Stealth - the low down UPDATED!

[Klaus]

Until you put a minor after your attack so that you reactivate Stealth before your turn ends...

If you go that (entirely unsupported) route, you need to consider...

#1 supporting CSR '...if a warlock makes a successful stealth check, does he or does he not gain total concealment, effectively making him invisible because of a stealth check? Am I correct to assume that there is no way to "upgrade" to total concealment just from a shadow walk+ stealth?
The Warlock does not have Total Concealment, the Warlock is however unnoticed for the time being and still has Concealment.'

#1 supporting WotC_Mearls remarks 'The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes' and 'when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill.' If the game's math also assumes 'a defence against ranged and melee attacks of -5 to be hit, missing automatically if the wrong square is picked, with an effective -10 on Perception checks to pick the right square' wouldn't he have said so?

#1 supporting argument The moment you place a stealthing character under the Targeting What You Can't See rules, they gain an effective +10 to their Stealth, heavily suggestive that the entities being considered are enjoying some mode of invisibility better than Stealth. To be clear, when you put your stealthing player under those rules, any roll less than their Stealth +10 does not bust their Stealth! Look at Warrior of the Wild or if you like Skill Training, and consider that Stealth has no cost for use, and can be used untrained. Ask yourself whether you want an At Will power in your game that does not itself cost an action (it rides on other actions), that gives an effect that good? Why wouldn't all monsters, NPCs, and PCs use it every chance they get?

Read as written, unless two rules use the same words there is no connect no matter how reasonable that might seem.


-vk

Okay, how does "remains unnoticed" differ from "being unseen"?

I can't see what Stealth is supposed to do. What does "remain unnoticed" means? Can the sneaking character be targeted? He's "unnoticed", so the attacker doesn't know where he is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay, how does "remains unnoticed" differ from "being unseen"?

Sounds like it has more to do with being aware. If you don't notice someone, you don't engage them in combat. If you're out of combat, combat doesn't start. If you're in combat, the hiding individual either hasn't entered it yet or, I suppose, has effectively opted out of it at least as far as those who haven't noticed him are conserned.

If you're invisible, it doesn't matter is someone 'looks for you' or if you move out of concealment or whatever: you simply can't be seen. If you're hiding, you could still be spotted at any moment, either because someone finds you, or because you give yourself away.

 

[MarkB]

6. If your enemy could see you were it not for Stealth, i.e. they have at least one clear LOS to you, they know what square you are in. (If they couldn't see you irrespective of Stealth, you should be using the Targeting What You Can't See Rules.)

7. If your enemy feels threatened by you, they can pay attention to you without beating your Stealth check. They can attack you with a -2 penalty due to your cover or concealment, but you still have Combat Advantage against them.

Mostly, I like your take on the subject, but this part I just don't get.

Presumably, the circumstance in which an enemy has line-of-sight to you but can't see you due to failing to beat your Stealth check is if you have concealment or cover from them, but not total concealment or total cover.

But even so, if you succeed on a stealth check, you are "unnoticed, unseen and unheard". You blend into the shadows so well that they look right through you. If your opponent can neither see nor hear you - and by RAW, they can't - what method are they using to pinpoint your square? It can't be a successful Perception check, because that would let them notice you, and deny you Combat Advantage. It can't be that they remember where they last saw you, because you could easily have moved since then.

Your 'supporting argument' for #6 refers to that for #5, which in turn hinges upon someone actually succeeding at perceiving the stealthed character. That doesn't apply here.

 

[clearstream]

But even so, if you succeed on a stealth check, you are "unnoticed, unseen and unheard". You blend into the shadows so well that they look right through you. If your opponent can neither see nor hear you - and by RAW, they can't - what method are they using to pinpoint your square? It can't be a successful Perception check, because that would let them notice you, and deny you Combat Advantage. It can't be that they remember where they last saw you, because you could easily have moved since then.

I too find this counter-intuitive, but you'd need to rewrite the rules, or better yet have WotC post an official explanation, to fix it. Ignore the fluff and focus on what is mechanically happening.

If it is true that a successful check does not upgrade your concealment to total concealment, then it is also true that your enemy still has a clear LOS to you. Having a clear LOS, they know what square you are in and can attack you, albeit at a penalty (-2).

The only way that can not be true is if Stealth somehow equated with Invisibility or does upgrade your concealment. Maybe it does, despite a CSR apparently saying it does not. If so, it's more powerful than most encounter powers, while being a no-action-cost At Will.

I'm writing some pointed questions to put to CS. Hopefully that will turn up something useful.

-vk

 

[clearstream]

Update updated, based on another CSR.

-vk

 

[Skyscraper]

Mostly, I like your take on the subject, but this part I just don't get.

Presumably, the circumstance in which an enemy has line-of-sight to you but can't see you due to failing to beat your Stealth check is if you have concealment or cover from them, but not total concealment or total cover.

But even so, if you succeed on a stealth check, you are "unnoticed, unseen and unheard". You blend into the shadows so well that they look right through you. If your opponent can neither see nor hear you - and by RAW, they can't - what method are they using to pinpoint your square? It can't be a successful Perception check, because that would let them notice you, and deny you Combat Advantage. It can't be that they remember where they last saw you, because you could easily have moved since then.

The thing is... imagine a waist-high crate located between an orc and a rogue, with the two latter being 10 feet apart. The rogue has cover from the orc due to the crate. However, how could the orc not see the rogue? The rogue crouches behind the crate and all, but the orc still see him, partly. However, the rogue benefits from CA against the orc since he can hide his hand crossbow and fire surprisingly at the orc.

There are some circumstances where VK's interpretation appears like the most plausible, IMO. The above is one of them. I like what it means in-game (easy to imagine the rogue using the cover to hide his shot, while still not being entirely hidden from view) and i like how it works mechanically (it's simple, the cover grants CA).

Sky

 

[alanpossible]

Ahhhh.
After several games, various debates and numerous forums, I think I finally might be beginning to understand how I can properly implement stealth

Assuming that stealth does not upgrade anything, my understanding would be that making a successful stealth check as part of an action means that you perform some action without enabling relevant opponents to pinpoint your location. This implies they didn't know exactly where you were to begin with.

In the case of an attack, this grants you combat advantage and then (immediately after attack resolution) makes the monster aware of you. In the case of movement, this would allow you to move around, behind cover. You're still at -2, but the monster isn't aware of you yet, so cannot target you (not sure about this bit?)

Once you ARE noticed, you need some way to distract the creature again. To my mind, that would mean using bluff or breaking line of sight or some other equivalent power?

 

[clearstream]

In the case of movement, this would allow you to move around, behind cover. You're still at -2, but the monster isn't aware of you yet, so cannot target you (not sure about this bit?)

In the case of movement, I feel the most consistent ruling is a soft one. Through misdirection, or guile, or doing nothing to attract attention to yourself, you are able to move around behind cover and your enemies don't target you. It's not that they couldn't target you if something drew their attention to you, but that nothing draws their attention to you.

So then if one of their buddies goes 'Who's that' pointing you out (his passive Perception beat your Stealth) they can all immediately notice you and even attack you, at -2 and still yielding you CA.

Once you ARE noticed, you need some way to distract the creature again. To my mind, that would mean using bluff or breaking line of sight or some other equivalent power?

Once you are noticed, any power that explictly grants a check should let you make one. Fleeting Ghost, for instance. Other than that, you should do something cunning that your DM can say 'yes, that works' to. Breaking LOS should in my view nearly always work, including teleporting to a square they aren't looking at (since you don't pass through the intervening space).

-vk

 

[Zurai]

If you avoid an enemy's notice and he tries to attack you, isn't he targeting what he can't see? Isn't a hidden target effectively "invisible" (i.e., can't be seen)? Isn't that the very definition of "hidden"?

No. There's a small but important difference between "targeting an enemy you cannot see" and "targeting an enemy you do not see".

 

[Klaus]

No. There's a small but important difference between "targeting an enemy you cannot see" and "targeting an enemy you do not see".

And yet he isn't seeing both.