What I like and dislike so far in the playtest.


4th Edition

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am guessing that at least one of two things will happen in regard to the rogue getting advantage (and thereby sneak attack damage) on attacks:

1) A well-played rogue is able to alternate rounds where he gains advantage with rounds where he does not attack, or

2) A rogue can gain advantage every round if another party member gives up his attack to set it up.

If a rogue is able to get combat advantage every round without anybody losing attacks, then either the rogue is overpowered or other classes are getting goodies we do not yet know about.


I've heard people say that the rogue can "alternate rounds" with sneak attack. Unless there's some kind of "hide in plain sight" sort of ability I didn't see in the playtest, this isn't possible. The rogue can attack from hiding, but once he's done that, he's just a silngster. He's not going to be able to hide during combat.

Playtest Hiding Rules wrote:
If a creature is already aware of you before the contest, you fail to hide.

Not getting sneak attack damage multiple times in a single combat is one of the few things I like about the playtest rogue.

EDIT: I didn't see anything in the playtest about a character "giving up his attack" to give the rogue advantage. The rules talk about helping another in a task, and thereby giving them advantage, but that's skill use, not combat.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I've heard people say that the rogue can "alternate rounds" with sneak attack. Unless there's some kind of "hide in plain sight" sort of ability I didn't see in the playtest, this isn't possible. The rogue can attack from hiding, but once he's done that, he's just a silngster. He's not going to be able to hide during combat.

Playtest Hiding Rules wrote:
If a creature is already aware of you before the contest, you fail to hide.

Not getting sneak attack damage multiple times in a single combat is one of the few things I like about the playtest rogue.

EDIT: I didn't see anything in the playtest about a character "giving up his attack" to give the rogue advantage. The rules talk about helping another in a task, and thereby giving them advantage, but that's skill use, not combat.

IIRC, the line you quoted was only in the case of a tie.

Quote:
Ties are a special case in this contest. If a creature is already aware of you before the contest, you fail to hide. If was not aware of you before the contest, you remain hidden in the case of a tie.

You can hide in combat.


thejeff wrote:
You can hide in combat.

NIMG

I don't think the rules allow it, in spite of the fact the reference is for ties.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You can hide in combat.

NIMG

I don't think the rules allow it, in spite of the fact the reference is for ties.

Actions in Combat wrote:

Hide

In the middle of a battle, it is often advantageous to drop out of sight, but doing so can be tricky. Under normal circumstances trying to hide takes up your action. See "Stealth" in the "Exploration" section for rules on hiding.

If you don't want it in your game, that's fine, but it seems pretty clear that's the intent.


I disagree. I think that it's clear that you can hide until you are noticed. If you jump out of hiding and perform a sneak attack, you have been noticed. In that situation, I can't see being able to hide in the same spot again.

Sure, one can drop out of sight during combat, but it's going to take a lot more than one action. You can't just duck back behind what you hid behind the first time and expect it to work again.

Even a monster with animal intelligence is going to remember you're there. You have cover, but you aren't hiding.

That's the beauty of this ruleset. You can use common sense again. :)

The Exchange

Yeah, the "if it is aware of you" bit leaves a lot of room for intepretation, which I see as a good thing. I would personally rule that if a creature sees you entering cover, you can't use that cover to hide, unless you're able to provide some other means of distraction.


Stealth wrote:
Something must conceal you, perhaps a large object, a piece of terrain, or an immobile creature of appropriate size, such as a slumbering dragon. Regardless of what obscures you, the thing must cover at least half your body for you to hide.
Cover wrote:
Half-Cover: A creature has half-cover if it covers at least half it's body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk or another creature whether an enemy or ally.

This implies I can use an ally to Stealth and make a Sneak Attack. It's murky ground, but it clearly states that an ally that covers at least half your body, gives you half-cover, and the condition to hide is something that covers half your body. I know my DM would never allow it, but he's also somewhat of a dick. I probably wouldn't allow it unless you were hiding behind a creature of at least one size category larger.

[Edit] Also keep in mind the section on movement.

Movement wrote:
You can break up your movement to move both before and after your action.

So I could hide behind an ally, step out and sneak attack, and then step behind him again, and hide. This would allow for Sneak Attacks every round.


It still takes an action to hide however. So the rogue would gain cover but would not be hidden till he takes the action the next round. As a Gm I would be at least giving disadvantage on an attempt to hide in the same spot the second time.


If you step out, sneak attack and step back, the creature can't help but know you're there. If a creature knows you're there, he has noticed you. If you've been noticed, you aren't hiding. No sneak attack.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I disagree. I think that it's clear that you can hide until you are noticed. If you jump out of hiding and perform a sneak attack, you have been noticed. In that situation, I can't see being able to hide in the same spot again.

Sure, one can drop out of sight during combat, but it's going to take a lot more than one action. You can't just duck back behind what you hid behind the first time and expect it to work again.

Even a monster with animal intelligence is going to remember you're there. You have cover, but you aren't hiding.

That's the beauty of this ruleset. You can use common sense again. :)

I don't know. The rule seems pretty clear to me. You are hiding. You have cover. You're taking an action to do it. What's the purpose of that section on hiding in combat if you can't?

Are you claiming the rules don't allow it? Or that you wouldn't allow it despite the rules?
Would it be different if it wasn't the same spot?

And battles get confusing real fast. The top down, know where everyone is and what they're doing at all times view we get playing isn't anything like a real fight would be. Nor are even experience warriors likely to be as calm and collected as we are sitting around the table. If someone does get out of sight while you're busy fighting someone else, I can see getting advantage again.

I'd also probably let the potential target move to keep the rogue in sight. Or otherwise use part of his action to get another perception check. If the rogue ducks behind his big buddy to hide, you can step around the buddy to keep an eye on him.

I suspect this'll get clarified in the final rules.


Stepping out and stepping back isn't going to succeed, as far as hiding is concerned. The monster isn't going to forget you're there if he saw you step out and step back. And if he knows you're there, you might not be visible, but you aren't hiding from the monster.

In those circumstances, if you want to hide in combat, you're going to have to move to a different spot, which is going to take more than one action.

Common sense.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Stepping out and stepping back isn't going to succeed, as far as hiding is concerned. The monster isn't going to forget you're there if he saw you step out and step back. And if he knows you're there, you might not be visible, but you aren't hiding from the monster.

In those circumstances, if you want to hide in combat, you're going to have to move to a different spot, which is going to take more than one action.

Common sense.

The problem is, the rules clearly state that if you have half your body covered, you can hide, and half-cover is clearly stated as standing behind another creature.

That's RAW. RAW states that if you have cover, you can hide and gain advantage. Despite the fact we all know that the monster would know you are there, and it's stupid, the fact is, RAW states you can repeatedly hide behind your ally.

To play it any other way is a house rule.

Don't forget, this is what the Beta test is for. If you find something weird like this, submit a review about it, maybe they'll change it.


as I remember games "back then", the thief could hide in shadows during combat even if the monsters knew he was there. It was more akin to slipping in and out of notice, rather than out of sight. As I understood things, anyway.


RAW isn't the issue. The rules don't state that you can hide if you have half cover. They state that you must have a combination of things, one of which is not being noticed.

Once again, I have to repeat it. Common sense.

If you have to have a RAW, use this:
"You make one Dexterity check for this contest. Note your result, and use it as your check for all contests until you are discovered or stop hiding."

If a monster watches you step behind something, he can't see you, but you can't be more discovered than if you started tooting a horn. The monster knows you are there.


The Monster may know you are there, but that doesn't stop you from making a different stealth check.

Funnily enough, under Combat section, specifically, 'Hide' it says: "In the middle of battle, it is often advantageous to drop out of battle, but doing so can be tricky."
Then it says see Stealth for rules on hiding. Where it then goes on to say that you need to cover half your body, to be able to Hide. That means, if, in combat, you can cover half your body, you can make a stealth check, and gain advantage.


I don't think you can make a stealth check if the monster knows you're there. Not unless you move to a different spot while out of the monster's perception.

This isn't 3.5. Skills don't work by magic.

An extension of what I'm saying is in the section on Staying Quiet;

"If you make a noise, such as yelling a warning to an ally or knocking over a vase, you give away your position and are thus no longer hidden."

Even though the monster can't see you, he heard you and knows where you are, so you are no longer hidden. By a common sense extension of that, if the monster knows where you are, you are no longer hidden, and thus in order to be hidden, you have to create a circumstance where the monster doesn't know where you are.


So you're saying that despite the clear language, what the section on hiding in combat is actually saying is: You can't.

This is silly. This is a playtest. There's no point in arguing about what the rules mean. If it's not clear or if you don't like what it says, give them feedback.


I like the idea that sneak attack can hit really hard, but are harder to set up. Just how hard they really are to set up, remains to be seen. But it seems to definitely be more complicated than "every time I'm flanking."


thejeff wrote:
So you're saying that despite the clear language, what the section on hiding in combat is actually saying is: You can't.

What I'm saying is that you have to read the whole thing, not just the part that supports your contention that you can violate common sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't... you just bring this to the WOTC forum? You would get better answers there.


Played in a playtest game last night (used Caves of Chaos as a test run module), my thoughts as a player:

I liked that BAB got eliminated. I think every class will be much more relevant in combat, though I am interested to see how they make Fighters stand out (min. dmg is one way).

I like the elimination of AoO and the flexibility to play a "no tactical map" style (it could be argued that this can be done in any RPG, but they have considered it from the get-go).

I never played 4E and have no desire to, but this has definitely peaked my interest for the next edition. It feels like they are heading in a rules lite/flexible direction which I am definitely interested in.


Ratpick wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
this is a bit off topic, but does anyone know why the fighter has a plus 7 to damage?
Don't have my stuff availble right now but I believe he has an ability that gives him a + on damage. Though I also think its still higher than it should be.
He does have an ability that says he gets a +2 to damage, but that +Str still only adds to +5. I couldn't figure out where the other +2 was coming from, so I was wondering it was a mistake on the sheet.
It's either, as you point out, a mistake, or alternately some of the math is still behind the curtain.

Does this add possible bonus for wielding two-handed?


I think its due to it being a racial weapon

racial weapons do 1 better die of damage (hence the halfling does d8 with a sling, the dwarf cleric d10 with a warhammer)

therefore, im guessing, a dwarf
does d12+2 with a greataxe
+3 for strength
+2 for weapon focus

d12+7. there is no added complication of messing with numbers if you wield two handed

this is one of the things i love

rolling 2 d20 is a thing of beauty and has saved the party plenty of times

aside from the surprise rules im loving its simplicty with just enough variety
it they make spells continue to do a set amount of 'damage'

ie
burning hands 2d4
shocking grasp d8

......so say fireball does 6d6 speculating

I will buy and play this more

It does seem, as someone mentioned, quite savage worldy, which is a good thing


sneak attack

round 1:move in AND sneak attack
round 2: move away behind something / leap behind something / leap through door as all these things are free to do in your move AND roll to hide
round 3: see round 1

very, very effective. the halfling thus far seem to have been great to play


thenovalord wrote:

sneak attack

round 1:move in AND sneak attack
round 2: move away behind something / leap behind something / leap through door as all these things are free to do in your move AND roll to hide
round 3: see round 1

very, very effective. the halfling thus far seem to have been great to play

Occasionally even more if you can get the positioning right.

One thing my halfling did was shoot through a doorway at someone, then next round step through the door and shoot someone who hadn't had line of sight on him before.
Not sure if it should have worked. Do you have to take some kind of action to hide, even if the person you're hiding from can't see you to start with?


if someone cant see you, you have advantage against them, and therefore can sneak attack, and all other benefits


thejeff wrote:
thenovalord wrote:

sneak attack

round 1:move in AND sneak attack
round 2: move away behind something / leap behind something / leap through door as all these things are free to do in your move AND roll to hide
round 3: see round 1

very, very effective. the halfling thus far seem to have been great to play

Occasionally even more if you can get the positioning right.

One thing my halfling did was shoot through a doorway at someone, then next round step through the door and shoot someone who hadn't had line of sight on him before.
Not sure if it should have worked. Do you have to take some kind of action to hide, even if the person you're hiding from can't see you to start with?

By my reading, hiding grants you advantage, whereas attacking a target you can't see grants you disadvantage. I probably wouldn't have given you the sneak attack without using an action to hide or having advantage for some other reason. Then again, at this point the surprise mechanic is, "the DM determines whether one or both sides might be surprised," so it's all your DM's fault, right?

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / What I like and dislike so far in the playtest. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition