D&D 4E My take on 4E Stealth

[Reed]

Where do you get that definition of Stealth, Reed? The definition in 4E seems to be, "Make a Stealth check to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, and sneak up on people without being seen or heard."

I can see what you're saying, but do you honestly think the proverbial dragonborn-rogue-behind-a-halfling can use the halfling to hide? I can't believe that in this case a halfling blocks line of sight for the target.

i wasn't trying to suggest that hiding behind an ally would give you what is necessary for stealth. just that it doesn't mean you are completely hidden as a number of people seem to think it is.

this idea was supported by a response from a csr that was posted on rpg.net or the wizards forums. i tried to find it but to no avail.

 

[wordsmithpdx]

IMO that section simply states how to determine if an enemy grants cover against ranged attacks, as stated in the previous section that strongly seems to imply that enemies only grant cover against ranged attacks.

Normal cover also protects against melee attacks, so it is clear that enemies don't provide "standard" cover.

I agree with this point. My logic is thus:

“Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.”


We know that allies never grant cover to your enemies, so we can assume that it’s not the fact that there’s a creature in the square that’s granting the cover … it’s something to do with the creature’s allegiance and intent. So a body standing there doesn’t actually grant cover, in and of itself.


Now notice that the rules only stipulate that your target has cover when you make a ranged attack. So it’s as if you, as the target, suddenly have a split second of cover and could make a stealth check … if only you were taking an action. But you’re not, so it’s moot for the purposes of combat advantage or hiding from view. As soon as the ranged attack is complete, your cover is also gone, and so is your opportunity to make a stealth check. Even rogue powers like chameleon and hide in plain sight don't let you piggyback into suddenly disappearing (but only after a guy lobs something at you), because they only let you stay hidden if you were already hidden, and until the moment of the ranged attack, you didn't have cover to try to hide behind.



Another way of looking at it is that the ally, as a free action possible only when you’re being attacked by a ranged attack, is choosing to give you cover against that precise attack.


I think that interpretation holds up pretty well in relation to the other game mechanics, doesn't hinder rogues overly much, and doesn't strain believability. Plus, there's a loophole: if a rogue has a way to make a stealth check as an interrupt, or even a stealth check and an attack as an interrupt, they could absolutely get combat advantage for that interrupting attack … they deserve it, after all of that effort!

 

[eamon]

Stealth isn't just about hiding. Stealth is also about obfuscating how you are delivering the attack (if you are attacking low or high, thrust or slash, ect), when you are delivering it, and what the attack is (so knowing how to counter it).

oh and nice write up

Unfortunately, stealth is not just about combat advantage. It's also about concealing yourself - a successful stealth check means you're unseen and unheard, and by any reasonable definition, have total concealment (which grants a hefty defense bonus).

I'd be very unhappy to be in a game in which you'd typically attack-then-stealth such that you have total concealment outside your turn, but combat advantage for your attack, especially if that stealth represents something like a troll hiding behind a goblin.

 

[BradfordFerguson]

Allies do not grant cover for any of YOUR attacks, ranged or otherwise! Allies grant cover if you are the TARGET not the ATTACKER.

4E are exceptions-based rules. They are plain-as-day.



ALSO, I'm sure sure who all realizes this yet. Stealth, by default, does not allow characters to move without cover and without concealment and still remain effectively invisible to enemies. As soon as a character does not have cover NOR concealment, the enemy spots you in combat.

A 10th+ level rogue ability allows you to move from cover/conceal to cover/conceal and keep your whole movement as stealthed (even if you move thru non-cover non-conceal squares).

 

[Kobu]

Allies do not grant cover for any of YOUR attacks, ranged or otherwise! Allies grant cover if you are the TARGET not the ATTACKER.

How is that relevant?

 

[BradfordFerguson]

Come on Kobu. The character trying to stealth is the attacker. Its very relevant.

 

[Kobu]

Come on Kobu. The character trying to stealth is the attacker. Its very relevant.

You haven't really explained how that ties to the topic, so I can only guess your meaning. Are you saying that allies not granting cover to the enemy somehow negates the cover they provide for using stealth? If so, I think you are getting the two uses of cover confused.

 

[BradfordFerguson]

The character stealthing behind an ally (by bending the rules) is trying to be the attacker. Cover for allies has to do with being the target or defender, not being the attacker.