Stealth in Combat

[Xorn]

CSR Dialog

I've adjusted my name in the dialogs so that Volabit doesn't beat me up. The first question is at the bottom, reading up.

Greetings,

Thanks for the great feedback! We’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign.

Tony
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

===============

Customer (Jason ????) 06/12/2008 07:04 PM
Doesn't this mean it's easier to attain combat advantage from range than in melee? What incentive does a rogue have to go into melee beyond roleplay reasons? I mean if he can just stand in the second rank (gaining cover from allies) and sneak attack every round (at +11 stealth at first level, his odds are really good), why would he risk entering melee?

===============

Response (Support Agent) 06/11/2008 04:50 PM
Jason,

You can make a stealth check even with normal cover or concealment.

Paul
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

===============

Customer (Jason ????) 06/11/2008 04:26 PM
Thanks for the prompt response, I just need one quick clarification:

Are you saying that even with *normal* cover or concealment (not total) you can attempt to hide again? If that's true, then this generates a ridiculous amount of Stealth checks, as there is no reason to NOT make a stealth check when you have cover/concealment.

Because Stealth has the specific wording--'You AVOID notice...' (emphasis mine) this is why I was hoping that it doesn't make you hidden again once you have been spotted.

===============

Response (Support Agent) 06/11/2008 08:15 AM
Jason,

Thank you for writing.

You are correct. If you wish to hide after being noticed, you would in fact have to make a bluff/stealth check or find cover or concealment.

Paul
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

===============

Customer (Jason ????) 06/10/2008 05:32 PM
A successful Stealth roll result reads: "You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view. If you later attack or shout, you're no longer hidden."

As the language specifically states "You AVOID notice," I interpret that to mean that Stealth only /keeps/ you hidden; it won't hide you if you've already been noticed. If you wish to hide after being noticed, you either need to succeed with Bluff (which specifically allows you to make a Stealth check to become hidden), or you need to achieve Total Cover or Total Concealment since you can't be seen then (thus hidden).

Have I interpreted this correct?

********************
Page Number: 188
Book Name: Player's Handbook 4E

There, now I can cite a source that says, "Wizards is working on errata for Stealth, and until then it's up to the DM to decide how to handle this situation. In my campaign, it will not be easier to sneak attack from range than melee. I really don't care what you do in yours, nor will I tell you that you're wrong, regardless of your decision.

"Your" refers to anyone mentioning how they will run it.

 

[ozziewolf]

I wasn't planning on posting again but this has me curious.

To Volabit: Can you quote where it says you can't hide behind an ally that is providing you cover?
I read both pages you quoted 280 and 281 and neither makes any distinction on what kind of cover isn't included in making stealth rules. The book is written on an exception basis so one can only assume that unless they specifically state that you can't then you must be able to.

The only part of those two pages which apply is as follows:

Page 280

Determining Cover: To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack's origin square) and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn't blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle's or enemies square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has cover.

It clearly doesn't state what you're claiming it does. It does state further up the page about range cover and that it doesn't apply when a target is in melee range. However if the target is at range he does have cover.

I'm not saying this is good or bad just how it's written. I think for the most part every one feels it should be interpretted other than how it's actually written.

If you're going to include pages as your source material please make sure it actually backs up what you're saying before attacking others for not doing the same. In my opinion giving pages and stating your right is worse than not including pages and stating the information provided in them. Your posts are very inflammatory towards Xorn as well as Sanzuo. (Border line personal attacks if not full out personal attacks.) Wether or not you're doing so intentionally doesn't matter as that is how it's being interpretted.

As far as Xorn not knowing the books I can safely say he's probably one of the most knowledgable person regarding the rules that I know as he's been play testing it for almost 6 months now and he's read the book cover to cover more than once. Needless to say if I have questions about the rules he's the go to guy. He's not always 100% on in his interpretations but he's willing to listen and reevaluate his interpretations as more information is presented to him or pointed out to him.

 

[Xorn]

But I do have very tiny genitals.

 

[ozziewolf]

But I do have very tiny genitals.

Sorry.. I promised I wouldn't kiss and tell.

 

[zlorf]

In your scenario below, just get all /some of the enemies roll for perception as a standard action, there may be a chance that they see the rogue in the bush, even if they didnt during there active perception.
ie Rogue throws dagger from bush and get CA on orc. 6 other orcs go, hey where did that come from, one makes its perception check as a standard action and yell "From the bush, charge!!!"

Z






Quote:
And here we have the root of the problem. I think it's fine if the rogue is having to constantly shift and move to avoid being seen. It paints the picture of skilled sniper in my head. The problem is the fact that stealth can be used as a part of any non-revealing action; standard, movement or minor.

Depending on the group this can be interpreted a large number of different ways. The way I see it intended, a rogue (or anybody) can sit in a single bush in the middle of a battlefield (how NOT to be seen) can pick his nose stealthily as a minor action and attack all day with combat advantage, whether or not he's surrounded by hostiles in melee.

Now I have a hard time believing R&D didn't playtest the sh..poop out of this, and I would think they truly believe this is balanced. I'm not 100% sure as I've yet to play an actual game with the released rules. So I'm willing to try it out and see how it goes.

When I try to think of it practically it's stupid, and the more I think of it the more I like Xorn's idea of rogues having to get total concealment or lose line of sight in order to effectively re-stealth. Otherwise there's no reason not to make a sniper, and let's frigging face it, that role is intended for the ranger.

 

[Xorn]

Ranger with the Rogue multiclass feat. Sniper that can pick locks.

You understand where I'm coming from zlorf (as does most everyone here, I think). And regarding the active perception checks--now you're dealing with extra dice rolls just to deal with stealth each round. Blech.

I'm handling it my way until errata comes out. After that, we'll see.

EDIT - Oh, I wanted to mention that I don't think it's crazy that this didn't seem out of whack in playtesting. After all, until someone mentioned the idea of it on DDI, I hadn't considered it, and neither had anyone to play a rogue in any of my games thus far. I ran Into the Shadowhaunt three times on GameDay and the dragon fight four times--and not one rogue even considered the idea of stealthing in the middle of combat with regular old cover.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

I'm starting a Xorn has at least medium sized genitals campaign ( not in the D&D term, but the general term for campaign ). I feel as though Xorn's genitals have been unfairly persecuted.

 

[Xorn]

Wow.

 

[Harr]

^ Are you guys all from the same face-to-face group that fought and are now taking it out on the boards or something?

Makes me glad my players have never been on an online forum in their lives (and actually make fun of me a little ebit cause I am ).

Anyway, I'll re-iterate the points that I've been able to use to balance the games and have made everyone happy (and please, this is mostly for the lurkers and people who see the thread the title and come in here looking for answers, and find ... whatever that up there's supposed to be.)

If you're having trouble with runaway ranged stealthing, suggest the following to your players:


***

- A stealth check may only be taken as part of a move action that moves you to a different square than the one you started in.

- You must have either cover or concealment before you begin this stealthy move action, after you end this action, and during every square of that move action.

- Once the conditions above are met, you achieve stealth by making an opposed stealth roll against the perception roll of one enemy that is closest to you.

- Making attacks or talking destroys your stealth, and you must make another stealthy move from cover as described above to regain it.

- If any one enemy is located or moves to where you don't have conceal/cover from them, that enemy is assumed to shout out a warning to his friends, and you lose your stealth.

- Allies do not count as cover for the purposes of stealth.

- Bluff and distracting are good for getting concealment for starting and continuing a stealthy move, but you must still end your move behind real, actual cover or concealment.

And, optionally:

- Once you make a sneak-attack to a target from a square, that particular target is assumed to be guarding from attacks coming from that particular square and will not be caught distracted again. You need to find another square to stealth into.

***


There, that should patch up your game until official word on this issue comes out, if it ever does.

Again, I thank the posters above to let this post stand as help for people who come looking for it and to not drag me into the mudslinging.

 

[ozziewolf]

Xorn is my DM but I have no idea who Lucas Blackstone is.. but evidently he's a member of the Xorn Genetalia Fan Club. (Order your membership packet today!)

What you listed are good ideas as many other ideas have been good ones. I think the main source of angst has been people trying to interpret the rules as written versus how to change them.

 

[Volabit]

I wasn't planning on posting again but this has me curious.

To Volabit: Can you quote where it says you can't hide behind an ally that is providing you cover?
I read both pages you quoted 280 and 281 and neither makes any distinction on what kind of cover isn't included in making stealth rules. The book is written on an exception basis so one can only assume that unless they specifically state that you can't then you must be able to.

Page 280. The graphic labeled Cover. The attacker has line of effects to the troll and cover to the troll because of the Goblin in front of the troll. He aslo has line of effect to the bugbear while and ally is between them, but it clearly states "No Cover" in large green white letters.

Now it says "Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and the other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.." When you make a ranged attack they have cover, not when you move to make a stealth check they have cover. Only when you attack not move do they gain cover, and you can't make a stealth check as part of an attack as stated by WotC officials. The paragraph later goes on to say "Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks." Again, first part says right out, allies NEVER grant cover to your enemies, can't read that any other way.

Sorry I ommitted this in my original post, was late and felt like razzing Sanzuo since I saw him on But I hope that answers your question Ozzie

 

[Xorn]

Only one person has done any mudslinging Harr, and we've been making light of them now (and my genitalia). My case (and most of the comments here) are discussing the rules as written (and interpretations) versus the rules as intended (from what the CSRs have been consistent on) and stating our opinions of it.

I don't like the ease of getting combat advantage from cover/concealment as opposed to getting combat advantage at range. If, as a rogue, you want combat advantage as often as possible, there is little incentive to close into melee. I don't like that. Some don't think it will be a big deal.

But please don't start suggesting things out of thin air; where you get the idea I'm having an argument with my gaming group over a forum is beyond me, but I assure you, it's ridiculous. I'm just talking about 4E rules that I don't like, in a 4E rules forum, and one of my players happens to read the same forum. That's it.

 

[Volabit]

I've adjusted my name in the dialogs so that Volabit doesn't beat me up. The first question is at the bottom, reading up.

Thanks Xorn, I appreciate you posting that in it entire original form, minus the name change to avoid furture potential beatings

This allows everyone to make their own reading on it and not that of a paraphrase. so again thank you.

 

[ozziewolf]

Page 280. The graphic labeled Cover. The attacker has line of effects to the troll and cover to the troll because of the Goblin in front of the troll. He aslo has line of effect to the bugbear while and ally is between them, but it clearly states "No Cover" in large green white letters.

Now it says "Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and the other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.." When you make a ranged attack they have cover, not when you move to make a stealth check they have cover. Only when you attack not move do they gain cover, and you can't make a stealth check as part of an attack as stated by WotC officials. The paragraph later goes on to say "Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks." Again, first part says right out, allies NEVER grant cover to your enemies, can't read that any other way.

Double check the picture and what it represents. The arrows are all going away from the player. The player is labeled "attacker" The picture simply represents that the two monsters have cover from the wall but the bottom monster doesn't have cover because allies do not grant cover to monsters.

Infact if you look the very top troll has cover because of the goblin infront of him and not because of the wall. So yes your allies infront of you do provide covers against your enemy.

Edit: As for not stating that when you move and stealth. Remember the rulebook is written on an exception basis so unless it specifically states otherwise then yes it does provide cover for the purpose of stealth. If you don't believe me that the book is written on an exception basis then look at the section for provoking opportunity attacks and granting combat advantage. It specifically says when certain situations don't give you combat advantage or don't provoke OA's.

 

[Volabit]

Double check the picture and what it represents. The arrows are all going away from the player. The player is labeled "attacker" The picture simply represents that the two monsters have cover from the wall but the bottom monster doesn't have cover because allies do not grant cover to monsters.

Infact if you look the very top troll has cover because of the goblin infront of him and not because of the wall. So yes your allies infront of you do provide covers against your enemy.

Ahh yes, thanks you are correct, it states which of the defenders does have cover. But it's Ranged attack only as the rule says. This Diagram is showing a ranged attack to either a troll or a Bugbear.

So it means the reverse it true, on the same diagram if the Bugbear were to make a ranged attack against the labeled 'attacker', since the bugbear is firing through an enemy to the 'attacker', the attacker has cover, but as the rules say, only for a ranged attack. So if the 'attacker' is a 'rogue' instead, he has cover against ranged attacks only from the bugbear. But the rules say from attacks only, and the rogue can't stealth when others attack him, it is not his turn. If the bugbear isn't making a ranged attack, then the 'rogue' doesn't have cover.

 

[Deverash]

Cover never applies to close or area attacks, and melee cover only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles.

Not really on topic, but cover does apply to close an area attacks. The lines to determine whether cover exists, though, start in the origin square, not the attackers square.

Concealment may be what you were thinking of that does apply to area/close attacks.

 

[Forrester]

By the way, with the 6th level Rogue utility Chameleon (it's at-will), the ranged rogue is never losing sneak-attack. If he loses cover because the Schmoe in melee decides to walk up past the fighter-tank and find him, Chameleon would trigger and the rogue would remain hidden "in plain sight". The rogue just has to regain cover on his turn and shoot again. Or shoot, and then hide, that works too.

Before, I thought that the ranged-rogue hiding behind his allies might not be broken as the bad guys can just walk up and find him eventually -- the rogue may be hidden, but the baddies would know generally what square he was in. With Chameleon being at-will, they'll walk past the fighter and just not see him.

Wow . . . the whole 99%-of-the-time-hidden-thing is pretty damn close to being true IMHO . . . go kobold shuriken rogues!

BTW, the argument that warlocks and (hahahahahahaha) rangers can keep up with the damage output of an always-sneak-attacking rogue is over, right?

 

[Volabit]

Not really on topic, but cover does apply to close an area attacks. The lines to determine whether cover exists, though, start in the origin square, not the attackers square.

Concealment may be what you were thinking of that does apply to area/close attacks.

Pg. 280 "Creatures and Cover:" Second sentence reads "Your Allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."

Pg 281 the "Cover against an Area Attack" show the Bugbears gaining no Cover from their allies, but the Goblin gaining Cover from the statue.

So yes you can gain cover from objects but not from other creatures it seems. I believe that is what Xorn says in the last part of his sentence, 'only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles'. I think you two are saying the same thing, just different ways of going about it.

 

[wocky]

Given the ease of stealthing and getting combat advantage (as per my understanding of the rules and that of most people in this thread) I'm considering house ruling a -5 penalty to attempting to hide while in combat... do you think this would fix things somewhat?

As for hiding behind allies... I think this could have an extra -5 penalty, since allies move around during battle and hiding behind them requires synchronizing one's own movements with that of the ally... still, I wouldn't have a problem with disallowing this altogether.

I believe the stealth rules are not all they should... and I have no problem with house ruling them to make them what I'd expect. I'd appreciate any ideas you have of how these rules should work. Why did things work better in 3.5? Wasn't it mostly the same? Higher DCs to hide?

 

[Otterscrubber]

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.

Just because you are stealthed does not grant you combat advantage. If you have already attacked an opponent and they are aware of you then you do not have combat advantage unless you are invisible. Stealthed is not the same as invisible, which is a condition that grants combat advantage.