Is Stealth the new Grapple?

[Ahglock]

Personally I don't care what WotC clarifies or doesn't, what it re-words or re-writes. The intent of stealth in my game is clear-cut and defined. It is not some method for PC's (or NPC's, or Monsters) to appear and disappear around the battlefield like Nightcrawler in X-Men 2.

And I am now done with reading Stealth threads.

How did you find the stealth thread in the first place.

Were you in combat?

Did it have any cover or concealment, I think it would with all the other threads out there.

Were you distracted at all? Mnnn beeer.

Is your passive perception that high?

Personally I like stealth in combat, I think fighting someone is enough of a distraction to justify someone hiding and sneaking up on you. Once spotted, some kind of significant distraction would have to happen to get them to be able to re-hide.
I've ruled that crits form other sources are a big enough distraction, and any time they get actual cover and concealment they are not instantly refound once they leave the cover but there enemies have a bonus to there passive perception due to them ebing aware of the stealth guy being out there.

I don't really care what the official rule ends up being, I just find it lame in the extreme that people can't sneak up on people in combat without cover or concealment.

 

[cbbakke]

I think most of us agree we would like clarification on the rule but who knows when that will happen.

For myself it is not about reading the rules over and over and looking for some key word to turn the arguement. The rule was not written clearly so it is impossible for us to deceifer what the intent is.

Common sense wise it doesnt make sense to me to have somebody having partial cover from being behind a corner in melee or standing in a bush and get combat advatnage for stealth round and round. The first round the defender doesnt know your there but after that you magically hide in the bush or you make a stealth roll and the defender doesnt expect the attack from around the corner.

Rogues are the only striker class taht gets 2d6 at first level (the others all get 1d6). The downside is they need combat advantage which with the current literal reading of the rules is pretty much a given. a rogue at first level with average stats is going to have a plus 8 or plus 9 to stealth. Your average npc is going to have maybe a dc of 12 for perception. So 80% of the time the player is going to have combat advantage and get extra damage. Then they take the feat so they get 2d8 instead of 2d6 for added power.

The same with the rogue sitting in partial cover and doing range attacks and every round gettign sneak attack.

Common sense rules.
1) the target is unware of you and you sneak up on them and attack. Combat advantage. After that you cannot use stealth for combat advantage from stealth as long as the target is aware of you.

2) with the current rules every person should stand on a corner for partial cover and roll stealth for attempt at combat advantage. Our house rule is that you have to be trained in stealth to try to get combat advantage.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I think most of us agree we would like clarification on the rule but who knows when that will happen.

For myself it is not about reading the rules over and over and looking for some key word to turn the arguement. The rule was not written clearly so it is impossible for us to deceifer what the intent is.

Common sense wise it doesnt make sense to me to have somebody having partial cover from being behind a corner in melee or standing in a bush and get combat advatnage for stealth round and round. The first round the defender doesnt know your there but after that you magically hide in the bush or you make a stealth roll and the defender doesnt expect the attack from around the corner.

Rogues are the only striker class taht gets 2d6 at first level (the others all get 1d6). The downside is they need combat advantage which with the current literal reading of the rules is pretty much a given. a rogue at first level with average stats is going to have a plus 8 or plus 9 to stealth. Your average npc is going to have maybe a dc of 12 for perception. So 80% of the time the player is going to have combat advantage and get extra damage. Then they take the feat so they get 2d8 instead of 2d6 for added power.

The same with the rogue sitting in partial cover and doing range attacks and every round gettign sneak attack.

Common sense rules.
1) the target is unware of you and you sneak up on them and attack. Combat advantage. After that you cannot use stealth for combat advantage from stealth as long as the target is aware of you.

2) with the current rules every person should stand on a corner for partial cover and roll stealth for attempt at combat advantage. Our house rule is that you have to be trained in stealth to try to get combat advantage.

"1. The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes. If the rogues in your game are constantly gaining combat advantage, it really isn't a big deal." - Mike Mearls

"One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big picture changes in 4e was to move stealth and hiding from spells to skills. In other words, the rogue or ranger are the best PCs for hiding, not the wizard with an invisibility spell.

The spell is still useful, but it is now much more limited and harder to use over and over again.

With that in mind, when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill." - Mike Mearls

We've received clarification, albeit unofficial. And even unofficial, the information regarding the math of the game and big picture changes clearly displays the intent. If you don't like that intent and want to limit stealth more, you're free to do so in your game...as long as your players go along with it. And, there is official clarification on what being hidden means in the FAQ.

It isn't that the answers aren't there, it's just that they aren't the answers you want.

 

[Phesic]

So, If I understand this correctly. All the confusion stems from Stealth in combat?

If you have cover or concealment, you can stealth as a MOVE action. No where that I could find does it say you can stealth as part of a move action. Out of combat, you might roll a stealth roll while moving to remain hidden, but in combat, there is no such thing. That means in order to get combat advantage through stealth and move, you have to give up attacking for a round to get an extra move action or spend an action point.

As for "ducking in and out of the same bush". it's still a fair tactic, Don't imagine the rogue darting in and out of a bush. Just think of it as the bush covering the direction and position of the strike. If the rogue takes a move action to use stealth, he is repositioning himself so the same bush blocks the sight of his new line of attack. Besides, your only a 5 foot step from destroying that tactic. Of course, the defender knows what square he's in and can easily counterattack.

 

[Phesic]

Double Post

 

[FadedC]

The occasional person's opinion that stealth is really clear aside....

I think the difference between stealth and grapple is that grapple has fairly complicated rules that were still clearly definied by the book. Stealth appears to have fairly simple rules, but how exactly they are used is poorly defined.

 

[seusomon]

With grapple, the intention was clear, but the execution was complex hard to remember.

With stealth, the execution is simple, but the intention (when and how, exactly, may one use stealth to obtain combat advantage) is unclear.

So, If I understand this correctly. All the confusion stems from Stealth in combat?

If you have cover or concealment, you can stealth as a MOVE action. No where that I could find does it say you can stealth as part of a move action. Out of combat, you might roll a stealth roll while moving to remain hidden, but in combat, there is no such thing.

Why is there no such thing? You don't "stealth as an action", stealth is not an action. You make a stealth check if you want to perform some other action unnoticed. This is true in combat or out of combat.

That means in order to get combat advantage through stealth and move, you have to give up attacking for a round to get an extra move action or spend an action point.

No. The way it would usually work is: I move under concealment or cover, making a stealth check to see if I go unnoticed. If I succeed, the target is unaware of me and I have combat advantage. I can then attack (using sneak attack if I am a rogue).

The problems and debates are about what kind of things can happen and still maintain the "target is unaware of you" condition.

 

[Phesic]

If at any point in time during a round of combat the target of your stealth attempt has direct line of sight to you, your stealth fails. If you have cover or concealment, you can stealth.

I'm trying and failing to come up with an instance where stealth is confusing. It feels like there are people saying "Stealth is a confusing mechanic" but failing to provide an example of the confusion stealth has caused.

What specific actions are confusing?

 

[clearstream]

"1. The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes. If the rogues in your game are constantly gaining combat advantage, it really isn't a big deal." - Mike Mearls

"One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big picture changes in 4e was to move stealth and hiding from spells to skills. In other words, the rogue or ranger are the best PCs for hiding, not the wizard with an invisibility spell.

The spell is still useful, but it is now much more limited and harder to use over and over again.

With that in mind, when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill." - Mike Mearls

We've received clarification, albeit unofficial. And even unofficial, the information regarding the math of the game and big picture changes clearly displays the intent. If you don't like that intent and want to limit stealth more, you're free to do so in your game...as long as your players go along with it. And, there is official clarification on what being hidden means in the FAQ.

As you say, Mearls makes it clear that there is an intent with Stealth to support Combat Advantage.

What isn't at all clear is what the intent is about what happens when the enemy wants to find the stealther and fight back. The mechanics don't help: they're spread all over the place and omit critical pieces of information.

To which confusion, CSR's have been some help, but also I believe some hindrance.

-vk

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

If you have cover or concealment, you can stealth as a MOVE action. No where that I could find does it say you can stealth as part of a move action.

Can't find it? Let me help you (from the PHB, Chapter 5 - Skills):

"Each description also specifies what kind of action is required to use the skill."
under Skill Descriptions


"Stealthart of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily."
in the Stealth skill description

for comparison...

"Acrobatic Stunt:Standard action or move action, depending on the stunt."
in the Acrobatics skill description

"Climbart of a move action."
in the Athletics skill description

"Intimidate: Standard action in combat or part of a skill challenge."
in the Intimidate skill description