Stealth: There are two levels of "hidden", not one

[Paul Strack]

Here's an example to help others understand using the TWYCS rules. Consider an archer firing arrows from a castle wall parapet. The parapet is cover - not total cover, just cover. The archer ducks beneath the parapet. He is unseen and can't be targeted directly. People attacking him must use the TWYCS rules. If they pick the right square, their attack is at -5.

I'd argue that in that case, the archer can't be directly targeted at all, even by TWYCS, because he ducked behind blocking terrain and there is no LOS.

Stealth is similar. There's something that could be taken advantage of - dim light, a pillar, that obscures but doesn't completely block attacks. Successfully stealthing is finding a way to hide yourself within that partial blocking. If you know or can easily guess the exact square, you still get an attack, or use an area attack with no penalty.

What if you are obscured from some but not others? Do your enemies still have to "guess" your square if they have allies that can point out your exact position?

 

[Paul Strack]

I've modified the original post to remove references to Total Concealment and required movement because they run counter to many peoples ideas and are muddying the point I am trying to make.

The key point I am trying to argue is that sometimes hiding gives you just a Combat Advantage and sometimes it gives you both a Combat Advantage and the protection of TWYCS, and that there are enough situations where the level of benefits are different that it is worth distinguishing the two cases.

 

[Prodigal_Sun]

I just reread the stealth skill description and can't distinguish two levels of stealth.
Many times a rogue goes behind cover and then attacks, loosing the hidden condition. In these cases, stealth has only granted the rogue combat advantage.
Should the rogue hide behind a statue and do nothing to break stealth (not attacking, not being in line of sight of others, not shouting, ...) he would be hidden, although it wouldn't be hard for enemies to target the right square since it's obvious he's behind the statue so the TWYCS rules don't come into play.
Should the rogue be hidden in a larger area where the square he would be hiding in would not be obvious then he would be hidden. The creatures looking for him could make active perception checks as minor actions to find him.
So I think the different lvl's of stealth you try to discern are just due to the fact that in many situations the TWYCS rules are not needed and only come into play in certain situations.
I think the fact that in 3.5 you couldn't hide during combat because enemies would be aware still plays in people's mind. And the bluff rules that imply you can only hide and gain the benefit of the TWYCS rules if you where hidden previous to combat or by using the bluff skill. Now I'm confused.

Here's an example.
An eladrin ranger attacks with nimble strike and shifts behind a pillar, then uses his move action to teleport stealthily behind a different pillar. In this example I think the eladrin would gain the benefit of the TWYCS rules even when in combat.

My question is how many stealth check would he have to make, one when shifting back behind the pillar, another one when teleporting? Or just one check to rule them all!

 

[MarkB]

I've modified the original post to remove references to Total Concealment and required movement because they run counter to many peoples ideas and are muddying the point I am trying to make.

The key point I am trying to argue is that sometimes hiding gives you just a Combat Advantage and sometimes it gives you both a Combat Advantage and the protection of TWYCS, and that there are enough situations where the level of benefits are different that it is worth distinguishing the two cases.

Well, I tend to think that this is not the case. If your target is hidden, then TWYCS always applies. If your ally points out their position but you still fail to beat their Stealth check, then you auto-succeed on the "guess which square your target is in" phase, but still cannot actually see them, which effectively grants them total concealment against you for the purpose of your attacks - a -5 penalty to any melee or ranged attack, and no penalty to any close or area attack.

The rules don't say so, but I'd consider it sensible for the DM to rule a circumstance bonus to allies' Perception checks if you point out a hidden creature's location. I'd go with the "DM's Helper" of +2, but +5 wouldn't be unreasonable.

 

[Kordeth]

Well, I tend to think that this is not the case. If your target is hidden, then TWYCS always applies. If your ally points out their position but you still fail to beat their Stealth check, then you auto-succeed on the "guess which square your target is in" phase, but still cannot actually see them, which effectively grants them total concealment against you for the purpose of your attacks - a -5 penalty to any melee or ranged attack, and no penalty to any close or area attack.

The rules don't say so, but I'd consider it sensible for the DM to rule a circumstance bonus to allies' Perception checks if you point out a hidden creature's location. I'd go with the "DM's Helper" of +2, but +5 wouldn't be unreasonable.

This.

 

[Seeker]

Whether or not it's necessary to formalize two different levels of stealth, I agree that there clearly /are/ two different levels. In particular, the TWYCS rules, based on its modifiers, are pretty clearly talking about targetting something based on what you can hear*, because you /can not/ see it -- not because you /don't/. (Seriously, this is an important difference. Go play, for example, some Rainbow Six (Vegas 2), or sometimes even paintball in the woods. It's easier to tell in R6 because the tacmap can tell you where somebody is even if their camouflage or things like a grate in the way make them hard to find; but paintball, of course, is IRL.) Clearly, you don't need to make a Stealth check to prevent somebody from targeting you with a ranged attack if you have total cover -- but you can make a Stealth check to move behind that cover quietly enough that they can't hear you, either. Whether or not that means they know you're there is another question: if you're creeping along behind a curtain separating you from the guards /before/ combat, obviously not; /during/ combat, they can probably make a pretty good guess that the guy they saw duck behind the curtain is still around somewhere.

The primary question for me about Stealth was always if it could grant Combat Advantage for ranged attackers in the canonical "I know he's behind that pillar, but I can't quite find him" case. It looks like WoTC intended the answer to this to be "yes", and the mechanic for determining whether or not the target grants Combat Advantage is Stealth checks.

*: Assuming, as the PHB does, that the primary sense of the creature being hidden from is sight, or works exactly like it.

 

[Paul Strack]

Well, I tend to think that this is not the case. If your target is hidden, then TWYCS always applies. If your ally points out their position but you still fail to beat their Stealth check, then you auto-succeed on the "guess which square your target is in" phase, but still cannot actually see them, which effectively grants them total concealment against you for the purpose of your attacks - a -5 penalty to any melee or ranged attack, and no penalty to any close or area attack.

Hmm. That's a pretty good point.

It means that, if you don't assume that Total Concealment is a requirement for TWYCS, then you can hide behind normal Cover or Concealment and thereby "upgrade" it to Total Concealment. Since my argument hinges on there not being a mechanical benefit to hiding if your location is known, that's a valid counter argument.

I see a couple ways I could respond, but I need to think for a bit to figure out which one is best.

Responses I am considering are:

1) Going back to arguing that TWYCS requires Total Concealment (not a good option, because it is contradicted by the FAQ).

2) Digging up the CSR that states "Stealth doesn't upgrade concealment" (something I am also trying to avoid, because I only want to use RAW).

3) Arguing that character could gain the benefits of Total Concealment without being hidden, just by crouching behind the cover. I am not completely happy with this either, because I prefer the level of cover/concealment to be a property of the terrain, not the way you use the terrain. This seems to be the best response, though.

I am leaning toward response #3, but I am going to need some time to think about the ramifications.

 

[MarkB]

Hmm. That's a pretty good point.

It means that, if you don't assume that Total Concealment is a requirement for TWYCS, then you can hide behind normal Cover or Concealment and thereby "upgrade" it to Total Concealment. Since my argument hinges on there not being a mechanical benefit to hiding if your location is known, that's a valid counter argument.

I see a couple ways I could respond, but I need to think for a bit to figure out which one is best.

Responses I am considering are:

1) Going back to arguing that TWYCS requires Total Concealment (not a good option, because it is contradicted by the FAQ).

I do, in fact, agree that the only circumstances in which the entirety of the TWYCS rules can be applied exactly as written are when they involve a situation in which one character physically cannot see the other, regardless of Perception checks. I suspect we may disagree upon how to interpret the FAQ's instructions to apply those rules to hidden characters, because there's no clear dividing line as to what should be kept and what should be ditched in that application.

The trouble with arguing that TWYCS requires total concealment is that you're not really talking about stealth anymore; if a target is totally concealed, they don't need a stealth check to become hidden - they're hidden already.

2) Digging up the CSR that states "Stealth doesn't upgrade concealment" (something I am also trying to avoid, because I only want to use RAW).

I'm not even sure whether that line was intended to address targeting issues, or was more about Perception issues. I'd need to see it in context.

3) Arguing that character could gain the benefits of Total Concealment without being hidden, just by crouching behind the cover. I am not completely happy with this either, because I prefer the level of cover/concealment to be a property of the terrain, not the way you use the terrain. This seems to be the best response, though.

I am leaning toward response #3, but I am going to need some time to think about the ramifications.

I'm not quite sure how this response addresses the issue. Presenting another way to achieve effectively total concealment doesn't seem to interact with whether a successful Stealth check within concealment can do so.

Incidentally, in the situation you propose, I would rule that a character hunkered down entirely behind solid, opaque cover would have superior cover (-5 to attacks against him) but not total concealment, unless he got right down so that he couldn't see over that cover at all.

A character using such cover to make a successful Stealth check could still be hidden from view, even while carefully peering around the cover to maintain situational awareness.

 

[Paul Strack]

I am abandoning responses #2 and #3, because they aren't really what I believe and were just argument for argument's sake (not fruitful). Though I do like your suggestion of "hunker down = superior cover".

I do, in fact, agree that the only circumstances in which the entirety of the TWYCS rules can be applied exactly as written are when they involve a situation in which one character physically cannot see the other, regardless of Perception checks. I suspect we may disagree upon how to interpret the FAQ's instructions to apply those rules to hidden characters, because there's no clear dividing line as to what should be kept and what should be ditched in that application.

The trouble with arguing that TWYCS requires total concealment is that you're not really talking about stealth anymore; if a target is totally concealed, they don't need a stealth check to become hidden - they're hidden already.

I re-read Total Concealment and see what you are saying. If I insist that you need Superior Cover or Total Concealment in order to benefit from TWYCS, it makes Stealth useful for hiding only behind Superior Cover, which is clearly far too restrictive.

I need to give whole the problem some more thought to see if I can work out an alternative argument that recovers some of what I want but still remains consistent with the RAW. I still want to find a way have things boil down to two simple applications of Stealth: (1) a fire-and-forget check to get CA at the time of an attack and (2) a lasting hidden-status effect that gives CA plus protection via TWTCS.

 

[MarkB]

I re-read Total Concealment and see what you are saying. If I insist that you need Superior Cover or Total Concealment in order to benefit from TWYCS, it makes Stealth useful for hiding only behind Superior Cover, which is clearly far too restrictive.

I need to give whole the problem some more thought to see if I can work out an alternative argument that recovers some of what I want but still remains consistent with the RAW. I still want to find a way have things boil down to two simple applications of Stealth: (1) a fire-and-forget check to get CA at the time of an attack and (2) a lasting hidden-status effect that gives CA plus protection via TWTCS.

One suggestion that's come up several times is to make a Stealth check as part of an attack action, which would grant you CA for that attack, but then end immediately as a result of having attacked.

I do like the concept, but I'm a little worried that it's maybe too easy to achieve - all you need is a little bit of cover/concealment, since you're not worried about being found afterwards; and your check is never opposed by an active Perception check because its effect resolves immediately rather than on an opponent's turn. Then again, maybe it really is meant to be that easy.


For your lasting Hidden condition, require a move action that takes you through or into cover/concealment, and rule that you become hidden only at the end of that action, so the enemy knows which square you hid in. The only way you can prevent them knowing which square you're in is to spend another action moving through cover/concealment once you're hidden.

That's pretty close to RAW, and it gives you your two levels of stealth - an instantaneous condition as part of an attack, and a lasting condition that requires two move actions to take full advantage of.