The Gaming Den

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 . . . ?"

I don't know about you, but I've never seen Stealth/Hide that wasn't handwaved in 3e.

Tydanosaurus wrote:What do you think WotC was trying to do with Stealth in 4E?

I fear they were mostly trying to achieve "have some stealth rules before we have to ship".

K wrote:I don't know about you, but I've never seen Stealth/Hide that wasn't handwaved in 3e.

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.

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.

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.

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?

The 13 Wise Buttlords wrote:
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?

Yes. I had no problem with Hide in Plain Sight, but one of my players did.

Yes. I had no problem with Hide in Plain Sight, but one of my players did.

Then are you aware of how astoundingly broke-dick the hide skill got in 3.5E?

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.

The 13 Wise Buttlords wrote:

Yes. I had no problem with Hide in Plain Sight, but one of my players did.

Then are you aware of how astoundingly broke-dick the hide skill got in 3.5E?

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.

Fortunately, I don't own Complete Adventurer, so this never came up.

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.

Fortunately, I don't own Complete Adventurer, so this never came up.

Even if you don't have this stealth errata, hide and by extension Hide in Plain Sight were uberlame feats this side of Skill Focus.

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.

For realistic Hide in Plain Sight, look at the camouflage rules from Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater.

That is all.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:That is all.

-Username17

Wait...
A whole town gets out to watch nothing because they get a letter?

Fucking awesome.

ubernoob wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:That is all.

-Username17

Wait...
A whole town gets out to watch nothing because they get a letter?

Fucking awesome.

Uh...Check your source. http://www.theonion.com/content/index

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.

The class could have been palatable if they got more uses of their ki abilities per day. And yes, sudden strike is poop.

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.

I watched one in play.... it was horrible.

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.

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.

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.

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.