Stealth 4 Dummies

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, it seems like if you take the MOST literal interpretation of Fleeting Ghost, then the following scenario would be RAW:

A hidden thief decides he needs to move, so he uses Fleeting Ghost, which IS a move action and allows him to 'move your speed'. The ACT of moving your speed provokes a stealth check at -5 (and BTW the character would HAVE to have at least concealment to even GET a role, if he just moved into the open, he's seen, period, even if using Fleeting Ghost). At the END of the move ("and make a stealth check") he can automatically make a stealth check REGARDLESS OF CONCEALMENT. However, if he uses this option to 'hide in the open' he will IMMEDIATELY be seen anyway, since the power does NOT grant any ability to STAY hidden without cover.

IMHO this is a bad interpretation. It may be the most perfectly precise interpretation of the power as written, but I think it violates the intent and I think it relies on a particular interpretation of certain words. For instance "You can move your speed and make a stealth check." The above interpretation assumes that the word AND is implying a temporal order to the two clauses, that the stealth check is ONLY made at the end of the move part of the action, and that it only applies AT the end, after the movement part. English is not so clear cut. And can be used that way, but it can also be used to simply concatenate various clauses with no notion of time.

The more reasonable interpretation then would be that Fleeting Ghost allows a character to MOVE and HIDE at the same time and thus the second sentence means that this check is not subject to a -5 penalty.

The final issue, does the rogue need concealment at the end, is moot. Technically NO he doesn't, he can make a hide roll in plain sight. However the power ENDS at the end of the movement, and thus the regular stealth rules IMMEDIATELY come into effect. If at that point the rogue is still in view of any enemy, he is instantly revealed with no roll of any kind required.

Thus the real intended use of the power becomes clear and what I stated in my earlier post becomes the net effect of the power. A rogue who wants to move rapidly will NOT suffer the -5 penalty for that movement on a stealth check which he is allowed to make as part of the power use.

Note that even then not only must the rogue END his movement concealed, but there is NO statement in the power that says he can obviate the requirement to ALWAYS be concealed as part of the move. Thus if he crosses an open area in view of enemies NO stealth roll in the world will make him hidden during that crossing!

This is entirely reinforced by the very existence of Shadow Stride, which DOES allow you to do that. If Fleeting Ghost gave you that ability, Shadow Stride would be entirely subsumed by Fleeting Ghost.

So basically Fleeting Ghost lets you move around quickly while "lurking in the underbrush" and not suffer a -5 movement penalty, and it gives you a stealth roll at the end as part of its effects (since without the power this would require a separate action).

 

[Smeelbo]

Brain, brain, what IS Brain?!

I am not sure what I believe right now.

There are only two things a successful Stealth check can accomplish: to become hidden, or to remain hidden. MyISPHatesENWorld has made the observation that if Fleeting Ghost were an exception to Keeping Still, it would require that you be hidden to use it, just as Shadow Stride requires.

That implies that Fleeting Ghost is an exception to Becoming Hidden. The question becomes, what is the precise exception? Obviously, you can move your full speed to attain appropriate cover without taking the -5 penalty for movement.

However, the language also states explicitly that you can make a Stealth check at the end of the movement. That successful Stealth check can only result in becoming hidden, apparently overriding the requirement for Superior Cover or Total Concealment.

If Fleeting Ghost were only intended to negate the movement penalty, it should have been worded differently:

Effect: Move up to your full speed. If you make a Stealth check at the end of your move, you do not take the normal penalty for movement on this check.
​

But it doesn't. It explicitly grants a Stealth check. The problem is that seems far too good for a Rogue Utility 2. On the other hand, development has stated on numerous occassions that rogues are expected to gain combat advantage almost every round. Perhaps Fleeting Ghost is how they do it (yes, I realize with decent tactics this is not necessary).

AAaarrrgh!

Smeelbo

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am not sure what I believe right now.

There are only two things a successful Stealth check can accomplish: to become hidden, or to remain hidden. MyISPHatesENWorld has made the observation that if Fleeting Ghost were an exception to Keeping Still, it would require that you be hidden to use it, just as Shadow Stride requires.

That implies that Fleeting Ghost is an exception to Becoming Hidden. The question becomes, what is the precise exception? Obviously, you can move your full speed to attain appropriate cover without taking the -5 penalty for movement.

However, the language also states explicitly that you can make a Stealth check at the end of the movement. That successful Stealth check can only result in becoming hidden, apparently overriding the requirement for Superior Cover or Total Concealment.

If Fleeting Ghost were only intended to negate the movement penalty, it should have been worded differently:

Effect: Move up to your full speed. If you make a Stealth check at the end of your move, you do not take the normal penalty for movement on this check.
​

But it doesn't. It explicitly grants a Stealth check. The problem is that seems far too good for a Rogue Utility 2. On the other hand, development has stated on numerous occassions that rogues are expected to gain combat advantage almost every round. Perhaps Fleeting Ghost is how they do it (yes, I realize with decent tactics this is not necessary).

AAaarrrgh!

Smeelbo

Hmmm, well, it is certainly not the clearest thing in the universe. This is my reasoning....

If Fleeting Shadow was meant to be an exception to the concealment requirement, then it would SAY so. It says you can take a stealth check at the end of movement, but that is ALL it says. IMHO this is simply a reiteration of the "stealth checks are part of another action." In other words it may not be granting you something you don't normally have, it may simply be recapitulating the fact that you can make a stealth check as part of a move action in general. If it is lifting the concealment requirement it is saying so in a VERY oblique way indeed!

As I see it, it is a useful power. It enhances one's stealthiness in much the same way as other powers/feats enhance other abilities. There are actually a number of scenarios where it would be quite useful.

For instance a rogue might want to attack from a hidden position and then move away and hide again. Chances are he wants to move more than 2 squares. Fleeting Shadow would give him a useful bonus while doing that, asuming there is some other concealment within movement range he can get to.

In general I really don't see how a rogue is going to sneak up on alert opponents under RAW anyway. Any monster that has a light source or is well within a light source or a lit area is basically impossible to sneak up on. You can get as close as there is concealment or blocking terrain, but that is it.

That being said, rogues with missile weapons can CERTAINLY attack from a hidden position and get CA quite easily as is. They simply sneak up as close as they can get, staying at the edges of the illumination, and attack from that position. If blocking terrain or concealment lets them get adjacent to the enemy, then they can certainly melee with CA as well.

Of course there are other powers that will provide even better opportunities, as we know. But sans any additional power uses and DM discretion aside, you just cannot sneak up on someone that is in a lit area with no cover available.

And frankly I find it difficult to understand how the designers of the game could have written the rules as they did and not intended this to be the case. If they had wanted hiding to do that then they would have put in rules for fields of vision or something in order to give rogues more chances to sneak up in combat. So far in my DMing experience I haven't seen where stealth is a major combat tactic in typical encounters. Now, if the party is on the DEFENSIVE, then it gets quite a bit easier for the rogue as he can lurk in some fashion and let the monsters come to him. Even then he needs some concealment etc. but at least he has the luxury of positioning himself advantageously before the fact.

I would also say that DMs should feel free to be a bit liberal with the DM discretion. For example a cave area where the walls are uneven and rough might well be considered concealment if the character stays motionless and monsters aren't actively searching for him. I would probably also rule that even in combat monsters aren't going to be paying a lot of attention to entrances into their area that they consider 'safe', so if the rogue can work his way around to a side entrance to a room he might be given a chance to move up and make an attack with CA if he can pass a stealth check.

But just waltzing around hidden basically 'in plain sight', nah, not without magic or powers beyond what Fleeting Ghost explicitly provides.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

If Fleeting Shadow was meant to be an exception to the concealment requirement, then it would SAY so. It says you can take a stealth check at the end of movement, but that is ALL it says. IMHO this is simply a reiteration of the "stealth checks are part of another action." In other words it may not be granting you something you don't normally have, it may simply be recapitulating the fact that you can make a stealth check as part of a move action in general. If it is lifting the concealment requirement it is saying so in a VERY oblique way indeed!

Actually, if you had to meet the requirements, it would say so, at least in language used in the most recent powers and abilities regarding stealth:

Sacred Stealth: "provided you have superior cover or total concealment from that target when you end your movement"

Shadow Stride revision: "to a space where you can remain hidden"

As I see it, it is a useful power. It enhances one's stealthiness in much the same way as other powers/feats enhance other abilities. There are actually a number of scenarios where it would be quite useful.

For instance a rogue might want to attack from a hidden position and then move away and hide again. Chances are he wants to move more than 2 squares. Fleeting Shadow would give him a useful bonus while doing that, asuming there is some other concealment within movement range he can get to.

That is provided he has "superior cover and/or total concealment" idf you're taking the tack that it doesn't allow an exception to the normal requirement

In general I really don't see how a rogue is going to sneak up on alert opponents under RAW anyway. Any monster that has a light source or is well within a light source or a lit area is basically impossible to sneak up on. You can get as close as there is concealment or blocking terrain, but that is it.

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

It is quite clear you can sneak up on alert opponents via RAW. You just need to start hidden close enough to them to reach and attack them in a single action, whether charge, deft strike or what have you.

That being said, rogues with missile weapons can CERTAINLY attack from a hidden position and get CA quite easily as is. They simply sneak up as close as they can get, staying at the edges of the illumination, and attack from that position.

What possible reason would a rogue have for sneaking up as close as he can and attacking from range? All he needs to do is stand at the furthest corner from which he has a shot and hide/deft strike repeatedly.

If blocking terrain or concealment lets them get adjacent to the enemy, then they can certainly melee with CA as well.

Of course there are other powers that will provide even better opportunities, as we know. But sans any additional power uses and DM discretion aside, you just cannot sneak up on someone that is in a lit area with no cover available.

Yes, you clearly can by the RAW.

And frankly I find it difficult to understand how the designers of the game could have written the rules as they did and not intended this to be the case.

As the rules are written, the case is that you can use Stealth to sneak up on an opponent and make a melee attack.

If they had wanted hiding to do that then they would have put in rules for fields of vision or something in order to give rogues more chances to sneak up in combat. So far in my DMing experience I haven't seen where stealth is a major combat tactic in typical encounters. Now, if the party is on the DEFENSIVE, then it gets quite a bit easier for the rogue as he can lurk in some fashion and let the monsters come to him. Even then he needs some concealment etc. but at least he has the luxury of positioning himself advantageously before the fact.

It isn't a major combat tactic in your experience, because you're running it in a way that is more restrictive then the RAW allow.

As far as intent and for that matter, balance...

"1. The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes. If the rogues in your game are constantly gaining combat advantage, it really isn't a big deal." - Mike Mearls

"One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big picture changes in 4e was to move stealth and hiding from spells to skills. In other words, the rogue or ranger are the best PCs for hiding, not the wizard with an invisibility spell.

The spell is still useful, but it is now much more limited and harder to use over and over again.

With that in mind, when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill." - Mike Mearls

But just waltzing around hidden basically 'in plain sight', nah, not without magic or powers beyond what Fleeting Ghost explicitly provides.

I saw no place in this thread where anyone said anything resembling Fleeting Ghost allows "waltzing around hidden basically 'in plain sight'"...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually, if you had to meet the requirements, it would say so, at least in language used in the most recent powers and abilities regarding stealth:

Sacred Stealth: "provided you have superior cover or total concealment from that target when you end your movement"

Shadow Stride revision: "to a space where you can remain hidden"

Then why doesn't it say so in any explicit way? I can't say definitively what the rules writer INTENDED by what was written, but it OBVIOUSLY is unclear if reasonable people can differ on their interpretations. I'm just offering an interpretation which is consistent with the wording of the power. Yours doesn't seem unreasonable either, but I will argue later that it might cause problems...

That is provided he has "superior cover and/or total concealment" idf you're taking the tack that it doesn't allow an exception to the normal requirement

No, because he is ALREADY HIDDEN when he uses this power and gets to concealment of any kind. Admittedly you might argue that requires the inverse of the "hidden only expires at the end of an action that breaks it" errata, but I can certainly reasonably interpret it that way, IE the power DOES make you hidden, thus if you ARE hidden and you ARE concealed at the end of your move, thus you maintain your hidden state.

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

It is quite clear you can sneak up on alert opponents via RAW. You just need to start hidden close enough to them to reach and attack them in a single action, whether charge, deft strike or what have you.

Sure, using one of those powers, I never argued that wasn't true. I was only arguing on the basis of ordinary ability. There are powers that let you violate pretty much every rule in the game.

What possible reason would a rogue have for sneaking up as close as he can and attacking from range? All he needs to do is stand at the furthest corner from which he has a shot and hide/deft strike repeatedly.

There are all kinds of reasons. The most basic one would be that he wants to use an attack that has a range that he wouldn't otherwise be able to use, or that would suffer a long range penalty. Or maybe he just wants to be in that position for other tactical reasons.

Yes, you clearly can by the RAW.

Explain. I know of no rule that lets you sneak up in plain sight, except the DM discretion which is allowed BEFORE combat starts and only if the enemy is 'distracted'. Other than that if you can suggest a way, not expending some other power or magic item, etc by which your rogue can approach my orc who's standing in a lit area not adjacent to cover by RAW and remaining hidden I'm all ears, because AFAIK there is no such rule.

As the rules are written, the case is that you can use Stealth to sneak up on an opponent and make a melee attack.

Yes, if you have concealment or there is no line of sight from the monster to a square DIRECTLY next to the monster. Otherwise I know of NO such rule! Deft Strike would do that, but again it is a power exception to a rule that is otherwise absolute AFAIK.

It isn't a major combat tactic in your experience, because you're running it in a way that is more restrictive then the RAW allow.

As far as intent and for that matter, balance...

"1. The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes. If the rogues in your game are constantly gaining combat advantage, it really isn't a big deal." - Mike Mearls

"One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big picture changes in 4e was to move stealth and hiding from spells to skills. In other words, the rogue or ranger are the best PCs for hiding, not the wizard with an invisibility spell.

The spell is still useful, but it is now much more limited and harder to use over and over again.

With that in mind, when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill." - Mike Mearls

SHOW ME THIS RULE that allows that to happen!!! I agree that DMs can certainly be liberal with their use of the DM discretion clause or just whatever rulings they want to make, but once combat is joined I am entirely void of any knowledge of a way, short of magic or a power use by which a rogue could sneak around the battle, unless you have concealing terrain all over the place, and even then it is dicey. I'm not arguing you cannot get CA by flanking without too much trouble, but that is a whole other kettle of fish. I really do invite someone to describe this way rogues can hide constantly in battle, but I just don't see it. Honestly I think it is a matter of how I say something and how you interpret it, which is fine, but I am only commenting on the possibility of hiding in combat when I made that remark.

I saw no place in this thread where anyone said anything resembling Fleeting Ghost allows "waltzing around hidden basically 'in plain sight'"...

I meant that by your interpretation of Fleeting Shadow the rogue can simply end his movement in plain sight and become hidden there, and then he would STAY hidden as long as he didn't violate the rules for staying hidden, aside from the concealment requirement (which we would have to assume Fleeting Shadow obviates for how long? Potentially the entire encounter).

Another question about your interpretation of Fleeting Ghost is this. If it allows you to remain hidden without concealment then the following is legal:

Move right up next to a monster, with no concealment, roll a stealth roll, you are now hidden, immediately attack the monster with CA. Given that Fleeting Ghost is an at-will power, this seems like a pretty large, even huge, benefit. I just want to see a clear errata or CS response on that before I take that to be clearly the intent because it essentially might as well just be a rule that rogues get CA on 100% of their attacks. What player would EVER consider not taking this power? It does not seem in line with the rest of the powers.

 

[Smeelbo]

AbdulAlhazred, you aren't getting what is being said, so I will try again.

Suppose a rogue is currently hidden, in concealment and/or cover, with two empty squares between him and his enemy, and the enemy is not hidden from the rogue.

As currently written, and officially interpreted, the following is strictly legal.

The rogue can can use Deft Strike to move adjacent to and attack the enemy with combat advantage, because the rogue was hidden at the beginning of his action, and, as the Stealth Errata clearly states, "If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action."

This is in no way dependent on the interpretation of Fleeting Ghost, but is simply how being hidden works in combat.

What MyISPHatesENWorld argues, and I consider plausible, is that Fleeting Ghost grants an at-will move action that is an exception to Becoming Hidden. Specificly, it allows you to move and make a Stealth check, which MyISP argues can only be a Stealth check to Become Hidden. Once hidden, the rules for Remaining Hidden obtain, namely: "You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden." So if you use Fleeting Ghost to move to cover or concealment, you become and remain hidden.

That, in a nutshell, is what MyISPHatesENWorld argues.

He is certainly correct about attacking from Stealth, and may be correct about Fleeting Ghost.

Smeelbo

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

AbdulAlhazred, you aren't getting what is being said, so I will try again.

Suppose a rogue is currently hidden, in concealment and/or cover, with two empty squares between him and his enemy, and the enemy is not hidden from the rogue.

As currently written, and officially interpreted, the following is strictly legal.

The rogue can can use Deft Strike to move adjacent to and attack the enemy with combat advantage, because the rogue was hidden at the beginning of his action, and, as the Stealth Errata clearly states, "If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action."

This is in no way dependent on the interpretation of Fleeting Ghost, but is simply how being hidden works in combat.

What MyISPHatesENWorld argues, and I consider plausible, is that Fleeting Ghost grants an at-will move action that is an exception to Becoming Hidden. Specificly, it allows you to move and make a Stealth check, which MyISP argues can only be a Stealth check to Become Hidden. Once hidden, the rules for Remaining Hidden obtain, namely: "You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden." So if you use Fleeting Ghost to move to cover or concealment, you become and remain hidden.

That, in a nutshell, is what MyISPHatesENWorld argues.

He is certainly correct about attacking from Stealth, and may be correct about Fleeting Ghost.

Smeelbo

No, I fully understand how Deft Strike works. It just seems like from the way MyISPHatesENWorld (commiserations on that BTW was talking that there is some way to sneak up in plain site by the basic Stealth mechanics. Certainly Deft Strike can often give you an attack opportunity. Even without using Deft Strike you can always attack from a hidden position with CA.

I agree that the interpretation of Fleeting Ghost is what is at issue. I'm just arguing that interpreting it to mean you can hide without the normal restrictions is a bit of a super power since basically it then amounts to "Roll a hide roll on any attack and if you succeed you have CA for the attack". I just think that level of benefit for a Level 2 at-will utility power is out of line with other powers since the average net result is you get +1d6 damage and +1 to hit on every single attack you make. Not to mention that all the concealment restrictions on stealth become moot. Why, if this is the correct interpretation would a rogue even CARE about terrain at all WRT hiding? Seems to me to take a whole element of tactics out of the game. So I am just pretty skeptical that it is THAT powerful. Instead I would think it doesn't lift the concealment requirement or other requirements for staying hidden, and thus it is still a GOOD power, but only applicable within the framework of existing terrain.

 

[Smeelbo]

I apologize for misreading you.

It just seems like from the way MyISPHatesENWorld (commiserations on that BTW was talking that there is some way to sneak up in plain site by the basic Stealth mechanics...I'm just arguing that interpreting it to mean you can hide without the normal restrictions is a bit of a super power since basically it then amounts to "Roll a hide roll on any attack and if you succeed you have CA for the attack"....Not to mention that all the concealment restrictions on stealth become moot. Why, if this is the correct interpretation would a rogue even CARE about terrain at all WRT hiding? Seems to me to take a whole element of tactics out of the game. So I am just pretty skeptical that it is THAT powerful. Instead I would think it doesn't lift the concealment requirement or other requirements for staying hidden, and thus it is still a GOOD power, but only applicable within the framework of existing terrain.

As I read it, he is not claiming that terrain doesn't matter, but that moving and becoming hidden with Fleeting Ghost only requires ordinary cover or concealment, not superior or total. He is not arguing that, absent cover or concealment, Fleeting Ghost may be used to become hidden, then on one's next action, attack, remaining hidden until the attack is resolved.

Ordinary cover and concealment are often unavailable for such attacks, but they are far more common than superior cover or total concealment. The referee still has complete control over available terrain.

I entertain the notion that MyISPHatesENWorld may well be correct. It would mean that Stealth would be applicable in combat much more often for Rogues than other classes. Considering how uncommon superior cover or total concealment appear to be, his interpretation of Fleeting Ghost may well be intended.

I have DMed with terrain that greatly favors Stealth, and it did not appear overpowering. It takes time to get where one can hide, time to get back into battle--costly time.

Certainly, the Stealth errata was an opportunity to clarify the wording of Fleeting Ghost, but it was left as is, even though a great deal of thought went into the errata, and other abilities were clarified.

All I want is a nice clear set of Stealth rules, including all the powers that impact Stealth, so I can reasonably assess whether I can sneak up on my foes or not, and not simply rely on DM fiat. 4E is the first edition of D&D that offers such rules, and after 35 years, that end is in sight.

Smeelbo

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I agree that Fleeting Ghost is going to let you hide in ordinary concealment since it gives you a hide ROLL unconditionally. All I ever argued was it didn't let you hide with NO concealment (well, it does, but it is practically moot since you'd immediately be revealed again). So maybe we are all arguing about nothing, lol.

I even agree that the designers MAY have meant Fleeting Ghost to let you hide in plain sight, but if so it is rather badly worded/unclear. If someone comes back with a ruling from CS which says that's the way it is supposed to be played, then so be it.

 

[Smeelbo]

I wouldn't trust Customer Service with a dull spoon. They often give out poorly thought out, poorly worded, and even contradictory responses. What's needed is errata.

I've divided the controversy about Fleeting Ghost into four different hypotheses regarding how it works. Before I post at Hasbro's website, I ideally need a good single word synonym for "becoming hidden."

Anyway, the idea is to post all four hypotheses, the arguments for and against, and how Fleeting Ghost should be rewritten to reflect each hypothesis.

Smeelbo