Stealth in Combat

[Forrester]

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.

You can say that as often as you want, but according to the rules, Stealth doesn't work the way you would like it to. There's nothing in the rules that says a rogue can't use cover given to him from allies when hiding. If he can hide behind a small tree, he can hide behind his fat-ass dwarf buddy. Whether this is broken (probably) is another question -- I have no problem with errata or house rules on the issue, but I do have a problem with saying that *by the rules as written* the rogue can't use allies for cover.

Why wouldn't your interpretation invalidate the rogue hiding behind a tree? After all, the tree doesn't give him cover on his turn, he's not being attacked.

 

[Otterscrubber]

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.

That's a big negative Ghost-Rider. If you make a successful stealth roll you are hidden, not invisible. If you have attacked an opponent they are aware of you, i.e. their guard is up and they are ready for combat. Creatures in combat are considered to be aware of their surroundings in all directions and as soon as you attack you are not hidden, i.e. they are aware of you and see you coming at them or attacking them and you do not have combat advantage. This is how is is read in the rules, this is how it makes sense via common sense. If you are a rogue desperately trying to get combat advantage every round when you don't deserve it I can see how you might see otherwise and I won't be able to change your mind. But personally this just looks like a cheap attempt at getting perma-invisibility benefits when they are clearly not deserved via the RAW or the RAI.

 

[Volabit]

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.

I am confused, where does that extra d6 come from? The only goblin I see that gains the d6 bonus damage is the Goblin Blackblade and the Sharpshooter. I didn't see any other of the Goblin subtypes with it. So thats more a class specfic bonus d6 then a racial d6, could you clearify how a Gobby rogue gains that d6?

 

[Forrester]

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.

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.)

 

[Forrester]

I am confused, where does that extra d6 come from? The only goblin I see that gains the d6 bonus damage is the Goblin Blackblade and the Sharpshooter. I didn't see any other of the Goblin subtypes with it. So thats more a class specfic bonus d6 then a racial d6, could you clearify how a Gobby rogue gains that d6?

??

2d8 from sneak attack, d6 for the shuriken.

 

[Forrester]

Creatures in combat are considered to be aware of their surroundings in all directions and as soon as you attack you are not hidden, i.e. they are aware of you and see you coming at them or attacking them and you do not have combat advantage. This is how is is read in the rules, this is how it makes sense via common sense.

I'm not going to argue the common-sense bit, but you're wrong about the rules. Under 'distracted' in Stealth it's very clear that they are aware of their surroundings in all directions and will see you IF YOU HAVE NO COVER OR CONCEALMENT.

EDIT -- I think we're talking past each other at this point. I see nothing in the rules that explicitly differentiates between being hidden from a creature and the creature being unaware of your position, and there's a whole lot of stuff written up under Stealth which is very, very lame if being hidden doesn't have any combat advantages. Not to mention a pile of rogue Utilities.

Under the rules as written, to me it seems as though they intended 'he's unaware' and 'you're hidden from him' as the same.

Under your interpretation where it doesn't matter if you are hidden -- anywhere -- that is, if the enemy knows you're out there and your general direction, you don't get CA -- the ranged rogue goes from sneak attacking 95% of the time to doing it 10% of the time, which I find silly.

 

[Volabit]

You can say that as often as you want, but according to the rules, Stealth doesn't work the way you would like it to. There's nothing in the rules that says a rogue can't use cover given to him from allies when hiding. If he can hide behind a small tree, he can hide behind his fat-ass dwarf buddy. Whether this is broken (probably) is another question -- I have no problem with errata or house rules on the issue, but I do have a problem with saying that *by the rules as written* the rogue can't use allies for cover.

Why wouldn't your interpretation invalidate the rogue hiding behind a tree? After all, the tree doesn't give him cover on his turn, he's not being attacked.

Because I will type this word for word on page 280 "Creatures and Cover: 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." Ok lets take creature Y, he has reach and a Bow. Rogue, Ally, Y are in a line. RAY, if he attacks wit his bow, he has cover just for that attack, "when you make a ranged attack" so he says, damn I dont want make a ranged attack, Maybe I should try to for reach, or not attack at all, as to not trigger the statement "WHEN you make a ranged attack.." as the paragraph clearly states. Simple if/then statement.

 

[Volabit]

That's a big negative Ghost-Rider. If you make a successful stealth roll you are hidden, not invisible. If you have attacked an opponent they are aware of you, i.e. their guard is up and they are ready for combat. Creatures in combat are considered to be aware of their surroundings in all directions and as soon as you attack you are not hidden, i.e. they are aware of you and see you coming at them or attacking them and you do not have combat advantage. This is how is is read in the rules, this is how it makes sense via common sense. If you are a rogue desperately trying to get combat advantage every round when you don't deserve it I can see how you might see otherwise and I won't be able to change your mind. But personally this just looks like a cheap attempt at getting perma-invisibility benefits when they are clearly not deserved via the RAW or the RAI.

Correct you lose CA if you attack, and you have to make an action after to regain stealth, when you have C/C. Please read post 55, official WotC made that same statement, you are seen after you attack and lose your CA. But if you are in Cover/Conceal you can make a move action stealthly to regain it. Making a Stealth chech while you have C/C represents your ability to lose them, hide from then, duck out of sight for a moment, get lost on the crowd.

 

[Volabit]

I'm not going to argue the common-sense bit, but you're wrong about the rules. Under 'distracted' in Stealth it's very clear that they are aware of their surroundings in all directions and will see you IF YOU HAVE NO COVER OR CONCEALMENT.

Exactly, and thanks for the clearing up that other d6 earlier.

 

[Forrester]

Because I will type this word for word on page 280 "Creatures and Cover: 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." Ok lets take creature Y, he has reach and a Bow. Rogue, Ally, Y are in a line. RAY, if he attacks wit his bow, he has cover just for that attack, "when you make a ranged attack" so he says, damn I dont want make a ranged attack, Maybe I should try to for reach, or not attack at all, as to not trigger the statement "WHEN you make a ranged attack.." as the paragraph clearly states. Simple if/then statement.

Not as goofily creative as Otter is being, but I still don't buy it! I prefer to simply go by the very definitive "defining cover" bullet where you get to draw a bunch of fun lines. That's the definitive directly-to-the-point text.

"If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover." That's all we need to know.