Stealth in Combat

[cdrcjsn]

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 rules are extremely clear. You don't use their passive perceptions during combat.

Stealth is specified as an Opposed Role.

That has specific meaning with regards to skills.

 

[BWS]

The rules are extremely clear. You don't use their passive perceptions during combat.

PHB p.281, "Targeting What You Can't See," disagrees with you. "Opposed" doesn't mean that both parties actually need to roll.

 

[Arbitrary]

It does kinda say that under the definition of "opposed" though.

 

[Xorn]

I'm in agreement with The Grackle actually, I think passive perception is the intention in the rules. (One of the viewpoints I've changed on.) Just to avoid a stupid amount of dice rolling, if anything.

And just to be clear, I use the phrase Stealth As Intended™ to mean, "WotC intended for stealth to be usable during combat to grant combat advantage." When I spoke to a CSR on the phone, he put me on hold and went to ask a rules guy. While they give varying answers on the minutia of the check, they all consistently stated that it's intended to grant combat advantage, and only requires normal cover/concealment, or a successful bluff. It's just a lot quicker to type Stealth As Intended™, and funnier, in my opinion. Speaking of funny, I give you:

The Bleu RAWja
Halfling Rogue (1)
STR 11 | CON 10 | DEX 20 | INT 8 | WIS 10 | CHA 16
AC 17 (19 vs OA) | FORT 10 | REF 17 | WILL 13
Backstabber (+2d8 sneak attack)
Stealth +12
Sly Flourish +8 vs AC (shuriken) 1d6+8
Equipment: Leather armor, a dagger, and so many shurikens... well... too many.
Hell. Yes. This is my Stealth As Intended™ rogue. He wears an red velvet cape and a jeweled turban with a feather.

 

[The Grackle]

Personally, I take any CSA response with a heavy dosage of salt.

Yeah, those guys sometimes give bunk answers. I prefer getting lots of opinions off ENWorld then deciding for myself.

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.

Something can have concealment or cover and still be in your line of sight. (page 273, example of goblin in light fog) Allies grant cover, "blocking" line of sight-- blocking meaning interfering w/LOS not totally eliminating it; they can still see you. Cover let's you make a stealth check to hide. If you lose cover/conceal, the LOS becomes unblocked, you are no longer hidden, and the creature automatically sees you. If you have total concealment or superior cover, the creature can't see you. I assume that hidden/total concealment/unseen/No LOS are all the same thing.

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

What's cool is a rogue can do both. Mix it up in melee and then if he gets hurt, fall back and use ranged attacks. A ranger really has either a melee/STR build or a DEX/ranged build. I think the rogue's versatility is a better argument for it's superiority to a ranger/warlock.

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?

Ummm? Somebody's gotta do it?

 

[cdrcjsn]

PHB p.281, "Targeting What You Can't See," disagrees with you. "Opposed" doesn't mean that both parties actually need to roll.

That's dealing with invisible opponents or creatures with full concealment/cover.

During combat, if you want to hide and use Stealth in preparation for an attack, it's an opposed roll. It's part of the Stealth check description. In fact, it's the very first bullet point under the mechanics of stealth.

 

[Sanzuo]

During combat, if you want to hide and use Stealth in preparation for an attack, it's an opposed roll. It's part of the Stealth check description. In fact, it's the very first bullet point under the mechanics of stealth.

I agree with this. At least I think it's RAI™.

 

[The Grackle]

It does kinda say that under the definition of "opposed" though.

Yeah, it's confusing. The "Opposed Checks" section describes two active checks: d20+mods vs d20+mods.

But then under Passive checks it says:
"When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill." so unless you spend a standard action to look, your perception check is 10+mods vs the stealth-ers d20+mods.

***
What's weird is that it takes a standard action to look around for a hidden rogue(186), but only a minor action to guess his direction and square(281).

***
Also, Wizards will be great against stealthing opponents, b/c they can drop light (minor action) into dimly lit areas where rogues might be hiding in the shadows, and their AOE attacks ignore concealment.

 

[Arbitrary]

There are constant contradictions. It's honestly frustrating.

 

[Sanzuo]

I imagine before too long there will be an official announcement from Wizards regarding this, there will be a "well that settles that" moment and we will all be laughing about this.

Right?