Is Stealth the new Grapple?

[Tigerbunny]

I fail to see anything confusing in the stealth rules.

If you have cover or concealment, you can stealth. If you don't, you can't, unless the thing you're hiding from is distracted.

What is the complication?

The complication is mostly in the heads of people who are trying to treat the rules text like a computer program.

"To Stealth" is not an action in itself. It is a modifier to another action. If you have cover or concealment, you can try to take an action that would otherwise attract attention "stealthily". If your Stealth check beats the passive Perception of someone who might otherwise detect your action, you remain unnoticed. Use that Stealth check result until you try to do something else with Stealth. You are NOT "invisible" - you are "unnoticed", and cannot be targeted except by targeting your square using the "target you can't see" rules. You have combat advantage over any creature that has not beaten your Stealth check result (either passively or by taking an active Perception action on their turn).

The only question is "what actions do I need to Stealth on to prevent creatures from noticing me?"

I'd rule that anything that would provoke an OA or would cause you to lose concealment/cover would qualify.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

We never have trouble with Stealth. I simply have players make the Stealth roll versus Passive Perception during their movement if Concealment or Cover is present and they opt to sneak up.

It's not that complicated. ><

 

[clearstream]

One of the things 4e was designed to do was fix some of the more tedious rules of 3.x. The viral video of the French guy saying "ze game remainz ze same" showed how much of a groaning game-stopper the 3.x grapple system was. 4.0 grapple is definately much easier to use... but now it seems like 4.0 has its own hard-to-use mechanic in Stealth. I don't think anything has caused more confusion or frustration in 4.0 than people using stealth in combat. So, is Stealth the New Grapple? If not, what is?

It's far worse. The apposite rules are spread over several pages of two books. Since publication numerous CSRs and designer remarks have muddied waters not clarified particularly helpfully by the FAQ.

Stealth involves multiple skills and abilities, and depending how you run it, it can call for a great many dice rolls and individual enemy state tracking. The worse thing is, stealth is far more useful than grapple, and more often you want to use it. So unlike grapple, it's very hard to ignore.

Grapple was a doddle, compared to Stealth.

-vk

 

[starwed]

The complication is mostly in the heads of people who are trying to treat the rules text like a computer program.

No. I don't give a damn about the rule technicalities, and still find them confusing. The RAW just don't make it very clear what the RAI are. I've played a rogue in 4e, and it wasn't at all obvious to me how I was supposed to use stealth.

As pointed out earlier, all of this could be resolved with some examples of stealth in combat, which hopefully will show up on wizards website eventually.

Also, count me as another who never found grapple this confusing. Complex, yes, but pretty clear cut most of the time. (Discounting weirdness with natural attacks and some other corner cases.)

 

[amysrevenge]

I think 4E Stealth is the opposite problem to 3.xE Grapple.

3.xE Grapple: we know the INTENT of what it's supposed to do (grab and hold someone, maybe move them or damage them) - it's the HOW that the problem.


4E Stealth: we generally know HOW to do Stealth (Stealth vs. Perception check) - it's the INTENT that is more up in the air (pop in and out of Stealth every round, or only once, or something else).

(Of course when I say that the intent isn't clear, what I mean is that everyone thinks it is perfectly clear, but that many of those people have opposite opinions of that intent.)

 

[Lauberfen]

Umm no. Haven't even had to check the stealth rules since the first session.

 

[James McMurray]

Well, that is a powerful argument, but I still think that Stealth rules were not written very clearly in the way that Grapple was.

We never had a problem using the grapple rules either, beyond the balance issues.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Here's how I handle Stealth -

Player elects to Stealth as part of a movement, due to concealment or cover. He or she cannot make a Stealth check if they're in the open, unless they attempt a Bluff check to take the foe's attention away from them as a Standard Action. If they have successfully Bluffed versus the foe's passive Insight, he can then move towards concealment or cover and make a Stealth check as part of their move.

If the person remains in Cover/Concealment and has overcome the foe's passive Perception, he is considered stealthed and gains Combat Advantage against his target. If the person moves out of Cover or Concealment, they are immediately discovered - no matter what. This means it's virtually impossible to place a melee Sneak Attack strike, unless they've maneuvored into a place where their foe can be reached within melee distance. They can "pop out" over cover or around cover as long as they don't leave their square to make a Sneak Attack with a ranged power/attack - or alternatively, attack with a ranged power from concealment.

On the next round, if the player elects not to move, they are still under Stealth with the previous roll unless Cover or Concealment is somehow broken (light enters the concealed area or the cover is destroyed). If they move while behind cover or concealment from their original square, they MUST reroll Stealth.

 

[amysrevenge]

Umm no. Haven't even had to check the stealth rules since the first session.

Well, yes. Once you have determined your take on the INTENT (which is a one-time decision), the rule itself is simple as pie - just like almost everything in 4E.

 

[Donatello]

Once you have determined your take on the INTENT (which is a one-time decision), the rule itself is simple as pie - just like almost everything in 4E.

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.