Stealth in Combat

[clearstream]

It is without a doubt, one of your own pre-conditions. It's apparently Xorns only pre-condition. Both are house rules. I'm concerned this being in the 4e rules forum, people will mistakenly believe this is a valid interpretation of the rules.

If you want 'house rules' let's look at the one Redbeard is making that introduces a lot of pain into the debate.

Redbeard proposes that the condtion granted by successful Stealth use connects to the Targeting What You Can't See rules. Now, however reasonable you feel that proposition to be, in rules read as written there is no connect unless the same words appear in both places.

They do not.

You also apply a house rule on Cover or Concealment granting Stealth. Those words are not written in the rules. Cover or Concealment are pre-conditions that let you try to do an action stealthily provided your DM tells you the given situation is appropriate. You house rule that Cover or Concealment fulfil the requirement 'appropriate' even after enemies have spotted the Rogue. I see problems with that, so I don't use that house rule.

This is a reasonable forum for DMs to share their ideas on what is appropriate with one another, but we shouldn't try and pin a star on our ideas about that while denigrating anyone elses.

-vk

 

[Tonester]

Cover or Concealment are pre-conditions that let you try to do an action stealthily provided your DM tells you the given situation is appropriate.

After I went through (a few posts back) and read all of your posts, I think you and I are on the same page. The DM still has to do a good job of going, "Um.... no, that isn't good enough for a stealth check buddy." but I just want to ensure DMs are doing so within the NEW scope of CA and Stealth and Strikers.... not aren't stuck in some 3x mindset.

However, the concerns about defense (which seems to be your last beef with 4e stealth) is a legitimate one.

But, given as many deaths (well, near deaths) that I've seen... being pushed into slime pits, being glued (immobilized... unable to stealth), etc... I'd say the axe definitely falls both ways in 4e; what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Once DMs realize what players can do, I have a feeling monsters will begin to realize too

 

[Tonester]

Either way, it's a considerable defense bonus.

Thus my concern. It's such a good bonus to have, and there is no cost or penalty involved with trying to get that bonus. So any character or any monster that ends their turn in cover or concealment and has a minor action left over might as well try a stealth check. Heck even if they spend their minor action doing something else they might as well try a stealth check because RAW they are allowed to do so.

I can't think of any minor action you could do stealthily that would make observers unaware of your location. And, like I said earlier, there is nothing inherently wrong with a Dwarf Paladin in Plate and 8 dex trying to stealth every turn from behind a rock..... but it would piss the DM and the players off, I'm sure.

But, how is this any different than players insisting they are "always checking for ambushes" or players always rolling knowledge checks or anything else they aren't good at? The DM just has to handle it the best they see fit. Maybe house rule that you have to be trained in stealth to actually make stealth checks for combat purposes. Then, if a player wants to waste a feat on Stealth, then hey.... they earned the right imo to do the checks.

 

[clearstream]

Once DMs realize what players can do, I have a feeling monsters will begin to realize too.

You have an evil mind, but I'm with you on that. Did you notice those Kobolds have +9 to +11 Stealth? BTW I found myself making more rolls than you describe for Perception checks.

Then, if a player wants to waste a feat on Stealth, then hey.... they earned the right imo to do the checks.

Warrior of the Wild FTW If the 'Redbeard gambit' is supported by Dev, that will be the best feat ever.

If you follow RAW precisely, then you can afford to let Rogues throw in Stealth off a tart's backside in a strong gale. If not, you have to consider the quality of defence they achieve: -5 to be hit, automatically missing if the wrong square is picked, with -10 effective on the Perception check to know the right square.

I throw dice when an enemy has to make a partially-informed guess about something to do with players. Even if I pick only two candidate squares that gives a 50% miss chance, unless I skew it. And this all brings back the consistency issue...

-vk

 

[Roxlimn]

the_redbeard:

Mechanically it might not make a difference.

Either way: You don't know where they are.

If you knew they were out there, you don't forget that they are out there - but you're not sure where.


I think a lot of the confusion is due to the list of different items for success and the lack of precise definition of them.

I think the success status has a list because stealth can mean different things in different situations.


The stealth success: avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view.

I've always read "hidden from view" as unseen.
Others read it as ... well, I don't understand how people read "hidden from view" as still being seen, but not perceived. This is not a jedi mind trick skill.

Avoid notice certainly means to not be perceived.

The reason I'm having a huge problem with your interpretation of this is twofold:

1. You're using colloquial meanings of your particular interpretation to make a rules argument. I don't like that. If the rules refer to other rules, that's a solid argument. Arguing that Fire damage can make you tired because of some colloquial definition of "fire" is another thing entirely. That's similar to what you're doing and despite how reasonable it sounds, it's ringing alarm bells all over my DMSense.

2. Concealment is a trivial circumstance. Dim light allows you to get concealment. Not darkness, dim light. By your argument, a Rogue can stand 5 feet in front of someone in dim light and 6 seconds later, they can't see him. What is that, magic?

THIS is a jedi mind trick - disappearing right in plain sight, right in front of your eyes, in the middle of a combat where your enemy's very eyes are nailed to your butt.

I'm not just not buying that.

I've always read "hidden from view" as unseen.
Others read it as ... well, I don't understand how people read "hidden from view" as still being seen, but not perceived. This is not a jedi mind trick skill.

See, the thing here is, I think the skill is more defined by awareness rather than by seeing - a distracted bugbear is capable of seeing you IF he weren't distracted - it's just that he is distracted so you can use your skill to sneak past him unseen (in the noncombat, sneaking past him sort of way).

Once you enter combat, I don't think it's sensible to rule that the skill can be used to essentially turn invisible at will. The Bluff skill specifies a combat application - it's a use of Bluff that will allow you to use Stealth in combat.

Here's how I'd rule it:

You need at least concealment or cover to use Stealth. If your enemy is aware of you already, you can't normally use Stealth to make him unaware of you.

Bluff can allow you to use this, but only if you already have cover or concealment, too, or can get to one in the same turn you use Bluff to distract.


I think this is more sensible. I mean, if I'm reading your interpretation correctly, you can use Bluff to turn invisible in the clear light of day AND THEN attack your opponent without him seeing you, even though you're right in front of him!

 

[Machus]

Redbeard proposes that the condtion granted by successful Stealth use connects to the Targeting What You Can't See rules. Now, however reasonable you feel that proposition to be, in rules read as written there is no connect unless the same words appear in both places.
They do not.

Yet redbeard is correct.

If they succeed at stealth, they are no longer seen, heard, or noticed.
The player and DM then simply turn to the "targeting what you can't see rules". CSRs must scratch their head in wonder...why would they not be using "targeting what you can't see", when their opponents cannot be seen?? Seems crystal clear.

It would logically have to be "targeting what you CAN SEE", or stealth would have to say "you are SEEN", for that position to be false.

1. Is the opponent seen? yes/no.
2. if no, use targeting what you do not see rules.
3. If yes, do not use targeting what you can't see rules.
And GMs have rules for both seen, and unseen.

Your interpretation assumes WOTC has then left us with a logical THIRD category. Seen, not seen, and hidden (who are unseen!!).
Then it goes on to give is no rules for hidden (who are unseen)


-------
Players already have an advantage when hiding unobserved. If an opponent sees you stroll up to a pillar, then you disappear, they can act as though you're there. They can area attack that spot, they can stroll up since you lose cover they can see you, they can simply choose to attck that square and take the -5 (or -7?). They don't need to beat your check by 10, they may have enough information ALREADY to attack your square (or do the other things mentioned)

Had you gotten to the square unobserved, they'd not know where you were, and to get a better idea they'd have to use the targeting what you can't see rules to locate you.

So the game as written already benefits those who stealth while unobserved, and penalizes those who hide while being observed. Entirely consistent.

 

[Machus]

THIS is a jedi mind trick - disappearing right in plain sight, right in front of your eyes, in the middle of a combat where your enemy's very eyes are nailed to your butt.

That's just not true.
Dim light is described as almost entirely dark, for starters.
Go into a pitch black room and light a small candle. Then come back and tell me how well you could see. Even upgrading to a torch gives them bright light, which negates the concealment. We're talking about less light than a torch in otherwise pitch blackness. That's serious shadows and darkenss, makes perfect sense.

And secondly it's a turn based game. On your turn, they lost sight of you momentarily.
On your turn, you can perceive them. If they move more than 2 squares, it's easier to see them. If they attack, you see them.
If you suspect they are there in RP terms, you don't even have to roll, just do an area attack, or attack the square you think with a penalty.

 

[Roxlimn]

Machus:

No, it doesn't. I move around in illumination less than a torch a lot. I've had a series of newborns to take care of. You cannot "hide" in that especially if we're engaged in combat and we're both trying to kill each other.

I MIGHT fail to notice you if you were being stealthy and NOT moving around much or attacking me but this is not sightless here. D&D doesn't model nightblindness. If you can't see because of illumination - you can't see and that's Total Darkness, not Dim light.

And secondly it's a turn based game. On your turn, they lost sight of you momentarily.
On your turn, you can perceive them. If they move more than 2 squares, it's easier to see them. If they attack, you see them.
If you suspect they are there in RP terms, you don't even have to roll, just do an area attack, or attack the square you think with a penalty.

That's no excuse.

If you cannot be seen for the creature's attack, then he's basically NOT seeing you in combat for most intents and purposes. Yes, he sees you when you attack, and then you magically disappear again - right in front of him. It's ludicrous.

 

[Tonester]

Okay - I was partially correct and partially wrong. Haha. This is getting crazy and WoTC needs to put something out asap.

I'll post about it soon. Watching finals at Wimbledon.

 

[Machus]

Do we have a master list of all inclusive relevant questions?
Here is a start if not, refine/correct as needed.

**************
Stealth Questions
**************

======================================
Assumptions:
Player is seen and not under concealment or cover.
Player moves to appropriate cover/concealment, and makes a stealth check.
=====================================================
1. Is the move the action associated with stealth, or is it a free action once they are behind concealment/cover, or do they need to spend a minor action to "hide"?
2. If the player succeeds at stealth, do they in effect have total concealment in terms of what opponents can do against them while they remain "hidden"?

================
Assumptions:
While already hidden:
================
4. Within the same turn, can a rogue attack with their standard action, then re-stealth that same turn as long as they have cover/concealment and make their stealth check? Does it require their move action or minor/free?
5. Do allies count as cover for the purposes of getting cover to make a stealth check from an opponent?
6. Do cover penalties stack with concealment penaliteis (i.e. like -2 for cover and -5 if they are hidden and their square is attacked).
7. Do opponents use the "targeting what you can't see rules" when attempting to attack a player that has used stealth to hide? Or do they simply detect or not detect them?

==============
Stealth example #1
==============
a1. Players turn, seen and noticed, not concealed or in cover.
b1. Player moves to cover/concealment
c1. Player makes an OPPOSED stealth check vs each applicable opponent's perception roll (move/minor/free, need clarification above)
d1. If success, they are hidden unless they do something to end it.
e1. If they attacked after success at hiding, they would have CA against opponents that did not beat their stealth check. After the attack, they are no longer considered hidden.
f1. If the player is hidden via stealth, opponents can attempt to spot them using a minor action to make a perecption skill check using the players last stealth roll as the DC.
- success means they see them entirely
- failure means they do not. If they guess a square to attack, they have a -5 to hit if it's the correct square, and auto-miss if it's the wrong square. Area attacks affect them normally. Moving to where the player no longer has concealemnt or cover would also automatically reveal them.

===============
Stealth example #2
===============
a2. Players turn, they have concleament or cover and are currently noticed/not-hidden.
b2. Player makes a stealth check with a <minor action> to hide.
c2. If success, the player attacks a nearby opponent with a ranged attack, or an attack that has a move component such as deft strike, nible strike, or charge.
The player has CA on their opponent on this attack.
d2. player is no longer hidden after the attack.
e2. player can use their move action to attempt to hide since they have cover/concealment, and roll oppossed checks as normal.
If success, they are hidden and opponents can no longer see/hear/notice them.
f2. If the player is hidden via stealth, opponents can attempt to spot them using a minor action to make a perecption skill check using the players last stealth roll as the DC.
- success means they see them entirely
- failure means they do not. If they guess a square to attack, they have a -5 to hit if it's the correct square, and auto-miss if it's the wrong square. Area attacks affect them normally. Moving to where the player no longer has concealemnt or cover would also automatically reveal them.