Combat advantage on enemies looking away

[taza]

These forums are great! I've found SO many of my 4e questions answered here. Unfortunately, I've got one I can't find an answer to anywhere...

I ran my first 4e campaign this past weekend and this damn rogue is bending the rules on me. He's the kind of power gamer that will try to get away with everything, but he'll always back down if something is explicitly in the rules. Think lawful evil . In this case, he keeps trying to get combat advantage on an enemy when the enemy isn't looking in his direction, and he's using pg. 280 in the PHB to back himself up.

The following situations give an attacker combat advantage against a defender.

When a defender is...
Balancing (page 180)
Blinded (page 277)
...
Unable to see the attacker (page 281)

"If he's looking at something across the room, he can't see me." says the rogue.

First, it just doesn't make sense: if you could get CA by just being behind an enemy, why have all those flanking and sneaking rules? Second, I've read posts here citing that perception in an encounter is 360 degrees. The problem is, I can't find anything in the manuals indicating that, and the rogue won't back down without a rule citation. Can someone point to a definitive WotC rule I can use to prove to him he's wrong?

 

[Keenath]

Actually, the rules cover it pretty specifically, under the Stealth skill (page 188), "Distracted Creature".

"If a creature is distracted, you can attempt to hide from that creature even when you don’t have cover or concealment. In combat, creatures are assumed to be paying attention in all directions. Outside combat, a creature might be paying attention to something in a certain direction, allowing you to hide behind the creature’s back. You make a Stealth check as normal to avoid the creature’s notice, since it might hear you."

In other words, your rogue can't pull it off in battle, but if there's a guard standing guard by a gate, there's a chance he can walk up behind the guy -- with a stealth check, of course -- and knife him in the back.

But it's totally up to you, the DM, to declare when he's allowed to do this. (Hint: Let him do it from time to time, since he likes pulling off stealth attacks so much!)

 

[taza]

In combat, creatures are assumed to be paying attention in all directions.

That's perfect; exactly what I was looking for. I tell you, these forums are fantastic.

But it's totally up to you, the DM, to declare when he's allowed to do this. (Hint: Let him do it from time to time, since he likes pulling off stealth attacks so much!)

Instead of bending the rules for him occasionally, I'd rather force him to be a bit more creative when trying to get his Sneak Attack bonus damage in combat situations. Between First Strike and Superior Cover/Total Concealment he should get plenty of opportunities.

 

[essenbee]

Once per encounter, characters can make a Bluff check (vs. Insight) to gain Combat Advantage. The rogue in my group uses this tactic to effect, but I make him describe what kind of "bluff" he's trying to pull off.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Use of Bluff to grant combat advantage is something that's quite under-used, I feel.

Hmmm...maybe if I get to play a rogue I'll try and make use of it! Certainly very handy with an action point to back it up.

 

[D'karr]

the rogue won't back down without a rule citation. Can someone point to a definitive WotC rule I can use to prove to him he's wrong?

There is a problem here and it does not have to do with hiding from an opponent. YOU are the one running the game, not the player of the rogue character. As such you are in control of rules adjudication and if you say that he can't do something then he can't. Even if the rules say otherwise. I refer you to page 32 of the DMG for a suggestion of what to do if you've made a decision about a rule and a player wants to argue about rules.

On the rules front, the description of Stealth has the "rules" for doing this kind of stuff, but you might want to also get the errata for the skill, which really fixes some problems with the rule.

 

[Runestar]

YOU are the one running the game, not the player of the rogue character. As such you are in control of rules adjudication and if you say that he can't do something then he can't. Even if the rules say otherwise. I refer you to page 32 of the DMG for a suggestion of what to do if you've made a decision about a rule and a player wants to argue about rules.

It is also worth noting that just because a DM can in theory rule any way he likes does not necessarily mean that he should. The DM should not only be correct, but also be correct for the right reason. This means that ideally, you are right because you are an authority with the rules (ie: you know how the rules work and can make correct judgement calls based of that) rather than simply being in authority (ie: players being forced to have to adhere to your ruling simply because you say so, however inaccurate or inane it may be).

This is the player's game as much as it is the DM's.

 

[D'karr]

It is also worth noting that just because a DM can in theory rule any way he likes does not necessarily mean that he should. The DM should not only be correct, but also be correct for the right reason. This means that ideally, you are right because you are an authority with the rules (ie: you know how the rules work and can make correct judgement calls based of that) rather than simply being in authority (ie: players being forced to have to adhere to your ruling simply because you say so, however inaccurate or inane it may be).

This is the player's game as much as it is the DM's.

The situation as explained by the OP does not even remotely seem to be a case of using the "right" ruling. It has to do with showing the "rogue" where in the book it says X, Y or Z. That is a completely different situation.

And I agree with you that you want to make your rulings within the rules if possible, but there are plenty of times that the rules need to be chucked and the DM should not have to spend inordinate amounts of time justifying that. 4e has thankfully gotten away from that mentality.

 

[inati]

Besides, if the Rogue has his way, the DM would have to be bookkeeping all the facings of his monsters and NPCs. Brrr!

 

[Keenath]

Instead of bending the rules for him occasionally, I'd rather force him to be a bit more creative when trying to get his Sneak Attack bonus damage in combat situations.

That's not what I meant. I didn't suggest bending the rules, but rather when he's not actually in combat, let him occasionally sneak up behind the guards (or whatever) and shiv 'em, staying completely in line with the Stealth skill. In combat he needs to follow the rules; but since you get to declare when he's able to sneak up behind a guy outside combat, you should let him use that tactic from time to time.