Stealth in Combat

Harr

First Post
'Every other round' is nowhere even close to equating to 'nearly every round'. Try it in play.

And the rogue targets AC as well so that would make the Warlock automatically leave the both the Ranger AND the Rogue in the dust every round then? Seems we need another thread :)

Anyway this here is how I actually run combat-stealth in my games (6 games run so far) and from and actual-play perspective it runs very, very well. I hadn't mentioned it because it's far from the streamlined 'no rolls' thing that Xorn seems to be trying towards.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Family

First Post
PHB Stealth in combat distilled.

Bluff vs Passive Insight (static Wisdom+10) of each observer.
-Usable once per combat encounter.
-You can immediately make a Stealth check for observers you succeeded against.

Stealth vs Passive Perception (static Wisdom+10) of each observer. +2 vs observer(s) more than 10 squares away.
-Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily. [<--really?]
-You must have Cover or Concealment from each observer you are making a Stealth check against. You have to maintain Cover or Concealment to remain unnoticed.
-Success: You avoid notice; You gain Combat Advantage from each observer who you succeeded against.
-If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer hidden; moving requires a new roll.
-Observers can use Active Perception as a Standard Action.
 

entropysoda

First Post
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.

Assuming 20 in main stat...and no feats, and using at-will abilities only:
According to my calculations, the warlock is equal on average dam.(14) To rngr.
Rogue is better(15.5), but needs CA...
If Rogue was only able to hide ONLY every OTHER round, his average dam. Drops to 12. So it's only worth being a rogue if u have CA EVERY round(or nearly so), so I thinks its reasonable they have a chance of doing this (as per RAW)…just "attack stealthily", it comes down to a stealth check they need to make every round.
 

ozziewolf

First Post
Harr said:
'Every other round' is nowhere even close to equating to 'nearly every round'. Try it in play.

And the rogue targets AC as well so that would make the Warlock automatically leave the both the Ranger AND the Rogue in the dust every round then? Seems we need another thread :)

Anyway this here is how I actually run combat-stealth in my games (6 games run so far) and from and actual-play perspective it runs very, very well. I hadn't mentioned it because it's far from the streamlined 'no rolls' thing that Xorn seems to be trying towards.

Show me how it's only half the time. This number has been thrown out with nothing to support it. Just because you say it's half doesn't make it so. With deft strike you can move up to two squares to get line of sight sneak attack then move back behind cover and hide again. With the logic every one is applying you could get sneak attacks nearly every round. This is clearly blows away the "only half the time" mentality. I say nearly every round because some times the monsters might detect him but most of the time the monsters won't. (As has been proven by math previously listed.)

Yes the Rogue targets AC as well but his damage is delt with one attack versus the Ranger dishing out the same damage spread out over two attacks. With that in mind the Ranger will be doing half that damage 60% of the time.

That's not what I said, the Warlock isn't going to blow any one away in damage. They will hit more reliably though however the other attacks do less damage so it will still average out and be balanced with the other classes.
 

The Grackle

First Post
Arbitrary said:
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.

It also says under Passive Checks (page 179):

"When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. Passive checks are most commonly used for Perception checks and Insight checks..."

So you are making an opposed check, but it assumes you're taking 10 for your roll (effectively setting a DC of skill+10) if you aren't actively looking. It also says taking 10 happens outside of an encounter, so there's some confusion there, but:

on Page 186, it says the DM usually uses the PCs passive perception check, an active check requires a standard action.

on Page 262, it says to use your passive perception check

and on Page 281, it says invisible creatures use their stealth vs your passive perception, and you can use a minor action to make an active perception check.

so, passive checks are clearly used in combat encounters.

***

From this, I think that the term Opposed Roll/Opposed Check includes both parties rolling, or one party rolling and one party taking 10 or using a passive skill, or possibly both using passive skill checks. It's still "opposed" in that a failure for the active stealther means a success for the passive perceiver, not b/c it requires dice rolls from everyone.

You don't need a hundred roll-offs if a rogue hides behind a bush from a squadron of passing orcs.
 

KidSnide

Adventurer
ozziewolf said:
Yes the Rogue targets AC as well but his damage is delt with one attack versus the Ranger dishing out the same damage spread out over two attacks. With that in mind the Ranger will be doing half that damage 60% of the time.

That's not what I said, the Warlock isn't going to blow any one away in damage. They will hit more reliably though however the other attacks do less damage so it will still average out and be balanced with the other classes.
The ranger does 1d10 instead of 2d10 60% of the time, but the damage from Hunter's Quarry takes place if either attack hits. Plus, the ranger can choose to target two different minions, giving his attack a minor AoE-like effect.

The warlock also has the choice between his eldritch blast and his secondary power that does less damage, but provides some sort of useful rider effect.

Overall, it seems to me that the Rogue is balanced based on the assumption that he can get Sneak Attack damage almost every turn, provided the Rogue is willing to restrict himself some way - either by potentially risking exposing himself to attack with flanking, or by staying in cover and potentially limiting his ability to engage the whole battlefield. (Noting that cover is also vulnerable to losing your sneak attack when an observant monster makes a lucky roll.)
 

ozziewolf

First Post
KidSnide said:
The ranger does 1d10 instead of 2d10 60% of the time, but the damage from Hunter's Quarry takes place if either attack hits. Plus, the ranger can choose to target two different minions, giving his attack a minor AoE-like effect.

The warlock also has the choice between his eldritch blast and his secondary power that does less damage, but provides some sort of useful rider effect.

Overall, it seems to me that the Rogue is balanced based on the assumption that he can get Sneak Attack damage almost every turn, provided the Rogue is willing to restrict himself some way - either by potentially risking exposing himself to attack with flanking, or by staying in cover and potentially limiting his ability to engage the whole battlefield. (Noting that cover is also vulnerable to losing your sneak attack when an observant monster makes a lucky roll.)

Risking making a regular sneak attack versus a sneak attack isn't a risk at all when compared to getting a sneak attack and risk getting nailed. Such as the young white dragon hitting you for 18 damage at level 1 when you could have safely stayed way back at range the entire fight getting sneak attacks with next to no risk. So why risk taking massive damage if a Rogue can stay safely back at range sneak attacking with no risk of injury?
 

Simplicity

Explorer
Family said:
Stealth vs Passive Perception (static Wisdom+10) of each observer. +2 vs observer(s) more than 10 squares away.
-Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily. [<--really?]
-You must have Cover or Concealment from each observer you are making a Stealth check against. You have to maintain Cover or Concealment to remain unnoticed.
-Success: You avoid notice; You gain Combat Advantage from each observer who you succeeded against.
-If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer hidden; moving requires a new roll.
-Observers can use Active Perception as a Standard Action.

So, there is no reason NOT to do this every time you land on something that provides concealment or cover. Everytime you duck behind a boulder, you might as well try to hide because there's nothing to lose and it costs no actions? That would be incredibly annoying for everyone involved.

Anybody start playing KotS yet? My party's been spending the whole friggen combat in concealment areas. And why not? They provide -2 to hit. So now, I have to roll Stealth checks every round for every party member (assuming I'm going against passive Perception). No way.

Not to mention the enemies would wind up doing the same stupid thing.
 
Last edited:

Arbitrary

First Post
The Grackle said:
You don't need a hundred roll-offs if a rogue hides behind a bush from a squadron of passing orcs.

I don't have a problem with using passive checks in that situation. What I have a problem with is still using passive checks once combat starts and when every creature is assumed to be paying attention to its surroundings.

Continuing to use passive Perception allows the stealther to not fear exceptional rolls against him and only needs to be able to beat 10 + their modifier to abuse an already dubious mechanic of attack/move/stealth/repeat.
 

fnwc

Explorer
Family said:
-If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer hidden; moving requires a new roll.

I've been trying to figure out Stealth for some time now, and I mostly agree with what you've said. However, I didn't notice anywhere that says that moving requires a new roll, although there is a -5 penalty for moving more than 2 squares.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top