Stealth: There are two levels of "hidden", not one

[Paul Strack]

I believe I've figured out how to cut through the Stealth issues. I think the problems come from trying to shoehorn all the Stealth rules into single hidden status. I contend that there are in fact two levels of hidden status implied by the rules, with different benefits and requirements.

For the sake of argument, let's call the two levels "Lesser Hidden" and "Greater Hidden".

Lesser Hidden: You are hidden from view.

Greater Hidden: You are hidden from view and your location is not known.

Lesser Hidden

Benefits: Combat Advantage against your target.

Requirements: Normal cover or concealment against your target and a Stealth check that beats your target's Perception.

Justification: I haven't seen anyone disagree that Stealth provides you with at least this level of benefit.

In practice, you don't need to resolve this level of Stealth until immediately before you attack, because it only provides a benefit on attacks.

Greater Hidden

Benefits: Combat Advantage and protection from enemies by Targeting What You Can't See (TWYCS) on PH 281.

Requirements: Cover and concealment against all your enemies and a Stealth check that beats all your enemies' Perceptions.

Justification:

1) The only advantage of TWYCS beyond the standard cover or concealment penalty comes for Pick a Square and Attack. This means if your location square is known, there is no added mechanical advantage from being hidden and you may as well treat it as not hidden.

2) This means that you must have cover against and beat the Perception of all your enemies, because if any one of them knows your location square, he can reveal it to his allies at any time with a Free Action. The same applies to Spot checks. If any opponent spots you, your location is revealed and you are effectively no longer hidden.

3) In practice, this greater level hidden is the only one with lasting benefits. Therefore, it is the only one you need to track. Furthermore, since you have to remain hidden from all opponents to benefit, you can treat is a simple on/off status effect.

Conclusions

You may disagree with some of the above argument. I hope, though, that if you accept a separation between "just hidden" and "hidden + unknown location", some of the debate on Stealth become simpler and cleaner.

EDITED: I've removed the references to Total Concealment and movement, which are not supported by the RAW and seem to be confusing the arguments.

 

[the_redbeard]

I believe I've figured out how to cut through the Stealth issues. I think the problems come from trying to shoehorn all the Stealth rules into single hidden status. I contend that there are in fact two levels of hidden status implied by the rules, with different benefits and requirements.

I'd say this belongs in the House Rule section. It might work for you and your table, but it is exactly contradicted by the Official FAQ:

"16. What are the benefits of being hidden?
There are several benefits of being hidden from an enemy - you have combat advantage against them and they will have a more difficult time targeting you because you are unseen. Page 281 of the Player's Handbook explains the rules for targeting unseen creatures. "

I also don't see what problems it solves.
In fact, it might make more work for the DM. Instead of only having to know one DC (the highest passive perception) against a stealth check, the DM will have to check each target the stealther is attacking. At least a little more work.

 

[Paul Strack]

I'd say this belongs in the House Rule section. It might work for you and your table, but it is exactly contradicted by the Official FAQ:

"16. What are the benefits of being hidden?
There are several benefits of being hidden from an enemy - you have combat advantage against them and they will have a more difficult time targeting you because you are unseen. Page 281 of the Player's Handbook explains the rules for targeting unseen creatures. "

That's not the heart of my argument. The key point I am trying to get across is there is a big difference between "hidden but location known" and "hidden and location unknown". This is because the only mechanical benefit from TWYCS is if your opponent must guess your location square.

The TWYCS issue is in the RAW.

The rest of the details are arguable, I admit, and verge on house rules. However, those details boil down to what conditions are required for Lesser vs. Greater Hidden status. The fact that there are two levels of hidden is still a valid idea (and supported by the RAW, in my opinion).

 

[Kordeth]

I think you're introducing more formality and structure than the rules actually need. There's really only one level of hidden, and that's "not being seen." If you've successfully hidden, you can't be seen and enemies have to try to target what they cannot see. They might have a pretty good idea what square you're in based on the particular terrain, but they can't see you. You could be anywhere within that 25-square-foot area, or you might have slipped off elsewhere. Thus, they have to target you by guessing.

What you call "greater hidden" is really just maintaining stealth for long enough that the enemy can't predict where you are, and/or choosing a hiding place that provides a large area of uncertainty. If the only cover in a featureless room is a 5-foot square pillar and you hide, the enemy is going to be pretty confident that you're one or two squares behind that pillar. If, on the other hand, you dash into a 5-square by 5-square cloud of fog, you could be anywhere in that cloud.

 

[Paul Strack]

I think you're introducing more formality and structure than the rules actually need. There's really only one level of hidden, and that's "not being seen." If you've successfully hidden, you can't be seen and enemies have to try to target what they cannot see. They might have a pretty good idea what square you're in based on the particular terrain, but they can't see you. You could be anywhere within that 25-square-foot area, or you might have slipped off elsewhere. Thus, they have to target you by guessing.

What you call "greater hidden" is really just maintaining stealth for long enough that the enemy can't predict where you are, and/or choosing a hiding place that provides a large area of uncertainty. If the only cover in a featureless room is a 5-foot square pillar and you hide, the enemy is going to be pretty confident that you're one or two squares behind that pillar. If, on the other hand, you dash into a 5-square by 5-square cloud of fog, you could be anywhere in that cloud.

The separation between the two is mainly to clarify arguments.

I think most people are reasonably comfortable with the offensive benefits of hiding, because they are necessary for rogues to be competitive as ranged strikers and for everyone else provide a relatively small bonus (+2 to hit). Where people tend to freak out is the defensive benefits of Stealth, which can be huge.

Distinguishing the two levels lets you make separate arguments for the conditions where you get the offensive benefits (Combat Advantage) and the defensive benefits (TWYCS). I think that would lead to fewer "these rules are broken" arguments and make it easier to find compromises.

 

[Kordeth]

The separation between the two is mainly to clarify arguments.

I think most people are reasonably comfortable with the offensive benefits of hiding, because they are necessary for rogues to be competitive as ranged strikers and for everyone else provide a relatively small bonus (+2 to hit). Where people tend to freak out is the defensive benefits of Stealth, which can be huge.

Distinguishing the two levels lets you make separate arguments for the conditions where you get the offensive benefits (Combat Advantage) and the defensive benefits (TWYCS). I think that would lead to fewer "these rules are broken" arguments and make it easier to find compromises.

The problem is that you're restricting Stealth arbitrarily by tacking these requirements onto your idea of "greater hidden." If you beat your enemy's Stealth check, he doesn't see you. Period. That applies whether you have regular cover/concealment or total/superior cover/concealment. That means any time you're hidden, an enemy has to guess what square you're in. Now, there are scenarios in which making that guess is pretty easy (e.g. a lone bush in the middle of an empty featurelss plain), but that's a product of the circumstances and the environment and the common sense of the observer in question.

 

[Paul Strack]

The problem is that you're restricting Stealth arbitrarily by tacking these requirements onto your idea of "greater hidden." If you beat your enemy's Stealth check, he doesn't see you. Period. That applies whether you have regular cover/concealment or total/superior cover/concealment. That means any time you're hidden, an enemy has to guess what square you're in. Now, there are scenarios in which making that guess is pretty easy (e.g. a lone bush in the middle of an empty featurelss plain), but that's a product of the circumstances and the environment and the common sense of the observer in question.

I think there are some fairly common circumstances where you opponent can't see you but would still know where you are (your location square). There are those you listed above, plus the common pretty common condition where one of his allies can see you and can point out your location (because he made his spot check or because he has a clear line of sight).

Under those conditions, I think it is clear that you would still have a combat advantage against the enemy who can't see you but would not benefit from TWYCS. That is the rules-based argument I am making.

The meta-reason I am making this distinction is that there seem to be two extremes in the Stealth debate.

1) The "you are making Stealth too hard and now my rogue is useless" camp.

2) The "you are making Stealth too good and now it is better than invisibility" camp.

I think those extremes come from an either/or interpretation of hidden. If hiding is easy, it is too good defensively, but if hiding is hard, the offensive capacity of rogue's gets nerfed.

If, however, you accept that there is a middle ground where you get Combat Advantage but not TWYCS, you can draw the lines in such a way that rogues are still effective but Stealth is not the single best defense in the game.

If you are willing to accept that there are two tiers of benefits then I am willing to debate with you on where exactly the lines between the levels are drawn.

 

[Kordeth]

I think there are some fairly common circumstances where you opponent can't see you but would still know where you are (your location square). There are those you listed above, plus the common pretty common condition where one of his allies can see you and can point out your location (because he made his spot check or because he has a clear line of sight).

Under those conditions, I think it is clear that you would still have a combat advantage against the enemy who can't see you but would not benefit from TWYCS. That is the rules-based argument I am making.

But that's not a rules-based distinction. The only effect of targeting someone you can't see (besides the usual rules for targeting someone with concealment) is that you have to guess the square your target is in. If some external factor allows a character to know exactly what square a hidden enemy is in, he still has to "guess," his guess just happens to be 100% certain. It's like in Battleship--if I've hit two sections of one of your ships in a line, I "know" the next box in that row has a piece of your ship in it, but I still have to "guess" on my turn.

The meta-reason I am making this distinction is that there seem to be two extremes in the Stealth debate.

1) The "you are making Stealth too hard and now my rogue is useless" camp.

2) The "you are making Stealth too good and now it is better than invisibility" camp.

I think those extremes come from an either/or interpretation of hidden. If hiding is easy, it is too good defensively, but if hiding is hard, the offensive capacity of rogue's gets nerfed.

If, however, you accept that there is a middle ground where you get Combat Advantage but not TWYCS, you can draw the lines in such a way that rogues are still effective but Stealth is not the single best defense in the game.

Stealth already has enough drawbacks--it requires cover/concealment/distraction, you have to make a roll, it's easily overcome with area attacks. Splitting up into this distinction really makes no sense.

If you are willing to accept that there are two tiers of benefits then I am willing to debate with you on where exactly the lines between the levels are drawn.

Sorry, but I don't think there are two levels, merely circumstances in which it's easier to correctly guess what square the hidden target is in.

Consider in your ruling the following scenario. There's a thick wall of brambles that provides concealment. It's 10 squares long. On his turn, Roger the Rogue dashes behind this wall and moves stealthily, stopping in the first square that has concealment. His Stealth check beats Fred the Fighter's Perception check easily, so Roger is now hidden according to the rules on Stealth in the PHB--and yet, under your rules, because he doesn't have total concealment, Fred somehow knows exactly what square Roger is in, even though he has no way of knowing how far Roger continued to move behind the brambles, whether he moved back or forward or is adjacent to the wall, etc. How does that make sense?

If you're hidden, you can't be seen. If you can't be seen, your attacker has to make his best guess what square you're in.

 

[Paul Strack]

Sorry, but I don't think there are two levels, merely circumstances in which it's easier to correctly guess what square the hidden target is in.

Consider in your ruling the following scenario. There's a thick wall of brambles that provides concealment. It's 10 squares long. On his turn, Roger the Rogue dashes behind this wall and moves stealthily, stopping in the first square that has concealment. His Stealth check beats Fred the Fighter's Perception check easily, so Roger is now hidden according to the rules on Stealth in the PHB--and yet, under your rules, because he doesn't have total concealment, Fred somehow knows exactly what square Roger is in, even though he has no way of knowing how far Roger continued to move behind the brambles, whether he moved back or forward or is adjacent to the wall, etc. How does that make sense?

If you're hidden, you can't be seen. If you can't be seen, your attacker has to make his best guess what square you're in.

Let's leave aside the question of Total Concealment vs. Normal Concealment for now. I'm willing to argue that once you accept my basic premise. I even acknowledged in my original post that I could be wrong there. It doesn't matter much for the basic scenario, because it could be a thick hedge (Total Concealment) or a thin hedge (normal Concealment).

So, Roger the Rogue runs behind the hedge on his turn. He gets an awesome stealth roll and hides successfully from his enemies. On her turn, Fred's buddy Wilma the Warlock runs around the other end of the hedge, getting a clear LOS to Rogue and tell Fred "He's hiding in the exact center of the hedge!" To add insult to injury, she hits Roger with an Eldritch blast.

Fred now knows exactly where Roger is, "guesses" that square and chucks a javelin at Roger, suffering only the concealment penalty.

On Roger's turn, he wants revenge and decides to sneak attack Fred. Does he still have a Combat Advantage against Fred? I'd argue he does, since Fred didn't see him: Wilma did.

That's seems to me like a situation that would arise frequently in combat. In many battlefields with scattered terrain, it would be quite likely for you to have cover from some opponents but not others. In that situation, those opponents would be able to instantly reveal where you were, even on your turn, with a Free Action. I think the Stealth rules would still allow you to get a combat advantage against the ones you have cover against.

 

[Kordeth]

So, Roger the Rogue runs behind the hedge on his turn. He gets an awesome stealth roll and hides successfully from his enemies. On her turn, Fred's buddy Wilma the Warlock runs around the other end of the hedge, getting a clear LOS to Rogue and tell Fred "He's hiding in the exact center of the hedge!" To add insult to injury, she hits Roger with an Eldritch blast.

Fred now knows exactly where Roger is, "guesses" that square and chucks a javelin at Roger, suffering only the concealment penalty.

On Roger's turn, he wants revenge and decides to sneak attack Fred. Does he still have a Combat Advantage against Fred? I'd argue he does, since Fred didn't see him: Wilma did.

You're entirely correct, and I'm not disputing that this is how it would work. I'm just saying that trying to codify it into two "levels" of Stealth and assigning requirements and rules to each one is about ten times more complex than stealth needs to be. If you're hidden from someone, that someone has to guess what square you're in to hit you. If someone else tells him what square you're in, his guess is pretty much guaranteed to be right--but he still can't see you, and so you still have CA against him and he still takes penalties to hit you. That's all you need.