So. . . Stealth, eh?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Journeyman
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:40 pm
So. . . Stealth, eh?
I don't have a lot to add to the philosophical musings inthis thread. The only problems I remember from 3E was that stealth usually required concealment, and that negated sneak attacks, but otherwise the system seemed to work well enough. So I'm wondering why they mucked everything up.
What do you think WotC was trying to do with Stealth in 4E? What was the problem with 3E stealth that required subtly rewritten rules that are annoyingly vague, ambiguous, and in the end come down to "and then the DM makes a call . . . ?"
What do you think WotC was trying to do with Stealth in 4E? What was the problem with 3E stealth that required subtly rewritten rules that are annoyingly vague, ambiguous, and in the end come down to "and then the DM makes a call . . . ?"
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 703
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: So. . . Stealth, eh?
I fear they were mostly trying to achieve "have some stealth rules before we have to ship".Tydanosaurus wrote:What do you think WotC was trying to do with Stealth in 4E?
- Angry_Pessimist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:49 pm
- Location: Shitsville, FL
I remember this time when a player argued that Hide in Plain Sight made no sense, as he said that you still need cover/concealment.K wrote:I don't know about you, but I've never seen Stealth/Hide that wasn't handwaved in 3e.
By his logic, the entire point of the class feature was rendered useless.
To show him something that made no sense, I pointed him to the Paladin class to get him to accept that D&D isn't supposed to make sense.
He complains about Paladins now.
-
- Master
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 5:19 am
You do understand the difference between suspending your belief because the game is supposed to run on magic and being gypped out of an ability because it doesn't work as advertised, right?I remember this time when a player argued that Hide in Plain Sight made no sense, as he said that you still need cover/concealment.
- Angry_Pessimist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:49 pm
- Location: Shitsville, FL
-
- Master
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 5:19 am
Then are you aware of how astoundingly broke-dick the hide skill got in 3.5E?Yes. I had no problem with Hide in Plain Sight, but one of my players did.
Seriously, after Complete Adventurer came out to 'clarify' things, Hide in Plain Sight did literally nothing at all. It was like 3.0E Eagle Claw Attack or Off-hand Parry.
- Angry_Pessimist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:49 pm
- Location: Shitsville, FL
Fortunately, I don't own Complete Adventurer, so this never came up.The 13 Wise Buttlords wrote:Then are you aware of how astoundingly broke-dick the hide skill got in 3.5E?Yes. I had no problem with Hide in Plain Sight, but one of my players did.
Seriously, after Complete Adventurer came out to 'clarify' things, Hide in Plain Sight did literally nothing at all. It was like 3.0E Eagle Claw Attack or Off-hand Parry.
I think that the 3.5 PHB's Hide skill works fine, as I have yet to find anything broken with it other than the -20 Hide Penalty for attacking with a ranged weapon. The skills would be even better if it was combined with Move Silently.
Last edited by Angry_Pessimist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Master
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 5:19 am
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Personally, hiding should be able to be done whenever you're not someone's target in the round that you try to make a hide check.
Seriously, I've been able to just 'show up' out of 'no where' on a regular basis, according to other people.
I also get accused of being a ninja.
Really it's all in how you walk, planning where you walk, planning how your feet hit the ground, planning where your feet hit the ground and a few other things.
Seriously, I'd fold Spot + Move Silently and Listen + Hide together. You can't move silently unless you can see where you're walking, you can't hide from your targets unless you can hear what they're doing or where they're moving to.
Probably dual checks, your Move Silently check can't be higher than double your Spot check and likewise for Hide and Listen.
A needless complication, but it's more realistic.
Also, "hide in plain sight" isn't unrealistic. It's a skill that some people learn. It's called being unnoticeable. Really, rogues should get it at level 8-10 at the latest. Rangers should pick it up at 7-9, if not even earlier.
Seriously, I've been able to just 'show up' out of 'no where' on a regular basis, according to other people.
I also get accused of being a ninja.
Really it's all in how you walk, planning where you walk, planning how your feet hit the ground, planning where your feet hit the ground and a few other things.
Seriously, I'd fold Spot + Move Silently and Listen + Hide together. You can't move silently unless you can see where you're walking, you can't hide from your targets unless you can hear what they're doing or where they're moving to.
Probably dual checks, your Move Silently check can't be higher than double your Spot check and likewise for Hide and Listen.
A needless complication, but it's more realistic.
Also, "hide in plain sight" isn't unrealistic. It's a skill that some people learn. It's called being unnoticeable. Really, rogues should get it at level 8-10 at the latest. Rangers should pick it up at 7-9, if not even earlier.
- Angry_Pessimist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:49 pm
- Location: Shitsville, FL
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Uh...Check your source. http://www.theonion.com/content/indexubernoob wrote:Wait...
A whole town gets out to watch nothing because they get a letter?
Fucking awesome.
Speaking of ninjas, was what the Den verdict on the WotC Ninja base class?
Just from what I remember of the class, Sudden Strike probably got a lot of hate. I don't remember the Ki stuff well enough to hazard a guess on how the analysis from the Denizens went.
Just from what I remember of the class, Sudden Strike probably got a lot of hate. I don't remember the Ki stuff well enough to hazard a guess on how the analysis from the Denizens went.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
The class could have been palatable if they got more uses of their ki abilities per day. And yes, sudden strike is poop.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
I watched one in play.... it was horrible.Maxus wrote:Speaking of ninjas, was what the Den verdict on the WotC Ninja base class?
Just from what I remember of the class, Sudden Strike probably got a lot of hate. I don't remember the Ki stuff well enough to hazard a guess on how the analysis from the Denizens went.
Seriously, horrible.
Then at level 7 it was wtfbbq; at that point I had suggested several multi-classing steps to ensure that the player could reliably sudden strike; like getting lots of ranged sneak attacks (5; 1 + 1 (haste) + 3 (something in the Targeteer alt. fighter class) that dealt 1d8+5d6+ magic enchancement modifier + 1/2 dex mod within 60 feet.
A contact poison was added as well, so attacks also could ignore natural armour to see if the poison applied. The poison of choice was Terinav root for the Dex damage.
Up until that point, he had been plinking away with 1d8 + 0 damage with his crossbow or longbow.
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Re: So. . . Stealth, eh?
In 3E, the main issue I had was that it was really ambiguous about how often you had to roll and when you had to roll.Tydanosaurus wrote:this thread[/url]. The only problems I remember from 3E was that stealth usually required concealment, and that negated sneak attacks, but otherwise the system seemed to work well enough. So I'm wondering why they mucked everything up.
For instance, ok I'm hiding, and just watching the bandit camp. Do we have to make hide checks every round? What if the bandits close from 100 ft to 50 ft, does that require another check since the modifiers are different?
Also, the other problem with 3E stealth was that it was brutal to make all those damn rolls. A move silent and a hide per person hiding and a spot and a listen for each observer.
Well that's a bitch.
4e Did a decent job with making passive perception, but the actual rules for hiding are still horrible, probably even worse than before. And now it's ambiguous as to whether you make opposed rolls or you use stealth versus passive perception, except when the guy actually uses a minor action to look for hiding creatures.