D&D 4E My take on 4E Stealth

[reveal]

http://rpgcentric.com/?p=5

There is a big debate on Gleemax right now on the stealth skill rules in 4E D&D. As a person who is currently playing a Rogue in my weekly campaign, it’s important to me that I use the Stealth skill correctly. I’m going to give my take on the subject and you tell me what you think.

 

[Dayspire]

Your blog is fairly clear to understand, and it uses most of what I've seen so far in attempts to clarify the matter. Where, in my opinion, you run into a problem is with this part:

That’s the biggest question; how? How can an ally, especially those who are smaller than you, provide you with cover enough to hide behind them? Honestly, if I were to think about this logically, my answer would be that it couldn’t happen. But this is a game where dragons exist and wizards shoot fireballs out of their fingertips, so I’m not going to try to apply modern day scientific logic to this question. Instead, I have to look at the rules. First, let’s look at the rules of cover.

You should have stopped at "that it couldn't happen". Because that's true. And I'm going to state that the CSR's answer will be changed in the future. A dragonborn cannot hide behind a halfling. Sorry. It doesn't make any logical sense, and you even agree with me. But yet - you're going to use the argument that because there are fireballs in 4E that it's ok? You do see how that's faulty logic, right?

 

[spuppett]

You should have stopped at "that it couldn't happen". Because that's true. And I'm going to state that the CSR's answer will be changed in the future. A dragonborn cannot hide behind a halfling.

Perhaps the general rule is/should be:
Allies can grant cover.
And the exception is/should be:
Unless they are smaller

 

[Dayspire]

Perhaps the general rule is/should be:
Allies can grant cover.
And the exception is/should be:
Unless they are smaller

Well, that's a more logical approach, in my opinion. But personally I think it should be:

Allies can grant cover
Exception: Not for purposes of initiating stealth

 

[Reed]

Stealth isn't just about hiding. Stealth is also about obfuscating how you are delivering the attack (if you are attacking low or high, thrust or slash, ect), when you are delivering it, and what the attack is (so knowing how to counter it).

oh and nice write up

 

[Dayspire]

Where do you get that definition of Stealth, Reed? The definition in 4E seems to be, "Make a Stealth check to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, and sneak up on people without being seen or heard."

I can see what you're saying, but do you honestly think the proverbial dragonborn-rogue-behind-a-halfling can use the halfling to hide? I can't believe that in this case a halfling blocks line of sight for the target.

 

[Mistwell]

Where do you get that definition of Stealth, Reed? The definition in 4E seems to be, "Make a Stealth check to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, and sneak up on people without being seen or heard."

I can see what you're saying, but do you honestly think the proverbial dragonborn-rogue-behind-a-halfling can use the halfling to hide? I can't believe that in this case a halfling blocks line of sight for the target.

You get the definition from the advantage it grants, which is combat advantage. Combat advantage isn't that big a deal, and is clearly not the same as all the benefits of being unseen.

A halfling is no higher or lower than a low wall, and a low wall not only grants cover but in warfare is intentionally built just for that purpose.

 

[reveal]

You should have stopped at "that it couldn't happen". Because that's true. And I'm going to state that the CSR's answer will be changed in the future. A dragonborn cannot hide behind a halfling. Sorry. It doesn't make any logical sense, and you even agree with me. But yet - you're going to use the argument that because there are fireballs in 4E that it's ok? You do see how that's faulty logic, right?

It's not faulty logic. In D&D, many things can happen that don't make any sense logically in the real world. So I find it very difficult to justify one instance logically when it doesn't meet a person's needs when the same person doesn't feel the need to explain fireballs logically when they do meet their needs. A person can't have it both ways. Since there are many things that don't fit our modern world's logic, I am forced to go by the rules in the book to determine if something can or cannot happen.

 

[tweinst]

The rules specifically state (PH 280) that allies give you cover against ranged attacks. Because it never says they give you cover in any other circumstances, I don't think they do. Therefore, you can't use an ally to gain cover for a stealth check.

 

[frankthedm]

The rules specifically state (PH 280) that allies give you cover against ranged attacks. Because it never says they give you cover in any other circumstances, I don't think they do. Therefore, you can't use an ally to gain cover for a stealth check.

I agree with you, BUT because those have the same mechanics, the text in "Determining cover" Bullet point treated them the same. Some people will cling to that means the are the same even though the bullet point that defined "Cover" indicated cover came from terrain.

Some folks think that the ranged rogue needs or deserves this, but they seem to ignore that the rogue is supposed to be melee favoring striker much as the warlock is a range favoring striker with the ranger going both ways. Also the ramifications for foes using each other for stealth cover seem not to worry them.