Stealth in Combat

[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.