Stealth - Streamlined PEACH

[the_redbeard]

Having given exhaustive consideration to RAW, CSRs, designer remarks, and the FAQ, here's what I'm moving toward for Stealth. I claim that save for one ruling, these are RAI, not house rules. Your feedback is really appreciated.

I think at least two of these points are house rules, but I applaud that more people are acquiescing to the 4th edition paradigm of stealth rather than holding on to the 3rd edition version.

1. If you have cover, concealment, or a diversion from any source against all your enemies in your turn, you can use stealth provided your DM deems the given situation appropriate. Allies usually aren't appropriate cover for stealth; they don't provide cover in your turn, or not from all your enemies. Carrying a light source prevents you from hiding.

I think VK makes too much of the proforma rule of DM approval of appropriate use of skills.
I am undecided of whether ally-provided cover is appropriate for stealth. There is some sense to a ranged attacker poking out from behind an ally. This is easily defeated by the perceiver merely moving for a different line of sight, removing the cover and ending the stealth. I look forward to September errata, and wouldn't argue with whatever the DM at the table ruled.

2. You hide using a minor action, or a power or skill other than stealth that explicitly grants a check.

This is definitely a house rule.

Looking at 188:
You do need an action during a "stealthable" condition (ie, distraction, cover, concealment) to stealth, and it needs to be an action that doesn't contradict stealth (like attacking). For that stealth to last beyond that mere action, you need to end the action in a "stealth able" condition.
I think that is a better summary of 188 than the invented 'minor action'.
So a move into concealment, or a move into cover, could be used for a stealth check. A move out of concealment with a distraction and then ending in concealment could be used to stealth. I think a minor action for stealth in those situations would be redundant.

3. Roll your stealth check against the highest passive Perception amongst your enemies. You must roll equal or higher than that to get a success. Your enemies don't do anything or roll any dice.

4. You are not hidden from any enemy if you don't roll a success. You are hidden from every enemy if you roll a success.

With the caveat that only intelligent or team work enemies would obviously share information as a free action, I agree.

Because enemies can freely share information is a free action as RAW, I think this does meat the test of RAW. From Mearls' post, I think it is also RAI.
It is also a lot easier for the DM to keep track of one target number.

5. Being hidden means that enemies who are not alert to your presence don't become alert to you, you have combat advantage, and you have displacement (on yourself only) against ranged and melee attacks.

Using Displacement instead of the Targeting What You Can't See rules is a direct contradiction of the new FAQ and bizarre to me.
I really believe you should note that as a house rule. Good for you if you like it.

6. Enemies who are alert to you can attack and try to spot you. They can make active Perception checks in their turns using minor actions. You are no longer hidden if any enemy rolls equal or higher than your stealth check, or hits you with a ranged or melee attack.

7. Enemies who aren't alert to you can't attack or try to spot you. They become alert to you anytime you stop hiding in sight of one of them.

8. Your hidden condition ends as an immediate reaction if you attack, shout, take an immediate or opportunity attack action, or choose to stop hiding.

9. Your hidden condition ends as an immediate interrupt when you lose cover or concealment from one or more of your enemies or create a light source, unless you were taking one of the actions listed above.

10. You are never hidden from your allies.

Relevant modifiers to keep in mind are penalties to Perception due to interposing lightly obscured squares (-5), penalties on attacks due to cover (-2), and penalties on ranged or melee attacks due to concealment (-2, stacks with cover).

These I agree with.

 

[clearstream]

Looking at 188:
You do need an action during a "stealthable" condition (ie, distraction, cover, concealment) to stealth, and it needs to be an action that doesn't contradict stealth (like attacking). For that stealth to last beyond that mere action, you need to end the action in a "stealth able" condition.
I think that is a better summary of 188 than the invented 'minor action'.

Hi Redbeard. Thank you for your comments. On the whole a refreshing relief. I may change some of my streamlined rules, but I'd like to talk them through first, starting with minor action use.

My reasoning for minor is much as you have it 'you need to end the action in a stealth-able condition'. Since you aren't hidden unless you first hide, in play that often means I see the following:

Ranged attack > want to move through c/c hidden > hide > move. Stealth had to be with a minor. The mechanical reason is that Stealth must be fed #squares moved before it knows what penalty, if any, to apply; but the user desires that no squares be moved unhidden. Since Stealth must pend its hide determination to the end of a move action, the user must hide prior to moving, or we get into retroactive state rewrites and/or some wording on PHB188 becomes meaningless.

Deft strike > need to get back to c/c > move > hide. Stealth had to be with a minor. Stealth must consider the entire action when making its hide determination at the end of that action. That's how it takes into account #squares moved, for example. The whole move action can't qualify for Stealth use, since part of it falls outside c/c, or we get into deciding some words on PHB188 have no meaning... always a possibility

Attack > still in c/c > don't want to move > hide. It makes zero difference if you Stealth with a minor or move, as move trades down to minor.

In c/c not hidden > want to move through c/c hidden > hide > move. It makes zero difference if you Stealth with a minor or standard, as standard trades down to minor.

In c/c hidden > want to move through c/c hidden > move. No Stealth use required, you're already hidden.

In open > want to move to c/c > move > hide > attack. Stealth had to be with a minor.

Diversion in open and hide > move to c/c hidden. This is done with a power or skill (Bluff) other than Stealth that grants a check. No minor needed.

Spotted! > want to move to new c/c > Fleeting Ghost and hide. This is done with a power or skill (Bluff) other than Stealth that grants a check. No minor needed.

And so on...

There are cases conjurable where it makes a difference: sometimes a Ranger will be trying to get in a Hunter's Quarry, or a Rogue will want to use a power that costs a minor. However, the RAW does very often lead to Stealth being either free with a power or skill other than Stealth that grants it, or with a minor or action trading down to a minor.

Using Stealth with a minor is allowed by RAW, and at present I literally believe it is RAI to push that out to a general principle, once a wide range of cases are considered. Stealth is good enough players quickly get over any reservations they have, and happily go on using it. It makes Rogue powers like Fleeting Ghost more valuable, and has nice balance against the cost of finding the hider. Is it a house rule? I'm saying no, but I understand your arguments for yes.

Is it a good rule, that's what I'm asking you

Using Displacement instead of the Targeting What You Can't See rules is a direct contradiction of the new FAQ and bizarre to me. I really believe you should note that as a house rule. Good for you if you like it.

'If the rules do something, they shouldn't try to hide it.' What I found the TWYCS rules were doing, once we backed away from the 10 points over condition for targets not hidden by something on top of Stealth, was making me as DM try and pick squares in a fair way. Players whine when you guess their square, since they feel you might be using information their enemies don't have (of couse, you're trying not to) so I was erring on the side of picking the wrong square. Then I resorted to weighted dice. Finally, I looked at the odds, thought about the hassle I was having picking squares and assigning odds, and looked for something to produce as close as possible to the same outcome. Displacement fit the bill.

So Displacement arose as a direct implementation of the intent of the rules. The DM needs to fairly pick a square, resulting in a %age chance the hider won't be in the square aimed at. With Displacement, if the second roll misses, that's what is considered to have happened. It's consistent, and hassle free.

My question to you would be, what other methods have people found for fairly picking squares?

Finally, hi Mistwell when I said PEACH, you are correct that I didn't anticipate people pulling out the RAI claim and PEACHing that alone. I was hoping they'd feel more interested in looking at the rules themselves and enhancing them. Some people have done that, and I'm grateful to those people.

What I sense though is you might not really care about the RAI claim, but it might be you want to see rules that really do adhere to what we know while playing well. The RAI claim is a hook to hang those fears on, but your opposing it doesn't tell me much. Can you pull out your specific and tangible issues with the rules, so we can talk them over?

-vk

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Using Stealth with a minor is allowed by RAW, and at present I literally believe it is RAI to push that out to a general principle, once a wide range of cases are considered. It makes Rogue powers like Fleeting Ghost more valuable, and has nice balance against the cost of finding the hider. Is it a house rule? I'm saying no, but I understand your arguments for yes.

-vk

It is quite obviously not RAI. "Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily" in no way invokes any intention that it costs an additional action whenever you do it as... um... "Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily"...

"Stealth is good enough players quickly get over any reservations they have, and happily go on using it."

As a player of a rogue in two seperate campaigns, with a third coming soon, and having played another class in a party with a rogue, I can say that you're definitely not speaking about all players. Or all DMs, as no DM I'm playing with or planning to play with has expressed any need to reduce the use of stealth, particularly via fun-sapping action penalties. And, I won't be doing anything like this to my players in my campaign.

Being able to get some group of players to put up with stuff doesn't make it RAI or a good rule. Some people put up with arbitrary nerfings and fun-sapping house rules that make me think they answer game postings with D/S and S/M tags from the personals section of an alternative newspaper.

Is it a good rule, that's what I'm asking you

It's a house rule. It's a good house rule if you and all of your players like it.

If it were not a house rule, and were used to replace the exisisting rules on stealth, it would be a bad rule. It needlessly limits how players can use stealth, robbing characters of offensive and defensive benefits from a combination of having or gaining access to the skill, a good score in the requisite ability, and possibly abilities/powers/feats related to the skill and/or prohibits the use of other abilities/powers/feats/actions they may be able to take on a turn. Adding an action cost to anything is a big deal. Adding an action cost to something that is expected to be used frequently, and you've acknowledged stealth is intended to be used frequently...

Finally, I don't think most encounters are meant to be all about stealth, but we've been told straight that it should be able to be used many times each encounter."

...is a bigger deal. Particularly when you consider that one of the classes most affected, rogues, has bonuses that encourage the use of different weapons in different situations. For multiclass rogues that use an implement or non-rogue weapon in one or both hands sometimes, it is even worse.

What you say you think about stealth in the quote above, combined with your previous statement of...

To let DMs be more liberal with granting stealth checks, safe in the knowledge it's easy to run and not granting far out imba defences that need a reappraisal of the whole thing.

...make it really plain that you know you're making a set of house rules to address an issue that you have with the current rules as written and intended.

This...

"The RAW is PHB267. Since it's free, they can always spam it. Since you're the DM, you can always allow it.

Since you're a good DM, you only use it in ways designed to make the game more fun for all players ."

...combined with your twisted use of the general skill mechanic as a way to limit when player's use stealth (something you actually repeated twice, in a short span, in your earlier posting), gives the impression that in addition to nerfing stealth and by extension the classes it most benefits (without any compensation for lost offense, defense, and actions), you want more control.

And making things less fun for one of the players so you can have more control is pretty much contrary to my understanding of the RAI in every way. In 4e, players can do cool, fun, stuff by default. Your house rules would shift it to your players (at least the ones that benefit from stealth) doing cool, fun, stuff with your special dispensation or being penalized for doing cool, fun, stuff. As DM, you're free to add any limitation that you want to what players do in your campaign, but I don't want to play a game that works that way.

Maybe this skill (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20080721) is really the one that needs work...

 

[clearstream]

As a player of a rogue in two seperate campaigns, with a third coming soon...

So far as I understand, you play a Rogue and are concerned that making stealth checks granted off your powers, or a minor action, will discommode you. I can certainly understand that fear.

In producing mechanical RAI, I don't pick on one player or another. I produce cases, step through them, and try to uncover how to preserve the generality of intention contained within the rules. Not just this rule or that rule, but all of them.

For example, a Rogue Attacks, then wants to move 3 squares through c/c to 4th and 5th squares lacking c/c, ending up in a 6th square with c/c. In square one, Stealth can't know the Rogues intention, nor can Stealth predict that nothing will intercept the Rogue en-route and possibly shunt the Rogue somewhere unexpected. In square six, Stealth needs to have recorded both the total squares moved, and whether any were not in c/c. If Stealth does not do that, the last line of the Shadow Stride power, and the third line of the Cover or Concealment block on 188, have no meaning, and Stealth would not know the penalty to apply for movement. Fleeting Ghost also becomes questionable, as to it's value.

Of course, if the Rogue moves such that all squares passed through have c/c, then the move action could be entirely covered by Stealth. That would also be true if the Rogue hid first using a minor action. However, since Stealth must work such that it pends hiding decisions until the last square entered, since Stealth never knows in advance that an Immediate Interrupt might not occur, we have a difficulty with an observer seeing the Rogue at, say, square two. Stealth doesn't know yet if the Rogue is to be hidden or not, since Stealth can't see ahead into squares three through six. Using a minor action evades this problem infallibly.

It makes things a little more challenging for the Rogue. I find many players enjoy being challenged. YMMV. RAW does not contain wording saying that the DM cannot grant Stealth checks off a minor action. Nor do they contain wording saying that the DM must grant Stealth checks off any action.

Or does your DM allow Stealth checks off Free actions?

-vk

 

[MarkB]

So far as I understand, you play a Rogue and are concerned that making stealth checks granted off your powers, or a minor action, will discommode you. I can certainly understand that fear.

You're putting words into his mouth. The sense I got from his post was more along the lines that, having both played and DMed rogues, he has plenty of experience to bring to the discussion. Attempting to use that as grounds for implying that his opinion is biased is not going to win you any points.

In producing mechanical RAI, I don't pick on one player or another. I produce cases, step through them, and try to uncover how to preserve the generality of intention contained within the rules. Not just this rule or that rule, but all of them.

For example, a Rogue Attacks, then wants to move 3 squares through c/c to 4th and 5th squares lacking c/c, ending up in a 6th square with c/c. In square one, Stealth can't know the Rogues intention, nor can Stealth predict that nothing will intercept the Rogue en-route and possibly shunt the Rogue somewhere unexpected. In square six, Stealth needs to have recorded both the total squares moved, and whether any were not in c/c. If Stealth does not do that, the last line of the Shadow Stride power, and the third line of the Cover or Concealment block on 188, have no meaning, and Stealth would not know the penalty to apply for movement. Fleeting Ghost also becomes questionable, as to it's value.

Of course, if the Rogue moves such that all squares passed through have c/c, then the move action could be entirely covered by Stealth. That would also be true if the Rogue hid first using a minor action. However, since Stealth must work such that it pends hiding decisions until the last square entered, since Stealth never knows in advance that an Immediate Interrupt might not occur, we have a difficulty with an observer seeing the Rogue at, say, square two. Stealth doesn't know yet if the Rogue is to be hidden or not, since Stealth can't see ahead into squares three through six. Using a minor action evades this problem infallibly.

It makes things a little more challenging for the Rogue. I find many players enjoy being challenged. YMMV. RAW does not contain wording saying that the DM cannot grant Stealth checks off a minor action. Nor do they contain wording saying that the DM must grant Stealth checks off any action.

Or does your DM allow Stealth checks off Free actions?

-vk

Your approach to this makes my head spin. Stealthed is the condition you achieve as the result of the action you take to gain it. If you are unstealthed, then move to gain stealth, you make the check to establish whether you become hidden at the end of your movement. It doesn't require any extra actions in order to resolve it.

 

[Yumepenguin]

Here's another good thread about stealth:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1043384

Also, In this thread posted on wizards.com D&D forums (titled the same) there's some other good discussion about this fact if you all want to look there as well.

 

[clearstream]

The sense I got from his post was more along the lines that, having both played and DMed rogues, he has plenty of experience to bring to the discussion. Attempting to use that as grounds for implying that his opinion is biased is not going to win you any points.

I nearly invariably DM, so my views are DM views. I found it interesting that my ruling appeared so threatening from a player's perspective. The body of MyISP's post (invective directed my way aside) returns many times to that same point; stressing the issue from a player's perspective. That was a helpful view to have: why would I ignore it?

Your approach to this makes my head spin.

Heh. The reason I'm interested in Stealth is because it's one of the more interesting mechanical problems for p&p RPG.

A simple rendition of my argument would be that the overall intent of many rules taken together is preserved by limiting hiding to a minor or a power or skill (other than Stealth) that explicitly grants a check. In my view that is also a fair and fun ruling for a number of other reasons, but evidently views differ in that regard.

You know I would give over on this, but defending my RAI claim is forcing me to test my assumptions. That may produce a better set of streamlined rules. (And by 'better' I mean more generally palatable, as well as effective at dealing with non-intuitive cases in a clean way.)

-vk

 

[MarkB]

Heh. The reason I'm interested in Stealth is because it's one of the more interesting mechanical problems for p&p RPG.

A simple rendition of my argument would be that the overall intent of many rules taken together is preserved by limiting hiding to a minor or a power or skill (other than Stealth) that explicitly grants a check. In my view that is also a fair and fun ruling for a number of other reasons, but evidently views differ in that regard.

You know I would give over on this, but defending my RAI claim is forcing me to test my assumptions. That may produce a better set of streamlined rules. (And by 'better' I mean more generally palatable, as well as effective at dealing with non-intuitive cases in a clean way.)

Okay, simple question: Is there any real difference, mechanically, between making Stealth a check as part of another action but having its effects kick in only at the end of that action, and making Stealth its own minor action?

 

[Atlatl Jones]

What does "PEACH" mean?

 

[clearstream]

Okay, simple question: Is there any real difference, mechanically, between making Stealth a check as part of another action but having its effects kick in only at the end of that action, and making Stealth its own minor action?

Yes. Take a look in that thread Yume posted. You'll see in the third CSR a recommendation you could use minor actions. That's responding to a proposal in that direction by the question poster, but what is being addressed is the issue with throwing in Stealth off numerous actions.

I mean, no one thinks Stealth should be used off a Free action by now, right? Using Stealth off a Move action is in some cases fine, and other cases broken, save for power use that explicitly does that. Using Stealth off a minor never breaks, it really is that simple.

-vk