Stealth in Combat

[clearstream]

Interesting feat I just noticed that may be relevant to this debate:



Hiding OR sneaking?

Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), that may be the missing piece of data from the Stealth skill rules. Perhaps "sneaking" is that other aspect of the stealth skill which involves not being hidden but still being "stealthed" for some issues (like combat advantage)?

There are a minority of methods to stealth while moving. For example, if the whole move is made behind cover or in appropriate lighting or atmospheric conditions. I suppose that would be 'sneaking'.

-vk

 

[Machus]

Meaning that it's a one round trick that Rogues don't need anyway (because they get CA on every enemy with lower initiative in round one).

First that was to point out how arbitrary the house rule of needing total concealment to use steatlh in combat is. It's on par with getting total surprise. And surprise confers an extra action typically, which can be combined with CA, so it's not something "rogues wouldn't need anyway". It's irrelevant, because it's all house ruling at that point, and this about the core stealth rules.

Bluffs, distractions, and amazingly rogue powers all give you ways to earn another stealth check to get back into hiding.
-vk

And this is what you tell rogue players after they learn of your house rule? This is justification of nothing. They can already stealth in combat per the rules, AND do these other things, each of which has its own pros and cons.

Is it just the defensive stacking you're opposed to, I can understand to a degree, but not the CA part. If an assassin cannot gain advantage when in the shadows, (making the appropriate rolls) it's just not a rogue worth playing.

Can you give an example of when you think the rules lead to something absurd as justification? I'm genuinely curious. Is your issue with cover stacking with concealment (is that even the case?)

 

[Mistwell]

There are a minority of methods to stealth while moving. For example, if the whole move is made behind cover or in appropriate lighting or atmospheric conditions. I suppose that would be 'sneaking'.

-vk

The feat only applies to movement (at full speed), so it can't be referring to sneaking as using stealth while moving (or else there would be no purpose for the reference to hiding as well).

By the wording of the feat, it seems to mean you can move at full movement using stealth and be "hidden", or you can move using stealth and be "sneaking". So, what is the difference between the two?

 

[bardolph]

Hiding OR sneaking?

Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), that may be the missing piece of data from the Stealth skill rules. Perhaps "sneaking" is that other aspect of the stealth skill which involves not being hidden but still being "stealthed" for some issues (like combat advantage)?

Traditionally, "hiding" means making sure no one can see you, and "sneaking" means making sure no one can hear you. 3e divides this between "Hide" and "Move Silently" skills. 4e combines them into a single Stealth skill.

In 4e, "Hiding" and "Sneaking" are mechanically equivalent. They both translate to Stealth.

 

[the_redbeard]

Um, gaining total cover is actually really easy. Step around a corner. Bam.

What I don't appreciate is being told I'm inventing things. I'm listing page numbers where I've read every single thing I'm interpreting.

Please tell me again where in stealth does it say that being unobserved is a requirement to be stealthed.

No where on page 188 does it say "must be unobserved" to be stealthed.

I keep trying to break it down to it's simplest form, because the bottom line is--every single application of Stealth I'm seeing in printed materials is simple--nothing complicated. No need for a flowchart, or six dice rolls per person making ranged attacks from cover/concealment.

Only the stealth doubters are suggesting that so many die rolls are required.

My final interpretation (restated in the simplest form) is:
Stealth grants combat advantage in combat by preventing awareness.

Preventing awareness and/or hidden. Success: Avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view.

Total Concealment grants combat advantage in combat by preventing visibility (as does Superior Cover).

I've pointed out repeatedly that the only time any published material mentions gaining combat advantage through stealth in combat requires Total Concealment or Superior Cover. No one wants to address that talking point (that disagrees with it), and that's fine, but that's why I'm more convinced by my interpretation than anything else I'm seeing.

Seriously. Read Heathen. Read Keep on the Shadowfell. Read the Monster Manual. Read "Combat Advantage". To determine if a target is unaware you are directed to read Stealth.

If that means anything it means that stealth makes the target unaware of where you are. It does not make being already unseen/unnoticed a requirement of stealth.


Functionally, what is the difference you are suggesting between unaware and hidden from view?

 

[Machus]

My final interpretation (restated in the simplest form) is:
Stealth grants combat advantage in combat by preventing awareness.
Total Concealment grants combat advantage in combat by preventing visibility (as does Superior Cover)

This differentiates nothing, rogues still get CA.

Premise: Rogue is seen at the start of the combat.

1. Rogue moves to concealment, and makes a stealth check, on success is unseen, unheard, and no longer noticed.

- Because the rogue is not seen, they have total concealment, they stll have CA per your rule.

2. If you reject that despite its consistency, then we move on to testing awarenes. The rogue is unseen/unheard/unnoticed - how by definition can the opponent "be aware" of the rogue? They cannot.

Test it yourself.
The rogue aims his crossbow at them and smiles, are they aware of this? No.
Let's get exotic. The rogue is an eladrin, she teleports to a square on the opposite side of the opponents, directly behind them, still in the shadows, and makes a stealth check and succeeds. How can the opponents by your arbitrary definition "be aware" of the rogue? They cannot. You'd be trying to deny that rogue CA.

 

[Klaumbaz]

Just my bit of fluff to try and show how you can just have cover to make a sneak attack.

your in a forest, lots of trees, the rogue is ducking, diving, juking behind/around them, you see him most of the time, but occasionally loose sight of him for just a moment, That moment when he has an advantage over you is when he decides to toss a shuriken your way or stick to a tree and wait for you to come close, or even scamper up the tree out of your sight.

Does the attack come from behind his back? in front of him? From low to the ground? from up high? In front of you? behind you? Aimed at your head? your chest? at your hamstring? You dont know exactly where the attack is coming from, or exactly where he aimed, because well, that scoundrel is one sneaky git and fights dirty. Your just hoping your observant enough that you can try to see it coming.

 

[Xorn]

The rules for Combat Advantage (which is what I started talking about to begin with) direct you to read Stealth on 188 for "is the target aware of you" and Concealment on 281 for "can the target see you". Quote every interpretation of the stealth mechanics--and that's all they are (interpretations)--but you can't show me the hard rule that makes you right and me wrong. I can't show you anything that makes me right and you wrong--the difference is I'm not claiming to have found that.

I'm quoting why I interpret what I have--you're telling me I'm wrong. I'm actually tired of reading the exact same points that don't acknowledge anything I've mentioned about every demonstrated suggestion for how to use stealth in combat in Tactics sections throughout the Monster Manual, Kobold Hall, Keep on the Shadowfell, and Heathen. In every single case, they support what I suggested, and not once do they support what you're suggesting.

But I won't tell you you're wrong. I'll just say I have enough reason to think I'm right that I don't need your approval to feel okay about it.

 

[Mistwell]

Traditionally, "hiding" means making sure no one can see you, and "sneaking" means making sure no one can hear you. 3e divides this between "Hide" and "Move Silently" skills. 4e combines them into a single Stealth skill.

In 4e, "Hiding" and "Sneaking" are mechanically equivalent. They both translate to Stealth.

That sounds logical, but do you have rules support for it? Stealth mentions the term hide and hidden a lot, but it doesn't mention sneaking from what I recall.

 

[Mistwell]

From CustServ:

Question:

Secret Stride Feat
Prerequisite: Trained in Stealth
Benefit: You do not incur penalties to your Stealth checks if you move at full speed while hiding or sneaking. You still take the full penalty if you run.

Question: What is the difference between hiding and sneaking? I do not see a distinction between the two in the stealth rules.

Reason for Question: I ask because, if there is a difference between hiding and sneaking, it might clear up a lot of the issues folks have with the current stealth rules. Hiding could mean your foe is unaware of you; Sneaking could mean your foe is "aware" of you but you are taking advantage of cover or concealment in such a way so that you can gain combat advantage over that foe.

********************
Page Number: 205
Book Name: PHB

Answer:

There is no difference between hiding and sneaking. Read that ability to say 'when using the stealth skill' instead.