Rogue Stealth

[Grishnak]

Hi just a quick question with regards to use of stealth.
My rogue moved 6 squares and used Fleeting Ghost to go into stealth getting a total of 22 for stealth check and ending his turn. Kobolds act and fail to spot the hidden rogue so move to attack the cleric who is close by. Following turn he moves 6 squares to attack a kobold in combat with the cleric which he is able to flank. Doesn't really matter for combat advantage in this scenario but may do in future encounters.
Does the rogue require a 2nd stealth check to move and attack even though the mob failed to see him previously or does the kobold just get another perception check vs the original roll of 22?

Cheers

 

[Silverwave]

I would say you keep the same stealth score until you "un-stealth".

 

[seusomon]

Moving definitely requires a new stealth check if you want to remain unnoticed. And there is a penalty for moving more than 2 squares.

ETA: I avoid using terms like "go into stealth" or "un-stealth". In this game, stealth is not a condition; it's not invisibility, and it doesn't have a duration. It is a skill you use to avoid being noticed as you perform an action. Each and every time you take an action that you don't want to be noticed, you make a stealth check.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Seusomon is correct; you must reroll Stealth anytime you take an action (whether it be minor, move or standard). Stealth is not a condition; it's much akin to Charge as part of an attack action, in that it's part of a move action.

If you choose not to take an action, I'd advise allowing the player to use the same Stealth roll, but that's simply DM fiat.

 

[clearstream]

Hi just a quick question with regards to use of stealth.
My rogue moved 6 squares and used Fleeting Ghost to go into stealth getting a total of 22 for stealth check and ending his turn. Kobolds act and fail to spot the hidden rogue so move to attack the cleric who is close by. Following turn he moves 6 squares to attack a kobold in combat with the cleric which he is able to flank. Doesn't really matter for combat advantage in this scenario but may do in future encounters.
Does the rogue require a 2nd stealth check to move and attack even though the mob failed to see him previously or does the kobold just get another perception check vs the original roll of 22?

Cheers

Hiding is effectively a condition, and doesn't end until something ends it. A move action doesn't break existing hiding unless your Rogue moves out of cover or concealment. So if your Rogue has cover or concealment the whole way, no additional check is required. If not, again no check is required as hiding breaks automatically.

The kobold doesn't get a new check, but you need to recompare the Rogues roll to its passive Perception again because the new move will have lowered the effective check result by -5 (unless your Rogue has Shadow Stride). The kobold may spend minor actions to get active checks in it's own turn, but likely that is a waste of time and they're better off shifting, given their poor Perception.

Or the DM can call for a check, because he feels the situation has changed enough to need it.

-vk

 

[seusomon]

vonklaude,

I don't think so. You would need total concealment (or invisibility) to be sure of remaining unseen while you move, attack, or perform some other kind of action. (Even then, a high enough perception check could make an adversary aware of you.) Having cover or normal concealment won't do it, although if you end your move under cover or concealment, you can use a stealth check to try to hide.

In the OP, the character ends his turn adjacent to the kobold and attacking. I think the only way he could maintain total concealment would be if there was a solid wall completely blocking him from view until the attack. I think something like that would have been mentioned were it the case.

 

[clearstream]

vonklaude,

I don't think so. You would need total concealment (or invisibility) to be sure of remaining unseen while you move, attack, or perform some other kind of action. (Even then, a high enough perception check could make an adversary aware of you.) Having cover or normal concealment won't do it, although if you end your move under cover or concealment, you can use a stealth check to try to hide.

In the OP, the character ends his turn adjacent to the kobold and attacking. I think the only way he could maintain total concealment would be if there was a solid wall completely blocking him from view until the attack. I think something like that would have been mentioned were it the case.

Ah. I was focussing on the move itself. It didn't occur to me that there was a question of not needing another check to get rehidden after making an attack. Attack explicitly ends hiding.

For that second move leading up to the attack, however, I believe simple cover or concealment would do, or at least I see I've always assumed that so far. If you rule it doesn't, then I think you'll end up having to rule that hiding as part of a move action produces no hidden condition after that action.

I need to think on that. Thank you: that is well worth considering.

-vk

 

[MarkB]

Ah. I was focussing on the move itself. It didn't occur to me that there was a question of not needing another check to get rehidden after making an attack. Attack explicitly ends hiding.

For that second move leading up to the attack, however, I believe simple cover or concealment would do, or at least I see I've always assumed that so far. If you rule it doesn't, then I think you'll end up having to rule that hiding as part of a move action produces no hidden condition after that action.

I need to think on that. Thank you: that is well worth considering.

-vk

Since a Stealth check is required as "part of the action you are attempting to perform stealthily", it's reasonable to conclude that if you don't make the check, you're not performing the action stealthily. If you move non-stealthily through less-than-total cover or concealment, you'll be seen.

If you successfully make the Stealth check as part of the move action (and are still in cover or concealment), you'll be hidden at the end of it, allowing you to make a sneak attack.

 

[seusomon]

Ah. I was focussing on the move itself. It didn't occur to me that there was a question of not needing another check to get rehidden after making an attack. Attack explicitly ends hiding.

For that second move leading up to the attack, however, I believe simple cover or concealment would do, or at least I see I've always assumed that so far. If you rule it doesn't, then I think you'll end up having to rule that hiding as part of a move action produces no hidden condition after that action.

I need to think on that. Thank you: that is well worth considering.

-vk

Ending your move in cover or concealment is a prerequisite for attempting to hide using stealth; it does not guarantee success. And in the OP, the move did not end in cover or concealment at all. You can't move into a square that is in plain view of a character and then claim combat advantage / sneak attack; the target is aware of you at the end of your move, before the attack.

The two usual situations where you can attack without the target being aware of you are a ranged attack from hiding, or a melee attack that you've readied for when an unaware target becomes visible (coming through a door, for example).

 

[clearstream]

Since a Stealth check is required as "part of the action you are attempting to perform stealthily", it's reasonable to conclude that if you don't make the check, you're not performing the action stealthily. If you move non-stealthily through less-than-total cover or concealment, you'll be seen.

I do feel that reading is available, but it would imply the move action is performed stealthily... and nothing else. No hidden condition extending after the move action.

That would be fine if you 'attacked stealthily' by making a check with your attacks, but WotC_Mearls clarified that was not the intention in language that I believe admits no other meaning. Therefore you somehow need to conjure a hidden condition to cover the attack.

Surely, one should be able to have it one way or another. An identifiable issue at this point is that we're straddling both.

Which looks preferable to you?

-vk