Stealth in Combat

[Forrester]

1) Not sure why people keep using the "duck behind a wall" example as the rogue cheatily getting cover . . . who needs walls when you have allies to hide behind? There's almost always a tank you can be partially behind that will give you the necessary cover to do your move/hide/hit with ranged sneak attack, move/hide/hit with ranged sneak attack.

True, eventually the baddies may be able to simply walk up and attack . . . but between slightly difficult terrain/rain/fog/allies, early opportunity for cover or concealment will be there almost 99% of the time for the rogue with ranged attacks.

2) Kobold rogues, with their shift-as-a-minor action, just became even cheatier .

3) It's strong but perhaps not broken to be able to hide behind allies each round when doing ranged sneak-attacks. Can't say yet; the fact that there are generally more bad guys in 4E, and they do get to move around, makes it too early to say. It does seem very strong, but remember, if the rogue is doing that, he's not helping his fighter buddy flank, and 4E is not generous with the hit points . . . tanking is tougher in 4E than it was previously.

However, it certainly strains credulity to be able to hide in melee, 5' from someone, simply because there's a pillar or small tree in your square. THAT needs to be errata'd immediately.

 

[Forrester]

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.

A 2nd level melee goblin rogue sneak-attacking every turn is going to do around 3d8+Dex+7 damage (attacking vs AC) or 3d8+4 (attacking vs Reflex). [Assumes rapier + backstabber] If he can almost always do this from range w/shuriken, then it's a paltry 2d8+d6 +7 or +4 instead. I'm fairly confident that beats the Warlock's average damage output, and rapes the Ranger's.

I approve of this, of course. There need to be more rogues, especially of the goblin and kobold variety .

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

This is only partially related. When comparing ranger and rogue damage per round or battle or however they like to, have they been giving the ranger combat advantage also? It's not like Rangers don't have stealth in class also.

I fully support the way Wizards intends for stealth to work. I believe it's incredibly crucial for rogues to be able to maintain combat advantage or they begin to fail as a striker.

 

[Xorn]

Stated by others before, but I'll repeat it--isn't the reason Sneak Attack adds more damage than the Warlock or Ranger damage increases because it's harder to get Combat Advantage? Can anyone say (with a straight face) that it's harder to get combat advantage on pretty much any target you like with the current Stealth as intended?

Because if the closest monster to the ranger is a minion--guess what, a minion is going to eat an extra +d6. (When possible, I will toss a minion closer than a standard+ creature to remove Quarry/Curse damage from the equation.)

As far as encounters--a dwarf fighter with a maul can deal out some pretty horrific punishment with a tiefling warlord next to him.

But back to Stealth, I just can't understand how the developers felt that the way they intended for Stealth to work is this way. Ozzie (being the resident rogue in my group) has stated point blank that he's glad I'm going with Stealth only avoids notice--and he's the one with that really stands to gain from it!

Apparently anyone trained in Stealth can ignore cover--if they just find some cover! (Combat Advantage offsetting enemy Cover). But that's the bottom line for us... with Stealth as intended it's easier to gain Combat Advantage at range than it is in melee!

Percival Padfoot, the halfling rogue, currently has +12 Stealth. That means that if he tries to hide in cover (say... behind the damned dwarf) his MINIMUM stealth is a 13. The passive perception of a kobold slinger is 11. That's right, it just can't see him. He instantly gets Combat Advantage, he doesn't even have to roll. Just put an ally between you and what you want to kill, and stealthily exploit the rules as intended.

"Where did the halfling that just killed Roger go!?"
"I don't know, Gary! He ducked behind that dwarf, and now he could be anywhere!"

I'd like to restate, one last time: Stealth as intended is the only thing I hate about 4th Edition. But I really hate the out of it.

 

[ozziewolf]

You really should read the link I gave you. It's a pretty good way of handling it (very good way IMHO). Is that maybe why you didn't comment on it at all? Focus less on 'winning an argument' and more on finding the solution.

I was actually done posting in this thread but since I'm being called out...

You could also be less of a jerk and just ask if I didn't see it. Focus less on personal attacks and more on logic and the matter at hand. I was posting at work at the time and actually over looked that part of the post, thanks for pointing it out though even thought it doesn't help your case at all as I will demonstrate below. Logically intentionally skipping the parts of posts I didn't like would be a major tactical error as I would surely be called out on it. (As your post as demonstrated.) If I was really focused on "winning at the internets" I would have made sure and read everything carefully instead of missing something you said by accident.

Here is the quote in question in case any one else missed it.

The key to this is that there is no "hide" action per se. You take a stealth check as part of an action that you want to do stealthily - usually a move action or a shift. I order to attempt this move stealthily, you must have cover at the moment you attempt the stealthy move or shift.

The warlock's shadow walk grants you concealment when you move 3 squares or more away from your start point. If you do not already have concealment before you start moving though, you cannot attempt to hide as part of that same move, because you needed the cover to make the attempt to begin with.

However, once you finish your Shadow Walk move and have shadow-concealment around you, then you can take a new move with a stealth check included, and become hidden until your concealment runs out or you find solid cover.

Similarly, if you move from open space into cover, you cannot attempt to do so stealthily, since you need cover to attempt to move stealthily to begin with. Once you're behind cover, then you can attempt a new move with a stealth check to become hidden.

What the bluff check grants you when you're standing in the middle of open space is that starting-point concealment so that you can attempt a move with a stealth check and end somewhere where there is cover already hidden.

Shadow Walk doesn't apply to what we're discussing so skipping that.

If you're referring to the part about you must have cover when you attempt to move... that is extremely easy to do every single round since when firing at range you ignore adjacent cover. So technically you could just not move at all and use your move action to just make stealth checks from your current position with out moving.
If you're going to get snarky with me for not responding to something I didn't see at least make sure it's relevant to your case.
That's not even getting in to the fact that doing it that way isn't RAW it's just an interpretation of how you could do it. You do it as part of the move action no where does it state at what point during that action you have to have cover to get stealth.
So it's possible to deft strike out of cover sneak attack and then use your move action to get back into cover.
It's also possible to attack around a corner and then use your move action to stay hidden where you. Since you don't actually need to leave cover to get the attack.

Unless you can show me what page of the rule books says you have to be in cover at the start of the action to use the stealth check versus at the end of the action.

It's not about winning it's just about you being wrong and making comparisons or giving examples that are either completely made up or don't help your case.
I've accepted that people can try to hide every round as long as they have cover per the rules as written and clarification through correspondence with WoTC. I admit I was wrong in my interpretation of the rules as written on that matter. Before I thought people where actually misreading the rules.
However you're trying to justify it by saying it's only possible to stealth every other round and I've proven time and again that just isn't the case. This isn't a case of misinterpreting the rules in this situation as it was with making the stealth check. It flat out doesn't say that you have to have cover at the start of your movement to make a stealth check. It states you have to have cover to make a stealth check. The rules are written as such that unless it specifically says otherwise then that is how it works. So as long as you have cover as part of that move action you can make a stealth check. This would include both at the start of the move or the end because otherwise it would specifically state that it had to be at the start of your turn.
The rule books are written as exception based rules. They're ruled exactly how they're written unless the rules specifically states an exception. No where in the book does it say anything about how you're trying to rule it. There for it isn't how it works.

For now I'm done replying to this thread until some one can show me something in the rule books that actually counters my statement. I highly doubt that will happen. With my familiarity of the rules and having double checked just to be sure I wasn't saying anything that wasn't true as I'm sure if I did I would be called out on it. (Rightfully so if I'm stating misinformation.)

Edit: To clarify I'm not saying what you linked isn't a good idea. It's just that right now we're discussing the rules as written. There are a few ways this could be house ruled but that only addresses the issue on a personal level as opposed to game wide.

Second edit, oh my!: I realized I didn't address the actual skill use of bluff.

Create a Diversion to Hide: Once per combat
encounter, you can create a diversion to hide. As
a standard action, make a Bluff check opposed by
the Insight check of an enemy that can see you (if
multiple enemies can see you, your Bluff check is
opposed by each enemy’s Insight check). If you succeed,
you create a diversion and can immediately
make a Stealth check to hide.

This just says you create a diversion to hide. So if you succeed you can hide in place because they've suddenly become distracted and are no longer looking at you. This would seemingly give you combat advantage until the end of your turn. It would be a useful way to gain combat advantage at range in a situation where you couldn't find any cover at all. I can see why you would want to rule it the way you did and for what it's worth it's not a bad idea.

 

[Xorn]

Enemy | Enemy
Fighter | Warlord



Rogue | Empty

This rogue can move right one square "stealthily" and gain combat advantage. Next round he can move left one square "stealthily" and gain combat advantage. Against level appropriate foes, a rogue trained in stealth should have combat advantage almost every round, unless he does something silly, like try to wade into the melee.

The reason I dislike Stealth As Intended™ is because it feels like one of those "if you don't do this every turn you're shorting your character's potential" type of actions.

 

[Surgoshan]

The rogue can only move back and forth stealthily gaining CA if the region he's moving about in provides cover or concealment. And that's only going to happen if the DM puts down a tile with that stuff on it.

 

[Xorn]

The rogue can only move back and forth stealthily gaining CA if the region he's moving about in provides cover or concealment. And that's only going to happen if the DM puts down a tile with that stuff on it.

The fighter and warlord are providing cover. Welcome to Stealth As Intended™. Remember, the rogue isn't invisible, he's just being really sneaky behind the dwarf and warlord. As a side comment, is it that exceptional for a battlefield to have some cover every 20 squares or so?

 

[Surgoshan]

Not for the purpose of stealth.

"When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."

By my reading, creatures provide cover only for ranged attack rolls. I've not heard of anything from wizards to confirm or deny that, though.

 

[Otterscrubber]

1)
However, it certainly strains credulity to be able to hide in melee, 5' from someone, simply because there's a pillar or small tree in your square. THAT needs to be errata'd immediately.

Here, here. Combat advantage is only granted when an enemy is unaware of your presence. Stealth only means the enemy cannot see you or hear you currently, but if they have been attacked by you then they are certainly aware of your presence. At most this would give you a good first attack. If you stealthed up after an attack I would only grant combat advantage if your next attack on the opponent was from a totally unexpected direction, not merely popping up in the exact same spot you were 6 seconds prior.

Stealth is not invisibility. It can be almost as good sometimes but it's not the same. I would never grant combat advantage to someone who attacks, then stealths up behind another character or even a crate then "pops out" to attack. This is simply cover and is already well defined.

 

[KidSnide]

I prefer the interpretation in which having allies between you and the enemy grants cover for purposes of the enemy's attacks, but not for purposes of stealth. The RAW on this point is unclear, although I admit that it's probably not the RAI.

Peh - I agree with the sentiment that the RAW is awful and needs both a re-think and a clarification. I just think that a sniper rogue that can regain stealth every round is not an inherently unbalanced character, provided that he has to work at it to stay in a covered position.

-KS

 

[Volabit]

It helps to read

Not for the purpose of stealth.

"When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."

By my reading, creatures provide cover only for ranged attack rolls. I've not heard of anything from wizards to confirm or deny that, though.

I found the key point in this post as to be the word READING. It seems a lot of people haven't fully read the books. Xorn being one of them who tends to be more reactionary then fact based responses. Please cite all your book references, the whole comment about rogues gaining CA behind Allies is not true, its only cover in terms of ranged attacks if there are multiple enemies, not allies. RANGED attacks only. Please read pages 280 and 281 to refresh yourself on what is considered Cover and Concealment.

Back in post 55, Sanzuo made a great post with official response from WotC.


"...Once the rogue has revealed himself from stealth via attack, he cannot restealth again unless he performs another "non attack" action such as moving to a different set of cover/concealment and then making another successful stealth check. Any enemy who perceives him using a Perception roll at the DC of his stealth roll will see him and thus negate Combat Advantage."

I think the key point in that statement is 'different set of cover/concealment'. Because later on in the post Sanzuo says why not just stay in the one bush in the middle of the battlefield, pick your nose as a minor action stealthly, then gain CA and attack... Simply because if you see a rogue pop out of the ONE bush and attack you, revealing him and no longer CA if/when he regains stealth, its not going to be hard to tell where he is at. Sure you can't seem him, but its not like he is going anywhere, be like a guy popping out of a barrel taking a shot and ducking back in, pretty sure after he reveals himself once, you know where he is, because he didn't move from that spot, at all. Sure he might have stealth, and you don't know when the next time he will do a jack-in-the-box attack is (those things still catch me by suprise, how about you?) but you can easily approach it and find yourself whatever is hidding within.

I would also like to reference pg. 279. COMBAT ADVANTAGE. If you read the very first line states "One of the most common attack modifiers is Combat Advantage." Followed by the line "Combat Advantage represents a situation in which the defender can't give full attention to defense." I will let you read the rest, but reference things like "caught off guard". Meaning someone that is hidden in a barrel or a bush, unless you are directly upon them or directly paying attention to them (standard action, searching: top of page 187, and all of Perception pg 186) they will be hard to keep track of and defend properly. Keep in mind WotC expects CA to be easily achieved since first off they said it was one of the most common modifiers and secondly because of a whole class, subset of abilities, and various other feats all depend on whether or not one has CA. This all binds together when you read the section at the bottom of page 281 "Targeting What You Can't See" it treats invisible creatures as using stealth, bold text even. It references mechanics that deal with finding creatures you can't see. Again this is back to Sanzuos statement about the ONE bush in the middle of a battle field, or the condensed barrel anology.

But clearly this original post wasn't about any of these tangents like how easily CA should be achieved, which class has better damage, who's making personal attacks, or any such things. It was about using the rules that stand and managing the number of dice rolled. Personally I don't see what the big fuss is. I roll my attacks and damage dice at the same time to speed things up. I am sure most players and DMs have multiple sets of Dice, so if you know what the elites Perception is, make that the blue d20, and then the rest can be minons. And with one fist full of dice rolled, see who passes/fails. Or what I have seen a lot of DMs do, is with large numbers of stuff like minons, just role one d20, so that elite gets his own roll, then the 5 minons get only 1 roll as a group. Another mechanic to use is reverse Stealth Perception, since Xorn was complaining each turn he rolled 6 dice, 1 player 5 creatures, rolled each time a player when. Why not just Roll the Creatures Perception once for the full round, and thats the stealth DC players have to get... wow that makes it fast. Instead of having to roll those creatures 5 dice every players turn for their stealth, now its just once, and saving you from rolling (players-1)*5 rolls each full round of combat. I mean their are countless ways to work it out so it flows much faster. Because having the DM roll 1 d20 5 times each players turn really slows down a game, try multiples, or Perception DC for the round. Or just stick with passive Perception, because maybe that lvl 1 Kobold isn't suppose to see someone who specializes in stealth, for god sake its a lvl 1 kobold versus a person that has trained exstensively in how to be stealthy. I think their are plenty of ways to figure out how to speed things up. Personally I would like whichever group is larger, players or baddies, to just roll once for the full round for their respective skill, and have that as a DC the opposed skill needs to beat. That way the larger group needs to make the least rolls, speeding up things. Or for the lazy DM, just roll once per full round for the NPCs and have that be the DC the players need to beat, make them do all the rolling. I think the rules on this read fine the way they stand, the problem seems to be with people not being able to find ways to properly manage play.

 

[Sanzuo]

...

Oh hey man.

I really think you should edit out the hostile bits of that post. They're kind of unnecessary. I understand your personality but your post makes it sound like you're just trying to antagonize everyone. Just FYI.

 

[Volabit]

...

Sorry you think that. Statings facts that are easily referenced this entire post. Like when some people make personal comments about stuff versus when people quote others and reference material readily availible for all. I feel no remorse in pointing out the difference, I think it's clear on what material is meaningful and what is someone personal rant filled with bias emotion that lacks substantial material. All I did was comment on some of the major issues that I actually felt like commenting on and need a correction/clarification.


Edited:
Ditto on Sanz sig, we had a great game, didn't we. I forgot to post after you did, I wanted to earmark that session as when it all began, the true colors of a certain player.

 

[Sanzuo]

All I did was comment on some of the major issues that I actually felt like commenting on and need a correction/clarification.

No, you joined in on the exact same chest-puffing "I'M RIGHT" style posting that you seem to be angry at in the first place.

I found the key point in this post as to be the word READING. It seems a lot of people haven't fully read the books. Xorn being one of them who tends to be more reactionary then fact based responses. Please cite all your book references, the whole comment about rogues gaining CA behind Allies is not true, its only cover in terms of ranged attacks if there are multiple enemies, not allies. RANGED attacks only. Please read pages 280 and 281 to refresh yourself on what is considered Cover and Concealment.

The above statement is just dripping with contempt. All I'm saying is you don't need to do this. Just state your point without all the hostility, man.

 

[The Grackle]

Stated by others before, but I'll repeat it--isn't the reason Sneak Attack adds more damage than the Warlock or Ranger damage increases because it's harder to get Combat Advantage?

No. It's more likely to balance against the ranger's double attacks.

Can anyone say (with a straight face) that it's harder to get combat advantage on pretty much any target you like with the current Stealth as intended?

Yes. The ranger designates his quarry automatically w/ a minor action, the rogue has to make a stealth roll.

 

[Volabit]

interesting,

Wow Sanz, you really are 'reading' into this more then you need to. I think most everyone on here is posting what they feel is right, like your post just now, I am sure you feel you are right in thinking i am 'dripping' with whatever term you feel like labeling me with. And I am sure that's your what you want to do, label. I don't mind that you do that, but please take it out of the forum. It is not a concern for the material at hand, the OP idea of how to reduce dice rolls. Just because what I posted doesn't parallel your concepts, shouldn't make you stretch out for some reason to discredit anything I have typed. But if you feel it's more important, then I guess go ahead...

As to my quotes you referenced in ascending order, I don't think I have seen a lot of posts Xorn has made (that I can remember) where they referenced one page out of the book of facts. Usually thats when people are just displaying their opinions over information. Again that it not wrong to share your opinion with other, not at all. I was stating that there were comments made about gaining Concealment from your Allies, and then referenced what pages the clearifications can be found on. But again, feel free to over analyze it, and make whatever label you feel you want to. As for the first quote, please clearify for me, or whoever else, what actions denote as 'chest-puffing'. At the end of the post, if you managed to read that far, I listed several tools that are useful in reducing times of actions. Notice how I didn't say a single one of those was the RIGHT (your "I'M RIGHT" needs to be caps correct?). I stated which one I prefered because mathmatically it seemed to be the lowest number of dice rolled, and still allowing a form of opposed checks.... but please label me again as chest-puffing I'm Rightism... Then I closed with my opinion after stating facts, that the problem at hand, with earlier given solutions, isn't so much the rule, as it is the people not having, finding, or using good tools for the material at hand. Perhaps one of the several ideas I presented on how to reduce dice rolling someone might find useful, or might even enspire them to adapt a similar way. If so, then I would be pleased if only one person found those ideas useful and it helped them speed up their games. I am here to inform, not here to find out the one solution. Dripping with all that can drip.

But now back to you, I think you have spent too much of your time, in your semi-job mind you, surfing the Something Awful forums. You really have come out jaded, and I know this because practically every single game night you would say how at work when you were surfing that said forum, you found x and y, or this person being bashed for this, and other flaming another for something else. Please take that attitude back to that forum. Don't go blindly accusing. Now what is this paragraph "dripping" with Sanz? I think you can apply a little attitude to your enternal voice when you read this to make it more accurate, as for the other material, read it at face value to avoid making the mistake of find stuff that really isn't there.

 

[The Grackle]

...I just think that a sniper rogue that can regain stealth every round is not an inherently unbalanced character, provided that he has to work at it to stay in a covered position.

I don't either. Stealth is the ranged-rogue's equivalent of the melee-rogue's maneuvering to flank.

 

[med stud]

Enemy | Enemy
Fighter | Warlord



Rogue | Empty

This rogue can move right one square "stealthily" and gain combat advantage. Next round he can move left one square "stealthily" and gain combat advantage. Against level appropriate foes, a rogue trained in stealth should have combat advantage almost every round, unless he does something silly, like try to wade into the melee.

The reason I dislike Stealth As Intended™ is because it feels like one of those "if you don't do this every turn you're shorting your character's potential" type of actions.

What you say makes sense. This is, though, one of the things I would like to see in play first. In this case, the uncertain factor is if the rogue will be left alone. If an enemy moves up to the rogue, that tactic will be much harder to execute. A skirmisher can be a real pain in the ass for the rogue. A bunch of minions chasing the rogue can be problematic.

Maybe you are right, you seem to have given this more thought than I have. But to me, this is one of the situations that feel like they have to be played out to be evaluated fully.

 

[Xorn]

Volabit, if you had taken the time to point out I have tiny genitals I think your post would have been complete. I have thoroughly cited where I'm reading each rule (Bluff, Stealth, Cover/Concealment, Targeting What You Can't See, and CSR responses to the WotC Answers Stealth from the DDI rules forums), but incorrectly assumed that everyone reading the thread could read the table of contents and index. My apologies. I have never stated that I'm right or anyone else is wrong. I've stated (quite clearly, I feel) that I hate the stealth rules as intended.

I even came up with a nifty Stealth As Intended™ slogan, which means, "Read the last 5 pages, and insert that here." Again, whatever I've done to you personally to draw your ire, I apologize.

Cover never applies to close or area attacks, and melee cover only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles. So that only leaves ranged cover. And the rules as they are written indicates that an ally in front of you creates a blocked line of sight. If you draw a line to each corner of the target square from one of your corners, if 1-2 lines are blocked by terrain or the enemy's allies, they have cover. If 3-4 lines are blocked (but you still have line of effect), they have superior cover. This is clearly illustrated in the cover rules, so break out your PHB and read away.

Feel free to disagree, and present your points as to why, but I'm actually a little miffed that you labeled me as reactionary and unwilling to read all the rules. While you're decreeing that your method is right, maybe you should head over to DDI and read the "WotC Answers Stealth!" thread (you've read it, right, because it has responses from CSRs six times in there) and each CSR reply contradicts the previous one.

The only thing they all consistently point out is that you are supposed to be able to make a Stealth check in combat as long as you have a successful Bluff, or cover/concealment. They can't agree on if you have to start/remain/end in cover/concealment, they can't agree on if you can "stealthily" attack, they can't even agree on if you have to move out of the square you start it, and they just said "technically the rules allow it" when addressing using cover granted by an ally.

So going on what I know is consistent, and Stealth As Intended™ (I hope I've thoroughly explained the importance of that slogan now), it's ridiculously easy to sneak attack whatever target you like from range as a rogue. The warlock and ranger can only do their extra damage to the closest target. For the ranger to double shoot, they have to make two attack rolls. Assuming the rogue and ranger both have a 50% hit chance, 25% of the time the ranger misses with both, 50% of the time they hit once, and 25% of the time they hit with both. They average a single hit. The rogue will average a single hit, which gets their ability mod damage added.

But one more time, in the most direct way I can state it, so you don't feel the urge to label me as reactionary and unaware of the rules as written and/or intended:

I understand how Stealth As Intended™ works; I think it sucks, because it makes achieving a sneak attack in melee harder than achieving a sneak attack from range. If you like it, that's fortunate for you, because that's how the mechanic is intended. I reserve the right to think it sucks without being insulted for it.