• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Stealth in Combat

clearstream

(He, Him)
Do we have a master list of all inclusive relevant questions?
Here is a start if not, refine/correct as needed.
Good work Machus. We need to put something like this to dev.

I have four questions

1. Is Stealth supposed to connect with Targeting What You Can't See taking into account the frankly awesome defence benefit that accrues?

2. Once you attack, are you really supposed to be able to re-hide without breaking LOS or causing a diversion or distraction? I mean, if you are on one angle of a corner, can you attack from there and then re-hide on the same spot?

3. If you are taking cover behind an ally, and the attack misses by the defensive bonus the cover gives you, does the attack hit the 'cover', i.e. your ally?

4. Are Rogues supposed to use anything but Stealth for CA? If not, why is that fun?

==============
Stealth examples...
===============
Stealth example #3
===============
a3. Surprise turn, player is standing in dim-light adjacent to an enemy.
b3. Player makes a stealth check using a minor action to hide, and beats enemy's passive Perception.
c3. New turn, player attacks the adjacent enemy. The player has CA on this attack.
d3. Player is no longer hidden after the attack.
e3. Player wants to use a minor or move action to attempt to hide without leaving the square they are in.
f3. ...?

-vk
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Tonester

First Post
Now that Tennis is over, I think I understand how this all works finally. I was close, but not quite.

If a character has cover or concealment, they can perform some action with a stealth check. If it succeeds, they perform this action stealthily which means they perform it unseen, unheard, and unnoticed.

HOWEVER, if the character is in just normal concealment or cover, they must MAINTAIN that cover or concealment (i.e. never be in plain site.... without cover or concealment) in order to "appropriately" attempt the action - ruled upon by a DM.

This means that lighting, weather, etc plays a very important part during combat for stealth players.

Total Concealment and Total Cover is similar except that this makes observers not able to see the player at all and in THESE circumstances, you must use the "Target What You Can't See" rules.

What does this mean?

It means a Rogue player staying ducked behind a crate (normal cover) CAN attack stealthily each turn for Combat Advantage and Sneak Attack damage but CANNOT gain Total Concealment or Total Cover bonuses defensively by "stealthily moving" into the same square essentially.

What ever "condition" the player is in when they end their turn (cover, concealment, total cover, total concealment), that is the defensive bonus they get. And when the player is in Total Concealment or Total Cover, they are not seen and this means monsters must make an active perception check to try and figure out their direction or square and then attack a square accordingly.

If a player is behind pillar 1 during combat and in dim light and wants to spend an move action to stealthily move to pillar 2 which is also in dim light, they could do so since they have "concealment". HOWEVER, if there are any creatures that have low-light vision or dark vision, the low light does NOT provide concealment to the player, the player would be in plain site while between pillars and thus the stealth check would fail for THOSE observers. Once this happens, the DM can negotiate communication rules and whether or not creatures with no special vision would be aware of their location or not.

Whether or not this is what is written, intended, or what have you.... this seems to make the most sense to me. It essentially allows stealthers to have combat advantage pretty frequently (which is not a big deal really) but it doesn't grant them defensive bonuses beyond normal terrain or circumstances.

If a player is behind a wall which is several squares long and stealthily moves from 1 end of the wall to the other, thus maintaining cover the entire duration of the movement from observers, then for all intents and purposes.... yes, that player WOULD have total concealment for defensive purposes since observers who failed their perception check do not know where the player is. The same thing would happen if the player had jumped into a small forest of dense foliage, smoke, fog, etc.

The player cannot, however, stand behind a pillar in the middle of a room and expect to stealthily move 1 square away and 1 square back and then have total concealment. Monsters, who are ever watchful during combat, would be aware if someone stepped out from behind cover, and with no other concealment, and moved somewhere. Since the player never did this, whether the stealth check passes or not, the observers still know where the player is.... and no total concealment.
 

Tellerve

Registered User
With a fighter and paladin up front, the other 5 characters don't even have to find a pillar they can just stealth from behind the two frontliners and if they roll a 14 on the 20 sided die then they are more than likely able to get effectively +7?!?! to their defenses (+2 cover +5 being unseen) if they are even targetted.

I see a really ridiculous scenario where the fighter and paladin are up front and the rest of the party of 5 players are in single file behind, all using each other to stealth and gain CA on their turn. The monster fighting the paladin is like "wtf" as the paladin directly in front of him seemingly sprouts 5 additional pairs of shiva arms all flinging ranged attacks at his vital spots.

page 280 of the PHB, allies never grant cover to your enemies. So no hiding behind the fighter and paladin.

Tellerve
 

Tonester

First Post
page 280 of the PHB, allies never grant cover to your enemies. So no hiding behind the fighter and paladin.

Tellerve


This has been gone over several times in this thread, but since I don't expect any sane person to read this entire thread, I'll say it again.

That sentence means that if a ranger in the back of a party wants to shoot over his teammates, he can do so and the enemies he is shooting at will not benefit from cover being granted by your allies.

However, your own allies most certainly do provide cover for attacks made by your enemies and vice versa.

I.E. If you want to shoot a midflayer who is standing behind a troll, the mindflayer has cover from the troll. And, if a kobold wants to peg your wizard standing 3 squares behind your fighter, he'll have to do so at a -2 penalty for the wizard having cover behind the fighter.

In short? Your own teammates can't get in the way of your attacks, but your teammates do get in the way of enemy attacks. This is only for ranged however. Close, burst, blast, and melee attacks never benefit from creatures with regards to cover. Only terrain can do this.
 

Tellerve

Registered User
ah, my bad. After trying to read through this thread and going back and forth to the book to see how I would rule stuff versus how others are seeing it I guess I go my head a bit mushy :)

Thanks,

Tellerve
 

bardolph

First Post
For me it's in the rules: A success on stealth AVOIDS notice--it doesn't erase it. If you've already been spotted, tough. The tactics I'm reading throughout all the published material (read Heathen, man it's full of examples) support the notion that Stealth will not give combat advantage once you've been spotted.
Player's Handbook, p. 188: "Failure: You can't try again unless observers become distracted or you manage to obtain cover or concealment." (emphasis mine).

This implies that, even if you've been spotted, you can use Stealth to hide as soon as you gain cover or concealment.

The way I see it, as long as a Rogue makes a reasonable effort to maintain cover or concealment, the DM should give them the benefit of the doubt. Combat is hard enough already: no need to deny Sneak Attack on the majority of their attacks.
 
Last edited:

Old Gumphrey

First Post
But it's not just denying sneak attacks. It's denying every single character and monster the chance to get +5 to all defenses and turn invisible because they are standing in a bush or behind a corner.
 

bardolph

First Post
But it's not just denying sneak attacks. It's denying every single character and monster the chance to get +5 to all defenses and turn invisible because they are standing in a bush or behind a corner.
They also need to skip their attack, since attacking breaks their Stealth. I think this is reasonable.
 

Roxlimn

First Post
I don't think it's reasonable, and I think it more and more. People have lots of ways to gain Combat Advantage without using Stealth. 13 other ways, in fact. Asking the Rogue to break LOS completely before allowing another Stealth check (under cover or concealment then) isn't unreasonable, IMO.
 

Scribe Ineti

Explorer
Asking the Rogue to break LOS completely before allowing another Stealth check (under cover or concealment then) isn't unreasonable, IMO.

I'd say this is entirely in the spirit of the rules as written. "Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make the Stealth check." (p. 188)

Seems pretty clear to me that if a Rogue has concealment, then attacks and ends that concealment, he or she should have to get out of the creature's LOS or notice in order to try concealment and stealth again. Just seems to be common sense, IMO.
 

Remove ads

Top