Rogue Stealth

[MarkB]

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

You make the move stealthily, make your Stealth check as part of it, and if you succeed you end the move hidden. If you also started the move hidden and didn't break cover/concealment en route, you never actually stopped being hidden.

Why would the Hidden condition not extend after the move action? Until you or your opponents do something to end it, it should essentially continue indefinitely.

 

[Tsuul]

I am assuming you are ending your Fleeting Ghost turn in some cover/concealment:


If the rogue is taking a move action for movement followed by an standard action for attacking, then yes. He needs to stealth the movement to retain CA for the attack.
If he charges (moves and attacks in one standard action) then he should have CA for the attack even though the attack negates his stealth.
Basically you have CA for the action that breaks stealth. So leaving some bushes when you perform Deft Strike would also have CA on it's attack.

 

[Grishnak]

I am assuming you are ending your Fleeting Ghost turn in some cover/concealment:


If the rogue is taking a move action for movement followed by an standard action for attacking, then yes. He needs to stealth the movement to retain CA for the attack.
If he charges (moves and attacks in one standard action) then he should have CA for the attack even though the attack negates his stealth.
Basically you have CA for the action that breaks stealth. So leaving some bushes when you perform Deft Strike would also have CA on it's attack.

Even though this is out of sync with the actual combat I will start it at round 1 for purpose of my question.
Rnd 1: Rogue moves 6 squares concealing himself using fleeting ghost.
Kobold goes past location of rogue to attack cleric (even though no facing rules clearly showing its back to the rogue)

Rnd 2: Rogue continues to be concealed and moves 6 squares behind the kobold to be in flanking position gaining combat advantage due to flank anyway, rolls abysmally and misses

The main reason I asked was because of the Kobolds shift ability which would have kicked in if I'd been seen.

Thanks all for responses.

 

[clearstream]

Why would the Hidden condition not extend after the move action? Until you or your opponents do something to end it, it should essentially continue indefinitely.

Because the rules don't tell you Stealth extends past the action performed stealthily.

Stealth is part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily. If you succeed you avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view for that action. I agree the RAW goes on to be suggestive a lasting condition is achieved, but it doesn't unambiguously state that.

On a move, the move avoids notice etc. An attack avoids notice etc, but then immediately demands it! In this way, you can flit from superior cover or total concealment, or well obscured areas (five deep light obscurement or heavier obscurement).

So far as I can judge, Stealth is trying to be run two ways, and won't work well until it is run only one. It must either use an action to create a lasting condition under which other actions are possible (the RAW supports that reading mildly) or it must cover the action being performed stealthily (the RAW supports this reading strongly.)

-vk

 

[MarkB]

Because the rules don't tell you Stealth extends past the action performed stealthily.

Stealth is part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily. If you succeed you avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view for that action. I agree the RAW goes on to be suggestive a lasting condition is achieved, but it doesn't unambiguously state that.

On a move, the move avoids notice etc. An attack avoids notice etc, but then immediately demands it! In this way, you can flit from superior cover or total concealment, or well obscured areas (five deep light obscurement or heavier obscurement).

So far as I can judge, Stealth is trying to be run two ways, and won't work well until it is run only one. It must either use an action to create a lasting condition under which other actions are possible (the RAW supports that reading mildly) or it must cover the action being performed stealthily (the RAW supports this reading strongly.)

-vk

Nope - you use it as part of the action you are performing stealthily (which can't include an attack, since attacks automatically end stealth), and if you succeed and still meet the requirements for a successful Stealth check when you finish your action, you remain hidden, because being hidden is a status that can only be ended by you taking an unstealthy action, your enemies making successful Perception checks, or the loss of the cover/concealment/distraction that let you hide in the first place.

You seem to be trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[Tsuul]

Rnd 1: Rogue moves 6 squares concealing himself using fleeting ghost.

Am I reading too much into this line? Are you using Fleeting Ghost to hide without cover or concealment? If so, the rogue is standing out in the open and will get spotted long before round 2 comes up.

I don't have a version of the Shift ability in front of me (is it in KoTS?), just the Shifty version in the MM, so I can't go any further with an answer .

I would compare it to a readied action to attack the rogue when he becomes visible (which would occur AFTER the rogue made the attack) and see what, if anything is different.

 

[clearstream]

Nope - you use it as part of the action you are performing stealthily (which can't include an attack, since attacks automatically end stealth), and if you succeed and still meet the requirements for a successful Stealth check when you finish your action, you remain hidden, because being hidden is a status that can only be ended by you taking an unstealthy action, your enemies making successful Perception checks, or the loss of the cover/concealment/distraction that let you hide in the first place.

You seem to be trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

WotC_Mearls put in an unofficial clarification of RAI, but there is no wording in RAW that forbids you to use stealth as part of an attack action. Your stealth will end immediately, but it will simultaneously grant your attack combat advantage.

This much simplifies the stealth use everyone regards as most acceptable.

Get near your target in cover or concealment. Use a standard action (or minor in some cases) to make an attack. Roll stealth against your target's perception, unless some other enemy can interfere. Attack with CA if you beat them. That's it. For the one situation we know the game assumes stealth happens all the time with, it couldn't be simpler. As a bonus, it's all RAW. If your attack contains a move, you need only consider the square your attack is delivered from.

-vk

 

[the_redbeard]

Because the rules don't tell you Stealth extends past the action performed stealthily.

Stealth is part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily.

Not RAW but perhaps RAI: the stealth CHECK is part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily.

Sometimes stealth is just the duration of the action performed: moving silently, picking your nose in the King's chamber without being noticed, drawing your dagger, picking the lock.

Other times stealth can be used to create the lasting condition of hidden, behind cover or within concealment. Otherwise using the Targeting What You Can't See rules can't ever be applied on someone hiding using stealth. Your actions end when your turn does. Your opponent's attack is on their turn. So being hidden is a condition that extends to your opponent's turn.

 

[clearstream]

Not RAW but perhaps RAI: the stealth CHECK is part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily.

Sometimes stealth is just the duration of the action performed: moving silently, picking your nose in the King's chamber without being noticed, drawing your dagger, picking the lock.

Other times stealth can be used to create the lasting condition of hidden, behind cover or within concealment.

Perhaps RAI I agree with, but if stealth sometimes creates a condition and sometimes not, then we end up getting out the fluff-bats and striking actions in and out arbitrarily. For example, I can think of free actions that sound like they could produce hiding (if it's a condition), and others that feel like they could not. We can't reach consistency that way.

Think of it this way. Under the 'sets up a condition' view, we're both happy saying RAI is that an attack action can't set up that condition, but can benefit from it. I can now say straight that a move action can't set up that condition, but can benefit from it. Well, why not? There's no inconsistency. You might say 'an attack breaks hiding' but I'll respond 'so does entering any square without cover or concealment', and then we wrangle over cases and sub-cases.

Just demand a separate action to set up hiding with, and the extended condition view works robustly and consistently. If you go that route, I'm not sure I wouldn't come with you.

-vk