Stealth in Combat

[Volabit]

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.

You can't hide behind your allies. You gain cover from ONLY ranged attacks at you. And you can't make a hide check on the enemies turn while he is attacking the rogue. Once the attack ends, you no longer have cover against only that ranged attack, and no cover means no stealth. On the rogues turn, nothing is attacking him, so he can't regain cover.

As for Chameleon, its a sweet ability, and its wording lets itself to be very powerful. The trigger in particular is interesting. "You are hidden and lose cover or concealment against an opponent." So this can be triggered if the attacker fires through your friend at you, giving you cover for just that attack, when the attack ends you have lost cover and trigger is off... BUT the first part says you are hidden. So to be hidden in the first place you must have some consitant non-situational cover/concealment. Because for your allies to give you cover, the creature must attack you, and a creature can't atack if they can't see you. If you can't be hidden in the first place, you can't use Chameleons trigger for gaining and losing the cover your friend gave you against only that ranged attack.

 

[Forrester]

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.

You can read the rules that way if you like, but given previously posted conversations with customer support, etc., you're not reading the rules as they were intended to be intepreted. Frankly, this interpretation doesn't merely weaken Stealth, it castrates it.

4E is not about making combat rules tricky -- I doubt they intended to differentiate between 'hidden' and 'unaware', but I can appreciate how and why you'd make that interpretation. However, with this interpretation, I think you need to discuss what exactly 'aware' and 'unaware' mean, and how one goes from one condition to the other.

 

[The Grackle]

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

Nope. Show me some numbers.

At the Heroic Tier, Sneak Attack does an average +3.5 dmg/rnd compared to Hunter's Quarry and Warlock's Curse.

 

[Xorn]

Volabit, I like your reading of cover from your allies. Good interpretation of RAW, and a very strong case for that. Were I to allow Stealth in combat to work as intended, I would most assuredly rule that ally-cover doesn't allow a stealth check on this basis.

Forrester: According the the CSRs (who have made some contradictions in their answers) the one thing they unanimously have agreed on is that you are allowed to use Stealth in combat to gain combat advantage (target can't see you) provided you have cover/concealment (or a successful Bluff).

We know that part is intended, we're having more of a discussion about if this feels overpowered. It does to me, because it makes melee sneak attacks harder to achieve than ranged, for a rogue, which is... well... silly to me.

 

[Forrester]

You can't hide behind your allies. You gain cover from ONLY ranged attacks at you. And you can't make a hide check on the enemies turn while he is attacking the rogue. Once the attack ends, you no longer have cover against only that ranged attack, and no cover means no stealth. On the rogues turn, nothing is attacking him, so he can't regain cover.

Another overly creative interpretation of the rules. Why do you have cover only on your enemy's turn, again? Just because that's the only time he can make a ranged attack? That makes no sense.

The second bullet under the Stealth description is very clear -- "if a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (you lack any cover or concealment) the creature automatically sees you." They would not have said that if he automatically sees you as well with partially blocked line of sight -- which you have when you are standing behind an ally.

Cover isn't something that blinks in and out of existence depending on whose turn it is. Interpreting it so that the only cover that does is cover that works as well against melee attacks as ranged attacks is, frankly, bizarre.

 

[Volabit]

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.

The only difference between invis and stealth is that you DON'T need Cover or Concealment to be invis and stealth-hidden you do. Even the rules on Invis say you have to make a stealth check. Stealth vs Perception isn't just seeing someone, its hearing, noticing footprints, blades of grass moving, dust stiring up. Both invis and hidden use the same stealth check, but invis doesn't require C/C and has a higher DC mod to actually find.

So invis says you automaticly gain CA. And under the CA listing in the book (pg 280) it lists a table of what gives people CA, a lot of stuff, but is says 'Unaware of you. (Page 188)'. Now going to there it's the steath section where the last part of the first paragraph reads "...and sneak up on people without being seen." further down to the star for "Cover or Concealment" it reads "Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check." A success on a stealth check, which can only be made if you have C/C, means they are unaware of you, and furter down on the star "Combat Advantage: you have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you." So if you have C/C and succeed at your stealth check, meaning you ducked behind a tree, around a corner, or in a small creek bed, they arent aware of where you went off to and thus not fully able to defend against an attack from an undetermined direction. Granting CA.

 

[Volabit]

Cover isn't something that blinks in and out of existence depending on whose turn it is. Interpreting it so that the only cover that does is cover that works as well against melee attacks as ranged attacks is, frankly, bizarre.

I agree 100%. My point is that a rogue can't use any form of cover that may or may not appear from allies and ranged attacks. I was pointing out how it doesn't work and shouldn't be a concern for stealth checks. The cover from allies is perhaps only a mechanic used to represent how hard it is to shoot through another baddies space to get to the target behind more then a rogues reason to hide. Clearly you can see that person behind them, nothing changes that, I think its just there to make the attack harder.

 

[deleteme123456]

As much as I agree that Stealth is overpowered if allowed to be abused, I'm not sure that it's really a huge issue that it's harder to sneak attack from range... I mean, if you have to tiptoe up to someone and stab them in the back, isn't that a lot harder than just sniping them from the bushes? Whether that by itself is overpowered is certainly worth discussing, but from a FLAVOR perspective, it seems appropriate.

 

[Forrester]

Nope. Show me some numbers.

At the Heroic Tier, Sneak Attack does an average +3.5 dmg/rnd compared to Hunter's Quarry and Warlock's Curse.

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.

 

[Otterscrubber]

You can read the rules that way if you like, but given previously posted conversations with customer support, etc., you're not reading the rules as they were intended to be intepreted. Frankly, this interpretation doesn't merely weaken Stealth, it castrates it.

4E is not about making combat rules tricky -- I doubt they intended to differentiate between 'hidden' and 'unaware', but I can appreciate how and why you'd make that interpretation. However, with this interpretation, I think you need to discuss what exactly 'aware' and 'unaware' mean, and how one goes from one condition to the other.

I don't think stealth was intended to be interpreted as permanent invisibility, do you? This does not castrate stealth, as this is not what stealth was meant for, unless you are a rogue who thinks the only purpose of stealth is to grant you combat advantage every single round of your existence. Stealth will be used to be, you know stealthy when it is needed. Grant you a surprise round in combat if you're smart, sneak somewhere to find out a vital piece of intel, escape or get something useful. In my current group we have 4 out of 5 stealthers and we use it all the time to great advantage(but not necessarily combat advantage haha), but never have we expected/interpreted it to grant combat advantage in the middle of an ongoing fight with opponents who are already aware that they are under attack.