Yet another Stealth post

[nillin]

[Updated the rule below in order to make actual stealth skill more important.]

Yes I have read a lot of threads on the subject and yes I should have posted in one of them instead of creating yet another thread. But this is a slightly different take on the stealth issue. I'm not interested in RAW I am more interested in the RAI and a practical solution to the following problems.

Game balance problems:
- Ranged attackers (especially strikers) needs CA in order to be efficient, the rogue in particular.
- Being hard to target -2 for cover and some times -5 for targeting the square is part of the threat/aggro management system. The tank can't get every mob to stick to him, but if clothies hide the problem is partly solved and the tank will be attacked more often.

Simplicity problems:
- 4E have really tried to streamline the number of rolls to the bare minimum. Encouraging attack rolls to be rolled at the same time as damage rolls, no confirming of crits, crits do max damage and not double damage rolls, etc. Every extra stealth or perception check is a big step backwards.

Interactivity problems:
- In order to maximize the number of balanced options every player has to decide on every combat turn the powers system has been introduced. The next best way to be interactive is to encourage movement in the battle. This will turn every encounter into something dynamic and everchanging. So alot of the powers are tied into movement effects. What better way to further encourage this by having good hotspots to get to, stand on and hold on to.
In 3.5 we looked for higher ground bonus, now it is cover! +2 attack and +2 defense, could it be more sweet. And with the possibility to cover behind friends that moves, the map is automatically changing during the encounter.
Realism on the other hand is something the DM will have to supply with good descriptions, in the same way he explains why the man wounded by a Great axe crit looks fine after a 3x5 minute breather. It's part of the genre. And remember, a sneak attack or CA attack is more like a goal shot in a sport, when the keeper is covered and couldn't see the shot properly.


So a solution to the problems above has been the stealth system.

They have solved the balance issues above since the stealther can get cover enough for CA, and now and then can help the tank by being untargetable or atleast get a +2 to defense. Marking enemies isn't enough for a tank to fullfill his duty. He needs help and he gets it thru the striker stealth abilities.

They have solved the interactivity, because almost all types of terrain effects work in three ways. Cover, Solid or broken ground. Can't be simpler than that. This means players can directly focus on where they can move and how to get there rather than asking the DM two billion questions on where and how he can get an edge by being inventive with the terrain.

So far so good, two out of three problems have been solved. Sadly the third is far from solved. Even one extra die roll is painfull in such a lean system as 4E is.

My sugestion is very simple. Let stealthing in combat be a trained only use of the stealth skill. Let it be an automatic success, but only when it comes to one of the two uses:
[Correction: Check is only automatic for CA if your Stealth skill total is higher than the enemies perception total. If not, you will have to roll. Shouldn't happen too often for a good stealther though.]

Either
you get CA when you have cover or concealment (and +2 on defense)
OR
you get "Hidden" status and can't be targeted unless the potential attacker beats your stealth with an active perception vs Stealth check as a minor action. No checks are made untill an enemy actually spends a minor action or two. Won't happen too often. No free perception checks.

This would mean game balance as all strikers can get their to hit increase and sneak attack on a regular basis. And it helps the tank when there is need for aggro/threat/hate controll and the striker is in a bad spot and he goes under cover. But you don't get both at once and you don't have to roll perception and stealth checks on a regular basis.

The only thing one should keep in mind is that every character with stealth should decide if he uses CA as a default or Hide as a default. Since you shouldn't have to state it every turn (easy to froget), unless you do the opposite of your usual routine that is. The striker default ought to be CA, but there might be cowardly/careful heroes out there hehe.

PS. And no, you can't first attack with CA from one cover square and then move and get Hide status from the next cover square. If you have used CA you can't use Stealth to become untargetable that turn at all.

 

[NeoNick]

A very good suggestion!!

That's a really good way to minimize the stealth/perception-rolls and at the same time keeping most of the Aggro-issues (as in being able to prevent soft targets from getting pounded) and still keeping Combat Advantage-bonuses intact.

Thumbs up from me.

 

[AngelBob]

I like it! I have been going through just such alternatives in my mind! However... the removal of the impact of a character's Stealth value, and the enemies Perception value does not sit well with me.

However, I COMPLETELY agree with it being a trained only usage of the skill! I was actually thinking something along the lines of bringing it in line with other skills used in combat, namely, a action choice (generally standard) that involves a skill check.

I like to look at Bluff as a benchmark. Bluff can be used in combat, ONCE as an encounter power, as a standard action, to generate CA. I consider this a great benchmark of how valuable CA should be. A character with a high Bluff check probably WILL get his CA, but need an Action Point or wait until next turn (It's CA until end of next turn I believe, don't have my books on me, correct me if I'm wrong!) Flanking, Bluff, Blinding, all of these are not impossible, in fact, common if you set it up right ways of getting some CA, but they all have some risk or resource use.

My proposals for Stealth House rules.

1) Stealth in combat = Standard Action, Trained Only, requiring Cover/Concealment (or distraction) Stealth vs. Active Perception, This would bring the die rolling very much in line with an AOE attack. Multiple rolls generated, but as a standard action. This will also bring such abilities as Sniper, or Chameleon actually into usefulness, as a Goblin Sharpshooter is very much at an advantage for not loosing his stealth due to a miss, it's a standard action to get it back. All modifiers for movement still apply.

2) Stealth in combat = Minor Action, Trained Only, requiring Cover/Concealment (or distraction) Stealth vs. passive Perception. Only usable at the end of a round. This gives a whole turn for enemies to use minor actions to "hunt down" a player. Thus nullifying the stealth before it gives a chance at CA, and stopping the character from using the "My turn, move, stealth, sneak attack, NEXT!" chain. Unfortunately, still trivializes Sniper, but Chameleon still has a use.

I am more leaning towards 1, but I wonder if it may be shaking the tree too hard. What do you guys think?

Also, I am glad to see a thread not about dithering about the RAW, but getting some smart, innovative people to discuss the balance of what we hope to be a great solution to one naggling problem in an otherwise great system!

 

[Ganadai]

I run my groups using a very similar method. Basically I give the players two options for Stealth checks:

1) If someone wants combat advantage against an enemy, and they begin their turn with partial cover (or better) against the enemy, then they can roll a stealth check which I compare to the enemies passive perception and then inform the player if that enemy is aware of them (i.e. if they have combat advantage). They may then move and attempt to sneak attack that enemy. However, at the end of their turn all enemies will be aware of them (unless they use an ability that allows them a second stealth check in a turn).

2) If someone wants to hide from an enemy to stay safe they must end their turn behind partial cover (or better) and make a stealth check. Then if the enemy decides to follow and/or attack him it must make a perception check as a minor action before doing so. If at any time during the enemies move the player losses their cover from the enemy then the enemy automatically sees them.


So generally, stealth checks are rolled once at the beginning or end of the rogues turn, and once if an enemy decides to chase after a rogue that just sneak attacked them.

I have yet to have anyone complain about this method, and rogues get to sneak attack about 75% of the time.

I think the best part about stealth in 4E is that rogues can hide behind other party members, which often saves them the hassle of having to waste a round moving behind a pillar or something to hide.

 

[Terwox]

Another thing you could do, is tell the players the passive perception of the enemies they are fighting.

*While someone else starts their turn,* the stealther rolls stealth vs. this passive DC. They tell you if they failed, or simply keep track of it themselves.

Alternatively, they could also only "autostealth" per above if their stealth bonus is greater than the monster's perception bonus. Otherwise, they would move to a clunkier roll system. This lets monster abilities like perception still matter, but be washed over when they are largely insignificant. This also lets non-stealthy people still manage to use stealth in combat occasionally.

 

[bardolph]

Just to clarify, the enemy creature makes an active Perception check against the PC's "Passive Stealth" score?

 

[Ganadai]

Another thing you could do, is tell the players the passive perception of the enemies they are fighting.

*While someone else starts their turn,* the stealther rolls stealth vs. this passive DC. They tell you if they failed, or simply keep track of it themselves.

That's a good idea, I'll have to try that one.

Alternatively, they could also only "autostealth" per above if their stealth bonus is greater than the monster's perception bonus. Otherwise, they would move to a clunkier roll system. This lets monster abilities like perception still matter, but be washed over when they are largely insignificant. This also lets non-stealthy people still manage to use stealth in combat occasionally.

I don't like the idea of "autostealth." You couldn't take 10 on hide and move silent checks in 3.5, and I don't think you're allowed to in 4E either. I do think the rogue should always have a chance of being noticed, but usually the rogue has a +10 or better stealth modifier vs a passive perception of around 15 which means he will succeed about 75% of the time.

Just to clarify, the enemy creature makes an active Perception check against the PC's "Passive Stealth" score?

I assume you're asking about scenario #2 when the enemy comes looking for the rogue that just sneak attacked him and ran off to hide. In which case, the answer is no. The enemy creature uses a minor action to make an active perception check against the last Stealth check the PC made at the end of his turn.

 

[nillin]

I like your proposals too, and I think they are better than the many die roll versions of the rules as written.

But I think one should use the following three points of interest when comparing different solutions:

- Strikers roll to do damage with the help of CA, especially rogue sneak attack. 50% of the time is not good enough for a rogue, 75% is on the low side but acceptable.

- Tanks ability to hold threat/aggro/hate from the enemies on himself. And untargetable squishies in the back helps with that tremendously.

- The amount of die rolls to accomplish this should be kept to a minimum.

(- The fourth bonus thingie that concerns realism.)

I think your suggestions either fail somewhat when it comes to balance or the number of die rolls. Even though you are on the right track.

I feel that 4E skill sets are very similar. Almost all players will have starting stealth of either +0 or +10. With a very slight variation. Likewise monsters will usually have very few skills, so in reality a stealth check versus passive perception is close to a 100%. And having a test to decide whether you have a +2 or not is only relevant if you don't have the skill or the enemy have perception themselves.

This means that raising your stealth skill by 1, will increase your chance to get CA by 5% and that in turn will increase your tohit by 0.1. And that gives a 1% increase in damage. Nothing to scorn at, but hardly relevant enough to really make an issue of. The thing that do count is the fact that you have the skill training of +5 and got yourself into the right square.
A comparison to the old 3.5E system with complementary skill checks. Maybe that should be implemented with stealth, you try to help yourself, if you succeed you get a +2 bonus on to hit. Feels familiar doesn't it?

Realism wise all of the above postings fall short. But we are not here for realism. We want a playable and enjoyable system that our DM can describe to us in such a way that we believe in it.

As a closing thought. Rules should be formulated to give the players decision points. Going offensively and get CA or defensively and get a chance to be untargetable is such a choise. Just rolling a die and see if I got both or neither is not increased interactivety.

 

[AngelBob]

I completely agree! But I also believe that no usage of a skill should ever be a forgone conclusion unless you are THAT GOOD. I mean, Master McStealthFu, the Epic Ninja should KNOW that he is sneaking past those dumb goblins, but Stabby McGee, Level 2 Halfling Rogue should not, even in combat.

I don't argue that a +1 is a relatively minor impact on the real chances of stealthing, and that that trained modifier is BY FAR the biggest. But I think their needs to be a happy medium. Something that encourages intelligent use of stealth, but without GADS of dice and bookkeeping OR Auto-successes.

I completely agree that 75% should be a good benchmark for Rogues Sneak-Attacking. However, I really believe it needs to NEVER be a gimme. Bluff isn't, Flanking isn't (And is dangerous!). I think that stealth is SAFER than flanking (Your far away AND hidden), and can be done more often and with less resource drain than Bluff.

So what is the balance against these two methods? Lets analyse!

FLANKING
- Is more dangerous (No defense bonus, up in the thick of things)
- Cannot be relied on (Allies will not always be there to provide it)
+ No roll necessary to achieve CA
+ No Resource loss (No action to achieve)

BLUFF
- Resource loss (Standard Action, Encounter Power)
- Roll necessary (Insight vs. Bluff)
+ Can be done with NO Setup (No reliance on any conditions)

STEALTH (AS WRITTEN)
+ No resource loss (No action, attached to an action)
+ Defensive/Not Dangerous (Defense bonus, out of the way, Hidden)
+ Can be MOSTLY relied on (Concealment/cover generally available, can be done every turn)
- Roll necessary (Though far too many)

I believe that stealth needs to be brought in line with these other self motivated actions to gain it.

Lets brainstorm, peeps!

 

[bardolph]

I assume you're asking about scenario #2 when the enemy comes looking for the rogue that just sneak attacked him and ran off to hide. In which case, the answer is no. The enemy creature uses a minor action to make an active perception check against the last Stealth check the PC made at the end of his turn.

I agree with this. I think it's slightly different from what's described in the OP, but I like.

I'm all for just giving CA to anyone trained in Stealth and standing on a good square, if for no other reason than to stop the Paladin from rolling for free every turn just to see if he gets lucky.