Deadlocked: Paragon Circuit (4E) - 5-Way Free For All Battle

[Kiara LeSabre]

well technically i am hidden against anyone that fails. the use of my hide in plain sight actually turns me invisible vs everyone...

Thus the "bring along a blind rat" tactic was born!

Blind rat automatically fails Insight and Perception. Huzzah! Automatically invisible vs. everyone!

Yeah no.

Edit: And Velna's passive Perception is 30. She falls for the Bluff but sees through the hide attempt anyway.

[stupnick]

actually yes....that's why they said an enemy is only an enemy if it is a threat against you... that's why you can't bring rats and use warlock curse on them to get bonuses.. b/c they aren't an enemy..

because i distracted you i am hidden for my actions this round.. since i am hidden i am now invisible.. it does not state you are invis vs that enemy, it stats you are invisible.. it's the same as if i used a cloak of invis.. i just had to use my standard action 1/encounter, and also had to use my level 6 utility... i am actually invis even if you have straight sight to me.. you can be standing next to me and i am still invis..

[Kiara LeSabre]

actually yes....

because i distracted you i am hidden for my actions this round.. since i am hidden i am now invisible.. it does not state you are invis vs that enemy, it stats you are invisible.. it's the same as if i used a cloak of invis.. i just had to use my standard action 1/encounter, and also had to use my level 6 utility... i am actually invis even if you have straight sight to me.. you can be standing next to me and i am still invis..

Oh for God's sake.

Create a Diversion to Hide: Once per combat encounter, you can create a diversion to hide. As a standard action, make a Bluff check opposed by the Insight check of an enemy that can see you (if multiple enemies can see you, your Bluff check is opposed by each enemy’s Insight check). If you succeed, you create a diversion and can immediately make a Stealth check to hide.

You made the Stealth check. It failed vs. Velna's passive Perception. It doesn't say anywhere in that text that if you succeed on the Bluff check, you're automatically hidden! It just gives you the ability to attempt a Stealth check without cover or concealment!

And as for being invisible vs. everyone if you beat one person, then you may as well just say it always works because all you have to do is carry a blind rat, and you'll always succeed and become invisible no matter how perceptive everyone else is just because the blind rat can't see you. Which is stupid.

[stupnick]

i am invisible vs everyone...

i already explained the blind rat thing you brought up.

the benifit of the bluff check is you are distracted and looking the other way.. you don't get a preception check.. you get the insight check.. till the end of my turn i am technically hidden.. there for i use hide in plain sight and am INVIS... not just against them.. but i am INVISIBLE...

[Kiara LeSabre]

i am invisible vs everyone...

i already explained the blind rat thing you brought up.

the benifit of the bluff check is you are distracted and looking the other way.. you don't get a preception check.. you get the insight check.. till the end of my turn i am technically hidden.. there for i use hide in plain sight and am INVIS... not just against them.. but i am INVISIBLE...

You really need to read the rules. When you make a Stealth check, it is always opposed by passive Perception. You don't get free of that with the Bluff check (nothing in the game gets you free of it unless the person is unconscious); you just get to attempt the Stealth check without facing automatic failure. However, the check wasn't good enough to beat passive Perception.

And if you want to stick to strict RAW and not a nicer houserule, then you actually fail completely if you even fail against one person. Why? Because it says right there in the book that your checks are opposed by everyone who can see you, meaning success comes only if you beat them all. The rest don't stop opposing you just because you beat one of them.

I just felt it was more reasonable that it should work on an individual basis.

Please stop making up rules. I'm really getting sick of this.

[the quinn]

I sent the email
BTW Does it matter that much?
We are all just trying to have fun here and it seems things are getting heated.
Maybe instead of arguing we should work on a solution that works for every one.
I am a bit sad that the actual combat at slowed to a stand still when it really could have completed 2 more rounds

[stupnick]

actually the bluff overrides the stealth check, that's what the bluff check is for.... otherwise if you still need cover/concealment there is no point to the bluff check. please then explain why the bluff check would allow you to make a stealth check. and how that would work if the target can just look at you and negate it... it makes your standard action useless..

the specific overrides the general...as the beginning of the book states...

and i am perfectly fine with playing by the book you made the rule that i would succedd vs 1 and am hidden vs them... and since i am hidden i can make myself invisible...

[Kiara LeSabre]

please then explain why the bluff check would allow you to make a stealth check.

Because it says so!!!

"If you succeed, you create a diversion and can immediately make a Stealth check to hide."

It doesn't say "you create a diversion and are hidden." It says you can make an immediate Stealth check! (and yes, if successful against all who see you, then Hide in Plain Sight as a minor action)

I sent the email
BTW Does it matter that much?
We are all just trying to have fun here and it seems things are getting heated.
Maybe instead of arguing we should work on a solution that works for every one.
I am a bit sad that the actual combat at slowed to a stand still when it really could have completed 2 more rounds

Got it. It was Customer Service, so sure enough, they contradicted themselves directly. I sent an e-mail asking them about that.

And I'm sad, too, but what's the alternative? Just let him invent abilities that don't exist whenever he feels like it? I'm seriously considering dropping out of the game and just letting him go nuts, though, because it's obvious he's not going to stop doing it. The only alternative is to either start inventing abilities myself (which I refuse to do -- I make mistakes, but I never deliberately try to cheese abilities) or keep playing with someone who's using a different set of rules from the rest of us.

[stupnick]

don't worry i am dropping out..

when you make a bluff check it overrides your perception, that's why you get an insight roll... if i succedd against the insights i am hidden.... no perception checks are allowed....

[Kiara LeSabre]

don't worry i am dropping out..

when you make a bluff check it overrides your perception, that's why you get an insight roll... if i succedd against the insights i am hidden.... no perception checks are allowed....

Well, I quoted the text that backs up what I said. I'd love to know where it says the Bluff check overrides Perception and makes the Stealth check an automatic success. I know where it says you get to make a Stealth check, but I don't see what you're saying anywhere in the book.

[stupnick]

i never said it makes it an automatic success...

all i said is you don't get a perception check to see me, and you can't say since you have los to me w/o cover you automatically see me..

all i said is i get to make a stealth check if the bluff check succedes. and since i am hidden b/c of the stealth check i am not invis if i use hide in plain sight.

and if i beat the bluff check
Distracted Creature: If a creature is distracted, you
can attempt to hide from that creature even when
you don’t have cover or concealment.

which means if you were given a perception check it would be against my stealth check if anything..

[Kiara LeSabre]

iwhich means if you were given a perception check it would be against my stealth check if anything..

That's exactly what I said. Passive Perception always opposes Stealth, no action required. Velna's passive Perception is 30. Your Stealth check was 27. It's just ... math.

[stupnick]

yes... but if i succed on the bluff/stealth check i am hidden. you may see me but others may not, which means i am hidden to them, which allows me to use hide in plain sight, and become invis to all

[Kiara LeSabre]

yes... but if i succed on the bluff/stealth check i am hidden. you may see me but others may not, which means i am hidden to them, which allows me to use hide in plain sight, and become invis to all

That could be interpreted one of two very different ways actually, as I stated before.

Tell you what ... here's a compromise, since we're not going to agree any other way:

I sent two e-mails to Wizards Customer Service, one pointing out their conflicting answers regarding Fleeting Ghost, the other presenting them with your interpretation of how Hide in Plain Sight works and asking if that's correct. What do you say we all take a break and wait for their responses and then all agree to abide by whatever call they make even if we don't like it? I'll make my pledge now to do so.

[stupnick]

i will, but to be honest this is his last battle as rogues suck here.. this should be a way around it but if it is this hard to get this done, i don't even want to attempt it...lol

[Kiara LeSabre]

i will, but to be honest this is his last battle as rogues suck here.. this should be a way around it but if it is this hard to get this done, i don't even want to attempt it...lol

I actually agree with you on that point -- that is, it would be more fair to the Stealth classes for the arenas to have areas of concealment or some kind of cover. I can get around the problem with Naenre in the epic circuit, but that's because drow have a racial ability that grants them concealment.

Admittedly, you can also get around it if you take the infiltrator paragon path. Impossible to Catch (invisible as a minor action), Stealth since you now have automatic concealment vs. everyone, Hide in Plain Sight.

But we'll go with whatever Customer Service hands down, whether I like it or not and whether you like it or not, and that will end the argument.

[stupnick]

per the new errata that wizards just put out

Bluff [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 183
In the shaded box, replace the text under “Create a Diversion” with the following:
“Once per combat encounter, you can create a diversion to hide. As a
standard action, make a Bluff check opposed by the passive Insight check of
any enemy that can see you. If you succeed, make a Stealth check opposed
by the passive Perception check of any enemy present. If the Stealth check
succeeds against an enemy, you are hidden from that enemy until the end of
your turn or until you attack.”



Stealth [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 188
Replace all text after the first paragraph with the following:
Stealth: At the end of a move action.
...
✦ Becoming Hidden: You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if
you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you’re
outside the enemy’s line of sight...

You only need cover or concealment to maintain hiding, but it takes superior cover or total concealment to become hidden n the first place.

so to make a stealth check you need total concealment and superior cover...

also for the bluff check it's against passive checks and i am hidden. so with my bluff check i beat all your passive insights, and my stealth beat everyone but Velna (sp?), so i am hidden from everyone but Velna, then i use hide in plain sight. and it turns me from hidden to invisible...

[Kiara LeSabre]

Stealth [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 188
Replace all text after the first paragraph with the following:
Stealth: At the end of a move action.
...
✦ Becoming Hidden: You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if
you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you’re
outside the enemy’s line of sight...

You only need cover or concealment to maintain hiding, but it takes superior cover or total concealment to become hidden n the first place.

Well, per the bolded part you brought to our attention, you can't even do the trick at all because you're in our lines of sight and not benefiting from superior cover or concealment. In any case, I think we agreed to wait on the reply to the two questions I posed that should clear this up.

Who knows? Maybe they'll grant Fleeting Ghost the godlike ability to let you make a Stealth check without cover or concealment of any kind, while in the lines of sight of other people, after all. That would be insane and would make a level 2 utility strictly superior to a level 10 one in the same class for the same purpose, but we've agreed to abide by what they decide even if it's just flat-out stupid.

[stupnick]

that is correct if just using stealth...

but if using bluff to create a diversion you go by those effects which means i am hidden till the end of my turn or until i attack.

this is where specific overrides general

the general rule of stealth is as listed, but the specific power of bluff to hide overrides the general rule of stealth as listed in the ability.

[Kiara LeSabre]

that is correct if just using stealth...

but if using bluff to create a diversion you go by those effects which means i am hidden till the end of my turn or until i attack.

this is where specific overrides general

the general rule of stealth is as listed, but the specific power of bluff to hide overrides the general rule of stealth as listed in the ability.

You made this argument in the General forum, and as I recall, exactly no one agreed with you. Let's just wait for Customer Service to reply like we agreed and abide by their ruling as we also agreed. I'm sure we'll have an answer by tomorrow, and we can be on our merry way from there.

[stupnick]

actually agreed upon by tbarra (think that was his name) he even said that with a bluff check you are hidden till the end of your round....

the only person who disagreed was jackmage and he couldn't back it up or even make an arguement against it.

[Kiara LeSabre]

actually agreed upon by tbarra (think that was his name) he even said that with a bluff check you are hidden till the end of your round....

Wow, tbarrie will be surprised to hear that. He probably thinks he said, "You only need cover or concealment to maintain hiding, but it takes superior cover or total concealment to become hidden in the first place." Shall I direct him to this thread to correct his mistaken recollection?

the only person who disagreed was jackmage and he couldn't back it up or even make an arguement against it.

There was also Tyger. Three people so far, and they all disagree with you. That said, we've already made an agreement on what we're going to do here.

[stupnick]

yes if you know him, direct him in here... he quoted me and aresponded to the first part, then quoted something different and responded to that part.

[Kiara LeSabre]

So I got my replies from Customer Service, and I'm annoyed to report that neither of us is going to like the answers, which follow:

Q: Hi! Let's say I'm a rogue with Hide in Plain Sight. I'm facing four enemies. I make a Bluff check to create a distraction to hide, opposed by their Insight checks, of course. Three of them beat my Bluff check, but one of them fails, so I make a Stealth check against that one and also beat his passive Perception. I now, as a minor action, activate Hide in Plain Sight and become invisible to all of them, despite the fact that I was not at any point successfully hidden against three of the four of them.

A: Hello,

Unfortunately, there isn’t an official answer for the situation you describe. I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!

Please let me know if you need anymore help!

Q: Hi, recently a friend of mine wrote in with a question about Fleeting Ghost. The answer he received contradicts a previous answer I found from Wizards Customer Service regarding the same issue.

Which is correct?

The original question and answer I found online is as follows:

Q: Fleeting Ghost, p119, says you can move & make a stealth check. Does this mean that use of this power allows the rogue to ignore the normal rule that moving through open space during combat negates stealth, and allow them to make a stealth attack immediately after moving, while in plain view? Or does the rogue have to end their turn in concealment/cover for the stealth check to be valid?

A: This ability allows you to move at your full speed and not take a penalty to your stealth check, as described on page 188. All other rules for stealth, cover, and concealment still apply.

source: http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.ph...ervice_Answers

Quoted below is what he just forwarded to me, which completely contradicts that and seems to give incredible power to a level 2 utility power, making it far stronger than Shadow Stride, a level 10 utility power, which is all but rendered irrelevant if this is really how it works.

Q: When using the fleeting ghost ability does it allow you to move while ignoring the regular rules for stealth (ie cover and concealment)? Or must you still follow the regular rules?

A: Greetings,

No, you don't have to follow the normal rules for making stealth checks. You simply get to make one as a part of that power.

So which is correct?

A: Hello,

Unfortunately, there isn’t an official answer for the situation you describe. I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!

Please let me know if you need anymore help!

[Kiara LeSabre]

I also have those in the original e-mail formats if you'd like me to forward them to any of you; I just cleaned it up and put it all here in an organized fashion to make it easier for everyone to read.

The answer seems to be that they don't have an answer, and it's a GM call. It cannot be my call, obviously. OOTS will have to make the decision on this.

[stupnick]

heh nice... but we don't need to bug him for that atm...

as i already said i am going to drop my rogue out of the arena.. i can't stand it at the moment how they are doing.

i already put in my warlock for the next level 20..... so hopefully i will be able to play him really soon

[Kiara LeSabre]

Well, in any case, I have two rogues set up (one in the heroic circuit and one in epic), and I'm toying with a third one (also epic), and I'm going to assume my reasoning in the way that I play them. I just can't stomach the idea of Fleeting Ghost being that cheesy-powerful as a dinky level 2 utility, which would put it completely out of balance with all level 2 utilities in the book and really all other rogue utilities, too.

It would make me seriously consider quitting rogues altogether and refusing to play them if that were actually the final answer handed down by WOTC, and I love rogues.

FFS, no more Batman classes like 3.x, please!

[stupnick]

well i believe fleeting ghost needs to abide by stealth requirements. but the bluff check would over ride it and allow you to use hide in plain sight. as long as you beat your opponents passive checks.

[Kiara LeSabre]

well i believe fleeting ghost needs to abide by stealth requirements. but the bluff check would over ride it and allow you to use hide in plain sight. as long as you beat your opponents passive checks.

I agree, although then it's back to the question of whether you just need to beat one person to become invisible to all, whether you need to beat all people to become invisible to any, or whether it works individually on the ones you beat but not the ones you didn't.

I personally think the last answer makes the most sense and is the most fair to all involved as well, but the truth is, RAW, any of the three could be right, and worse, RAW, the first two extremes are actually easier to justify.

Unfortunately, on the Bluff thing, the truth is there's nothing in the book that adequately answers the question either way at all. Nor do the most recently published errata clear it up really.

[stupnick]

well the most recent errata does answer the bluff, if your bluff passes there insight, then your stealth passes there perception you are hidden vs them till the end of your turn or till you attack.

now as for hide in plain sight on top of that, that's a whole different story.

you can take it as you are invsible, as long as you are hidden, and technically you are hidden vs at least some of them. so you become invisible, and unless someone can see invisible creatures they can't see you... they may know where you are, allowing targeting of the square at the -5 to hit you. but they still have to deal with that.

or you can take it as you are invisible to those you are hidden against, but then again it doesn't state "those who you are hidden against you are invisible against" it just states "you must be hidden. you are now invisible."