAQ being up dated.  How the heck were we supposed to know (and there are still errors in the damn compendium.)


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 31, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall




That is the way that it is written.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 31, 2008)

What *the_redbeard* said.

Remember, Perception combines Spot Hidden _and_ Listen. They hear you shuffling around back there, putting your magic underpants on your head and so forth...

-vk


----------



## alanpossible (Jul 31, 2008)

hmmm

Inside combat, isn't stealth just a means for the ranged rogue to gain CA?

Melee rogues have flanking, but (it seems) struggle to gain stealth.
Ranged rogues have stealth, but can't get flanking

<shrug> seems fair to me. Under this, rogues should be able to get stealth almost every round


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 31, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> That's not the issue!
> 
> The issue is, every table has to be run under the same rules, and _every player_ has to take actions with an understanding of the possible consequences and mechanics of their actions.
> 
> ...



What are you talking about?
Is this some kind of RPGA thing? MY table plays according to MY rules.

Besides, there's been strong evidence that the Compendium is supposed to be used as the basis for RPGA games. The DDI Character Planner is going to use these rules to check if a character is RPGA-conform.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jul 31, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> I'm also really pi**d that a rule reversal was snuck in to the Compendium without the errata or FAQ being up dated.  How the heck were we supposed to know (and there are still errors in the damn compendium.)



So you would rather wait two weeks (or however long its going to take) in order for the errata to update then have them release rules with the compendium (something that is obviously able to update faster)?  Fine, then just ignore the new stealth rules and everything pertaining to it until its updated.

I mean seriously, people are complaining about the order in which these updates come out. Its ridiculous.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 31, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> What are you talking about?
> Is this some kind of RPGA thing? MY table plays according to MY rules.
> 
> Besides, there's been strong evidence that the Compendium is supposed to be used as the basis for RPGA games. The DDI Character Planner is going to use these rules to check if a character is RPGA-conform.




Consistency is a priority at any event where the same game is run multiple times.
Anything less will lead to bitching at a minimum.

It's more critical in the RPGA than elsewhere, sure. As people have lost characters due to cross-table rules inconsistencies.
Understand that the purpose of a head DM is to reinforce one set of blanket rules, as the reason they're usually called on is to adjudicate alleged DM screw-ups.

I've witnessed dozens of events wherein players have complained that they've been shortchanged due to having had to play under a GM who didn't write the game in question, and failed at running it the way it was supposed to be run.
Now where the games are systemless, or one that comes pre-broken (such as BESM), GM fiat is required to run the game at all.

The set of protocols that creates the highest degree of consistency is the one that works best.

Now, sure you can run D&D in a sub-optimal manner if you wish, and there are work-arounds (such as reading PC sheets, anticipating possible PC tactics, and informing them before the session begins of the recent rules changes) but they are unnecessary effort.


----------



## Ganadai (Jul 31, 2008)

Personally, I like the new compendium stealth rules, despite the fact that they nerf my archer.  

Before, I could stand at the end of a wall where I had cover, but still had LOS to the enemy, and roll a stealth check to gain combat advantage as a part of my attack.  It seemed to help balance archers with other strikers since you can never gain combat advantage by flanking with a ranged weapon.  Now I'll have to spend a round to step back one square from the corner to gain stealth if I want the +2 AB from combat advantage. 

However, it does help limit the rogue's ability to gain combat advantage *every* round, which helps balance the 2d6 damage from sneak attack with the 1d6 of the other strikers.  It also prevents other classes, such as my archer , from slowing down the game by rolling stealth checks *every* round.  It also keeps rogues from being able to stand in a square  adjacent to you with light concealment (dim light or smoke) and gain combat advantage against you.  That seemed really screwed up and unfair to me.


----------



## jaelis (Jul 31, 2008)

I think the worries about the rules coming out in the compendium are overblown.  Most people will know about it, and in fact it is no harder to pass out a print out of the updated rule from the RC than it would be to pass out a printout of the updates themselves.

I do have a concern though.  What if they stop doing the normal updates, and everything goes through the RC?  That would be OK, but eventually we have to pay to use the RC, so people without a DDI membership would get no access to errata.

I hope that won't be how it ends up working.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 31, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> Well, that's a CS that hasn't gotten the memo.




You might recall the question went in just prior to the Compendium entry being unearthed. I can't know the precise timing, but it seems likely the ruling was only in regard to PHB Stealth.



the_redbeard said:


> But if your CS said that stealth rolls against everyones perception rolls (omg - that just slowed the game down!), then one of the CS responses was wrong.




To me it's a matter of balance. Passive means the Rogue's skill nearly invariably works, against many enemies not even failing on a 1. I would personally restrict rolling to alert enemies, because I feel that if those guys are effectively spending actions in their own turns to keep a look out, a passive check makes no sense at all. I'm not trying to reopen this argument: you have excellent reasons for your view and were it relevant I may have come to change my mind.



the_redbeard said:


> The compendium says, (after blatantly reversing the PHB):
> 
> "STEALTH
> Stealth: At the end of a move action.
> ...




I absolutely agree with you. If the CSR was addressing his response toward the Compendium version, then his response was flatly wrong. However, I feel we have good grounds to believe his response was addressed toward post-FAQ PHB Stealth. If as you suspect the Compendium entry is not yet official, that again supports this view.

-vk


----------



## Branduil (Jul 31, 2008)

I think this foes too far the other way in nerfing Stealth. I'd rather they nerfed the Warlock concealment.


----------



## chaotix42 (Jul 31, 2008)

Errata in the compendium? Ok, looks good, but this still interacts poorly with the Targeting What You Can't See rules on pg. 281 of the PHB. I'm just about ready to write off that sidebar altogether. I still like the active Perception checks to spot invisible creatures being a minor action though...


----------



## MarkB (Jul 31, 2008)

I'm very happy with this set of rules - they seem to be a lot easier to use consistently, they feel a lot more right intuitively, and should be reasonably simple to use in-game.



Stalker0 said:


> So...wait a minute. According to this, I move behind a brick wall, and then make a stealth roll vs my enemies passive perception. And if I fail, they see me....through the brick wall




No, you go behind the brick wall and make your Stealth check to establish whether you gain the Hidden condition. If you do, then when you later emerge into normal cover or concealment you remain hidden. If you don't, then enemies who beat your Stealth check see you as soon as your cover/concealment drops to less than total.

Your Stealth check result doesn't affect the normal rules for total cover/concealment, so a failed check doesn't let anyone see you who doesn't have line of sight to you.


----------



## keterys (Jul 31, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:


> The issue is, every table has to be run under the same rules




Actually, in the 'new RPGA' way of things, games are not nearly as strict as they once were. DMs can alter the modules and make rulings to make the game more fun for everyone.

Fun > Rigid Standardized Rules.

Glad that was finally realized.

It's true for tournaments, of course, but those are far less common.

Edit: Adding the quote from RPGA in case you're wondering -
'But perhaps the most important thing that's changed is the philosophy behind being a DM for our shared-world games. In the past, emphasis was placed on tournament-style play. Under this philosophy, adventures had to be run "as written" to provide a "consistent" play experience. Tournament-style play is an artifact of the past, and while it does have its place (like the D&D Championship Series) it runs counter to the experience of an accessible shared-world campaign. Now, the DM has been given one golden rule: Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure when possible. DMs are now empowered to adjust adventures to accomplish this task, just like they would in their home games. Having a good play experience is now the number one priority.'


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 31, 2008)

Ganadai said:


> Personally, I like the new compendium stealth rules, despite the fact that they nerf my archer.
> 
> Before, I could stand at the end of a wall where I had cover, but still had LOS to the enemy, and roll a stealth check to gain combat advantage as a part of my attack.  It seemed to help balance archers with other strikers since you can never gain combat advantage by flanking with a ranged weapon.  Now I'll have to spend a round to step back one square from the corner to gain stealth if I want the +2 AB from combat advantage.




As an archer, which I assume is a ranger, you should have Nimble Strike.  If I am reading the rules correctly, Nimble Strike allows you to do what you did before.  You start behind superior of full cover while stealthed, shift one square and attack with combat advantage from stealth as part of nimble strike, then shift back and stealth behind the superior or total cover.  Repeat next round.  In fact, it's even in the ability fluff "You slink past your enemy's guard to make your attack...".  It think that's how it was always intended to be used.


----------



## gos_jim (Jul 31, 2008)

OK this is going to be a long post, so get ready.

I like the new rules. I don't think it's too much of a pain for a rogue to have to be completely concealed or hidden to be able to stealth. This does nerf ranged rogues a little bit, but not a huge amount.

However, what I don't like is now I need to be very aware of how superior cover works vs. normal cover, and how someone can achieve superior cover. Previously, I basically just said cover is usually normal cover unless they are really blocked, by like an arrow slit. Now that rogues need to be aware of how to work Superior Cover, I sat down and drew up a couple scenarios, and found that I don't like how D&D handles it at all. For example:







In the diagram above, Troll B has superior cover from Hero, while Troll A only has normal cover. But it's quite obvious that more of Troll B is visible to Hero. Because of the ruling that lines along a wall or corner don't get blocked, Troll A is easier to hit than Troll B.

The same goes for Elf B. Elf B has normal cover, being on the exact opposite side of a pillar. Elf A though has superior cover, because only one corner is available from each corner of Hero.

This to me means that a rogue who wants to get superior cover to hide has to be very knowledgeable about how the GAME TERMS define superior cover, rather than thinking "Oh, I want to hide behind this wall." In a non-diagonal situation such as Hero->Troll A above, there is in fact NO WAY that Troll A can get full cover unless they step back away from the corner they are up against. That means they can only stealth once every 2 rounds, while Troll B can stealth every round, simply because he is on a diagonal.

I don't mind that a rogue can only get CA every other round if they do it ranged. That's perfectly fine with me. But I don't like that if you set yourself up arbitrarily based on how the game works, you CAN get it every round, if you are able to work on a diagonal.

I have a proposed solution, and I'd like your guys' input on it. (This is obviously a home rule sort of thing, but I think it fits here in the discussion of the new stealth rules pretty well)

I propose that the rules for cover be changed to this:

*A defender has normal cover if a line from one of the attacker's corners can reach 1-3 of the defender's corners, no cover if a line can be drawn to all 4 corners, and (obviously) superior cover if a line cannot be drawn to any corner.

However, a defender may spend a minor action to "press" against cover. This gives them superior cover against anyone who they previous only had normal cover against. Stealth can not be used as a part of this minor action (because stealth is now a part of a move action only). Superior cover achieved in this way is lost after any other action is resolved.*

What this means is that in most combat situations, people will only have "normal cover" or "no cover". If they have normal cover, they can spend a minor action to get superior cover, but if they pop out to attack, or if they cast a spell, or do anything else, then it just becomes normal cover again. Because the cover is removed AFTER the action, you can use a move action to make a stealth check after using a minor to "press" against normal cover to become stealthed.

This means that yes, a rogue CAN get Combat Advantage every turn, by doing the following:

1. Standard Action: Attack from cover. If previously stealthed, attack with CA.
2. Minor Action: Press against cover to get superior cover.
3. Move Action: Stealth, lose superior cover but gain stealth.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 as desired.

However, this takes ALL of their actions, and prevents them from moving if they want to keep the cycle up (unless of course they are moving such that they would keep Superior Cover through other methods, by being completely blocked from view or whatever else), so it may not always be the best course of action.

This also works if someone is standing behind a low wall. Use a minor to "hunker down" to get superior cover, a move to stealth, then a standard to pop up and attack, losing stealth.

It sounds complicated but really it's just a way for people to do what you always see "in the movies", and that is to really take advantage of cover in a pro-active way, rather than drawing lines every round to get crazy technical and worrying so much about positioning. I think this is a nice middle ground between the previous stealth rules (pretty much stealth every round) and the new stealth rules (stealth every other round, or every round if you're lucky enough to be on a diagonal). Now it's stealth every round if you give up everything else, no matter what type of cover you are behind, so it's no longer an automatic thing anymore.

And because it's action-based, someone could always use a readied action to attack "when that rogue pops out" so that they attack against them with standard cover rather than superior or whatever else.

I know it was long, but I think it's pretty balanced and fair, I just don't like how cover and superior cover currently work, so please let me know what you guys think.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 31, 2008)

gos_jim said:


>




I'm printing this picture.

(Your house rules seem neat, but as I'm likely to be playing only RPGA games, they won't be of much use to me personally.)


----------



## gos_jim (Jul 31, 2008)

Haha, well I'm glad you liked the diagram, even if it was an example of why the D&D cover system is not very good  If I had realized it would be useful in that way I would have spent more than a couple seconds drawing out the lines and everything.

Edit: I was corrected on Wizard's forums, you need line of effect to attack someone, and line of effect IS blocked by touching the edge of an object. So in my above example, Hero does not have line of effect to the Elves. He still has line of effect to the Trolls, so the cover rules take over and the cover is as above, but he can't see or attack either Elf.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 31, 2008)

gos_jim said:


> I like the new rules. I don't think it's too much of a pain for a rogue to have to be completely concealed or hidden to be able to stealth. This does nerf ranged rogues a little bit, but not a huge amount.
> 
> However, what I don't like is now I need to be very aware of how superior cover works vs. normal cover, and how someone can achieve superior cover.




This my main objection to the new rules. It makes playing rogues very tedious. You either need a forgiving GM or a deep understanding of the cover rules. I am not interested in waiting 10 minutes for the rogue to look over his possible destinations and draw lines to various squares every time he moves.



gos_jim said:


> *However, a defender may spend a minor action to "press" against cover. This gives them superior cover against anyone who they previous only had normal cover against. Stealth can not be used as a part of this minor action (because stealth is now a part of a move action only). Superior cover achieved in this way is lost after any other action is resolved.*




I see where you are going with this, but it's non-Stealth application are too good. What would prevent a character who ends his turn behind normal Cover from "pressing" and thereby being -5 to hit instead of -2?

Also, you need Superior Cover at the _end_ of you move to use Stealth, not at the beginning. So it wouldn't actually help for hiding.

My draft house rules are as follows:

*Partially Hidden (Stealth Trained Only):* If you make a move ending behind any cover or concealment, you can make Stealth check against your enemy's passive Perception to become partially hidden. If successful, you gain a Combat Advantage against that opponent for your next attack or until the end of your turn, whichever comes first. If you are able to target multiple opponents with a single attack, compare your Stealth check against their passive Perceptions separately to see which ones you are partially hidden from and have Combat Advantage against. You can only be partially hidden from opponents against whom you have cover or concealment. For this purpose, allies do not count as cover.

That gives rogues back their offensive advantage without opening the door to the mounds of defensive cheese I objected to in the original rules. Making it trained only keeps it as special sauce for stealthy characters like rangers and rogues.


----------



## gos_jim (Jul 31, 2008)

Actually, nothing would prevent characters from pressing up against cover after attacking, but that's actually a tactic that I think makes sense. Pretty much every single time I've GMd for a new player who uses range, at some point they say "Can I pop out, shoot my [crossbow/bow/spell], then duck back?" and I have to tell them "Ehh... no.... not really. You just have to stand there partially covered by the wall, which gives you a +2."

Also, about having superior cover at the END of a move, well in my system that is handled by allowing someone to use a move action to move 0 squares then stealth at the end of the move action. My rule specifically states you lose superior cover after an action resolves, so you would move (nowhere), stealth, lose superior cover.

I could probably clarify it by saying you lose superior cover after resolving any action or immediately if you move from your current space. That would specifically disallow people to charge out from cover while retaining superior cover against any Opportunity Attacks they provoke while doing so, or by moving out into the open to another spot of cover then stealthing when they get there. Thanks for bringing that up, and I do like your implementation's simplicity, and the way it works similarly to powers in 4E.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 31, 2008)

gos_jim said:


> I propose that the rules for cover be changed to this:
> 
> *A defender has normal cover if a line from one of the attacker's corners can reach 1-3 of the defender's corners, no cover if a line can be drawn to all 4 corners, and (obviously) superior cover if a line cannot be drawn to any corner.
> 
> However, a defender may spend a minor action to "press" against cover. This gives them superior cover against anyone who they previous only had normal cover against. Stealth can not be used as a part of this minor action (because stealth is now a part of a move action only). Superior cover achieved in this way is lost after any other action is resolved.*



My first instinct is to rule it the other way: that cover is cover, regardless of how many corners you can count.  Superior Cover would need to be explicitly defined as such.  This also solves the goofy diagonal problem.

If you allow a "press" in order to gain Superior Cover, it doesn't really make sense that the press would end with your turn.  It also doesn't make much sense that your enemies lose track of you just because you made a Stealth check after ducking behind a table.

I'd be willing to allow prone characters to gain total cover behind a low wall, but only if they give up their attack to do so.  Same thing with corners: if you're willing to expose yourself enough to shoot someone around a corner, you should not benefit from total cover (or stealth, for that matter).

The compendium rules seem intent on giving stealth rolls in the following situations:

(a) before combat begins, while preparing for battle, and
(b) during combat, but only if the terrain is favorable (either through blocked LoS or Superior Cover/Total Concealment).

This seems reasonable to me.  It means that, once the battle gets underway, the rogue needs to rely on status effects and flanking to achieve CA, unless the terrain is especially favorable for sniping.

Even so, doing the "stealth shuffle" around a corner to gain CA every other round is still an option, and I don't see much problem with that tactic.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 31, 2008)

gos_jim said:


> Actually, nothing would prevent characters from pressing up against cover after attacking, but that's actually a tactic that I think makes sense. Pretty much every single time I've GMd for a new player who uses range, at some point they say "Can I pop out, shoot my [crossbow/bow/spell], then duck back?" and I have to tell them "Ehh... no.... not really. You just have to stand there partially covered by the wall, which gives you a +2."




If you are OK with that, then your rule works.



gos_jim said:


> Also, about having superior cover at the END of a move, well in my system that is handled by allowing someone to use a move action to move 0 squares then stealth at the end of the move action. My rule specifically states you lose superior cover after an action resolves, so you would move (nowhere), stealth, lose superior cover.
> 
> I could probably clarify it by saying you lose superior cover after resolving any action or immediately if you move from your current space. That would specifically disallow people to charge out from cover while retaining superior cover against any Opportunity Attacks they provoke while doing so, or by moving out into the open to another spot of cover then stealthing when they get there. Thanks for bringing that up, and I do like your implementation's simplicity, and the way it works similarly to powers in 4E.




One of the things I like about the new Compendium rules is that it forces stealthy character to move in order to hide. So far my experience with 4E is that mobility = fun. From what I can tell, your rule would discourage movement, because they could stay in place to keep CA or move and probably lose it.


----------



## Ganadai (Jul 31, 2008)

gos_jim said:


>




The Hero does not have line of sight (pg. 273) to either of the Elves, so he can't even target them.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 31, 2008)

*I just realized: the new rules boost TWF rangers!*

The new rules let you retain the benefits of being hidden for the action that you break cover. This lets you hide and then charge out of cover to attack with CA. This isn't such a good option for the Dex-based rogues and archer-rangers, but it is pretty good tactic for the Str-based TWF-rangers. With a bit of set up, you get a basic attack at +3 to hit.

That depends, of course, on how generous your DM is about charging around corners (technically legal, because you only need to "move directly to your target").


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 31, 2008)

gos_jim said:


> That means they can only stealth once every 2 rounds, while Troll B can stealth every round, simply because he is on a diagonal.
> 
> I don't mind that a rogue can only get CA every other round if they do it ranged. That's perfectly fine with me. But I don't like that if you set yourself up arbitrarily based on how the game works, you CAN get it every round, if you are able to work on a diagonal.




First, great diagram.  Thank you, and I would love to see more.

Second, could you please spell out, step by step, what actions are taken to get stealth every other round in the scenario you just described?


----------



## gos_jim (Jul 31, 2008)

Yes, I corrected myself in my post up above, thank you Ganadai.

bardolph, Paul Strack, thank you for the feedback, and I agree with both of your statements.

bardolph, as far as stealthing after ducking behind a table goes, it is no different from the pre-compendium rules, which I didn't particularly have a problem with other than that they were very open to interpretation. In fact, in KotS they have goblins getting stealth by ducking under tables, it is a recommended tactic. If you have a problem with that, then as a DM you could rule that the character is simply unable to get superior cover from the cover they are behind. A table would be one of those situations. I will probably be doing that, thank you for mentioning it.

I also have no problem at all with the "stealth shuffle". It doesn't bother me if a rogue has to step back and step forward to "re-stealth", only allowing them to get CA at range once every two rounds. That is perfectly fine with me, and seems balanced. My personal issue with it is that there seem to be arbitrary positions where superior cover is granted when you would think it shouldn't be (as in my diagram), especially along diagonals. This means that SOME rogues will have to do the shuffle, but others if they get lucky on a weird corner, are twice as effective. I don't mind if they get superior cover every round if they're behind a murder hole, but I'd rather them not get it just because their enemy is diagonal to them rather than along a straight line.

Paul Strack, I appreciate your input and discouraging movement is definitely not something I want to do. I am constantly telling my players that in 4e, mobility is incredibly important. I am not attempting to solve this issue. However, I think that the "stealth shuffle", as bardolph put it, back and forth at a corner, is a rather superficial amount of "movement" to partake in. I don't think it is a big loss if the need to do it is removed. Thanks again both of you for your thoughts on my ideas.

Mistwell: To get stealth every other round using the new rules (compendium rules, not my house rules), you could do this:

R1. Standard Action: Attack from a corner (with normal cover, Troll A in my diagram), possibly with CA from being stealthed previously.
R1: Move Action: Move back a step to get superior cover, stealth.

Next Round

R2: Move Action: Move to the corner. You still have cover, so you retain stealth.
R2: Standard Action: Attack from corner with CA.

To get it every round, you can do this:

R1: Standard Action: Attack from a corner (with superior cover, Troll B in my diagram), possibly with CA from being stealthed previously.
R1: Move Action: Move 0 squares, re-stealth. (It's debatable whether this is allowed or not. If not, you could step back 1, then step forward again because you will still have superior cover in your end space at the corner).
R2: Standard Action: Attack from the corner again, with CA again.

This is the one thing about the new rules I don't like. It requires the "stealth shuffle" for purely arbitrary reasons. As shown in the diagram, Troll A is ACTUALLY more hidden than Troll B, but Troll A has to move back and forth and he can only get CA every other round, while Troll B can just sit pretty and get CA each attack, AND he has better defense. This is the problem my change is attempting to address. It's not a problem with the new Stealth rules, those are tight. It's a problem with the existing Cover rules (in my opinion).


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 31, 2008)

gos_jim said:


> Mistwell: To get stealth every other round using the new rules (compendium rules, not my house rules), you could do this:
> 
> R1. Standard Action: Attack from a corner (with normal cover, Troll A in my diagram), possibly with CA from being stealthed previously.
> R1: Move Action: Move back a step to get superior cover, stealth.
> ...




Do you agree with my analysis of the Ranger at-will ability Nimble Strike, that it allows you to gain CA every round through stealth? You start behind superior or full cover while stealthed, shift one square and attack with combat advantage from stealth as part of nimble strike, then move back and stealth behind the superior or total cover. Repeat next round.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 1, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> That is the way that it is written.



But all it means is that you are not "silent and invisible to the enemy". He still can't see you because there is a wall in the way.


----------



## Paul Strack (Aug 1, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> Do you agree with my analysis of the Ranger at-will ability Nimble Strike, that it allows you to gain CA every round through stealth? You start behind superior or full cover while stealthed, shift one square and attack with combat advantage from stealth as part of nimble strike, then move back and stealth behind the superior or total cover. Repeat next round.




You are definitely right. If you play with the new Stealth rules as written, Deft Strike is a must-have for rogues and Nimble Strike becomes very good for Rangers. Both would let you get CA every turn by popping in and of out LOS.

It still nerfs both ranged-attack rangers and rogues, though, because they can't easily get CA with their better Encounter powers and Dailies. Getting CA with another power would generally be a two-turn combo:

*Turn 1)* Attack (no CA), move out of LOS and hide
*
Turn 2)* Move back to corner (normal cover only), Attack with CA and your choice of power.

*Repeat*

Also, if your target moved to get LOS between Turn 1 and Turn 2, you lose your CA.


----------



## Paul Strack (Aug 1, 2008)

gos_jim said:


> Paul Strack, I appreciate your input and discouraging movement is definitely not something I want to do. I am constantly telling my players that in 4e, mobility is incredibly important. I am not attempting to solve this issue. However, I think that the "stealth shuffle", as bardolph put it, back and forth at a corner, is a rather superficial amount of "movement" to partake in. I don't think it is a big loss if the need to do it is removed.




The "stealth shuffle" does not have to be back to your original location. When you move to re-hide, you can go to a new location, provided there is an appropriate one nearby. The rogue in my game darts from cover to cover as she advances on the enemy, which is very rogue-ish and rather entertaining. It's a distinct contrast to the fighter and warlord who tend to just wade forward and draw fire.

I am tempted to suggest you allow a "press against cover" action after a move to get a Stealth check. If you do that, though, you are effectively allowing Stealth behind normal cover with just an extra minor action. You may not want to be that generous.


----------



## bardolph (Aug 1, 2008)

gos_jim said:


> I have no problem at all with the "stealth shuffle". It doesn't bother me if a rogue has to step back and step forward to "re-stealth", only allowing them to get CA at range once every two rounds. That is perfectly fine with me, and seems balanced. My personal issue with it is that there seem to be arbitrary positions where superior cover is granted when you would think it shouldn't be (as in my diagram), especially along diagonals. This means that SOME rogues will have to do the shuffle, but others if they get lucky on a weird corner, are twice as effective. I don't mind if they get superior cover every round if they're behind a murder hole, but I'd rather them not get it just because their enemy is diagonal to them rather than along a straight line.



I agree that that is silly.  I also think that the "count the corner" rule is silly, and I'm going to houserule that even with only one corner exposed, you still have normal cover.



> Paul Strack, I appreciate your input and discouraging movement is definitely not something I want to do. I am constantly telling my players that in 4e, mobility is incredibly important. I am not attempting to solve this issue. However, I think that the "stealth shuffle", as bardolph put it, back and forth at a corner, is a rather superficial amount of "movement" to partake in. I don't think it is a big loss if the need to do it is removed. Thanks again both of you for your thoughts on my ideas.



The reason why I like the "stealth shuffle" is that it requires a _field_ of cover or blocked LoS, rather than an isolated square.  Because your character _could_ be here, and _could_ be there, it makes sense that your enemies lose track of you when you stealth.  If you're stuck in a single square (behind a chair, for example), there's no mystery as to where you are, so it doesn't make sense that you can Stealth to gain CA.

The "stealth shuffle" works (fluff-wise) because you are actually _vacating_ the space where the enemies last saw you, so as far as they know you've left the battle.

EDIT: Holey Moley, I didn't consider the 2 squares from Deft Strike.  That's a fantastic solution to the Rogues CA problem.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 1, 2008)

keterys said:


> Actually, in the 'new RPGA' way of things, games are not nearly as strict as they once were. DMs can alter the modules and make rulings to make the game more fun for everyone.
> 
> Fun > Rigid Standardized Rules.
> 
> Glad that was finally realized.



Thanks for the quote. I hadn't realized there had been a change of philosophy in the new RPGA. It definitely sounds like a wise move to me. This might even get me interested...


----------



## clearstream (Aug 1, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> I am tempted to suggest you allow a "press against cover" action after a move to get a Stealth check. If you do that, though, you are effectively allowing Stealth behind normal cover with just an extra minor action. You may not want to be that generous.




Will you begrudge me a small *_cough*_ at this point? Under my *lasting-condition* RAI I suggested it was mechanically inevitable that hiding occurs using a *minor action*. I still believe that is the case.

*End of move* is good too, but not quite as good. End of move + a minor action? Sounds a little restrictive. End of move if in SC/TC + a minor action if only C/C? Unnecessary branching.

So... minor action... well, why not?

-vk


----------



## Ragnar69 (Aug 1, 2008)

I like the new rules. The old ones have been a joke. 
"Oh, I am a 6'4" Dragonborn rogue but I can use my Dwarven buddy or a small bush to hide behind. And my pal the warlock could be everywere but certainly not in that patch of darkness in an otherwise brightly lit room."


----------



## Paul Strack (Aug 1, 2008)

bardolph said:


> EDIT: Holey Moley, I didn't consider the 2 squares from Deft Strike.  That's a fantastic solution to the Rogues CA problem.




Not quite. It still means no easy CA for the rogue's ranged attack powers. So you only get once-per-turn CA with the equivalent of a basic attack. No more "rogue nuke" of a Sneak Attack plus a Daily power.

I think you can still play a rogue under the new rules, but they are a pretty major nerf to the rogue's offensive powers. I think it makes the rogue pretty clearly inferior to the ranger.


----------



## sobelius (Aug 1, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> Not quite. It still means no easy CA for the rogue's ranged attack powers. So you only get once-per-turn CA with the equivalent of a basic attack. No more "rogue nuke" of a Sneak Attack plus a Daily power.
> 
> I think you can still play a rogue under the new rules, but they are a pretty major nerf to the rogue's offensive powers. I think it makes the rogue pretty clearly inferior to the ranger.




Deft Strike causes you to *move* two squares, therefore you would have to make another stealth check when you move, just prior to the attack, but at the point you make the check you are no longer in superior cover so you can't make a stealth check.

Instead, you could go around the corner and stealth. Then on your next turn, use Tumble to *shift* half your move speed around the corner -- shifting is not the same as moving (at least with regard to Opportunity Attacks, so the same could be said here) so you don't have to make another stealth check. You can now make the attack with CA.

Unfortunately, Tumble is an encounter power.

Having said the above, I find this whole discussion too rules-lawyerish. I've told my players if they can describe a stealthy act that is cinematic without being over-the-top, and makes sense in terms of physical logic, then I'll give them a stealth check.


----------



## gos_jim (Aug 1, 2008)

sobelius, the new rules state that stealth is not removed until the END of the action that causes you to lose stealth. So using a standard action to Deft Strike means you are stealthed the whole time, even during the move, because the move is only PART of the action that removes stealth. It doesn't stop halfway through before your attack, it is removed after your attack, at the resolution of the standard action.

Also, your example of using Tumble would not actually work. The rules don't care about whether you are shifting or moving normally. They specifically state "If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy." As well, they say "If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action."

So if you Tumbled around the corner as your move action, once you are in view you are performing an action that causes you not to remain hidden. After your movement is resolved, you lose stealth. Then when you attack, you are not stealthed and do not have CA.

If you deft strike, you are stealthed until after your attack is resolved, because it is the standard action "Deft Strike" that causes you to not remain hidden. The movement and attack are all stealthed, thus CA.


----------



## lkj (Aug 1, 2008)

FYI

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080801a


(Sorry if it's already been linked. I didn't see it in my quick skim through responses)

AD


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 2, 2008)

@ Gos-Jim:

I think your interpretation of when a line can be drawn from one corner to another is incorrect. In your diagram you have:
Elf A with standard cover. However if the line drawn from the corner of the hero (going down the line between the squares) can touch the elf corners then it also touches the blocking terrain in front. Therefore the elf has 'total' cover ie no line of effect or sight.
Troll A with standard cover. Again, as with the elf, if the trolls square can be touched with the heroes line (the troll's bottom left corner) it also touches the corner of the blocking terrain. So that troll has superior cover.
EDIT: you even have Troll B gaining superior cover because the line you have drawn goes through a corner, as do the lines drawn for Troll/Elf A- however you have included that corner in the calculation for Troll B but not the A's.

This is how we run it IMC, maybe I am completely wrong RAW wise but it certainly makes more sense for Elf A to be untargetable and Troll A to have superior cover so I will stick with my interpretation


----------



## gos_jim (Aug 2, 2008)

mach1.9pants: I agree that in this situation, it would make sense for the corner to not count. From my reading of the rules, however, it seems otherwise. Pg 280 of the PHB states:

"If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn't blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle's or an enemy's square.)"

I understand that the above does NOT mention corners specifically, and it is my interpretation that is making me believe what I believe. But I don't see how running along an edge of a wall is any different from running past a corner. I see no way of interpreting that they are different without saying that the two situations below are different from eachother in some way:







(the right situation is meant to be a corridor along a diagonal)
If running along an edge is fine but running along a corner is not, that would seem to mean that the visibility for the above two situations from the Hero to the Troll are slightly different. Of course it's no cover for both situations because of the upper right corner of the hero, but the point remains. I would be perfectly open to a rules clarification on the subject, but even the fact that we have differing opinions means that the RAW is at least slightly ambiguous. This is also how many I have spoken to believe the case to be.

Perhaps it would make for a better ruleset to claim that the corner doesn't count, but then you get into vision angles and whether or not the corner should count in one situation but not in another. If the angle is particularly shallow then it makes no sense for the corner to block visibility. But if it's a sharp angle, then it makes sense for it to do so. That is the ambiguity that my proposed rules hope to eliminate.

Edit: I would like to say however that I have corrected myself twice now, the elf situation is different from what I originally posted. Line of Sight and Line of Effect do NOT travel along an object's edge or corner, they get stopped, so our Hero in my original diagram does not have line of sight or effect to either elf, and so can not interact with them in any way at all. Cover seems to work slightly differently once line of sight/effect are established. The troll situation remains as stated.


----------



## keterys (Aug 2, 2008)

Almost feels like there should be some case for 'cannot reach any part of the interior of the target', ie not including corners and edges.


----------



## WheelsOnMeals (Aug 2, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:


> @ Gos-Jim:
> 
> I think your interpretation of when a line can be drawn from one corner to another is incorrect. In your diagram you have:
> Elf A with standard cover. However if the line drawn from the corner of the hero (going down the line between the squares) can touch the elf corners then it also touches the blocking terrain in front. Therefore the elf has 'total' cover ie no line of effect or sight.
> Troll A with standard cover. Again, as with the elf, if the trolls square can be touched with the heroes line (the troll's bottom left corner) it also touches the corner of the blocking terrain. So that troll has superior cover.




I believe this is correct, too. The DMG offers more clarification as well:



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> *Choose a Corner: *
> 
> The attacker chooses _one _corner of a square he occupies, and draws imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of _any one _square the defender occupies. If none of those lines are blocked by a solid object or an enemy creature, the attacker has a clear shot. The defender doesn’t have cover. (A line that runs parallel right along a wall isn’t blocked.)



The only mention of intersecting with walls is the case where lines running parallel to the wall aren't blocked. Really, this is just to prevent the silly case where two creatures in a long 5-ft wide corridor would have cover from each other and others like it.

I think cover vs. superior cover on the x & y planes (so not including low walls you have to crouch behind, etc.) almost always boils down to this (there may be extreme fringe cases that I'm not thinking of, in which case I would suggest you should use this anyway):​ 
- Pick the attacker's optimal corner.
- Draw one line from that corner extending through the corner of the obstacle granting cover.
- If <= 50% of the creature is exposed, then it has superior cover. Otherwise, it just has cover.​ 
-Brian​


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 2, 2008)

Yeah I can definitely see the problem of the corridors!

I think this is a case (as I stated above) of using common sense above the RAW. Otherwise it is just too ridiculous!
YMMV


----------



## scrumpyj (Aug 3, 2008)

Felon said:


> They're putting original rules content into the compendium, and just waiting for someone to stumble across it and notice it's there? Not just original rules either, but rules that contradict the PHB?
> 
> That's not the way a compendium is supposed to work. At least publich the original content outside of the compendium, then reference it.




Actually, they're noting it on the front page, and it seems it'll be part of the errata soon. The Q&A linked from the main WOTC D&D page:




> Q: I’ve noticed a difference in the Stealth rules in the PH (p188) versus what’s listed in the D&D Compendium. Which is correct?
> 
> A: The D&D Compendium reflects a forthcoming update to Stealth. Be sure to check the Updates section of the website in coming days for a full written explanation of these changes.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 3, 2008)

Notice the enemy states implied by hiding: *aware* and *alert*.

You can be alert without being aware, but *if you are aware you are alert.* Alertness cannot typically be lost once acquired within an encounter. Awareness can typically be lost and reacquired within an encounter. 

Using awareness and alertness as tools, we get

*A. Not alert to your presence:* they have no reason to suspect you are there so they cannot hunt for you or target you.

*B. Alert to your presence:* they know you might be nearby so they can hunt for you.

*C. Aware of your direction and rough distance,* or have received that information from an ally with free action: they know where to move to better hunt you and can pick squares to attack in the hope they contain you.

*D. Aware of your exact square:* they spotted you and can target you if they have *LOE*.

*E. Know your exact square,* or have received that information from an ally with a free action, or pick your exact square by chance, but they still can't see you: they can target you if they have *LOE*, but at -5 (-7 in cover).

Notice that here we've ruled that knowledge of exact square can be passed on with a free action, but that a successful Perception check cannot be. *Except for the manner in which it can be lost, hiding = invisible.* This avoids *E.* splitting into two cases with identical consequences on players. It loses little and helps play to allow free actions to share direction and rough distance and exact square.

Notice *C.* What I hope to do is find a way to resolve 'pick a square' into a simple mechanical step.

Finally notice *hunt*. I introduce this as jargon to deal with active Perception checks against hidden or invisible foes, differentiating from those used to *search* for traps and secret things.

-vk


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Aug 3, 2008)

scrumpyj said:


> Actually, they're noting it on the front page, and it seems it'll be part of the errata soon. The Q&A linked from the main WOTC D&D page:




Its a pity they cannot get the Dragon and Dungeon content into the compendium as quickly as they can unannounced errata.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 3, 2008)

Cailte said:


> Its a pity they cannot get the Dragon and Dungeon content into the compendium as quickly as they can unannounced errata.




As I understand it, Dragon and Dungeon material doesn't become fully 'finished' and official until it's compiled at the end of a publication month. In the intervening time, it is effectively on public beta-test.


----------



## NeoNick (Aug 3, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> This makes playing a 4e rogue less fun than playing a 3.x rogue. In 3.x, *you could at least tumble at will*.




Signed! I think that changing the rogues lvl 2 Utility *"Tumble" to At-will* (as the lvl 2 utility Fleeting Ghost already is) WOULD solve a lot! 

Rogues would definately get much more fun to play again. It's hard as hell to get behind enemy lines to flank /and to get back when needed/ - and I think rogues should have the options to be good at getting there.


----------



## Xorn (Aug 3, 2008)

Quick reply to rejoice that this is EXACTLY how I was running Stealth already.  Not because I'm psychic or anything, but because I read all the EXAMPLES of stealth being used and they all matched this application.

And getting Combat Advantage (isn't that what the complaint is here) is not hard, still.


----------



## Syrsuro (Aug 4, 2008)

keterys said:


> Almost feels like there should be some case for 'cannot reach any part of the interior of the target', ie not including corners and edges.




I think the answer is that there needs to be a 'common sense' rule that adds to the rules for cover:  If, regardless of the number of corners visible from your square, you do not have line of sight to the target -  it has superior concealment, and if, regardless of the number of corners visible from your square, you do not have line of effect - it has total cover.

Certainly for the purposes of stealth this would be true, because line of sight is really the whole _point_ of the cover/concealment rules.

Carl


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 4, 2008)

NeoNick said:


> Signed! I think that changing the rogues lvl 2 Utility *"Tumble" to At-will* (as the lvl 2 utility Fleeting Ghost already is) WOULD solve a lot!
> 
> Rogues would definately get much more fun to play again. It's hard as hell to get behind enemy lines to flank /and to get back when needed/ - and I think rogues should have the options to be good at getting there.




In 4e's world of movement, being able to effectively shift half your speed all the time would be horribly broken.

Rogues are fine, they have great powers, they do craptons of damage when they do sneak attack, and they get lots of skills. Its just that now setting up a SA actually takes a bit of work. With the old stealth rules, it so easy my eladrin wizard was stealthing each round just to get CA.


----------



## Eltor Macnol (Aug 4, 2008)

*The Stealth rules aren't the only thing that has been, er, stealthily changed in the Compendium.* I've checked just a couple of the stealth-related powers mentioned in this thread, and while Fleeting Ghost and Nimble Strike have remained unchanged, Shadow Stride hasn't. 

Apparently, this dispels any doubt about whether or not moving through squares where you don't have any cover or concealment would reveal your position. It would.

If anyone has the time to check more of the stealth-related stuff in the compendium for other changes, please do so.

http://ww2.wizards.com/dnd/insider/power.aspx?id=1396&searchterm=shadow stride



> *Shadow Stride                            Rogue Utility 10*
> _You silently step from shadow to shadow, slipping past your foes unseen and unheard._
> 
> *At-Will      Martial
> ...


----------



## Shabe (Aug 4, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> My draft house rules are as follows:
> 
> *Partially Hidden (Stealth Trained Only):* If you make a move ending behind any cover or concealment, you can make Stealth check against your enemy's passive Perception to become partially hidden. If successful, you gain a Combat Advantage against that opponent for your next attack or until the end of your turn, whichever comes first. If you are able to target multiple opponents with a single attack, compare your Stealth check against their passive Perceptions separately to see which ones you are partially hidden from and have Combat Advantage against. You can only be partially hidden from opponents against whom you have cover or concealment. For this purpose, allies do not count as cover.
> 
> That gives rogues back their offensive advantage without opening the door to the mounds of defensive cheese I objected to in the original rules. Making it trained only keeps it as special sauce for stealthy characters like rangers and rogues.




Thats exactly how i'm running stealth at the moment, if integrated with the compendium stealth. You can move like a ninja silently and stealthy like if you start totally obscured and then remain in cover, or you can use the cover / concealment you have to make you movements indistinct and get combat advantage for an attack.

The trouble is the party i'm running for doesn't use stealth, so i'm wondering if i'm just giving the monsters an unfair advantage.

Plus isn't stealth a warlock class skill? and wouldn't it help them catch up with the to hits of the melee strikers?


----------

