Stealth in Combat

[Ziana]

bleh dup
Mod: please delete this dup.

 

[Ziana]

oh come on
Mod: please delete this dup.

 

[wocky]

The CSR have been contradicting themselves and each other... I don't value their rulings above anything I can interpret myself from the core books with some common sense applied. I hope the designers come up with an article or FAQ answers that shed some light on how this is supposed to work balance and gameplay-wise.

 

[Brokenkingdom]

Riposte!

[In combat anytime you have cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you may make a stealth check.]

"Where in the PHB does it say this? If you attempt a stealth attack against a target, what matters is the target's perception check, not any other monster's. A stealth check is made in conjunction with an action you are attempting to perform stealthily."

P.188

Cover or Concealment: Unless a creature is distracted,
you must have cover against or concealment
from the creature to make a Stealth check. You
have to maintain cover or concealment to remain
unnoticed. If a creature has unblocked line of sight
to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment),
the creature automatically sees you (no Perception
check required).

A stealth check is made in conjunction with ANY action. FREE action is considered an action therefore by way of simple logic we can deduce that you may make a stealth check when you have cover/concealment. The "ALL creatures" part comes into play under the idea that if a kobold was creeping up behind your friend and he/she didn't notice it but you did, you would shout "Hey buddy watch out behind you" effectively making your friend "aware" of the sneaking enemy which in turn means it is no longer stealthed from your friend. As stated it is up to the DM's discretion to allow/disallow this depending on the situation. See the circumstance I had mentioned before.

-----------------------------------------------------------

[As long as you maintain cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you remain stealthed. After you win a stealth check creatures are allowed to make a perception check on their turns as a standard action against your stealth check.]

"Again, where does it say this? Stealth is associated with actions. It is the action a player attempts stealthily that prompts a DC check, not simply "being stealthed", which is a 3e concept that doesn't apply to 4e. Stealth isn't modal, it's a method."

P.186

Perception: No action required—either you notice
something or you don’t. Your DM usually uses your
passive Perception check result. If you want to use the
skill actively, you need to take a STANDARD action or
spend 1 minute listening or searching, depending on
the task.
Opposed Check: Perception vs. Stealth when trying
to spot or hear a creature using Stealth. Your check
might be modified by distance or if you’re listening
through a door or a wall (see the table).

&

P.188

Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to
perform stealthily.
Opposed Check: Stealth vs. Perception (see the
table for modifiers to your check). If there are multiple
observers, your Stealth check is opposed by
each observer’s Perception check

[on]Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from
view. If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer
hidden.

Right there. Again I state ALL enemies for reasons mentioned earlier and as ALWAYS it is up to your DM.

------------------------------------------------------------

[Allies grant you concealment ie: standing behind an friend would make you harder to see.]

The PHB indicates allies grant cover (physically blocking ranged attacks); not concealment.

Touché.

Regardless, allies still grant cover and cover is still grounds for a sleath check and my statement stands, though thank you for pointing out that mistypen discrepancy.

-------------------------------------------------------------

"Can my dragonborn rogue stealth if he stands behind my halfling paladin in the middle of a battle? Do enemies just forget the dragonborn is there?"

Please exercise common sense in all responses. This situation would obviously be up to your DM's discretion. This is D&D after all, there are limitless situations one can find themselves in and it is up to the DM to allow or disallow certain aspects or bend certain rulings per situation. However unless the enemy creatures are truly dimwitted nothing 'forgets' you are there, they simply cannot get a clear look at you granting you a CHANCE to hide. Place a ferret on the floor and look away for one eighth of a SECOND and you will understand. You do not FORGET the ferret is around but I promise you unless you roll one HELL of a perception check you won't find it without a thorough search.

-------------------------------------------------------------

"Can my rogue carry a large wooden block, "The Concealer," drop it at his feet in an adjacent square, and then claim he can stealth?"

Absolutely. If the block is large enough to grant cover (Ie; roughly the size of the character or however large/small the DM sees fit) and it blocks a part of all lines of sight to said character. Just as a character could throw a good sized sack of oil at an enemy and have someone else throw a torch at it, there are no specific RULES for that but you can certainly do it. It's called using your imagination, people seem to have something against it. I must have missed when it became a fault for trying to overcome obstacles creatively in D&D. Though I will say that getting to and walking through a dungeon carrying around a large wooden block is probably not the most effective mode of transportation. As always it comes down to the DM's discretion whether or not you make a "trip and crush your face off" check. Also why would your feet be in an adjacent square that sounds silly and painful. Also, also a more appropriate name would be "The mostly-portable wooden chunk of cover" as it is both more accurate and humorous.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Can my warlock stealth by using his shadow walk as concealment? Why don't the monsters pay attention to the misty, shadowy, swirly warlock-shaped object in the middle of the room? If this was intended for warlocks, why isn't stealth on the class skill list?"

Yes, you can absolutely hide in a heavily/lightly obscured square. The monsters DO notice the misty-warlock-shaped-area however as the warlock is concealed they cannot get a clear view of him/her. IE: the whole concept of concealment. If the Warlock makes the stealth check on that action it WILL incur a penalty of -5 for moving more then 2 squares, as per the requirement for shadow walk, on said stealth check against their PASSIVE PERCEPTION. Shadow walk was NOT intended to be used by warlocks to gain stealth advantages. It is obviously intended to grant warlocks a bonus to their defense by way of -2 to hit said warlock. SIDE OPINION: Warlocks (IMO, IMO disclaimer: IMO) are broken at the moment as they are not (yet) pact loyal. This however is an entirely different discussion not meant for this thread (read as: "Do not further discuss this matter in this thread").

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

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.

It's a shame you didn't bother to calculate.

The ranger is doing 2d10 + d8 + 8, or 23.5.

Edited to remove some hostile sarcasm.

 

[WOLead]

Yes, you can absolutely hide in a heavily/lightly obscured square. The monsters DO notice the misty-warlock-shaped-area however as the warlock is concealed they cannot get a clear view of him/her. IE: the whole concept of concealment. If the Warlock makes the stealth check on that action it WILL incur a penalty of -5 for moving more then 2 squares, as per the requirement for shadow walk, on said stealth check against their PASSIVE PERCEPTION. Shadow walk was NOT intended to be used by warlocks to gain stealth advantages. It is obviously intended to grant warlocks a bonus to their defense by way of -2 to hit said warlock.

Shadow Walk does not cause the square the Warlock is in to become Obscured. It causes the Warlock to gain Concealment. These are two different things. Obscured squares causes Concealment, but Concealment doesn't cause obscured squares to pop up. This is further supported by the Warlord's new Pack Master Paragon Path power, Straw Soldiers. A Martial character power that grants all himself and his allies concealment for as long as he sustains it. Literally the same concealment that Shadow Walk gives.

My belief is that the Warlock can use Stealth checks with his own Shadow Walk concealment. It is not a thick 5ftx5ftx5ft cube of smoke floating around the Warlock that says "HERE I AM!" It makes the Warlock hard to discern from the rest of the field/battleground, whether by SEP, partially rendering invisible, chameleon effect, blurring of form, ect. No where does Shadow Walk say the square you are in becomes Obscured by smoke, fog, or such. It just gives Concealment which is needed for stealth checks. The challenge is the feats, ability points, and/or equipment you may need to get to actually hide from something, as if it was that easy for a Warlock to hide it would be broken.

The argument of the Shadow Walk concealment that "Its just supposed to give the Warlock -2 to being hit by melee and ranged attacks and not stealth." is getting tiresome. This is a person's guess, it has no basis in the rules itself. If I see a CSR or an errata stating otherwise then there is evidence I'll believe, otherwise its the smoke people try to place around a Warlock. I have not seen a CSR response that goes against the one I received a couple days ago and placed into the "Official Unofficial 4e Rules Faq."

May I ask where people are getting the idea that Smoke/Rain/Immaterial Black Shadows are floating around the square the Warlock is in when he gains Concealment from Shadow Walk? I want to spot this page in the PHB so I can read it myself.

 

[Brokenkingdom]

Shadow Walk does not cause the square the Warlock is in to become Obscured.

Dually noted.

However from the only THREE times in the ENTIRE PHB that they mention shadow walk (literally "shadow walk" is only in the book 3 times, twice mentioned in passing) the only description of shadow walk pertains to "walking in the shadows". Going by the ONLY description of something that MIGHT pertain to it we are left to ASSUME the squares in which the warlock resides while under concealment are shadowy and thus obscured.

Still, the fact remains that the warlock is under concealment and therefore still allowed to make a stealth check AND if made within the same move action he/she WILL incur a -5 penalty for walking more then 2 squares while attempting to stealth.

Super edit go!: As far as I can tell the number of situations that it would make a difference (outside of flavor text) are severely limited. I can only see something like, if the warlock is concealed from shadow walk and a small enough creature ends it's turn inside the same square as said warlock and then someone tried to attack that creature.

And as far as -2 to hit being a defense bonus type dealy, until you provide an ability that garnishes bonuses for the warlock being concealed (From what I can tell there are none, but don't quote me) we can logically come to the conclusion that either they added it in for no reason at all OR that they had added it in as a -2 to hit pseudo-defense bonus. Which would you put YOUR money on? I'd go with the one that makes sense.

 

[erik_the_guy]

Using stealth to hide every round and then sneak attacking unsuspecting targets, who might I add are distracted by the rest of the battle. Sounds exactly like a rogue. If you find it to be a balance problem in some encounters, you could always require a minor action for the stealth check (as a house rule), but I don't think it's a huge issue.
Rogues are basically useless without sneak attacks, so one would expect them to use tactics which allow them to sneak attack, this should be encouraged.
Have the enemies adopt counter strategies, like running up to or burning the cover, or seeking cover of their own. It's a fun game.

 

[WOLead]

until you provide an ability that garnishes bonuses for the warlock being concealed

Two that directly helps a Warlock being concealed.
Level 2 Utility, Shadow Veil. Grants a +5 Bonus to Stealth Check rolls until the end of your next turn. Level 7 Fey Pact's Mire the Mind's additional Stealth Bonus equal to the Int modifier for only you until the end of the Encounter, while the actual invisibility only lasts until the end of your next turn. Both of which are Encounter Powers.

The other uses deals with various Teleports, such as a Star Pact with Dark Transport. You switch places with an enemy after dealing damage, then further teleport away so an enemy can't place you at the spot the victim used to be in with a successful Stealth check. Almost point-blank range combat with no actual melee abilities, unlike the ranger which has both extreme range with the bow or close combat with two-weapon fighting.

And for the -5 on the Stealth check for moving more then 2 spaces, while Shadow Walk's concealment requires 3 spaces of movement to activate was probably done on purpose on Shadow Walk's part.

Super Edit a Go!: Don't assume that because Obscured squares causes Concealment and Shadow Walk causes Concealment that Shadow Walk is an Obscured Square. How does a Warlord with the Pack Master Paragon Path be able to grant Concealment to all his allies, Sustain Minor even? Does he summon up a fog or smoke that covers just his allies, despite being a Martial character that probably doesn't have Arcane or Divine powers?

Pirate Edit a sail: Looking through the magical items, Shadowflow armor stands out for comparison. It grants Stealth bonuses, and has a Daily power that grants Concealment at Paragon levels and Invisibility at Epic levels until the start of your next turn. When I look at that, I see armor that is supposed to help with Sneaking around and hiding from view and gives a once a day chance of hiding out in the open. The Concealment gained this way is roughly identical to as if you had a Warlock's Shadow Walk ability for one round. Not exact due to the difference on when it ends, but close.

 

[Ziana]

The "ALL creatures" part comes into play under the idea that if a kobold was creeping up behind your friend and he/she didn't notice it but you did, you would shout "Hey buddy watch out behind you" effectively making your friend "aware" of the sneaking enemy which in turn means it is no longer stealthed from your friend. As stated it is up to the DM's discretion to allow/disallow this depending on the situation. See the circumstance I had mentioned before.

That is irrelevant to in-combat stealth. Out of combat if any members of a group see the character, they alert the group and combat can ensue. But in combat, all that matters in order to gain combat advantage is that the stealther beats the target's perception check. You don't need to have cover against all enemies in order to make a stealth attack on one.

Joe, Wizard's Customer Service:
"To gain combat advantage on the attack, the attacker only needs to succeed vs the target"

Right there. Again I state ALL enemies for reasons mentioned earlier and as ALWAYS it is up to your DM.

You are again taking verbiage from the PHB that applies to out-of-combat stealth situations and applying it to in-combat stealthing. It doesn't matter if an army of 100 minions can see you behind your cover; if you have cover against a target and beat that target's perception check, you gain combat advantage.

You do not "lose stealth" because one creature sees you during combat. You only have to succeed against the target.

That's an entirely different situation from when the players are depending on not being seen or noticed at all in a non-combat situation: sneaking past the orc camp, stealing the jewels, etc.

Regardless, allies still grant cover and cover is still grounds for a sleath check and my statement stands, though thank you for pointing out that mistypen discrepancy.

Creatures only grant cover to ranged attacks, not melee. They aren't being meaningfully blocked from observation. It's a limited form of cover that applies to ranged attacks, and isn't equivalent to a wall or other solid object.