Stealth in Combat

[deleteme123456]

Just tossing in some two cents that any house rule that involves your active stealth check vs enemy passive perception, while nice for lack of dice rolling, tends to be really broken in favor of PCs around level 1. A rogue could easily be at +9 (+4 DEX, +5 Trained) (+2 Tiefling? ) or +12 with skill focus (which might be worth it). Now then... let's look at typical level 1 threats, the Kobolds and Goblins come to mind. Looking at creatures of Level 4 or lower in those families, the highest perception I found was +4. Most were +1. That puts their passive in the 10-14 range. At 14, if you have 12 stealth, you only need to roll a 3.

Add in any sort of easy way to keep or reobtain stealth after an attack, and the ranged rogue doesn't even have to TRY to get sneak attack damage (not to mention +5 to defenses against melee and ranged for targetting what they can't see).

This makes bardolph's system far less interesting than at first glance.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, I am not following you. If I choose to use stealth as part of a move action, when do I roll? Like I said, is it before, during, or after I push my lead figure across the felt?

Simultaneous. Like all other rolls. There is no differentiating when the roll happens. I just happens with the move.

The rules do not say, so do I choose the most advantageous time, or does the DM choose the least advantageous time? E.g., my character dashes from the bushes through the open to end movement behind a tree. Various monsters have LOS at varying times, based on where my figure is positioned.

Ah, now I see where you are coming from, and I think you have a misunderstanding of part of the stealth rules. If anyone has unobstructed LOS at any time during the action you are attempting to do in a stealthy manner, they automatically see you without need for a roll. Period. It's right there, in black and white, in the rules. Second part of the gray section under Stealth, section titled Cover or Concealment.

There is never an issue of when it would be more advantageous to roll. If you qualify to use stealth for an action, you roll simultaneous with the action. If it could make a difference, it means you didn't qualify to roll a stealth check to begin with.

As followup examples, my character either holds fast or attacks following movement.

I do not understand this comment. You can make a stealthy attack. You roll the stealth check simultaneous with the attack. You either have stealth versus your target for that attack, or you do not. It's not dependent on what you did before (though like I said earlier even if it were dependent, you could spend a free action to do it anyway before your attack).

 

[Mistwell]

Just tossing in some two cents that any house rule that involves your active stealth check vs enemy passive perception, while nice for lack of dice rolling, tends to be really broken in favor of PCs around level 1. A rogue could easily be at +9 (+4 DEX, +5 Trained) (+2 Tiefling? ) or +12 with skill focus (which might be worth it). Now then... let's look at typical level 1 threats, the Kobolds and Goblins come to mind. Looking at creatures of Level 4 or lower in those families, the highest perception I found was +4. Most were +1. That puts their passive in the 10-14 range. At 14, if you have 12 stealth, you only need to roll a 3.

Add in any sort of easy way to keep or reobtain stealth after an attack, and the ranged rogue doesn't even have to TRY to get sneak attack damage (not to mention +5 to defenses against melee and ranged for targetting what they can't see).

This makes bardolph's system far less interesting than at first glance.

It's not unbalanced to be able to use your primary ability most of the time. It's intended to function that way I believe. Look at that big long list of ways to get combat advantage - that is there so you can take your pick of a variety of relatively easy methods of obtaining combat advantage.

 

[Xorn]

It's not unbalanced to be able to use your primary ability most of the time. It's intended to function that way I believe. Look at that big long list of ways to get combat advantage - that is there so you can take your pick of a variety of relatively easy methods of obtaining combat advantage.

That's one take on things. If you read Keep on the Shadowfell you'll find this:

Tables: The goblins are small enough to fit under the tables, allowing them to duck out of sight, attempt a Stealth check, and then (if the check succeeds) attack from hiding. The implements on the tables include a total of four blades usable as daggers.

(Emphasis is mine. Apparently, that is the interpretation of Mike Mearls & Bruce Cordell.)

I feel more vindicated with the way I decided to handle Stealth in combat.

Additionally, did you know that if a level 1 tiefling rogue with a hand crossbow and 18 Dex has cover against a kobold, there isn't even a die roll? Even on a 1 he will beat their passive perception.

However, if he's trying to get the drop on a riding horse, he has to roll at least a 5. Apparently, that kobold slinger just doesn't have the understanding of ranged weaponry that the horse does.

I'd say I was beating a dead horse this point, but apparently the horse is still alive, because you rolled low on stealth.

 

[threegee]

I do not understand this comment. You can make a stealthy attack. You roll the stealth check simultaneous with the attack. You either have stealth versus your target for that attack, or you do not. It's not dependent on what you did before (though like I said earlier even if it were dependent, you could spend a free action to do it anyway before your attack).

From the page afore mentioned, enemies automatically spot your character when he attacks. Therefore, by your logic, there are no stealthy attacks, unless you assume that a first attack--made stealthily--does not reveal the character, but any subsequent attacks do.

Believe me, I am not looking for people to quote the rules at me. They exist in black and white and are easily read from the books. I am concerned with what the rules need to cover (but not conceal ) in order to address likely possibilities.

 

[Vengeful]

If you are going to argue from the exceptions rule, you should choose the actual rule rather than the brief introductory example description of that rule.

In this case, we want to determine cover. Given that, don't you think it's best if we look at the paragraph titled "Determining Cover"?

"To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack's origin square) and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn't blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle's or enemy's square). If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover."

Note several things from the rule: 1) Range is not relevant, as I said earlier. Again, can we please discard focus on the term "ranged attack", as it is not relevant and was just using the only possible example (you had to be at range because otherwise there couldn't be someone between you and the target); 2) obstacle and enemy are used interchangeably and as equivalents, and both are used to describe "cover" multiple times.

And on re-reading the cover section, the entire section uses language to describe an attack against a target with cover, and never in the context of stealth or from the perspective of the person with cover. We can presume, if any cover can be used for a stealth check, you determine said cover as normal (IE from the perspective of the foe as if the foe were going to attack the stealthing character ("target")). If not, then no cover rules are applicable to stealth - not obstacles nor people, since both are spoken of from the perspective of an attacker against a target with cover and not a stealthy person in cover making an attack.

Therefore, given range is not relevant, and given determining cover for all cover issues uses a rule that includes both obstacles and enemies being in the way, you can make a stealth check using an ally for cover.

Been looking for a thread about this and just stumbled across this one. This is how I interpreted it as well.

It has some awkward roleplaying consequences; Logically, they would know which square (abouts) you are in and what direction you are, the route they would take to get to you, etc. And if they had seen you previously, it is safe to assume that they haven't forgotten that you are in the combat. I solved it in my group by assuming the "Combat Advantage" being a result from the enemy being unable to determine the timing of your attack by seeing your gestures and the precise angle and speed of the incoming attack.

I could be wrong though.

 

[Fkewl]

After reading 9 pages on the subject, there's a few conclusion on the stealth i, as dm, will follow

-if you pick your nose/rub yourself/touch your symbol stealthily as an action > well nobody will see you doing that.. but you don't go "poof ! I'm now stealthy!" - it just means nobody saw you doing that action specifically
If you stealthily grabs the waitress backside, she will see you and everybody else.. not the hand that grabbed her.

-if you attack stealthily, now opposed stealth roll to passive perception if not in combat
(no PC's where spotted and no attacks where done to the creatures (no reason to be ultra alert) )
Now.. if there is a guard on alert or they are waiting for an ambush.. that's a active perception

-if in combat, against active perception if not in melee with a PC then a passive perception,
I think giving that warhammer going for your head a little more attention then that spot of brown cape around a tree is a better option

Using other allies as cover then make a stealthy attack.. hum.. still not sure
I assume the stealthy attack behind a ally is an attack nobody saw coming (too quick and using allies moves against the target)
Cinematic : the rogue fires is handxbow between your ally's ribs and shield arm right into the throat of the monster. The monster never saw it coming since the rogue covered is aim and firing behind the ally.

If you hide after attacking a monster, the monster, unless harrassed by other PC's will use it's turn to move and actively search you (active search). Or if with ranged weapons, will use is minor action to guess where you are and lob that stinkpot in your face. It will also tell others to flush you out of your hiding place.. better find a new one !

I don't see that many rolls for now, which was the orignial problem..

Francois

 

[komi]

-if you pick your nose/rub yourself/touch your symbol stealthily as an action > well nobody will see you doing that.. but you don't go "poof ! I'm now stealthy!" - it just means nobody saw you doing that action specifically
If you stealthily grabs the waitress backside, she will see you and everybody else.. not the hand that grabbed her.

Hiding your actions is more in the domain of the thievery (sleight of hand). Stealth as written is about hiding you, not your action. Though I agree that a DM can apply skills in ways not expressly written. Perhaps opening a door quietly so the person in the room doesn't notice would be a good example of using stealth.

More to your point, if you are bothered by having someone touch their holy symbol to become hidden, just rule that that action is not sufficient. Just like a DM could consider a clear glass wall sufficient for cover but not for stealth, an action could also be inadequate for hiding your whole person.

 

[Xyl]

Let's start from what we know.

• A stealth check is made as part of an action, and covers that action.
• It's possible to get ongoing stealth.
• Ongoing stealth ends if you don't have cover or concealment.
• Ongoing stealth ends if you attack or shout.
• It's possible to get make an attack stealthily. (Otherwise, the ability of some monsters to keep stealth after missing an attack would be useless.)

The logical synthesis of those tidbits is that a stealth check must do two things. First, it must hide a single action (a move, an attack, or anything else). Second, it must give you ongoing stealth in at least some cases.

The rules, unfortunately, are silent on when you get ongoing stealth. It's obvious that an attack can't give you ongoing stealth. On the other hand, not having ongoing stealth after moving would defeat the purpose of stealth.


So there are some cases that the rules cover, and some that they don't:

• Making a Stealth check as part of a move action gives you stealth for the duration of the action and afterwards.
• Making a Stealth check as part of an attack gives you stealth for the duration of the action, but not afterwards.
• Making a Stealth check as part of any other action gives you stealth for the duration of the action... and possibly afterwards, it's not clear.
• It's also not clear if ongoing stealth will last long enough to make an attack, or if you need to make a separate Stealth check as part of the attack.

Personally, I'm ruling that you only get ongoing stealth if you move, and that the stealth doesn't apply to an attack unless you make a Stealth check as part of the attack. I can see the argument for allowing attacks to keep ongoing stealth until the end, though.

 

[komi]

Personally, I'm ruling that you only get ongoing stealth if you move, and that the stealth doesn't apply to an attack unless you make a Stealth check as part of the attack. I can see the argument for allowing attacks to keep ongoing stealth until the end, though.

The rules are very clear on what ends stealth: attacking or shouting. Why would you say that only moving allows you to keep stealth past your action?

Your ruling sounds like the norm is that you lose stealth at the end of the action with the exception being movement. Rather it should be that you keep stealth at the end of your action with the exceptions being attacking or shouting.

NOTE: The DM has the right to decide other actions besides attacking or shouting that end stealth (e.g. banging your sword on your shield, grabbing onto someone who's not hidden).