Stealth in Combat

[Xyl]

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?

If the enemy knows where you are, and you stealthily do something which isn't movement, the enemy still knows where you are.

 

[deleteme123456]

Let's assume there exists a condition called "hidden" generated by Stealth. How you get there is your problem. What are the benefits of being hidden? Most people agree that it grants combat advantage. What about + to defense? If a monster tries to attack you with a melee or ranged attack are they at -5 to hit for targetting what they can't see? To me that's a much bigger concern than the Rogue getting his extra backstab damage and the reason my players currently can't use Stealth after the start of combat (that and we didn't have good simple versions like some of the ones posted here when we started the campaign, so I agreed not to use it against them in exchange for not letting them use it).

 

[Sanzuo]

This thread still around?

I'm curious if there's been any further development about stealth from the official source. Or are we assuming that they're leaving it as is written?

 

[bardolph]

4. Remember that intelligent foes will share information. If one of the four hobgoblins spots a hidden PC, that guy can tell his allies where the PC is hiding.

Good to know, but what is the consequence of this? Does it grant a bonus to other creatures' Perception? Or does it automatically allow all enemies within earshot to target the hidden character? For ease of play, I would probably rule the latter.

Regarding the first paragraph, I differ slightly: the stealthed attacker doesn't roll a new Stealth check vs. target's passive Perception; instead the target gets an active Perception check against the original Stealth check.

I'm thinking about actual gameplay. It's simply easier play to allow the attacker to make two rolls: 1 "sniping" roll for Combat Advantage, and 1 "attack" roll to hit. With two different-colored d20s, they could roll them both at once. Besides, I think it's in the spirit of 4e that attackers roll dice, not defenders.

Let's assume there exists a condition called "hidden" generated by Stealth. How you get there is your problem.

By making a Stealth check?

What are the benefits of being hidden? Most people agree that it grants combat advantage. What about + to defense? If a monster tries to attack you with a melee or ranged attack are they at -5 to hit for targetting what they can't see? To me that's a much bigger concern than the Rogue getting his extra backstab damage and the reason my players currently can't use Stealth after the start of combat (that and we didn't have good simple versions like some of the ones posted here when we started the campaign, so I agreed not to use it against them in exchange for not letting them use it).

In terms of Combat Advantage, Mearls brought forth a good point, which is that "the math assumes that rogues gain Combat Advantage on almost every attack." So, when in doubt, let 'em roll Stealth.

As for the targeting issue, I also don't see that as a big problem, since monsters will probably have plenty of other targets to choose from. If the Stealth roll missed the Passive Perception of any monsters, they obviously can target the character.

If the last action of the PC is an attack, don't allow a Stealth roll to "re-hide." Instead, assume that the PC is Spotted and therefore targettable.

 

[bardolph]

Double post.

 

[DM_Blake]

For me, the passive vs. active debate comes down to a matter of pure pragmatism. I don't want to roll 40 Perception checks if there are 40 combatants on the field, so I just rule that everyone is effectively taking 10 on their rolls which produces a completely average result for each creature; no really high rolls and no really low rolls. This also has the added advantage that I don't have to keep track of which individual opponents actually made their rolls and which ones failed. Tracking is instead by creature type, since all creatures of the same basic type have the same passive Perception score (e.g. all of the Kobold Skirmishers succeed, but all of the Kobold Minions fail).

This arguably has the downside of making things easier or more predictable for the rogue, but I'm willing to sacrifice predictability for the sake of keeping the game from grinding to a screeching halt. If there are just a few opponents involved, I'll go ahead and make one roll for each to keep the rogue from getting too complacent.

Sure, you could do that.

Me, I do it another way.

First, since a room full of kobolds would all have pretty much the samme passive perception value (since they are all similar kobolds), taking 10 (using passive perception) pretty much means every kolbold sees him (bad rogue stealth roll) or no kobold sees him (average or good rogue stealth roll). There is very little possibility that a few kobolds happen to be looking the right way at the right time and spot him (which is what a good perception roll would represent if I did take the time to roll each one).

Of course, the target of the attack needs an immediate perception check to know if combat advantage is granted. But the other 39 kobolds don't need any check at all. I see no benefit, now, on the rogue's turn, to knowing which of the kobolds can see him and which cannot.

Most actions the rogue might do will break his stealth anyway. So, one kobold needs to see him (or fail to see him), the rogue takes his action and consequently becomes unstealthed.

One stealth roll, one perception roll. Done.

But, assuming the rogue's action doesn't blow his stealth, I have him write his stealth roll on the battlemat near his figure.

On my turn, when I'm moving all those kobolds, I will look at the tactical situation.

Some kobolds will naturally go after the wizard, or the fighter, or whoever, because that's the PC threatening them. Essentially, I decide it like the rogue has no cover/concealment/stealth at all - which kobolds would attack the rogue if they knew he was there, and which kobolds would not attack him even if they can plainly see him.

I move all the kobolds who wouldn't attack the rogue without rolling their perception checks. Who cares if they see him or not since they aren't going to attack him either way?

For the remaining kobolds who would attack the rogue, I roll their perceptions before they act. One perception roll, then move the kobold accordingly (attack the rogue if he saw him, or go look for the rogue if he didn't, or ignore the rogue and attack someone else in some cases. Next kobold. One perception roll, then move the kobold accordingly. Etc.

This works easiest for me. No blanket "everyone fails" or "everyone succeeds" based on passive perception. No rolling for 40 kobolds. No remembering perception rolls made 5 minutes ago during the rogue's turn when it's finally my turn to move the kobolds.

Piece of cake.

 

[ryryguy]

I'm thinking about actual gameplay. It's simply easier play to allow the attacker to make two rolls: 1 "sniping" roll for Combat Advantage, and 1 "attack" roll to hit. With two different-colored d20s, they could roll them both at once. Besides, I think it's in the spirit of 4e that attackers roll dice, not defenders.

Yes, I'm convinced. I will change to have the attacker/stealther make the role.

(STOP THE PRESSES! Somebody actually convinced to change his mind due to arguments posted in a rules thread!!!!)

 

[DM_Blake]

But, even if it's "at the end", I still think it's irrelevant. I move into cover/concealment as a move action, without making a stealth check. From the cover/concealment, I use a free action (or minor action) to touch my holy symbol as good luck, in a stealthy manner. The stealth comes into effect at the end of my free action. Since you can use stealth with any action which you are trying to do in a stealthy manner, by RAW it works. I now make an attack that benefits from stealth.

This is hokey.

No way a game would create stealth rules this ridiculous. I hope.

And I'm quite certain that this is not even close to what D&D 4e is trying to do with stealth.

Now, wouldn't it just make more sense to allow stealth to cover the attack action from the beginning without all that silliness?

Good.

It seems we agree.

This interpretation is a million times more practical.

Now, please stop writing that other stuff, even to point out a broken interpretation, because I think a bunch of people on this forum think that your broken version is what's intended by RAW. Don't confuse them more...

 

[clearstream]

In terms of Combat Advantage, Mearls brought forth a good point, which is that "the math assumes that rogues gain Combat Advantage on almost every attack." So, when in doubt, let 'em roll Stealth.

CA can be achieved in a lot of ways other than stealth, but being hidden has other ramifications that to my mind should be considered when granting the check.

Also, I felt WotCMearls was pretty clear that you need to be hidden to get CA on an attack from stealth, and that you do not make an attack stealthily.

That means one stealth roll - to get hidden. And then no stealth roll - to do the attack.

-vk

 

[DM_Blake]

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

Are we still talking in terms of whether or not your next action gains combat advantage?

Because if that's all we're trying to determine here, then you don't roll stealth at all while you dash from the bushes to the tree.

Once your dash (move action) is completed, you begin your attack (standard action). Now, you check for Stealth.

Since having stealth would affect your attack roll, you want to determine stealth before you determine the outcome of your attack roll, so might as well determine the stealth part first.

So, your character leans out around the tree and flings a spear at a bad guy. You announce you're doing this stealthfully. Roll your stealth check opposed by the bad guy's perception check (roll or passive as you or your DM prefers). Success means you are stealthy and have combat advantage, failure means you are not stealthy and don't have combat advantage.

After your attack is completed, you are automatically unstealthed, because the rules for stealth say that attacking or shouting breaks the stealth.