Stealth - Streamlined PEACH

[MarkB]

Yes. Take a look in that thread Yume posted. You'll see in the third CSR a recommendation you could use minor actions. That's responding to a proposal in that direction by the question poster, but what is being addressed is the issue with throwing in Stealth off numerous actions.

That doesn't really answer my question. I'm not looking for CSR recommendations about whether Stealth should be a minor action, I'm simply looking for examples of when doing so would be superior to having Stealth kick in at the end of another action.

The thread does look interesting, and I'm sure I'll plow through it at some point, but in the meantime a few concrete examples would go a lot further.

I mean, no one thinks Stealth should be used off a Free action by now, right? Using Stealth off a Move action is in some cases fine, and other cases broken, save for power use that explicitly does that. Using Stealth off a minor never breaks, it really is that simple.

-vk

If that's true, then it's an option worth exploring. I just don't think you've yet proven that it's true.

EDIT:

What does "PEACH" mean?

It stands for "Please Examine And Critique Honestly".

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

You're putting words into his mouth. The sense I got from his post was more along the lines that, having both played and DMed rogues, he has plenty of experience to bring to the discussion. Attempting to use that as grounds for implying that his opinion is biased is not going to win you any points.

My points are valid. He can't dispute them factually, much as he can't dispute anyone else's factual criticisms of his post.

He has to put words in my mouth and mischaracterize my background to make me appear to be over-emotional in regard to what we're discussing.

Then he's throwing in the "fear" and "threatening" oblique ad hominim attacks (to supplement his earlier attempt at ridicule).

Add a little dig with "Some players like being challenged. YMMV." A typical response from the abusive DM, like people that abuse their workers and co-workers by describing valid criticisms and complaints as whining in public to stifle dissent.

Then he finishes with corner-case hyberbole.

It's textbook technique for toxic workplace communication. Attack a person in a "professional" manner to avoid inconvenient facts and push through your agenda. It's something that a lot of the pre-release 4e fans (particularly those that liked the game because it looked like it was so limited from a player's perspective) engaged in, down to playing the victim. Oh, and let's not forget this:

When she doesn't, that's because I've set up the situation to make a special challenge for her and some fun for the other party members. Why would you then sabotage that? You see what I mean?

He wraps his stuff up as being player (customer) focused to insulate it from criticism (you aren't player/customer focused if you disagree). And of course if you disagree, you're also 'sabotaging' the "fun for the other party members" (i.e. you're not a team player).

It isn't surprising that this kind of stuff is popping up post-release now that it is obvious that the game is not the leash to drag gimps around through "adventures" that it at times looked to be in previews.

 

[the_redbeard]

My reasoning for minor is much as you have it 'you need to end the action in a stealth-able condition'. Since you aren't hidden unless you first hide,

No. If you END in a stealthable condition, to me it is reasonable to stealth (assuming the action isn't a stealth breaking condition.) So moving to a stealthable condition seem to me to be fine.

Ranged attack > want to move through c/c hidden > hide > move. Stealth had to be with a minor. The mechanical reason is that Stealth must be fed #squares moved before it knows what penalty, if any, to apply; but the user desires that no squares be moved unhidden. Since Stealth must pend its hide determination to the end of a move action, the user must hide prior to moving, or we get into retroactive state rewrites and/or some wording on PHB188 becomes meaningless.]

You're making things more complicated than they have to be. You say "Stealth must pend its hide determination to the end of the move action" and I agree. The end of that move action is when the stealth roll is made.

It makes sense. You use the move to hide behind cover.
Why complicate it more than that?

Deft strike > need to get back to c/c > move > hide. Stealth had to be with a minor. Stealth must consider the entire action when making its hide determination at the end of that action. That's how it takes into account #squares moved, for example. The whole move action can't qualify for Stealth use, since part of it falls outside c/c, or we get into deciding some words on PHB188 have no meaning... always a possibility

I don't know which words you are referring.
You make the attack. You move to return to a stealthable condition. What matters is the end result of your move: the end location and the distance moved. If you moved more than 2 squares, you have a -5 to your roll. At the end of your move, you make your stealth roll.
What is complicated?

Attack > still in c/c > don't want to move > hide. It makes zero difference if you Stealth with a minor or move, as move trades down to minor.

Agreed.
The attack broke stealth, so it can't be used to stealth. Another action is then required to stealth. Minor or move is equivalent if you are staying in the same place.
BUT if you want to move to another square that is in cover/concealment, you are forcing an extra complication with the minor move.

In c/c not hidden > want to move through c/c hidden > hide > move. It makes zero difference if you Stealth with a minor or standard, as standard trades down to minor.

Yes it does make a difference. You are robbing the character of an action with your complication.
In c/c not hidden, want to move through c/c hidden, move, make stealth roll with or without the -5 penalty at the end of your move.

In c/c hidden > want to move through c/c hidden > move. No Stealth use required, you're already hidden.

I think if you moved more than 2 squares (thus getting a -5), the DM may be within her rights to call for an additional check (unless the character had the power/feat to eliminate the penalty for moving more than 2 squares.)

The stealth rules as written require stealth checks for any action performed stealthily, but I agree that requiring one every round when conditions don't change is excessive. However, I think a changing condition would merit a new check. (This would be where I agree with your pro-forma DM permission/requirement for a skill check.)

I would agree that would be my interpretation as picking and choosing the "whatever action you trying to perform stealthily" from 188.

In open > want to move to c/c > move > hide > attack. Stealth had to be with a minor.

That's an inefficient tactic for a stealther, only getting combat advantage and none of the defensive bonuses of stealth.
Again, I think the move action, if ending in cover/concealment, meets the requisites for stealth.

You move into hiding. Your target loses sight of you if you are successful. You attack. Your turn ends with you in cover/concealment, but not stealthed.

Diversion in open and hide > move to c/c hidden. This is done with a power or skill (Bluff) other than Stealth that grants a check. No minor needed.

Page 188 says:
"Distracted Creature: If a creature is distracted, you
can attempt to hide from that creature even when
you don’t have cover or concealment."

I think the distraction is a round by round substitute for cover/concealment from that wording.
The distraction (which could be another character's action) is not the stealth check. The move action - to move quietly - is the stealth check, and is at -5 if the move is over 2 squares.
Imagine: character Face is talking with guards, keeping their attention on him. Character Face makes bluff check versus the guard's passive insight.
If successful, Character Face has their attention while Character Sneaky moves behind the guards.

(Interesting is that stealth says distractions can only be used outside combat, while the bluff skill says diversions are 1/combat encounter. Sigh. Who didn't check these things for consistency? Note: yes, I think diversion = distraction.)

Spotted! > want to move to new c/c > Fleeting Ghost and hide. This is done with a power or skill (Bluff) other than Stealth that grants a check. No minor needed.

And so on...

And so on with me as well. The move action to new cover/concealment can be done stealthily. Where can you find wording that it isn't?
"Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily."

There are cases conjurable where it makes a difference: sometimes a Ranger will be trying to get in a Hunter's Quarry, or a Rogue will want to use a power that costs a minor. However, the RAW does very often lead to Stealth being either free with a power or skill other than Stealth that grants it, or with a minor or action trading down to a minor.

Please quote that RAW. I see "Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily." No RAW for an additional action - it is PART of an action. Intuitively, people move to hide behind themselves behind cover. Stealth can be PART of a move action.

Is it a good rule, that's what I'm asking you

No.

'If the rules do something, they shouldn't try to hide it.' What I found the TWYCS rules were doing, once we backed away from the 10 points over condition for targets not hidden by something on top of Stealth, was making me as DM try and pick squares in a fair way. Players whine when you guess their square, since they feel you might be using information their enemies don't have (of couse, you're trying not to) so I was erring on the side of picking the wrong square. Then I resorted to weighted dice. Finally, I looked at the odds, thought about the hassle I was having picking squares and assigning odds, and looked for something to produce as close as possible to the same outcome. Displacement fit the bill.

So Displacement arose as a direct implementation of the intent of the rules. The DM needs to fairly pick a square, resulting in a %age chance the hider won't be in the square aimed at. With Displacement, if the second roll misses, that's what is considered to have happened. It's consistent, and hassle free.

My question to you would be, what other methods have people found for fairly picking squares?

-vk

It depends on the situation and requires - like what most of the game assumes - that the players trust the DM and that the DM doesn't abuse this trust.

Is the attacker intelligent?
Is there only one square with cover/concealment?
Is there a square that the stealthed target might be moving toward (like an exit, better cover, a fallen comrade, etc)?
Where was the stealther last seen?
Where were they moving to? (A crafty stealther will switch directions after hiding, a crafty attacker might target where they think the stealther's objective really is)

Those are the questions that I as a DM would consider. I would provide the players with an explanation of the attackers actions. If they object, it depends on if it is a reasonable objection or just a whine. Either way, we don't let it slow down the game (that's the worst outcome.)

The whole game is based on the players trusting the DM. Everything from basic encounter planning, treasure placement, the direction of the campaign itself. They trust us to not move traps to locations where they don't look or fail their perception rolls. We don't abuse that trust or they get someone else to DM.

If Displacement is required in your table, I'm sorry that it comes to that but glad if it works. I'd prefer to reason it out, and I'd expect that from an RPGA DM.

 

[clearstream]

The thread does look interesting, and I'm sure I'll plow through it at some point, but in the meantime a few concrete examples would go a lot further.

Here's an example of a problematical case for granting hide checks off move actions.

Rogue attacks and then wants to move six squares, passing adjacent to an enemy on square three and provoking an OA, and then to an enemy Fighter on square five, also provoking an OA. Squares one, two, three, and four are in cover. Square five is in open. Square six is in cover.

If the Fighter's OA hits the Rogue, then the Rogue stops moving in an open square and can't hide. If the Fighter's OA misses, Rogue continues on to cover and can hide. The question to be answered is what state Rogue is in when passing that first enemy, since if that state is hidden then that enemy's basic melee attack will need to follow special rules.

One would have to rule that hiding doesn't span the entire move action, and that hiding occurs only at the very instant the move action ends.

Let's say you rule that way. Now Rogue attacks then wants to move six squares through c/c. Again there are enemies adjacent to squares three and five. Now here's a problem. Rogue isn't hidden until square six! So despite Rogue wanting to be hidden for their whole move action made through qualifying squares, that isn't possible because we've ruled hiding with a move action does not span that move action.

Or let's say square five does have c/c, and while Rogue intended to move six squares, they stopped short due to the Fighter's OA. Do we let them hide with their move action, since it was intended to have that use and they are now at the (unexpected) end of the action? I'd have to say no.

Finally, a similar situation, but Rogue needs to move hidden through five squares to a sixth square that is in open. Again, a move action is no good given our ruling, since that magical last square doesn't qualify for hiding.

Each problem guides me toward feeling that the intent is not quite being grasped correctly, and I find counter-intuitive the ruling that even though you can hide with a move action, an entire move through c/c wouldn't be hidden. Only the final square.

Making hiding a minor solves this, and related problems. Completely. And to make explicit something we've tacitly acknowledged, everyone has already assumed the intent of the first line of the Stealth block is not what it literally says. No one I know of has yet come forth and stated they let Rogues hide off Free actions. Redbeard that is my answer re: your point about the RAW.

Everyone is hunting for the intent. I feel that 'hide using a minor action, or a power or skill other than Stealth that explicitly grants a check' makes a good stab at it.

-vk

 

[phmas]

Hi, first post here . Sorry about my english, not a native speaker here...

First, I would like to say that i DM for my group and we really like to play by the official rules, as much as possible. Second, that I know 4e needs some abstractions for the rules to work, and so far i had not one problem with that, until I saw the Stealth rules and started to regularly read the discussion threads about it here in ENWorld.

My first complain it's about how I find absurd the actual rules about Stealth in combat. I can't see how someone could hide in concealment and still become "invisible". Total concealment? OK. But in concealment you can still be seen, AFAIK. Imagine someone in front of you, at night (lets say that's dim light - concealment), in completely featureless desert. He then makes a successful Stealth check and... voilá! He's invisible to you, you could not see where did he go, even though he was right in front of you.

Ok, right, one could argue that in this situation, the DM should disallow the Stealth check. But what about the Shadow Walk (warlock) class feature? As I imagine the power, you cloud yourself in shadows, thus making you harder to see (concealment). You then make a Stealth check and suddenly all enemies can't see you, can't tell where did you go EVEN THOUGH there is a floating ball of shadows right in front where you "were" and you couldn't possibly be anywhere because there is no other place to hide (remeber the featureless desert). Heck, even my players think that's completely nuts! (and they're pretty good power gamers ).

Second, if making a Stealth check essentially upgrades your concealment to total concealment, that makes total concealment much less impressive. Also, it surely slows down the play, as it pretty much increases the number of dice rolled in each round (considering I have a Ranger and a stealthy warlock in my current group, and I'm not considering steathy monsters): stealth checks compared to passive perception checks is fine by me, but if i'll have to use active perception checks each round PLUS having to ramdomly select a square every round... That completely spoils the fun for me.

If, OTOH, a stealth check while in concealment would only make it harder to predict your movements (thus granting you the benefit of CA) but not "invisible" (you would still be tagetable and only have concealment, not total concealment), that would solve part of the problems I think. So, you can use total concealment and a Stealth check to completely unnoticed, but with concealment (or cover for the matter), you can only use a stealth check to gain CA. Imagine a scene as the warlock clouds himself in shadows and uses it to hide his rod from view. If he's successful, the enemy will not know exactly when he will attack, but he's aware the warlock is there and can target him normally (albeit a -2 penalty form concealment).

I know that's a house rule, but this is one thing I thought with my players: 95% of the time, only concealment or cover comes in play. So, not only this solves a "possible" balance problem (like invisilocks) and doesn't slow down much the play (you don't have to use the Targeting What You Cannot See rules every round), but I think its much more fit to my imagination and doesn't invalidate a strategy for Stealthy characters at all.

 

[the_redbeard]

Here's an example of a problematical case for granting hide checks off move actions.

Rogue attacks and then wants to move six squares, passing adjacent to an enemy on square three and provoking an OA, and then to an enemy Fighter on square five, also provoking an OA. Squares one, two, three, and four are in cover. Square five is in open. Square six is in cover.

If the Fighter's OA hits the Rogue, then the Rogue stops moving in an open square and can't hide. If the Fighter's OA misses, Rogue continues on to cover and can hide. The question to be answered is what state Rogue is in when passing that first enemy, since if that state is hidden then that enemy's basic melee attack will need to follow special rules.

The rogue isn't hidden yet. By your example, he isn't even in cover yet. How could he be hidden? That's a deliberately false scenario.

One would have to rule that hiding doesn't span the entire move action, and that hiding occurs only at the very instant the move action ends.

Obviously the hiding wouldn't occur until cover was reached.

The penalty to the stealth roll if more than 3 squares is moved implies that the move action was fully known - ie, over.

I think though that the reason for the penalty is not the distance but the speed. If you are going fast enough to cover that many squares, you are going too fast to hide effectively (for most creatures of course.) I think this is an unfortunate result of trying too hard to make every square cost 1 movement. I'd rather have it be 'double/triple the cost of your movement to stealth or get a penalty' but I didn't write the rules.

That said, if a rogue wanted his full movement (the parts of it within c/c) to be stealthed, I'd ask how many squares he was moving total and let him roll.
It is a PART of whatever action being performed stealthily.

Let's say you rule that way. Now Rogue attacks then wants to move six squares through c/c. Again there are enemies adjacent to squares three and five. Now here's a problem. Rogue isn't hidden until square six! So despite Rogue wanting to be hidden for their whole move action made through qualifying squares, that isn't possible because we've ruled hiding with a move action does not span that move action.

This is an interesting situation.

If we are hamstrung to only adjudicating stealth at the end of the move, the rogue could a) stop the move prematurely to be hidden or b) take a minor action to hide before the move. As a DM, I would require a second stealth check to maintain stealth over such a move - even if invisible, a stealth check to avoid making noise for the move would be reasonable.

"part of WHATEVER action" . Allowing stealth as a move action and adjudicating it at the end of the move does not prevent a stealther from using a minor action. But "PART" of whatever action doesn't mean that it can only be done at the end of the move, and your examples are helpful in pointing that out. I see that I invented the 'only adjudicate at the end of the move' and realize that it limits what can be done with the skill.

So I'm willing to allow (as in the previous example) the rogue as soon as he meets the requirements. If it is during the move, the rogue will have to state how many squares he intends to move so that we know whether to apply the penalty or not.

Or let's say square five does have c/c, and while Rogue intended to move six squares, they stopped short due to the Fighter's OA. Do we let them hide with their move action, since it was intended to have that use and they are now at the (unexpected) end of the action? I'd have to say no.

Depends. If they have only concealment, I'd agree with you. If they have invisibility or total concealment (the fighter got lucky attacking in darkness), I think I might still allow the check, albeit with a penalty. That's some DM fiat on my part.

Finally, a similar situation, but Rogue needs to move hidden through five squares to a sixth square that is in open. Again, a move action is no good given our ruling, since that magical last square doesn't qualify for hiding.

What is wrong with rolling a stealth for that action that would apply to the parts with cover?

I'll note that a minor action doesn't cover it either if the character doesn't begin in cover.

Each problem guides me toward feeling that the intent is not quite being grasped correctly, and I find counter-intuitive the ruling that even though you can hide with a move action, an entire move through c/c wouldn't be hidden. Only the final square.

A problem that your solution doesn't solve either. But I admit it is a problem so I'm willing to change

 

[MarkB]

Here's an example of a problematical case for granting hide checks off move actions.

Okay, I outright say that a Stealth check as part of an action should only make you hidden at the end of that action, I ask you for some examples of how that would be problematic in play, and you come back to me with a whole load of examples that are problematic in play unless the Stealth check only makes you hidden at the end of the action.

So basically, you don't have any examples of circumstances where Stealth kicking in at the end of an action would be inferior to Stealth requiring its own separate action.

That being the case, do you really have any grounds for clinging to the requirement for a separate action, given that it goes directly against one of the few clearly-stated rules we have for stealth?

 

[clearstream]

A problem that your solution doesn't solve either. But I admit it is a problem so I'm willing to change.

I see your point, and that wasn't quite my meaning. I don't mean making it a minor lets you hide before you achieve c/c. I mean it solves it by saying 'make your check where you're standing, under whatever conditions are affecting that one spot, with an action that promptly resolves. If your square is in c/c you get the check. If it isn't, you use a move action to get to one with c/c, earning a penalty for however many squares you definitely moved during your turn, and then use a separate action to try to hide.

This also feels like a tidier implementation of intent to me for dealing with Move 0 checks when the Rogue is in c/c, doesn't want to move, and just wants to be hidden. Throw in up to three minors, each check overriding the previous.

NB: Meant square 0 was c/c, but failed to say it

Okay, I outright say that a Stealth check as part of an action should only make you hidden at the end of that action

A bold and forthright ruling, and I salute you for it. The only two things I know of right now that feel wrong with that ruling are

a) Stealth user is in c/c not hidden and wants to move X squares through c/c hidden the whole way because they don't want their enemies to have any clues about where they're moving to. This more often happens with archery Rangers. They need to hide first off a minor action.

b) There is a small hiccup if the stealther crosses open squares to reach their c/c square. You've nearly erased the value of Fleeting Ghost if you let them hide having done that without calling for another action.

An issue with my call on it (i.e. use a minor action) is whether you and your players feel it is a stealth-nerf on Stealth. I feel it either isn't a nerf, or to whatever degree it is, it redresses pre-nerfing on Perception.

do you really have any grounds for clinging to the requirement for a separate action, given that it goes directly against one of the few clearly-stated rules we have for stealth?

Do you mean line one of the Stealth block on 188? Cough, free actions, cough.

-vk

 

[clearstream]

Please look again at 2. in my OP, and think about Fleeting Ghost, and let me know if this does work.

I'm nearly there, but I stick a bit at hurting Fleeting Ghost this way. To a much smaller extent, it hurts the Shadow Stride power. Not much, but a little. Check those and please PEACH.

-vk

 

[MarkB]

Do you mean line one of the Stealth block on 188?

That's the one:

Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily.​

Cough, free actions, cough.

Sure, why not? Let's see what you can do with a free action.

Drop held objects. Okay, so if you make the check, nobody noticed you drop the object.

End a grab. Hmm, tricky one. I guess if you made the check your grabee would think you were still restraining him, but I'd tend to give him a pretty hefty bonus to his Perception check.

Spend an action point. I don't think it's possible to actually perceive someone spending an action point, so I guess that'd be an auto-success.

Talk. Well, that works out just fine. Make your check and you've whispered quietly enough that only those who make their Perception checks can hear you.

Please look again at 2. in my OP, and think about Fleeting Ghost, and let me know if this does work.

I'm nearly there, but I stick a bit at hurting Fleeting Ghost this way. To a much smaller extent, it hurts the Shadow Stride power. Not much, but a little. Check those and please PEACH.

-vk

Well, they certainly both work a lot better once you leave out the minor action.