What the heck does Hidden mean!!

[DM_Blake]

Don't we already have a term for "someone you cannot see at all"? Isn't that essentially the definition of Total Cover?

Seems to me that if you know he's there, but cannot see him, he has total cover.

So, why would hidden be the same thing? If it's the same, then we wouldn't use the terms interchangeably. The game designers would have picked one and used it exclusively. Well, OK, maybe not these game designers (by that I mean I haven't seen a more inconsistent and errata-prone set of rules in a long, long time).

But, given that, it seems like hidden is something more than "Can't see him but I know he's there" so it should add some element of "I don't know he's there" and/or "I don't even know he exists".

So, smack an enemy with your stick then run out the door and around a corner, you are not hidden. The enemy knows you exist and knows roughly where you went, but he can't see you, so you have total cover.

But lay an ambush for an ususpecting wandering bad guy who has never seen you and doesn't know you're laying the ambush, and you certainly may be hidden. Even if you are simply concealed by crouching behind a low bush (which only grants partial cover because you can be attacked through the bush), assuming your succeed in your stealth check, you can be hidden, which means hidden doesn't require total cover.

Smack an enemy with your stick and then use a teleport power to instantly blink to some other, concealed, location on the battlefield, and now you might be hidden, assuming you succeed at any attempt to apply stealth and your enemy fails to perceive your location.

Those are just a few examples, based on the assumption that "hidden" requires an element of the enemy having no idea where you are, or even if you are.

 

[Nikosandros]

This is in fact a failure on their part to understand that, in reality, they don't "get it" at all!

I think that the failure is that of the rules... they could and should be clearer.

 

[Mistwell]

Despite reasonable minds disagreeing about how stealth works, I do not see any actual rules support for requiring superior cover. All the stealth rules state you need cover or concealment, not superior cover or total concealment. If your attack or shout reveals your location you need to go to new cover or concealment before you can establish your stealthy state again, however there is nothing at all that says or implies the new cover has to be superior cover or total concealment.

You can certainly adjust DCs, but I don't think the intent is there to make it harder to obtain stealth with only normal cover or concealment.

Stealth doesn't grant the same kinds of benefits it did in 3.5, and indeed the benefits are rather limited and relatively small, which is combat advantage granting for most characters a simple +2 to attack. And often that +2 to attack will just serve to negate the -2 to attack you're taking because your own cover or concealment will sometimes grant that same cover/concealment to your target. We went through that in another thread with diagrams, but trust me when I say that if you take cover behind a low wall or concealment in some bushes, you will often be granting that same cover/concealment to your target, thus having a net +0 to attack.

The intent seems to be to allow stealth to be used fairly often - not just with superior cover or total concealment (which is relatively rare). In play, it's not broken, and often has no effect at all. Those seeking to read it strictly and require superior cover or total concealment seem to be nerfing the rule in a manner that will make it virtually useless, and in a way that really isn't necessary once you play with the rule for a while and see how often it actually helps in a meaningful and significant way.

 

[James McMurray]

Unless I've missed it, nobody is saying you need total cover. The dispute is over how high a "low wall" has to be in order to hide a man-sized (or larger) creature. 2' vs. 6' 4" dragonborn hiding from an adjacent enemy doesn't cut it IMO.

 

[Delgaddo]

Unless I've missed it, nobody is saying you need total cover. The dispute is over how high a "low wall" has to be in order to hide a man-sized (or larger) creature. 2' vs. 6' 4" dragonborn hiding from an adjacent enemy doesn't cut it IMO.

Actualy all my examples used a 2' wide column - not sure if it matters but I think it poses a better example. One of my concerns is if regular cover (i.e. the 2' wide column or even a 1' wide column) is enough to allow someone to become hidden? It appears that the RAW allow it and in order to prevent it a DM would have to interject a limit that is otherwise not in the rules.

 

[theinternetisbig]

Stealth isn't magic

I really don't see what all the hubub is about (aside from someone trying to ridiculously abuse the stealth skill like they did hide and move silently in 3rd ed)

If someone is aware of you, then you don't get combat advantage from stealth...

If someone can see you, rolling stealth is worthless.

Succeeding on stealth does not mean the opponent is not aware of you. There must be an aspect of movement with the stealth (through squares that provide concealment/cover) that prevents the opponent from knowing where you are. Only in this way can stealth grant combat advantage in an ongoing battle.

Successfully making a stealth check only ensures that the enemy cannot see you currently, it has no connection to the monster knowing your location. To gain combat advantage through stealth (total concealment) you must prevent the enemy from knowing where you are. e.g. hiding and moving, crossing only squares that have cover/concealment, or perhaps teleporting to an area with cover/concealment.

The example with the ranged rogue gaining combat advantage from hiding behind an ally, rediculous! Hiding behind an ally does not prevent the creature from knowing where you are! (aside from the first round, when the enemy didn't even know the hider was there in the first place.) Perhaps, If you hid behind a line of allies and moved to a concealment/cover providing location you would have combat advantage. (Imagine a rogue sneaking behind a line of friendly fighters to a bush, then sneakily stabbing an enemy on the other side of the line in the back.) of course, if there are any gaps that don't have cover/concealment then stealth (i.e. total concealment/combat advantage) is lost.

The 2' wide wall would provide a place to hide, but without a place to move to; and therefore to leave the enemy confused as to where you might be; there would be NO WAY to gain combat advantage, as the enemies would be aware of your location.
(a rogue hiding behind a pillar means nothing, if the enemies know he is hiding there. Alternatively, a rogue who was hiding before the enemies knew he was there would be perfectly set up for combat advantage.)

This ties into total concealment (hidden + enemy is unaware of your location), trying to target an enemy with total concealment requires that the attacker guess the square to attack, that is because the attacker doesn't know where the target is! In other words, the target hid from view, and now they aren't where they should be... AKA the target hid and then moved without giving up their location.


To sum up:

• Hiding does not magically wipe the enemies minds as to where you likely are (that would be a good idea for a rogue power). To gain combat advantage from hiding, the enemy must have a very limited idea as to where you are. e.g. when you make your attack with combat advantage, to the enemy you are coming "out of nowhere" because they didn't have a clue where you were.

• Stealth is (and darn well should be) harder to use for combat advantage in ongoing combat. It requires (and darn well should require) a bit of strategy to attain.

• Seriously, folks, its not rocket science... Its stealth!

Most of the "Problem" seems to stem from people not wanting to use common sense, and trying to find a way for their rogue to get combat advantage without putting said rogue within reach of those bad, bad monsters. Stop pussyfooting around, pull out that short sword and go for the flank. If you aren't willing to put your sneaky rogue butt on the line, you don't get the sneak attacks every round... Tough. You will have to come up with ranged attacks that give combat advantage, and sell them to your DM.

-Theinternetisbig
20 year DM, one time M:tG judge, and all around big time geek.

 

[Xorn]

Therefore: If you are in a square with superior cover, and there is an adjacent square with superior cover, you could stealthily move into the other square and back into the one you were originally in, and attain "stealth" status?

Ah, you could also (once per combat) make a Bluff check to create a diversion and THEN make a Stealth check.

However, I must point out that the rules for FAILING a stealth check say: "You can’t try again unless observers become distracted or you manage to obtain cover or concealment."

Note that it says "cover or concealment" NOT "superior cover or total concealment".

This seems to contradict that Xorn was saying.

I know I said I wasn't going to reply anymore, but I want to clarify something. What Xorn is saying is this:

The rules, CSRs, and adventure modules all contradict each other badly. It all boils down to two main interpretations:

In combat, you have to have cover/concealment to hide, or you have to have superior cover/total concealment (completely block line of sight) to hide. Pick one of these camps and make sure you understand why you feel that way. Sit tight for clarification from WotC someday.

The reasons I go with "you must block line of sight to hide in combat" is because it says AVOIDS notice. (Depending on what words you bold it means different things, really. As far as the "must have cover/concealment" before using stealth again--I can quote seven places in KotS and the monster manual that list tactics for creatures that act as though there's no way to attack from hiding unless you block line of sight first.

I don't allow hiding with normal cover/concealment because it leads to stupid situations, in my opinion. If someone else wants to, great--it's not my game.

Most of the "Problem" seems to stem from people not wanting to use common sense, and trying to find a way for their rogue to get combat advantage without putting said rogue within reach of those bad, bad monsters. Stop pussyfooting around, pull out that short sword and go for the flank. If you aren't willing to put your sneaky rogue butt on the line, you don't get the sneak attacks every round... Tough. You will have to come up with ranged attacks that give combat advantage, and sell them to your DM.

Ranger. Two adjacent squares of cover. Ranged combat advantage for almost no effort, every round--rules as intended according to CSRs.

I'm with you--in my opinion if you duck behind a coffin, then attack from the other end of the coffin, the bad guy knew you were behind the coffin! But the issue is why do I have to make a judgement call on something that will probably happen two or three times per ROUND?

 

[James McMurray]

Actualy all my examples used a 2' wide column - not sure if it matters but I think it poses a better example. One of my concerns is if regular cover (i.e. the 2' wide column or even a 1' wide column) is enough to allow someone to become hidden? It appears that the RAW allow it and in order to prevent it a DM would have to interject a limit that is otherwise not in the rules.

I believe someone earlier was talking about a wall. In the case of a column it would be wide enough. Unless you're really big you'll be able to turn sideways and hide yourself. You're only a shift away from losing cover though, so it's not all that exciting of a proposition. You won't get more than one round of combat advantage from any but the most unintelligent of enemies. Even animals know to keep the predator/prey in sight.

 

[Klaumbaz]

very good response on how stealth works.

The poster Innuit at the WoTC forum's summed it up very briefly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innuit
Character is stealthed.

If in cover/concealment 2 things can occur.
1. Stealth > Perception = Cannot be targeted
2. Stealth < Perception = Can be targeted, target receives -2 cover because of the cover.

If in total cover/total concealment 3 things can occur.
1. Stealth > Perception = Cannot be targeted
2. Stealth < Perception but not over 10 = You do not know the exact location, you can pick a squre and suffer a -5 to hit.
3. Stealth < Perception over by 10 = You know their exact location, but still suffer a -5 because of the cover.

My addition:
Stealth is not invisibility. Without total concealment, if your perception beats the stealther (not by 10, just beats it), you are revealed. With invisibilty (or total concealment) perception over 10 only gives you the square.

If you keep hitting monsters from stealth, pretty quickly they will either use minor actions for active perception rolls or even ready an attack to use a ranged attack or charge you when you reveal yourself for an attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xorn
It depends on your interpretation of Stealth.

Does Stealth allow you to hide after being noticed without blocking all LoS to the viewer?

If yes: You need to "move" stealthily (move action) to move without the target seeing it, and you have to have cover/concealment first. So you have to move, gain shadow walk concealment, then move some MORE "stealthily" to hide.

In no: You need to make the target lose sight of you in order to use stealth to move (Stealth success AVOIDS notice, doesn't remove it) without detection, so that's Bluff, Total Concealment, or Superior Cover..

Stealth is not just avoids notice. You keep selectively quoting the PHB.

Page 188
Quote:
Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from
view.
Which is a lot more than simply "avoid notice." Your selective quoting relegates stealth to being like using bluff for a distraction.

Stealth is (to quote Monty Python) the art of not being seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xorn
The first version is closest to what the CSRs claim is "rules as intended", but they have contradicted each other and the books. Either way, you need to START the action in cover/concealment to do an action stealthily (hiding would be moving without detection, in my opinion, a move action).

The actual rule is (page 188)
Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to
perform stealthily.

Since you need cover or concealment, it typically is a move action. But not always. If you were behind cover and were attempting to disarm a trap, you could use stealth to remain hidden from view while disarming the trap.

CSRs are not perfect. But their reputation of contradiction is exaggerated - how many contradictions have you actually found? Last edited by the_redbeard; Yesterday at 02:21 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

My addition is this. The only creature that you need to roll perception for on a stealth attack, is the target of the attack. His buddies can't go "there he is!!" fast enough for the poor schlub to benefit from allies perception.

If you stealthed in a previous round due to stealthy movement, then his buddies can go "there he is!" and break your stealth.

Edit: ripped this from http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=233810

 

[Contents May Vary]

That sounds good, Klaumbaz.

Personally, I'm going to add this rule:

* If one or more targets are aware of you, then to become hidden (and thereby make the targets unaware of you, thus granting you combat advantage) you must successfully make a stealth check to move to another square that grants cover or concealment (or better). You may not return to the square from which you started. All squares that you move through must provide cover or concealment (or better).

* You make a stealth check against each enemy that can see you. If you fail, the enemy is aware of you, even if you are partially or completely hidden by the cover or concealment. Note that this means that you have to track which enemies you are hidden to!

* Various powers allow you to break the above rule (see PHB powers for details).

* You remain hidden until you do something that would attract notice, such as calling out, attacking, moving without a stealth check and so on, or until the start of the turn of an enemy who is aware of you and is capable of alerting other enemies (a judgement call!). The enemies for which you are hidden depends on

* Enemies who are unaware of you make a passive perception check at the start of their turn. Enemies who are aware of you may make an active perception check at the start of their turn. Enemies who make their perception check become aware of you (and may alert all the other enemies, depending on the creature type).

-----------

My concern about the rules I want to use is that you have to track which enemy can see which player... That sounds like a lot of tracking, if lots of the players and even the enemies too are using stealth...