What the heck does Hidden mean!!

[Contents May Vary]

I have limited experience with 4e but 30 years DMing, so my answers above are based on that, and upon a dash of common sense. I know that PCs and monsters to not make passive checks, as that is what "passive" means. The score is a DC that someone using an active skill has to beat in order not to be casually spotted (for Stealth) or caught in deception (Bluff), for example

I think for 4th ed, yes the creature or player who is stealthing makes the check against the target's passive perception check.

From the rules, it appears that you make that check at the end of the stealthed creature or player's turn. This would seem to be in addition to the check you make when, for example, becoming stealthed in the first place.

From "Targetting what you can't see", PHB pg 281:

Invisible Creature Uses Stealth: At the end of a concealed creature’s turn, it makes a Stealth check opposed by your passive Perception check.

If you beat it, you know there’s a creature present that you can’t see, and you know the direction to its location.

If you beat it by 10 or more, you know exactly what square the creature ended its turn in.

The concealed creature also makes a Stealth check if it takes an immediate action or an opportunity action.

 

[essenbee]

Interesting.

 

[James McMurray]

Others answered most of them, but:

* Can you hide without taking any other action?

Hiding is done as part of whatever action you're trying to do stealthily. If you're only wanting to hide, you can take a "vapor" move action where you don't move any squares, or even some random free action. You can combine it with readying (and then not take your readied action). Delaying isn't an action though, so you couldn't stealth and delay.

I personally wouldn't bother with that level of technicality forcing a player to choose a second action to perform, but RAW you have to do something besides just hiding. Knowing our group, we'd get a lot of people using a free action to "speak in sign language" some sort of rude gesture.

* Can you hide without moving? If so, do enemies become unware of you?

Yes, you can hide, and yes, they'll be unaware. The first place they'll look is the last place they saw you, so they might find you quickly, but it's possible.

This is why the term "hidden" should be defined in game terms - it's all very well saying "use the dictionary definition", but that is clearly not sufficient in game terms. There are too many ambiguities that arise for that kind of definition for a CORE GAME MECHANIC.

Its easy to get wrapped up in the rules and forget that they're based on a framework of logical thought and words that have predefined meanings.

Are there any other ambiguities we can help with?

 

[Contents May Vary]

Yes, you can hide, and yes, they'll be unaware. The first place they'll look is the last place they saw you, so they might find you quickly, but it's possible.

Ok, so you are saying this is possible:

Assuming I am standing adjacent to an enemy in a square with cover; If I don't have stealth currently, I can nevertheless:

* Attempt to enter Stealth as a free action.
* Attack the enemy with combat advantage (if I attained stealth)
* Attempt to enter Stealth as a free action (thereby attaining "total concealment", meaning the enemy would have to attack me at -5).

Is that correct? That's what you're saying?

And, related to that scenario:

Do you assert that I could do the following:

* Walk through open squares (up to my speed) to a square with concealment adjacent to an enemy.
* Attempt to stealth as a free action.
* Attack the enemy with combat advantage (if I attained stealth)
* Attempt to enter Stealth as a free action (thereby attaining "total concealment", meaning the enemy would have to attack me at -5).

Are you saying that also?

I asked pretty much the same thing before, and a few people indicated that they thought that you WOULDN'T be able to do that.

It seems that different people have different opinions on this matter... Which is why it would be good to have some "official" rulings!

[EDIT] Previous thread by me about this issue: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=232179&page=2

 

[James McMurray]

Ok, so you are saying this is possible:

Assuming I am standing adjacent to an enemy in a square with cover; If I don't have stealth currently, I can nevertheless:

* Attempt to enter Stealth as a free action.
* Attack the enemy with combat advantage (if I attained stealth)
* Attempt to enter Stealth as a freeaction (thereby attaining "total concealment", meaning the enemy would have to attack you at -5).

Is that correct? That's what you're saying?

Yes, but it would depend on the cover. If you've got cover from a 2' tall wall, the GM is likely to impose a hefty circumstance penalty on the Stealth check, since the person can just lean over and see you huddled on the floor.

* Walk through open squares (up to my speed) to a square with concealment adjacent to an enemy.
* Attempt to stealth as a free action.
* Attack the enemy with combat advantage (if I attained stealth)
* Attempt to enter Stealth as a freeaction (thereby attaining "total concealment", meaning the enemy would have to attack you at -5).

Yes, but since you're moving you wouldn't need to take that first free action, you could just stealth as part of the move. And again there'd be the same caveat that the GM is likely to apply a penalty to your check if being less than 5' away from someone makes your concealment subpar.

I asked pretty much the same thing before, and a few people indicated that they thought that you WOULDN'T be able to do that.

It seems that different people have different opinions on this matter... Which is why it would be good to have some "official" rulings!

I don't think the confusion stems from the definitions of hidden, stealth, or other words. The problem is that the scenario seems pretty silly, and is only technically possible because the rules say you combine stealth with an action, meaning you can combine it with a free action. If they limit it to non-free actions, many of these silly scenarios disappear.

 

[James McMurray]

Scratch that last bit. I read your linked thread and then reread the action line for Stealth in the PH. You can't do that rehiding thing, because stealth is done for the action you're taking. Whatever random free action was being taken to get the stealth action is all that would be hidden.

I suppose you could combine it with a free action to drop prone, thereby hiding your position. But if you they're adjacent to subpar cover or concealment, you'll have to be a lot better than them to avoid detection, and if they see you it's gonna hurt.

 

[geemarcus]

Opinions?

My group is having a difficult time with this stealth nonsense, and it seems to me the problem comes from what looks to us like an inconsistency in the "Stealth" definition.

At one point it says:

Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to
perform stealthily.

Later, it says:

Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from
view. If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer
hidden.

This whole hidden thing is causing all the trouble, as it appears to imply there's some kind of "stealth state".

If a stealth check is made as part of an action, shouldn't it follow that it only applies to the action? And if so, shouldn't that last part read:

Success: Your action avoids notice, unheard and hidden from
view.

This would make perfect sense in the case of a stealthy attack granting combat advantage, which the designers clearly intended. Or, if enemies were unaware of a character, and the character successfully moves stealthily, then the enemies would still be unaware of the character. But did they really intend for a stealthy attack, (or move or whatever) to make a previously unhidden character suddenly "hidden"?

 

[Delgaddo]

Are there any other ambiguities we can help with?

How about this scenario:

A dragonborn rogue is hiding behind a 2' wide narrow column and has cover against a goblin who just ranged attacked him last round at -2 for the cover. He drops prone as a move action and rolls a stealth check with it and gets a 15 + 9 for his skill bonus for a toal of 24. This beats the goblin's passive 11 DC even if you impose a -10 penalty to his roll.

A) Is he now hidden even though a small portion of his body sticks out from behind the column?

B) Does he now get total concealment even though the column is not superior cover?

C) Is the goblin aware of him?

D) Does he have combat advantage if he attacks the Goblin?

Based on your definitions he is hidden (concealed) and the goblin is aware of him because he can still see him. Since the goblin is aware of him - he would not get combat advantage even though he passed a stealth check. Is this correct?

 

[frankthedm]

I think there are essentially two conditions related to stealth: 1) Actually Hidden, 2) Blocked from clear view.

Hidden means your target is actually not aware of you.

Blocked from clear view means your target is aware of you, but doesn't have a clear shot at you because you are using the cover/concealment to it's best advantage for your position.

You can have cover/concealment without using stealth (or with using stealth but being beat by your foe's perception check). When you do so, you're using it to your advantage (it blocks some view) but not to your best advantage (you are not dodging around and slinking down as best you can to gain the best benefit from that cover/concealment).

That a decent way of looking at it, especially since they are expressly tied together in 4E. No wiggle room like in 3E .

You have to maintain cover or concealment to remain unnoticed. If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you (no Perception check required).

 

[James McMurray]

A) Is he now hidden even though a small portion of his body sticks out from behind the column?

If the cover is not large enough to block line of sight, it can't be hidden behind. I'd assume that a 2' wall was too small to hide a 6'4" dragonborn. If you think it can though:

B) Does he now get total concealment even though the column is not superior cover?

If he's successfully hidden, he has total concealment.

C) Is the goblin aware of him?

Not if he's hidden. However, the goblin knows exactly where he was and that he's probably still very near, so it shouldn't be too hard to that goblin to step up on that wall and commence to swinging.

D) Does he have combat advantage if he attacks the Goblin?

As silly as it sounds, by the rules he should have stealth, although it may or may not require another stealth check depending on how you interpret the "part of the action you're trying to hide" clause.

Based on your definitions he is hidden (concealed) and the goblin is aware of him because he can still see him. Since the goblin is aware of him - he would not get combat advantage even though he passed a stealth check. Is this correct?

If he can be seen, he's not hidden. I used "concealed" when I should have used any of the other synonyms for hidden, because concealment has a specific meaning in D&D. Sorry for the confusion.

"Out of sight" (Merriam-Webster's definition) means the same thing in normal usage, but avoids crossing up with game terms. Undetected and Unseen work as well.