Stealth in Combat

[Mistwell]

Creatures only grant cover to ranged attacks, not melee. They aren't being meaningfully blocked from observation. It's a limited form of cover that applies to ranged attacks, and isn't equivalent to a wall or other solid object.

RAW does not distinguish between cover in that sense for stealth however. It just says you need cover or concealment or distraction to get a stealth check. An ally is cover, which is all that is necessary to try the stealth check. That is, unless WOTC clarifies it or erratas it.

 

[WOLead]

Oh and a little something for people saying that an ally could warn another so they spot the hidden striker easily.

"He's right in front of you! Get him!"

Did you have to take a few seconds to see him? Roll Perception Check. =-) The picture even tries to give him away.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

A stealth check is made in conjunction with ANY action. FREE action is considered an action therefore by way of simple logic we can deduce that you may make a stealth check when you have cover/concealment. The "ALL creatures" part comes into play under the idea that if a kobold was creeping up behind your friend and he/she didn't notice it but you did, you would shout "Hey buddy watch out behind you" effectively making your friend "aware" of the sneaking enemy which in turn means it is no longer stealthed from your friend. As stated it is up to the DM's discretion to allow/disallow this depending on the situation. See the circumstance I had mentioned before.

This theory begins to break down quickly when you are fighting creatures that cannot speak. Do dire wolves telepathically let one another know when ninjas are afoot?

Furthermore, If I see a ninja, and I say "watch out, Joe, ninja attack!" and Joe's perception was beaten, he can flail his head around all he wants, and try as hard as he'd like to be ready, but he's not ready, because he didn't perceive the attacker. I'm not the least bit surprised by the ninja attack; Joe is.

 

[Brokenkingdom]

This theory begins to break down quickly when you are fighting creatures that cannot speak. Do dire wolves telepathically let one another know when ninjas are afoot?

This was part of my original post.

(in certain circumstances a DM can decide if that is appropriate ie: if the creature cannot yell/signal in anyway your DM may decide to allow you to remain stealthed against the other creatures)

But remember that having a stealth advantage does not always imply the creature is completely hidden from the world it simply implies it is not being noticed. Whether or not the creature is completely hidden or just unnoticed depends on the situation and your DM. Again say someone was sneaking up behind you and you do not notice. I yell "Hey behind you!" a quick glance reveals a previously unnoticed elderly man with gas encroaching upon you. You are no longer unaware of said dire threat.

Situations vary by the vary nature of the game, your DM will decide what is and is not appropriate for each situation. There is NO need/way for EVERY single possibility to be accounted for and as players/DM's we are expected to exercise common sense. Unless you have a Wisdom score of 8, then we understand.

Furthermore you do not SEE a ninja.

Furthermore, furthermore having cover OR concealment is STILL grounds for a stealth check.

It seems to be that the problem isn't within the rules it is within the people who refuse to apply common sense to situations and adjust rulings accordingly. A dragonborn hiding behind a halfling is a common sense/DM decision. If you are upset that your DM will not allow it EVEN THOUGH it says nothing about you not being able to in the core books then leave the group as everyone else probably hates you and does not want you playing with the group anyway.

As for the warlock flavor text and whether or not shadow walk is for a pseudo-defense bonus, and other worldly questions about what it really means to be a warlock is irrelevant to this topic. Bottom line shadow walk conceals a warlock and if it makes a stealth check as part of that action it gets -5 on it's check PERIOD. Though agreeably more detail about the shadow walk ability would be helpful. Remeber don't just ASSUME it DOESN'T obscure the square either. Untill a better explanation, best bet would be to let the DM decide. However amazing or expressly lackluster you want the effect to be is also up to your DM.

"The warlock grows dim and glides across the battlefield, melding and weaving into a darkness whose source cannot be defined. The kobold is startled as his previous target is now but a flicker of a shadow dancing about. A semblance of death incarnate"

OR seemingly as you would prefer

"The warlock has concealment now ... hey can I have a Mountain Dew?"

 

[Ophidimancer]

Since warlocks deal with powers best left alone, I prefer describing Shadow Walk as the warlock fading away into the Feywild/Hell/The Outer Dark and that the influence seeping into the world through them makes it hard to look straight at them.

"The fey sorceress glides across the battlefield in eerie silence, the mists of the Feywild rising up around her, the sight if it pricking at the eyes so that none are able to look at her fully."

"The mad cultist scuttles deeper into the forgotten library with its scrolls of sinister gibberish. As he moves, his body seems to become a silhouette and then a hole, a void that threatens to tear your sanity away and feed it, screaming, to some tentacled thing in the dark. You quickly avert your eyes."

"Ripping his pact blade from the body of a still twitching sacrifice, the man with demon horns stalks toward you. With every step, his form becomes more indistinct, until all you see is a threatening shadow lit with two points of hellfire."

Of course, that's all just hyperbolic fluff and all have the same mechanical benefits.

 

[Ophidimancer]

Re-posting as per Xorn.

Using Bluff in combat allows one to gain Combat Advantage.

Think about that.

That's the equivalent of, "Look over there!" *STAB*

To me that doesn't seem to imply that getting Combat Advantage is too hard. It only takes an instant of having your attention off the bluffer.

If at any point the outline of your opponent is broken up or obscured by concealment, I think that can afford them the opportunity to hide their actions (ie use Stealth) and gain Combat Advantage.

"I've got you this time, you little thief!" cried the warrior, chasing the smaller man through the bazaar. The thief bolted through an open doorway with nothing but a drape to act as a barrier and the warrior roared in triumph, recognizing the building as one with only one exit. Right on the heels of the rogue, he pushed his way into the doorway.

"I've got you now! You can't hide from me in . . . urk!"

He stared down in shock at the blade that suddenly appeared in his stomach. The thief had stopped on the other side of the drape and plunged his knife right through cloth.

As he slumped to the ground, the last sight the warrior saw was the smirking face of the thief, "Wasn't trying to hide."

Just my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Ophidimancer]

This might be unnecessary thread necromancy if we're simply waiting for a verdict from on high, but:

I'm going to contend the interpretation that one cannot avoid notice once one has been noticed. Semantically that's not the only way to interpret that. If you think about perception like the spray of water from a hose that has been trained upon you, it can make sense to begin avoiding it even if it already has caught you.

 

[zoroaster100]

I ran a single encounter for a player this weekend to see if I had grasped the 4E rules well enough to run our next game this weekend. I realized I still don't understand how and when you can use Stealth in combat in even the most basic and frequent types of scenarios.

The specific example that came up was that the party walked into a dungeon and was immediately in plain view of a group of kobolds. The rogue in the party, on the first round, moved behind a corner so he had cover (not superior cover) from both enemy kobolds that were within line of sight of the party. The rogue used a Move Action to get to the place where he had cover against the kobolds' ranged attacks. He then used a Standard Action to throw a dagger against one of the kobolds. The player wanted to know if he should roll a Stealth check to see if he had Combat Advantage against the kobold.

Should he have been able to use his Standard Action to attack stealthily and roll a Stealth roll as well as an attack roll, since he by then had obtained a position with cover? Or did he first need to use up some other kind of action after moving to the position with cover? Or was he prevented from using Stealth at all in this encounter, since the kobolds were already aware of him and knew what square he necessarily had to occupy, even though he had cover against their ranged attacks?

Assuming he could use Stealth at all, did the rogue need to beat both kobolds' Perception to get Combat Advantage against his one target, or did he only need to beat the one target's Perception? And did he only need to beat passive Perception, or should the kobold(s) have rolled a Perception check as an opposed check?

Are all of my questions still unanswerable until errata/clarifications come out, or are the answers to at least some of my questions clear at this point, in your view of the rules as written?

This is one area where the Player's Handbook fell short by failing to include a couple of examples of how Stealth works in combat with a detailed blow by blow explanation.

 

[Leugren]

I ran a single encounter for a player this weekend to see if I had grasped the 4E rules well enough to run our next game this weekend. I realized I still don't understand how and when you can use Stealth in combat in even the most basic and frequent types of scenarios.

The specific example that came up was that the party walked into a dungeon and was immediately in plain view of a group of kobolds. The rogue in the party, on the first round, moved behind a corner so he had cover (not superior cover) from both enemy kobolds that were within line of sight of the party. The rogue used a Move Action to get to the place where he had cover against the kobolds' ranged attacks. He then used a Standard Action to throw a dagger against one of the kobolds. The player wanted to know if he should roll a Stealth check to see if he had Combat Advantage against the kobold.

Should he have been able to use his Standard Action to attack stealthily and roll a Stealth roll as well as an attack roll, since he by then had obtained a position with cover? Or did he first need to use up some other kind of action after moving to the position with cover? Or was he prevented from using Stealth at all in this encounter, since the kobolds were already aware of him and knew what square he necessarily had to occupy, even though he had cover against their ranged attacks?

Assuming he could use Stealth at all, did the rogue need to beat both kobolds' Perception to get Combat Advantage against his one target, or did he only need to beat the one target's Perception? And did he only need to beat passive Perception, or should the kobold(s) have rolled a Perception check as an opposed check?

Are all of my questions still unanswerable until errata/clarifications come out, or are the answers to at least some of my questions clear at this point, in your view of the rules as written?

This is one area where the Player's Handbook fell short by failing to include a couple of examples of how Stealth works in combat with a detailed blow by blow explanation.

Here's how I would have ruled it:

1. The rogue gets to make a Stealth check as part of the move action that got him to the position of cover. He gets a -5 modifier to the roll if he moved more than 2 squares.

2. Each kobold opposes this check with an active Perception roll. If there were 40 kobolds, I'd probably just use their passive Perception scores, but since there are only two, I'd go ahead and roll for each.

3. If the kobold he is targeting with his attack fails his Perception roll, I'd grant the rogue combat advantage against that kobold. The other kobold's perception roll doesn't factor into this equation at all.

4. Since the rogue attacked, I'd rule that he is no longer hidden, so the kobolds can fire back at him with the standard -2 penalty to hit for cover.

5. If the rogue had chosen not to attack, he would still be hidden, but both kobolds saw exactly where he went since they had full line of sight to him until he reached the corner. On each of their turns, I would have the kobolds attempt an active Perception roll to pinpoint the rogue's exact position at the corner. If they succeed, they can attack the rogue with the standard -2 penalty for cover. If they fail, I'd have them move up to the corner to a position where they have unblocked line of sight to the rogue, thereby instantly revealing his position. If that's not feasible, I'd have them target the square that the rogue is standing in, giving them a -5 penalty for total concealment.

This seems like a manageable and fairly consistent way to handle this type of scenario at least until we get some official clarification from WOTC.

 

[Ziana]

Should he have been able to use his Standard Action to attack stealthily and roll a Stealth roll as well as an attack roll, since he by then had obtained a position with cover?

Yes. Cover is one of the necessary conditions to use stealth. Attacking stealthily from behind cover in order to gain combat advantage is an intended use of the feature.

Should he have been able to use his Standard Action to attack stealthily and roll a Stealth roll as well as an attack roll, since he by then had obtained a position with cover?

What confuses the issue in the PHB is that they treat out-of-combat and in-combat stealth very fluidly; but the question of "avoiding notice" is only relevant to not alerting PCs to your presence or position. If you're trying to sneak past the guards and you fail a stealth check, they now know you're there and combat can begin. Alternately, you might be trying to sneak around to the back of a group in combat, using cover to do so; but if you fail one of your checks the opponents can now begin attacking your rogue's position.

Enemies might be aware a rogue or ranger is hiding behind a rock/pillar/corner, but they can't adequately defend against her attacks and so grant combat advantage.

Assuming he could use Stealth at all, did the rogue need to beat both kobolds' Perception to get Combat Advantage against his one target, or did he only need to beat the one target's Perception? And did he only need to beat passive Perception, or should the kobold(s) have rolled a Perception check as an opposed check?

As the DM it's up to you; normally it's a passive check. If the kobolds spent part of their turn (minor action I believe, see p281) warily watching for the thief, it would be an active check.

It doesn't matter if the 2nd kobold sees him (but of course that kobold can see where he is, and come attack him on his turn), he only needs to get advantage over his target.