Stealth - the low down UPDATED!

[James McMurray]

Just saw #7. How do you choose to pay attention to something that "avoided your notice?" Notice means "to pay attention to."

 

[bert1000]

So, according to vonklaude's argument, a hidden character gains Combat Advantage, but can still be targeted by ranged attacks at -2?

That's how I read it. See my post above, with some other assumptions it actually seems to work pretty well. (not arguing raw)

 

[Tonester]

All Stealth in Combat really does, bottom line, is give you Combat Advantage.

I would tend to agree. The rules of cover, concealment, total cover, and total concealment don't appear to be altered either way.

1. Stealth does not upgrade Cover to Superior Cover, or Concealment to Total Concealment. Stealth alone does not place you under the Targeting What You Can't See rules.

I agree that Stealth does not upgrade cover or concealment. The issue is what happens to players that are already noticed who then succeed on a stealth check they are entitled to make? A warlock attacks on their turn. It then moves 4 squares at the end of their turn which grants them concealment until the end of their next turn. During the same round, a creature attacks the warlock at -2 for concealment. This is a given. Next round, the warlock starts off its turn by moving 4 more squares with a stealth check. It succeeds despite a possible penalty for moving more than 2 squares (for argument's sake). This is where the rules don't do a good enough job of explaining. If the warlock then attacks a creature, the warlock would do so with Combat Advantage. This seems to be agreeable for everyone involved - including WoTC. What if the Warlock does not attack, however? They are still concealed (they moved again). They are still "stealthed" because they passed their stealth check. How does the creature perceive the warlock? Still only as concealed? The CSR claims the warlock goes unnoticed. Stealth rules claim the warlock goes "unnoticed, unheard, and unseen." Wtf does that mean? Concealed does not equal unseen.

In my opinion, this is where an "appropriateness call" has to be made by the DM or maybe some House Rules need to be implemented. Mechanically, it doesn't make sense to me to grant stealtch checks for cover OR total cover. But, I would like to run my games within the spirit of RAW - as much as possible anyway so I'm trying to "work with the system" on this one. It all seems so easy and clear except for these little situations where someone gains cover or concealment AFTER already being noticed and DURING COMBAT. And if they then succeed on a stealth check - what happens to the rules?

Cliff notes: I agree it doesn't upgrade to total cover or concealment. I'm not so sure what happens to situations where creatures would like to target something they can't notice, hear, or see after already noticing them, hearing them, or seeing them. The only thing I can suggest is a Perception vs. Stealth check and if it beats it (meaning, they can tell the general direction and distance), then this means they CAN notice them since they aren't totally concealed or totally covered (in the case of the warlock above). Its a matter of "I just saw them.... they must be close" and then they do a perception check and realize, "Aha! They teleported behind me!" and then they can go about their business of dealing with cover and concealment for defense bonuses.

2. If you have Cover or Concealment from any source you can use Stealth provided your DM deems the given situation appropriate. Your DM will tell you if you can make a check. A power such as Fleeting Ghost or a skill such as Bluff that explicitly grants you a Stealth check should qualify as appropriate.

Agreed.

3. To gain CA on an attack using Stealth, you have to be already hidden by using some other action before making that attack. That can be a minor action. When you attack from hiding, your hidden condition does not end until after completing the entirety of that attack action.

Agreed on the CA part.

The rest needs more clarification. Minor actions, in my opinion, don't stealth you. They may be required to remain stealthed, but they don't stealth you on their own. If you minor action drink a potion... you aren't stealthed. It merely means you quaffed a potion without anyone noticing the fact that you did. On the other hand, if you are invisible and want to sneak by someone, you need to roll a stealth check for movement. Then, if you want to drink a potion, you would need to stealth check a minor action to ensure you don't make noise doing so. Similarly, if you are stealthed behind a wall already and don't move, you are still stealthed (assuming you still have cover, concealment, etc). But, if you drink a potion from behind that wall, you need to stealth check to ensure you do so without drawing attention to yourself.

You know - I think I just answered my own question about the cover/concealment issue during combat. People are said to be fully aware in all directions during combat (unless distracted). If a warlock who begins their turn already stealthed does a teleport with a stealth check to a location behind an enemy, they can. But, they are still only concealed. The enemies will be aware that the warlock is behind them, but it might take them a while to realize (depending on whether or not they pass their passive check.) If they do, then the stealth fails and the warlock would not get combat advantage on their next attack against them. If they failed, the warlock MAY get combat advantage on their next attack assuming the creature does not go first and use a minor action to actively perceive them. This seems to be in line with the RAI and RAW.

4. Make Stealth checks against passive Perception. Alert enemies can use minor actions to make further Perception checks, but do not lose the benefit of their passive result by doing so. You have to beat the better of their active roll or their passive Perception.

Agreed. I thought this was redundant at first, but I do see 1 circumstance where this is appropriate. If a person's passive check is good enough to determine the location of an invisibly stealthing player, they may take a minor action to try and improve on this. If that active check ends up being lower than their passive, they wouldn't all of a sudden not know the direction or distance, right? Agreed.

5. Once any enemy notices you, either by beating your Stealth with their Perception, or by reaching a viewpoint that has no lines of sight blocked by obstacles or allies (of yours) and is not obscured, that enemy can share information. If they do, you are no longer hidden against anyone capable of understanding that information.

It should be pointed out that this is completely a House Rule. Nothing in the PHB or DMG describes this behavior. This would fall under the "appropriateness" ruling of DMs. The example I've used before is the guard dog who notice a stealthed player, but doesn't have the means to communicate an exact location. They can alert their masters to a presence and possibly a direction, but they can't tell them where exactly.

6. If your enemy could see you were it not for Stealth, i.e. they have at least one clear LOS to you, they know what square you are in. (If they couldn't see you irrespective of Stealth, you should be using the Targeting What You Can't See Rules.)

Agreed.

7. If your enemy feels threatened by you, they can pay attention to you without beating your Stealth check. They can attack you with a -2 penalty due to your cover or concealment, but you still have Combat Advantage against them.

This is a hous rule (as you've pointed out) and also kind of pointless given the understandings above. The rules for stealth and combat seem clear. The rules for stealth and defense also seem clear now.

8. You have Combat Advantage against any enemy you attack from hiding. Their Perception check (active or passive) hasn't beaten your Stealth check and no one you've failed to hide from has shared information with them.

Agree, but I would be careful with the wording. You don't need to be "hidden", you just need to be "stealthed" - whatever that is.

Suggested House Rule 9. Moving more than half your movement automatically disqualifies a given situation from being appropriate. Using any power that explicitly grants you a check overrides that.

Disagree with this. There are specific feats which even allow you to move your normal speed. I would just stick to the penalties for movement, as applicable.

Suggested House Rule 10. Remaining adjacent to an enemy you just attacked or who just successfully hit you automatically disqualifies a given situation from being appropriate. If you were hidden, you aren't now. Using any power that explicitly grants you a check overrides that.

Doesn't seem unreasonable. I probably wouldn't do it and would just make the call on a need by need basis for my players but it doesn't sound unreasonable.

 

[gleather]

So let me see if I get this interpretation: you can make a stealth check if you already have cover or concealment (for instance at the end of a move action that ends in cover) to gain CA on a subsequent attack action, but you are never really 'hidden' (you never gain Total Concealment and enemies always know where you are and can target your square with the -2 cover/concealment penalty). The perception vs. stealth check is only used to determine whether you get CA or not (effectively stealth allows you to use misdirection during your attack from cover/concealment to gain CA period).


Not sure if this is RAW or RAI, but looks like some house rules for me for now. It makes it relatively easy to get combat advantage, but tough to "hide" and get the full invisible defensive perks (which are too much imo). It also makes all the utility powers quite useful.

In talking to a friend of mine who works for WoTC, he confirmed what you said here is the intent. It is just enough to give you CA, but not total concealment. Not sure if that helps.

 

[Skyscraper]

Question : under the above interpretation (that generally appears reasonable IMO), when you say you "attack from hiding", does that include moving up to your speed from a hidden position to attack your target in melee? In other words, if your stealth check succeeded at the beginning of your turn (say you spent a minor action for that or you were there last turn), then you move out towards the opponent in the open and swing your sword at him, are you considered to have combat advantage?

If not, would the above interpretation for attacking from hiding be mostly limited to ranged attacks? Or situations where you're hiding in a thicket next to your opponent?

Sorry if this has been clarified already, i haven't been following the stealth threads though i've seen there are many.

Sky

 

[James McMurray]

You have to retain cover or concealment to remain unnoticed (p. 188). The moment you come out from behind the tree to run across the field you are no longer hidden, and so no longer have combat advantage.

So yes, it'll attacks while stealthed will usually be done when you've got a ranged attack or adjacent to your foe. Luckily the two classes that get stealth are pretty good at ranged combat.

 

[Tellerve]

In talking to a friend of mine who works for WoTC, he confirmed what you said here is the intent. It is just enough to give you CA, but not total concealment. Not sure if that helps.

If we go with this interpretation, would using Stealth when not in combat allow you to not be seen and targetable.

Tellerve

 

[Tonester]

^ That is different. What makes it difficult is that in combat, creatuers are aware in 360 degrees. Out of combat, there is some idea of creatures not always being alert/aware of 360 degrees. As soon as you are seen out of combat, I would assume combat starts

 

[Skyscraper]

You have to retain cover or concealment to remain unnoticed (p. 188). The moment you come out from behind the tree to run across the field you are no longer hidden, and so no longer have combat advantage.

So yes, it'll attacks while stealthed will usually be done when you've got a ranged attack or adjacent to your foe. Luckily the two classes that get stealth are pretty good at ranged combat.

Thanks.

Sky

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The interpretations seem reasonable enough, but I'm not really seeing the need for the house rules.