Question: Rogues, Ally-cover, and Sneak-Attacking every round

[Silverblade The Ench]

Whatever happened to common sense, eh?

DM says: "&$%" off, cheating noob! Go escape his notice, get out of sight, for REAL, then we'll do opposed Perception vsersus Stealth!"
And it shouldn't be passive, he's actively keeping an eye out for the rogue.

Reminds to much of ye bag of rats and cleave...

 

[Harr]

Whatever happened to common sense, eh?

DM says: "&$%" off, cheating noob! Go escape his notice, get out of sight, for REAL, then we'll do opposed Perception vsersus Stealth!"

Well, yeah, you can do that whenever no problem. And the real dynamic of playing any RPG happens within that kind of push-pull bartering between players and DM.

Still, the point is that we think that the rules DO account for this kind of thing and ARE well-balanced as they are. Even though I have found my own interpretation of the rule which I believe is fair, logical and within the original intent of the rules, I'm still curious to hear the official clarification.

 

[reff42]

for my KotS game, I'm experimenting with these rules.

Stealth- make a stealth check vs the opponent's passive perception to drop out of sight. If the opponent observed you dropping out of sight, you must move 3 squares away from your original position (making an appropriate stealth check) to obtain combat advantage.

So, given large enough cover/concealment, the rouge may
minor action to drop into stealth
move action with stealth check to move to new position
standard action to attack with combat advantage.

So, this requires their entire round and appropriate cover/concealment. Not overpowering or overrestrictive I think.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

reff42,
well, shouldn't it be:
1) Move to an area where stealth is possible. This is the primary requirement.
You can't hide right in front of him, short of invisibility. So you need some place that grants concealement first: bushes; a corner, total darkness etc.
So, you have to get ot a suitable place first, as a move action.

2) Minor action, use stealth: crouch down, duck behind something etc.
Stealth versus active Perception check.

3) You are now too far away to melee, so, you'd need to use a ranged attack as your standard action. If made Stealth check, you have combat advantage.
Or
Use standard action to move to a new position, and on next round, move out and melee attack.


If you want to keep stealthed continually, you'd best find bushes or fog etc, and attack from there, using a ranged attack, but you'd need to do a active stealth vs percpetion check if you have attacked the target each round, as they are actively scanning for danger. The bushes or whatever, affords you the ability to have a chance at Stealth.


harr,
no offence meant it's just as a DM, I really hate folk coming up with cheating exploits that ruin the "fun" of the game.
Sorry, very very bad memories of a git who'd massively power game, out right cheat, ruin things for others and created TPK when things didn't go his way...*teeth gnash*, lol.
So, starting that kind of idea up at beginning of 4th ed...I have too much sympathy for fellow DMs!

Now, I can see soem sense in this idea, if, the stealth person had some kind of "distracting" ability. as it reminds me of some of the Burt Lancaster films where his deaf friend and he would do a "tag team", and his pal would kick some baddy in the pants by hiding behind Burt

The target will be actively looking for the rogue, there's no two ways about it, he's in danger and it's up close! so not passive checks. Thus the rogue needs the target to be disorientated: dazed, stunned or tripped, allowing him an opportunity to hide.

That could be good fun and plausible?

 

[Xorn]

Don't look at the Rogue Utility 16 power before you've come to terms with this scenario first.

However, for me, Stealth reads (for Combat Advantage):

"You have combat advantage against a target that isn’t aware of you."

Once you attack, they are aware of you. At that point, unless you are Invisible (keyword) you don't have combat advantage.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Don't look at the Rogue Utility 16 power before you've come to terms with this scenario first.

However, for me, Stealth reads (for Combat Advantage):

"You have combat advantage against a target that isn’t aware of you."

Once you attack, they are aware of you. At that point, unless you are Invisible (keyword) you don't have combat advantage.

Fine, but what about after you attack?

Another issue that came to mind is reach weapons. If you have a friendly between me and yourself, and I attack you with a reach weapon, you arent considered to have cover, right? So a situation like the one below wouldnt work:

XXMXX
XXFXX
XXYXX

M=me F=friend Y=you

Even though normally if you were just using a ranged weapon you would have cover.

 

[reff42]

reff42,
well, shouldn't it be:
1) Move to an area where stealth is possible. This is the primary requirement.
You can't hide right in front of him, short of invisibility. So you need some place that grants concealement first: bushes; a corner, total darkness etc.
So, you have to get ot a suitable place first, as a move action.

2) Minor action, use stealth: crouch down, duck behind something etc.
Stealth versus active Perception check.

3) You are now too far away to melee, so, you'd need to use a ranged attack as your standard action. If made Stealth check, you have combat advantage.
Or
Use standard action to move to a new position, and on next round, move out and melee attack.


If you want to keep stealthed continually, you'd best find bushes or fog etc, and attack from there, using a ranged attack, but you'd need to do a active stealth vs percpetion check if you have attacked the target each round, as they are actively scanning for danger. The bushes or whatever, affords you the ability to have a chance at Stealth.

I think you misunderstand.

My point is that you can hide (or get out of sight at least) if you have cover or concealment. Ducking behind a table or corner, the enemy can't see you. Now, the enemy is expecting an attack from that area. So, having the player move at least 3 squares away from their original position (while maintaining their means of concealment and a stealth check) gives them enough room that the enemy won't expect an attack from the new area. So, if there is say a line of tables or a alternate entrance to a room, the rouge may sneak over there and attack from an angle that the enemy is not expecting, thus combat advantage.

The 3 squares is an arbitrary number. But thats what a DM is for, arbitration.

I would not however allow a player to 'hide' behind another player, except in some very extreme circumstances and for a specific purpose.

They may gain a +2 bonus on a bluff check for feinting though.

 

[Harr]

Silverblade, no offense taken, I am also my groups DM and I sympathize... my players are all unashamed loot-and-power-gamers, but have always been good enough to shrug and say 'oh well' when I say something goes or doesn't go. In return for that I've grown used to making very sure that my rulings always follow the spirit of the rules as much as possible

My point is that you can hide (or get out of sight at least) if you have cover or concealment. Ducking behind a table or corner, the enemy can't see you. Now, the enemy is expecting an attack from that area. So, having the player move at least 3 squares away from their original position (while maintaining their means of concealment and a stealth check) gives them enough room that the enemy won't expect an attack from the new area. So, if there is say a line of tables or a alternate entrance to a room, the rouge may sneak over there and attack from an angle that the enemy is not expecting, thus combat advantage.

Yeah this is more or less how I see that situation.. another way to see it could be, once you sneak-attack from one position, that's it; the enemy WILL be expecting danger from that direction from then on. IF you can use cover and shadows to stealthily move yourself to another, relatively new position from which the enemy hasn't received attacks yet, then by all means sneak-attack again.

By the way, there really is no "hide" action in the skill description per se; the skill descrption says that you stealth "as part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily". I'd interpret that as if you already have cover, and want to move to another spot without being seen, you'd take the move action to move and roll your stealth as part of that move action, and if you succeed, you are hidden. No initial separate "hiding" roll needed.

If you don't make any attacks or anything afterwards but choose instead to remain hidden, then the "hiding" part comes in when the enemy gets its turn and makes an active perception check to find you (this is from PHB page 281, "Targetting what you can't see".

This really is all open to more interpretations of course, but I'm pretty happy with it