How I've been running Stealth

[NMcCoy]

I wasn't sure if this belonged in the House Rules forum or here - I suppose it depends on if I'm contradicting the books anywhere? Maybe I've just not read the rules thoroughly enough, but I don't see where the apparent controversy is coming from. Here's how it's been working at my table:

Stealth: You can make a stealth check as part of a movement action, if you have concealment or cover in any of the squares you move through. You may use this action to move 0 squares and hide. You are hidden from all creatures whose passive Perception you beat with the check. If you don't start your movement with cover or concealment, you become hidden as soon as you have cover or concealment. You cannot hide if you are carrying a light source.

Hidden: You are invisible to all creatures that you're hidden from. You have combat advantage against those creatures, you don't provoke opportunity attacks from them, and they don't know your location. Melee and ranged attacks against you take the -5 penalty for total concealment.

Perception: As a minor action, you can make a Perception check against the last Stealth check made by a hidden creature. If you succeed, you know the direction to that creature's square. If you succeed by 10 or more, you know that creature's exact location. The creature still has total concealment.

Breaking Stealth: If at any point you have no cover or concealment from a creature (other than the total concealment granted by being hidden), you cease being hidden to that creature. If you use an attack power or make an attack roll, you cease being hidden immediately after resolving the attack. If you:
* shout
* carry or become a light source
* undertake some other activity which the DM determines would give away your position
you are no longer hidden.

Anything unclear or ambiguous about this interpretation? Anything that contradicts the books? Note that I'm not looking for willful misreadings, just mistakes in the interpretation or writing.

 

[seusomon]

This looks like an excellent way to handle stealth and hiding. I don't have the books in front of me, so I can't check every detail for consistency with RAW, but one thing did jump out at me: the ability to become hidden if you pass through a square where you have concealment, rather than ending your move there. Do you intend that a character could, for example, walk behind a rock and remain hidden as he emerges from the other side, now in plain view again?

 

[Deadstop]

Do you intend that a character could, for example, walk behind a rock and remain hidden as he emerges from the other side, now in plain view again?

Wouldn't this bit from the "Breaking Stealth" section of his rules take care of that problem?

"If at any point you have no cover or concealment from a creature (other than the total concealment granted by being hidden), you cease being hidden to that creature."

So as soon as you come out from behind the rock, you stop being hidden to any creature with unobstructed line of sight to your position. That would cover being "in plain view again," I think.


Deadstop

 

[NMcCoy]

Note the "breaking stealth" section - as soon as you lose concealment, you stop being hidden.

Ninja'd: Yep, as soon as you leave your cover you're visible again. Maybe I should reorganize it to make that more clear, though.

 

[jdpacheco]

It doesn't seem to say anything that RAW don't already say, it's just more clear and concise, for which I commend you.

The one thing that I would say (and you may rule this as an intentional misreading...) is that you only disallow someone to use stealth if they *carry* a light source, but they lose it if they *become* (or carry) a light source. This means that as long as they've been a light source all along, they can still use stealth.

 

[Tellerve]

If you're carrying or become or already are a light source you can't stealth.

NMcCoy- If a rogue used stealth and melee attacked a creature on a dark night and the creature didn't have darkvision or low-light you'd allow that rogue to re-stealth right in front of the creature correct?

I would venture to say you'd agree to that, and I would too, considering as well the Blind-Fight feat that would then not allow a rogue to do that as it eliminates the concealment and invisibility from adjacent creatures.

Tellerve

 

[DM_Blake]

My concern, not so much with your take as with the whole concept of 4e stealth in general, is that any character who is good at stealth will be able to automatically succeed against most of the common monsers' PASSIVE perception.

What this means is that a room full of 100 kobolds, all of whome know there are adventurers attacking them (and they all have stadium seating and a clear line of sight to the adventurers) will never, ever have any chance to spot the rogue when he hides.

There is no chance that even one kobold was paying attention, or just plain lucky, and saw the rogue hide. Not even one of them can roll that lucky natural 20 because none of them can roll.

So the rogue hides, sneak attacks someone, and remains hidden to the other 99 (unless his sneak attack forces him to leave cover - assume he's throwing a dagger from cover).

Now those 99 kobolds have to start giving up actions on their round to find the rogue.

One little hide action by the rogue that is always guaranteed to succeed, round after round after round, even when, by round 10, the remaining 50 living kobolds have all seen him do this 9 times already - no matter, they cannot see him next time any more than they could the previous 9 times.

Doesn't matter that their lives are at stake here. Doesn't matter that they've all seen him do this trick repeatedly. Doesn't matter that they all know, without doubt, that keeping an eye on that rogue is the difference between life and death. They still have no chance to see the rogue on the rogue's turn.

Seems to me, always using passive perception is the wrong way to go.

But it would take house ruling to allow the observers an atual roll.

 

[clearstream]

I wasn't sure if this belonged in the House Rules forum or here - I suppose it depends on if I'm contradicting the books anywhere? Maybe I've just not read the rules thoroughly enough, but I don't see where the apparent controversy is coming from. Here's how it's been working at my table:

Stealth: You can make a stealth check as part of a movement action, if you have concealment or cover in any of the squares you move through. You may use this action to move 0 squares and hide. You are hidden from all creatures whose passive Perception you beat with the check. If you don't start your movement with cover or concealment, you become hidden as soon as you have cover or concealment. You cannot hide if you are carrying a light source.

Hidden: You are invisible to all creatures that you're hidden from. You have combat advantage against those creatures, you don't provoke opportunity attacks from them, and they don't know your location. Melee and ranged attacks against you take the -5 penalty for total concealment.

Perception: As a minor action, you can make a Perception check against the last Stealth check made by a hidden creature. If you succeed, you know the direction to that creature's square. If you succeed by 10 or more, you know that creature's exact location. The creature still has total concealment.

Breaking Stealth: If at any point you have no cover or concealment from a creature (other than the total concealment granted by being hidden), you cease being hidden to that creature. If you use an attack power or make an attack roll, you cease being hidden immediately after resolving the attack. If you:
* shout
* carry or become a light source
* undertake some other activity which the DM determines would give away your position
you are no longer hidden.

Anything unclear or ambiguous about this interpretation? Anything that contradicts the books? Note that I'm not looking for willful misreadings, just mistakes in the interpretation or writing.

To be fair, quite a lot contradicts the books, but perhaps with justice.

Overall, I think you hit the fork where you have to decide if hiding equals invisibility or not square on, and having decided it does you proceed in a rational direction. A fair precis of WotC's position is that hiding is like invisibility, but is not invisibility. Some take that to mean some of the TWYCS rules apply, and others don't. For example, the +10 rule means you need a natural 20 or better to beat Stealth once Stealth beats your passive Perception; i.e. you may have no chance.

-vk

 

[Saeviomagy]

To be fair, quite a lot contradicts the books, but perhaps with justice.

Overall, I think you hit the fork where you have to decide if hiding equals invisibility or not square on, and having decided it does you proceed in a rational direction. A fair precis of WotC's position is that hiding is like invisibility, but is not invisibility. Some take that to mean some of the TWYCS rules apply, and others don't. For example, the +10 rule means you need a natural 20 or better to beat Stealth once Stealth beats your passive Perception; i.e. you may have no chance.

-vk

Personally:
On your turn, make a hide check vs passive perception.

On foes turns, they can make an active perception check vs your hide check as a minor action.

Success means they see you just fine.

If a foe can't see you they can still target you as though you are fully concealed.

If you lose cover and concealment vs a foe, they spot you. If you do any of the other stealth breaking actions, all foes spot you.

This means that hiding on your turn to get combat advantage is easy, as is hiding when a foe isn't aware of you (and thus doesn't know to make a perception check). Hiding through anothers turn in order to avoid attacks is more difficult if they know to look for you.

 

[phmas]

Overall, I think you hit the fork where you have to decide if hiding equals invisibility or not square on, and having decided it does you proceed in a rational direction. A fair precis of WotC's position is that hiding is like invisibility, but is not invisibility. Some take that to mean some of the TWYCS rules apply, and others don't. For example, the +10 rule means you need a natural 20 or better to beat Stealth once Stealth beats your passive Perception; i.e. you may have no chance.

So far, that's my biggest problem with the stealth rules in combat: the hidden=invisible thing (or functions like invisible, or whatever). It makes hiding not only extremely powerful, but also makes total concealment and total cover much less important. Moreover, it comes with a few serious (at least IMO) reality check problems, as i pointed out in another thread.

As I also pointed out, my biggest change would be to assume that hidden=/=invisible, unless you already have total concealment (which would only make even more difficult to have your location pin-pointed). So, hiding with concealment only gives CA, but you won't gain the benefits of being "invisible" (nor will you use the TWYCS rules). Your enemies can target you as normal, but with the usual -2 penalty for concealment.

* As a side note, I noticed that if you read carefully in the PHB, the only condition gained form being hidden that is explicitly written is CA. No other condition (including using TWYCS rules, upgrading concealemnt to total concealment, using the invisible rules and so on...) is explicit in the skill descrition. Maybe that's intentional?