Using Stealth in Melee - How?

[DracoSuave]

Reach weapons aren't about the damage, they're about the reach. A warlord uses them because they extend the range of his party buffs that rely on attacking monsters.

 

[DracoSuave]

Another question, isn't your above conclusion regarding Charge + Combat Advantage a houserule. Or at the least a debatable interpretation of RAW?


Errataed Stealth says: "If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action."

It doesn't say: "If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you have resolved the action."

Of course, it doesn't say "If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until before you resolve the action." either...


Or am I missing something here?

The action is 'Charge.' Charge is resolved once you've moved and attacked the target. Therefore, you lose stealth at the end of that, meaning, after you've completed attacking the target.

 

[CapnZapp]

But "until you resolve" could equally mean "until you're about to resolve"/"until the time has arrived for resolving" as "until you have resolved". Right?

I simply can't read that errata line into an unequivocal support for the latter. Is that just me?

(Not really arguing here, just wondering how you're all so sure...)

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Unless I am mistaken, the Rogue is balanced on the presumption he gains Sneak Attack about half the time? That is, Quarry/Sneak/Curse aside, the three Striker classes are meant to be balanced?

You're mistaken. Per Mike Mearls:

"The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes."

My point is for the Rogue it can't be enough to simply use the rules and expect class balance. Instead, the Rogue is a bit like the 3E Ranger, whose power depended a good deal on whether you used his favored enemy monsters or not.

It is enough to use the rules as written. They work fine. It isn't like the 3.x ranger at all, or even the 3.x sneak attack. The designers specifically avoided the favored enemy and sneak attack doesn't work on stuff mechanics of 3e.

That is, our conclusions regarding Stealth should be governed not simply by bickering about the RAW and discussing corner cases. No, we should aim to arrive at a situation where the Rogue gets to use Sneak damage as much as is balanced.

Which is pretty much all the time. And doing so is attainable by the RAW.

There is no right or wrong here.

Yes, there is. Mechanically, the rogue is expected to get his sneak attack damage pretty much all the time, and if you make house rules that limit his ability to do so, you've knocked it out of balance.

A DM with a new player, or with a player not interested in minmaxing, could well hand out Sneak Attacks to all the Rogue's attacks, and it would still not be overpowered, or encroach on the other PC's fun.

A DM could just as well play with the rules as written, and a player would deal sneak attack damage pretty much all the time. The DM doesn't "hand out" sneak attack damage. It is part of what the class does.

A DM with a player good at talking his way, could restrict Sneak Attack to only the bare minimum allowed by pure mechanical considerations: flanking, powers, and just possibly a single bonus use from skills.

Using stealth to gain combat advantage is allowed by purely mechanical considerations. If you limit the rogue's ability to use his sneak attack, you make him worse at his role. Just because you can find a player that doesn't care if you screw him mechanically doesn't make it a good thing to do.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why are you assuming I'm out to gimp the Rogue, MyISPHatesENWorld?

At least, that's the only way I can understand your uncompromising tone.

Assuming you're right, and the rogue should indeed get SA on all his attacks? Doesn't that force the class into melee, all the time? (Because flanking is about the only source of Combat Advantage I know of that works 100%, all the time)

As I understood it, we're discussing Stealth here with the unstated aim of improving the Rogue's chances of using to acquire Combat Advantage (and thus Sneak Attack). If you are of the option Rogues should get SA on all his attacks, wouldn't you be interested in sharing your thoughts on how you can use Stealth to help accomplish this?

 

[OchreJelly]

I have provided a few good examples earlier on how to "restealth" once combat has begun - it's not always easy and can be very situational. Even though the OP was asking about stealth specifically, I think an undercurrent to the discussion here is stealth is a good opener for CA, but once in combat there are many other better tools to gain CA. For a rogue you have:
flanking
bluff
Invisibility
powers that grant CA directly
powers from other characters that grant CA directly to your character
conditions on enemies (prone, blind etc.)
and even restealthing

Beyond even that there is enough mobility tactics built into the game, where other characters can help position enemies to help setup flanks or grant CA in other ways.

With all those tools, I think the rogue can sneak attack pretty much constantly. An argument can be made for rogues being more "gimp" than other strikers, if you are playing with smaller party sizes (like 3 or less), where the nature of the group size makes it harder to flank and such.

 

[gtoasnt3]

Here's another tool that the Rogue could use gathered from the PHB errata:

Bluff [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 183
In the shaded box, replace the text under “Create a Diversion” with the following:
“Once per combat encounter, you can create a diversion to hide. As a
standard action, make a Bluff check opposed by the passive Insight check of
any enemy that can see you. If you succeed, make a Stealth check opposed
by the passive Perception check of any enemy present. If the Stealth check
succeeds against an enemy, you are hidden from that enemy until the end of​

your turn or until you attack.”

Never saw that one until today. Geez, you can learn something new about this game every hour! LOL

 

[CapnZapp]

Doesn't this Bluff rule almost force you to use an Action Point?

After you've used your Standard Action to set up the diversion (making the Bluff and Stealth checks), you have "until the end of your turn" to act upon the adventage.

An end of turn which comes awfully fast when you've already used up your Standard Action for the round...

 

[OchreJelly]

you could. It's not always ideal, but it is an option. Likewise, you could use this bluff to become hidden, and then use a move action to find some basic cover or concealment. Once you're hidden you only need basic cover or concealment to keep stealthing. Often that's much easier to achieve than finding superior cover or concealment.

 

[OchreJelly]

To be more clear, gtoasnt3 only provided the "create diversion" part of bluff. If you specifically want to use bluff to get CA, you use the "feint" option. This is basically the same as "create diversion" except that it only works against one enemy, and more importantly grants CA until the end of your next turn.