Stealthy Combat: How Would You Run It?

[bardolph]

On their turn, if they have cover/concealment. If you mean when can they stealth to gain Combat Advantage, then only when Stealth has made the party unaware of the Sharpshooter. If they can manage to stealth around to another area that they weren't undetected, the target is unaware of their new position and I'd grant combat advantage. If you're using stealth to duck behind a tree trunk and pop out and fire from the same spot--they're aware of you, no CA, sorry.

Is this RAW or houserule? I mention this because RAW says that if you fail a Stealth roll, you can try again any time you have cover or concealment (PHB 188).

Another case: what if the goblin moves through 2 squares of concealment as a move action? Would that be enough to allow a Stealth roll to gain CA?

On their turn. If they are trying to quickly determine if their are any tripwires in the area, Standard Action. If they are trying to locate a sharpshooter that has successfully stealthed against them, Minor Action.

Agreed.

I'm confused by this one, but I'm assuming you mean what can they do against a sharpshooter that has managed to stealth.

Yes, this is what I meant. However, I did not take it for granted that a creature cannot Stealth after being discovered.

- Make a perception check to locate out of sight goblins.
- Run to where he last saw/heard one, then hit it a lot.
- Run near where he last saw/heard a couple, and Ready a Charge action.
- Pull out a ranged weapon and Ready a ranged attack.

Fair enough

And the last tip: If you see one, call it out with a free action--now the rest of the group doesn't have to guess the square to attack.

I see. Makes sense that the spotting character can point out the square. How would this affect other characters' Perception rolls?

 

[Donatello]

See I disagree with allowing liberal Stealth rolls for CA, but I fear that is treading towards the glut of Stealth-based threads I'm already seeing.

CA should not be as easy to get at range as it is in melee. Most CA is granted via flanking. To be able to get CA at range by doing something as simple as moving to the right spot unbalances the combat dynamic, in that a flanking target is vulnerable to counterattack much more readily than the target at range.

Yes, you get +2 to hit, sneak attack, or any other CA-related abilities when flanking, but the thing you're flanking can also turn around and pop you in the mouth for trying. You don't even have to hit the target to be percieved as a threat, and the flanked enemy will move to avoid the situation again (if he can), or at the very least do a diagonal shift so that one of the two enemies cannot flank him again with merely a shift. There's ways to prevent it, tactically, and ways to counter it, via counterattack. If the rogue happens to flank with a fighter or paladin there may be consequences, but if he flanks with a warlord or cleric or (gasp) a second rogue, there's nothing that can be done to prevent their would-be-flanked-foe from moving around and doing his best to incapacitate at least one of the offending duo.

At a range you don't have that. If all you have to do is roll a Stealth check, there's no recourse. If the monster you're fighting is particularly average in the perception department, any rogue or ranger will be able to simply sidestep and sneak attack at will. And being 10 squares away means the foe would have to break off and chase down the offender, who is probably equally adept at running the opposite way, Stealth'ing again, and doing it all over. The risk vs. payoff isn't there in my head.

Rogues can be viable as a ranged build, but they sacrifice some of their damage output (namely their sneak attack every round) in exchange for many less dents in their skull.

 

[bardolph]

Fair enough. Since you answered the original question, I should probably refrain from trying to turn this thread into a copy of all the others.

I will say this: while flanking carries the risk of counterattack, cover/concealment is not always available, and sometimes the Stealth roll fails, so it's not always a gimme on the ranged side of things. Also, flanking gives CA to two attackers instead of one.

While I definitely agree that ranged combat carries less risk, the party is usually over as soon as a brute or soldier gets adjacent.

 

[Donatello]

True, stealth can fail, but there's no penalty for doing so. Also, a ranged target is less likely to be percieved as a threat if he never hits, while a target flanking in melee is immediately suspect.

Back to my original point, if the Goblin Sharpshooter can land a 2d6+4 shot (and he does have to land it, since the Sniper ability essentially makes his CA reliable) more than a couple of times in an encounter, he's more powerful than a level 2 Artillery IMO.

 

[Xorn]

bardolph:
I actually started the "Stealth in Combat" thread (the huge one), so in the interests of not contributing to a monstrocity like that again, I'm hesitant to say anything that sounds like I'm saying "My way is the only right way." When answering this thread (which I think is an interesting thread) I was answering "How would *I* run it?"

Here's why *I* run it this way, in the short, short version:
Combat Advantage uses Stealth rules to determine if the target is unaware of you.
Combat Advantage uses Concealment rules to determine if the target can't see you.
(See Combat Advantage in the Combat chapter.)

There's a lot more to it than that (read as much of Stealth in Combat as you can stomach), but that's the conclusion I finally reached. Every published adventure I've read so far supports this interpretation (that Stealth only grants Combat Advantage from the target being unaware of your presence).

In order for Stealth to grant combat advantage for me, after being spotted, I have to stealthily move to an unexpected location and attack again. Stealthing behind a barrel or tree stump doesn't work in my campaign--they know you're there, they are expecting the attack.

EDIT - I didn't answer your question about moving 2 squares, and I couldn't give a flat yes or no. I'd lean towards no, mainly because you could have a rogue walk into a candlelit 20x20 room with 4 people watching him come in the door, and by stealthing 2 squares right in front of them, would you give him CA? I wouldn't. Now if he managed to enter the room without notice? I'd let him move about the dim room with Stealth. But as far as making someone unaware of you? Gonna take something exceptional.

 

[bardolph]

bardolph:
I actually started the "Stealth in Combat" thread (the huge one), so in the interests of not contributing to a monstrocity like that again, I'm hesitant to say anything that sounds like I'm saying "My way is the only right way." When answering this thread (which I think is an interesting thread) I was answering "How would *I* run it?"

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

Here's why *I* run it this way, in the short, short version:
Combat Advantage uses Stealth rules to determine if the target is unaware of you.
Combat Advantage uses Concealment rules to determine if the target can't see you.
(See Combat Advantage in the Combat chapter.)

There's a lot more to it than that (read as much of Stealth in Combat as you can stomach), but that's the conclusion I finally reached. Every published adventure I've read so far supports this interpretation (that Stealth only grants Combat Advantage from the target being unaware of your presence).

In order for Stealth to grant combat advantage for me, after being spotted, I have to stealthily move to an unexpected location and attack again. Stealthing behind a barrel or tree stump doesn't work in my campaign--they know you're there, they are expecting the attack.

OK. Fair enough. What's your definition of "unexpected location"? Is moving through several concealed squares enough?

 

[Solodan]

I would set up the encounter as follows: set a DC to hear the beetles, the minions and roll 3 stealth rolls before the encounter. Depending on the players actions, it'd be against passive perception, or let them roll (probably at least 1 or 2 characters would be actively scouting at the very least)

I'm a jerk, so my goblins would be 10 feet up in a tree hidden. I'd set up the map so that there is bushes, trees and such in clusters (probably 3x1, 2x2, 1x2 etc) and the bushes would block line of sight, but not line of effect (difficult terrain) This way, the sharpshooters have places to run away to. The beetle will be in a somewhat open terrain, and the minions are doing their best to hide and try to flank.

As far as combat advantage goes, I'd definately give the goblins CA on their first shot. I'd let the goblins use a bluff check to get CA again. If they get shot at, or pursued, they might jump/climb down and try to run to the bushes set up above. IF they can get out of LOS from their pursuers, I'd grant an opportunity to make a stealth check with appropriate penalties.

I'd try to make this encounter a tank and be flanked - the defender deals with the beetle, but will be flanked by the minions without help, and the strikers will need to chase down those archers. The sharpshooters aren't really that much of a threat, even with 1 or 2 CA shots.

 

[bardolph]

The problem with using Bluff to gain CA is that it eats a Standard Action. In most situations, the opportunity cost is simply too high to make it worth it.

 

[Mistwell]

See I disagree with allowing liberal Stealth rolls for CA, but I fear that is treading towards the glut of Stealth-based threads I'm already seeing.

CA should not be as easy to get at range as it is in melee. Most CA is granted via flanking. To be able to get CA at range by doing something as simple as moving to the right spot unbalances the combat dynamic, in that a flanking target is vulnerable to counterattack much more readily than the target at range.

IF YOU GAIN RANGED COMBAT ADVANTAGE FROM CONCEALMENT (+2 ATTACK), YOU ALSO USUALLY JUST GRANTED YOUR FOE CONCEALMENT (-2 ATTACK). THE CA MERELY OFFSETS THE CONCEALMENT FOR MOST USERS OF THE STEALTH SKILL.

This is something that doesn't generally happen with melee combat - just ranged combat.

Are people just trying to do this in their head and not actually playing it out to see how the new concealment rules work? Draw the friggen lines like the rulebook says guys, you will rapidly find that concealment isn't nearly as pat and simple as you seem to think it is. You need that stealth check just to even it out, much less actually gain anything from it offense-wise.

At a range you don't have that. If all you have to do is roll a Stealth check, there's no recourse. If the monster you're fighting is particularly average in the perception department, any rogue or ranger will be able to simply sidestep and sneak attack at will.

1) Rangers don't sneak attack, and keep in mind that stealth is a Ranger primary skill, and a primary skill for many monsters. Stop focusing on just rogue sneak attacks as the only relevant factor when deciding this. It's not the most important factor, and the designers already said they expect rogues to usually get sneak attack anyway.

2) See above, they just granted their foe concealment for that attack.

 

[Tonester]

IF YOU GAIN RANGED COMBAT ADVANTAGE FROM CONCEALMENT (+2 ATTACK), YOU ALSO USUALLY JUST GRANTED YOUR FOE CONCEALMENT (-2 ATTACK). THE CA MERELY OFFSETS THE CONCEALMENT FOR MOST USERS OF THE STEALTH SKILL.

I don't know if you meant to or not, but that is completely wrong. Maybe you were referring to cover?

If it is low light and my attacker doesn't have low or dark vision, I have concealment which gives him a -2 for attack rolls. Then, on my turn, if I attack him and happen to have low or dark vision, then I do not suffer a penalty for attack rolls.

Another example would be a ranger shooting from an edge of a fog, mist, or darkness spell. The attacker gets to pick ANY corner of his/her own square for the attack and trace it to all other corners of their target. Since the attacker's corner isn't IN the concealed area, he/she would NOT be shooting through obscured vision. But, if someone from outside that concealed area was shooting him/her, they would have to trace to every corner of the player's square. And, since at least 2 of the corners would be INSIDE the concealed area, they have concealment from their attacker.

Because of all this, I'm going to assume you meant cover and not concealment. In this regard, the PHB and DMG doesn't really talk about it, but from my own personal experiences, many people allow raged attackers to shoot from behind cover without a penalty if it is only 1 square. An example of this would be a player shooting over a low wall, table, crypt, etc. It doesn't impeded the attacker's shot, but it does impede the shot of people attacking them behind it. Again - this isn't covered anywhere in the PHB or DMG. Technically speaking, RAW, a player behind cover would ALSO suffer a -2 penalty for attacking people since the line traced would always intersect their own cover.