Stealth and Superior Cover: sniping from behind the doorframe

[Skyscraper]

Old stealth topic surfacing again... Sorry for the repetition but I want to obtain feedback on a game situation.

I think everyone agrees on the following:

a) if a rogue moves and ends his movement in superior cover, he can roll a stealth check opposed to an opponent's passive perception. Success = he's hidden;

b) from hiding, a rogue can attack with combat advantage (CA) and therefore has sneak attack (SA) bonus damage; and

c) a rogue may remain at his position and spend a move action without moving away, to attempt a stealth check to become hidden, if he has superior cover at that position.

The superior cover rules provide examples of what provides superior cover: fighting behind a window, a porticulis, a grate or an arrow slit.

Question #1: Do you believe that a rogue firing at range through a doorframe from behind a wall at a position adjacent to the doorframe can benefit from superior cover?

Question #2: If a rogue is firing through a window frame from behind a wall and benefits from superior cover per the rules, could he first attack (losing his hidden status); then on the next round spend a move action to make a stealth check without moving away, and then attack again with CA if he succeeds on his check? Thus he could in fact remain behind that window frame to benefit from CA round after round, even though his enemies know he is there, as long as his stealth check is successful.

If the answer to #1 was "yes", then the window frame could be replaced by the doorframe in question #2 to obtain the same result.

Here is how I have handled this, since it came up recently with a new ranged rogue build in one of my games where the rogue used the doorframe to hide and snipe enemies round after round.

To question #1, I have answered that yes, hiding behind a doorfame is superior cover for most, non-adjacent targets and those that don't have a good angle for relatively clear line of sight to the rogue. As a reference: assuming the rogue looking through the doorframe into a roomfull of opponents has an angle ranging from 9 o'clock to 3'oclock, I've used the guidline that the rogue doesn't have superior cover against opponents located in the angle from 1:30 to 3 o'clock when he is standing behind the wall to his left.

To question #2, I have answered yes also, although I have applied a penalty to the stealth check of -2 on the first repeat round and -5 on the following ones since the opponents know where the rogue is hiding and are expecting the attack.

Any thoughts? Have I missed a rule which is clear on this topic? If not, what are your thoughts?

 

[OnlineDM]

Yep, I'd handle it the same way. Keep in mind for question #2 that if you start the turn with superior cover you can attack, then use your move action to go nowhere and hide again; you don't have to wait for the next turn if you still have a move action on the current turn.

 

[mneme]

Actually, I see no chapter nor verse for being able to become hidden without moving. The current Stealth entry reads:

Action: The check is usually at the end of a move action, but it can be at the end of any of the creature’s actions that involve the creature moving.

So move action = irrelevant. What's important is that they move.

Most ranged rogues I've seen that like to hide just use Deft Strike. But there's no reason they couldn't dart from one side of the doorway to another, -without- penalty. Or stand up/drop prone, if you allow it.

Also, I see no reason for the -2/-5. The point of the sneak attack from being hidden isn't that the enemy doesn't expect the attack, but that they can't see well enough to defend normally against it. Hell, I'd generally rule that an enemy needs to make a perception check (per attack) to figure out where the arrow came from if someone's sniping like this; by the rules, they instantly know, but frankly that's a little silly if they hide again immediately.

The way you best punish sniping isn't adding arbitrary penalties, but adjusting monster tactics. The party's already at a disadvantage by having one fewer body to absorb damage -- in most fights, the rogue will take no damage, but it becomes easier and more tempting to focus monster fire on another of his allies. However, a good changeup is for monsters to figure out where the horribly damaging arrows are coming from and charge through the doorway (optional: close the door behind it and spike it before trying to give the rogue a new "swiss cheese" theme for his armor) to corner the now cover-less, concealment-less rogue.

Or, if the room has a door with a bolt/bar, to close the door and bar it.

 

[DracoSuave]

The deft strike thing works out very well because sometimes your position doesn't just offer cover/concealment for you, but also does for them. Easier to get into position with deft strike and attack, then spend a move to get back into total cover.

 

[Skyscraper]

Thanks for the replies.

Actually, I see no chapter nor verse for being able to become hidden without moving. The current Stealth entry reads:

Action: The check is usually at the end of a move action, but it can be at the end of any of the creature’s actions that involve the creature moving.

So move action = irrelevant. What's important is that they move.

Isn't "the check is usually at the end of a move action" meant that hiding requires a move action? The rest says "BUT it can be ...." so to me the rule is: it's at the end of a move action, but may also be at the end of another action that involves moving. Contrary to you, I see moving as an option, but the move action as the main criterion.

Most ranged rogues I've seen that like to hide just use Deft Strike. But there's no reason they couldn't dart from one side of the doorway to another, -without- penalty. Or stand up/drop prone, if you allow it.

Deft strike works, of course.

As for dropping prone and standing up, I'd rather just rule that the move action is spent hiding, without moving away from the square, which may be interpreted as ducking behind the wall, etc...

Also, I see no reason for the -2/-5. The point of the sneak attack from being hidden isn't that the enemy doesn't expect the attack, but that they can't see well enough to defend normally against it. Hell, I'd generally rule that an enemy needs to make a perception check (per attack) to figure out where the arrow came from if someone's sniping like this; by the rules, they instantly know, but frankly that's a little silly if they hide again immediately.

The way you best punish sniping isn't adding arbitrary penalties, but adjusting monster tactics. The party's already at a disadvantage by having one fewer body to absorb damage -- in most fights, the rogue will take no damage, but it becomes easier and more tempting to focus monster fire on another of his allies. However, a good changeup is for monsters to figure out where the horribly damaging arrows are coming from and charge through the doorway (optional: close the door behind it and spike it before trying to give the rogue a new "swiss cheese" theme for his armor) to corner the now cover-less, concealment-less rogue.

Or, if the room has a door with a bolt/bar, to close the door and bar it.

I'm not trying to punish anyone here. I'm really not in the DM vs player mentality. I thrive in a cooperative storytelling mode and that's what I work to achieve during battle scenes. I don't mind if my monsters die and I have no problem challenging the players sufficiently. Well, glad this is settled

Arbitrary penalties and bonuses are frequent in my games. Someone trying to hide will often benefit from a bonus or suffer a penalty. Is he far from the viewer? Is there noise in the room? Is the viewer distracted? Or is the rogue hiding at the same place as he was the last round? I don't see this as penalizing the rogue, I see this as applying a modifier depending on how well the rogue is planning things out. I usually give bonuses for any plan that is not unreasonable, i.e. my threshold is pretty low and the idea is to encourage the players to come up with inventive ways of interacting with the environment. I think the players like this way of DMing, it gives them a sense that their decisions are important tactically, in addition to what the powers do.

Don't you apply positive or negative modifiers to stealth or other skill checks? (Or other rolls generally? Fighting from high ground, etc...) I play hide-and-seak with my two young boys, and the youngest (3 years old) likes to go back to hiding at the same place all the time. Can't say that he's really hard to find when he does so. Assuming your accept circumstantial modifiers for stealth checks in your game, don't you think that hiding at the same place would warrant a penalty?

This being said, I like your thought about the enemy not even knowing where the attack comes from, i.e. the rogue not really revealing himself, if he hides immediately after the attack. That's a cool cinematic for a battle.

 

[mneme]

Isn't "the check is usually at the end of a move action" meant that hiding requires a move action? The rest says "BUT it can be ...." so to me the rule is: it's at the end of a move action, but may also be at the end of another action that involves moving. Contrary to you, I see moving as an option, but the move action as the main criterion.

It's important to note that the qualifications for hiding have -changed- from PHB1. It started with "a move action"; the current wording is a change.

As such, I could really see two interpretations:

1. It's usually at the end of a move action (any move action will do).
2. But you can also do it any time you move.

Or:

1. It's usually at the end of a move action (because whenever you move, you get the opportunity).
2. But you can also do it any other time you move (because whenever you move, you get the opportunity).

I'm not really sure what was intended here, actually.

Historically, if they were just adding options, then your interpretation works, of course, but the wording is notably vague.

I'm not trying to punish anyone here. I'm really not in the DM vs player mentality. I thrive in a cooperative storytelling mode and that's what I work to achieve during battle scenes. I don't mind if my monsters die and I have no problem challenging the players sufficiently. Well, glad this is settled

It's never about punishing the player -- but it -is- about punishing boring play and rewarding interesting/fun play. Hiding in the same spot for the entire fight pretty much defines boring, static play in my book, at least--and tactics and mechanics that push players out of their comfort zones tend to be good things.

Arbitrary penalties and bonuses are frequent in my games. Someone trying to hide will often benefit from a bonus or suffer a penalty.

Fair enough - if you're consistently doing sim/nar evaluation and handing out bonuses and penalties, that's cool.

Don't you apply positive or negative modifiers to stealth or other skill checks? (Or other rolls generally? Fighting from high ground, etc...)

Depends. I tend to play "rule of cool" and hand out bonuses fairly liberally when I think it's appropriate; I'm more hesitant to hand out penalties. The thing is, the rules do establish an expectation of specific effects in specific circumstances, and while it's within the GM's power to mess with that, it's easier to use it to establish a baseline for what the characters can do -- handing out penalties when the characters try to stretch the definitions of what they can do (rather than just rendering it impossible) and bonuses when they're particularly cool or their actions are particularly sound.

This being said, I like your thought about the enemy not even knowing where the attack comes from, i.e. the rogue not really revealing himself, if he hides immediately after the attack. That's a cool cinematic for a battle.

Indeed. It's the kind of thing that should work some of the time (and is also scary as hell when the bad guys pull off the same trick), but should also backfire some of the time.

 

[S'mon]

A door frame would be the same as firing round a corner - cover, not superior cover. Superior cover is for prepared defensive emplacements & such. Firing down from battlements would be superior cover. Firing from a darkened arrow slit would be superior cover + total concealment*, unless the enemy 'lit you up' somehow (faerie fire, light behind you silhouetting you, etc) in which case it'd just be superior cover.

*Thus also giving combat advantage to the sniper behind the arrow slit.

 

[Joshua Randall]

For a second opinion, check out Rules of Hidden Club on the Wizards Rules Q&A forum.

Stealth / Hidden is (still) one of the worst designed parts of an otherwise great game.

 

[Dice4Hire]

For a second opinion, check out Rules of Hidden Club on the Wizards Rules Q&A forum.

Stealth / Hidden is (still) one of the worst designed parts of an otherwise great game.

Yeah, my face to face game, just avoids all of this as totally unfun.

Other' mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Skyscraper]

Yeah, my face to face game, just avoids all of this as totally unfun.

Other' mileage may vary, of course.

I agree that stealth rules are unclear and open to way to interpretation and discussion.

They remind me of grapple rules in 3E.