Stealth in Combat

[Sanzuo]

I don't know if I should be happy, sad, or embarrassed that I started this thread.

I'm going to quit resisting the urge to post in it, and dive right back in. Combat advantage is granted for reasons related to stealth either because the target can't see you, or isn't aware of you.

The attack at the start of a combat is obviously because they aren't aware of you, even if you aren't totally out of sight/invisible. What happens in combat after you have been spotted was the original intent of this thread.

The question originally posed is--can I regain combat advantage through stealth in combat? That means that through stealth, I must:

1. Make the target unable to see me.
OR
2. Make the target unaware of me.

There are no clear rules for this, at all. What we KNOW:

A Bluff check makes them lose sight of you for a moment.
Total Concealment makes them lose sight of you.
Superior Cover makes them lose sight of you.
Regular cover/concealment allows you to make stealth checks.

But there is no indication that stealth can make someone no longer see you (or no longer be aware of you) with a stealth check. There is also no indication that stealth will not allow this--so that's the line that divides the two camps, really.

I think we all agree that with Bluff or Total Concealment or Superior Cover, the target can't see you, and you get combat advantage. What's left is these two splits:

1. You can make a stealth check in combat to make yourself unseen by a target if you have cover/concealment, as a (insert) action. (Most agree on Move action, as kissing your good luck charm does not hide you.)

2. You can't make a stealth check in combat to make yourself unseen by a target if you have cover/concealment, you must get out of sight. You may of course use stealth to move back into regular cover/concealment undetected, though.

I'm in camp #2. The split seems to be pretty even between the two. I'm not saying either camp is wrong, only that neither camp can legitimately claim to be right. My latest discoveries in running Keep on the Shadowfell and reading the Monster Manual on the toilet (you know you do, too) is that the Tactics never once mention making a stealth check in combat to gain combat advantage, even though it's often mentioned to make a stealth check before combat to gain combat advantage.

The only mention of gaining combat advantage during a fight is a goblin fight where they are completely out of sight, then can make a stealth check to attack from hiding. I'm still not saying I'm right--I'm just saying that reaffirms the choice of camp I made.

Hey Xorn.

I think it's worth mentioning that so far in my game that I've been running for a few weeks, we've been essentially going by the #1 method you mentioned above. I would have to say it's working pretty well and hasn't really been disruptive. The rogue in the group is still working hard to get a good position on the grid, consistently getting in massive sneak attack damage rolls, but not so much that it feels like he's getting them for free.

However it does seem like the group is steamrolling through the encounters, so I've been working on custom-tailoring them to actually be challenging. We'll see how it goes, but so far so good.

 

[komi]

Unless of course we can model it with a simple formula

If that works for you , go for it. I would be worried that even taking the time to take the difference in stealth and perception would be more work than just rolling. So I would guess that having a flat penalty, or maybe a low and a high penalty (e.g. -2 and -5) would streamline things. But really I haven't tried to run a game with any of this stuff, so I'm only guessing.

With only a small effort, you could find out your rogue's stealth in advance and use your table to write down all the creature's modified passive perceptions. That way during combat you don't have to do any math.

 

[Xorn]

Hey Xorn.

I think it's worth mentioning that so far in my game that I've been running for a few weeks, we've been essentially going by the #1 method you mentioned above. I would have to say it's working pretty well and hasn't really been disruptive. The rogue in the group is still working hard to get a good position on the grid, consistently getting in massive sneak attack damage rolls, but not so much that it feels like he's getting them for free.

However it does seem like the group is steamrolling through the encounters, so I've been working on custom-tailoring them to actually be challenging. We'll see how it goes, but so far so good.

This is probably the best supporting statement I can see for this topic. I feel like every talking point there is has been covered (and I realize that people new to the thread are entitled to get their say in), and it's really boiled down to those two interpretations.

I'd add that running with camp #2, I've had no issues, either--my rogue still achieves sneak attack like crazy, but he needs to get in there and flank to do it most of the time. Now he was playing peek-a-boo with a goblin at one point in KotS, and everytime the goblin lost sight of him he'd stealth for combat advantage and have a readied attack. I really don't think it would break the game if I let him roll stealth to hide with regular cover/concealment, either.

The existing tactics I'm reading don't come across that way, and my rogue player personally doesn't like the idea that any character that starts their turn in cover and plans to attack from range should roll stealth. If they don't, they are passing up a risk-free chance at combat advantage. The idea of the -2 Stealth dwarf hiding behind a crate before hurling a throwing hammer and an oath to Moradin at a goblin just makes my skin crawl.

To quote my rogue player, "I don't like the idea of it being easier to gain combat advantage from range than in melee."

 

[deleteme123456]

If that works for you , go for it. I would be worried that even taking the time to take the difference in stealth and perception would be more work than just rolling. So I would guess that having a flat penalty, or maybe a low and a high penalty (e.g. -2 and -5) would streamline things. But really I haven't tried to run a game with any of this stuff, so I'm only guessing.

With only a small effort, you could find out your rogue's stealth in advance and use your table to write down all the creature's modified passive perceptions. That way during combat you don't have to do any math.

You're right. I looked at it again and came up with this:

-7 or worse: You roll stealth + 2 vs. that PP
-6 to +2: You roll stealth vs. that PP
+3 to +6: You roll stealth -2 vs. that PP
+7 or higher: You roll stealth -4 vs. that PP

The existing tactics I'm reading don't come across that way, and my rogue player personally doesn't like the idea that any character that starts their turn in cover and plans to attack from range should roll stealth. If they don't, they are passing up a risk-free chance at combat advantage. The idea of the -2 Stealth dwarf hiding behind a crate before hurling a throwing hammer and an oath to Moradin at a goblin just makes my skin crawl.

Maybe a penalty for failing your stealth check by 4 or more ... the enemy is not only very clear on where you are busy NOT hiding, but he gets that extra second of warning to gain a +2 (just like combat advantage only backwards) to his defense?

 

[deleteme123456]

Double post

 

[Foxman]

Using Stealth to gain Combat Advantage against Target(s) in Combat

Go through these steps for each Target.

1) Are you carrying a light source?
If YES: Stop, you cannot use Stealth to gain Combat Advantage. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
If NO: Continue to (2).

2) Is the Target aware of you AND able to see you?
If YES: Continue to (3).
If NO: Stop, you have Combat Advantage over the Target. (Combat Advantage: Pg 280 PHB)

3) Do you have Cover OR Concealment vs the Target?
NOTE: Creatures do NOT grant Cover for Stealth checks, only for ranged attacks. (Cover: Pg 280 PHB)
If YES: Continue to (5)
If NO: Continue to (4)

(4) Do you make AND succeed an opposed Bluff vs Insight check vs the Target?
NOTE: You may make an opposed Bluff vs Insight check as a standard action. (Bluff: Pg 183 PHB)
If YES: Continue to (5)
If NO: Stop, you do not have Combat Advantage against the target.

(5) Do you make AND succeed an opposed Stealth vs Perception check vs the Target?
NOTE: You may make an opposed Stealth vs Perception check (apply any modifiers) as part of an action. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
NOTE: You only roll once and use that result. All Targets roll separately vs that number.
NOTE: If you succeed on this check the target is considered to be unaware of you. If you shout or make an attack, the target is considered to be aware of you. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
If YES: Stop, you have Combat Advantage over the Target.
If NO: Stop, you do not have Combat Advantage against the target.


NOTE: This does NOT deal with trying to remain concealed when a creature is searching for you. This only addresses the issue from attackers perspective.

 

[Xorn]

Using Stealth to gain Combat Advantage against Target(s) in Combat

Go through these steps for each Target.

1) Are you carrying a light source?
If YES: Stop, you cannot use Stealth to gain Combat Advantage. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
If NO: Continue to (2).

2) Is the Target aware of you AND able to see you?
If YES: Continue to (3).
If NO: Stop, you have Combat Advantage over the Target. (Combat Advantage: Pg 280 PHB)

3) Do you have Cover OR Concealment vs the Target?
NOTE: Creatures do NOT grant Cover for Stealth checks, only for ranged attacks. (Cover: Pg 280 PHB)
If YES: Continue to (5)
If NO: Continue to (4)

(4) Do you make AND succeed an opposed Bluff vs Insight check vs the Target?
NOTE: You may make an opposed Bluff vs Insight check as a standard action. (Bluff: Pg 183 PHB)
If YES: Continue to (5)
If NO: Stop, you do not have Combat Advantage against the target.

(5) Do you make AND succeed an opposed Stealth vs Perception check vs the Target?
NOTE: You may make an opposed Stealth vs Perception check (apply any modifiers) as part of an action. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
NOTE: You only roll once and use that result. All Targets roll separately vs that number.
NOTE: If you succeed on this check the target is considered to be unaware of you. If you shout or make an attack, the target is considered to be aware of you. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
If YES: Stop, you have Combat Advantage over the Target.
If NO: Stop, you do not have Combat Advantage against the target.


NOTE: This does NOT deal with trying to remain concealed when a creature is searching for you. This only addresses the issue from attackers perspective.

You lost me at 5. (And at 3, that's a lot of dice rolls every round.) Nothing says the target is mysteriously unaware of you.

The text for the success reads, "You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view."

Just as you can read, "unheard and hidden" I can read that the unheard and hidden from view is a result of avoiding notice. And you have already been noticed, so avoiding is out of the picture. You need to escape their notice (bluff, total concealment, superior cover) before you can start avoiding it again. (My opinion, I can't prove my ruling any more or less than you can't prove yours.)

 

[bardolph]

Heh... the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that FEWER rules and FEWER rolls is better.

Wanna snipe for combat advantage? Easy as 1-2-3:

1. Get cover/concealment.
2. Roll Stealth (vs Passive Perception).
3. Make your attack.

Wanna hide? Again, 1-2-3

1. Get cover/concealment.
2. Roll Stealth.
3. Write down the check result.

A creature with Passive Perception higher than the check result automatically sees the character and can target him. A creature whose Passive is less than the check result can use a Minor Action to make a Perception check (DC=Stealth result), and if successful, can target the PC. NOTE: If the creature doesn't care about targeting the hidden PC, don't bother rolling.

That's it. Simple and RAW.

 

[Tonester]

^^ is how I have decided to do it. Having cover/concealment as a ranged class not only makes it harder for your enemies to attack you, but at times, it can make it easier for you to attack them. I think of it this way:

A combat round last a whole 3-6 seconds. There is tons of stuff going on. If you are a ranger ducked behind a crate which grants you cover to a monster, you SHOULD get to roll d20 every attack (from cover) to see if you can pop up from behind the crate and get an attack off with combat advantage without the monster being fully aware of you doing so. And, if you want to move from behind that crate without being noticed, then move and make a stealth check in doing so. If it succeeds, you get to wherever you are going unnoticed/unheard/unseen.

 

[ogre]

Wow, graphs, flow charts, rolls to augment rolls that augment other rolls...
Honestly, take a step back and remember the design philosophy of 4E. Less is more. There's no way I want perception rolls and stealth rolls on every turn of every combat. uhhg.
Xorn, I'm on board with your take. Nice and simple. You need to go out of sight (total cover/concealment/inviso) to get CA from stealth. So, technically if such were around, you could get a SA in everyother round if you went in and out of cover. Sounds about balanced as SA is +2d6 rather than the more reliable 1d6 of curse/quarry.