Stealth in Combat

[Wepfmokk]

I was thinking about this one too. The rules are complicated and cumbersome to use during combat. Im trying Xorns interpretation in my next session as dm.

 

[Xorn]

If you're going to give a ranger 2d10 in your comparison (is he level 21 or something!?) then the rogue's weapon is doing 2[W], as well, and his Sneak Attack is doing 5d6, versus Hunter's Quarry doing 3d6.

Bluff allows you to roll for combat advantage once. Yet Stealth is going to let me roll for (and succeed 95% of the time) every round? I think not.

I'm quite comfortable with what I'm reading--a successful stealth avoids notice. It's very clear language. If you've already been noticed, a success doesn't change that.

 

[Xect]

If you're going to give a ranger 2d10 in your comparison (is he level 21 or something!?)

Twin strike is an at-will ability.

But I don't see why the rogue would roll against each enemy. It's only the one he's attacking that matters. After all, everyone knows where he is an instant later.

So I'd have the rogue roll stealth against perception when he attacks from cover (if those two dice rolls are a problem, use passive perception with a sligtht bonus to offset the rogues benefit of reduced randomness. I haven't crunched the numbers). And then I'd have a blast with the tactical implications of having enemies try to position themselves so he had to move more than two squares before attacking them. I guess that would amount to about as many sneak attacks as a melee rogue gets.

He could of cause just take fleeting ghost at level 2. But hey, if a character takes a power to do something, it should be cool.

 

[ozziewolf]

I'm surprised Xorn didn't catch that as we had this debate just the other day.

Technically it's 2d10 +1d6 from hunter's quarry.

However!

The odds of having both attacks land is something like 30%. I'm not a number cruncher but I'm sure Xorn could hammer out the exact numbers.

Rogue would be 3d6+Dex let's assume 4 dex as typical.

Ranger average damage assuming both attacks land: 14.5 damage. (14-15 damage range.)

Rogue average ranged damage assuming one attack lands: 14.5 damage. (14-15 damage range.)

So the odds of the ranger getting this insane damage making two attack rolls is considerably less than the Rogue with Combat advantage making one attack. Something in the neighborhood of one out of every three standard actions landing both attacks.

Edit: So with that in mind average damage over 3 rounds using twin strike for a Ranger: 32.5 damage

Average damage for a rogue over 3 rounds: 43.5 damage.

 

[Folly]

Dup post

 

[Folly]

And it's not a passive check if the target is LOOKING at you when you try to hide (Opposed Checks).

I was not commenting on the nature of the notice aspect or not. I was simple stating that as the rules are written the only time you are actively using perception is when you use a standard action, and the only time you do not use passive perception is when you are actively using perception. Thus the only time the perceiver rolls is when they take an action to do so.

As a side note, I am only bringing up the rules for in combat. Outside of combat their are additional rules for getting a check.

This means that using stealth requires only one roll from the table.

 

[Harr]

If you're going to give a ranger 2d10 in your comparison (is he level 21 or something!?) then the rogue's weapon is doing 2[W], as well, and his Sneak Attack is doing 5d6, versus Hunter's Quarry doing 3d6.

Ranger level 1 using a longbow with Twin Strike and Hunters Quarry does 2d10+1d6 damage. Every round. No stealth check.

Warlock level 1 with optimized Cha and Warlock's Curse does 1d10 +5 + 1d6 damage. Every round. No stealth check.

The 'perfect balance' to be achieved would be to come to some sort of balance where the rogue gets his +2d6 damage from combat advantage every other round on average.

And this is easily arrived at by saying when you attack from hiding, you lose your hiding and can't hide again for one round. Like you propose, attacking makes people 'notice' you, but that 'noticed' state only lasts until you've had some time to move around and the target has had to focus back on the combat in general; which is to say, the end of your next turn.

This seems fair to me

Edit -> This is assuming that the Rogue's stealth is good enough to alomst always trounce the target's perception - which, at least all through KotS, it always is... everything in there has a whopping +1 or +3 perception, with the great exceptions being elites with +5 or something, while our rogue is running around with +12-14. Easy.

 

[ozziewolf]

Ranger level 1 using a longbow with Twin Strike and Hunters Quarry does 2d10+1d6 damage. Every round. No stealth check.

Warlock level 1 with optimized Cha and Warlock's Curse does 1d10 +5 + 1d6 damage. Every round. No stealth check.

The 'perfect balance' to be achieved would be to come to some sort of balance where the rogue gets his +2d6 damage from combat advantage every other round on average.

And this is easily arrived at by saying when you attack from hiding, you lose your hiding and can't hide again for one round. Like you propose, attacking makes people 'notice' you, but that 'noticed' state only lasts until you've had some time to move around and the target has had to focus back on the combat in general; which is to say, the end of your next turn.

This seems fair to me

Edit -> This is assuming that the Rogue's stealth is good enough to alomst always trounce the target's perception - which, at least all through KotS, it always is... everything in there has a whopping +1 or +3 perception, with the great exceptions being elites with +5 or something, while our rogue is running around with +12-14. Easy.

This isn't an accurate assessment.

The Warlock can target the monsters lowest defense which will cause them to hit more often than the rest of the party. With the higher hit chance in mind you can't just state the weapon damage as over all they'll be doing more damage than what the flat numbers shown. However this is offset by the fact that a lot of monsters have a much higher save to reflex thant hey do will. So the Warlock often times may find it more beneficial to use the lower damage attack. (Such as when fighting Kobolds for example.)

The Ranger targets only AC and they'll be missing more and the second attack will hit only one out of every three twin strikes. (Roughly a 30% chance for both shots to hit.)

The Rogue would make only one attack and leave the other two behind considerably in over all damage with sneak attacks nearly every round.

They can get sneak attacks frequently as it is but what you guys are proposing is removing the risk from the reward.

Melee combat you have a higher chance of taking damage. Combat advantage and sneak attacks should offset this so that the risk of being hit by more close burst or melee attacks are offset by the fact that you're doing more damage.

What you guys are suggesting is making it so that a Rogue can attack safely from range with sneak attacks pretty much every single round and have almost no chance of taking any damage. It just goes against common sense.

If you can just stealth all the time and have almost complete safety at range why would any Rogue in their right mind ever go into melee range?

The Warlocks average damage per round is 13 in the best situation where the creature has low reflex. Frequently it will be better for them to use eyebite as it focus's on the Will save which typically is one of the lowest saves.

 

[ozziewolf]

duplicate post

 

[Arbitrary]

I was not commenting on the nature of the notice aspect or not. I was simple stating that as the rules are written the only time you are actively using perception is when you use a standard action, and the only time you do not use passive perception is when you are actively using perception. Thus the only time the perceiver rolls is when they take an action to do so.

As a side note, I am only bringing up the rules for in combat. Outside of combat their are additional rules for getting a check.

This means that using stealth requires only one roll from the table.

The rules as written. Ok.

Opposed Checks, page 178

Sometimes you make a skill check as a test of your skill in one area against another character's skill in the same area or in a different one. When you use Stealth, for example, you're testing your ability to hide against someone else's ability to spot hidden things (the Perception skill). These skill contests are called opposed checks. When you make an opposed check, both characters roll, and the higher check result wins.

Stealth, page 188

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.

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

It's perfectly clear that each entity on the battlefield is to get a roll against the stealther.