Stealth in combat. Evidence and advice.

[Simplicity]

There's been a bit of debate on this forum about how Stealth in combat is supposed to work. I now have found something which indicates what the designers intended.

It's a tidbit in Keep on the Shadowfell. I'll try to keep this thread spoiler-free, however. There are creatures in the adventure who are visible to the characters when they enter the area. In the terrain, however, it indicates that the tables in the room can provide cover to these creatures... allowing them to attack from hiding.

Now the question is: why would these creatures bother to hide under tables? The players KNOW where the tables are. It's easy to look under or around the tables and gain full view of anyone hiding there. Well, it turns out that these creatures get additional damage when they have COMBAT ADVANTAGE.

So, hiding in combat does indeed appear to grant combat advantage! Seems reasonable. Flanking is not that hard to accomplish for melee rogues. There really should be an option for ranged rogues as well.

Given that, how do we avoid the incredibly large number of rolls this seems to require every round? Simple. In most cases, a person seeking combat advantage via hiding is going to pop out of hiding immediately. Because they will (a) waste a move action to go into stealth, and (b) attack. So after their turn, everyone will see them. During the attack, we only care about the perception check results of the people being attacked. Usually, this is ONE person.

So, when someone stealths to attack, just roll the opposed perception check of the one person they will attack.

The only remaining question, I think, is: does the hider need to move to a different square to hide again. I wouldn't have thought so, but a CSR response seemed to indicate that they do... Might be a nice house rule anyways.

 

[Ravingdork]

There's been a bit of debate on this forum about how Stealth in combat is supposed to work. I now have found something which indicates what the designers intended.

It's a tidbit in Keep on the Shadowfell. I'll try to keep this thread spoiler-free, however. There are creatures in the adventure who are visible to the characters when they enter the area. In the terrain, however, it indicates that the tables in the room can provide cover to these creatures... allowing them to attack from hiding.

Now the question is: why would these creatures bother to hide under tables? The players KNOW where the tables are. It's easy to look under or around the tables and gain full view of anyone hiding there. Well, it turns out that these creatures get additional damage when they have COMBAT ADVANTAGE.

So, hiding in combat does indeed appear to grant combat advantage! Seems reasonable. Flanking is not that hard to accomplish for melee rogues. There really should be an option for ranged rogues as well.

Given that, how do we avoid the incredibly large number of rolls this seems to require every round? Simple. In most cases, a person seeking combat advantage via hiding is going to pop out of hiding immediately. Because they will (a) waste a move action to go into stealth, and (b) attack. So after their turn, everyone will see them. During the attack, we only care about the perception check results of the people being attacked. Usually, this is ONE person.

So, when someone stealths to attack, just roll the opposed perception check of the one person they will attack.

The only remaining question, I think, is: does the hider need to move to a different square to hide again. I wouldn't have thought so, but a CSR response seemed to indicate that they do... Might be a nice house rule anyways.

Thanks a lot! That does clear up some issues in my group.

It is also worth mentioning that a Rogue with Deft Strike need not waste a move action to hide. He can make a Stealth check as part of his free 2-square movement.

 

[JBeatnik]

if you go from a 3.5 perspective, there was a use of stealth skill that allowed sniping where you attack from hiding, but get a -20 modifier to your re-stealth. From a DM perspective, I suppose an enemy could make attacks from stealth, then make a stealth check opposed by the victims Perception roll, and all of its enemies passive perception checks. You could impose a negative modifier on this, but realistically, everyone is on combat, and an enemy hiding doesn't ping high on the radar in battle. I would house rule that any character actively seeking a hidden enemy gets a perception roll to locate the hidden enemy.

Also, if you want to run an ambush encounter where the enemies keep running and hiding in places, use the minor actions of enemies for steath checks, and use the minor actions of the characters for perception checks. that makes for a very suspenseful "hide and seek" brand of combat.

 

[Simplicity]

if you go from a 3.5 perspective, there was a use of stealth skill that allowed sniping where you attack from hiding, but get a -20 modifier to your re-stealth. From a DM perspective, I suppose an enemy could make attacks from stealth, then make a stealth check opposed by the victims Perception roll, and all of its enemies passive perception checks. You could impose a negative modifier on this, but realistically, everyone is on combat, and an enemy hiding doesn't ping high on the radar in battle. I would house rule that any character actively seeking a hidden enemy gets a perception roll to locate the hidden enemy.

Also, if you want to run an ambush encounter where the enemies keep running and hiding in places, use the minor actions of enemies for steath checks, and use the minor actions of the characters for perception checks. that makes for a very suspenseful "hide and seek" brand of combat.

In combat, you don't use passive perception checks. I'm pretty sure the books are clear about that already. Only when the opponents are distracted or unaware.

Plus, in the section on finding hidden targets, it states that you can use a standard action (IIRC) to make an active Perception check to search for a hidden opponent. So, no need to make that ruling.

 

[Simplicity]

It is also worth mentioning that a Rogue with Deft Strike need not waste a move action to hide. He can make a Stealth check as part of his free 2-square movement.

Interesting. Unsure what the official word is on this, but I guess I would agree for now.

 

[JBeatnik]

well, the idea of passive perception checks, active perception checks as minor actions and enemies taking stealth checks as minor actions makes the combat sort of in combat and out of combat, run as a series of minor encounters with no resting. So you'd get hit with a thrown weapon or something, then try to find where it came from, but with multiple characters and multiple attacks at once.

More than likely the party gets split up in a series of tunnels to do individual combat, or sticks together and flushes out each enemy one by one.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Or they could just stand on the tables and get combat advantage from having an elevation advantage.

I guess the rules as written do provide for stealthers to be able to stealth up, even in the middle of combat when enemies know exactly where they are, and get combat advantage. I think this is the lamest thing in 4e to be honest. This is so ridiculous it defies description. How a person can use a scrap of cover to fool an enemy into thinking he's not actually there is beyond me. It really assume opponents in combat are unbelievably easy to fool. Maybe for an initial attack, but after that, I'm sorry the element of surprise is gone. But whatever, I guess it is what it is. If this is the original intent of the designers I have to say it is a flaw in an otherwise very enjoyable 4e system. I also basically have a problem with it making stealth into invisibility usable practically at will by anyone with this skill.

If they are going to allow people in combat to stealth just because they are in a dimly lit room, it should at least be a standard action.

 

[Surgoshan]

If the combat is taking place in a dimly lit room, then everyone without low-light vision is taking a -2 to his attacks; why add another penalty to the stealther for something that's already penalizing everyone? Just let the stealther make his rolls as normal, but with the caveat that he won't be able to hide from anyone with low light vision unless he first gets cover.

 

[Simplicity]

well, the idea of passive perception checks, active perception checks as minor actions and enemies taking stealth checks as minor actions makes the combat sort of in combat and out of combat, run as a series of minor encounters with no resting. So you'd get hit with a thrown weapon or something, then try to find where it came from, but with multiple characters and multiple attacks at once.

More than likely the party gets split up in a series of tunnels to do individual combat, or sticks together and flushes out each enemy one by one.

When someone stealthily does something, there is an opposed perception roll. You may actively take a *standard* action to make another check.

You can stealthily perform a minor action, yes. But there isn't a ton of point in stealthily dropping a longbow.

Stealth ISN'T a state of being. You can perform actions "stealthily". And as long as you do so successfully, you are considered "in hiding". But take any actions you perform without a stealth check... And you're not in hiding anymore. So, if you want to draw PCs into tunnels, those monsters need to MOVE stealthily. Otherwise, the PCs will simply walk to where they last got attacked and see them.

Example 1:
Monster begins turn in cover. Monster moves to more cover stealthily.
Monster is now in hiding. Monster attacks with combat advantage. Monster is now no longer hiding. A-OK.

Example 2:
Monster moves to cover. Monster moves stealthily to more cover.
Monster is now in hiding. Sounds good.

Example 3:
Monster attacks. Monster moves to cover. Monster stealthily scratches his nose and goes into hiding! PCs move right next to his square, he loses cover, and the PCs kill him. Okay? Don't know. Sounds pointless.

Example 4:
Monster moves to cover from visible area. Monster stealthily pulls his crossbow out. Monster in hiding? Monster attacks with combat advantage? I think this one is questionable. Unfortunately, I don't have the rules to back it up.

It really *feels* like stealth should require a move action to go into hiding. But I can't back that up with anything.

 

[Simplicity]

Or they could just stand on the tables and get combat advantage from having an elevation advantage.

I guess the rules as written do provide for stealthers to be able to stealth up, even in the middle of combat when enemies know exactly where they are, and get combat advantage. I think this is the lamest thing in 4e to be honest. This is so ridiculous it defies description. How a person can use a scrap of cover to fool an enemy into thinking he's not actually there is beyond me. It really assume opponents in combat are unbelievably easy to fool. Maybe for an initial attack, but after that, I'm sorry the element of surprise is gone. But whatever, I guess it is what it is. If this is the original intent of the designers I have to say it is a flaw in an otherwise very enjoyable 4e system. I also basically have a problem with it making stealth into invisibility usable practically at will by anyone with this skill.

If they are going to allow people in combat to stealth just because they are in a dimly lit room, it should at least be a standard action.

There is no elevation advantage in 4e. It was a stupid rule anyways because "ON A TABLE" has become the classic example of where you get that bonus. And there is no way that a person standing on a table is going to be at an advantage in combat.

Don't think of it as going into "Stealth" as per 3.5. Your options are very limited. You can't take actions without more checks. You can't leave your shelter behind the table without losing your hiding status. If you can suddenly kick butt because you have a crossbow and you thought to turn the table over... Well, that sounds about right, really.

It all comes crashing to an end though when your enemy goes around the table. You can't hide then, and you're pretty much hosed. Although, I do wonder if by the RAW, you could "hide" with respect to a single opponent...