D&D 4E 4e stealth issues

[MarkB]

Disregarding the inherent fuzziness, I think the intent is clear: you retain stealth until the end of the (ill-defined) action, and then you lose stealth (and cannot become re-hidden). So the rogue racing across the room is "spotted" but nobody has time to react until he's passed. Of course, doing that is noticable, so even though he's in the next room and again has total concealment, he's no longer got stealth - but a simple move fixes that.

Notwithstanding the much-appreciated XPs for my comments of two years ago , the above is the way I'd run it today. Essentially, everyone sees the character as soon as he breaks stealth, but he takes them sufficiently by surprise that they don't get to react until he completes that first action.

 

[Nightchill]

Interesting stuff on the above. Let me throw another - potentially silly - question into the mix..

Here's the example:
A 6' tall character with, say, a crossbow is behind a 5' wall. Can he:
Turn 1) Crouch down a little, making himself smaller than 5' (to get out of line of sight) and then make a Stealth check and become Hidden.
Turn 2) Stand up and shoot. Then crouch back down and make a Stealth check?
Turn X) Repeat.

I suppose part of what I'm really asking is "would you count going from crouching to standing as a Move (standing from prone?) or Free action?"

 

[MarkB]

Interesting stuff on the above. Let me throw another - potentially silly - question into the mix..

Here's the example:
A 6' tall character with, say, a crossbow is behind a 5' wall. Can he:
Turn 1) Crouch down a little, making himself smaller than 5' (to get out of line of sight) and then make a Stealth check and become Hidden.
Turn 2) Stand up and shoot. Then crouch back down and make a Stealth check?
Turn X) Repeat.

I suppose part of what I'm really asking is "would you count going from crouching to standing as a Move (standing from prone?) or Free action?"

That's a bit of a tricky example. By 4e physics, Medium creatures occupy a 5-foot cube, so someone behind a 5-foot-tall barrier has no line of sight to creatures beyond it, and they have superior cover against him.

Even in practical terms, if the wall is effectively at chin-level for the creature, he'll have a devil of a time bringing any ranged weapon to bear over it.

In game-mechanical terms, if the wall is tall enough to take full cover behind without even seriously crouching, then it's a barrier that's granting superior cover. That's enough to make a Stealth check behind, but it's also not something you can take unpenalised shots over simply by straightening your posture. You'll have to take the drawbacks along with the benefits.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Interesting stuff on the above. Let me throw another - potentially silly - question into the mix..

Here's the example:
A 6' tall character with, say, a crossbow is behind a 5' wall. Can he:
Turn 1) Crouch down a little, making himself smaller than 5' (to get out of line of sight) and then make a Stealth check and become Hidden.
Turn 2) Stand up and shoot. Then crouch back down and make a Stealth check?
Turn X) Repeat.

I suppose part of what I'm really asking is "would you count going from crouching to standing as a Move (standing from prone?) or Free action?"

Mechanically it counts as a 'low wall' and gives Cover (-2 to-hit). If the PC goes prone behind it (minor action) then it should grant Superior Cover (-5 to-hit) or maybe block ranged/melee attacks entirely. The character can stand up as a move action, so the drill would be Stand Up, Fire, Drop Prone. If the weapon requires an action to load (like most crossbows) then you probably can't maintain a 1 shot/round rate of fire. Note too that the enemy CAN still hit you, they will just have to use readied actions or immediate actions, etc. to do so. The other tricky part is dropping prone isn't really movement AFAICT and doesn't entitle you to try to hide. That adds in another move action you will need, making it (Stand Up, Attack, Drop Prone, next round Move+Hide, reload, repeat).

 

[DracoSuave]

A general problem with the wording is that the concept of action is poorly delineated. What happens if I shout halfway another action as a free action? Does the action I started first matter, or the action I completed first (the free action)?

The shouting is the action that broke your stealth, so at the end of -that action-.

It's pretty simple, actually. If you do action A that breaks hidding, and you do an action B, C, or even D, you lose the benefits at the end of action A.

You'll have to take the drawbacks along with the benefits.

In this case, a severe one: Your enemies have total cover against you as well as you having total cover against them. They can then go hidden if you don't have a 'spotter' that can see them. Good luck with the ranged shinanegans now.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

what about an arrow slit in a castle wall?

An arrow slit provides superior cover to the archer, but I fail to how it could possibly provide cover to the creatures below, out in the open. The idea that cover is symmetric completely negates the obvious physical interpretation of the problem. It might grant differing levels of cover, say one step less, for those outside, but there has to be an advantage to the archer otherwise the rules are just dumb. (imo)

I do like the idea of having to drop prone, move a bit to re-stealth, then pop up for your next shot above that 5 foot high wall with combat advantage. But ya probably only a rogue with special powers could pull off 1/round firing rate like that. Concealment and cover are what they seem to do best. I like it when they have to work to get CA. And it's good to learn new tricks like charging out from the shadows that maintains CA and concealment until the first action is ended == w00t. Our rogue will love that. So it's not always DM fiat that allows this type of strategy to work, it just does.

I'd also argue for realism sake that if a creature is behind you, you can't see it and thus it has concealment from you unless you perceive it with a passive perception check and thus are made aware of it. But if two creatures charge some guy from different entrances into the room he's in, there's no way he can counter / be ready for both, if he's facing one way and not looking down both halls simultaneously. Or at least paying attention. Our DM also house rules that teleporting behind an enemy gives CA each time == backstab

 

[DracoSuave]

An arrow slit provides superior cover to the archer, but I fail to how it could possibly provide cover to the creatures below, out in the open. The idea that cover is symmetric completely negates the obvious physical interpretation of the problem. It might grant differing levels of cover, say one step less, for those outside, but there has to be an advantage to the archer otherwise the rules are just dumb. (imo)

Agreed. For arrowslits.

My example was a response to a physical wall. Not a wall with a hole in it designed for the purpose of assymetric cover.

I do like the idea of having to drop prone, move a bit to re-stealth, then pop up for your next shot above that 5 foot high wall with combat advantage. But ya probably only a rogue with special powers could pull off 1/round firing rate like that. Concealment and cover are what they seem to do best. I like it when they have to work to get CA. And it's good to learn new tricks like charging out from the shadows that maintains CA and concealment until the first action is ended == w00t. Our rogue will love that. So it's not always DM fiat that allows this type of strategy to work, it just does.

Well yeah, that IS how the rules work.

I'd also argue for realism sake that if a creature is behind you, you can't see it and thus it has concealment from you unless you perceive it with a passive perception check and thus are made aware of it.

Provided you're out of combat, this is fine. But in combat, there is no facing so 'getting behind a guy' isn't feasible, nor realistic, as people don't realisticly stand staring in one direction oblivious to anything around them.

But if two creatures charge some guy from different entrances into the room he's in, there's no way he can counter / be ready for both, if he's facing one way and not looking down both halls simultaneously. Or at least paying attention. Our DM also house rules that teleporting behind an enemy gives CA each time == backstab

That's called 'flanking' and does already exist in the game.

Tho, teleporting behind someone, again, doesn't exist. There is no 'behind someone' to teleport to.

The rogue DOES have something he can do, however. He can use a bluff check to feint, allowing him to take advantage of a moment of distraction. This only works once (cause, really, who's going to start ignoring a rogue once he starts being sneaky and stabbing?) In the case of the teleport maneuver, there's no reason to believe there isn't a 'tell' or something that informs them where you've banfed to. However, if the teleporter went 'Bluff check' before hand, they're making an effort to be deceptive in their teleportation.

 

[Colmarr]

I'm equally honoured and disturbed that someone chose to resurrect my dead, buried, and happily decaying thread from 2 years ago.

Yes. The first instance, the readied action can never trigger. By the time the character is aware of the enemy's location, that enemy has already moved. Thusly, the 'when the enemy moves adjacent' trigger never occurs. Part of the hidden benefits is that enemies are not aware of your location.

In the second instance, the readied action WILL occur, because the trigger for that is 'when the enemy appears.' This attack will occur without the benefit of concealment because readied actions are immediate reactions and therefore occur after the trigger has completed. The player is aware of the creature because it lost the benefits of the hidden status; a creature cannot lose the benefits of the hidden status (unaware of your location) while retaining the benefits of the hidden status (being invisible).

The important difference is not how the enemy loses the hidden status, but the trigger used in the readied action.

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

In example one, I assume you are taking issue with the "moves adjacent" trigger, maintaining that a reaction can't trigger unless the PC knows its conditions have been met. A not-unreasonable position (but not necessarily one I agree with - although I do agree that not only would the PC have the -5 penalty, they'd need to correctly guess which square to attack).

In example two, why do you maintain that the PC can shoot the goblin? If we have established that the goblin remains hidden until after the end of its move action, and that one of the benefits of being hidden is that enemies are unaware of your position, how do you maintain that the PC knows when the goblin "appears"?

 

[eamon]

The shouting is the action that broke your stealth, so at the end of -that action-.

It's pretty simple, actually. If you do action A that breaks hidding, and you do an action B, C, or even D, you lose the benefits at the end of action A.

That's the common sense DM-at-the-table solution - and that's fine. But it's not true that it's the shouting that is somehow the "first" action that broke stealth.

The moment the rogue steps into the room and loses all cover, he's breaking stealth. Then, he moves a few more squares - retaining the stealth benefits, despite having broken stealth. Somewhere half-way, he shouts - this would also break stealth, and stealth benefits are retained until the action completes. Then he continues his other action, which... retains stealth benefits until complete? Why not?

The point is, if the idea is that you retain stealth benefits during the action because "it all happens so fast", then whether or not you made a noise half-way is beside the point - you probably made a bunch of noise while moving anyhow, and you're in full line of sight so the noise is beside the point. Also shouting doesn't slow you down or somehow invalidate the argument that the movement resolved before people could react.

So, both from a RAW perspective and from a common sense perspective it's not unreasonable to say that both actions break stealth, and both actions retain stealth benefits until the action completes. After all, there's no rule that says you don't retain stealth benefits just because some other action interrupted yours - the rules just say you retain the benefits for the duration of that action.

Finally, you chose to go with the "shouting" example, but this could just as well have been another, less obvious, free action such as the warden's mark: It would still be an action out in the open (so why does it have stealth?) but the action itself needn't intrinsically break stealth.

I prefer the approach whereby the details of interrupts don't matter. In other words: the free action for shouting ends stealth but that doesn't take away the benefits that are retained while your first action completes.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

Draco, how can one "tell" where you're about to teleport? Teleporting itself could be ruled to give a +20 circumstance bonus to Bluff for the purposes of gaining CA against one enemy. (since it's an encounter power anyway). Anyway, our DM gives combat advantage to the rogue for TPing, since while he's outside of reality, even for a split second, he gains complete and total concealment and thus when he reappears it reduces the rules problem to the same one as charging from out of the shadows.

Wait, I guess it doesn't since it isn't the same action. In any case, TPing is better than charging out from the shadows, from a reaction time standpoint, so it makes sense anyway. That's the way our DM rules it, and it's fun + flavorful, so why not. There being no facing rules doesn't mean they aren't warranted in certain cituations. People cannot be facing all directions at all times. If you're standing in a room oblivious to my coming out of a closet or something, trust me I can sneak up on you. Especially when the only thing required is a single "boo" and that's enough for combat advantage. "Boo" would be the equivalent of the bluff, as TP is equivalent to being hidden behind you in a closet to pop out when you're facing the front door, ala Jason Voorhees.

People are not 360 degree turrets with laser sighting and sonar. Our vision has direction. The rules do not need to specify this, since they already state that if you cannot see the target you grant CA to them. This seems grey area house rule territory anyway, since it would be crappy to expect to be able to do it against a gelatinous cube or a dragon.