MP2: Cunning Sneak/Stealth questions

[KidSnide]

Cunning Sneak: If you end a move action at least 3 squares away from your starting position, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden if you have any concealment or any cover, except for cover provided by intervening allies.​

I haven't seen MP2, but from the quoted text, I'd say that you could be standing out in the open (and completely unhidden) at the start of your turn, then move 3+ squares into some underbrush (normal concealment) or behind a small tree (non-total cover), and get to make a Stealth check. If you succeed you are now hidden, and you can then attack (with Deft Strike from behind the tree, for instance) and get Sneak Attack damage.

Is that right?

That is completely right. (At least by my reading of the rule...)

-KS

 

[Markn]

My bad on that one part. KidSnide is right.

I was looking at it from the perspective that once you had hidden status, and attacked you would normally require complete cover to get hidden again. I completely overlooked the fact that you can just move 3+ squares to cover/concealment and try to hide even before attacking with Cunning Sneak.

I guess thats why this is a forum and not a "I shall tell thee how the rules work" sort of thing.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm going to bet that these questions are a surprise to no one...

(1) Several new rogue powers in Martial Power 2 have an effect after the attack that is some flavor of "You shift (some number) of squares, and you can make a Stealth check to become hidden".

Question: does this override the normal Becoming Hidden rules? ('You can make a stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment')

- If it doesn't, this effect seems... less than useful.
- If it does, I have a follow-on question - what about the 'Remaining Hidden' rules? ('If you no longer have cover or concealment against an enemy, you don't remain hidden from that enemy')

It allows you to make a stealth check to become hidden. Normally that's something you do during a move action under certain circumstances, but if the power says you do it, you do it.

That said, you don't necessarily get to keep that Stealth check if you're in a position where you're not able to maintain it. You cannot use the ability to hide in plain sight; you negate being hidden immediately if you cannot maintain it immediately.

There are powers that exist that change this scenario of course.

What this means in a practical sense, is that you make your check, and then normal cover and concealment will do fine to make the check and keep hidden. And if that movement was more than 2 squares there's no penalty to the check.

(2) Other after-the-attack effects:
* If you are hidden when you attack, you can make a Stealth check to remain hidden
* You do not expend this power if you were hidden from the target when you made the attack

Question: This may be semantics, but should I read that as "hidden BEFORE you attacked" instead of "hidden WHEN you attacked", as attacking itself makes you lose your hidden status?

Attacking makes you no longer remain hidden; however: All situations that cause you to lose hidden status by your own actions only apply when your action is complete

So, if you move out into the open, you're hidden until the move is done.

(3) Question: is this going to be a logistics nightmare to play out? (Sorry, that's an opinion question, not strictly a rules question)

- A

Nope.

 

[Alomir]

Thanks all for the replies!

It allows you to make a stealth check to become hidden. Normally that's something you do during a move action under certain circumstances, but if the power says you do it, you do it.

That said, you don't necessarily get to keep that Stealth check if you're in a position where you're not able to maintain it. You cannot use the ability to hide in plain sight; you negate being hidden immediately if you cannot maintain it immediately.

This is just what I was thinking - you get to make the check, but it's only going to be relevant if you have cover or concealment (but not superior/total, due to Cunning Sneak), unless there are other powers/effects in play.

----------

Attacking makes you no longer remain hidden; however: All situations that cause you to lose hidden status by your own actions only apply when your action is complete.

So, if you move out into the open, you're hidden until the move is done.

This is pretty cut and dried (and thus I like it) - but where is it from? I cannot find that exact phrase in the rules. Also, it seems to contradict this part of the stealth rules:

Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action.

If you do not lose hidden status until the end of the action, you would not need to "retain the benefits".

----------

Assuming it's a failure of mine to find/understand the rules, and hidden status is retained until end of action, this raises another real question:

(4) If my rogue is hidden, makes an attack that with an after-the-attack effect that includes "make a stealth check to become hidden", and successfully makes his stealth check - was he ever NOT hidden at any point in there?

If hidden status is retained until end of action, then he never lost hidden status - but this just doesn't quite feel right (this could easily be a melee attack as well as a ranged attack).

----------

For reference, here's the stealth rule about attacking (rather nebulous):

Remaining Hidden: You remain hidden as long as you meet these requirements.
...
Don’t Attack: If you attack, you don’t remain hidden.

 

[DracoSuave]

Thanks all for the replies!

This is just what I was thinking - you get to make the check, but it's only going to be relevant if you have cover or concealment (but not superior/total, due to Cunning Sneak), unless there are other powers/effects in play.

Superior/total is irrelevent. You've -made- the check, so you only need normal to maintain it. What you need superior/total for is when you make a steath check as part of a normal action. Outside that case, you do not.

----------

This is pretty cut and dried (and thus I like it) - but where is it from? I cannot find that exact phrase in the rules. Also, it seems to contradict this part of the stealth rules:

If you do not lose hidden status until the end of the action, you would not need to "retain the benefits".

Is there a meaningful difference between being hidden until the end of the action and having all the benefits of being hidden until the end of the action?

The difference, in practical terms, isn't important enough to worry about. There MIGHT be a corner case where you have a power that kicks in when you become unhidden that also happens to be a free action... but other than that singular instance, it doesn't matter a bit.

----------

(4) If my rogue is hidden, makes an attack that with an after-the-attack effect that includes "make a stealth check to become hidden", and successfully makes his stealth check - was he ever NOT hidden at any point in there?

Yes.

Technically, as soon as he makes the attack, however that doesn't affect him mechanically until after the -action- is complete.

However:

After the attack, the stealth roll is irrelevant; he is not hidden, unless the power somehow allows you to make a check to -remain- hidden.

Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.

If hidden status is retained until end of action, then he never lost hidden status - but this just doesn't quite feel right (this could easily be a melee attack as well as a ranged attack).

Well, it doesn't matter when he loses it. He still has the full benefit of being hidden (including enemies not being able to see him, important for opportunity attacks) until after the -action- is complete.

However, it shouldn't be a problem, after the action is complete, he doesn't get to make his stealth roll because one can not become unhidden and become hidden in the same action.

 

[jester_gl]

I always have a quick interrogation regarding stealth attacking: Can you charge and retain the hidden status until after the attack, thus avoiding OA and getting CA? Since charge is a single action consisting of moving then attacking I would say yes, but I'm not sure.

 

[DracoSuave]

I always have a quick interrogation regarding stealth attacking: Can you charge and retain the hidden status until after the attack, thus avoiding OA and getting CA? Since charge is a single action consisting of moving then attacking I would say yes, but I'm not sure.

Yes, and that is actually the major calling card of the Aerialist Rogue.

 

[Alomir]

A question about Fleeting Spirit Strike:

Fleeting Spirit Strike
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon

Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling.
Effect: Before the attack, you shift 3 squares.

Cunning Sneak: After the shift, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden.​

Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. You shift 3 squares.

Cunning Sneak: After the shift, you can make a Stealth check to become hidden.​

If I understand the consensus above, when a power says "you can make a Stealth check to become hidden", you get to do just that; whether or not you get to keep the hidden status depends on the circumstances.

So, say my rogue uses Fleeting Spirit Strike to shift three squares, but it's into open terrain, no cover or concealment; he makes his stealth check and becomes hidden, but then loses it immediately. Does he still "retain the benefits of being hidden" for the attack itself? Or, does that not qualify as "my own actions" in "All situations that cause you to lose hidden status by your own actions only apply when your action is complete"?

 

[Alomir]

My apologies for the late response, I didn't read part of this carefully enough when it was originally written.

<answer to my question: (4) If my rogue is hidden, makes an attack that with an after-the-attack effect that includes "make a stealth check to become hidden", and successfully makes his stealth check - was he ever NOT hidden at any point in there?>

Yes.

Technically, as soon as he makes the attack, however that doesn't affect him mechanically until after the -action- is complete.

However:

After the attack, the stealth roll is irrelevant; he is not hidden, unless the power somehow allows you to make a check to -remain- hidden.

Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.



Well, it doesn't matter when he loses it. He still has the full benefit of being hidden (including enemies not being able to see him, important for opportunity attacks) until after the -action- is complete.

However, it shouldn't be a problem, after the action is complete, he doesn't get to make his stealth roll because one can not become unhidden and become hidden in the same action.

I'm having a hard time reconciling this answer with Fleeting Spirit Strike, above. Is it either/or for the two rolls to become hidden? Can a rogue NOT shift, become hidden, attack, shift, become hidden?

EDIT:
Ah, here's my problem - it seems like we're applying a double standard:
(1) on the one hand, we're saying that the rogue CAN make the stealth roll, even though the rules normally say he can't, because the power says he can (making the stealth check without total/superior - heck without any cover or concealment) (whether or not he keeps hidden is irrelevant for whether or not he can make the roll)
(2) on the other hand, we're saying that he CANNOT make the stealth roll, because the rules say he can't, even though the power says he can (making a stealth check - or not, in this case - because he lost hidden status during this action).

In both cases, the power says yes, but the rules say no - and we're making opposite decisions for the two. That does not sit well. Am I misreading something here?

 

[Piratecat]

I've told Alomir I'm just giving all monsters a +35 bonus to perception to solve this question.