What might 'hidden from view' mean?

[clearstream]

Thank you so far. It's illuminating that, whatever the RAW, CS comments, and effects on game balance, most people start out intuiting that being 'hidden' means you count as invisible.

There are already rules for Targeting What You Can't See. They offer benefits rather too good for a single skill pick to confer at will with no downside as a free rider on other actions.

I think we need rules for the midway state between seen and unseen: Targeting What You Can't Notice, let's say.

What would those be like?

-vk

 

[essenbee]

I think we need rules for the midway state between seen and unseen: Targeting What You Can't Notice, let's say.

What would those be like?

-vk

Oh boy, what are you lot like? How would you have survived when D&D was an A5 booklet with 40 or so pages? Hidden and Invisible are both well defined terms, both in real life and the game. They are not the same, but some of the game effects are identical (but not all of them).

 

[DLichen]

I don't know, why would anything want to target something that it doesn't notice? Isn't that part of the definition of what it is to be not noticed?

I agree with your original post in that hidden means that essentially the PC isn't there to the monsters and lets you get an attack with combat advantage in.

Attacks that inadvertantly hit invisible figures probably are burst or area attacks that ignore concealment anyway.

 

[ryryguy]

vonklaude,

I guess this is an expansion of your answer to my query in your previous Stealth thread. (I had to jump back a bit to find that, it scrolled pretty far off the front page.)

I think you've described a fairly good way to handle this. I definitely agree that Stealth should not make a character effectively invisible. (I didn't mean to imply that I thought it should in my query in the other thread, btw.) Basically you're suggesting the stealthed character should be targetable as normal, with no benefits to his defense apart from the cover/concealment he's already enjoying.

I do think the "fluff" is starting to get pretty strained at this point. An enemy who finds you with an active Perception check and "calls out" to his buddies, a scenario mentioned by Mearls and also I believe in your previous thread - he's cancelling out the Stealth-granted CA, right, not pinpointing location. So what is he calling out now? Not, "Hey! He's over here behind this chair!" but "Hey! He's holding the knife down low... and he's actually getting ready to attack Frank, not Joe like it seems!" Ok, yeah... it still may work pretty well as a matter of rules at the table, but the fluff is definitely starting to get kind of weird.

Another thing, the point about if the enemy can't see then maybe he does lose location of the Stealthed guy. This could also apply if the Stealthed guy ducked behind total cover or concealment. In this case, if the Stealthed guy moved into a simple cover/concealment square that is in sight, successfully using Stealth for the move, does the enemy now pick up his location again, reverting to "Stealth just grants CA" again? I guess I'd probably play no, once he managed to "break contact", it takes the Perception check or something else breaking the stealth to reveal his location again. Interestingly, this is how some of the people with stricter interpretation of Stealth seem to play it - but they go on to add that if you don't break contact, then Stealth in combat after you've been revealed effectively does nothing. No CA.

 

[DLichen]

ryryguy, have you ever played a metal gear solid game? That's pretty much what I see the D&D stealth system is like and it makes a pretty sense to me.

With stealth, you get combat advantage because your enemy is unaware that an attack could come from that particular angle. So if you were hiding behind a table waiting to pounce, an orc who hears you readying your knife could yell out, "Hey, there's a guy back there!" and his fellows would wise up to your plan. On the other hand, an orc preoccupied with fighting the hulking warrior might not notice you behind the table and get shanked.

 

[ryryguy]

"Hey, what's this box?" :0

The issue here is when you've already pounced, then return to behind the table and stealth again... the orc *knows* you are there. He might choose to attack the fighter, but if he wants to attack you for whatever reason, he simply gets a -2 from the cover the table provides - same as if you didn't even attempt Stealth. However, if he doesn't find you with a Perception check, then when you attack again you get combat advantage... and if he did find you with a Perception check and wants to tell his buddies, he's saying "Hey, that guy who went back behind the table again is about to attack, from around the left side of the table this time!" Good thing talking is a free action!

Another point... if the orc did attack you hiding there behind the table, and hit you, but didn't make a Perception check to defeat your Stealth... will you still get combat advantage on your turn when you attack? I guess so!

 

[DLichen]

In the scenario you describe, the orc has already succeeded his perception check because he knows you're behind the table. If a character is skillful at misdirection and being stealthy, there's a pretty good chance that he could slip behind the table again after making a shot and then retreating behind it again.

The smart orc would approach from a different angle so that he can have a clear view, not stumble around and get stabbed again.

If you were say in a bush with concealment, and the orc attacks the bush and hits you, but you maintain the stealth check, the orc probably just thinks, "Hey, I hit something" this doesn't mean he sees your knife hand shooting out and stabbing him within the next 6 seconds. Hence combat advantage. If he makes the perception check, maybe he sees your silhouette exactly and can do whatever he normally does.

 

[clearstream]

I guess this is an expansion of your answer to my query in your previous Stealth thread. (I had to jump back a bit to find that, it scrolled pretty far off the front page.)

You are exactly right. The argument part of Stealth had worn me out, so I moved on to how the conclusions that convinced me worked in play.

I think you've described a fairly good way to handle this. I definitely agree that Stealth should not make a character effectively invisible... Basically you're suggesting the stealthed character should be targetable as normal, with no benefits to his defense apart from the cover/concealment he's already enjoying.

I do think the "fluff" is starting to get pretty strained at this point.

You got that right. A reason I wrote the OP was to raise the question 'What does this look like when you join up the dots?

I have the rules straight, but the play is in places counter-intuitive. To my mind, a system that was less counter-intuitive would be more fun: what you guess would happen a lot of the time should happen.

What WotC needs to do is clearly define two categories of 'unseen'. One for invisible or totally concealed and one for sneaky. They need to put a cost or limit on Stealth use, and define what you must do to regain hiding after you've lost it; taking into account that cover or concealment do mean that you can be seen--there are enemy LOS' to you.

The kind of limits that might work for me might include halving your movement; something that means it isn't always better to throw in a check, irrespective of your chances.

What else should be added to that? Do alternative primary senses need considering?

-vk

 

[kouk]

They could have done a little better describing it, but I think you are putting too much into the literal mechanics.

To me, even if it is dim light you can't Stealth right next to a guy (unless that guys can't see you or is "distracted"). You technically have "concealment" but I think that is pushing it in a combat. If you disallow Stealthing purely in dim light alone, I suspect a lot of your problems will disappear.

You can Stealth behind a bush that gives concealment though because it is physically obscuring you. As long as you stay in or behind the bushes relative to your target, you are maintaining your concealment.

You can Stealth behind a low wall that gives cover, because it is physically obscuring you. As long as you stay behind the wall relative to the person you are Stealthing against, you are maintaining cover.


Standing next to a guy in dim lighting is concealment, but it is not "unblocked line of sight" to me, even if the target has only normal vision. Fog and effects like that, maybe, if you move far enough away for them to actually lose visual contact.

You could use the concealment from dim light to sneak up before a combat begins, thereby getting you a surprise round + Combat Advantage, but once combat starts everyone is paying total attention.


A monster can definitely apply intelligence to a situation as I was saying in my last post. Just as you would expect a player to in a similar situation. His mind is not somehow fogged by a successful check, he just can't pick you up with his 5 senses.

If you run and hide behind cover or in a square with concealment, they saw you go run into that area before they lost track of you. He may suspect very strongly you are in those bushes, but he isn't seeing you and doesn't know for a fact that you are actually there. There's still the chance you ran behind the bushes and teleported after all -- Eladrin Rogues could have a lot of fun that way.


If you were to attack them before they actually beat your Stealth check with a Perception though, you still get Combat Advantage even if they "suspect" you are where you actually are. See the Combat Advantage section, it says when a defender is unable to see the attacker.

Once you attack, you no longer count as being Stealthed. You will have to try again. At the very least, in that instant you were not Stealthed, the target(s) would know where the attack came from, so it is probably to your benefit to move a little bit.