Stealth in Combat

[ozziewolf]

Provided that:

1) There is available cover;
2) That cover, possibly in rough terrain doesn't leave you vulnerable to being isolated and ganked by some monster-soldier;
3) That cover is in range of the target, who can't just move out of range;
4) Your ranged weapon is as good as your melee weapon; and
5) You don't want to use any of your melee only powers,

...then I agree with you, there is little reason to close to melee becaused a ranged sneak attack, though spottable, keeps you safe from danger.

1.) 99.9% of the time there is always some sort of cover.
2.)Since your allies would be rushing towards the enemy they would have to first get around your front line much easier said than done and the odds of being isolated and ganked by monster soldiers is very slim. Especially since soldier types and the beefier ones would be the primary argets of your tanks. In this situation it would almost always be a minion that reached you. (Not much of a problem to dispatch.)
3.) The range is 25 squares short of running away full out they will be in range at least 95% of the time.
4.) Shurikens 1d6 damage +3 weapon proficiencies. (Although these have something like one square shorter range than a crossbow. Crossbow 1d6 damage +2 weapon proficiencies. Yes they are equal it's possible that you may get a nice melee weapon early on but that is only temporary until you find a nice ranged weapon. So in short weapon type doesn't matter in terms of equality they're pretty much the same.
5.) All of your melee only powers do the same damage as your melee or ranged powers of the same at will, encounter, and daily power.

I'm glad that we cleared that up and that you agree with me 100% on this. It really means a lot to me that you saw things from my point of view and you can clearly understand just how bad it is.

 

[KidSnide]

1.) 99.9% of the time there is always some sort of cover.
2.)Since your allies would be rushing towards the enemy they would have to first get around your front line much easier said than done and the odds of being isolated and ganked by monster soldiers is very slim. Especially since soldier types and the beefier ones would be the primary argets of your tanks. In this situation it would almost always be a minion that reached you. (Not much of a problem to dispatch.)
3.) The range is 25 squares short of running away full out they will be in range at least 95% of the time.
4.) Shurikens 1d6 damage +3 weapon proficiencies. (Although these have something like one square shorter range than a crossbow. Crossbow 1d6 damage +2 weapon proficiencies. Yes they are equal it's possible that you may get a nice melee weapon early on but that is only temporary until you find a nice ranged weapon. So in short weapon type doesn't matter in terms of equality they're pretty much the same.
5.) All of your melee only powers do the same damage as your melee or ranged powers of the same at will, encounter, and daily power.

I'm glad that we cleared that up and that you agree with me 100% on this. It really means a lot to me that you saw things from my point of view and you can clearly understand just how bad it is.

Well, it looks like both your encounters and your magic item distribution are pretty different from those in my games. Also, it seems like you really like flexible range-melee rogue builds to the exclusion of, IMO, some pretty cool and effective powers.

In any case, I think that making a stealthy sniper rogue into a viable build is a feature, and such a build does require the ability to re-hide in order to get sneak attack most rounds. Ozzie's games apparently notwithstanding, there are other viable rogue strategies too. So I see the main problem being that the RAW seems to require a bejillion dice rolls, and not a problem with the concept of rehiding itself.

 

[Xorn]

Well, it looks like both your encounters and your magic item distribution are pretty different from those in my games. Also, it seems like you really like flexible range-melee rogue builds to the exclusion of, IMO, some pretty cool and effective powers.

In any case, I think that making a stealthy sniper rogue into a viable build is a feature, and such a build does require the ability to re-hide in order to get sneak attack most rounds. Ozzie's games apparently notwithstanding, there are other viable rogue strategies too. So I see the main problem being that the RAW seems to require a bejillion dice rolls, and not a problem with the concept of rehiding itself.

FYI, Ozzie hates the idea of it being so trivially easy to gain combat advantage through stealth during combat.

My questions now is--what on earth are you talking about with encounters and magic item distribution? An encounter with 2 guard drakes, 4 kobold minions, and 2 slingers. Pretty standard encounter... they couldn't get past the dwarf fighter and tiefling warlord. Now Ozzie waded in and used melee (a dagger, actually) for d4+4+2d6. Had he just sat behind a coffin, making stupid stealth checks every turn with a hand crossbow--he'd have been doing d6+4+2d6, and be at much less risk. And he's not BUILT to be a ranged attacker.

And yes, I DM for Ozzy. He's the one that initially pointed out the "avoids notice" that I'm proposing to make stealth in combat NOT broken.

 

[Eldorian]

I think the case can easily be made that the only perception rolls required in combat are those made with actions on the part of the perceiver. In this case, minor actions, an exception to the normal rule of perception based on the combat chapter. Yes, every character who is in cover or concealment can make a stealth check every round, but unless they're actually good at it, they're gonna have a hard time beating the passive perception of the enemies. It makes sense, anyways. If you're fighting with concealment or cover, you of course try to avoid enemy notice. Just ask any real life soldier.

Also, I think you're being pedantic if you don't allow a character to use a move action to make a stealth check while he's in cover/concealment. Moving within one's own square (hiding in your cover) is a move action you can make stealthily in my book. He doesn't need to stand up sit down fight fight fight! in whichever order you think he's required. Hell, if you insist... he could mouth something (a free action) stealthily.

I swear, sometimes discussing game mechanics on this board is like talking to cylons. One of these days I'm gonna weed em out by tossing out a logic bomb.

 

[Sanzuo]

While we're on the topic, here's an email I got from Customer Service:

I am unclear about the appropriate use of the stealth skill, specifically in combat. The rule states that stealth may be "part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily." Does that include a standard action? Like part of using a power? My issue is in the following scenario:

Rogue is facing a hostile in a lightly wooded area. Everyone has concealment, but both combatants are staring right at each other. Because he has concealment, Rogue meets the criteria for using the stealth skill. So on his turn he throws a shuriken as a standard action, and at the same time rolls his stealth skill. Assuming the hostile fails his perception, the rogue effectively hides himself at the same time he attacks. Thus, giving himself combat advantage and sneak attack on the hostile. Even if you rule that he reveals himself in the attack, the rogue can repeat that action on his turn every time.

I can't find a rule that states you cannot hide from a creature that is aware of you or in combat. The only criteria for using the skill is having concealment or cover. In the above scenario, what's keeping the rogue from simply rolling a free stealth check every time he attacks? Is this what was intended?

Let me give you a brief breakdown of the stealth skill. So let's use your scenario below:

Rogue is facing a hostile in a lightly wooded area. Everyone has concealment, but both combatants are staring right at each other. Because he has concealment, Rogue meets the criteria for using the stealth skill.

This situation is valid for making a stealth roll in. You are 100% correct!

So on his turn he throws a shuriken as a standard action, and at the same time rolls his stealth skill. Assuming the hostile fails his perception, the rogue effectively hides himself at the same time he attacks.

He can't do this because you can't stealth as part of an attack action. The bottom line is that you can't do an action that would unstealth you AND stealth in the same action (that would include attacking, shouting, or anything the DM rules as invalidating the stealth roll) . You can do it as part of nearly any other action, including a move action, and many other standard and minor actions.

You would need to be stealthed before you start the attack. So a realistic scenario would be - Rogue moves (move action) makes a stealth roll ->Rogue throws a shuriken as a standard action.

Your hit would then be rolled with combat advantage because the stealth was already in effect at the time you did your attack.

Thus, giving himself combat advantage and sneak attack on the hostile.

The rogue needs to be stealthed prior to the attack in order for him to gain combat advantage. As written above, you could gain that by doing a move action or other action prior to your attack.

Even if you rule that he reveals himself in the attack, the rogue can repeat that action on his turn every time.

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 above scenario addresses the bulk of your stealth questions as far as getting free stealth during attacks!

A few things:

This situation is valid for making a stealth roll in. You are 100% correct!
...Your hit would then be rolled with combat advantage because the stealth was already in effect at the time you did your attack.

It seems Xorn's observation that this is the way stealth is intended is also true according to this guy.

He can't do this because you can't stealth as part of an attack action. The bottom line is that you can't do an action that would unstealth you AND stealth in the same action (that would include attacking, shouting, or anything the DM rules as invalidating the stealth roll) .

This is actually what my concern was about. It seems the official ruling is consistent with most people's that you can't stealth as a part of an attack action. My problem is, as I am looking at the book, I can't find anywhere where it mentions this fact. So as written it's pretty unclear.

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.

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.

Edit:

Also, I think you're being pedantic if you don't allow a character to use a move action to make a stealth check while he's in cover/concealment. Moving within one's own square (hiding in your cover) is a move action you can make stealthily in my book. He doesn't need to stand up sit down fight fight fight! in whichever order you think he's required. Hell, if you insist... he could mouth something (a free action) stealthily.

I think what you're saying here is that you agree with this logic. I would have to say that I disagree utterly.

Yes, according to the game mechanics this is valid, but it doesn't mean that it isn't stupid. If someone spots the sneaky guy and realizes he intends to do harm, all of the attention is going to be on that sneaky guy. Sneaky guy shouldn't be able to escape notice simply because he farted with a +20 on his stealth check. I believe if he wants to truly wants to hide in the middle of combat he ought to have to make some pretty clever maneuvers to get the enemies attention away from him.

 

[Xorn]

Well if anything, I'm going to take credit for generating enough discussion on this to make sure every DM to read this thread now understands all the sides of the debate and knows where they stand on the discussion. I think we've hit pretty much every talking point that exists on this matter, and this last CSR response contradicts previous CSRs as well. (Stating you can't stealth an attack action, while others specifically state you can.) The CSR stating you have to move to another square of cover/concealment is at best errata, because the PHB makes absolutely no mention of this.

We do know that RAI (rules as intended) have been unanimous from CSRs--you can Stealth during combat to gain Combat Advantage, so I'm comfortable is saying that much of it is correct. It's after they say that, when I replied, "So, you're saying you want it to be that easy for a rogue to sneak attack from cover?"

As I have an almost OCD-ish desire to run the game as intended, I still have this hangup with waving my hand and highlighting "avoids notice" in my PHB and making that the rule. Even if I just have them rolling against passive perception (removing the number of die rolls), the effort required to achieve combat advantage with Stealth in combat (by a trained person) will be absurdly easy.

Here's another headache I hadn't considered until now: If a kobold slinger hides behind cover, and one of the characters doesn't see him (the rest do) then do I tell that person, you have to guess what square the slinger is in, because you can't see him there behind the coffins.

Playtest your Stealth rules, Wizards.

Man I would love for one of the R&D guys to pop in and say something, but I imagine they're working on some real errata.

 

[ozziewolf]

I have OCD which causes a desire to run the game as intended.

I fixed it for you Xorn.

Just so you guys know I'm not flaming this is the guy who deleted a bunch of his WoW characters and remade them just so that the horde and alliance characters where seperated and alphabetical.

Also he can't have the volume on an odd number it has to be on an even number.



*cackles evily as he Stealths off*

 

[Simplicity]

Bump decause this part of the rules is seriously screwed up. And I can only hope someone with more detailed knowledge of how this is supposed to play might take pity on us and see it.

 

[KidSnide]

My questions now is--what on earth are you talking about with encounters and magic item distribution? An encounter with 2 guard drakes, 4 kobold minions, and 2 slingers. Pretty standard encounter... they couldn't get past the dwarf fighter and tiefling warlord.

Regarding encounters, I was contesting Ozzie's assertion that there is good cover in short range 99% of the time and there are never that many soldiers. A 2 brute, 2 artillery, 4 minion encounter is very well suited to the hide-and-snipe strategy, provided that your defenders are holding down the brutes and not closing with the artillery. A 4 soldiers/brutes, 1 artillery/controller encounter is going to make it very hard for your defender(s) to prevent soldiers or brutes from closing with your party's rear.

Regarding magic items distribution, Ozzier asserted that it was easy to always have a ranged weapon that is as good as your melee weapon. That's true if you're a dagger rogue (in which case that range 5 can make life hard sometimes), but if you want to use a rapier, you're going to need a second ranged weapon. Unless you have a very generous DM, having two good level-appropriate weapons is going to come at the cost of the armor or neck slot.

Now Ozzie waded in and used melee (a dagger, actually) for d4+4+2d6. Had he just sat behind a coffin, making stupid stealth checks every turn with a hand crossbow--he'd have been doing d6+4+2d6, and be at much less risk. And he's not BUILT to be a ranged attacker.

Well, the dagger vs. hand crossbow isn't nearly so clear cut, since a dagger gives +3 proficiency (instead of +2 for the hand crossbox) and the rogue gets an extra +1 on top of that. So, you are giving up +2 to hit so you can bump the 1d4 to a 1d6. Of course, if you're using a dagger, you only have a range of 5/10. In my KotS combats, the relevant melee was often more than 5 squares away from the best cover. And, of course, you can't throw a rapier.

Also, IME, the defenders tend to go down pretty fast if they are taking all of the monster's attacks. You can have a sniper rogue that was never meant to be in melee, but it's not like those attacks that otherwise would go against the melee-rogue just evaporate into nothingness.

Also, I'm not convinced that a sniper rogue is unbalanced in comparison to an archer-ranger, particularly because a sniper build requires you to exclusive choose from the limited set of melee/ranged powers. Ozzie notes that those powers do as much damage as the melee-only powers, but many of the best rider effects are in melee-only powers.

That all having been said, it is certainly strange that Sly Flourish works when the target is unaware of you and that Brutal Scoundrel works with a dex-based missile weapon. And, obviously, rolling 24 d20s per round to resolves stealth is unacceptable. However, the rules do not lead me to conclude that any sane rogue would spend all of his time sniping from the bushes. Maybe the strategy is too good? But it is hardly without its tradeoffs.

 

[Harr]

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.

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.