Stealth in Combat

[the_redbeard]

That sounds logical, but do you have rules support for it? Stealth mentions the term hide and hidden a lot, but it doesn't mention sneaking from what I recall.

Page 188. Success: you avoid notice, UNHEARD and hidden from view.

Also in the fluff description of the skill:
"slink past guards, slip away without being noticed and sneak up on people without being seen or heard."

 

[the_redbeard]

The more I review the rules on this, the more I think that Stealth isn't about being seen, but about awareness - that is, Stealth can make your opponent unaware of you if your DM deems the check permissible (skills overview), but it can't make you invisible (because it doesn't say so).

Notice that the Combat Advantage list differentiates between "unable to see" and "unaware," as separate entries.

Mechanically it might not make a difference.

Either way: You don't know where they are.

If you knew they were out there, you don't forget that they are out there - but you're not sure where.


I think a lot of the confusion is due to the list of different items for success and the lack of precise definition of them.

I think the success status has a list because stealth can mean different things in different situations.


The stealth success: avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view.

I've always read "hidden from view" as unseen.
Others read it as ... well, I don't understand how people read "hidden from view" as still being seen, but not perceived. This is not a jedi mind trick skill.

Avoid notice certainly means to not be perceived.

Examples of -
Hidden from view:
If you're stealthing in shadows: you slip into the shadows and you are indistinguishable from the darkness. You're unseen.

Unheard:
If you're trying to walk silently past a sleeping guard: you step quietly.

Avoid Notice:
If you're trying to melt into a crowd: the guards looking for someone of your description in the crowd can't find you amongst the sea of faces.

Those are all uses of the stealth skill but each fits different aspects of the success status.

 

[the_redbeard]

The rules for Combat Advantage (which is what I started talking about to begin with) direct you to read Stealth on 188 for "is the target aware of you" and Concealment on 281 for "can the target see you". Quote every interpretation of the stealth mechanics--and that's all they are (interpretations)--but you can't show me the hard rule that makes you right and me wrong. I can't show you anything that makes me right and you wrong--the difference is I'm not claiming to have found that.

I'm quoting why I interpret what I have--you're telling me I'm wrong. I'm actually tired of reading the exact same points that don't acknowledge anything I've mentioned about every demonstrated suggestion for how to use stealth in combat in Tactics sections throughout the Monster Manual, Kobold Hall, Keep on the Shadowfell, and Heathen. In every single case, they support what I suggested, and not once do they support what you're suggesting.

But I won't tell you you're wrong. I'll just say I have enough reason to think I'm right that I don't need your approval to feel okay about it.

Ok.

Find the error in logic in this examination of the requirements for stealth. If you think this interpretation is incorrect, please point out exactly where it breaks for you.

Looking on page 188, I see that there are two conditions to attempt a stealth check:
1. cover/concealment
2. distraction (but NOT concealment)

Distraction is throwing your observer's attention away from you.

Distraction is NOT a requirement for stealthing with cover/concealment.

Ergo: your observer can have his/her attention on you but you can still stealth if you have cover/concealment.


If you always needed to have a distraction in order to stealth (ie, even in cover) I would also think that you couldn't attempt stealth if the target was aware of you.

 

[ryryguy]

My final interpretation (restated in the simplest form) is:
Stealth grants combat advantage in combat by preventing awareness.
Total Concealment grants combat advantage in combat by preventing visibility (as does Superior Cover).

I've pointed out repeatedly that the only time any published material mentions gaining combat advantage through stealth in combat requires Total Concealment or Superior Cover. No one wants to address that talking point (that disagrees with it), and that's fine, but that's why I'm more convinced by my interpretation than anything else I'm seeing.

Ok, so when a rogue, in combat against enemies who are aware of him, makes a successful Stealth check using only simple concealment or cover, you're saying he does not "break awareness", and doesn't gain combat advantage.

What benefit does he gain, then? Absolutely nothing?

If so, that makes the Stealth rules, which unambiguously state that you can use simple concealment/cover pretty strange. (Which of course doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong! )

Xorn, you're basing your interpretation very carefully on the rules. There's one part of your argument, however that does not seem to come directly out of the rules (unless I missed it): that once a character is aware of another character during combat, he cannot lose that awareness unless the other character becomes unseen. I can't deny there's a certain common sense logic to that contention, but is it in the rules?

 

[Xorn]

Ok, so when a rogue, in combat against enemies who are aware of him, makes a successful Stealth check using only simple concealment or cover, you're saying he does not "break awareness", and doesn't gain combat advantage.

What benefit does he gain, then? Absolutely nothing?

If so, that makes the Stealth rules, which unambiguously state that you can use simple concealment/cover pretty strange. (Which of course doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong! )

Xorn, you're basing your interpretation very carefully on the rules. There's one part of your argument, however that does not seem to come directly out of the rules (unless I missed it): that once a character is aware of another character during combat, he cannot lose that awareness unless the other character becomes unseen. I can't deny there's a certain common sense logic to that contention, but is it in the rules?

For me it's in the rules: A success on stealth AVOIDS notice--it doesn't erase it. If you've already been spotted, tough. The tactics I'm reading throughout all the published material (read Heathen, man it's full of examples) support the notion that Stealth will not give combat advantage once you've been spotted.

the_redbeard:
What I keep saying, and I'll ask you to pay special attention this next part, is:

I'm not saying you are incorrect in your interpretation. I'm saying that neither one of us can really be sure. I find the whole picture seems to be more supported (TO ME) in what I'm interpreting now. I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just asking you to stop saying I'M wrong. We're both interpreting the unclear rules, here.

I keep mentioning all these examples where the tactics sections tell you how the monsters will use stealth, and not one time have they mentioned using stealth to gain combat advantage without getting completely out of sight first.

One description even reads--these tables can be tipped over with a DC 15 Strength check. After that a small creature has superior cover if they are prone behind the table. They may make a stealth check to attack with combat advantage.

I mean, . That's pretty supportive of my idea.

But I'm NOT saying you're wrong to choose camp #1.

 

[ryryguy]

For me it's in the rules: A success on stealth AVOIDS notice--it doesn't erase it. If you've already been spotted, tough.

That's putting a pretty fine point on things... where is "notice" equivalent to "awareness"? All the other stuff you've been quoting is talking about awareness. (I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I think the rest of your argument is pretty well supported, but this seems to me to be its weakest point, is all.)

Also, just to clarify - in your interpretation Stealth does absolutely nothing in the "already aware, simple cover/concealment" case? Is that correct?

 

[clearstream]

First that was to point out how arbitrary the house rule of needing total concealment to use steatlh in combat is.

Ah. In that case I may have misunderstood you because I have not been proposing making the RAW on PHB178 more consistent for your players WRT stealth by recording a ruling of 'needing total concealment'. We have a mutual misunderstanding there.

What I have been proposing as a means to make the RAW on PHB178 more consistent for your players, taking into account that Cover or Concealment have been clarified by CSR to not mean that a stealth check must be granted, is that once your enemies are aware of you, then in order to regain hiding you have to do something other than just stay put and rub your rabbits foot.

That something is to get into a new position unobserved or find a way to make them think you aren't still where you were. I think this is the house rule you are objecting to. I've also made it clear that a Bluff, or a distraction, would work equally well, and elsewhere I posted the example you give using Teleport. Teleport can get you to a position literally unobserved, such as your example of a position behind your enemies, since you do not pass through the intervening squares.

Is it just the defensive stacking you're opposed to, I can understand to a degree, but not the CA part. If an assassin cannot gain advantage when in the shadows, (making the appropriate rolls) it's just not a rogue worth playing.

Can you give an example of when you think the rules lead to something absurd as justification? I'm genuinely curious. Is your issue with cover stacking with concealment (is that even the case?)

I have no issue with cover or concealment. The RAW is clear. Having cover or concealment alone is not necessarily sufficient to be granted a stealth check. I feel an abundance of other RAW is highly suggestive that you need to do something cunning to get there unobserved. Why would you need Shadow Stride at all, if you can simply move from one hidden position, across clear enemy lines of sight, and into any cover and regain stealth?

As you say, it is the defensive stacking that I mind. CA? Rogues should have it nearly every turn. I also mind something that others don't seem to, which is granting lots of crummy dice rolls to players who aren't rogues and might not even have stealth trained. Some feel their players will just go along with them and ignore the risk free roll for a fantastic defensive advantage. They feel it's okay that, that can spin of several more rolls per turn as enemies have to take minor actions to respot them.

So if all you want is Assassins to get CA--which we agree on--this is one heck of a painful way to grant it. Unless you say that stealth doesn't do anything more than give CA... which I can't see being very intuitive in terms of understanding the RAW.

-vk

 

[the_redbeard]

Ah. In that case I may have misunderstood you because I have not been proposing making the RAW on PHB178 more consistent for your players WRT stealth by recording a ruling of 'needing total concealment'. We have a mutual misunderstanding there.

What I have been proposing as a means to make the RAW on PHB178 more consistent for your players, taking into account that Cover or Concealment have been clarified by CSR to not mean that a stealth check must be granted

If I say, "mother may I", can I stealth?

honestly - obviously there will always be extenuating circumstances. But baring a good reason, if I had concealment, I'd expect to be able to try to stealth.

 

[clearstream]

If I say, "mother may I", can I stealth?

honestly - obviously there will always be extenuating circumstances. But baring a good reason, if I had concealment, I'd expect to be able to try to stealth.

Heh. That is a flippant way of raising the valid objection that rulings arising from the RAW on PHB178 might vary from DM to DM. However, they won't vary at my table.

You will know that if you have a power that grants a check, or if you or your allies somehow create a distraction, or if you use Bluff, or if you use Teleport, or if you do pretty much anything reasonable that gets you into cover or concealment in a way that breaks enemy observation of you, then I'll grant you a check.

If you can't be bothered doing any of those things, then no, whining for your mummy won't help you

-vk

 

[the_redbeard]

For me it's in the rules: A success on stealth AVOIDS notice--it doesn't erase it. If you've already been spotted, tough. The tactics I'm reading throughout all the published material (read Heathen, man it's full of examples) support the notion that Stealth will not give combat advantage once you've been spotted.

the_redbeard:
What I keep saying, and I'll ask you to pay special attention this next part, is:

I'm not saying you are incorrect in your interpretation. I'm saying that neither one of us can really be sure. I find the whole picture seems to be more supported (TO ME) in what I'm interpreting now. I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just asking you to stop saying I'M wrong. We're both interpreting the unclear rules, here.

I keep mentioning all these examples where the tactics sections tell you how the monsters will use stealth, and not one time have they mentioned using stealth to gain combat advantage without getting completely out of sight first.

One description even reads--these tables can be tipped over with a DC 15 Strength check. After that a small creature has superior cover if they are prone behind the table. They may make a stealth check to attack with combat advantage.

I mean, . That's pretty supportive of my idea.

But I'm NOT saying you're wrong to choose camp #1.

LOL.
Mighty big of you to be so generous and not even try to find what was wrong in my LITERAL approach.

Awareness/Notice/Hide
You can be aware that someone is around without knowing where they are.
Check out the 'targeting what you can't see' rules for explicit demonstration. Know that they are out there - but not where.

Awareness as prohibitive for stealth and/or combat awareness:
IF awareness prohibited stealth, why isn't it listed as prohibitive or for unawareness as a requirement?
Concealment specifically is a condition where the perceiver can SEE the STEALTHER... yet this allows stealth.
IF awareness prohibited combat advantage, why is only unawareness listed as one of many different conditions granting combat advantage?
Do you have answers to those questions?
Or are you going to just avoid the issue again?


Your supporting secondary info, re: Total concealment:
Total concealment penalizes the perception check by 10 (!) making it very effective for even poor stealthers.
It's a great tactic if you can get it - +10! I'll have to remember it. As it is advisable no matter our interpretation, I don't think it is necessarily supporting either side.

Here's something:
Gnome Arcanist power:
Aura of Illusion (Illusion) aura 5; the gnome arcanist and all allies
in the aura gain concealment and can hide in the aura.

Yes, it does mention that is uses the Aura until ready to attack (which I'm sure you'll take as supporting your argument.) Why not after? Because it is a choice: grant my allies a chance for combat advantage, or attack.
And again, no limit on when this can be used. In the power description, it is straight: concealment->hide, no mention of when it can be used. Sounds like my interpretation.

Here's Mike Mearls again:

One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big picture changes in 4e was to move stealth and hiding from spells to skills. In other words, the rogue or ranger are the best PCs for hiding, not the wizard with an invisibility spell.

The spell is still useful, but it is now much more limited and harder to use over and over again.

With that in mind, when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill. If a rogue wants to run from a hiding point, across a room full of monsters, and then hide again in a different cover position, that's OK. I've run it such that on a successful check, the creatures don't notice the rogue's movement, and it has worked out fine (my ruling being that since the player wanted to move stealthily, he was unnoticed while moving).

The interesting thing to me is that it makes creatures with high passive Perception scores valuable in encounters. I've been playing around with monster designs the promote a sort of "order of operations" for adventurers - take out this guy first, then this guy next - and high perception guys are an area I'm messing around with as "first step targets" to clear out space for the stealthy characters.

Why, why would it be important to take out the high perception monsters? Because later in the combat, it will be easier to stealth! The monsters will surely know you are there, combat has started, but stealth is still a good thing - an important tactic - to use.

No reason to take out the high perception monsters after a combat has started otherwise.