Stealth in Combat

[Tonester]

There's no way I want perception rolls and stealth rolls on every turn of every combat. uhhg.

I laugh every time I see someone say this. Who is making this many rolls and why? They are passive checks. If there are 15 creatures on the map and only 1 of them is remotely interested in making an attack on a stealthy rogue, then maybe have that 1 make a non-passive check. Do the non-passive checks as a need-to-check basis. It isn't like every time a Rogue stealths everything on the map has to make a dice roll. That is obsurd.

Xorn, I'm on board with your take. Nice and simple. You need to go out of sight (total cover/concealment/inviso) to get CA from stealth.

You can do it that way if you want, but that isn't what the rules state. If you and your players are fine with that then great.

You do NOT need to be out of sight to have combat advantage from stealth. Stealth != invisible. Stealth == unaware/unseen/unnoticed/unheard. Why is this so complicated? We've already been told that Rogues should be getting CA on nearly every round somehow. Why are DMs so against this?

 

[the_redbeard]

Heh... the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that FEWER rules and FEWER rolls is better.

Wanna snipe for combat advantage? Easy as 1-2-3:

1. Get cover/concealment.
2. Roll Stealth (vs Passive Perception).
3. Make your attack.

Wanna hide? Again, 1-2-3

1. Get cover/concealment.
2. Roll Stealth.
3. Write down the check result.

A creature with Passive Perception higher than the check result automatically sees the character and can target him. A creature whose Passive is less than the check result can use a Minor Action to make a Perception check (DC=Stealth result), and if successful, can target the PC. NOTE: If the creature doesn't care about targeting the hidden PC, don't bother rolling.

That's it. Simple and RAW.

You have my vote.

Then there is the whole OTHER set of questions arising from how someone can/can't target you. (Sigh.) I've gone through that on the WoTC forums.
Granted, the rules could spell out some things more clearly or given more examples. But it is still amazing how so different an interpretation can be made from the same set of words.

Is this how religious schisms start?

 

[clearstream]

Heh... the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that FEWER rules and FEWER rolls is better.



Wanna snipe for combat advantage? Easy as 1-2-3:

1. Get cover/concealment.
2. Roll Stealth (vs Passive Perception).
3. Make your attack.

Wanna hide? Again, 1-2-3

1. Get cover/concealment.
2. Roll Stealth.
3. Write down the check result.

A creature with Passive Perception higher than the check result automatically sees the character and can target him. A creature whose Passive is less than the check result can use a Minor Action to make a Perception check (DC=Stealth result), and if successful, can target the PC. NOTE: If the creature doesn't care about targeting the hidden PC, don't bother rolling.

That's it. Simple and RAW.

Sure, but the Rogue doesn't even need that. They can get CA loads of ways, and designers haven't yet come forth and said the defensive advantage of hiding is built into the math, nor that every player rolling for stealth anytime they vaguely qualify is built into the math.

The simple answer is Xorn's second option, with the caveats that a) sometimes cover or concealment would do, for example if you got there unobserved or used a power that granted a check, and b) that you can use a minor action to gain hiding if it makes sense, since minor actions are intended to set up the scene for more exciting standard actions. The minor wouldn't move you, of course.

-vk

 

[ogre]

I laugh every time I see someone say this. Who is making this many rolls and why? They are passive checks. If there are 15 creatures on the map and only 1 of them is remotely interested in making an attack on a stealthy rogue, then maybe have that 1 make a non-passive check. Do the non-passive checks as a need-to-check basis. It isn't like every time a Rogue stealths everything on the map has to make a dice roll. That is obsurd.



You can do it that way if you want, but that isn't what the rules state. If you and your players are fine with that then great.

You do NOT need to be out of sight to have combat advantage from stealth. Stealth != invisible. Stealth == unaware/unseen/unnoticed/unheard. Why is this so complicated? We've already been told that Rogues should be getting CA on nearly every round somehow. Why are DMs so against this?

Whom you ask? Why the rogue who wants to hide behind his melee allies every turn to gain CA, or worse, not be able to be targeted. Check out the WotC boards and look for a thread with a title something like "why my warlock won't use stealth in combat anymore..." for an example of play.

As far as what the rules are, I think the dozens of threads on this topic demonstrates that no one knows any better than anyone else what is RAW.

I don't think it's complicated at all, hence my remark on flow charts etc. Actually it's quite simple. Either start the encounter hidden or go out of sight to re-hide. Anything else grants you the standard -2 to be attacked for concealment/cover. Simple.

 

[the_redbeard]

Sure, but the Rogue doesn't even need that. They can get CA loads of ways, and designers haven't yet come forth and said the defensive advantage of hiding is built into the math, nor that every player rolling for stealth anytime they vaguely qualify is built into the math.

The simple answer is Xorn's second option, with the caveats that a) sometimes cover or concealment would do, for example if you got there unobserved or used a power that granted a check, and b) that you can use a minor action to gain hiding if it makes sense, since minor actions are intended to set up the scene for more exciting standard actions. The minor wouldn't move you, of course.

-vk

Xorn's second option invents a requirement - to be unobserved - that doesn't exist in the rules.


In fact there is a direct contradiction:

Opposed Checks: 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.

You can stealth even while observed. There is no mention that you must already be stealthed. You can stealth while observed - as long as the required cover, concealment or distraction is present.

*Yes, DM fiat can always say no. The DM can also send down blue bolts. What's your point?

 

[Roxlimn]

The more I review the rules on this, the more I think that Stealth isn't about being seen, but about awareness - that is, Stealth can make your opponent unaware of you if your DM deems the check permissible (skills overview), but it can't make you invisible (because it doesn't say so).

Notice that the Combat Advantage list differentiates between "unable to see" and "unaware," as separate entries.

 

[clearstream]

Xorn's second option invents a requirement - to be unobserved - that doesn't exist in the rules.


In fact there is a direct contradiction:

Opposed Checks: 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.

You can stealth even while observed. There is no mention that you must already be stealthed. You can stealth while observed - as long as the required cover, concealment or distraction is present.

*Yes, DM fiat can always say no. The DM can also send down blue bolts. What's your point?

RAW provides that meeting the pre-condition of cover or concealment does not mean that a stealth check must be granted. CSR clarified that and nothing in the RAW or said by designers contradicts it.

Or, to consider it another way, I guess you don't intend your rebuttal to rely on your making a case that my argument is supported only by appealing to the principle of DM fiat?

You bring an apposite piece of RAW to the table, but I feel if you look at it there isn't any contradiction. Xorn's second case is saying that in order to granted a stealth check once you are in cover or concealment, you need to get to that cover or concealment unobserved. Once you are there, indeed there may be multiple potential observers (enemies who have partially blocked or obscured LOS to that position), and that is what your stealth check opposes.

It may also be worth considering that Stealth conflates Move Silently and Hide, while Perception conflates Listen and Spot.

-vk

 

[SableWyvern]

I posted my take on the Stealth/Hiding rules in the houserules forum. Although I tweaked things a bit, I'm pretty sure my system is 98% by the book, except for the introduction of miss chances instead of "guess the hidden target's square".

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=234378

While the rules in the PHB are scattered here and there, I think they're pretty straightforward once you condense them down to their essential parts.

 

[Xorn]

The more I review the rules on this, the more I think that Stealth isn't about being seen, but about awareness - that is, Stealth can make your opponent unaware of you if your DM deems the check permissible (skills overview), but it can't make you invisible (because it doesn't say so).

Notice that the Combat Advantage list differentiates between "unable to see" and "unaware," as separate entries.

Beautiful Roxlimn!

I was taking a particularly good crap last night, and I got to page 279-280 of the PHB and saw Combat Advantage. I'm looking at it and I read the list of reasons you can have Combat Advantage, again.

Unable to see the attacker (page 281) -- Okay, that's rules for cover/concealment, and total cover/concealment says specifically the target can't see you. The only mention of stealth is if someone wants to attack what they can't see.

Unaware of you (page 188) -- Well that's the stealth rules. Wait, there's not one mention of stealth granting combat advantage because the target can't see you. Only because they are unaware of you!

By that reading--Stealth keeps someone unaware of you, while Total Concealment/Superior Cover keeps someone from being able to see you. Either state grants combat advantage... but neither section tells me that stealth can make someone unaware of me after they are aware.

So after reading this during my late night crap (and again comparing my reading from every tactics section of every creature in every module/book), this only served to reinforce my decision to be in camp #2. Heck, even the stealth rules only mention gaining combat advantage for the target being unaware. It's really ironic that after I read this, someone posts exactly what I saw right before me.

As far as the rules as written not supporting camp #2, yes they do--if I read them my way. I could choose to interpret them your way, and be in camp #1, but the whole point is neither of us can say we're right, period. I can say I'm right if I interpret what is printed my way.

And rogues should have combat advantage most of the time--it's pretty easy to achieve. You've got two rounds that you should have a free combat advantage. The first round (target unaware), and a Bluff round. Not to mention if you have a half-decent initiative, you can get a third round free with surprise. If you haven't gotten a flank set up within three rounds, you should probably look into playing an archer ranger.

Between a warlord and a fighter, our rogue has combat advantage on multiple targets pretty much at will.

 

[deleteme123456]

If you haven't gotten a flank set up within three rounds, you should probably look into playing an archer ranger.

So a ranged rogue isn't a valid build? Someone who sneaks in the shadows and then fires off crossbow bolts or hurls shuriken with deadly accuracy? Without sneak attack, his damage will be awful, especially since his weapon die is smaller without burning a feat just to keep up with the archery ranger, who at least gets his quarry damage too.

I like most of your interpretation, Xorn, but I hate neutering classes because lousy rules or bad writing prevent them from reaching their potential.