Stealth in Combat

[The Grackle]

So after reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the rogue sniper is an intentional build option, and using stealth every round is not broken.

*A rogue is, conceptually, a sneaky character. 4E is designed around the combat encounter. Thus a rogue who can use stealth in combat, fits the class concept.

*There are MANY stealth powers for the rogue (and Warlock), some that grant concealment and some that grant invisibility.

*The Striker role covers melee and ranged attacks. The ranger has a melee build and a ranged build. It makes sense for the rogue to have two builds as well-- and he does!

*The rogue has a power at each level (except 9th oddly) that is usable in melee or w/a ranged weapon. Out of the three Paragon paths, Dagger master is all-melee, the other two have melee/ranged powers. Lots of options for a sniper.


These points, to my mind, show an intentional design. Crossbow ninjas are not an exploit; they're part of the game.


*Combat Advantage and Sneak Attack sound powerful b/c of their 3E connotations, but aren't really. In 3E Sneak Attack was very powerful (and was the main source of damage), but it couldn't always be pulled off; but in 4E Sneak Attack is just a good bonus (once a round) to already solid attacks, and it's easier to get.

*Stealth just gives a Rogue the use of his extra-damage class-feature-- the other strikers, Warlock and Ranger, can use theirs automatically w/o a skill check but w/a minor action. The Ranger/Warlock can only pick those closest to them, the rogue can only use his on those whose perception he beat.

*A melee rogue can flank for CA most every round, a ranged-rogue can hide for CA most every round. Sounds balanced.

*Concealment is -2 to hit, and Full Concealment is -5. That's a +3 to the Rogue's defenses. Pretty nice, but if the Rogue hides then attacks, he won't get that advantage for the following round.

*Being hidden or invisible give no bonus to hit.


From all this, I just don't see Stealth as broken. It's easy, yes, but it's supposed to be easy. A sniper that hides every single round, is just doing his job; there's no need to nerf him.

The rogue is awesome at hiding; let him be awesome.

 

[Volabit]

Perhaps maybe do a few playthrough with all rules being literal. I guess only after collecting enough emperical evidence should I really make an issue for or against this C/C stealth issue. I think really a DM will decide how much any given area will have Cover and Concealment. If your allies give you Cover, I think it will be only for a short while, because so many things shift and move around in combat, one or two shifts later and a rogue would have to move completely to the other side of his friends, and thats assuming the creature lives that long if your allies are smart and focusing fire down targets.

To quote Dudley Field Malone "I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me."

I feel that this holds true here. I think only through our debates on this and through countless points of view shown, rulings on rules, and many unique situations that I would have never thought of has actually let me walk away with a subatantially larger understanding of 4e.

Hope you all enjoy your weekend, will be out of town so relish no more posts from me for a while.

 

[cdrcjsn]

A point that a lot of people are missing is that the rogue needs to succeed in using stealth every round. Even if he can make an attempt every round, he's not gonna always succeed.

Even if he has +12 to his Stealth check and the foe has +0 perception, the fact that it's an Opposed Check means that there's a chance he won't be able to use Stealth that round.

Against foes with good perception modifiers, he might be better off going for the flank.

So yeah, Rogues might do a couple points more damage than Rangers and Locks, but the fact that they have to work at it to get CA, means that for some rounds, they'll be doing significantly less, balancing things out in the long run.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Reading Chameleon, I'm starting to think that's exactly what it was intended for! It's also the case that for the rogue to keep up with the other strikers in damage potential, he needs to be sneak-attacking at least every other round.

Again, I'm not arguing whether it's broken-as-written, I'm arguing the rules as written. And frankly, it may not turn out to be as broken as well all think after repeated play. I'm more annoyed that a rogue can hide in melee to get CA just because there's a tree in his square, or it's raining. This ranged stuff, it may be broken, maybe not. Bad guys get to move around too. (With Chameleon, though . . . jeez.)

Funny you should mention Chameleon. This power clearly states that you are not hidden if at the end of your round you no longer have cover/concealment. Sounds kinda like plain old stealth to me. If you can just re-stealth if you have cover/concealment in combat anyways, why would you even need this power? Keep in mind that it clearly states you are just hidden, you are still not invis and if you just attacked someone they are aware of you.

 

[The Grackle]

Let's stick to the ranged rogue, which does a little less, as he's the guy most likely to be sneak-attacking every round.

A 1st level goblin rogue with the standard build (16 in Dex, 14 in Chr, +2 to each) and the Backstabber feat is doing 2d8+d6+7 points of damage, attacking against AC, or 2d8+d6+4 damage against Reflex.

A 1st level warlock that changes his quarry to d8 damage is doing (let's max it out) d10+d8+4. A ranger . . . well, they suck, too bored to calculate.

Rogue = 19.5 damage per hit or 16.5 damage per hit vs reflex (and will be getting +2 to hit that the warlock won't as often)

Warlock = 14 damage per hit.
Ranger = ?? Something crappier.

Even if you assume it's merely an extra 3 damage a round vs the warlock (who gets to attack against Fort), that's a 20% advantage. The ranger is going up against AC, meaning we'd prefer to use the rogue's 19.5 damage as a comparator, which will CRUSH the ranger.

The rogue can only use Deft Strike or Sly Flourish At-Wills w/a ranged weapon, both of which target AC.

The Ranger can use twin strike (and should). No stat to damage, but any enhancement or misc. bonuses get applied for each hit.

I haven't compared all the encounters and dailies yet, but good powers are just as important as raw damage from at-wills. I'm not saying the rogue isn't the best of the strikers damage-wise, but the classes still seem pretty comparable to me.

 

[Forrester]

The rogue can only use Deft Strike or Sly Flourish At-Wills w/a ranged weapon, both of which target AC.

Nope, both are ranged or melee.

2nd level goblin rogue is going to be using his rapier and doing 3d8+7 when attacking vs AC. That's 20.5 damage on a hit. The twin-striking ranger is doing less damage even if he hits TWICE. Sorry Mr. Ranger but you kinda bite . . .

EDIT -- meh, thinking about this a little more, I don't know I'm 100% sure that the ranger *completely* bites. He's doing maybe 20% less damage against the average foe, but that's not an outrageous disadvantage. Figuring the ranger is doing 2d10+d8 with two hits, and if he only hits once, the nice thing is he still gets that d8, so you can't do a pure comparison of 15.5 damage for the ranger with 20.5 damage for the rogue -- turns out that's only applicable if you hit every round.

On the other hand, in a little playtesting combat I was doing last week, Grisgra the 5th level Goblin Rogue was hitting bad guys on a '3' sometimes (+4 to hit with Dex, +3 Rapier, +2 level, +2 magic on rapier, +2 CA means +13 to hit), against most foes I'd guess a good rogue with CA hits 75% of the time.

 

[AsmodeusDM]

Chameleon is there for the following scenerio:

I'm a rogue behind a staute, I'm hidden.

An enemy on his turn walks round the pillar so that there's no cover between us.

Normally I would automatically lose my Hidden status.

But chameleon (imm. interrupt) let's me stay stealthed for another round even though my enemy(s) have clear LOS to me.

After that one round...well it's back to normal.

 

[Forrester]

Funny you should mention Chameleon. This power clearly states that you are not hidden if at the end of your round you no longer have cover/concealment. Sounds kinda like plain old stealth to me. If you can just re-stealth if you have cover/concealment in combat anyways, why would you even need this power? Keep in mind that it clearly states you are just hidden, you are still not invis and if you just attacked someone they are aware of you.

Yep, Chameleon is pretty useless under your bizarre interpretation of the rules and unaware /= hidden. Under the rules as-written, however, Chameleon is ridiculously strong, allowing the rogue to remain hidden once the minions walk past the fighter that the rogue was hiding behind. The rogue just has to find cover/hide again on his turn.

 

[The Grackle]

Nope, both are ranged or melee.

2nd level goblin rogue is going to be using his rapier and doing 3d8+7 when attacking vs AC. That's 20.5 damage on a hit. The twin-striking ranger is doing less damage even if he hits TWICE. Sorry Mr. Ranger but you kinda bite . . .

I thought we were only comparing ranged builds? You were talking about the rogue attacking Ref Defense --using piercing strike I assume, which is melee only. Thus the sniper can't attack Reflex.

 

[The Grackle]

Yep, Chameleon is pretty useless under your bizarre interpretation of the rules and unaware /= hidden. Under the rules as-written, however, Chameleon is ridiculously strong, allowing the rogue to remain hidden once the minions walk past the fighter that the rogue was hiding behind. The rogue just has to find cover/hide again on his turn.

But he can only do it once an encounter. Using a 6th level power. A wizard can dimension door at that level.