Stealth in Combat

[The Grackle]

So after reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the rogue sniper is an intentional build option, and using stealth every round is not broken.

*A rogue is, conceptually, a sneaky character. 4E is designed around the combat encounter. Thus a rogue who can use stealth in combat, fits the class concept.

*There are MANY stealth powers for the rogue (and Warlock), some that grant concealment and some that grant invisibility.

*The Striker role covers melee and ranged attacks. The ranger has a melee build and a ranged build. It makes sense for the rogue to have two builds as well-- and he does!

*The rogue has a power at each level (except 9th oddly) that is usable in melee or w/a ranged weapon. Out of the three Paragon paths, Dagger master is all-melee, the other two have melee/ranged powers. Lots of options for a sniper.


These points, to my mind, show an intentional design. Crossbow ninjas are not an exploit; they're part of the game.


*Combat Advantage and Sneak Attack sound powerful b/c of their 3E connotations, but aren't really. In 3E Sneak Attack was very powerful (and was the main source of damage), but it couldn't always be pulled off; but in 4E Sneak Attack is just a good bonus (once a round) to already solid attacks, and it's easier to get.

*Stealth just gives a Rogue the use of his extra-damage class-feature-- the other strikers, Warlock and Ranger, can use theirs automatically w/o a skill check but w/a minor action. The Ranger/Warlock can only pick those closest to them, the rogue can only use his on those whose perception he beat.

*A melee rogue can flank for CA most every round, a ranged-rogue can hide for CA most every round. Sounds balanced.

*Concealment is -2 to hit, and Full Concealment is -5. That's a +3 to the Rogue's defenses. Pretty nice, but if the Rogue hides then attacks, he won't get that advantage for the following round.

*Being hidden or invisible give no bonus to hit.


From all this, I just don't see Stealth as broken. It's easy, yes, but it's supposed to be easy. A sniper that hides every single round, is just doing his job; there's no need to nerf him.

The rogue is awesome at hiding; let him be awesome.

 

[Volabit]

Perhaps maybe do a few playthrough with all rules being literal. I guess only after collecting enough emperical evidence should I really make an issue for or against this C/C stealth issue. I think really a DM will decide how much any given area will have Cover and Concealment. If your allies give you Cover, I think it will be only for a short while, because so many things shift and move around in combat, one or two shifts later and a rogue would have to move completely to the other side of his friends, and thats assuming the creature lives that long if your allies are smart and focusing fire down targets.

To quote Dudley Field Malone "I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me."

I feel that this holds true here. I think only through our debates on this and through countless points of view shown, rulings on rules, and many unique situations that I would have never thought of has actually let me walk away with a subatantially larger understanding of 4e.

Hope you all enjoy your weekend, will be out of town so relish no more posts from me for a while.

 

[cdrcjsn]

A point that a lot of people are missing is that the rogue needs to succeed in using stealth every round. Even if he can make an attempt every round, he's not gonna always succeed.

Even if he has +12 to his Stealth check and the foe has +0 perception, the fact that it's an Opposed Check means that there's a chance he won't be able to use Stealth that round.

Against foes with good perception modifiers, he might be better off going for the flank.

So yeah, Rogues might do a couple points more damage than Rangers and Locks, but the fact that they have to work at it to get CA, means that for some rounds, they'll be doing significantly less, balancing things out in the long run.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Reading Chameleon, I'm starting to think that's exactly what it was intended for! It's also the case that for the rogue to keep up with the other strikers in damage potential, he needs to be sneak-attacking at least every other round.

Again, I'm not arguing whether it's broken-as-written, I'm arguing the rules as written. And frankly, it may not turn out to be as broken as well all think after repeated play. I'm more annoyed that a rogue can hide in melee to get CA just because there's a tree in his square, or it's raining. This ranged stuff, it may be broken, maybe not. Bad guys get to move around too. (With Chameleon, though . . . jeez.)

Funny you should mention Chameleon. This power clearly states that you are not hidden if at the end of your round you no longer have cover/concealment. Sounds kinda like plain old stealth to me. If you can just re-stealth if you have cover/concealment in combat anyways, why would you even need this power? Keep in mind that it clearly states you are just hidden, you are still not invis and if you just attacked someone they are aware of you.

 

[The Grackle]

Let's stick to the ranged rogue, which does a little less, as he's the guy most likely to be sneak-attacking every round.

A 1st level goblin rogue with the standard build (16 in Dex, 14 in Chr, +2 to each) and the Backstabber feat is doing 2d8+d6+7 points of damage, attacking against AC, or 2d8+d6+4 damage against Reflex.

A 1st level warlock that changes his quarry to d8 damage is doing (let's max it out) d10+d8+4. A ranger . . . well, they suck, too bored to calculate.

Rogue = 19.5 damage per hit or 16.5 damage per hit vs reflex (and will be getting +2 to hit that the warlock won't as often)

Warlock = 14 damage per hit.
Ranger = ?? Something crappier.

Even if you assume it's merely an extra 3 damage a round vs the warlock (who gets to attack against Fort), that's a 20% advantage. The ranger is going up against AC, meaning we'd prefer to use the rogue's 19.5 damage as a comparator, which will CRUSH the ranger.

The rogue can only use Deft Strike or Sly Flourish At-Wills w/a ranged weapon, both of which target AC.

The Ranger can use twin strike (and should). No stat to damage, but any enhancement or misc. bonuses get applied for each hit.

I haven't compared all the encounters and dailies yet, but good powers are just as important as raw damage from at-wills. I'm not saying the rogue isn't the best of the strikers damage-wise, but the classes still seem pretty comparable to me.

 

[Forrester]

The rogue can only use Deft Strike or Sly Flourish At-Wills w/a ranged weapon, both of which target AC.

Nope, both are ranged or melee.

2nd level goblin rogue is going to be using his rapier and doing 3d8+7 when attacking vs AC. That's 20.5 damage on a hit. The twin-striking ranger is doing less damage even if he hits TWICE. Sorry Mr. Ranger but you kinda bite . . .

EDIT -- meh, thinking about this a little more, I don't know I'm 100% sure that the ranger *completely* bites. He's doing maybe 20% less damage against the average foe, but that's not an outrageous disadvantage. Figuring the ranger is doing 2d10+d8 with two hits, and if he only hits once, the nice thing is he still gets that d8, so you can't do a pure comparison of 15.5 damage for the ranger with 20.5 damage for the rogue -- turns out that's only applicable if you hit every round.

On the other hand, in a little playtesting combat I was doing last week, Grisgra the 5th level Goblin Rogue was hitting bad guys on a '3' sometimes (+4 to hit with Dex, +3 Rapier, +2 level, +2 magic on rapier, +2 CA means +13 to hit), against most foes I'd guess a good rogue with CA hits 75% of the time.

 

[AsmodeusDM]

Chameleon is there for the following scenerio:

I'm a rogue behind a staute, I'm hidden.

An enemy on his turn walks round the pillar so that there's no cover between us.

Normally I would automatically lose my Hidden status.

But chameleon (imm. interrupt) let's me stay stealthed for another round even though my enemy(s) have clear LOS to me.

After that one round...well it's back to normal.

 

[Forrester]

Funny you should mention Chameleon. This power clearly states that you are not hidden if at the end of your round you no longer have cover/concealment. Sounds kinda like plain old stealth to me. If you can just re-stealth if you have cover/concealment in combat anyways, why would you even need this power? Keep in mind that it clearly states you are just hidden, you are still not invis and if you just attacked someone they are aware of you.

Yep, Chameleon is pretty useless under your bizarre interpretation of the rules and unaware /= hidden. Under the rules as-written, however, Chameleon is ridiculously strong, allowing the rogue to remain hidden once the minions walk past the fighter that the rogue was hiding behind. The rogue just has to find cover/hide again on his turn.

 

[The Grackle]

Nope, both are ranged or melee.

2nd level goblin rogue is going to be using his rapier and doing 3d8+7 when attacking vs AC. That's 20.5 damage on a hit. The twin-striking ranger is doing less damage even if he hits TWICE. Sorry Mr. Ranger but you kinda bite . . .

I thought we were only comparing ranged builds? You were talking about the rogue attacking Ref Defense --using piercing strike I assume, which is melee only. Thus the sniper can't attack Reflex.

 

[The Grackle]

Yep, Chameleon is pretty useless under your bizarre interpretation of the rules and unaware /= hidden. Under the rules as-written, however, Chameleon is ridiculously strong, allowing the rogue to remain hidden once the minions walk past the fighter that the rogue was hiding behind. The rogue just has to find cover/hide again on his turn.

But he can only do it once an encounter. Using a 6th level power. A wizard can dimension door at that level.

 

[Forrester]

I thought we were only comparing ranged builds? You were talking about the rogue attacking Ref Defense --using piercing strike I assume, which is melee only. Thus the sniper can't attack Reflex.

oooh, okay, you mean Piercing Strike -- and you're right, can't use that at ranged! Makes it a little tougher to compare the rogue and warlock, rogue is doing 33% more damage per hit, but hitting less -- how much less, obv creature dependent. I think the average Fort defense is about 3 worse than AC -- on the other hand, the rogue gets +3 proficiency to his attacks . . . meaning it may make sense to compare the 19.5 damage for the rogue against the 15 damage for the Warlock. Ouch.

 

[Forrester]

But he can only do it once an encounter. Using a 6th level power. A wizard can dimension door at that level.

Nope, Chameleon is at-will.

 

[Volabit]

double post.

 

[The Grackle]

A point that a lot of people are missing is that the rogue needs to succeed in using stealth every round. Even if he can make an attempt every round, he's not gonna always succeed.

Even if he has +12 to his Stealth check and the foe has +0 perception, the fact that it's an Opposed Check means that there's a chance he won't be able to use Stealth that round.

Against foes with good perception modifiers, he might be better off going for the flank.

So yeah, Rogues might do a couple points more damage than Rangers and Locks, but the fact that they have to work at it to get CA, means that for some rounds, they'll be doing significantly less, balancing things out in the long run.

Unless you use passive checks, which I believe is meant to be the standard method even if it is a little unclear in the rules. Then the rogue will succeed more often, esp. against monsters w/low perception (minions). I don't think that's bad. But some monster's will have other senses that negate stealth, so it won't always work-- tactics required.

 

[The Grackle]

Nope, Chameleon is at-will.

Oh, you're right. I'm blind.

That is pretty bad ass. However, it does reinforce my point about the designers wanting stealth to be a constant tactic.

This power also looks like good way for a melee rogue to jump out of the shadows to get his CA.

 

[Forrester]

Oh, you're right. I'm blind.

That is pretty bad ass. However, it does reinforce my point about the designers wanting stealth to be a constant tactic.

I agree . . . the non-stealth melee rogue should be flanking at least every-other-round, I'd wager, the rules seem designed to allow the ranged rogue to attack with CA at least as often.

 

[LEHaskell]

Oh, you're right. I'm blind.

That is pretty bad ass. However, it does reinforce my point about the designers wanting stealth to be a constant tactic.

This power also looks like good way for a melee rogue to jump out of the shadows to get his CA.

It's an immediate interrupt -- can't use it on his turn.

 

[Xorn]

A melee rogue can sneak attack every round if he has someone to flank with. A ranged rogue can sneak attack every round if he has cover/concealment. There's no crit hits/fails in skills... if you roll a 1 with +12 stealth, then you have a sneak attack against +3 Perception, period. I myself have issue with this--not even because of whether or not sneak attack is overpowering every round (I don't really think it is) but what is the incentive to actually melee? The only requirement to be a "sniper rogue" is to have a high Dexterity, be trained in Stealth, and carry a lot of bolts/shurikens.

I think it is way too easy to regain combat advantage through stealth mid-combat under the intended rules. On top of that, the exact definition of what you have to do is not clear. One CSR says you can "stealthily attack". One says you have to move to a new square. One says you have to end in cover/concealment, another says you have to start in it, another says the whole move has to be in it. It's a messy, undefined blob--and that's why I don't like it. Most of 4E combat is clearly defined, without grey areas. Stealth is not one of those aspects.

For a rule that's going to apparently apply to every character trained in Stealth every single round, I don't like it being so loosely defined.

As stated, plenty of people have stated they have no problem with a rogue sneak attacking from range every single turn. I respect their opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that I have huge issues with it being tactically smarter to NOT go backstab people. You know, like rogues used to.

I'm also not wild about my party's ranger adding ANOTHER +2 to her hit rolls any turn that her stealth roll is over a 1. Apparently WotC has decided they need to regroup and talk about it too, because the CSRs have stopped answering this question, and started a canned response of "We've taken this to the rules guys for an official errata."

So really I think all we can do is say, "We know this much is intended, we know this part is a grey area, and we know how we each feel about it."

Xorn dislikes the current Stealth As Intended™. Note that requiring a Bluff or Total Concealment/Superior Cover doesn't make it terribly harder, but it does mean that it's not easier to sneak attack every round from range than melee.

 

[Dan'L]

Personally, I take any CSA response with a heavy dosage of salt. They're typically hired for their abilities to be personable to irate and confused strangers than their understanding of the whys and wherefores of a company's products, policies, and intentions. Often times their only training is to be handed the same material you have to read over. And chances are, you have more experience with the game than Joe Paycheck in customer service anyway, and neither you nor they have the word on what R&D fully intended -- which is likely why your CSA gave you the note that they were passing your concerns on. So, as much as you like to throw around "Stealth as Intended," I think I'll take that phrase with an equal helping of cardiac risk. Your repeating the label doesn't make it true. YMMV, obviously.

As far as allies granting concealment, there is no mention of this in the description of "Line of Sight" on page 273. As noted, it is an exclusion-based system, and while many things are listed as blocking line of sight, there is no exclusion given for allies hindering line of sight. I would interpret this to mean that allies do not block line of sight, and that they therefore provide no concealment for a stealth check because the enemy can clearly see you.

That said, you are correct that there are still plenty of other ways to obtain concealment and cover on 4e battlefields. And I wouldn't want to use static checks for it either, which still puts you at lots of die rolls. Consider trying to discourage ranged stealth with in-game villain tactics rather than house-ruling the system; seems to me this would be the most fun solution.

And personally, I never understood why ANY non-fighter would desire to be up on the front line of combat. First rule of survival: don't get hit. What's WRONG with having a Rogue that doesn't want to risk his neck so needlessly? You say it likes it's a bad thing. Seriously, I'm playing a 4e Rogue now, and have no qualms staying to the back doing ranged damage, even without the extra 2d6 from Sneak Attack every round. Let the meat shields soften them up, and any that get through, well THEN you can flank-n-stab while they try to take down your 'casters ;P

Or are rogues just another squishy to you, and that's all they should be?

A better question is: what are a Fighter's incentives to stand up front taking all that abuse while the rest of the party lobs in damage that pisses the bad guys off enough that they pound on you harder? Because, yeah they're useful to the party, but they're also the most prone to PC death, from what I've seen. I'm not sure that this is a question to be answered with a game system, it's probably more of a role-playing solution.

-Dan'L

-Dan'L

 

[The Grackle]

It's an immediate interrupt -- can't use it on his turn.

I really am blind.

...but what is the incentive to actually melee?

More options for melee powers? But this goes beyond rogues and stealth and even this edition- ranged attackers always have the advantage of not getting hit as often. The only thing that really keeps it in check is that some of the party have to melee, otherwise the ranged guys get overrun and can't do anything.

It's a messy, undefined blob--and that's why I don't like it. Most of 4E combat is clearly defined, without grey areas. Stealth is not one of those aspects. For a rule that's going to apparently apply to every character trained in Stealth every single round, I don't like it being so loosely defined.

Agreed. It lacks clarity and is spread out all over instead of having one nice section dealing with all things stealthy.

As stated, plenty of people have stated they have no problem with a rogue sneak attacking from range every single turn. I respect their opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that I have huge issues with it being tactically smarter to NOT go backstab people. You know, like rogues used to.

Sure. If it annoys you, change it. Everybody has different tastes and play-styles.