# New errata posted, stealth changes official



## Bumamgar (Aug 11, 2008)

See: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates

Quite a few other minor updates to powers.  Also made Brew Potion a level 1 ritual.


----------



## ac_noj (Aug 11, 2008)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## fba827 (Aug 11, 2008)

Yeah, aside from the stealth stuff, lots of that are minor changes.  The one that is a surprising welcome change is brew potion's adjustment.


----------



## Khime (Aug 11, 2008)

Glad they finally got this posted so it's now officially official, rather than simply being official.


----------



## Khime (Aug 11, 2008)

Weird, I only hit Post once...


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Aug 11, 2008)

fba827 said:


> Yeah, aside from the stealth stuff, lots of that are minor changes.  The one that is a surprising welcome change is brew potion's adjustment.



Would be a lot more useful if there were any level 1 potions. As it is, there are no potions lower than level 5, and thus no point to brew potion before level 5.


----------



## Vendark (Aug 11, 2008)

Anthony Jackson said:


> Would be a lot more useful if there were any level 1 potions. As it is, there are no potions lower than level 5, and thus no point to brew potion before level 5.




Adventurer's Vault is due next month, so it's quite possible that will change very soon.


----------



## fba827 (Aug 11, 2008)

Anthony Jackson said:


> Would be a lot more useful if there were any level 1 potions. As it is, there are no potions lower than level 5, and thus no point to brew potion before level 5.




Er, umm, yeah. I guess I never paid much attention to the actual brew potion rules since it was higher than my character   Now it just means I will take the time to bother to read it (rather than skim it for big fancy words)

Edit:

Though it's entirely possible that this change in brew potion level is in anticipation of something about to be released (say, in the Adventurer's Vault or whatever it's called)


----------



## jaelis (Aug 12, 2008)

They fixed Shadow Wasp Strike.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 12, 2008)

IT looks like they changed how you see an invisible target.

Now you automatically know which square the invisible creature is in if its not using stealth.

But of course, an invisible creature can always make stealth checks since it has total concealment.


----------



## Syrsuro (Aug 12, 2008)

Anthony Jackson said:


> Would be a lot more useful if there were any level 1 potions. As it is, there are no potions lower than level 5, and thus no point to brew potion before level 5.




I would assume this is a foreshadowing of some kind.  It doesn't change the level at which you can make healing potions because they wanted you to have to be 5th to make them.  But they have probably added some lower level potions and had to change Brew Potion accordingly.

It also allows you to _choose_ Brew Potion at 1st level, which you couldn't have done previously.

Carl


----------



## CSK (Aug 12, 2008)

They also changed skill challenges to have a fixed 3 failures, regardless of challenge difficulty.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 12, 2008)

jaelis said:


> They fixed Shadow Wasp Strike.




Yep, it targets Reflex now. It might actually be useful now, though I'd still almost always take Disruptive Strike over it.


----------



## The_Fan (Aug 12, 2008)

Increasingly, the errata can be summarized as:

Player's Handbook [Revision]
Player's Handbook, page 1
Remove Player's Handbook. Replace with errata.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 12, 2008)

The_Fan said:


> Increasingly, the errata can be summarized as:
> 
> Player's Handbook [Revision]
> Player's Handbook, page 1
> Remove Player's Handbook. Replace with errata.




Harsh.

22 pages of errata for 3 volumes totalling over 800 pages isn't much.
The errata could probably fit on a quarter of those pages if boiled down without all the fancy formatting.

Here's a few more errata I'd like to see:
Zombie minion errated to either live up to being lvl 3 or downgraded to lvl 1.
Needlefang drake swarm needs a nerf batting.
Deathump spider, too.
A rebuild of the skill challenge from the ground up, after the design team reads Stalker0's obsidian system and alternative core system.
Definitive clarification on divine challenge (to make it obvious that one must attack on the turn the challenge is issued.)


----------



## eamon (Aug 12, 2008)

The_Fan said:


> Increasingly, the errata can be summarized as:
> 
> Player's Handbook [Revision]
> Player's Handbook, page 1
> Remove Player's Handbook. Replace with errata.




There are a lot of errata.  They do improve gameplay, and it's not surprising that many of them weren't discovered before release.  Probably, just like in 3e, subsequent prints of the rule books will have these errata integrated, which helps.

It's annoying, but there's not much to be done.  I'm still happy they actually fixed stealth!  Quite a few other powers were fixed too, Shadow Wasp Strike is the least of the issues.

Warrior's Urging and Come and Get it were fixed to use pull mechanics instead of shift mechanics, which is simply necessary.

Stalwart Guard and Devastation's Wake were nerfed.  Stalwart Guard actually makes a little bit of sense now.

Hand of the Gods was fixed (it was a minor action, and it's now a standard action).  That's a pretty big change, but it's a multi-marking paladin ability that also happens to boost allies, so that was definitely necessary.

Anyways, just look at how often multiplayer PC games are patched - often for balance changes.  Balance isn't easy.


----------



## The_Fan (Aug 12, 2008)

Oh, I know. I suggested some of the changes (particularly the removal of the Charm keyword). I kid because I love.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 12, 2008)

I like the change to stealth. Much preferable that the character has to actually get out of the foe's LOS and give it a chance to lose track of the character rather than just spamming the stealth hotkey at every opportunity.


----------



## Kesh (Aug 12, 2008)

Does anyone know if the official PDFs have been updated for this errata? I figure it'll take a while, but I'm curious to see how long.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 12, 2008)

So Stealth now reads:

*Success: *You can't be targeted. Enemies don't know what space you occupy, but may guess it correctly. If they do, they can attack that space; at a -5 penalty on ranged or melee attacks. Cover and Superior Cover stack with that penalty (to -7 and -10, respectively).

Right? (Obviously not complete, but by way of opening a discussion.)

This is where I love seeing a design worded in the *positive*, telling us what a rule does do, instead of in the negative telling us the framing information.

-vk


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Aug 12, 2008)

Nice to have some errata (And addenda!  Don't forget the addenda!) but I would have appreciated an update on Commander's Strike and a denerfing of Battle Mage.

But maybe I'm just one of those people who can never be satisfied...


----------



## Lizard (Aug 12, 2008)

They fixed Stalwart Guard! Yay!

(I kept asking people exactly how this ability was supposed to work as a 'Martial' power, and people kept remembering urgent appointments in distant cities...as written originally, anyone near you when you used the power got a bonus to their defense even when they moved far away from you...or if you were dead...as long as the encounter lasted.)


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Aug 12, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> So Stealth now reads:
> 
> *Success: *You can't be targeted. Enemies don't know what space you occupy, but may guess it correctly. If they do, they can attack that space; at a -5 penalty on ranged or melee attacks. Cover and Superior Cover stack with that penalty (to -7 and -10, respectively).
> 
> ...




As the Stealth rule reads, yeah enemies don't know but may guess. Since Stealth happens at the end of a move action, that could be a pretty accurate guess.

I'm disappointed they didn't Update or FAQ Fleeting Ghost. If it works as written, and the power allows you to make a Stealth check at the end of a move, that opens up gaining stealth in concealment or cover, which makes the four other Rogue utilities that only work if you're already hidden something other than a waste. 

If Fleeting Ghost just removes the penalty for moving, then the Stealth powers become traps, being usable only in a hard to get condition or via Bluff (at the cost of a standard action and limited to once per encounter, and which isn't something all rogues that want to be stealthy would necessarily take or have the CHA to do well). And really, with Stealth that hard to get, the whole thing becomes pretty much a corner (literally) case of move/deftstrike or not worth the bother.


----------



## Markn (Aug 12, 2008)

So using the new rules for Stealth,

If a rogue comes out of cover using Deft Strike because he can move 2 squares before attacking he still gets his Sneak Attack, right?  This would be due to keeping Stealth until the action is completed.

Does that make sense or am I reading it wrong?


----------



## helium3 (Aug 12, 2008)

Markn said:


> So using the new rules for Stealth,
> 
> If a rogue comes out of cover using Deft Strike because he can move 2 squares before attacking he still gets his Sneak Attack, right?  This would be due to keeping Stealth until the action is completed.
> 
> Does that make sense or am I reading it wrong?




That seems right to me.


----------



## zsek320 (Aug 12, 2008)

The way I see it, as long as the stealth character is stealthed they can try and stay stealthed thanks to stealth meaning that they are invisible and thus out of line of sight...

So with the new stealth rules a rogue needs to run around a corner make the stealth check and then he can use fleeting ghost (I think thats the one that allows you to move) to try and move closer to an enemy for a couple of rounds... (because if you maintain stealth then you still are hidden thus there is no line of sight)

There is also a reason for a rogue to pick up Eyebite... become invisible and move a square and make a stealth check...at the start of the rogues turn he loses invisibility but he would still be stealthed...


----------



## mattdm (Aug 12, 2008)

Kesh said:


> Does anyone know if the official PDFs have been updated for this errata? I figure it'll take a while, but I'm curious to see how long.




I e-mailed the people selling 'em to ask, and they didn't know. They did point to the "free update PDFs" I could download -- but, uh, that's the same thing we're all looking at.

If real, integrated updated PDFs do happen, both soon and with an indication that it'll be done regularly, I can finally find the justification I need to pay more for the electronic version than I already have for my hard copy.

On another random note: I continue to be surprised that there's no errata for the Twin Strike / Careful Attack discrepancy. What's up with that?


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain (Aug 12, 2008)

Khime said:


> Glad they finally got this posted so it's now officially official, rather than simply being official.




LMAO!  Ya!  So I really do like 4E, my family and friends love it and I'm in two groups one as a DM and the other as a Player ... anyone else really bugged that these "corrections" continue to happen?  All playtesters and writers should be shot.  It's starting to be a bit of a joke - arn't we aproaching v4.5?  Can't wait for the new PHB 4.5 to come out


----------



## Tellerve (Aug 12, 2008)

zsek320 said:


> The way I see it, as long as the stealth character is stealthed they can try and stay stealthed thanks to stealth meaning that they are invisible and thus out of line of sight...
> 
> So with the new stealth rules a rogue needs to run around a corner make the stealth check and then he can use fleeting ghost (I think thats the one that allows you to move) to try and move closer to an enemy for a couple of rounds... (because if you maintain stealth then you still are hidden thus there is no line of sight)
> 
> There is also a reason for a rogue to pick up Eyebite... become invisible and move a square and make a stealth check...at the start of the rogues turn he loses invisibility but he would still be stealthed...




He doesn't necessarily need Fleeting Ghost.  He would if he'd like to slink around in concealment/cover faster than 2 squares without a penalty.  Although you could construe the wordage of Keep Still to mean if you didn't move over 2 squares you'd keep your original stealth check, but that's debatable.  In any case, Fleeting Ghost surely makes it easier to sneak around the battlefield once you have gotten the original stealth.

Tellerve


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 12, 2008)

The_Fan said:


> Increasingly, the errata can be summarized as:
> 
> Player's Handbook [Revision]
> Player's Handbook, page 1
> Remove Player's Handbook. Replace with errata.




I actually think the MM has more, its getting where almost every monsters is getting some kind of change.

Now a lot of people say, X errata over Y pages is not a lot. I disagree because its not just the number of changes, its the severity. These changes aren't delete a word here, add a line there, oh this is a clarification to that mechanic....everyone knows what it should mean, we are just making sure it says that.

Many of these changes double a monster's damage, completely change how skills are handled and how successful they are, completely change how strong a power is, etc. If the errata is "balanced", that means the unerrated version is way out of balance, which is a problem for people who don't normally pay attention to errata.

Further, remember that 4e still has to sell itself. Its still very new, and many people are unconvinced whether its better than 3e. And of course, 1st impressions are so terribly important. Its hard to sell something when you have pages of errata already out the gate.

Ultimately I'm glad to have errata, after all I would rather have fixed mechanics than continue to play with broken ones. But...people have a legitimate right to gripe everytime they see new errata with big changes continue to roll out.


Finally, we have enough errata now to the point where its time to bring back the color coding. I'm already starting to hate having to go to that bottom index and then go back up and back down again to find the new errata.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 12, 2008)

Yay, Dance of Steel is no longer teh suck.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 12, 2008)

Kesh said:


> Does anyone know if the official PDFs have been updated for this errata? I figure it'll take a while, but I'm curious to see how long.




I think it will happen at the same time the regular print versions will be errataed. Of course, I don't know when that will be. But they probably have to edit the PDFs for both and I find it unlikely they will want to do it twice.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 12, 2008)

I'd gald they are kicking out errata so quickly... not are not afraid to do it. Much better than many other games that just ignore their problems.

Hopefully, when they figure out they have everything 'just right' they will incorporate it all into the next printing and the pdfs. No, that wouldn't be a 4.5, that would just be an errated 4E. I would have no problem buying the core books again next year if they did this.


----------



## amysrevenge (Aug 12, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> I would have no problem buying the core books again next year if they did this.





I'd probably buy a fixed PHB, but I'll sift through errata for the others...


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Aug 12, 2008)

zsek320 said:


> The way I see it, as long as the stealth character is stealthed they can try and stay stealthed thanks to stealth meaning that they are invisible and thus out of line of sight...
> 
> So with the new stealth rules a rogue needs to run around a corner make the stealth check and then he can use fleeting ghost (I think thats the one that allows you to move) to try and move closer to an enemy for a couple of rounds... (because if you maintain stealth then you still are hidden thus there is no line of sight)




That only works if you have cover and/or concealment in all the squares from the corner to where you're going. As soon as you don't have cover or concealment, you're no longer hidden. Shadow Stride (10th level) lets you move from cover through squares without cover and back into cover, with a sucessful check meaning you weren't seen at any point in your movement. So to use shadow stride, you need a corner or whatever grants you total concealment or superior cover, then at least cover and/or concealment within a number of squares equal to your move speed from the square to which you had to move to have total concealment and/or superior cover.



Tellerve said:


> He doesn't necessarily need Fleeting Ghost.  He would if he'd like to slink around in concealment/cover faster than 2 squares without a penalty.  Although you could construe the wordage of Keep Still to mean if you didn't move over 2 squares you'd keep your original stealth check, but that's debatable.  In any case, Fleeting Ghost surely makes it easier to sneak around the battlefield once you have gotten the original stealth.




You can't sneak around the battlefield without Fleeting Ghost (and specifically with Fleeting Ghost being read as granting a Stealth check) and perform your role as a Striker. You would need Superior Cover and/or Total Concealment all over the place so you could hide again after attacking without having to run (well, move not run) back to your corner. If you spend a round just to get around a corner, then other rounds moving but not attacking (and especially at 2 squares a round), you aren't performing your role as a striker. Which puts you back at doing the Electric Slide at a corner or it isn't worth bothering with, and you don't need the powers for that.


----------



## Tellerve (Aug 12, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> That only works if you have cover and/or concealment in all the squares from the corner to where you're going. As soon as you don't have cover or concealment, you're no longer hidden. Shadow Stride (10th level) lets you move from cover through squares without cover and back into cover, with a sucessful check meaning you weren't seen at any point in your movement. So to use shadow stride, you need a corner or whatever grants you total concealment or superior cover, then at least cover and/or concealment within a number of squares equal to your move speed from the square to which you had to move to have total concealment and/or superior cover.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't sneak around the battlefield without Fleeting Ghost (and specifically with Fleeting Ghost being read as granting a Stealth check) and perform your role as a Striker. You would need Superior Cover and/or Total Concealment all over the place so you could hide again after attacking without having to run (well, move not run) back to your corner. If you spend a round just to get around a corner, then other rounds moving but not attacking (and especially at 2 squares a round), you aren't performing your role as a striker. Which puts you back at doing the Electric Slide at a corner or it isn't worth bothering with, and you don't need the powers for that.




How can you say in the previous paragraph exactly what I was talking about moving around in concealment and then tell me you can't.  Yes, the battlefield would have to have concealment, but it can be done.  Fleeting ghost allows it to happen easier as you can move more spaces.  If you already are moving around the battlefield then you can probably get a flanking opportunity to get combat advantage.  If you wanted to sneak up and take out the guys in the back or get past AO then being able to sneak around the battlefield could be a good thing to do.  If you are a melee rogue, you should be flanking, dazing, what have you to gain combat advantage.  A ranged rogue can use deft strike.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Aug 12, 2008)

Tellerve said:


> How can you say in the previous paragraph exactly what I was talking about moving around in concealment and then tell me you can't.




I said, "You can't sneak around the battlefield without Fleeting Ghost (and specifically with Fleeting Ghost being read as granting a Stealth check) and perform your role as a Striker."

And moving around, but not attacking, isn't performing your role as a Striker. Moving around really slowly and not attacking is just useless.



Tellerve said:


> Yes, the battlefield would have to have concealment, but it can be done.




The battlefield has to provide total concealment (or superior cover) in multiple places if you want to sneak around the battlefield and perform your role as a Striker (without Fleeting Ghost granting you the ability to make a Stealth check). That's not going to happen often enough to make it worth taking powers that rely on it.



Tellerve said:


> Fleeting ghost allows it to happen easier as you can move more spaces.  If you already are moving around the battlefield then you can probably get a flanking opportunity to get combat advantage.




It doesn't matter how many spaces you can move if you can't re-hide after attacking. And, if you moved around the battlefield, there likely isn't going to be anyone in the party where you are to flank with.




Tellerve said:


> If you wanted to sneak up and take out the guys in the back or get past AO then being able to sneak around the battlefield could be a good thing to do.




If you can't re-hide, you can't take out the guys in the back. There are a very few things you might be able to take out on a crit, but anything that isn't a minion takes multiple rounds to kill, and more if you can't get combat advantage. If you can't re-hide, as soon as you attack, you'll be blasted by everything on the map like an address in Afghanistan that tries to order a dialysis machine and clothes from a big and tall store. 



Tellerve said:


> If you are a melee rogue, you should be flanking, dazing, what have you to gain combat advantage.  A ranged rogue can use deft strike.




There isn't a melee rogue and a ranged rogue, rangers are either/or. All rogues are proficient with and receive class bonuses with melee and ranged attacks. Rogues should be using a combination of flanking, stealth and powers with both melee and ranged attacks. Stealth is a default trained skill for rogues for a reason. 

And even if there was such a thing as a melee or ranged rogue, who would want to play a character that just uses Deft Strike over and over and over?


----------



## Kzach (Aug 13, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Finally, we have enough errata now to the point where its time to bring back the color coding. I'm already starting to hate having to go to that bottom index and then go back up and back down again to find the new errata.




I'll take your colour coding and raise you a fully colour and layout and design matched entry that you can cut out of a printed errata page and paste over the incorrect entry in the relevant book!

Apparently they think that will work for the DM screen, so why not all books?


----------



## Tellerve (Aug 13, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> Rogues should be using a combination of flanking, stealth and powers with both melee and ranged attacks. Stealth is a default trained skill for rogues for a reason.





I haven't played tons of 4e, just a few encounters and thought about it a lot, so perhaps you've found something I haven't.  But you mention that rogues should use a combination and I wholeheartedly agree.  From what I've seen on the boards people are saying that fights are usually done in less than 10 rounds.  Certainly at lower levels a rogue is going to have to do his At-wills often in a combat, whether or not he's stealthy or not.  So why not do a few Deft strikes from range, stealthily move to another hidden area 6 squares away with no movement penalty with Fleeting ghost to get a better angle at a new enemy, Deft strike, then when the defender moves into a suitable position charge/move out into a flanking position to get Combat advantage.  Then when you move towards the controller in the back use your Encounter to daze him, then next round hit him with sly flourish while you have CA on him.

I don't see what's so bad about sneaking around a bit to flank enemies and get into good position and then use all your rogue bag of tricks.  I've seen the rogue in our campaign use Sly Flourish over and over.  My character used his at-wills over and over.  That's what ya do.

Tellerve


----------



## mattdm (Aug 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think it will happen at the same time the regular print versions will be errataed. Of course, I don't know when that will be. But they probably have to edit the PDFs for both and I find it unlikely they will want to do it twice.




Depends how hard it is to produce a PDF in whatever document system they're using, I suppose. It seems like a good workflow would make that easy, and the changes could basically be inserted as they're developed, and new PDFs produced in parallel with the errata-list documents.

This might be a bit more work, but has a huge advantage when it comes time to do the next print edition — new errors inserted during the editing (either to the changed areas or accidentally elsewhere) are inevitable, and having the PDFs available beforehand means that there's a greater chance they're spotted before they're committed to hard copy.

And also it has a huge advantage in that people like me will be willing to buy the PDFs simply for the sake of regular updates.


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Aug 13, 2008)

Kzach said:


> I'll take your colour coding and raise you a fully colour and layout and design matched entry that you can cut out of a printed errata page and paste over the incorrect entry in the relevant book!
> 
> Apparently they think that will work for the DM screen, so why not all books?




The errata as-is reminds me of the time that the 1st Ed. Unearthed Arcana was errated in Dragon magazine so you could paste the new verion of things over the top.

Some people have said "just look at how often computer games are patched" or such - well, a book isn't a computer game.  I don't want to have to look at the rulebook and then search the errata.  And I don't want to have to "pencil in" errata into my book.

There have been too many BIG changes through errata - skill challenges and stealth, for example, and yet i have to look through and replace words or sentences?  That sucks.

It sucks too that such massive changes are required so soon.  It shows that the playtesting failed.  This is not the fault of the playtesters.  It is the fault of those who decided on the number of playtesters (not enough), the duration of playtesting (definately not long enough), and the areas of focus for the playtesting.

When a computer game is patched the next time I open the game the patch is in place.  A book is NOT a computer game, and when I open my books after this errata is released the changes are not in place.

Duncan


----------



## Hodgie (Aug 13, 2008)

Duncan Haldane said:


> There have been too many BIG changes through errata - skill challenges and stealth, for example, and yet i have to look through and replace words or sentences?  That sucks.
> 
> It sucks too that such massive changes are required so soon.  It shows that the playtesting failed.  This is not the fault of the playtesters.  It is the fault of those who decided on the number of playtesters (not enough), the duration of playtesting (definately not long enough), and the areas of focus for the playtesting.




I'll echo this.  I'll defend Wizards in a lot of venues, but it wasn't too long ago that people were asking how 3e had three years of playtesting and 4e was to have three months.  The answer was that it had "extensive" internal playtesting.  It was clear then, and hindsight proves it now, that internal playtesting is inadequate and grossly so.  The game was published with glaring omissions which many players found in their very first sessions. 

I'll commend Wizards on producing errata (they already sold the books), but the existence of errata is problematic.  The comparison to software is poor.  When software is updated there is no perpetual inconvenience on the part of the consumer.  They adapt and things improve.  With a print book errata doesn't actually remedy the problem; it provides an opportunity for a remedy.  When the "opportunity" is in a game with a finite set of rules, you should probably accept that opportunity if the game is to remain enjoyable.  As such, it is just an inconvenience and a responsible company should be more careful.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Aug 13, 2008)

Tellerve said:


> I haven't played tons of 4e, just a few encounters and thought about it a lot, so perhaps you've found something I haven't.



Well, the games only been out for 2 months, and these rules for a little over a week or so, except for the stuff that just wasn't in the compendium, so nobody has played with any of them tons. But I've played quite a bit since release, including combats on the same maps with both sets of of rules since the the compendium update.



Tellerve said:


> But you mention that rogues should use a combination and I wholeheartedly agree.  From what I've seen on the boards people are saying that fights are usually done in less than 10 rounds.  Certainly at lower levels a rogue is going to have to do his At-wills often in a combat, whether or not he's stealthy or not.  So why not do a few Deft strikes from range, stealthily move to another hidden area 6 squares away with no movement penalty with Fleeting ghost to get a better angle at a new enemy, Deft strike, then when the defender moves into a suitable position charge/move out into a flanking position to get Combat advantage.  Then when you move towards the controller in the back use your Encounter to daze him, then next round hit him with sly flourish while you have CA on him.




To perform your role as Striker (doing a lot of damage to a single target), you need to be getting your sneak attack damage on almost all of the attacks you're making, even at low levels. You can do that with deft strike at range sometimes, assuming you have a conveniently located area to get get total concealment and/or superior cover, which is the problem. Without conveniently located total concealment and/or superior cover, you can't get combat advantage from deft strike at range reliably.  

You can't move stealthily using Fleeting Ghost unless you are already hidden and have concealment or cover along the entire length of the path you move, or end up in a square that grants you total concealment and/or superior cover (unless you use the reading of Fleeting Ghost that allows you to make a Stealth check as part of the power, which allows you to end up in a square with cover or concealment without necessarily needing cover or concealment on the way to it, though it would be helpful).

Now, you're moving into a flanking position, which is fine, as long as your party has cleared out all the enemies not locked down by the defender. Otherwise, you're the prime target for any enemy not locked onto the defender (such as the artillery) and the guy you just hit (and/or other monsters locked onto the defender) is providing flanking on you for any and all lurking skulks or skirmishers running around. 

Now, if you waited all this time to go after the Artillery (the monster version of controller generally, though you might also be out hunting down skulks and skirmishers to keep them from putting too bad a hurting on the fighter or jumping on your controller), by the time you get to him the artillery has unloaded all kinds of status effects on your party (and most likely you, and it's hard to go after him after you just sucked up a gluepot or stink bomb) and at that point, why bother, since the whole party is either dead/immobilized, or charging past you to do it themselves.

The way you played it isn't fighting like a rogue, it is fighting like a fighter. Attack what's closest to you, let everything come up to you, then move forward when everything around you is down. Forcing the rogue to do that makes it just a fragile, second-rate fighter. It doesn't perform like a Rogue  should, engaging the enemies with which it has a favorable matchup while avoiding those that are unfavorable (until circumstances change and they can re-engage with an advantage).

If you need to take out the artillery as a Rogue, what you should be trying for is something like (using what I gleaned of the situation you described and the reading of Fleeting Ghost to allow a Stealth check):

Round One: Piercing Strike with shuriken or dagger on a target you can hit, hopefully getting combat advantage from First Strike on something that isn't a minion to soften it up for the defender. Follow with a move to a place with cover and/or concealment (or better) and a Stealth check using Fleeting Ghost. Or, double move, making two stealth checks, to close on the artillery. Make a perception check as a minor action if you have one left (shuriken or dagger or whatever was readied or you have Quick Draw if you made an attack) to locate any hidden skulks, skirmishers or artillery. Consider making some sort of attack via an action point, but this is likely too early, as you'll be left exposed and almost certainly need at least two attacks to do your job, and you'll want to be hidden to avoid getting pummeled.

Round Two: Attack the artillery if you can, gaining combat advantage from being hidden, then move and hide using Fleeting Ghost. Consider using an action point to make another attack if you have a power that has a chance of making a kill this round, but remember that doing so will leave you exposed well away from the rest of the group, so be careful. Again, burn a minor action if you've got it to look for an enemy.

Round Three: Make your second attack on the artillery, with combat advantage from being hidden. If it hits, this should kill most artillery at low levels, though you may need to run to a third attack on something particularly tough or if you roll poorly. Again, burn a minor action if you've got it to look for an enemy. Regardless, move and hide using Fleeting Ghost.

Round Four: If you have to, attack again. Otherwise, your last move should have you headed back to the group. Get back to the group to heal up and/or help out. Focus on cleaning up skirmishers/skulks or look at flanking the toughest thing the fighter is facing so you can hit it with something like torturous strike or something that will give it a debilitating condition.

If on any of the rounds you blow your Stealth check, odds are you're going to be hammered by the Artillery and anything else that is around. You also might take some damage just because it isn't hard to guess where you're at when you move and hide after attacking, since you aren't hidden during the move, so bad luck can put you in the same banged-up boat as failing. Regardless, if you take a big chunk of damage, break off your attempt on the artillery and fall back to the group if you can (getting hidden as soon as possible to facilitate getting back to healing). If you get hit with an immobilizing status effect, pray. Even if it takes you three or four rounds to get the kill or you fail, if you've been hidden between attacks, the artillery has probably wasted shots trying to hit you.



Tellerve said:


> I don't see what's so bad about sneaking around a bit to flank enemies and get into good position and then use all your rogue bad of tricks.




Because standing in one place beating on something is fighting like a fighter. And if you want to do that, and can make it work, or enjoy it even if it doesn't really work, that's fine, but you shouldn't have to play a rogue that fights like a fighter.



Tellerve said:


> I've seen the rogue in our campaign use Sly Flourish over and over.  My character used his at-wills over and over.  That's what ya do.
> Tellerve




If you really like that and the player playing the rogue is satisfied with playing that way, I'm glad you enjoy it, but having played and watched rogues that moved around the battlefield using all of their abilities and skills, and attacked using a variety of weapons and powers on a variety of targets, that feels like a big step back.

It definitely doesn't feel like: 

"Rogues are cunning and elusive adversaries. Rogues slip into and out of shadows on a whim, pass anywhere on the field of battle without fear of reprisal, and appear suddenly only to drive home a lethal blade."


----------



## Ravingdork (Aug 13, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> Here's a few more errata I'd like to see:
> Zombie minion errated to either live up to being lvl 3 or downgraded to lvl 1.




It's been changed as evidenced by the D&Di Encounter Generator. In that program it is listed as a Level 1 Minion. Actual Errata is probably not far off. 

I'm not sure about the other monsters you listed, but you can check the generator to see if any others were changed as well.


----------



## eamon (Aug 13, 2008)

Hodgie said:


> I'll commend Wizards on producing errata (they already sold the books), but the existence of errata is problematic.  The comparison to software is poor.  When software is updated there is no perpetual inconvenience on the part of the consumer.  They adapt and things improve.  With a print book errata doesn't actually remedy the problem; it provides an opportunity for a remedy.



I compared D&D to software not because errata are comparable to updates, but because errata are comparably _necessarily_.  Obviously, errata are much less handy, which is why wizards is almost sure to release an updated version of the rulebooks sometime.  Compare it to academic textbooks, which are frequently riddled with errors.  Sometimes these are errors are posted online, and if it's a successful book, sometimes a new edition comes out.

D&D is harder to get right.  Whereas errors in academic textbooks are frequently real errors a suitably knowledgeable person can identify, the things being errata'd are not so clearcut.  

The point?  It's unrealistic to expect perfection.  It's not handy, but eternal playtesting would not have fixed all these issues.  I'm positively enthused by the rate and purpose of the (inevitably necessary) errata.  Sure, I hope future books will need fewer:  I expect they _will_ need fewer, as 4e becomes more mature and well-understood.  But I'm not surprised nor disappointed by the amount of problems in 4e (an entirely new system) on release.  And frankly, when it comes to balance, 4e pre-errata is still less problematic than 3e after years of tweaking.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 13, 2008)

Markn said:


> So using the new rules for Stealth,
> 
> If a rogue comes out of cover using Deft Strike because he can move 2 squares before attacking he still gets his Sneak Attack, right?  This would be due to keeping Stealth until the action is completed.
> 
> Does that make sense or am I reading it wrong?




You are reading it right.  You are considered hidden until the end of your attack - the movement from Deft Strike is part of the attack.


----------



## Markn (Aug 13, 2008)

Thanks.  I was pretty sure, just wanted a bit of QA on my thinking


----------



## Tellerve (Aug 13, 2008)

I agree with your breakdown, although you have to have a DM set up a battlefield to allow that.  Some dungeons won't allow for that kind of movement.  And if you do have say spots of cover, and as you pointed out, creatures would see you move to that point and get hidden.  I think intelligent creatures would go investigate that area with a move action, get LOS, and then they could attack you.

That's why I was favoring flanking when early on you don't have the ability to stay hidden while moving.  And while you quoted flavor text that I agree is a great way to play a rogue, I'll go ahead and quote this for you.

Role: Striker. You dart in to attack, do massive damage,
and then retreat to safety. You do best when teamed
with a defender to flank enemies.

So, while you think that is playing a fighter, Wizards sees it as a fine example of a rogue striker hitting the creature where it hurts easily from round to round.  Will that make you a target?  Sure, as would being seen hiding and trying to flank.

I think we are arguing the same point actually, as I have tended to agree with you, except I don't see as big an issue with flanking as you appear to for their role as a striker.

In any case, the other question that this discussion has brought up to me is how Fleeting Ghost, Chameleon and Shadow Stride.  To me the two beginning ones essentially become Shadow Stride.  At first you can move with no penalty to the move action.  I'm not sure why it says to make a stealth check, but it was before the revised stealth rules.  In the revised rules you make one if you move more than 2 spaces.  This allows you to move your 6, or 5, or 7 and not take the -5 to your check.  But you need to be hidden (ie have concealment/cover) the whole time.  Some would/and do argue opposite that.  Chameleon allows you to move from hidden to another place of cover through places that don't have cover/concelament which would normally break your Hidden status.  However, as soon that hidden status would go away you get a stealth check and as long as you make it and get to cover/concealment you're still hidden.  Finally Shadow Stride just combines them so you can change the earlier utilities for something else as it allows full movement while hidden to a place of cover/concealment through non-concealed/covered areas.  That's when a rogue would really shine with the sneaky popin' in and out and sniping around the battlefield.

cheers,

Tellerve


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Aug 14, 2008)

Tellerve said:


> I agree with your breakdown, although you have to have a DM set up a battlefield to allow that.  Some dungeons won't allow for that kind of movement.  And if you do have say spots of cover, and as you pointed out, creatures would see you move to that point and get hidden.  I think intelligent creatures would go investigate that area with a move action, get LOS, and then they could attack you.




This highlights the big difference between being able to make a check via Fleeting Ghost which allows Cover and/or Concealment and needing Superior Cover and/or Total Concealment. The DM has to do a lot more work to set up a map that provides Superior Cover and/or Total Concealment with patches of concealment between them, or things that provide Total Concealment and/or Superior cover to multiple areas on the battlefield located closely enough that you can move between them. Cover and Concealment however are easy to put into a map in patches, an entire area of lightly forested terrain or a shadowy area on the map. Things can come and hunt for you, but they won't have the ability to just, say come around the corner or look behind the tipped-over table and see you because your entire source of Superior Cover/Total Concealment was an object that provided protection from line of sight. So in a patch of cover or concealment, you'll be attackable, but hard to hit; as opposed to being behind a corner, and pretty much impossible to hit, unless the creature can move up to you. And like you said, all maps won't have appropriate Cover/Concealment and there will be times you can't do it, but they'll be nowhere near as rare as maps with appropriate Superior Cover/Total Concealment.




Tellerve said:


> That's why I was favoring flanking when early on you don't have the ability to stay hidden while moving.  And while you quoted flavor text that I agree is a great way to play a rogue, I'll go ahead and quote this for you.
> 
> Role: Striker. You dart in to attack, do massive damage,
> and then retreat to safety. You do best when teamed
> ...




Note that's dart in and retreat to safety, which coincides exactly with what I described, as opposed getting into a flanking position and staying there and hitting over and over while things attack you. You don't hide to try to flank, you hide to gain combat advantage and/or avoid being attacked. You flank when it is tactically sound to do so, not all the time, sucking up damage.

That's not to say that there won't be times that you do latch onto something and pound away at it, or even times when you try to take a little damage off another character, but you shouldn't be limited to that and shuffling back and froth from behind a corner deft striking over and over. There will even be times when you can't hide or flank or get off an appropriate power, and are reduced to plinking for a round or two until the situation improves.



Tellerve said:


> I think we are arguing the same point actually, as I have tended to agree with you, except I don't see as big an issue with flanking as you appear to for their role as a striker.




I don't have an issue with flanking, I have an issue with rogues being reduced to doing nothing but flanking or deft striking back and forth from behind a corner. But, I do think we are headed somewhat in the same direction.



Tellerve said:


> In any case, the other question that this discussion has brought up to me is how Fleeting Ghost, Chameleon and Shadow Stride.  To me the two beginning ones essentially become Shadow Stride.  At first you can move with no penalty to the move action.  I'm not sure why it says to make a stealth check, but it was before the revised stealth rules.  In the revised rules you make one if you move more than 2 spaces.




In both the old and revised rules you made a Stealth Check to hide, and took a -5 penalty to if you moved more than 2 squares (you also need to make a check to remain hidden if you move more than 2 squares after you're already hidden in the new rules, as you said). The big change was requiring Total Concealment/Superior Cover rather than Concealment/Cover to hide using the Stealth skill alone (without a power or other skill granting you the ability to hide).



Tellerve said:


> This allows you to move your 6, or 5, or 7 and not take the -5 to your check.  But you need to be hidden (ie have concealment/cover) the whole time.




Not precisely. To hide, you need to end your move in a square that provides Total Concealment or Superior Cover from the enemies you're hiding from, so you could move in the open, then hide. If you are already hidden, you could move to a square of cover or concealment, if you had a series of squares providing Cover and/or Concealment along your path. A literal reading of Fleeting Ghost allows making a check as part of using the power. As a practical matter, because of the new rules on remaining hidden, you can only gain the benefit of making that a check via Fleeting Ghost if you do so in a square that provides some measure of Cover and Concealment. Even with Fleeting Ghost allowing you to make a check, without Shadow Stride, you would need to be already hidden, and have cover and concealment along your path to avoid being seen prior to the end of your move.



Tellerve said:


> Some would/and do argue opposite that.  Chameleon allows you to move from hidden to another place of cover through places that don't have cover/concelament which would normally break your Hidden status.  However, as soon that hidden status would go away you get a stealth check and as long as you make it and get to cover/concealment you're still hidden.




Chameleon is an Immediate Interrupt. You can't take an Immediate action on your turn. Chameleon would come into play in situations like you are hidden behind a corner or upended table or something and something moves and gains line of sight. 




Tellerve said:


> Finally Shadow Stride just combines them so you can change the earlier utilities for something else as it allows full movement while hidden to a place of cover/concealment through non-concealed/covered areas.  That's when a rogue would really shine with the sneaky popin' in and out and sniping around the battlefield.




Shadow Stride allows you to remain hidden while moving across areas in which you would normally not remain hidden on your turn. This is a significant benefit on its own, as you can hide, then next round (or in the same round if you double move), end up a good distance away from your last known location without anything having any idea where you are.

The stealth-related powers chain together, they don't replace each other. Utilities are useful throughout the length of the game. All of the stealth-related powers (including those not previously mentioned, Hide in Plain Sight and Hide from the Light) except Fleeting Ghost require you already be hidden to use. If Fleeting Ghost doesn't provide an easier entry point to being hidden (Cover/Concealment) than the really hard to get in a useful, non-cheesy way Total Concealment/Superior Cover (Let's walk around with a blanket tied to a 10' pole held in front of the Rogue!), the stealth-related powers aren't worth bothering with.

The literal interpretation of Fleeting Ghost lets Rogues play like Rogues and makes the Stealth-related powers worthwhile.

Note that I'm not happy with just that. My original post expressed my disappointment that they didn't do further Updates/FAQ on Fleeting Ghost, but really, I think Updates should have been done on all the classes and powers relating to Stealth. The literal reading of Fleeting Ghost for example, allows a Warlock to hide all the time via Fell Step by multiclassing into Rogue and taking the power (at a cost of 3 feats). And really, Stealth is so entertwined into the Rogue class, that an easier entry point to becoming hidden should be via a new class ability posessed by all Rogues (as a class ability, it also prevents issues with multiclassing), something like:

Creepy Crawler: Rogues are exceptionally stealthy. A Rogue may treat areas granting cover as granting total cover and areas granting concealment as granting total concealment to meet the requirements to make a Stealth check. A Rogue may not use another creature to hide or remain hidden.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 14, 2008)

@Jaelis:

Not only Shadow Wasp Strike, but a couple other cases where a higher-level power was previously strictly worse than a lower level one as well.


----------



## burntgerbil (Aug 14, 2008)

Frankly, as a gamer, I have been pretty dismayed at wizards' playtesting. Have you seen the playtest list ? There are scores of people I recognize that work for their Magic line - Hell, even Richard Garfield, the creator of Magic, was a playtester. Its not that these people are bad playtesters, but that Wizards was not doing any meaningful playtesting. 

They needed to have guys that are dedicated and extremely knowledgeable about the game - like Stalker0 and Hypersmurf and scores of others that really care enough about the game to provide meaningful input and craft a better finished product. Turn to your fanbase and get them involved - it's a win-win situation and a path that Wizards definitely should have taken before now (I'm lookin' at you, artificer !)


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 14, 2008)

burntgerbil said:


> Its not that these people are bad playtesters, but that Wizards was not doing any meaningful playtesting.



Define meaningful. What do you perceive as the main goal of playtesting?


burntgerbil said:


> They needed to have guys that are dedicated and extremely knowledgeable about the game



I disagree. I'd almost go as far as saying these are exactly the kind of guys you wouldn't want as playtesters.

You may want them as part of the development team, though


----------



## zoroaster100 (Aug 15, 2008)

Since a rogue sneak attack damage is double that of a warlock's curse damage or a ranger's hunter's quarry damage, I am pretty sure rogues are not supposed to be able to sneak attack every round.  Perhaps about every other round might be closer to the goal of the design team, based on the amount of damage inflicted by the class feature.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Aug 15, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:


> Since a rogue sneak attack damage is double that of a warlock's curse damage or a ranger's hunter's quarry damage, I am pretty sure rogues are not supposed to be able to sneak attack every round.  Perhaps about every other round might be closer to the goal of the design team, based on the amount of damage inflicted by the class feature.




"The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes." - Mike Mearls

Expand the base of your assumption beyond looking at just sneak attack damage, curse damage and hunter's quarry damage and you'll see pretty quickly why.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 16, 2008)

burntgerbil said:


> Frankly, as a gamer, I have been pretty dismayed at wizards' playtesting. Have you seen the playtest list ? There are scores of people I recognize that work for their Magic line - Hell, even Richard Garfield, the creator of Magic, was a playtester. Its not that these people are bad playtesters, but that Wizards was not doing any meaningful playtesting.
> 
> They needed to have guys that are dedicated and extremely knowledgeable about the game - like Stalker0 and Hypersmurf and scores of others that really care enough about the game to provide meaningful input and craft a better finished product. Turn to your fanbase and get them involved - it's a win-win situation and a path that Wizards definitely should have taken before now (I'm lookin' at you, artificer !)




An additional problem is that lots of the playtesters only had limited sections of the rules, and were asked to test specific scenarios. Big problem there since to some extent they were looking for input on very specific design decisions, but were not allowing all the playtesters to run riot with everything and actually _pick up the stuff that they *hadn't* thought about_.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 17, 2008)

Kzach said:


> I'll take your colour coding and raise you a fully colour and layout and design matched entry that you can cut out of a printed errata page and paste over the incorrect entry in the relevant book!
> 
> Apparently they think that will work for the DM screen, so why not all books?




That's how it works with ASL.

Cheers!


----------



## zoroaster100 (Aug 17, 2008)

Has anyone tried using the new errataed stealth rules in practice in an actual game yet?  I'm curious what your experience has been putting this in practice.  I have to run a game for a group soon and will be using the new errata rules for the first time.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 16, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:


> Has anyone tried using the new errataed stealth rules in practice in an actual game yet?  I'm curious what your experience has been putting this in practice.  I have to run a game for a group soon and will be using the new errata rules for the first time.



Anyone have insight to share yet?


----------



## infocynic (Sep 16, 2008)

Well, in my last session DM'ing, the Brutal Rogue 2 in our party was having -zero- trouble getting combat advantage either from stealth (around corner / behind a door / etc) and then deft striking out, or simply flanking when stealth was going to be hard. Fleeting Ghost allowed him to move further away to get into a position where he could stealth if needed, and in my campaign, FG doesn't let you make a stealth check unless you were hidden already or have total concealment/superior cover, which in a dungeon, isn't very hard.


----------



## Gort (Sep 16, 2008)

I think the biggest problem rogues have versus the other strikers is not the problem of gaining combat advantage every turn, but the fact that a lot of the places you have to go to _get_ combat advantage are quite unsafe. Flanking a guy sometimes means standing in the middle of his buddies, who then smack you around.

Meanwhile, the ranger is shooting arrows from 40 squares away.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 16, 2008)

I have a question about the stealth errata. In a game with precise positioning of tokens or minis on a battlemat how does one "guess" the location of a stealthed target? Looking at the battle map it would seem pretty obvious.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 16, 2008)

The same issues come up with invisible targets. They go 'off' the grid, and people that know where the character is has to track that information. The game I DM has a drow as a PC, so I need to be able to bring up a darkness cloud when I need it. It goes behind the DM screen, and only the drow gets to see where characters are. For the monsters, I would use a random roll of which adjacent square they attack, assuming they don't attack the last square they thought someone was in.

The DM should remove hidden monsters from the map an put their position on a secondary grid [we use modules, so I put them on the map in the book]. The players have to guess where it is, based on where it disappeared from, how fast they've seen it move, perception checks, etc. As a DM, I have to decide what the monsters would do, and not take my knowing where the character is into account. So basically, if the monster would assume the character didn't leave the square they were in, they would attack that square, otherwise they would try to find a better target. If they have to attack a square and they aren't "sure he was there a minute ago" I would roll, probably a d8, and have him attack one of the squares next to him [eliminate squares he knows aren't viable targets].


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 16, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> The same issues come up with invisible targets. They go 'off' the grid, and people that know where the character is has to track that information. The game I DM has a drow as a PC, so I need to be able to bring up a darkness cloud when I need it. It goes behind the DM screen, and only the drow gets to see where characters are. For the monsters, I would use a random roll of which adjacent square they attack, assuming they don't attack the last square they thought someone was in.
> 
> The DM should remove hidden monsters from the map an put their position on a secondary grid [we use modules, so I put them on the map in the book]. The players have to guess where it is, based on where it disappeared from, how fast they've seen it move, perception checks, etc. As a DM, I have to decide what the monsters would do, and not take my knowing where the character is into account. So basically, if the monster would assume the character didn't leave the square they were in, they would attack that square, otherwise they would try to find a better target. If they have to attack a square and they aren't "sure he was there a minute ago" I would roll, probably a d8, and have him attack one of the squares next to him [eliminate squares he knows aren't viable targets].




That seems like an awful lot of hassle for something that comes up so often. Thanks for the suggestions. I did play in a game once where my character was blinded and played the rest of the combat turned away from the table. I had to tell the GM where I moved on my turn and had to make decisions based on where everyone was when I could last see them. It was really satisfying to turn in place and actually clobber a guy that was behind me without "knowing" he was there.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 17, 2008)

Gort said:


> I think the biggest problem rogues have versus the other strikers is not the problem of gaining combat advantage every turn, but the fact that a lot of the places you have to go to _get_ combat advantage are quite unsafe. Flanking a guy sometimes means standing in the middle of his buddies, who then smack you around.
> 
> Meanwhile, the ranger is shooting arrows from 40 squares away.




Indeed.  You can do some okay damage w/o it, but to do *actual* damage you need to sneak attack, which is kinda hard to do if it's a 2-square wide corridor.

Brad


----------

