The Rules Of Hidden Club: Targeting things you can't see in D&D.

1493 posts / 0 new
Last post

And I'm sorry LoW for bringing the gripe up, it's going badly off-topic on my part.  My theories aren't really appropriate conversation here.  Although discussing what Gloaming Cut's wording means certainly is.  So I'll drop my gripe and simply note that I believe Gloaming Cut requires substantial guessing at RAI in order to determine what RAW is saying.  (and that I don't like that one bit)



Hey, no worries, and for what it's worth, I agree with you just about 100%.

I don't dislike the "rules updates" process, but I really do think that the Updates process needs a feedback mechanism wherein past rules that are made confusing by the update themselves get an update.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
(This thread is getting pretty big -- I did a search but did not find an answer to my question -- sorry if I'm repeating)

Lets say you have shadow walk and the cunning sneak feature (not too hard to get).

You move 3 squares, this grants you concealment via shadow walk. Your move action ends...now you can hide (in "plain sight") via cunning sneak...since you have concealment.

My question is...do tremorsense or blindsight trump the concealment from shadow walk?

A creature that has tremorsense can clearly see creatures or objects within a specified range, even if they are invisible, obscured, or outside line of effect



By RAW it seems that shadow walk just grants pure, unconditional concealment:

SHADOW WALK
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn.



RAI I would rule that tremorsense or blindsight would see through it...but RAW I'm not so sure.



 
It's not whether or not I like it Jaelis.  In my own game I can make whatever ruling I like.  (though I usually do so with the goal of making my PCs look awesome)  I suppose if I played LFR I'd have a much stronger objection since you can't interpret stuff there, but I run a home game.  (and I know how to shut up and accept a DM's rules in the games where I'm a player, even when I disagree w. them)  So my problem is with the process which leads to this sort of confusion, not just with this particular ruling.


I agree certainly, and I also would like to see the power rewritten.  But even LFR goes off CS rulings, so in practice the power does work in a reasonable way.


My question is...do tremorsense or blindsight trump the concealment from shadow walk?


RAW, I'd say no... Shadow Walk doesn't provide concealment due to invisibility, obscuration, or darkness.  It just gives concealment, so I don't think blindsight or tremorsense would overcome it.

Like you though, I'd tend to say RAI they should work.

My question is...do tremorsense or blindsight trump the concealment from shadow walk?


RAW, I'd say no... Shadow Walk doesn't provide concealment due to invisibility, obscuration, or darkness.  It just gives concealment, so I don't think blindsight or tremorsense would overcome it.

Like you though, I'd tend to say RAI they should work.



I'd say RAW, yes.

"A creature that has tremorsense can clearly see creatures or objects within a specified range, even if they are invisible, obscured, or outside line of effect"

Note that they can "clearly see creatures or objects within a specified range" ans then goes on to give a non-exclusive list of what is trumped by tremorsense.

There is room for interpretation here, I suppose, but nothing about that list say it is the exclusive list of all that gets trumped by tremorsense.
(PS:  Hey, WotC, I volunteer to rewrite all the Stealth rules and Stealth-affecting powers, with examples, to be clear and simple and unambiguous.  All you need to do is tell me which of the possible meanings is the intended one, and I will happily do this for you!)

Seriously!  Put that offer in the errata forums, maybe they'll take you up on it! 
(PS:  Hey, WotC, I volunteer to rewrite all the Stealth rules and Stealth-affecting powers, with examples, to be clear and simple and unambiguous.  All you need to do is tell me which of the possible meanings is the intended one, and I will happily do this for you!)

Seriously!  Put that offer in the errata forums, maybe they'll take you up on it! 



Or submit it for consideration as a dragon article!  Just choose the interpretataiojn you think is most valid and go for it!  After review and publishing, it would be official. 

My question is...do tremorsense or blindsight trump the concealment from shadow walk?


RAW, I'd say no... Shadow Walk doesn't provide concealment due to invisibility, obscuration, or darkness.  It just gives concealment, so I don't think blindsight or tremorsense would overcome it.



I'd say RAW, yes.

Note that they can "clearly see creatures or objects within a specified range" ans then goes on to give a non-exclusive list of what is trumped by tremorsense.


This is a solid point, it could indeed be interpreted that way.  On the other hand, the "even if" part could also be construed as the list of conditions that would normally apply but are overridden here.  (For instance, a computer voice control software company might advertise that their product lets you use a computer even if you are blind.  But that doens't necessarily imply that it will work if you are also deaf.)  So I'll switch my vote to "ask your DM."
I would like to cast my vote (for what it's worth!) on 2 topics:


First, tremorsense SHOULD override Shadow Walk (or any other normal/total/superior cover and/or concealment). There is no actual "hard logic" from the rules for this, but I would argue (soft logic?) that, if a creature has an "extraordinary sense", you are not "outside its line of sight" unless you take some action to make it so. (Cover should work against Blindsight, but not concealment.)

In other words, I would replace "line of sight" with "line of sense". Of course, the DM will have to rule what is "total" vs "normal" c/c. (But if he doesn't like that he shouldn't be playing with the super-sense creatures!)


Second, the "MaSC" (make a stealth check) powers. Again, no hard logic in the rules, but I lean towards the "it overrides the 'can't-rehide-on-same-action' rule" interpretation. There are 3 reasons.

1. What is the point of a pointless check? Obviously there is a reason the Effect line exists. Someone wants you to use it. There are no powers, to my knoweldge, that say "Effect: Make an Edurance check" when there is nothing to Endure. Therefore, the MaSC line has a "post-stealth-update" purpose, if an obscured one.

2. So what is the purpose? Can it let you override all the rules of Stealth? I say "no" and present as evidence the following effects: "Make a melee basic attack" and "make a saving throw". Even though there are rules telling you to do this, you can't make an MBA if there is no enemy within reach, and you can't make a save unless there is something affecting you.

Using the same logic, you can't make a Bluff check if there is no one there to lie to, you can't make a Diplomacy check if there is no one there to schmooze, and you can't make a Stealth check if there's nowhere to hide. Therefore, IMO, MaSC does not let you ignore all the rules of Stealth.

3. MaSC actually does countermand a specific rule, albeit unspecifically. The RULES say "You can't become hidden as part of the same action." The POWER says "Make a Stealth check" (and implies "... after you have taken an action that would make you lose Hidden").

Therefore, the MaSC powers let you ignore the "You can't become hidden again as part of the same action" sentence of the rules.

3. MaSC actually does countermand a specific rule, albeit unspecifically. The RULES say "You can't become hidden as part of the same action." The POWER says "Make a Stealth check" (and implies "... after you have taken an action that would make you lose Hidden").


But there's no rule against hiding after an action that would make you lose Hidden, unless you actually were hidden to begin with.  At the time the powers were published, the rider would have had an effect even if it didn't let you rehide:  If you started out not hidden, you could use Gloaming Cut and then shift and hide immediately.   That wasn't useless, at the time.  They subsequently updated the stealth rules so that you could hide that way even without the rider. 

So it's not a question of "why would they add a rider that didn't do anything?" it's really "Why would they have allowed these powers to go unchanged when their Stealth update made the rider useless?"  That is a much less obvious question.

Of course they may have intended the power to let you rehide all along, or they may not have.  But we can't really argue that on the basis of the rider being useless otherwise.
I think we can all agree that "make a Stealth check" powers need a clarification in the FAQ ... stat!
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
I think we can all agree that "make a Stealth check" powers need a clarification in the FAQ ... stat!

I';m going to say the same thing I did in post 127: I think a better solution is to errata stealt. Yes, again.    From that post:

Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. You can’t become hidden again at the end of an action that would cause you to not remain hidden, even if you were not hidden when you started the action, unless that action allows a Stealth Check.

With this change, you could never use Deft Strike or a Charge to hide at the end, but you could use Gloaming Strike.  IMO that fits in better with the apparent intent of the update, allowing all movement skills to be used with as part of movement.  Without unintentionally breaking the stealth skill, by allowing you to hide on actions you used to attack, and underpowering powers that specifically allow a stealth check at the end.
I like Fitz's fix too   Doesn't make any sense to me that you could hide after a charge, but only if you weren't hidden before the charge.
I'll cast my vote as well with Fitz's solution.  Let's get that into the FAQ!
Fitz's sugestion has a problem:  "moving through open terrain" would cause you to not be hidden.  With his wording, you couldn't Hide after moving around a corner to block LOS, because if you had been Hidden when you made the move, you'd have lost it during the move. 

Essentially, you'd have to have Concealment/Cover for *the entirety* of the action that you want to Hide after.

This is not a good solution.

What about "You can't become Hidden again at the end of any action that causes you to lose Hidden, or at the end of any action that involves an Attack after the movement is finished."
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
This is not a good solution.

What about "You can't become Hidden again at the end of any action that causes you to lose Hidden, or at the end of any action that involves an Attack after the movement is finished."

Finally someone does some wordsmithing on my solution.  I always miss something on my first attempt. 

Yes, I was not intending for it to prevent a stealth check when you started unhidden and moved through any open squares.

However I WAS intending it to prevent you from hiding after attack then move powers that didn't include a stealth check.  Because I feel that it is unlikely that the stealth errata to allow hiding on any movement was really intended to dramatically increase the power of so many attack actions for Rogues, as opposed to allowing them to use it with non-Move Action that aren't attacks.  So from my perspective the wording should be:
You can't become Hidden again at the end of any action that causes you to lose Hidden, or at the end of any action that involves an Attack, unless that action includes a Stealth check.
You can't become Hidden again at the end of any action that causes you to lose Hidden, or at the end of any action that involves an Attack, unless that action includes a Stealth check.



I think a better wording is as follows:

You can't become Hidden again at the end of any action that causes you to lose Hidden, or at the end of any action that involves an Attack, unless that action closes with a Stealth check.

There are attacks that include stealth checks before the attack.

You can't become Hidden again at the end of any action that causes you to lose Hidden, or at the end of any action that involves an Attack, unless that action includes a Stealth check.



I don't like "unless" in my general rules.  I'd much rather leave it as "you can't do this" and have the powers all say "this power breaks that rule"

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
But doesn't this case of stealth checks as part of attacks merit this language?  There's been so much confusion and debate re: how these stealth checks work and about what real benefit they achieve.  This needs to be addressed in some way that clears the air.
Something to add (just to explicitly cover all scenarios):
"If any creatures joins an encounter where someone is already hidden, immediately compare their passive perceptions to the previously rolled stealth check to see if they are aware of the hidden person."

This covers the common ambush scenario where a module states that the monsters have heard a nearby battle and all hidden themselves around the room.  The players get a chance to notice them without making active checks. 

I suggest this be added because otherwise someone could argue that the rules only say you compare your stealth roll to a passive perception check at the time the player/monster becomes hidden.  If the monster was not part of the encounter then, he missed his opportunity and now needs to use a minor action to make an active check. 

-Scot
There are attacks that include stealth checks before the attack.

Right.  I assume we want those to be able to hide you before the attack if you were hidden to begin with?

For example, a power that works as follows: Shift X, stealth check, attack, shift X, stealth check.  If you were hidden and moved accross open area with that first stealth check, you have taken an action that would make you unhidden without the stealth check rule being a global unless.

I wasn't just intending for it to apply to the attack portion.

@LoW: You can't become Hidden again as part of any action that causes you to lose Hidden, or as part of any action that involves an Attack.  Powers that include stealth checks are not subject to this rule.

It's still a hidden unless statement ... but it puts the global rule about such powers in the Stealth skill itself.  That's my real preference here.  Because there are so many of these powers after Martial Power 2 came out, that you can fix them rather fast by adding the rule directly to the Stealth skill.  OTOH, I'm not sure if that breaks some powers that aren't intended to allow this.

Edit: Changed the rule to say "as part of any action" instead of "at the end of any action".  Given that the new stealth rules allow stealth checks are part of actions involving movement.
There are attacks that include stealth checks before the attack.

Right.  I assume we want those to be able to hide you before the attack if you were hidden to begin with?


Blah - you're right.  Don't know what I was thinking.
Ha, don't let it get to you.  I made pretty much the exact same mistake in reverse and LoW caught it.

Also, on a similar note to my last post, I assume that a player can lose membership in the "hidden club" if a monster's perception total changes in such a way as to beat the player's stealth total. 

For example, a player makes a stealth roll that is worse than a monster's normal passive perception, but a distance penalty applied to the monster's perception gives the player a higher number.  This allows the player to become hidden.  On the monster's turn, he moves close enough to eliminate the penalty to his perception making his passive perception higher than the player's stealth roll.  At this point, the player is no longer hidden to that monster, correct? 

If so, this should get added to the front post as a way to lose hidden.  Again, just to cover all the cases.

-Scot
But there's no rule against hiding after an action that would make you lose Hidden, unless you actually were hidden to begin with.



Well, if you want to use Gloaming Cut to hide, there are really only 2 scenarios: You are already hidden or you are not. And of course, 2 rules versions (current and current -1).

(again, this is just my interpretation)

Current -1, Not Already Hidden
Gloaming Cut ruled. attack, shift, hide, and still have a Move action to get out of that square.

Current, Not Already Hidden
Gloaming Cut is now no different than any other power that lets you attack and then shift. (But how many other Rogue Level One At-Wills let you attack then shift 3-4 squares after??)

Current -1, Already Hidden
Attack ... you lose Hidden (but retain its benefits), and therefore cannot regain Hidden without taking another action, but Gloaming Cut gets you around that limitation ... shift, hide.

Current, Already Hidden
The exact same thing as "Current -1, Already Hidden".

Therefore:
During Current -1, Gloaming Cut was more powerful.
During Current, Gloaming Cut is still pretty cool, but it really comes into play if you're a Hider, and you want to bounce in and out of Hidden like a stealthy ninja ghost. Some folks might cry "nerf!", but I think the ability to go Hidden > Attack > Shift > Hidden in one action is still pretty awesome.
@ScotMartin -
I think that's fairly explicit already. You have to actually TRY to become Hidden from someone, you are NEVER Hidden automatically or accidentally. Therefore, if someone new shows up, you are already not Hidden from them.

Your other scenario (enemy Perception changing) should get a mention, though.
(again, this is just my interpretation)

Current -1, Already Hidden
Attack ... you lose Hidden (but retain its benefits), and therefore cannot regain Hidden without taking another action, but Gloaming Cut gets you around that limitation ... shift, hide.

Current, Already Hidden

The exact same thing as "Current -1, Already Hidden".

Therefore:
During Current, Gloaming Cut is still pretty cool, but it really comes into play if you're a Hider, and you want to bounce in and out of Hidden like a stealthy ninja ghost. Some folks might cry "nerf!", but I think the ability to go Hidden > Attack > Shift > Hidden in one action is still pretty awesome.


Under the current rules and the previous iteration, if you start hidden you attack and can't rehide with Gloaming Cut.  The power doesn't override the restriction that you can't rehide after taking an action that causes you to not be hidden.  Which is why we're discussing alterations to the stealth rules (or to the powers that are probably intended to allow it).
Yeah, you guys can dream up all the errata you like, but they are STILL going to need to clarify in the FAQ.  For one thing, every fancy new statement you think up is at least as convoluted as the current rules.  For another, everything is interacting with outdated powers that weren't meant to interact with a new paradigm.

In other words: no matter what you do, something's gonna break.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.

Stop raining on my parade! 

The problem is that a FAQ won't do it as is IMO.  If they just issue a FAQ right now, the only option they have that isn't just a rules change is to call it a specific rule.  And if they do that, they break more thing than fix IMO.

Under the current rules and the previous iteration, if you start hidden you attack and can't rehide with Gloaming Cut.  The power doesn't override the restriction that you can't rehide after taking an action that causes you to not be hidden.

I thought the point of the past several pages was that we DIDN'T know what the intention of the Stealth Check powers was, since the latest iteration of the Stealth rules seems to emasculated them.

Besides that, I posted my logic (as it were ) in #250 as to why I felt the Stealth Check powers did override the "can't-rehide-on-same-action" rule, even if that was not the original intent of the powers. The post you quoted was just a follow-up to that post.
Your logic in that post was based on a flawed premise.  At the time Gloaming Cut and these other powers were written, it wasn't a pointless check.  Only the latest change makes it seem so, since now there is no advantage over powers like Deft Strike.

Gloaming Cut doesn't say it overrides the losing hidden rule currently, so it doesn't.  Just as it doesn't override the requirement for superior cover or total concealment.
This is why I think it's Gloaming Cut and friends who need errata, not the Stealth rules, which are battered and bruised enough as it is.

(The powers are also the more likely place for errata to happen!)

I'm not overly concerned about Deft Strike, as it still does not allow you to unhide and re-hide in the same action.

Also!  I think it might be useful to rewind for a moment back to the version of Stealth that was in effect when MP2 came out, and re-examine some of Gloaming Cut's friends.  It might shed some light on the situation.

Can anyone give me a plausible explanation for the slightly different wordings of Distracting Shot and Shadow Strike, which appear on the very next page of MP2 after Gloaming Cut?

Distracting Shot:  If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden if you have SCTC.

Shadow Strike:  If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden after the attack.

To me, this speaks volumes to the question of intent.  Both powers allow you to make a Stealth check to remain hidden after the attack, but only one of them specifically calls out the necessity of SCTC.

Does this not imply that the "baseline" for powers such as this (including Gloaming Cut) is that the effect "you may make a Stealth check" means you do NOT need SCTC, and by extension, you do NOT need to adhere to any of the other requirements for Stealth in order to make this check?

(Please do not mention the possibility of a meaningless, non-hiding Stealth check, which is patently absurd and you know it.  Gloaming Cut does say "you can make a Stealth check to become hidden.")
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
Your logic in that post was based on a flawed premise.  At the time Gloaming Cut and these other powers were written, it wasn't a pointless check.  Only the latest change makes it seem so, since now there is no advantage over powers like Deft Strike.



Bolding the most minor of quibbles.  I'm not sure one has an advantage over the other since it's like comparing apples to oranges.  One is move before attack and the other is move after attack.  I see them as very different powers that are difficult to compare since I would have uses for both.

(which is why I went with Acrobatic Strike and a Mark of Passage instead, since I can choose when the move comes)

Not that my quibble has any effect on the point you were making of course.

-abs

I'm a little confused about how this all works. Let's say that you have this situation:

A Rogue wearing Armor of Dark Deeds ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it... )in the middle of a well-lit room attacks a monster with Gloaming Cut ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/po... ). The rogue has combat advantage against the monster and an Int modifier of 2.

Assuming a sufficient Stealth roll, can the rogue become hidden?

--S
I'm a little confused about how this all works. Let's say that you have this situation:

A Rogue wearing Armor of Dark Deeds ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it... )in the middle of a well-lit room attacks a monster with Gloaming Cut ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/po... ). The rogue has combat advantage against the monster and an Int modifier of 2.

Assuming a sufficient Stealth roll, can the rogue become hidden?

--S


According to my understanding, he could only become hidden in this case if he had SCTC from some additional terrain benefit.  Simple concealment from his armor is not sufficient.  Ths would be the case even if your rogue were a Cunning Sneak, since the Cunning Sneak's ability to hide with mere concealment only comes into play after a move action (vs. the standard action attack of Gloaming Cut).

I'm a little confused about how this all works. Let's say that you have this situation:

A Rogue wearing Armor of Dark Deeds ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it... )in the middle of a well-lit room attacks a monster with Gloaming Cut ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/po... ). The rogue has combat advantage against the monster and an Int modifier of 2.

Assuming a sufficient Stealth roll, can the rogue become hidden?



Not from Gloaming Cut alone.

Armor Of Dark Deeds gives you Concealment.
Gloaming Cut gives you a Stealth Check, but doesn't remove the restrictions required to become Hidden.

Since the Rogue only has Concealment, not Total Concealment, he can't become Hidden from Gloaming Cut's roll.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
If a power says you can do something, you can do it.  That's what specific means.  The example given in Specific vs General is "You can't use daily powers on a charge, but if a daily power says you can use it on a charge you can use it on a charge."

Power text is about as specific as it gets...which is why I asked whether you need TCSC to hide even though you get a "Make a Stealth check to become hidden" as part of power text.

Gloaming Cut also has "You shift a number of squares equal to your Intelligence modifier" as part of the power text, but you still need to meet the requirements for being able to shift.

If you're immobilized, you can't shift, even though the power text says you can; if you're in an open area with no cover or concealment, you can't make a Stealth check, even though the power text says you can.

The requirement "as long as you meet the prerequisites for taking this action" is intrinsic whenever a power lets you do something, unless it's specifically overriding that requirement.
Can anyone give me a plausible explanation for the slightly different wordings of Distracting Shot and Shadow Strike, which appear on the very next page of MP2 after Gloaming Cut?

Distracting Shot:  If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden if you have SCTC.

Shadow Strike:  If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden after the attack.

To me, this speaks volumes to the question of intent.  Both powers allow you to make a Stealth check to remain hidden after the attack, but only one of them specifically calls out the necessity of SCTC.

Sure.  It makes it fairly clear what the intent was when you compare the two.  But I've never made any claim that intent for these checks matches RAW.  Or at least, the interpretation of RAW that isn't pretty damn broken.  (I'm not going to claim that my interpretation is the only one, cause that'll just get your goat.  It's just the one that I think actually works without breaking a bunch of other rules.)

And I completely agree we could make a specific rule for these powers outside of the stealth skill rather than errata stealth, or directly update each of these powers that is supposed to be an exception to stealth.  But I think making the change in the stealth skill is still the best solution, as it'll make the change at the source (so to speak).  The reason *not* to do that is if you think it shouldn't be a global change for these types of skills.

About the only thing I don't accept is the argument that "anything that says do X is a specific overriding any general rules that might affect X."  That breaks too many things throughout the system.  Specific vs general only works if you refer in some way to the general rule or part of the general rule that you are overriding, explicitly or implicitly.

Specifically, saying "make a stealth check" must override the inability to make a stealth check at the end of a move action (to use the rules in place before the MP2 powers came out, which is the best to look at for determining their RAW interpretation).  Because otherwise you couldn't make the check at all, since they were standard actions.  So that is refering to the general rule implicitly.  However, it isn't refering to the TCSC requirement (love that acronym) or the hiding after an attack rule implicitly.  (Not that I think you don't understand this, apparently I just like to listen to myself talk, so to speak.  )
I'm a little confused about how this all works. Let's say that you have this situation:

A Rogue wearing Armor of Dark Deeds ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it... )in the middle of a well-lit room attacks a monster with Gloaming Cut ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/po... ). The rogue has combat advantage against the monster and an Int modifier of 2.

Assuming a sufficient Stealth roll, can the rogue become hidden?

--S



Specificly, you now need SCTC to Hide with Gloaming Cut, which Armor of Dark Deeds cannot supply. AoDD would allow the following with GC (or Deft Strike, Nimble Strike, or any Attack power with movement.)
  • Start NOT hidden and within the movement range of the power to Superior Cover/Total Concealment.

  • Use the power, moving into SCTC to make a Stealth Check to become hidden at the end of the action.

  • Use the Concealment granted by AoDD to use a Move Action while maintaining your Hidden state. (Remember, if you move more than 2 squares you'll need to make another stealth check, barring CS Rogue or other Specific Exceptions.)


Armor of Dark Deeds is primarily of use to Cunning Rogues who can use their class ability to Hide in Concealment after a Move Action that places them 3 squares from where they started. However, This Class Ability doesn't work with non-Move Action powers like Gloaming Cut. So, some finesse is still required to make it work.
 

Can anyone give me a plausible explanation for the slightly different wordings of Distracting Shot and Shadow Strike, which appear on the very next page of MP2 after Gloaming Cut?

Distracting Shot:  If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden if you have SCTC.

Shadow Strike:  If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden after the attack.

To me, this speaks volumes to the question of intent.  Both powers allow you to make a Stealth check to remain hidden after the attack, but only one of them specifically calls out the necessity of SCTC.



True, but both of them specifically allow you to remain Hidden, overriding the "you cannot remain Hidden "portion of Stealth.

One of them is harder to do - you can only remain Hidden if you've got SCTC.   However, with this power and SCTC, you CAN remain Hidden, which you could not do in any other case.
The other is much easier - you can remain Hidden after the end of the action in all circumstances, subject only to the normal rules for remaining Hidden once your action ends.


About the only thing I don't accept is the argument that "anything that says do X is a specific overriding any general rules that might affect X."  That breaks too many things throughout the system.  Specific vs general only works if you refer in some way to the general rule or part of the general rule that you are overriding, explicitly or implicitly.



Honestly, I think the best measuring stick for "does it override a rule" is "did it work, when printed, if it doesn't override the rule?"

Gloaming Cut unambiguously had a powerful and useful meaning, when printed, without overriding any of the requirements to become Hidden.  Therefore, it doesn't.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Sign In to post comments